Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 14:34:36 -0500
From: william l kleb <kleb@ab00.larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Subject: COZY: chap 9: 4140 landing gear attach studs

i have had an order into wicks for a nearly a month
now for the 4140 steel studs for attaching the main
landing gear.  during my order they informed me that
the vender promised dec 22nd (it was then the 28th
or so), and now they say the middle of february!

the problem appears to be with the original supplier
and not wicks. is anyone else stuck in the situation,
or know how to circumvent it?

-- 
bil <mailto:w.l.kleb@larc.nasa.gov>

 
 
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 19:22:57 -0500 (EST)
From: TMKPIDA@aol.com
Subject: Re: COZY: chap 9: 4140 landing gear attach studs

Re availability problems.

SAME PROBLEM.
At least Wicks reponds.
ACSpruce says they no longer stock the part. (after 6mos +)
Ken Brock dosen't do 'threaded' parts.
UGGH!
On hold also.

TMK
#248 (at least the canard is done.)

 
 
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 07:51:54 -0500
From: "David R. Kuechenmeister" <David.Kuechenmeister@gtri.gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Tool picture and alignment

I've started to consider the wheel brake installation on my Long-EZ. The
plans call for Nylaflow tubing from the brake cylinders to the wheels. I've
read enough newsletters to know that this isn't the best solution. There
are quite a few articles about how to easily replace the tubing, or how to
slide some 1/8" aluminum inside for repairing old, brittle nylaflow.

What are you Cozy builders doing for brake lines? There are some good
discussions about what kind of brakes to use in the archives, but the topic
of brake lines doesn't seem to come up. So I suppose it not be a problem on
the Cozy.

Thanks for any help,

Dave

--

David R. Kuechenmeister  Long-EZ #779

(770)528-7738
Atlanta, Georgia


 
 
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:16:38 -0500
From: wilhelmson@scra.org
Subject: Re[2]: COZY: Re: Tool picture and alignment

          I am using Nylaflow tubing. My airplane is ten years old.
          Plans No.1. I replaced all the Nylaflow tubing recently
          because of a hairline crack near one caliper. Soft aluminium
          tubing has been suggested, however, all metals fatique with
          bending and vibration. The Nylaflow is sensitive to UV. This
          can be controlled by painting any tubing exposed to sunlight
          or enclosing with a protective outer tubing.

 
 
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 00:52:02 -0500 (EST)
From: StetsonE@aol.com
Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Tool picture and alignment

In a message dated 97-02-10 08:57:56 EST, David Kuechenmeister writes:

> I've started to consider the wheel brake installation on my Long-EZ. The
>  plans call for Nylaflow tubing from the brake cylinders to the wheels.
I've
>  read enough newsletters to know that this isn't the best solution. 
<snip>

Take a look at CP 51 page 5, David.  It contains a great article about using
Teflon hose assemblies instead of Nyloseal or Nylaflow tubing.  

If this alternative isn't mentioned in the Cozy literature, someone let me
know and I'll post the complete article to the group.

Stet Elliott
stetsone@aol.com
Perpetual Long-EZ builder

 
 
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 22:06:16 -0500 (EST)
From: DFinn7971@aol.com
Subject: COZY: Tech Questions

I hate to interrupt this discussion relating to vendors on the mailing list
but could someone tell me the part number for the aluminum brake lines.  This
evening I looked through the Wick's catalogue but could only find the
Nylaflow tubing.  I've seen tubing that appears to be very long pieces of
straight (not coiled) tubing.  I'd prefer this.

Dick Finn

 
 
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 10:54:33 -0500
From: wilhelmson@scra.org
Subject: Re: COZY: Tech Questions

          Is aluminium tubing approved for brake lines?

 
 
From: Epplin_John_A@hpmail1.90.deere.com
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 97 10:39:05 -0600
Subject: Re: COZY: Tech Questions

>           Is aluminium tubing approved for brake lines?
> 
All light planes I worked on used 5052 al brake lines.  Single flare
connections to AN fittings are usually used.  This is not flexible and
steel braid reiforced hose must be used for any areas that will flex,
such as the connection to master cylinders that are connected to
rudder peddals etc.  Large A/C with power brackes typically use
stainles steel tubing.

John Epplin.  Mk4 # 467, A&P

 
 
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:14:41 +0000
From: robin du bois <allegro1@dakotacom.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Brake Line Material

That's a good question.  Aluminum tube was suggested to me by a Long
builder.
> He felt uncomfortable with the plastic stuff.  I've seen aluminum in
>production planes so I'm assuming it is preferable to Nylaflow.  I don't
>honestly know if it is officially approved for the Cozy though.
>
>Dick Finn
>

No offense, but why would you assume anything in a production plane was
superior to a homebuilt? The brake lines in a spam can are usually 5052
alloy tube, it is much harder to work than nylaflow for no real return,
other than the risk of screwing it up and doing a few gracefull loops on
the runway when your brakes fail...Burt had a good idea here, the
nylaflow has a lot of advantages and a few known and easy to handle
disadvantages. Save heartache, use it. Keep it cool and out of the sun
and be happy. There are lots of frustrating parts to build without
bending and fitting expensive lengths of special alloy tube in a very
delicate size for the first time....Gosh, I've even talked me out of it!

rdb (I aint selling nothin...psst!)


 
 
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 20:50:14 -0500 (EST)
From: DFinn7971@aol.com
Subject: Re: COZY: Tech Questions

In a message dated 97-02-25 11:25:58 EST, wilhelmson@scra.org writes:

<<      Is aluminium tubing approved for brake lines? >>

That's a good question.  Aluminum tube was suggested to me by a Long builder.
 He felt uncomfortable with the plastic stuff.  I've seen aluminum in
production planes so I'm assuming it is preferable to Nylaflow.  I don't
honestly know if it is officially approved for the Cozy though.

Dick Finn

 
 
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 21:24:41 -0700 (MST)
From: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
Subject: COZY: Re: Brake Line Material

You might consider that aluminum tubing running down gear legs
that flex might cause metal fatigue.   I installed larger hose
on the rear of my Long-EZ landing gear to aid in replacement of 
the Nylaflow should it ever be required.

Ron Lee

>In a message dated 97-02-25 11:25:58 EST, wilhelmson@scra.org writes:
>
><<      Is aluminium tubing approved for brake lines? >>
>
>That's a good question.  Aluminum tube was suggested to me by a Long builder.
> He felt uncomfortable with the plastic stuff.  I've seen aluminum in
>production planes so I'm assuming it is preferable to Nylaflow.  I don't
>honestly know if it is officially approved for the Cozy though.
>
>Dick Finn
>
>


 
 
 by SERV05.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (PMDF V5.1-4 #16063)
 with SMTP id <01IFVEBBFNSY003Z01@SERV05.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> for
 cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:30:16 PST
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:31:29 -0800
From: hrogers@SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Howard Rogers)
Subject: Re: COZY: Tech Questions

>In a message dated 97-02-25 11:25:58 EST, wilhelmson@scra.org writes:
>
><<      Is aluminium tubing approved for brake lines? >>
>
>That's a good question.  Aluminum tube was suggested to me by a Long builder.
> He felt uncomfortable with the plastic stuff.  I've seen aluminum in
>production planes so I'm assuming it is preferable to Nylaflow.  I don't
>honestly know if it is officially approved for the Cozy though.
>
>Dick Finn

I believe this question has already been well answered by another A&P on
the list, but I will add my two cents worth.  Yes, aluminum is approved on
aircraft.  In fact, it was run all the way down the fiberglass gear legs
and into the calipers on my Grumman Cheetah.  This was a very bad idea, and
I'm astounded that the airplane got certified that way.  Just about all the
grummans have been converted to flex lines for the last bit of the run.
The most important point here, is that it is fine to run aluminum line
where it can be well secured by Adel clamps to fixed structure.  It is
*NOT* OK to subject it to flexing, anywhere, any time!  The problem with
our EZ/Cozy gear legs is that the whole thing flexes quite a bit, and it
would only be a mater of time before aluminum lines running down the legs
would fatigue and fail.  I was personally skeptical of the nylon brake
line, initially, but I have come to believe that they are as good a
solution as any.  The stuff seems to hold up well on cars.  I think the
important issue is to protect them from ultraviolet, chafing, and perhaps
most important: heat.  With the proper routing, a proper heat sheild, and
good insulation, this really is a problem that has been solved, and has
proven to be very reliable on countless canard aircraft.  If you use it, be
sure to remember the little metal insert that goes inside of the tubing
where it is inserted into the fitting.  This insures that the tube is well
supported, and won't collapse away from the compression type fitting, which
would allow it to pop out.

Howard Rogers, A&P 2005148



 
 
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 17:22:23 -0800
From: berkut@loop.com
Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Brake Line Material

>That's a good question.  Aluminum tube was suggested to me by a Long
>builder.
>> He felt uncomfortable with the plastic stuff.  I've seen aluminum in
>>production planes so I'm assuming it is preferable to Nylaflow.  I don't
>>honestly know if it is officially approved for the Cozy though.
>>
>>Dick Finn
>>
>
>No offense, but why would you assume anything in a production plane was
>superior to a homebuilt? The brake lines in a spam can are usually 5052
>alloy tube, it is much harder to work than nylaflow for no real return,
>other than the risk of screwing it up and doing a few gracefull loops on
>the runway when your brakes fail...Burt had a good idea here, the
>nylaflow has a lot of advantages and a few known and easy to handle
>disadvantages. Save heartache, use it. Keep it cool and out of the sun
>and be happy. There are lots of frustrating parts to build without
>bending and fitting expensive lengths of special alloy tube in a very
>delicate size for the first time....Gosh, I've even talked me out of it!
>
>rdb (I aint selling nothin...psst!)
>

Both ACS and Wicks sell Nylo-Seal tubing - it's about twice as expensive as 
Nylaflow and _shouldn't be used for rudder cables_ (higher internal 
friction) but it "has excelent resistance to flexural fatigue and can be 
used where there is vibration and tube movement.  Tubing cannot become 
brittle and does not require moisture for flexibility.  Can be used with 
brass fittings on 3/16" size, 2500 psi bursting pressure" as opposed to 1000 
psi for nylaflow.

We've been using it for 3 years on Berkut with no sign of degredation.
--
Czech Sikhs!

Richard Riley                       

"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
Lord Kelvin, President, Royal Society, c 1895

See the Berkut at
http://www.berkut.com


 
 
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 22:20:46 -0500 (EST)
From: DFinn7971@aol.com
Subject: COZY: Brake Lines

Hello everyone!

I found the following in REC.AVIATION.HOMEBUILT.  It pertains to the
discussion on aluminum vs. Nyloflow brakelines.  I noted Robin's comments on
brakeline materials and would have to say I'm glad were debating something to
do with building again.

Robin, thanks for your thoughts.  I think I'll use the 5052 AL Tube from near
the brake cylinders and back to the top of the landing geat.  I installed a
plastic tube down the training edge of the geat and will run Nylaflow through
there.  I think you are probably right about not wanting to run AL down the
gear due to the continual flexing.

Dick Finn
______________________________________________________

Subject: Re: Nylaflow aging problems
From: allnight@everett.net (Johnny)
Date: 15 Feb 97 08:09:44 GMT
Message-ID: <33056f48.0@news1.tacoma.net>

In article <19970212021601.VAA27495@ladder01.news.aol.com>, 
masterej@aol.com says...
>
>>the Nylaflow
>>brakelines were completely brittle and broke at the slightest touch.
>
>I'm using 1/8 inch Aluminum lines on my VariEze.  Several VariEze and
>LongEZ flyers have converted to these with good results.  I ran the 
lines
>through a plastic tube glassed into the rear of the main gear.  
Running
>the line up the gear and forward to the brake cylinders (mounted in 
the
>nose) was a little slow, but not hard to do at all.  Up front they 
will
>mate to Nylo-Seal tubing to provide some flexibility going in the the
>brake cylinders.

I never have been able to understand using plastic brake lines. Have 
you seen what happens to Nylo-Seal when you heat it? I always use 
stainless braided Teflon. You can get it small, and it's lightweight. 
It uses a real AN fitting on both ends too. Yes it costs more than 
$0.23 per foot, but so does what you are trying to stop with the 
brakes.



 
 
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 23:20:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Westlande@aol.com
Subject: Re: COZY: Brake Lines


In a message dated 2/26/97 7:24:39 PM, DFinn7971@aol.com wrote:

> I always use 
>stainless braided Teflon. You can get it small, and it's lightweight. 
>It uses a real AN fitting on both ends too.

Can you get fittings for the teflon tubing that you can put on yourself?  I
can see it fitting in my main gear conduit, but not if the fittings are
already installed.

TIA,

Eric Westland

 
 
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 00:28:49 -0500
From: INFINITY Aerospace <INFINITY_Aerospace@compuserve.com>
Subject: COZY: Re:  Brake Lines

Hi Dick and All,

        >Dick Finn wrote:<
        >I think I'll use the 5052 AL Tube from near the brake cylinders
and back to the top of the landing gear.  I installed a plastic tube down
the training edge of the gear and will run Nylaflow through there.  I think
you are probably right about not wanting to run AL down the gear due to the
continual flexing.<

        Good idea.
        I think I've posted the following before, but doesn't hurt to see a
re-post.  One of the other problems some have had using plastic brake lines
from the pedals to the brakes (besides heat, UV and aging all causing
brittleness and eventual failure in time) is that the brakes may feel a
little spongy for the plastic tube expands a little.  By using the shortest
amount possible (down the back side of the fixed gear strut and putting it
in a separate tube for easy removal and replacement), and using aluminum
5052-0 tubing the fuselage length to the top of the fixed gear, stainless
steel braid hoses to the brake master cylinders and maybe a short piece
from the brake up to the top of the wheel pant (heat from the brakes
shortens the Nylaflow / Nyloseal plastic tubing) is what many have done. 
Dash 3 (-3) tubing and hoses are common for brake lines, -3 hoses are more
flexible.

        From my 01/06/97 Post:
-----------------------------
        Page 146 of Firewall Forward states 'the best tubing to use for
fuel and oil lines is the readily available 5052-0.  It is soft enough to
be easily flared and formed for routing.  You can use 5052-0 aluminum
tubing for all your metal lines including pitot/static, vacuum, primer,
fuel, oil and low and medium pressure hydraulic lines.'  A few common sizes
are listed.  I talked to Alcoa Aluminum long ago to get a chart of Bursting
Pressures of aluminum tubing.  5052-0 burst pressure is 6937 PSI.
        I've mentioned this before in previous posts, but never hurts to
repeat some things.  My A & P Mechanics General Handbook recommends that 'a
double flare should be used on 5052-0 and 6061-T aluminum alloy tubing for
all sizes from 1/8" to 3/8" outside diameter.  This is necessary to prevent
cutting off the flare and failure of the tube assembly under operating
pressures.  The double flare is smoother and more concentric than the
single flare and, therefore, seals better.  It is  also more resistant to
the shearing effect of torque.'
        A 37 degree Double Flaring Tool Kit is $509+ (Aircraft Spruce
'95-'96, page 345), so I use aluminum two-ferrule Swagelok tube fittings. 
All the action in the Swagelok fitting moves along the tube axially instead
of with a rotary motion.  Since no torque is transmitted from the fitting
to the tubing, there is no initial strain which might weaken the tubing. 
Swagelok fittings are less expensive than AN fittings, and they claim to
have the lowest leak rate in the industry.  If you need AN fittings, of
which I use from pipe fittings to hoses, you can get the same AN fittings
from Earl's Performance Product's, usually for less money.  To locate your
local Swagelok dealer, call the home office in Solon, OH.  To locate your
local Earl's dealer, call (310) 609-1602.

Other references and info:
(A)  FAA Airframe and Powerplant MECHANICS General Handbook EA-AC 65-9A,
pages 99 thru 119
(B)  Alcoa Aluminum Tubular Bursting Pressures - Section ETD 911, TABLE I &
II

1)  The 0.25" OD x 0.035" wall 5052-0 aluminum tubing has a bursting
pressure of 6937 PSI minimum (REF B).  A suitable Factor of Safety for
design should be applied, which is up to you.  A Factor of Safety of 4 is
often used, which relates to a working pressure of 1734 PSI.  A Factor of
Safety of 2.31 relates to a working pressure of 3000 PSI, which is more
than acceptable (REF A, pg. 100).  The maximum distance (if anyone cares to
know) between supports for rigid fluids under pressure in aluminum tubing
is 13.5 inches (REF A, pg. 119).

2)  The maximum pressures you will probably see is from your brake system,
which will probably never get over 500 to 1000 PSI.

3)  A hose with a working pressure of 1500 PSI equates to a bursting
pressure of about 6000+ PSI.  The Aeroquip 303-4 hose (3000 PSI working
pressure), the Teflon StratoFlex P/N 124001-4CR (1500 PSI - minimum), or
equivalent, is needed (REF A, Rubber and Teflon Hose, pg. 100 & 102). 
Earl's has the same type hoses for less cost, and are pressure tested
before shipment.

4)  The blue aluminum AN/MS fittings (good for about 4000+ PSI working
pressures) should all be torqued to 40 to 65 inch pounds by using a crows
foot to get on the fitting with a torque wrench and held in place by
another wrench (REF A, pg. 117).
---------------------------------

        HTH.


Infinity's Forever,                     EAA Member
                                        EAA Technical Counselor
        JD                              EAA Flight Advisor
                                        AOPA Member
                                        Test Pilot
James D. Newman, President
LCDR    F-14    USNR

INFINITY Aerospace
Mailing Address:  P. O. Box 12275    El Cajon, CA  92022
Shipping Address:  1750 Joe Crosson Drive, D-2    El Cajon, CA  92020
(619) 448-5103  PH & FAX
E-Mail -- INFINITY_Aerospace@CompuServe.com
Checkout our other products, Stick Grips, Retractable Main Landing Gear and
the Infinity 1
Home Page -- http://Ourworld.CompuServe.com/Homepages/INFINITY_Aerospace

 
 
From: "Joe Vasher" <jvasher@wwnet.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Tech Questions
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 21:58:02 -0500



----------
> From: Howard Rogers <hrogers@SLAC.Stanford.EDU>
> To: cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com
> Subject: Re: COZY: Tech Questions
> Date: Wednesday, February 26, 1997 3:31 PM
> 
> >In a message dated 97-02-25 11:25:58 EST, wilhelmson@scra.org writes:
> >
> ><<      Is aluminium tubing approved for brake lines? >>
> >
> >That's a good question.  Aluminum tube was suggested to me by a Long
builder.
> > He felt uncomfortable with the plastic stuff.  I've seen aluminum in
> >production planes so I'm assuming it is preferable to Nylaflow.  I don't
> >honestly know if it is officially approved for the Cozy though.
> >
> >Dick Finn
> 
> I believe this question has already been well answered by another A&P on
> the list, but I will add my two cents worth.  Yes, aluminum is approved
on
> aircraft.  In fact, it was run all the way down the fiberglass gear legs
> and into the calipers on my Grumman Cheetah.  This was a very bad idea,
and
> I'm astounded that the airplane got certified that way.  Just about all
the
> grummans have been converted to flex lines for the last bit of the run.
> The most important point here, is that it is fine to run aluminum line
> where it can be well secured by Adel clamps to fixed structure.  It is
> *NOT* OK to subject it to flexing, anywhere, any time!  The problem with
> our EZ/Cozy gear legs is that the whole thing flexes quite a bit, and it
> would only be a mater of time before aluminum lines running down the legs
> would fatigue and fail.  I was personally skeptical of the nylon brake
> line, initially, but I have come to believe that they are as good a
> solution as any.  The stuff seems to hold up well on cars.  I think the
> important issue is to protect them from ultraviolet, chafing, and perhaps
> most important: heat.  With the proper routing, a proper heat sheild, and
> good insulation, this really is a problem that has been solved, and has
> proven to be very reliable on countless canard aircraft.  If you use it,
be
> sure to remember the little metal insert that goes inside of the tubing
> where it is inserted into the fitting.  This insures that the tube is
well
> supported, and won't collapse away from the compression type fitting,
which
> would allow it to pop out.
> 
> Howard Rogers, A&P 2005148
> 

I remember when this discussion was going on before someone discovered the
reason why nat chose not to go with alum lines and basically it was due to
what you stated. However, I've been wondering why not go with 111-4 hoze
and a couple of 300-4 fittings, wouldn't that solve both problems (soft
brakes and line failures due to stress.)

Joe Vasher A&P 362-66-9457 cozy builder 512

 
 
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 1997 15:09:52 -0800
From: C van Hoof <cvh@iafrica.com>
Organization: Architect
Subject: COZY: Ch 9 - Blkhd reinforcing

Hi All,

No sooner have we started Chapter 9 or i have a question.

Reading thru' and looking at Fig 2 (Ch 09) it shows a warperd perspective 
of the forward and aft bulkheads - it also shows a dimension of 5" 
towards the "horns" - JaWellNoFine (local saying = baffled/problem :-)).

My parts were made according to Full Size Drawing on Page M5 and this 
scales the horn at 4" ??? whereas Fig 2 (Ch 09) shows some spare space 
after measuring 5"

Did I slip up? is there a plans amendment that I did not see (checked OK)

Anyone had the same type problem? 

Thanx in anticipation.

Chris #219 Finally out of 08.


 
 
From: Marc J. Zeitlin <marcz@hpwarhw.an.hp.com>
Subject: COZY: Ch 9 - Blkhd reinforcing (fwd)
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 97 21:16:11 EST

Chris Van Hoof writes:

>Reading thru' and looking at Fig 2 (Ch 09) it shows a warperd perspective 
>of the forward and aft bulkheads - it also shows a dimension of 5" 
>towards the "horns" - JaWellNoFine (local saying = baffled/problem :-)).

I believe that the Figure 2 - 5" dimension is referring to the overlap
of the glass reinforcement, NOT the width of the "horn" of the bulkhead
(which, for me, measured just a hair over 4").

>My parts were made according to Full Size Drawing on Page M5 and this 
>scales the horn at 4" ??

Sounds right - see my previous statement.

>................whereas Fig 2 (Ch 09) shows some spare space 
>after measuring 5"

Again, if that's the reinforcing width down at the bottom, that's
correct because the bulkhead is wider there.

>Did I slip up? is there a plans amendment that I did not see (checked OK)

Don't think you slipped up - just think you're misinterpreting the
drawing.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin                              Email: marcz@an.hp.com

 
 
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 10:51:09 -0500 (EST)
From: CozyBldr@aol.com
Subject: COZY:Closing the Landing Gear Box

I was working on finishing the fuselage bottom near the main landing gear box
when I realized that the inside edges of the three foam pieces that close the
top of the box were not taped.  I consulted the plans (Chapter 9 Page 8) and
only the outside edges were mentioned.  I remembered that one newsletter
mentioned that all edges should be taped even if not directly mentioned in
the plans.

I called Nat and he agreed that the inside edges should be taped to really
strengthen that area (God knows with my landings I need all the strength in
that area that I can get).  For whatever it's worth, I thought I would pass
that on to others.

Paul Stowitts
Cozy Mark IV #200


 
 
From: "Steve Campbell" <campbell@ee.umn.edu>
Subject: COZY: Brakes
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:20:04 

Dear Fellow Builders,

  I am currently installing my main gear and I have two low intellect 
questions that glaringly demonstrate my lack of foresight:

1) I bought the main gear from Jeff and the Matco brakes from JD.  I now 
find that the 1/4" lines called out for the Matco's do not go through the 
soda straws.  3/16" tubing will fit.  I was considering running 3/16' down 
the legs and changing over to 1/4" at the bulkhead.  I know that the 
conductance of this part of the run will suffer, but is this important?  I 
don't see any other way short of major surgery on the gear strut.

2) I believe that I managed to mount my brakes upside down.  They come with 
a single fitting installed, which I had taken to be a tubing nipple, but I 
now believe to be some type of bleed valve.  Assuming that this is right, 
can I just unscrew the bleed valve and put it on the bottom (ie is there 
anything inside the brake calipers that knows up from down, or is it just a 
cavity that pushes against the pads when pressure is applied)? 
Thanks
Steve

****************************************
Stephen  A. Campbell              
Associate Professor, EE            
University of Minnesota          
*****************************************



 
 
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:05:30 -0500 (EST)
From: SWrightFLY@aol.com
Subject: Re: COZY: Brakes


In a message dated 3/17/97 3:30:07 PM, you wrote:
<<I was considering running 3/16' down the legs and changing over to 1/4" at
the bulkhead.  I know that the conductance of this part of the run will
suffer, but is this important?  I don't see any other way short of major
surgery on the gear strut. >>

In the future you may need to change out the existing lines or put additonal
items in the tubes such as a "pilot relief tube" or some new idea that comes
up. You will never regret having a large tube to put things in. I am using a
1/2 inch ID thin wall light weight plastic pipe used for irrigaton from Home
Depot. I got 15 ft. for $4.50. It's easy to cut yours off and glue the larger
one on then fair it in. Keep in mind that you need to shape the fairing over
the main gear legs so the airfoil shape is "head on" to the relative wind at
cruise conditon. The fuselage flies at about 1.5 degrees positive. Is
everyone doing this to reduce drag???



 
 
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:17:22 -0500
From: william l kleb <kleb@ab00.larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Subject: landing gear fairing (was Re: COZY:  Brakes)

SWrightFLY@aol.com wrote:
> Keep in mind that you need to shape the fairing over
> the main gear legs so the airfoil shape is "head on"
> to the relative wind at cruise conditon.

roger.

> The fuselage flies at about 1.5 degrees positive.

i don't understand the implication of this, i.e., what
this has to do with "head on"...  are you saying that
the gear legs see an effective sideslip angle, or is
the angle you are talking about the angle of attack?

-- 
bil <mailto:w.l.kleb@larc.nasa.gov>

 
 
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 14:12:16 -0500 (EST)
From: SBLANKDDS@aol.com
Subject: COZY: Gear + Brakes

Steve Campbell wrote about the pre-installed tubes in the main gear from
Aerocad.  I have the same question??? Are we better off ripping open the
glass to put a 1/4" line in now, or is it o.k. to adapt to a 1/4" before and
after the gear and keep the 3/16" line inside the gear ?  

Is the diameter in the gear leg significant to our braking? ( will we be
happier with 1/4")?

Is 1/4" tubing more durable (greater wall thickness) and will it hold up
better?

Should we leave it as is?

If you are not familiar with the gear from Aerocad, it is available with /
without the attach brackets installed, and the faired shape completed, with
the 3/16" tube installed. Nice workmanship. 

Steve Blank            Cozy Mark IV #36      sblankdds@aol.com

 
 
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 15:01:30 -0500 (EST)
From: SWrightFLY@aol.com
Subject: Re: landing gear fairing (was Re: COZY: Brakes)

> The fuselage flies at about 1.5 degrees positive.

>>i don't understand the implication of this, i.e., what
this has to do with "head on"...  are you saying that
the gear legs see an effective sideslip angle, or is
the angle you are talking about the angle of attack?<<

When the gear leg is mounted you have no assurance that the gear leg is going
to be positioned (leading edge to trailing edge) parallel to the slip stream.
It may be a bit positive or negative. The only way to tell is to check it
with a airfoil templates similar to the way you check the wing and canard.
The gear leg is a small flying surface. If it is not "head on to the wind" in
cruise you may have some unnecessary drag being produced. This is really a
minor issue but all the little minor stuff adds up. I guess I've been hanging
around race guys to much!! 


 
 
From: Marc J. Zeitlin <marcz@hpwarhw.an.hp.com>
Subject: COZY: Brakes (fwd)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 97 15:18:06 EST

Steve Campbell wrote:

>1) ....  3/16" tubing will fit.  I was considering running 3/16' down 
>the legs and changing over to 1/4" at the bulkhead.  I know that the 
>conductance of this part of the run will suffer, but is this important?

Brake lines (for the most part) are pressure conduits, not flow conduits.
The implication is that larger size tube is not necessarily better, since
you're not trying to get more flow.  Actually, smaller tubing may be
better, since (all other things being equal, which they never are :-) )
the smaller tubing will have less compliance (won't be as squishy) and
the brakes will feel stiffer.  So, unless Matco tells you that you have
to use 1/4" line, for some reason which I can't imagine, you should be
fine with the 3/16" stuff.

Steve Wright's points about getting more stuff to the wheels, and having
the struts faired in may be factors in determining to do the conduit over
anyway, but you should be safe as is.  The 3/16" conduit is what's used
for the Cleveland brakes, BTW.   Come to think of it, I'll be using the
3/16" tubing to the Matco brakes as well, since I put in my soda straws
before I got the 1/4" tubing from Matco.

>2) I believe that I managed to mount my brakes upside down.

Don't think there is such a thing :-).

>2) .......  They come with 
>a single fitting installed, which I had taken to be a tubing nipple, but I 
>now believe to be some type of bleed valve.

Bingo.

>.......  Assuming that this is right, 
>can I just unscrew the bleed valve and put it on the bottom (ie is there 
>anything inside the brake calipers that knows up from down, or is it just a 
>cavity that pushes against the pads when pressure is applied)? 

Bingo again.  Matco (as far as I can tell, and JD can correct me if I'm
wrong) does NOT make a left and right brake (twice as many drawings and
machining setups :-) ).  The brake is identical - you just put the
bleeder valve in the opposite hole.  Therefore, you should be fine
switching them.  See:

   http://www.ultranet.com/~marcz/cozy_mkIV/chapters/chap09_6.html

For a picture of the caliper installed (mine, and Marc and Nadine
Parmelee's).

--
Marc J. Zeitlin                              Email: marcz@an.hp.com

 
 
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 06:40:07 -0500
From: Jim Hocut <jhocut@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Brakes 

>.......  Assuming that this is right, 
>can I just unscrew the bleed valve and put it on the bottom (ie is there 
>anything inside the brake calipers that knows up from down, or is it just a 
>cavity that pushes against the pads when pressure is applied)? 
>

Isn't the bleeder valve supposed to be at the high point in the caliper?

Jim Hocut
jhocut@mindspring.com


 
 
From: Marc J. Zeitlin <marcz@hpwarhw.an.hp.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Brakes  (fwd)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 97 9:19:35 EST

Jim Hocut wrote;

>Isn't the bleeder valve supposed to be at the high point in the caliper?

You are correct - thanks for pointing that out.  I completely missed that
in my previous reply.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin                              Email: marcz@an.hp.com

 
 
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 10:15:41 -0800
From: berkut@loop.com
Subject: Re: COZY: Brakes 

>>.......  Assuming that this is right, 
>>can I just unscrew the bleed valve and put it on the bottom (ie is there 
>>anything inside the brake calipers that knows up from down, or is it just a 
>>cavity that pushes against the pads when pressure is applied)? 
>>
>
>Isn't the bleeder valve supposed to be at the high point in the caliper?

That's what I did, and it worked great for bleeding them by pumping the 
pedal.  But if you're filling them from the bottom end with a pressure pot 
it's better to have the bleed port at the _bottom_ of the caliper, and use 
your resevoir as the high point.
--
Czech Sikhs!

Richard Riley                       

"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
Lord Kelvin, President, Royal Society, c 1895

See the Berkut at
http://www.berkut.com


 
 
 by SERV05.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (PMDF V5.1-8 #16063)
 with SMTP id <01IGQ69VHJ300059GX@SERV05.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> for
 cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 13:14:35 PST
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 13:16:46 -0800
From: hrogers@SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Howard Rogers)
Subject: Re: COZY: Brakes

>>>.......  Assuming that this is right,
>>>can I just unscrew the bleed valve and put it on the bottom (ie is there
>>>anything inside the brake calipers that knows up from down, or is it just a
>>>cavity that pushes against the pads when pressure is applied)?
>>>
>>
>>Isn't the bleeder valve supposed to be at the high point in the caliper?
>
>That's what I did, and it worked great for bleeding them by pumping the
>pedal.  But if you're filling them from the bottom end with a pressure pot
>it's better to have the bleed port at the _bottom_ of the caliper, and use
>your resevoir as the high point.
>--
>Czech Sikhs!
>
>Richard Riley

Just thought I'd kick in my 2 cents worth, here.  On most aircraft, the
bleeder is at the bottom.  It is usually very difficult to get a good bleed
by "pumping the pedal", and pressure filling from the bottom is the
preferred method.  You can make a pressure feeder very easily from a cheap
plastic garden pump-up sprayer, or an even cheaper method is to use a
simple squeeze-lever oil can of sufficient quantity.  Attatch it to the
nipple on the bleeder valve with a piece of clear tubing, so you can verify
that no bubbles are getting into the system. This is a little more
diffucult, but it works.

Howard Rogers, A&P 2005148

--Howard Rogers, 415-926-4052
hrogers@slac.stanford.edu


 
 
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:19:16 -0500
From: william l kleb <kleb@ab00.larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Subject: COZY: chap 9: landing brake

apparently i interpreted the plans incorrectly:

i think my problem stemmed from figure 56 which shows
the 1/8" foam removal including the "lip" that the brake
rests on. since the duct-tape build-up in chapter 7 already
accounts for two layers of bid, it seems that only 1/32"
should have to be removed from the lip to account for the
3 layers that goes on the brake itself.

so, anyway, now my brake has a 3/32" (1/8"-1/32") gap all
the way around (3 sides) so it looks like i'll be adding
~9 layers of bid (3/32"/0.013") to the lip!?

another thing:

there is no lip on either side of the hinge for the brake
to rest on?  removing foam from the brake to allow for a
3/4" wide bonding area along either side of the hinge,
creates a sizeable cavity just under the leading edge
of brake.

i am thinking of adding a lip in this region prior
to my long "lip glassing" session.

any thoughts?

-- 
bil <mailto:w.l.kleb@larc.nasa.gov>

 
 
From: Marc J. Zeitlin <marcz@hpwarhw.an.hp.com>
Subject: COZY: chap 9: landing brake (fwd)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 97 10:38:41 EST

bil kleb wrote;

>so, anyway, now my brake has a 3/32" (1/8"-1/32") gap all
>the way around (3 sides) so it looks like i'll be adding
>~9 layers of bid (3/32"/0.013") to the lip!?

Youch!  If I interpret you correctly, you merely have too much space
under (over, if the airplane is right side up) the landing brake, so that
it wouldn't sit flush when closed.  If that's correct, don't add all that
glass!  Just put three big blobs of flox on the rear of the L.B., put
saran wrap on the fuselage, and close the brake until it sits flush. 
Voila, flush brake, no glassing.  No?

If the problem is that there's a 3/32" "groove" around the brake (looks
unsightly), wrap the brake in saran, and then fill the groove with micro.

>....creates a sizeable cavity just under the leading edge
>of brake.
>i am thinking of adding a lip in this region prior
>to my long "lip glassing" session.

And the problem is what?  Why bother?

>any thoughts?

Yeah.  Leave it alone, and work on real problems :-).  My $0.02.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin                              Email: marcz@an.hp.com

 
 
 by SERV05.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (PMDF V5.1-8 #16063)
 with SMTP id <01IGVH825RF6003Z2W@SERV05.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> for
 cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 08:22:27 PST
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 08:24:49 -0800
From: hrogers@SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Howard Rogers)
Subject: Re: COZY: Brakes


>>
>> Just thought I'd kick in my 2 cents worth, here.  On most aircraft, the
>> bleeder is at the bottom.  It is usually very difficult to get a good bleed
>> by "pumping the pedal", and pressure filling from the bottom is the
>> preferred method.  You can make a pressure feeder very easily from a cheap
>> plastic garden pump-up sprayer, or an even cheaper method is to use a
>> simple squeeze-lever oil can of sufficient quantity.  Attatch it to the
>> nipple on the bleeder valve with a piece of clear tubing, so you can verify
>> that no bubbles are getting into the system. This is a little more
>> diffucult, but it works.
>>
>> Howard Rogers, A&P 2005148
>>
>> --Howard Rogers, 415-926-4052
>> hrogers@slac.stanford.edu
>Howard, I'm a littly confused by this post. Do you connect the pump up
>sprayer to the bleeder and pump air into the system while pumping the
>brakes? please elaborate for me if you could I had used the pump method
>and found it to  be so-so ( a little soft after all was said and done-
>then I turned the airplane over and all was lost) Paul Burkhardt

        I am sorry, Paul.  I made the same mistake I grumble about when
others do it, but it is so easy to do.  When speaking about your own area
of familiarity, it is all too easy to assume your listeners have some of
the same familiarity, and gloss right over an important point, as a result.
I get grouchy when someone is elaborating on their particular area of
expertise and slips into a gillion unfamiliar three-letter abbreviations or
acronyms :-).
        There really is no mystery to brake bleeding.  The object of the
game is to wind up with 100% pure fluid in the entire system, with no
bubbles, as it is the bubbles that create the spongy, soft feel we are
trying to eliminate.  Since the bubbles in any system tend to rise, it
isn't always easy to get them to exit from a low point in the system.  In
the pressure bleeding method, you connect a pressurized pot of brake fluid,
through a clear hose, to the bleeder port which is, hopefully, at the
lowest point in the system.  You then connect another clear hose, with the
use of a screw-in nipple fitting, to the "fill port" on the master cylinder
(hopefully, the high point in the system).  This hose is bent over and
placed in a glass jar, to catch the excess fluid.  This process is best
done with two people.  One person opens the bleeder port by unscrewing it a
full turn or so.  S/he then carefully opens the valve from the pressure pot
and begins the flow of fluid into the low point of the system.  It easily
expels the air ahead of it, as it travels upward toward the master
cylinder.  At that end, the 2nd person watches for the arrival of the
fluid.  It will overflow the master cylinder and begin to fill the jar.
With the clear tube submerged below the level of fluid in the jar, it is
easy to tell when all the bubbles have been expelled.  When it is flowing
clear, and bubble-free, s/he yells "stop", and the other person shuts off
the flow, and wrenches the bleeder port securely closed.  A little fluid is
sucked out of the master cylinder with an ear syringe, or similar, to
provide for a little expansion-space for overflow-protection, and the
"filler cap" is replaced.  The pressure pot is any vessle that can be
pressurized with compressed air, so as to force out the fluid.  A very
minor modification to a garden sprayer is all that is required.
        Hope this will clarify the process.

Howard Rogers, A&P 2005148

--Howard Rogers, 415-926-4052
hrogers@slac.stanford.edu



 
 
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 15:51:57 -0500
From: INFINITY Aerospace <INFINITY_Aerospace@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re:  COZY:  chap 9: landing brake (fwd)

Hi Marc and All,

        >If the problem is that there's a 3/32" "groove" around the brake
(looks Unsightly), wrap the brake in saran, and then fill the groove with
micro.<

        I like mixing a little flox in with the micro that I use around
hatch openings in the hopes of toughening up the area to help prevent dings
over time.


Infinity's Forever,

        JD

 
 
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 13:37:18 -0800
From: berkut@loop.com
Subject: Re:  COZY:  chap 9: landing brake (fwd)

>Hi Marc and All,
>
>        >If the problem is that there's a 3/32" "groove" around the brake
>(looks Unsightly), wrap the brake in saran, and then fill the groove with
>micro.<
>
>        I like mixing a little flox in with the micro that I use around
>hatch openings in the hopes of toughening up the area to help prevent dings
>over time.

Same theory, but we use pure flox right at the edge to keep it from 
chipping, then micro for the majority of the fill away from the edge.


 
 
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 21:40:53 -0500 (EST)
From: gperry@usit.com
Subject: COZY: Landing Brake

Well, since we're on the subject of the landing brake, I have a little
problem that maybe someone can give me advice about.  I cut out, glassed and
mounted my landing brake about two years ago.  Since that time, it has been
mounted on the fuselage while I've built wings, canard, etc.   Just this
weekend, I flipped the plane on its back only to find that the landing brake
- which was a perfect fit two years ago - has "warped" at the trailing edge.
There is now a high spot (relative to the bottom of the fuselage) in the
middle of the trailing edge and one side is also high.  I have long held the
belief that fiberglass parts that feel "ignored" tend to creep over time
when the lights are out in the workshop and I believe this proves my theory!
:-)
Any thoughts on how to rectify this would be appreciated!

                        Gregg Perry
                        Tennessee


 
 
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 15:20:42 -0500
From: ponciroli@postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: COZY: Landing Brake

Gregg Perry said that his perfectly good landing brake had warped over time.

Since the fit was good at one time, all you have to do is heat the brake
until it will release the warp. I have done this using a kerosun heater in
my shop. I put a grill spacer that is used to hold aluminun dishes from
from a paper products store. its the kind of steel rack that you use with a
sterno can. That provides enough space (about nine inches) so that you wont
destroy the brake during the heting process. This requires about five to
six minutes minutes over the  heat, stay close and monitor the progress.
when its plyable, put it in place or use a flat surface and cover it with a
plywood board and weight it down until it cools. This should do the trick.


	Don Ponciroli - ponciroli@worldnet.att.net (860) 464-1158




 
 
 by SERV05.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (PMDF V5.1-8 #16063)
 with SMTP id <01IGX589JV7U003IUF@SERV05.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> for
 cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 13:00:36 PST
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 13:03:00 -0800
From: hrogers@SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Howard Rogers)
Subject: Re: COZY: Landing Brake

>Well, since we're on the subject of the landing brake, I have a little
>problem that maybe someone can give me advice about.  I cut out, glassed and
>mounted my landing brake about two years ago.  Since that time, it has been
>mounted on the fuselage while I've built wings, canard, etc.   Just this
>weekend, I flipped the plane on its back only to find that the landing brake
>- which was a perfect fit two years ago - has "warped" at the trailing edge.
>There is now a high spot (relative to the bottom of the fuselage) in the
>middle of the trailing edge and one side is also high.  I have long held the
>belief that fiberglass parts that feel "ignored" tend to creep over time
>when the lights are out in the workshop and I believe this proves my theory!
>:-)
>Any thoughts on how to rectify this would be appreciated!
>
>                        Gregg Perry
>                        Tennessee

Gregg,
        A standard method for fixing this type of problem is to use heat to
soften the "warped" area, and gently bend it to its former shape.  A hair
dryer doesn't get hot enough.  You will need a genuine heat-gun.  The
cardinal rule here is CAUTION.  You can get too hot, too fast, and ruin the
part.  Take your time, keep moving, and allow a large area to come up to
temperature gradually.  It takes time for the heat to "soak in".  Have some
really good, heat-resistant gloves on hand (pardon the pun) to do the
forming.  It may require more than one try to get it just right, but I'm
sure you can do it.  Let us know how it turns out!

--Howard Rogers, 415-926-4052
hrogers@slac.stanford.edu



 
 
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:35:24 -0600 (CST)
From: wkasty@ix.netcom.com
Subject: COZY: Chapter 9   Aluminum Shims

	Just a quick question on the landing brake. On page 9 of chapter 9 the plans say to cut 1" square shims of 0.025 al. I don't see this thin al sheet listed anywhere, do they mean .063 al? Are these shims even necesary?

Bill Kastenholz
wkasty@ix.netcom.com


 
 
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 06:19:58 -0500
From: william l kleb <kleb@ab00.larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Subject: Re: COZY: Chapter 9   Aluminum Shims

wkasty@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> 
> I don't see this thin al sheet listed anywhere,

i didn't either.

> do they mean .063 al?

no, the shims are to account for 3 plies of bid which are each
0.009 thick, giving the magic number of 0.027.

> Are these shims even necesary?

not really. if you don't use them, your brake will end
up being 0.025/cos(45) further aft after you add the
three layers of bid shown in figure 58. big deal.

-- 
bil <mailto:w.l.kleb@larc.nasa.gov>

 
 
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 07:06:52 -0500
From: william l kleb <kleb@ab00.larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Subject: COZY: chapter 9: brake lines

jd <INFINITY_Aerospace@CompuServe.COM> gave me permission to pass
this on to the group. it is just a different version of the same
info he's passed previously (specifically written for my lack of
memory):

I asked:
> what is the outside diameter of the brake lines you recommend
> running down the main gear struts (non-retract) for a cozy iv?

to which jd replied:

Run the 3/16" OD aluminum tubing from the dash 3 hoses in the nose
to the master brake cylinders, the entire length of the fuselage,
to the top of the fixed gear.  Then use the plastic tubing (I can't
remember the type, but it's been in recent past posts from the group)
down the back side of the fixed gear strut which fits inside the 1/4"
straws / thin wall plastic tubing people are putting down the back
side so the tubing is easily removable.  Then connect the tubing to
a dash 3 hose in the wheel pants to the brake.  The goal is to have
as short of plastic tube as possible to cut down on it's bellows
effect.

I don't know if you caught my previous posts about the plastic
brake line tube running the entire length of the aircraft from the
master brake cylinder to the brake (like the plans show) acting like
a bellows and expanding causing spongy brakes, but this was a lesson
learned from the Long-EZ days 15+ years ago.  I just don't know why
this info is not put out to you Cozy MK-IV builders.

-- 
bil <mailto:w.l.kleb@larc.nasa.gov>

 
 
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 13:51:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Gunrider@aol.com
Subject: COZY: Brakes

It has been suggested that I switch to the heavy duty Cleveland brakes and a
wider tire - to cut down on heat(no heat sheild?), wear and for using a grass
strip.  I may have to get a different fairing.  Who's got scoop?

 
 
From: Marc J. Zeitlin <marcz@hpwarhw.an.hp.com>
Subject: COZY: Brakes (fwd)
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 97 14:14:40 EST

Hugh Farrior writes (although you'd never know that's who it was, since
there was no signature :-) :

>It has been suggested that I switch to the heavy duty Cleveland brakes and a
>wider tire - to cut down on heat(no heat sheild?), wear and for using a grass
>strip.  I may have to get a different fairing.  Who's got scoop?

One of the original discussions we had when this list started up was
about the subject of brakes, vis-a-vis their stopping power and energy
absorption.  Nat says that the brakes called for in the plans are
adequate.

Some of us (me, Marc Parmelee, Steve Campbell, and possibly others) are
using the Matco brakes with 5" wheels.  Some are using the heavier duty
5" Cleveland brakes and wheels.  Others (Aerocanard builders) are using
the 6" heavy duty Cleveland brakes and wheels.  Most builders are using
the plans brakes, if I'm not mistaken.

I will speak _only_ for myself here, since this is a relatively major
plans change.  I'm using the Matco brakes because they have a much larger
energy absorption capacity, and I wanted to ensure that I could stop from
an aborted takeoff without boiling my brake fluid.  They're also a bit
narrower than the Clevelands. The price difference is insubstantial.
These same brakes are used on Lancairs, so they have some history.  I
believe the same logic is used to support the use of the heavy duty
Clevelands.  The larger diameter wheels would certainly be better for
rough strips, but I personally have no intention of using grass on a
regular basis.

You can read the full text of the original discussion to get the
background by downloading the 1995 and 1996 archives for brakes and
chapter 9, including heat shield discussions.  This might be a good time
to refresh people's memory on how to do this:

Send a message to:  majordomo@hpwarhw.an.hp.com

with the lines:

	index cozy_builders
	get cozy_builders topics95/brakes.txt
	get cozy_builders topics95/chap_09.txt
	get cozy_builders topics96/chap_09.txt
	end

in it.  This will mail you four files - the first one will have an index
of all available files, the second will be the brake discussion from
1995, the third and fourth will be the chapter 9 discussions from 95 and
96 respectively.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin                              Email: marcz@an.hp.com

 
 
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 15:36:09 -0500
From: Phillip.Johnson@lmco.com (phillip johnson)
Subject: COZY: Brakes

     Gunrider Writes:
     
     >  It has been suggested that I switch to the heavy duty Cleveland 
     >  brakes and a wider tire - to cut down on heat(no heat shield?), 
     >  wear and for using a grass strip.  I may have to get a different 
     >  fairing.  Who's got scoop?
     
     You don't say which Cozy you are flying. The MK III is OK with the 5" 
     heavy duty Cleveland's but the MK IV is not, contrary to Nat's 
     verbiage. The FAR's and books on landing gear design indicate that you 
     should be using either the 6" heavy duty Cleveland's or the 5" Triple 
     puck Matco's for the MK IV. Since you are running with no heat shield, 
     temperature becomes an issue, the triple puck Matco's do have a heavy 
     disk which reduces operational temperature, I'm not sure of the mass 
     of the 6" Cleveland's. Using 5" Cleveland's could result in a 
     wheel/landing gear fire with a max. landing weight landing in 
     particular with no heat shield. Why not fit a heat shield for safety? 
     The 5" Matco's have a lower profile, less drag, than the 5" or 6" 
     Cleveland's so you need less HP to do the same speed, this saves fuel 
     and therefore dynamic weight. If you are using the grass strip 
     regularly, and you typically fly at the upper end of the weight 
     envelope, then the 6" Cleveland's are the way to go.
     
     Phillip Johnson

 
 
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 00:47:18 -0500
From: INFINITY Aerospace <INFINITY_Aerospace@compuserve.com>
Subject: COZY: Brakes

Hi Phil and All,

        >Phil:  Snip<

        Excellent points!


        >If you are using the grass strip regularly, and you typically fly
at the upper end of the weight envelope, then the 6" Cleveland's are the
way to go.<

        MATCO also makes a 6", 3 puck wheel, axle and brake system for the
low profile 6.00 x 6 tire (1500 x 6.00 x 6), which is the same set up for
the regular size 6.00 x 6 tire.  The advantage over the Cleveland 6.00 x 6
is the same as over the smaller 5.00 x 5 series - almost 1.5" narrower and
the brake is within the diameter of the rim.
        If you're flying off muddy grass strips A LOT, this low profile
tire might be a good idea.  Otherwise, like Phil said, the 6.00 x 6 setup
costs more, more drag, more down pitching moment, way overkill.  But
whatever flips your bic . . .
        FACTOID:  60+% of all Sport Aircraft use MATCO brakes, wheels and
axles.


Infinity's Forever,

        JD

 
 
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 12:40:55 -0800
From: C van Hoof <cvh@iafrica.com>
Organization: Architect
Subject: COZY: Brakes & Wheels

Hi One and all,

Reading the writings regarding the larger wheels & brakes, it then 
niggles up a new question in my little mind, all to do with operating off 
grass strips.

Since the larger wheels would lift the Cozy higher above the ground, 
would it not alter the wing and canard incidence (or is it angle of 
attack) and increase the ground roll?

Would this then would be the same as not cutting the landing gear 
legs.(Except for the larger diameter of the wheels - and what about 
the tiny nosewheel, is this not more critical than the main wheels?)

METHINKS - if I leave the landing gear as bought from Featherlite and one 
uses the larger wheels AND you alter the nosewheel gear (somehow) in 
order to get the Cozy standing higher, it would achieve the desired 
result.

I AM building as per plans, but am curious by nature.
(And we do have a lot of Game farms in Africa with grass or earth strips)

Curious Chris #219


 
 
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 17:41:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Nigel Field <nfield@cyberus.ca>
Subject: Re: COZY: Brakes & Wheels

At 12:40 PM 4/4/97 -0800, Chris V. wrote:
>
>Reading the writings regarding the larger wheels & brakes, it then 
>niggles up a new question in my little mind, all to do with operating off 
>grass strips.

Hi Cris and all,

My Vari-eze is based at a 3000ft grass field. It is equiped with Lamb tires
which are a bit smaller than 500 x 5 and the standard hockey puck nose
wheel.  A Long eze buddy was also at this field for 2 years using 500 x 5
mains and the same nose wheel as me. Generally we had no problem when the
field was dry.  I get off solo in about 1200 ft and the LE takes about 1500.
Right after a rain it takes a bit more but still OK.

What we both found is that the nose wheel is the biggest problem.  The small
diameter and narrow tread gives it a tendancy to dig in and drag a lot
especially during the first half of the TO roll. Once the nose is rotated
its like after burner and the acceleration about doubles and its flying
almost right away.  My buddy has a spring shock strut which he uses to good
advantage by pumping full forward stick to load up the spring then
immediately applying full back stick to pick up the nose.  This has to be
done at just the right speed for maximum effect but it reduces his TO roll
considerably by getting the nose out of the dirt sooner. The mains don't
seem to cause much runway drag.

With the larger nose wheel on the MK IV it should be better solo but with
the higher weight of 2 people in the front it will still want to dig in and
drag.  I don't think the 6 inch mains would make a lot of difference since
the nose wheel is really the limiting factor, but then I haven't actually
tried them.       

>Since the larger wheels would lift the Cozy higher above the ground, 
>would it not alter the wing and canard incidence (or is it angle of 
>attack) and increase the ground roll?

If it were me I would stick with the 500 X 5 s with the narrower Matco
wheels and brakes on the mains and consider a much wider front tire such as
the Lamb for the nose wheel, but only if you plan to fly a lot from soft
turf.  This of course would mean some changes to the lower fork and wheel
well, etc, but look at the Velocity nose wheel, it has been done already. 

On a hot dry day our grass field is just like asphalt, in fact better to
land on, so depends a lot on your local conditions.

Nigel Field   Subaru Vari-eze,  Mk III on the way


 
 
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 01:05:08 -0500
From: INFINITY Aerospace <INFINITY_Aerospace@compuserve.com>
Subject: COZY: Niggles about Tires, Canards and Level

Hi Chris and All,

        One reason people are using the 6.00 x 6 wheel and brake is to have
more braking power because they are un-aware of the MATCO 5.00 x 5, 3 puck
wheel and brake system.


        >Reading the writings regarding the larger wheels & brakes, it then
niggles up a new question in my little mind, all to do with operating off
grass strips.  Since the larger wheels would lift the Cozy higher above the
ground, would it not alter the wing and canard incidence (or is it angle of
attack) and increase the ground roll?<

        As most of you know, the goal is to have your plane sitting level
to +0.5 degrees nose up.  With the nose substantially down for whatever
reason, you get into the need (by some) for the 'canard pump' trying to
bounce the nose up to a flying attitude to rotate sooner rather than
waiting to a higher take-off speed (increasing take-off roll) to rotate.
        If you raise the nose too much by extending the nose strut too far
or shortening the main gear too much, take-off roll is increased because
the Roncz 1145MS ('MS' stands for Mike and Sally I'm told) canard is set at
3.87 degrees (I measured it with my inclinometer that measures to the 100th
of a degree).
        If memory serves, this canard begins stalling when the aircraft is
at 9 units angle of attack with the elevator at neutral - the canard is
seeing 12.87 degrees (many airfoils stall at about 16 units angle of
attack).  So if you set the aircraft nose up at +5 degrees by extending the
nose strut or shortening the mains for example, take-off roll is greatly
increased for the canard is seeing 8.87 degrees.  And if you take-off with
full aft stick in this situation, you are compounding your problem and
increasing take-off roll further for the full aft stick / full down
elevator is killing canard lift.  The Long-EZ drivers learned years ago to
take-off with their canard elevator at neutral to slightly stick forward
until about 55 mph.
        The above discussion is one of several reasons why I designed in
the ability with my oleo nose strut to extend or compress the nose strut to
ensure the plane is level at all weight configurations for take-off,
besides being able to lift the aircraft off the ground for easy ingress and
egress.
        If you use the regular size 17" diameter 6.00 x 6 tires, your
statement above may be a concern.  If you can somehow lower (extend) the
nose strut and tire without cutting off the main strut to raise the nose so
the aircraft is level again, you'll have a little more prop clearance and a
little higher jump to get into the cockpit (about 1.5"), unless you have a
nose lift system (mandatory I think for all canards without gull wing
doors).


        >Would this then be the same as not cutting the landing gear legs. 
(Except for the larger diameter of the wheels - and what about the tiny
nose wheel, is this not more critical than the main wheels?)<

        Your nose tire is 10" in diameter, a little bigger than a Long-EZ. 
If the grass is short and the ground is hard packed, operating off
non-paved runways shouldn't be to bad.  You will still have the concern of
throwing FOD from the nose wheel and the narrow mains (from any taxi-way /
runway surface).  Note:  Long-EZ nose tires should be filled to 70 PSI, not
40 (specs I found for that tire).
        I use a 11.5" diameter x 4" wide Lamb tire for my steerable or
castering (your choice) oleo nose strut enclosed with a mud fender.


        >METHINKS - if I leave the landing gear as bought from Featherlite
and one uses the larger wheels AND you alter the nose wheel gear (somehow)
in order to get the Cozy standing higher, it would achieve the desired
result.

        The 6.00 x 6 tire is about 17" in diameter.  The low profile 6.00 x
6 tire (1500 - 6.00 x 6) is about 15" in diameter.  The recommended 5.00 x
5 tire is about 14" in diameter.  If you fellows are operating off grass
and / or hard packed earth regularly, as I said yesterday, the low profile
tire may be the way to go.
        As to changing the main gear strut height, Jeff Russell can
probably better address this.  I would think that if you really had to, you
could adjust / extend the nose strut down a little to account for the low
profile tires 1" larger diameter of the low profile 1500 - 6.00 x 6. 
You're only talking a 0.5" difference between the 5.00 x 5 and 1500 - 6.00
x 6 radius's.  You just have to make sure when you extend the nose strut
that you're still within the 0 to 5 degree rack of the nose fork.


        I hope you all enjoyed and found the above niggles useful and
interesting :-) .


Infinity's Forever,                             EAA Member
                                        EAA Technical Counselor
        JD                              EAA Flight Advisor
                                        AOPA Member
                                        Test Pilot
James D. Newman, President
LCDR         F-14            USNR

INFINITY Aerospace
Mailing Address:  P. O. Box 12275   El Cajon, CA  92022
Shipping Address:  1750 Joe Crosson Drive, D-2   El Cajon, CA  92020
(619) 448-5103  PH & FAX
E-Mail -- INFINITY_Aerospace@CompuServe.com
Checkout our other products, Stick Grips, Retractable Main Landing Gear and
the Infinity 1
Home Page -- http://Ourworld.CompuServe.com/Homepages/INFINITY_Aerospace

 
 
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 07:34:22
From: RSiebert1@gnn.com (Reid Edward Siebert)
Subject: Re: COZY: Brakes

>  J.D. said:
>
>        MATCO also makes a 6", 3 puck wheel, axle and brake system for the
>low profile 6.00 x 6 tire (1500 x 6.00 x 6), which is the same set up for
>the regular size 6.00 x 6 tire.  The advantage over the Cleveland 6.00 x 6
>is the same as over the smaller 5.00 x 5 series - almost 1.5" narrower and
>the brake is within the diameter of the rim.


I just finished installing these Matco 6" wheels & brakes on my Cozy.  Each 
brake caliper is so long that I had to mount it below the end of the stut.  
It looks real nice.  I did not use the standard Matco 6" axle, instead I used
the same axles used on the Seawind amphibian.  These bring the brake disc, 
and wheel, even closer to the strut (by about 3/4").  The disks are so close 
to the stut, that had to I add 1/8" alum heat shields between them.  I'm 
still a long way from trying them, so can't report on their performance.  All
of the wheels, brakes, axles, and tires, that I used are the same ones that 
Matco bundles in a kit for the Seawind (which has a gross weight of 3400 
lbs.), so I'm sure they will easily stop my 2000 lb. airplane.  The wheels 
even come with plastic hub caps, and the axles are drilled and tapped on the 
end for a grease zerk, or a bolt to hold the wheel pant in place.  Their 
workmanship is excellent, too.

Before mounting the axles I cut off an extra 1/2" from the ends of the strut, 
to compensate for the bigger tire.  

Reid Siebert

  


 
 
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 20:50:59 -0500 (CDT)
From: wkasty@ix.netcom.com
Subject: COZY: Chapter 9 Landing Brake

	I successfully wired up my new Lanza actuator to my car battery and it works great. Now a question before glassing the fuselage indent for the brake. The text never mentions removing glass adjacent to the hinge so that the hinge will be removable in the future. The drawings only show a profile view. Has everyone else rounded out the forward lip to make this hinge accessible? It will leave a bit of a gap between the bottom fuselage surface and the brake itself, about 1/4 inch on either side of the hinge. 
	
Bill Kastenholz
wkasty@ix.netcom.com
MKIV #536


 
 
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 13:17:07 -0400
From: william l kleb <kleb@ab00.larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Subject: Re: COZY: Chapter 9 Landing Brake

wkasty@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> 
> The text never mentions removing glass adjacent to the hinge so that the hinge will be removable in the future.

are you refering to removing the hinge pin, not the
hinge flange(s), right?  it seems that you could disconnect
the hinge/brake assembly from the plane later by removing
the screws and breaking it free from the flox bond... i wouldn't
want my hinge pin to be able to work out and send the whole
mess through the prop.

> Has everyone else rounded out the forward lip to make this hinge accessible?

again, assuming you are talking about the hinge pin: i didn't.

i'll have to measure the slot i cut in the bottom for the actuator,
it was considerably bigger than the stock slot since the actuator
body needs to go through the slot.  this will affect the foam
removal in the fuselage indent around the slot.

also: beware of removing too much foam from the indent, don't go
the full 1/8" suggested in the plans unless you can convince
yourself that so much should be removed.  i wish i had only taken
off 1/32" or so.

-- 
bil <mailto:w.l.kleb@larc.nasa.gov>

 
 
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 19:43:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: wkasty@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: COZY: Chapter 9 Landing Brake

	Thanks for the info Bill. I re-evaluated the problem of removing the hinge pin from the landing brake this morning. For the time being I will not flox the hinge to LB23. When everything is sanded, finished, and painted maybe I will flox it on but I think the screws will be sufficient to hold.
	I spent all afternoon aligning the electric LB actuator. I finally found a pivot point which didn't conflict with the map pocket, the fuel line area, and closed properly and also opened  to a perpendicular(within 15 degrees) support.
	I sanded only 1/32 of the blue foam thus far but will have to take it down a bit more to ensure flush closure. I had already glassed the interior side of the landing brake itself.

Bill Kastenholz
wkasty@ix.netcom.com
Cozy MKIV #536


 
 
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 16:15:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gunrider@aol.com
Subject: COZY: strut help

I sent my strut from Featherlite to have the tabs put on.
He evidently drilled the holes wrong - the strut is too high ( interrupts the
naca scoop and tabs rise above the bottom of fuselage).
What is the width and length of the completed tab supposed to be?
How far up from the top of strut (or finished tab attch.) should the holes be
drilled -  .75"?
I have used a level to draw a vertical line from existing holes to try to
keep the correct angles.  but where on that line do I begin redrilling.  
My guess is that the holes are about 1.5" too low.  the tab top is almost
touching the bend in the forward bulkhead now.
Any info. is greatly appreciated!

Hugh Farrior Stuck in Tampa

 
 
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 19:00:04 -0400
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: re: COZY:strut help

To all,
	
	It's not my intent to knock Featherlite, I have some of their
stuff,i.e., cowling, carb air box, etc., and it is a good product.  

	But I must say that my main gear strut with tabs installed from Jeff
Russell fit my MKIV perfectly.

	Thanks for a good product, Jeff.

dd

 
 
 by DEV.InfoAve.Net (PMDF V5.0-8 #17060)
 id <01IHRRMZK97U8WVYK6@DEV.InfoAve.Net> for cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com;
 Wed, 16 Apr 1997 11:06:09 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 11:07:55 -0400
From: "Jeff S. Russell" <JRAEROCAD@yadtel.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: strut help
Organization: AEROCAD INC.

Gunrider@aol.com wrote:
 
> I'm building the Mark IV. What is the width and length of the completed tab supposed to be?
How far up from the top of strut (or finished tab attch.) should the holes be
drilled -  .75"? <

The tabs are in the plans 3.50" wide with the attach holes 26" apart. 
that would make the tabs about 29.50" from tab to outer tab.

The .75" measurement for the holes should be close to inserting the .75" axle
for the 1/2" stud.  Some grinding on top of the rap on top of the gear at the 
L.E. seems to be necessary for clearance for the axle.  The rest of the tab is
for enough meat for twisting loads.  Our tabs are made out of solid triaxial
pieces that go from end to end. The plans call out using UNI that goes from 
end to end and small pieces of BID on the ends for final build ups.

If the holes drilled look like the .75" axle will barely miss the top of the 
gear raps the holes should be close in height on where they should be.

hope that helps.


-- 
AeroCad Inc.  Jeff Russell (Check out our web site for Cozy compatible 
parts and the AeroCanard)
phone/ call first for fax 910-961-2238
E-mail:   Jeff@aerocad.com
web site with NEW pictures under heavy construction: 
http://www.aerocad.com
Composite workshop info: http://www.Sportair.com

 
 
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 09:50:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gunrider@aol.com
Subject: COZY: Landing Brake

Hi Guys,
I'm midway on the landing brake and got to wondering. 
Can I take the 1/8" of foam off of the brake itself instead of the fuselage -
seems easier?
I have heard that the engine runs much hotter when the brake is deployed,
 would a hole or two in the middle of the brake make it more effective and
provide better cooling - if necessary?
The diaper material inside the ziplock sounds like the way to go instead of
the relief tube.  Other passengers may benefit from this as well.  Thanks for
the comments.:-)

Working fast,  Hugh Farrior  Tampa

 
 
From: Marc J. Zeitlin <marcz@hpwarhw.an.hp.com>
Subject: COZY: Landing Brake (fwd)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 97 10:39:10 EDT

Hugh Farrior wrote:

>Can I take the 1/8" of foam off of the brake itself instead of the fuselage -
>seems easier?

I wouldn't.  You'd be compromising the stiffness/strength of the LB to
some extent (maybe too much, maybe not - hard to say without a complete
analysis and/or testing).  It's not that big a deal to take the fuselage
foam down - I'd recommend sticking to the plans.

>I have heard that the engine runs much hotter when the brake is deployed,

Correct.  Enough so as to overheat very quickly if you try to run at any
kind of cruise throttle setting with the brake deployed.

> would a hole or two in the middle of the brake make it more effective and
>provide better cooling - if necessary?

Good question.  I'd bet not.  the NACA scoop is relying on something
resembling clean airflow in order to supply cooling air to the engine. 
I'd guess that if you're creating enough drag to make any difference,
you're screwing up the airflow enough to keep your engine from cooling
(at any kind of cruise power).  Also, the holes would probably create
some extra drag even when the brake was retracted.

This was actually the reason I chose to go with the manual brake - I can
retract it no matter what the electrical system does or doesn't do.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin                              Email: marcz@an.hp.com

 
 
 by InfoAve.Net (PMDF V5.1-5 #17060)
 with SMTP id <01IIBUU28I1E8ZJTXJ@InfoAve.Net> for
 cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 20:13:10 EST
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 20:12:04 -0400
From: Jeff S Russell <JRAEROCAD@yadtel.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Landing Brake (fwd)
Organization: AEROCAD INC.

Marc J. Zeitlin wrote:

> >I have heard that the engine runs much hotter when the brake is deployed,
> 
> Correct.  Enough so as to overheat very quickly if you try to run at any
> kind of cruise throttle setting with the brake deployed.
> This was actually the reason I chose to go with the manual brake - I can
> retract it no matter what the electrical system does or doesn't do.

I no this is not "per plans" but Arm-pit cooling will not shut down when
the speed brake is out.  I have taken off and flown to 165 knots with
it out and could not get it to come off? (just kidding). The plane will
start shaking at 160 knots to let you know that you forgot something!!! 
ROC is also not much less at takeoff so no big deal again if you forget.
Use a check list.
-- 
AeroCad Inc.  Jeff Russell

 
 
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 18:45:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gunrider@aol.com
Subject: COZY: Brakes

I tried to go with the heavy duty 6" 133 wheels and brakes from wicks and had
heard magnesium was a bad choice for an airplane in a salty environment.  The
manufacturer concurred. Does anyone know of a H.D. kit without magnesium?  I
can always go with chrome brakes but what about the rest?  I want the 6"
wheels for stopping and grass strips.
Are a/c aluminum brake lines really superior to plastic - wear,boiling,psi?
I have also found my hardpoints are an extremely tight fit when mounting the
strut, I may have to sand down the bushings - is this normal, ok?
Hugh Farrior in Tampa

 
 
Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 12:17:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gunrider@aol.com
Subject: COZY: Magnesium brakes

Anyone had a good or bad experience with magnesium wheels and brakes due to
corrosion - especially if you live in a salty environment?
I am having a hard time locating 6" heavy duty kits without magnesium and I
have heard they might not hold up.
Any Info would be a help, thanks.
Hugh Farrior

 
 
Subject: Re: COZY: Magnesium brakes
From: resiebert@juno.com (Reid E. Siebert)
Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 13:22:52 EDT


On Wed, 14 May 1997 12:17:33 -0400 (EDT) Gunrider@aol.com writes:
>Anyone had a good or bad experience with magnesium wheels and brakes 
>due to
>corrosion - especially if you live in a salty environment?
>I am having a hard time locating 6" heavy duty kits without magnesium 
>and I
>have heard they might not hold up.
>Any Info would be a help, thanks.
>Hugh Farrior
>


I bought six-inch main wheels, brakes, and tires from Matco, and am
pleased with their quality (not airborne yet, so can't comment on their
in-service performance).  They use steel disks.  Check the archives for
the discussions about this manufacturer.  JD at Infinity Aerospace is a
dealer for Matco, and is a member of this mail list, contact him for more
info.  I installed, on my Cozy, the sub-kit that is normally send with
the purchase of a Seawind amphibian aircraft kit.  It is very, very,
very, heavy duty (almost 400,000 ft.lbs. of stopping torque, per wheel).

Reid


 
 
From: Epplin_John_A@hpmail1.90.deere.com
Date: Wed, 14 May 97 13:23:41 -0500
Subject: COZY: Magnesium brakes

> Anyone had a good or bad experience with magnesium wheels and brakes due
to
> corrosion - especially if you live in a salty environment?
> I am having a hard time locating 6" heavy duty kits without magnesium and
I
> have heard they might not hold up.
> Any Info would be a help, thanks.
> Hugh Farrior
> 
When I was responsible for a Grumman G1, it originally had magnesium brake
calipers.  These eventually showed cracks with a dye check inspection.  I
dont remember the time on them but it was considerable, maybe 2500 hours and
over 1000 landings.  This was operated from the mid west but flew all over
the US.  I believe the cracks were more from corrosion than fatigue.  If you
dye check the calipers each time you change the pucks, they will be ok. 
Keep them painted with a good paint, strip, dye check and repaint each puck
change.

John Epplin.  Mk4 #467

 
 
From: Marc J. Zeitlin <marcz@hpwarhw.an.hp.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Magnesium brakes (fwd)
Date: Wed, 14 May 97 16:09:13 EDT

Reid Seibert wrote:

>I bought six-inch main wheels, brakes, and tires from Matco,.....
> They use steel disks.

While I am using the same Matco wheels and brakes, I believe Hugh F. was
asking about the caliper material, not the disc material.  I don't think
you'll find anything other than steel (stainless or otherwise) on any
_GA_ aircraft brake system.

>........  It is very, very,
>very, heavy duty (almost 400,000 ft.lbs. of stopping torque, per wheel).

Ummm, while these are heavy duty brakes, the ~400k ft-lb number is for
_energy absorption_ NOT torque (the units are the same).  The issue is,
how much energy can the brakes absorb before they start to fade and boil
the brake fluid.  Here, a higher # is better, and these Matco units can
stop a GW COZY MKIV from 80 mph without exceeding their energy absorption
capability.  As you said, see the 1995 and 1996 archives for the full
discussion on this topic.

BTW, 400K ft-lbs of torque would be unreachable, as the brakes would have
locked up and the rubber would be skidding on the runway long before you
reached that level.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin                              Email: marcz@an.hp.com

 
 
Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 18:25:08 -0400
From: INFINITY Aerospace <INFINITY_Aerospace@compuserve.com>
Subject: COZY: Re:  Magnesium brakes

Hi Hugh and All,

        >Anyone had a good or bad experience with magnesium wheels and
brakes due to corrosion - especially if you live in a salty environment? =
 I
am having a hard time locating 6" heavy duty kits without magnesium and I=

have heard they might not hold up.  Any Info would be a help, thanks.<

        MATCO makes a 6.00 x 6 set of brakes for operation in salt water.=
 =

Same brakes used on the SeaWind, but the axle is different.  Same brakes
I'm using on the design of a 3400 lb. Twin engine pusher 4 seat for a
company.


Infinity's Forever,                             EAA Member
                                        EAA Technical Counselor
        JD                              EAA Flight Advisor
                                        AOPA Member
                                        Test Pilot
James D. Newman, President
LCDR         F-14            USNR

INFINITY Aerospace
Mailing Address:  P. O. Box 12275   El Cajon, CA  92022
Shipping Address:  1750 Joe Crosson Drive, D-2   El Cajon, CA  92020
(619) 448-5103  PH & FAX
E-Mail -- INFINITY_Aerospace@CompuServe.com
Checkout our other products, Stick Grips, Retractable Main Landing Gear a=
nd
the Infinity 1
Home Page -- http://Ourworld.CompuServe.com/Homepages/INFINITY_Aerospace

 
 
From: "Krasa-1, Paul" <Paul.Krasa-1@pp.ksc.nasa.gov>
Subject: RE: COZY: Magnesium brakes
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 11:48:12 -0400

>----------
>From: 	Gunrider@aol.com[SMTP:Gunrider@aol.com]
>
>
Anyone had a good or bad experience with magnesium wheels and brakes due
>to corrosion - especially if you live in a salty environment?

I just had to change out both of my wheels due to corrosion.  When I
changed the tires, I found each wheel had a single corrosion pit in the
area where the bolt passes through the wheel.  After sand blasting the
pit, I showed it to an A&P who said it was beyond limits.  Each pit was
in excess of 50% of the wall thickness.  These wheels are 15 years old
so, I replaced them with new wheels.

Paul Krasa
Long EZ214LP

 
 
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 19:14:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gunrider@aol.com
Subject: COZY: Last time

OK, I now know what I want?  The problem is I can't find anyone who sells the
6" Matco H.D. wheels & brakes for the Seawind.  Wicks - no, A/C Spruce I have
called twice and spoke w/two women who have no idea what brakes are.
Therefore, I need you guys expert guidence once more... a kit # and or a
supplier and any mounting advice would be greatly appreciated.
I have one other area of ignorance, alodining. What is the procedure?  I have
been zinc chromating where necessary.
I must give my compliments to this forum,  just reading the mail has provided
me with a wealth of information not included in the plans that a first time
builder needs!
Hugh Farrior - reinventing the wheel?

 
 
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 22:23:28 -0400
From: INFINITY Aerospace <INFINITY_Aerospace@compuserve.com>
Subject: COZY: Re:  Last time

Hi Hugh and All,

        >OK, I now know what I want?  The problem is I can't find anyone
who sells the 6" Matco H.D. wheels & brakes for the Seawind.  Wicks - no,=

A/C Spruce I have called twice and spoke w/two women who have no idea wha=
t
brakes are.  Therefore, I need you guys expert guidance once more... a ki=
t
# and or a supplier and any mounting advice would be greatly appreciated.=
<

        I still sell MATCO products.  Call any afternoon (after 1300
Pacific Time) to discuss your needs.


Infinity's Forever,                             EAA Member
                                        EAA Technical Counselor
        JD                              EAA Flight Advisor
                                        AOPA Member
                                        Test Pilot
James D. Newman, President
LCDR         F-14            USNR

INFINITY Aerospace
Mailing Address:  P. O. Box 12275   El Cajon, CA  92022
Shipping Address:  1750 Joe Crosson Drive, D-2   El Cajon, CA  92020
(619) 448-5103  PH & FAX
E-Mail -- INFINITY_Aerospace@CompuServe.com
Checkout our other products, Stick Grips, Retractable Main Landing Gear a=
nd
the Infinity 1
Home Page -- http://Ourworld.CompuServe.com/Homepages/INFINITY_Aerospace

 
 
Subject: COZY: Re: Last time
From: resiebert@juno.com (Reid E. Siebert)
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 23:41:30 EDT



>        I still sell MATCO products.  Call any afternoon (after 1300
>Pacific Time) to discuss your needs.
>
>
>Infinity's Forever,               


The Seawind axles that I used for the Matco 15x600x6 wheels is WHLA6M,
instead of the axle that is bundled with the CUSAA09 wheel & axle set. 
The Seawind axle is shorter, so it brings the wheel & brake disk 3/4"
even closer to the stut, necessitating a 1/4" axle mounting spacer, and a
large 1/8" heat shield.  The reason I know is because I bought both axle
lengths, and liked the installed looks of the Seawind axle best.  The
3-piston brake caliper mounts below the end of the strut.  Email me for
more details.

 
 
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 23:56:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: AlWick@aol.com
Subject: COZY: Gear height

Suggestion for those who have not installed landing gear. Recommend you
remove less glass from main and front gear. Essentially, let the plane sit
higher. This allows more prop clearance and/or bigger prop.
Used to be the gear height was limited by how high you were able to step up
when entering plane. With new electric nose gear this is no longer a
limitation. 
I don't have elect. gear, but a foot step mod allows the same benefit.
fwiw
-al


 
 
From: Marc J. Zeitlin <marcz@hpwarhw.an.hp.com>
Subject: COZY: Gear height (fwd)
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 97 9:29:22 EDT

Al Wick wrote:

>Suggestion for those who have not installed landing gear. Recommend you
>remove less glass from main and front gear. Essentially, let the plane sit
>higher. This allows more prop clearance and/or bigger prop.

This is reasonable, as long as you ensure that your nose gear extends far
enough to keep the longerons level.  If the main gear is too high and the
nose doesn't extend far enough, your incidence angles for the canard and
main wing will be wrong for takeoff, and you might not be able to do so. 
There is some indication that a few aircraft that have trouble rotating
have this condition.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin                              Email: marcz@an.hp.com

 
 
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 10:33:36 -0700
From: Mahan <mahan@digital.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Gear height

Marc J. Zeitlin wrote:
> 
> If the main gear is too high and the nose doesn't extend far enough, 
> your incidence angles for the canard and main wing will be wrong for 
> takeoff, and you might not be able to do so.

And then you have to go back and whack away some of your main gear legs 
anyway.  I haven't heard of anyone with prop clearance problems on 
EZ-type aircraft.  Actually, it's better to have a little positive 
incidence at the longerons -- helps you lift off sooner.  And, it's 
easier to do while you are building rather than later, when you've been 
flying (or trying to lift off ... ;-)

Fred in Florida
Long-EZ N86LE
Defiant project

 
 
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 11:39:19 -0400
From: Carlos Vicente Leon <services@argonaut.net>
Organization: Maquinaria Diekmann
Subject: COZY: Gear height 

> > Al Wick wrote:
> >
> > >Suggestion for those who have not installed landing gear. Recommend you
> > >remove less glass from main and front gear. Essentially, let the plane sit
> > >higher. This allows more prop clearance and/or bigger prop.
> >
 
 BEWARE OF NOSE GEAR HOUSING POSITION WHEN IT IS RETRACTED.  CHANGING
THE
 LENGTH OF THE STRUT MOVES THE HOUSING POSITION.
 
 REGARDS
 Carlos Leon
 COZY MK IV-twin YV-22X
 VARIEZE YV-11X

 
 
From: ratencio@coastalnet.com
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 97 21:53:51 -0400
Subject: COZY: Nylaflow & fittings

    Could someone explain to me how the fittings are attached to the
nylaflow tubing?  I got my hardware in for chapter 9 and was playing
around with the 262P-03 unions and the tubing.  I guess I was just
checking the fit.  Anyway, the nylaflow tubing seems extremely loose
inside the fitting.  So I say to myself, maybe the brass inserts will
increase the fit.  I installed the inserts and the fit is still very
loose.  I can pull the tubing from the fitting with ease.  In fact, it
doesn't suprise me that the tubing doesn't just fall out.  
    I'm I missing something?  I haven't worked with this stuff before but
this doesn't seem quite right to me, especially for a brake line.  Maybe I
need to go to tubing school.  Any light shed on the matter would be
extremely appreciated.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Rob (I'm not an engineer but I play one a work) Atencio
Cozy Mk IV #496 chpt 9
New Bern, NC
ratencio@coastalnet.com


 
 
From: Marc J. Zeitlin <marcz@hpwarhw.an.hp.com>
Subject: COZY: Nylaflow & fittings (fwd)
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 97 23:26:59 EDT

Rob Atencio writes:

>    Could someone explain to me how the fittings are attached to the
>nylaflow tubing?...
>....  I can pull the tubing from the fitting with ease.  In fact, it
>doesn't suprise me that the tubing doesn't just fall out.  
>    I'm I missing something? .... 

I assume you haven't actually tightened one of these fittings down with
a wrench yet.  When you do that, you plastically deform the little
insert so that it's diameter decreases and squeezes the plastic tube.
At that point, you can't pull it out at all, and you won't be able to
get the insert off the tubing even if you take it apart.  Until you
plastically deform the insert, you are right, it gives the unnerving
impression of being completely useless :-).  I had the same impression
the first time I saw these things, and was amazed what happened when I
turned the wrench that extra teeny bit.  As soon as the insert squished
at all, bang, no tube motion.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin                              Email: marcz@an.hp.com

 
 
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 08:19:50 -0400
From: Rob Atencio <ratencio@coastalnet.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Nylaflow & fittings (fwd)

>

Thanks to Rego, Bill and Marc.  I think I understand how those little
buggers work now.  I knew they had to work, I just didn't know how.
This is my understanding of how they work.  Please correct me if I'm
wrong.

   * The brass insert is inserted into the end of the nylaflow tubing.
   * The threaded cap from the fitting is slid over the end of the
     tubing.
   * The cap is tightened on the fitting, which crimps an insert that is
     integral to the cap.  This integral insert is crimped around the
     tubing, making the cap and tubing a single item.

I assume I can remove and install this cap from the fitting numerous
times, but if I want to replace the tubing, I have to replace the
fitting as well.  Does all this seem correct?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rob Atencio                          mailto:ratencio@coastalnet.com
 New Bern, NC                      Cozy MkIV #496 - Chpt 9



 
 
From: Marc J. Zeitlin <marcz@hpwarhw.an.hp.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Nylaflow & fittings (fwd)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 97 13:59:50 EDT

Rob Atencio writes wrt nylaflow fittings:

>   * The brass insert is inserted into the end of the nylaflow tubing.

I think (if we're talking about the same thing) that the insert is
placed _over_ the tubing, however:

>   * The threaded cap from the fitting is slid over the end of the
>     tubing.

I think you need to feed the tubing through the cap first, as the insert
will have to go inside it.  Cap, then insert, then put the tube into the
fitting, then:

>   * The cap is tightened on the fitting, which crimps an insert that is
>     integral to the cap.  This integral insert is crimped around the
>     tubing, making the cap and tubing a single item.

Again, depending on the fitting, I think that the _insert_ is what gets
crimped - I believe the _cap_ is reuseable and not deformed.  There may
be other versions that act as you describe, but I don't think I've seen
one.

>I assume I can remove and install this cap from the fitting numerous
>times, but if I want to replace the tubing, I have to replace the
>fitting as well.  Does all this seem correct?

You need to replace the _insert_ if it won't seal, or to put in new
tubing. The fitting itself can be used many times.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin                              Email: marcz@an.hp.com

 
 
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 15:34:19 -0400
From: Rob Atencio <ratencio@coastalnet.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Nylaflow & fittings (fwd)

Marc J. Zeitlin wrote:

> I think (if we're talking about the same thing) that the insert is
> placed _over_ the tubing, however:
>

I guess in my description I am talking about two separate 'inserts'. The
first insert I am refering to is placed 'into' the tube.  It's like a
little hatted sleeve.  I believe the plans call it out for additional
stiffness of the tubing in the fitting area.  It is a separate part from
the fitting, something like p/n 2040-3.  The second insert is part of
the cap and this is the one that gets crimped by the tightening of the
cap.

> I think you need to feed the tubing through the cap first, as the
> insert
> will have to go inside it.  Cap, then insert, then put the tube into
> the
> fitting,

You're right, I should have said 'through' the cap, however, the fit is
loose enough that the first insert can be inside the tubing prior to
inserting thru the cap.

> Again, depending on the fitting, I think that the _insert_ is what
> gets
> crimped - I believe the _cap_ is reuseable and not deformed.

Here I'm refering the the 'second' insert that gets crimped.  This
insert is part of the cap and the tubing get inserted 'thru' it.  When
the cap is tightened, this second insert 'squeezes' around the tubing,
essentially locking itself to the exterior of the tubing, thus the need
for the first insert 'inside' the tubing, to stiffen  the tubing for
this crimping action.*

> You need to replace the _insert_ if it won't seal, or to put in new
> tubing.

Here's where you lost me.  I understand the new tubing part but what
'insert' can be replaced?  I assume you're refering to the one that goes
'into' the tubing. On the fittings I have (262P?), the insert in the
cap  is free to rotate but will not come out of the cap prior to the cap
being tightened down and gets deformed when the cap is tightened.   I
got the impression the caps were a 'one shot' deal.  Granted, the
fitting itself can be used many times, but if you need to replace the
tubing, the cap must go 'out' with that replace tubing, thus requiring a
whole new fitting assembly (fitting & cap)

*I'm only stating how I think the whole thing works, and am by no means
suggesting this is in 'fact' the way they work.

Actually, Marc, I think we're saying the same thing, but I'm just not
describing it well.  Have we about beat the 'mechanics of fittings' to
the ground?  Maybe it will help someone down the road as it has me.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rob Atencio                          mailto:ratencio@coastalnet.com
 New Bern, NC                     Cozy MkIV #496 - Chpt 9



 
 
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 09:55:55 -0400
From: bil kleb <kleb@ab00.larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Subject: COZY: chap 9, step 2, page 2

"preparing the strut for installation"

i received the landing gear strut with the first 4-ply
torsional layup of uni already completed.

reading through step 2, it seemed that i need to cut 
ANOTHER 13 strips (revised from 16 by #34p4) to do the
second 4-ply torsional layup of uni.  i completed the layup
with over half of the 13 strips remaining. 

did i layup using the wrong orientation, or do you end-up
using a TOTAL of 13 strips for BOTH 4-ply layups?
according to marc z's log, it sounds like i just cut
read wrong and cut too many strips...

if i didn't do it wrong, would anyone like 7 or so
strips of 11" wide uni cut 30 deg to the selvage edge?
i'll mail them free of charge.

-- 
bil <mailto:w.l.kleb@larc.nasa.gov>

 
 
From: Marc J. Zeitlin <marcz@hpwarhw.an.hp.com>
Subject: COZY: chap 9, step 2, page 2 (fwd)
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 97 10:11:50 EDT

bil kleb wrote;

>did i layup using the wrong orientation, or do you end-up
>using a TOTAL of 13 strips for BOTH 4-ply layups?
>according to marc z's log, it sounds like i just cut
>read wrong and cut too many strips...

Boy, it's been a long time since I did this, but here's what my logbook
says:

     Cut 8 pcs. 16" wide @ 30 degrees (UNI) for L.G. torsional layup (#2
     - AeroCad does #1) 

I think you did it right - you should have only needed 6 or 7 pieces.  I
don't have the manual in front of me here, but this sure gives the
impression that the 13/16 strips was for BOTH torsional layups.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin                              Email: marcz@an.hp.com

 
 
 by InfoAve.Net (PMDF V5.1-7 #17060)
 with SMTP id <01IKPX1M6B449EZT61@InfoAve.Net> for
 cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 10:44:39 EST
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 10:39:31 -0400
From: Jeff S Russell <JRAEROCAD@yadtel.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: chap 9, step 2, page 2
Organization: AEROCAD INC.

bil kleb wrote:
 
> i received the landing gear strut with the first 4-ply
> torsional layup of uni already completed.
> 
> reading through step 2, it seemed that i need to cut
> ANOTHER 13 strips (revised from 16 by #34p4) to do the
> second 4-ply torsional layup of uni.  i completed the layup
> with over half of the 13 strips remaining.

It takes us 8 strips cut at 11 to 13" wide at 60 degrees to cover
the landing gear with 4 plys (first raps) It will give large pieces
of scrap drops that could be used if you don't mine using small
pieces.  So both raps will take a total of 16. 

-- 
Jeff Russell/AeroCad Inc.                    E-mail:   Jeff@aerocad.com
    
                Phone/ fax (call first):   910-961-2238

                AeroCad:    http://www.aerocad.com
Composite workshop info:    http://www.Sportair.com

 
 
From: Lee Devlin <ldevlin@hpgrla.gr.hp.com>
Subject: COZY: Brake lines/Swagelok fittings
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 23:12:54 MDT

I recently posted the following question to the canard aviators list
and got some interesting replies:
 
> I bought a LongEZ last year and was in the process of making some
> improvements in the wheel/brake area.  Specifically, I am moving the
> calipers so that they are mounted on the front of the strut per plans
> (they had been installed hanging from the bottom) and I'm adding the
> aluminum heat shields.  I've noticed that one of the nylaflow tubes has
> had some heat damage and wanted to change it, but it appears to be
> fiberglassed into the strut.  I'm buildng a Cozy and there are soda
> straws used to form a 'tunnel' so this line is easy to change so I
> was a little disappointed to find the LongEZ different.  Sure enough,
> that's what the plans had called for back in 1980.
> 
> My question is:  How is this line supposed to be changed on a LongEZ?
> Is necessary to saw this layup apart and repair it to replace the tube
> or is there an easier way that hasn't occurred to me?  Maybe there's
> an easy way to slice into it and repair it?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Lee Devlin

Several of the replies suggested something that was used succesfully and
written up in Central States newsletter, namely using a 1/8" aluminum
line and slipping it through the 3/32" nylaflow which would then act
like the tunnel.  I remember a heated discussion that took place in this
forum a while ago (forgive me, but I can't currenly access the archives)
regarding the use of a metal (stainless?)  line for this purpose.  From
an engineering standpoint, I really can't see the problem with using a
1/8" aluminum line as there is really very little deflection of the line
so work hardening and fatigue shouldn't be a concern.  As I recall, my
Colt had solid metal lines used for this purpose and they were fine
after 35 years.  The gear legs on a Colt pivot and use shock cords so
the relative flexing is probably a little worse than an EZ.

Anyway the original poster had to assure those who went a crazy that he
intended to use stainless braided lines with teflon liners before it was
acceptable.  It's hard to believe how many planes are getting away with
using the original Nylaflow.  One of mine was nearly melted through even
though it had been wrapped with fiberfrax and aluminum tape;, a problem
I can't forsee happening with aluminum tubing.  Rutan suggests replacing
the nylaflow annually.  I think that the aluminum could be replaced
periodically to avoid any long term fatigue cracking that might occur.

If I do decide to use aluminum tubing, I also wanted to use Swagelok
fittings.  I spent quite a few years in the gas chromatograpy business
where we used these fittings extensively and an easier-to-use or more
reliable fitting you cannot find.  I know J.D.  posts on the merits of
Swagelok fittings occasionally.  Does anyone know of a good source for
them?  (There was a time that I had drawers full of them and didn't
recognize their potential as they are illegal to use on a certified
plane (sigh...)).  They don't appear in Wicks or AC Spruce catalogs.

Thanks,

Lee Devlin

 
 
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 08:37:39 -0400
From: Phillip.Johnson@lmco.com (Phillip Johnson)
Subject: Re:COZY: Brake lines/Swagelok fittings

     Lee Devlin was writing about the merits of swagelok fittings and I 
     have to agree with him. I am using them on my hydraulic system for my 
     retracts (nose and mains) and my landing brake. They will also be used 
     on my fuel system. The significant difference between AN fillings and 
     Swagelok is the use of an olive to achieve the compression joint. The 
     tube is not fatigued and no flaring tool is required. I have also 
     found them to be less expensive than AN fittings. Initially they look 
     more expensive but they come complete unlike the AN fittings where you 
     have to buy each element separately. Most large cities carry suppliers 
     even up here in Canada. If anyone is stuck I'll get the address from 
     home and post it they will then give you the local supplier.
     
     Note: Most suppliers do not keep the Aluminium fittings in stock. It 
     takes two or three days to get them in for you.
     
     Phillip Johnson

 
 
From: Lee810@aol.com
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 02:09:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [canard-aviators] Brake line question (thanks!)
Subject: [canard-aviators]

[The Canard Aviators's Mailing list]
Thanks to all those who replied to my brake line question.  The answers I got
went from the minimal amount of effort (1 hr.) to major fixes (~30 hrs.) to
summarize, here's what has been recommended:

1.  Splice a new section of nylaflow in place at the damaged area. ( I have
done this as an interim fix.)  I didn't think this was going to be possible
as the exposed nylaflow was covered with a rubber-like glue that had been
used to hold the fiberfrax in place.  However, with some careful scraping, I
was able to expose the nylaflow line under it without damaging it.

2.  Slip a 1/8" aluminum line through the existing 3/16" nylaflow and change
the fittings to flare-type fittings.   This has a lot of appeal to me
although some people on the Cozy mailing list warn of the possibility of
fatigue cracking of the aluminum if it flexes too much. This seems unlikely
to me.  I would also prefer to use Swagelok fittings as making flares in
tight spaces would be a challenge.  My master cylinders are on the firewall.
 

3.  Use 1/8" nylaflow inside the existing 3/16" nylaflow and change the
fittings.  This would be simple, however, there is a little brass sleeve
insert available for the 3/16" nylaflow to give it rigidity and prevent
crushing the tube when tightening the fittings that doesn't appear to be
available for the 1/8" nylaflow.  I suppose I could make up something custom.

4.  Splice a section of $Stratoflex$ (teflon tubing in stainless braid)  line
onto the nylaflow where it exits the strut.  My friend did this and raves
about it although he's had to replace one of the lines when it began weeping
through the braid so it's not as permanent as some people will have you
believe.  I am not aware of a fitting that allows one to mate the premade
Stratoflex to  the nylaflow.  My friend had his custom machined.  This type
of line was recommended in CP51 page 5.

5.  Cut out all of the nylaflow, grind off the glass, and install a new
bigger tube to use as a tunnel for new nylaflow tubing.   Reglass and finish.
  My gear cannot be removed without having to tear into the belly layup so
I'd have to do it in place.  (The Cozy has a door that allows you to remove
the landing gear.)  This is the most thorough solution, although also the
most labor intensive.  

Thanks to all who responded.  I was very impressed with the number of
thoughtful answers.

Lee Devlin
LongEZ 36MX

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To remove yourself from this list, send email to: majordomo@canard.com
and put the following as the very first thing in your message body:

unsubscribe  canard-aviators  you@youremail.com

If you have problems, please email support@canard.com
For more information visit: http://www.canard.com

 
 
From: AlWick@aol.com
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 14:31:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: COZY: Drag reduction

Happened across a guy with VE who has won the "jackpot" race. Obviously knows
a lot about drag reduction opportunities. He just rattled off one thing after
another, and related how many added mph he gained by change. I assume these
improvements apply to the Cozy. Thought I'd pass it along for those
interested.
As I recall one of the most significant was modifying the shape of the main
gear. Represented 6mph top speed gain. He removed mat'l from bottom trailing
edge to make it closer to airfoil shape, and areas are now true airfoils. 
He uses Klauses wheel pants, spinner. Wood  2 blade prop from "Performance
props" in Oregon. Prop apparently does not have constant pitch. He has tried
about a dozen props, including one of those with special tips (better cruise,
but lost 4mph top speed). Uses 6" prop extension which sign affects prop
vibration, noise, but also elevated engine temps.
Placing dabs of oil on surface is his best tool for improving air flow. Now
in process of  modifying rudder shape on outside to improve their
performance. Has already modified rudder incidence to improve appx 3mph.
He's going after the engine cover shape next. Planning on changing trailing
edge incidence as I recall, and removing unnecessary bulges.
FWIW
-al wick


 
 
From: AlWick@aol.com
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 14:43:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: Drag reduction

In a message dated 97-08-06 18:36:41 EDT, you write:

<< Could you expand on the main struts for us, I didn't quite understand the
mod?:) >>
I don't know all the details, but this is what I was able to gleen from
conversation with the guy.
Main gear have two problems.
 1) Part of the gear "airfoil" is set at the wrong incidence. You could
probably verify this statement by taking one of those radio control
"incidence meters" and popping it onto your main gear. I have one. It
includes a level and angle finder, locates on the center of leading and
trailing edge and tells you the angle. The guy changed the incidence by
sanding on bottom of trailing edge. Don't know what else he did to affect
incidence.
2) He was able to mod the main gear to the shape of a true airfoil. From his
gestures, it appeared he was only able to do that to the outer portion of
gear.

That's all I know, would be interesting to hear from someone who knows more
about this.
Guess I could try my incidence meter on my gear to see how far off it is.
-al wick


 
 
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 15:15:55 -0400
From: bil kleb <kleb@ab00.larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Subject: Re: COZY: Drag reduction

AlWick@aol.com wrote:
> 
> That's all I know, would be interesting to hear from someone
> who knows more about this.

it is in the '97 chap 9 archives and also it appears in a
couple places in the central states newsletters (i'll try
and look up the issues tonight).  also, i think vance atkinson
is supposed to write this up for the newsletter sometime soon.
if not, we could ask him to...

mailto:majordomo@hpwarhw.an.hp.com with

  get cozy_builders topics/chap_09.txt
  end

in the body of the message should get it to you.

-- 
bil <mailto:w.l.kleb@larc.nasa.gov>

 
 
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 15:30:54 -0500
From: tpierce@ghg.net (Terence J. Pierce)
Subject: Re: COZY: Drag reduction

AlWick@aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 97-08-06 18:36:41 EDT, you write:
> 
> << Could you expand on the main struts for us, I didn't quite understand the
> mod?:) >>

I saw Sid Llyods incomplete Cozy before he sold it.  He was doing
something extra to the landing gear to reduce the drag.  He said
something like,  "while in level flight the landing gear would cause
flow seperation."  He was adding material to the top side of the gear. 
I don't know if he is still on this group but here is his e-mail
address: mailto:sidl@insync.net


-- 
Terry Pierce                     mailto:tpierce@ghg.net
Cozy Mark IV #600

 
 
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 00:02:41 GMT
From: william l kleb <kleb@ab00.larc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: COZY: Drag reduction

Bil Kleb wrote:
> it is in the '97 chap 9 archives and also it appears in a
> couple places in the central states newsletters (i'll try
> and look up the issues tonight). 

terry schubert seems to have written the original article
about the gear leg fairing mod in csa oct '91.  he mentions
c denk did his while still building and it went much easier
than after you have the bird on its legs. no mention is given
as to who thought of this mod.

next, in csa jul '94, c airesman (apparently a fellow boardhead)
lists the gear mod as #10 of his 23 (!) speed mods.  he suggests
using a naca 0024 airfoil section for the gear leg fairing.

in csa jan '95 k savier attributes the gear mod to c airesman
but suggests using a wortmann airfoil for which terry schubert
has the coordinates.  the particular airfoil (i am not saying
what it is on purpose so as not to step on anyone's toes) doesn't
appear to be on the u of illinois airfoil site:

  http://amber.aae.uiuc.edu/~m-selig/ads.html

at b wainfan's oshkosh '97 lecture he showed^{1} that properly
faired gear legs^{2} make a much bigger difference on total
landing gear drag than fairing the wheels (i.e., bothering
with wheel pants)!

 ^{1} supported by data from hoerner's famous drag book
      among other sources.

 ^{2} no significant separated flow.  thus, you basically need a
      shape that has a blunt leading edge and a _sharp_ trailing
      edge while maintaining a moderately low thickness-to-chord
      ratio, e.g., an airfoil near zero angle of attack.

      to be super picky you'd even try a laminar flow airfoil that
      has a wide drag bucket (defined here to mean a large angle-
      of-attack range with moderately low drag), thus the wortmann
      airfoil that k savier chose.

---
bil <mailto:w.l.kleb@larc.nasa.gov>

 
 
From: MISTER@neesnet.com
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 97 07:54:56 EST
Subject: Re[2]: COZY: Drag reduction

     
         Bill kleb wrote: "at b wainfan's oshkosh '97 lecture he 
         showed^{1} that properly faired gear legs^{2} make a much 
         bigger difference on total landing gear drag than fairing the 
         wheels (i.e., bothering with wheel pants)!"
         
         
         
         A little clarification is in order here.
         
         I believe Wainfan was comparing drag of rectangular or tubular 
         gear legs ala Cessna versus wheel pants.
         
         While not optimal, I would think the airfoil shape of our COZY 
         gear legs aren't that bad and therefore wheel pants will 
         provide more drag reduction than gear leg mods.
         
         
         Bob Misterka N342RM



 
 
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 09:07:34 -0400
From: bil kleb <kleb@ab00.larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Subject: Re: COZY: Drag reduction

MISTER@neesnet.com wrote:
>
> A little clarification is in order here.

agreed.

> I believe Wainfan was comparing drag of rectangular or tubular
> gear legs ala Cessna versus wheel pants.

my belief too.

> While not optimal, I would think the airfoil shape of our COZY
> gear legs aren't that bad...

worth a study.  anyone done or seen oilflows on the stock gear
legs?  the high thickness-to-chord ratio, coupled with a non-zero
angle of incidence, might be enough to cause a large separation
region just as with rectangular or cylindrical gear legs.

-- 
bil <mailto:w.l.kleb@larc.nasa.gov>

 
 
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 07:41:23 -0400
From: bil kleb <kleb@ab00.larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Subject: COZY: chap 9: brakes

after plowing through the archives for a while, exchanging some
email, and spending some time on the phone, it seems as though
i have a choice to make:

  o cleveland 'super' heavy-duty brakes
  o matco triple puck brakes

from what i gather the issues/rumors are:

 - runout of matco disks not good
 - "on-the-road" replacement parts availability
   questionable for matcos
 - matcos have more stopping power
 - matcos are not as wide as the clevelands
 - matcos disks smaller than rim, eliminating
   wheel fires

anyone care to expand the already large archive of information
and comment on the parts issue and component quality?

as it is now, i am leaning toward the matcos...

-- 
bil <mailto:w.l.kleb@larc.nasa.gov>

 
 
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 08:58:53 -0400
From: Phillip.Johnson@lmco.com (Phillip Johnson)
Subject: COZY: chap 9: brakes

     bil kleb writes:
     
     >  -runout of matco disks not good
     
     This was based on Nat's assesment of his experience 20 years ago when 
     Matco were Rosenham. All the premium kit suppliers now use Matco's; 
     Velocity, lancair, etc.
     
     >  - matco's have more stopping power
     
     This is significant if you want to guarantee stopping at max. landing 
     weight in zero wind conditions, or at high field elevation. Nat has 
     his head in the sand with respect to this one.
     
     >  - matco's are not as wide as the Cleveland's
     
     This is significant since your wheel pants will be narrower thereby 
     reducing drag.
     
     >  - matco's disks smaller than rim, eliminating wheel fires
     
     I'm not sure why this reduces wheel fires. The smaller diameter disk 
     means that damage to the disk will not occur if you get a flat tire.
     The wheel fire issue results from the more massive disk (relative to 
     the Cleveland design) resulting in a reduced operating temperature.
     
     Most of the above discussion is in the archives. I suggest newer 
     members of the group look at these archives before purchasing their 
     recommended Cleveland brakes.
     
     Phillip Johnson

 
 
From: Marc J. Zeitlin <marcz@hpwarhw.an.hp.com>
Subject: COZY: chap 9: brakes (fwd)
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 97 9:34:51 EDT

Phillip Johnson writes:

>     Most of the above discussion is in the archives. I suggest newer 
>     members of the group look at these archives before purchasing their 
>     recommended Cleveland brakes.

I will concur with Phillip's _TECHNICAL_ evaluation :-).  I had Rosenhan
brakes on my Q2 (I think), and they were crap.  I have MATCO's for the
COZY, and they look particularly well made - both the brakes themselves
and the cylinders as well.  I have not measured the runout, but I did not
notice any while playing with them during installation.  As Phillip says,
and bil kleb alludes to, the archives are stuffed with a veritable
cornucopia of missives regarding the brake issue :-).

--
Marc J. Zeitlin                              Email: marcz@an.hp.com

 
 
 by InfoAve.Net (PMDF V5.1-8 #23426)
 with SMTP id <01IMP51OUWQ091B4LH@InfoAve.Net> for
 cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com; Thu, 21 Aug 1997 10:20:02 EDT
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 10:12:50 -0400
From: Jeff S Russell <JRAEROCAD@yadtel.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: chap 9: brakes
Organization: AEROCAD INC.

Phillip Johnson wrote:
> 
>      bil kleb writes:
> 
>      >  -runout of matco disks not good
> 
>      This was based on Nat's assesment of his experience 20 years ago when
>      Matco were Rosenham. All the premium kit suppliers now use Matco's;
>      Velocity, lancair, etc.

I sold my 3 place cozy and the new owner had the airplane converted to 
a 180 hp engine and larger wheels and brakes.  These wheels came from
Velocity and were 600-6 matco 3 puck.  Steve Russell installed them
and could NEVER get them to run true.  When setting the brakes after
getting them hot the rotors were no longer very true.  Velocity was
asked if they had any of this problem and the answer was matco's price
was to cheep to pass up and they DID have this type problem in the past.
The new owner on his 2nd landing with this brake setup landed at his
airport and had the brakes lock and the nose gear striped on landing
making a nose up skid to a stop in front of the FAA office.  He then
demanded from Steve a new set of brakes.   Steve traded his Cleveland
600-6 2 puck for the matco's to fix the problem.

I have also hac problems with cleveland's crome rotors but they GAVE me 3
sets trying to get a perfect set.  I found a (out of round) wheel instead.
Again they fixed for free!

Steve's and my view on matco's quality for longevity is not good.
my 2 cents on this!

-- 
Jeff

 
 
From: "Richard W. Roberts" <kingkozy@pacbell.net>
Subject: RE: COZY: chap 9: brakes
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 11:33:24 -0700

It appears that there is a runout problem with some Matco brakes.  A guy =
at the EZ squadron meeting here in San Diego was complaining about the =
runout on his Matco disks he got for his Velocity.  Personally, I =
checked mine when I put them on and they were perfect. (+/- a couple =
thousandths).  I'd still go with the Matco's and check them for runout =
and make them replace them until they got it right.  The rest of the EZ =
Squadron members complained about some Cleveland HD's that they got as a =
group buy. It took between 2 and 5 change out's with Cleveland to get =
them right.

Rick Roberts

-----Original Message-----
From:	Jeff S Russell [SMTP:JRAEROCAD@yadtel.net]
Sent:	Thursday, August 21, 1997 7:13 AM
To:	cozybuilders
Subject:	Re: COZY: chap 9: brakes

Phillip Johnson wrote:
>=20
>      bil kleb writes:
>=20
>      >  -runout of matco disks not good
>=20
>      This was based on Nat's assesment of his experience 20 years ago =
when
>      Matco were Rosenham. All the premium kit suppliers now use =
Matco's;
>      Velocity, lancair, etc.

I sold my 3 place cozy and the new owner had the airplane converted to=20
a 180 hp engine and larger wheels and brakes.  These wheels came from
Velocity and were 600-6 matco 3 puck.  Steve Russell installed them
and could NEVER get them to run true.  When setting the brakes after
getting them hot the rotors were no longer very true.  Velocity was
asked if they had any of this problem and the answer was matco's price
was to cheep to pass up and they DID have this type problem in the past.
The new owner on his 2nd landing with this brake setup landed at his
airport and had the brakes lock and the nose gear striped on landing
making a nose up skid to a stop in front of the FAA office.  He then
demanded from Steve a new set of brakes.   Steve traded his Cleveland
600-6 2 puck for the matco's to fix the problem.

I have also hac problems with cleveland's crome rotors but they GAVE me =
3
sets trying to get a perfect set.  I found a (out of round) wheel =
instead.
Again they fixed for free!

Steve's and my view on matco's quality for longevity is not good.
my 2 cents on this!

--=20
Jeff


 
 
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 16:31:39 -0400
From: bil kleb <kleb@ab00.larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Subject: COZY: chap 9: wheels

ok, since i've stirred up things with the brake question,
i thought i'd also ask about tire size:

  o 500x5      (plans-specified, ~14" diameter)
  o 1500-600x6 (low profile, ~1" larger diameter)
  o 600x6      (~3" larger diameter)

from the archives, phone calls, and private email it
sounds like most are sticking to the 500x5s, but some
have the low profile 600s and some have even gone
with the regular 600s.  here's a summary of what
i've amassed so far:

  - drag increase due to increased flat plate area,
    compounded by trim drag increase due to moment
    arm of increased drag
  - weight increase, compounded by less useful load
    and induced drag increase due to increased lift required
  - price increase
  o the nose wheel size seems to be the weak link
    for taxing on muddy/rough surfaces, not the mains
  + rolling resistence decreases with larger sidewalls(?)
  + 500x5s are only rated(?) for around ~1500 lbs/tire, what
    if i land hard on one main near gross?
  + what if i can't make it to a 5000' hard surface runway
    w/o the retract option?
  ? slower/lighter production planes have regular 600x6s

btw: people do seem to be aware of the different mounting
     height required if they go with larger mains.

-- 
bil <mailto:w.l.kleb@larc.nasa.gov>

 
 
From: Lee Devlin <ldevlin@hpgrla.gr.hp.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: chap 9: brakes
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 97 14:38:19 MDT


Jeff wrote:

> and could NEVER get them to run true.  When setting the brakes after
> getting them hot the rotors were no longer very true.  Velocity was
> asked if they had any of this problem and the answer was matco's price
> was to cheep to pass up and they DID have this type problem in the past.
> The new owner on his 2nd landing with this brake setup landed at his
> airport and had the brakes lock and the nose gear striped on landing
> making a nose up skid to a stop in front of the FAA office.  He then
> demanded from Steve a new set of brakes.   Steve traded his Cleveland
> 600-6 2 puck for the matco's to fix the problem.

Clevelands brakes have disk connected at the center of the wheel
whereas the Matcos appear to have the outside of disk attached to the rim of
the wheel.  The gives the disk no room to expand when hot which could
allow the thermal stresses to plastically deform (i.e. warp) the disk
or rim.  Perhaps that what Steve experienced.  Also, the more piston
area you have, the more force you can put on the disk and the hotter you
can make it in a shorter amount of time so having extra pucks can be two
edge sword.  The Matcos also have different cooling loads on each face
of the disk which will produce non-symmetrical temperature gradients on
the disk which could also contribute to warping.

However, we should remember that a lot of people who have the Matco's
are quite thrilled with them so obviously not everyone is experiencing
this problem.

Lee Devlin

 
 
From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 20:29:58 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: chap 9: brakes (fwd)

On 08/21/97 9:34:51 you wrote:
>
>Phillip Johnson writes:
>
>>     Most of the above discussion is in the archives. I suggest newer 
>>     members of the group look at these archives before purchasing their 
>>     recommended Cleveland brakes.
>
>I will concur with Phillip's _TECHNICAL_ evaluation :-).  I had Rosenhan
>brakes on my Q2 (I think), and they were crap.  I have MATCO's for the
>COZY, and they look particularly well made - both the brakes themselves
>and the cylinders as well.  I have not measured the runout, but I did not
>notice any while playing with them during installation.  As Phillip says,
>and bil kleb alludes to, the archives are stuffed with a veritable
>cornucopia of missives regarding the brake issue :-).
>
>--
>Marc J. Zeitlin                              Email: marcz@an.hp.com
>
>

A good reason to select standard aircraft equipment is that while traveling, if you have a 
problem, there is a good chance that you can find parts and or knowledgeable service at the 
airport, and its likely that at the same time you are in a hurry chasing weather or something.


 
 
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 08:26:46 -0400
From: Phillip.Johnson@lmco.com (Phillip Johnson)
Subject: Re: COZY: chap 9: wheels

     Bil Kleb Writes:
     
     >   the nose wheel size seems to be the weak link for taxing on        
         muddy/rough surfaces, not the mains.
     
     I used an 11 inch nose wheel from a Velocity for my MKIV. The tire 
     contact area is significantly greater, mainly because the tread area 
     is wider. I had to make my own fork assembly though.
     
     Phillip Johnson

 
 
From: Epplin John A <EpplinJohnA@JDCORP.deere.com>
Subject: COZY: Chap 9: brake energy
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 08:10:35 -0500

Trying to remember a little math etc and work from some reasonable
numbers.  I used the 192000 ft-lb figure for the Cleveland CWB199-152
kit and operating weight of 2000 pounds to calculate the speed needed to
equal twice that energy.  (2 wheel-brake assemblies)  It comes out 75
MPH is all these brakes are up to.  That probably is OK as I did not
make any allowance for aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance etc.  

Now the real question I have concerns the worst case condition,  an
aborted takeoff after the brakes have been heated by a crosswind taxi
all over a big airport.  I have been told by more than one EZ pilot the
real problem is not landing but taxiing in crosswind conditions.  Does
someone with experience using these or similar capacity brakes care to
pass on real world experience here?  I have the above kit and am
planning on using it as the airport that I will be operating from has a
lot of concrete.  At least I will be able to gain some real world
experience without depending on the last foot-pound of brake.  If this
turns out to be marginal, someone may get a real deal on a slightly used
brake kit.

John Epplin  Mk4 #467

 
 
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 09:37:16 -0400
From: Phillip.Johnson@lmco.com (Phillip Johnson)
Subject: Re: COZY: chap 9: brakes

     Anomous (cdenk@ix.netcom.com please sign your mail)
     Wrote:     
     
     >  What do you base Matco increased stopping power on?
     
     Matco provide a stopping energy spec and so do Cleveland. Matco is 
     almost double the Cleveland spec.
     
     >  I can lock-up my Clevelands at 1900 lb. weight.
     What about 1950 lbs in a zero head wind, or at density altitude above 
     MSL? 
     
     >  I don't think I can ask for more. 
     
     The ability to lock the brakes is not the issue. Even a low energy 
     brake will lock when overloaded, but a locked brake is not in control. 
     The lower energy brake may have the same braking force capability 
     thereby allowing a lock up to occur but the disk temperature rises 
     more rapidly until fade occurs. The Cozy directional control is 
     through differential braking so any loss in braking efficiency results 
     in a loss in directional control during the latter stages of the roll 
     out. Cleveland typically give a 30% safety margin on their landing 
     energy spec to allow for manufacturing variability and wear. Consider 
     now that your 1900lb aeroplane is landing in zero wind (you did not 
     say the wind velocity) and you are at a density altitude above MSL. 
     You are now into Clevelands safety margin. Now consider you have a 
     small cross wind, the breaking effort is not evenly distributed, the 
     upwind brake is working at over 50% of the total capacity so this one 
     fades first. The aircraft veers towards the down wind condition of the 
     crosswind. You press harder on the upwind brake compounding the 
     problem. Suddenly the aircraft becomes uncontrollable.
     
     Brake fade is a real problem. Most of us don't encounter it because 
     generally most or all of the factors do not stack up against you at 
     the same time,
     
     1) No Headwind
     2) Possible crosswind
     3) Maximum Landing weight
     4) Density altitude above MSL 
     5) Brake assembly close to the design spec i.e. little margin.
     
     then one day some years down stream the gods are against you and you 
     end up with a wrecked aeroplane.
     
     Consider also an aborted take off at max weight. Clevelands are way 
     out of spec but the Matco's are not.
     
     
     For information: Three years ago, at OSHKOSH, I asked Cleveland if the 
     500x5 wheels and brakes should be used on the Cozy MKIV with a landing 
     weight of 1950lbs, they said NO.
     
     Although we are not bound by the FAR's, they do give good guidance. 
     The Cleveland brakes do not meet the minimum requirements of the 
     FAR's. 
     
     Phillip Johnson
     
     PS please read the archieves there is considerable information there.

 
 
From: Lee Devlin <ldevlin@hpgrla.gr.hp.com>
Subject: COZY: Brakes w/ crosswind
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 97 9:46:31 MDT

John wrote:

> I have been told by more than one EZ pilot the
> real problem is not landing but taxiing in crosswind conditions.  Does
> someone with experience using these or similar capacity brakes care to
> pass on real world experience here? 

Until you experience it, you will not believe how much these planes
weathervane in a crosswind.  It extends the takeoff roll since you need
the brake for directional control until the rudder becomes effective.
The stronger the crosswind, the more you have to ride one brake and the
longer it takes to accelerate and for the rudder to become effective.
It is a self-feeding cycle.

A trick I learned, and this works for taxiing too, is to stab the brake
and set the plane rolling away from the crosswind.  It will correct by
automatically turning into the crosswind itself.  If you do this
periodically, you won't need to ride the brake as much and will reduce
your chances of overheating it.  The worst thing for overheating brakes
during a crosswind is to try to maintain a constant tracking on a
centerline by continuously applying a brake.

Lee Devlin
LongEZ 36MX
Cozy MKIV (Chapter 11)

 
 
From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 16:06:06 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: Brakes w/ crosswind

On 08/22/97 9:46:31 you wrote:
>
>John wrote:
>
>> I have been told by more than one EZ pilot the
>> real problem is not landing but taxiing in crosswind conditions.  Does
>> someone with experience using these or similar capacity brakes care to
>> pass on real world experience here? 
>
>Until you experience it, you will not believe how much these planes
>weathervane in a crosswind.  It extends the takeoff roll since you need
>the brake for directional control until the rudder becomes effective.
>The stronger the crosswind, the more you have to ride one brake and the
>longer it takes to accelerate and for the rudder to become effective.
>It is a self-feeding cycle.
>
>A trick I learned, and this works for taxiing too, is to stab the brake
>and set the plane rolling away from the crosswind.  It will correct by
>automatically turning into the crosswind itself.  If you do this
>periodically, you won't need to ride the brake as much and will reduce
>your chances of overheating it.  The worst thing for overheating brakes
>during a crosswind is to try to maintain a constant tracking on a
>centerline by continuously applying a brake.
>
>Lee Devlin
>LongEZ 36MX
>Cozy MKIV (Chapter 11)
>
>

Also you can start at one edge of the runway at an angle, and describe an arc, reducing the 
amount of turning or braking required.


 
 
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 22:47:25 -0700
From: "LCDR James D. Newman" <INFAero@flash.net>
Organization: INFINITY Aerospace
Subject: COZY: Re:  Brakes

Hi All,

	>>Bill Kleb wrote:<<
	>> -run out of MATCO disks not good<<

	>Phil Johnson wrote:<
	>This was based on Nat's assessment of his experience 20 years ago when
MATCO were Rosenhan.  All the premium kit suppliers now use Matco's;
Velocity, Lancair, etc.<

	Concerning both MATCO Mfg. and brakes, the following is to clarify some
misinformation and historical data:
	In 1987, MATCO attended a Sheriff's Auction, where the Rosenhan tooling
was being auctioned, and bought most everything.  Today, only a few
products of the Rosenhan line remain that MATCO still manufactures -
mostly ultra light products.  All other products manufactured by MATCO
are their own originally designed products. Anyone who had problems with
Rosenhan brakes on their Vari-EZE 15+ years ago and assume MATCO
products are Rosenhan's is misinformed.
	65+% of the Sport Aircraft on the market use MATCO wheels and brakes.


	Concerning run out problems, this is a new on