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 one on me.  But, MATCO will
replace anything that is not right (Cleveland would too).  I have MANY
canards, Glasair III's, and a SX 300 with the MATCO 5.00 x 5, 3 puck
brake system, that work just fine.  The MATCO 2 puck system is what is
recommended by Mike Melvill in the Oct. '92 Canard Pusher.  Since then,
MATCO has added the 3 puck brake system to their product line.


	>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.<

	If you have a specific part damaged on your brakes, Cleveland's or
MATCO's, you'll probably have to order it.  I wouldn't let anyone but me
service / work on my plane - I built it.


Infinity's Forever,

	JD


 
 
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 19:24:33 -0400
From: Neil Clayton <harvey3@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: COZY: Braking capacity - WOW!

Matco's homepage gives the following expression for determining Kinetic
Energy (that's energy due to motion for the non-engineers in the group);

			KE = 0.0443(W.V**2) / 2

        Where:

        KE = Kinetic energy per wheel and brake assembly in foot pounds

        W = Landing weight in pounds

	 V = Aircraft speed in knots

	 N = Number of wheels with brakes

Assuming VERY worst case of everything; I just took off at all-up weight,
say 2200 lbs.
I need to put it down again FAST, so not much finese in the touchdown
speed, say 100kts.
2 wheels doing the braking.

So....KE = 0.0443(2200 x 100**2) / 2

	  = 487,300 ft lbs !!!!

Even with more reasonable (but high) values, 90 Kts, 2000 lbs, it still
comes out to 359,000 ft lbs.

Matco doesn't give brake specs in their home page, but this is a lot of
warm stuff to dissipate. No wonder some folks are melting gear legs!

So what's the heaviest-heavy duty brake available...?

Neil


 
 
From: "mel" <norm.doty@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Braking capacity - WOW!
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 08:53:26 -0400

the heaviest duty brakes that ive found are the matco 600X6 triple puck,
these are what ive decided to use. they exced that amount of stopping
power, and not by a small margin if i remember correctly.
norm & monda
cozy IV #202


----------
> From: Neil Clayton <harvey3@worldnet.att.net>
> To: cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com
> Cc: wheels@xmission.com
> Subject: COZY: Braking capacity - WOW!
> Date: Sunday, August 24, 1997 7:24 PM
> 
> Matco's homepage gives the following expression for determining Kinetic
> Energy (that's energy due to motion for the non-engineers in the group);
> 
> 			KE = 0.0443(W.V**2) / 2
> 
>         Where:
> 
>         KE = Kinetic energy per wheel and brake assembly in foot pounds
> 
>         W = Landing weight in pounds
> 
> 	 V = Aircraft speed in knots
> 
> 	 N = Number of wheels with brakes
> 
> Assuming VERY worst case of everything; I just took off at all-up weight,
> say 2200 lbs.
> I need to put it down again FAST, so not much finese in the touchdown
> speed, say 100kts.
> 2 wheels doing the braking.
> 
> So....KE = 0.0443(2200 x 100**2) / 2
> 
> 	  = 487,300 ft lbs !!!!
> 
> Even with more reasonable (but high) values, 90 Kts, 2000 lbs, it still
> comes out to 359,000 ft lbs.
> 
> Matco doesn't give brake specs in their home page, but this is a lot of
> warm stuff to dissipate. No wonder some folks are melting gear legs!
> 
> So what's the heaviest-heavy duty brake available...?
> 
> Neil

 
 
 by x15.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KCY19879; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 10:23:10 EDT
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 09:24:05 -0500
Subject: Re: COZY: Matco Brakes
From: resiebert@juno.com (Reid E. Siebert)

Hi Fred,

   Matco has a nice assortment of brake and wheel sizes.  It is best to
buy their catalog and spec sheets.  I went to the factory in Salt Lake
City, and met Phil Mattingly (the owner), and all his staff.  It was a
very pleasant and informative visit.  I walked away with a set of 6-inch
wheels, tires, and brakes for my Cozy.  Also bought master cylinders, a
bigger nose wheel, and a parking brake valve.  The wheels and brakes are
mounted, but not tested.  Maybe in a couple of years.  When you want to
buy, call JD at Infinity.  He has the best prices (I paid list).

Good luck,

Reid Siebert


 
 
From: Epplin John A <EpplinJohnA@JDCORP.deere.com>
Subject: COZY: Wheel brakes
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 09:48:46 -0500

Thanks everybody for a lot of info.  I may have learned more than I
wanted to know.  As I stated in the first post I intend to  use the
Cleveland units that I already purchased to start with.  We have a lot
of concrete at the airport here, one 10000 ft runway and the other two
are quite adequate also.  If anyone wants the kit I have for a lighter
and slower airplane, we could talk a deal.  None of the parts have been
installed as of yet.

The nose wheel steering idea had crossed my mind also.  The ideal would
be something that would release such as the tail wheels on some of the
old larger taildraggers.  Then we could have the pivot-on-a-dime
capability for parking etc as well as better handling on the taxi and
takeoff phase etc.  Maybe after I get flying and everything else sorted
out I might try a few crazy ideas.

John epplin   Mk4 #467

 
 
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 09:21:26 -0700
From: Mahan <mahan@digital.net>
Subject: COZY: Matco Brakes

I've been reading a lot recently on the lists about the superior braking 
power of Matcos over Clevelands.  My ACS catalog lists 4 Matco 5" wheel 
sets, the 06-01660 W50S (recommended for Lancair), the 06-01860 W50L 
(recommended for VariEze), the 06-01960 W51S, and the 06-01710.  Are 
there any size or braking differences among these?  Which would be best 
for a Long-EZ and for a Cozy 3?

Fred in Florida
Long-EZ N86LE
Defiant project

 
 
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 13:02:41 -0700
From: "LCDR James D. Newman" <INFAero@flash.net>
Organization: INFINITY Aerospace
Subject: COZY: Re:  Melting Main Gear Legs

Hi Rego and All,

	>Rego wrote:<
	>Melting Gear Legs...?  mmm. How about an auxiliary tube with a valve
to allow water to trickle down the gear....:-)<

	If you use the MATCO 3 Puck brake system, you will not be melting the
fixed main gear.


Infinity's Forever,

	JD



 
 
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 13:16:43 -0700
From: "LCDR James D. Newman" <INFAero@flash.net>
Organization: INFINITY Aerospace
Subject: COZY: Brake Comparisons

Hi Norm and All,

	>the heaviest duty brakes that I've found are the MATCO 600X6 triple
puck, these are what I've decided to use. they exceed that amount of
stopping power, and not by a small margin if I remember correctly.<

	The MATCO 3 puck brake on their 5.00 x 5 system is the same 3 puck
brake used on their 6.00 x 6 system - they both have the same stopping
ability of 337,932 foot pounds each with a 30% Safety Margin.  The
difference is that the 6.00 x 6 has Static Capacity of 1860 lbs. and a
Load Limit of 5580 lbs. each, while the 5.00 x 5 has a Static Capacity
of 1420 lbs. And a Load Limit of 4260 lbs. each.
	The 6.00 x 6 wheel and brake system is way over kill for these little
airplanes, but what ever flips your bic.  Also, as discussed earlier,
the 6.00 x 6 would have more drag, cause more pitching moment, and cost
more.


Infinity's Forever,

	JD



 
 
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 14:45:01 -0700
From: "LCDR James D. Newman" <INFAero@flash.net>
Organization: INFINITY Aerospace
Subject: COZY: MATCO 3 Puck Wheel & Brake System

Hi Fred and All,

	>I've been reading a lot recently on the lists about the superior
braking power of Matcos over Clevelands.  My ACS catalog lists 4 MATCO
5" wheel sets, the 06-01660 W50S (recommended for Lancair), the 06-01860
W50L (recommended for VariEze), the 06-01960 W51S, and the 06-01710. 
Are there any size or braking differences among these?  Which would be
best for a Long-EZ and for a Cozy 3?<

	The W51LT is the MATCO 3 puck, 5.00 x 5 wheel and brake system (337,932
foot pounds of stopping force each) that you need for most all the
canards except the Vari-EZE (overkill), the Defiant and probably the
bigger Velocities (their gross weight is higher).  ACS and Wicks does
not carry the W51LT 3 puck wheel and brake system.


Infinity's Forever,

	JD


 
 
From: "mel" <norm.doty@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Brake Comparisons
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 21:43:09 -0400

ah yes all you said is true but they didnt have the 500X5 triple puck at
the time i needed and purchased the current 600X6. so there i be. big
wheels and tall plane.
happy building
norm & monda
cozy IV #202


----------
> From: LCDR James D. Newman <INFAero@flash.net>
> To: Cozy_Builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com
> Subject: COZY: Brake Comparisons
> Date: Monday, August 25, 1997 4:16 PM
> 
> Hi Norm and All,
> 
> 	>the heaviest duty brakes that I've found are the MATCO 600X6 triple
> puck, these are what I've decided to use. they exceed that amount of
> stopping power, and not by a small margin if I remember correctly.<
> 
> 	The MATCO 3 puck brake on their 5.00 x 5 system is the same 3 puck
> brake used on their 6.00 x 6 system - they both have the same stopping
> ability of 337,932 foot pounds each with a 30% Safety Margin.  The
> difference is that the 6.00 x 6 has Static Capacity of 1860 lbs. and a
> Load Limit of 5580 lbs. each, while the 5.00 x 5 has a Static Capacity
> of 1420 lbs. And a Load Limit of 4260 lbs. each.
> 	The 6.00 x 6 wheel and brake system is way over kill for these little
> airplanes, but what ever flips your bic.  Also, as discussed earlier,
> the 6.00 x 6 would have more drag, cause more pitching moment, and cost
> more.
> 
> 
> Infinity's Forever,
> 
> 	JD
> 

 
 
 by x15.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id WJU26771; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 22:49:41 EDT
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 07:45:03 -0500
Subject: Re: COZY: Brake Comparisons
From: resiebert@juno.com (Reid E. Siebert)


On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 21:43:09 -0400 "mel" <norm.doty@worldnet.att.net>
writes:

>ah yes all you said is true but they didnt have the 500X5 triple puck 
>at
>the time i needed and purchased the current 600X6. so there i be. big
>wheels and tall plane.
>happy building
>norm & monda
>cozy IV #202

Before I installed my 600 x 6 axles I cut off an extra 3/4" from each end
of the strut. 


Reid


 
 
From: "mel" <norm.doty@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Brake Comparisons
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 23:30:56 -0400

i did the same thing.
btw any of you who need to cut youre main strut or front strut or attatch
tabs do youre self a favor and get a sabre saw blade with NO teeth. they
have them with tungsten carbide grit bonded on in place of teeth. they cut
great.
1 blade trimmed the attach tabs (twice) and the bottom of the main
strut(twice) after all better to trim it short twice than to much once.
norm & monda
cozy IV #202


----------
> From: Reid E. Siebert <resiebert@juno.com>
> To: norm.doty@worldnet.att.net
> Cc: INFAero@flash.net; Cozy_Builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com
> Subject: Re: COZY: Brake Comparisons
> Date: Tuesday, August 26, 1997 8:45 AM
> 
> 
> On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 21:43:09 -0400 "mel" <norm.doty@worldnet.att.net>
> writes:
> 
> >ah yes all you said is true but they didnt have the 500X5 triple puck 
> >at
> >the time i needed and purchased the current 600X6. so there i be. big
> >wheels and tall plane.
> >happy building
> >norm & monda
> >cozy IV #202
> 
> Before I installed my 600 x 6 axles I cut off an extra 3/4" from each end
> of the strut. 
> 
> 
> Reid

 
 
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 05:13:48 -0400
From: "Steven D. Sharp" <cozyiii@earthlink.net>
Organization: I'm organized - if I can only find it
Subject: COZY: For what it's worth

Last night a fellow builder inquired as to what I used for my brake line
conduit. I had purchased some type of plastic tube that the nylaflo
tubing would fit into without being bulky and would allow smooth curves
and bends. Ofter a little digging and wiping we were able to read the
printing on the tube. I used Weatherhead 5/16 air brake (snicker) type A
line - like they use on semis. The stuff is black (this is good for any
potential UV exposure) but not the cheapest. I had looked at 1/4" poly
line - I.D. too small, 3/8" poly line - too big, 5/16 air brake line -
just right. I purchasd it at a local hose supply house for about 0.50/ft
- I think - that was several years ago.

Anyway, like I said, for what it's worth. My brake lines are one
continuous run with no kinks, rips or tears. It worked for me, maybe it
will work for someone else too.

Steve Sharp
cozyiii@earthlink.net

 
 
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 14:06:02 +0200
From: Rego Burger <burgerr@telkom.co.za>
Subject: COZY: Nylaflow conduit (was: For what it's worth) -Reply



Rego Burger
Port Elizabeth
RSA ( Rep. South Africa )
cozy Mk 4 # 139
http://home.intekom.com/glen/rnb.htm
mailto:rnb@intekom.co.za   
above e-mail = home
041-386113 (W)
041-381757 (H)


>>> Mahan <mahan@digital.net> 27/August/1997 04:17pm >>>
Steven D. Sharp wrote:
> 
> Last night a fellow builder inquired as to what I used for my brake
line
> conduit. 

Here's the lightest, thinnest, cheapest conduit I know of for nylaflow 
tubing.  Worked great on my Long-EZ.  It seems that Wendy's straws fit 
snugly inside McDonalds straws.  Nylaflow fits inside of the Wendy's 
straws, but not so snugly that you can't slide the nylaflow through it. 

Piece together a conduit as long as you need, making sure that the
breaks 
between each kind of straws fall in the middle of the other kind of 
straw.  Trim it to length.  Glass the straws to the back of your gear
leg 
with the nylaflow inside.  Don't know how it can get any cheaper or 
lighter than that.

Fred in Florida
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Found that ONLY Spur Steak Ranch straws worked in the RSA Town of Port
Elizabeth!

My First attempt was somewhat a flop as I Thought I could simple 5min,
them in place. Well with a 50/50 luck one side was free the other side
got stuck, due to bad alignment. After cutting off and strating
again....!
The correct way is as FRED said...place the actual Nylaflow inside as a
perfect guide!

Experience..:-)

Good luck to all there for the first time, you can get it right the
First Time!





Received: From [165.143.91.10] qit-ul-0104.telkom.co.za
      By qtts-nfs-2313.telkom.co.za (GroupWise SMTP/MIME daemon 4.11)
      Wed, 27 Aug 97 13:25:51 ZAT
Received: from palrel1.hp.com (palrel1.hp.com [156.153.255.235])
	by qit-ul-0104.telkom.co.za (8.8.5/1997082201) with ESMTP id NAA16126;
	Wed, 27 Aug 1997 13:25:46 +0200
Received: from hpwarhw.an.hp.com (hpwarhw.an.hp.com [15.57.193.122])
	by palrel1.hp.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA09094;
	Wed, 27 Aug 1997 04:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by hpwarhw.an.hp.com
	(1.37.109.8/15.5+IOS 3.22) id AA29515; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 07:24:42 -0400
Received: from hp.com by hpwarhw.an.hp.com with SMTP
	(1.37.109.8/15.5+IOS 3.22) id AA29510; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 07:24:40 -0400
Received: from ddi.digital.net (ddi.digital.net [198.69.104.2])
	by hp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA07346
	for <cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com>; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 04:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Mahan (max-roc3-39.digital.net [206.228.238.39]) by ddi.digital.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA16649 for <cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com>; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 07:18:34 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <34043703.147A@digital.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I; 16bit)
References: <3403EFCC.3425@earthlink.net>
Sender: owner-cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Mahan <mahan@digital.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 16:17:39 +0200
From: Mahan  <mahan@digital.net>
To: cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com
Subject: COZY: Nylaflow conduit (was: For what it's worth)

Steven D. Sharp wrote:
> 
> Last night a fellow builder inquired as to what I used for my brake
line
> conduit. 

Here's the lightest, thinnest, cheapest conduit I know of for nylaflow 
tubing.  Worked great on my Long-EZ.  It seems that Wendy's straws fit 
snugly inside McDonalds straws.  Nylaflow fits inside of the Wendy's 
straws, but not so snugly that you can't slide the nylaflow through it. 

Piece together a conduit as long as you need, making sure that the
breaks 
between each kind of straws fall in the middle of the other kind of 
straw.  Trim it to length.  Glass the straws to the back of your gear
leg 
with the nylaflow inside.  Don't know how it can get any cheaper or 
lighter than that.

Fred in Florida


 
 
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 07:17:39 -0700
From: Mahan <mahan@digital.net>
Subject: COZY: Nylaflow conduit (was: For what it's worth)

Steven D. Sharp wrote:
> 
> Last night a fellow builder inquired as to what I used for my brake line
> conduit. 

Here's the lightest, thinnest, cheapest conduit I know of for nylaflow 
tubing.  Worked great on my Long-EZ.  It seems that Wendy's straws fit 
snugly inside McDonalds straws.  Nylaflow fits inside of the Wendy's 
straws, but not so snugly that you can't slide the nylaflow through it.  
Piece together a conduit as long as you need, making sure that the breaks 
between each kind of straws fall in the middle of the other kind of 
straw.  Trim it to length.  Glass the straws to the back of your gear leg 
with the nylaflow inside.  Don't know how it can get any cheaper or 
lighter than that.

Fred in Florida

 
 
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 13:34:15 -0700
From: "LCDR James D. Newman" <INFAero@flash.net>
Organization: INFINITY Aerospace
Subject: COZY: Re:  Brake Stopping Force

Hi Roy and All,

	>Roy wrote:<
	>Got my Clevelands by mistake, and returned them.  I have a few
questions concerning the Matco's, how much are they,<

	The complete MATCO AA09B AA-5 Custom Brake, Wheel, Master Cylinders
(lay down type), Remote Reservoir Kit and Axle Assembly is $804.14. 
What's your FAX number and I'll FAX you a complete breakdown.


	>can I use the original axle, spacers,<

	Yes, but you will have to add spacers to your Cleveland axles for the
MATCO wheel and brake is narrower.  This would defeat one of the 
features of the MATCO wheel and brake assembly of being 1.25+" narrower
(less drag).
	The MATCO axles are custom made to fit their wheel, brake and bearing
assembly - no spacers required.  The axle bolt hole pattern is the same
as Clevelands - the pattern is an industry standard.
	You will get more money by selling the Clevelands as a complete
assembly with their axles.


	>and tires?<

	Any 5.00 x 5 tire and tube will fit the MATCO 5.00 x 5 wheel and brake
assembly, but we recommend Michelin's exclusively - see archives as to
why.


	>I hear you sell the MATCO's, if I'm wrong let me know, need the brakes
in a few more weeks.<

	That is correct, and Michelin's.


	>Oh, also will the original brake cylinders work too?<

	Yes, but you will need 1.2+" of travel.  The Cleveland master cylinder
bore is .5" ID, the MATCO master cylinder bore is .625" ID because they
have 3 pucks working against 4 large shoes.  I would sell the Cleveland
master brake cylinders, too, with your Cleveland wheels, brakes, and
axles.

	HTH.

Infinity's Forever,

	JD



 
 
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 13:29:43 -0700
From: "LCDR James D. Newman" <INFAero@flash.net>
Organization: INFINITY Aerospace
Subject: COZY: Re:  MATCO 3 Puck Wheel & Brake System

Hi Fred and All,

	>Fred Mahan wrote:<
	>Jim, I've been flying the Cleveland 500 x 5 wheel / brake setup
(skinny discs) on my stock Long-EZ O-235 for 10 years, knowing that the
brakes were marginal.  How much does does this W51LT setup cost?<

	What's your FAX number and I'll FAX you a complete breakdown.


	>Is it suitable for Lamb tires, which I prefer to use?<

	Yes, the Lamb tire fits a 5.00 x 5 wheel, which is what the MATCO W51LT
3 puck wheel and brake system is - 5.00 x 5.  But the 6 ply Lamb tire is
static rated at only 625 lbs. each and the 8 ply is static rated at only
850 lbs. each, both at 70 PSI - you probably already know this.  Not
much margin concerning aircraft weight, just always make sure the tire
has 70 PSI, and obviously always use the 8 ply tire (Fred, you probably
already know this, too, but the gang may not).
	A 5.00 x 5 tire is static rated at 1285 lbs. each at 50 PSI.


	>Would you e-mail me some figures on the stopping power of my stock,
skinny-disc setup, the heavy-duty 500 x 5 Cleveland setup, and the MATCO
W51LT setup?<

	Cleveland brakes are wonderful products. In the 5.00 x 5 regime, they
vary in braking ability from 117,500 (Standard), 155,000 (Heavy Duty),
and 192,000 (Super Heavy Duty) ft. lbs. of stopping force per brake
design.
	The MATCO two puck brake that Mike Melvill recommends for Long-EZ's in
the Oct. =9192 Canard Pusher newsletter has a stopping power of 283,613
ft. lbs. per brake.  Since then, MATCO has come out with a 3 puck wheel
and brake system with a stopping ability of 337,932 ft. lbs. per brake,
and the weight is within a pound of the Cleveland =91Super Heavy Duty'
brake system!
	EXAMPLES:  If a Long-EZ is taking off at 1425 lbs. and aborts, or comes
back for an immediate landing, at 56 knots, using the previous FAR
equation that was posted, the aircraft needs 98,984 ft. lbs. minimum per
brake for a maximum effort stop.  The recommended original Cleveland
117.5K brakes are fine.
	If this Long-EZ is flying at a heavier weight, say 1600 lbs., and
aborts or lands at 72 knots, the aircraft needs 183,721 ft. lbs. per
brake for a maximum effort stop - the original brakes are not enough.=20
The Cleveland =91Super Heavy Duties' would be a minimum.  Add 100 lbs. an=
d
the pilot will need 195,204 ft. lbs. for a maximum effort stop. These
brakes will get hot, fade, eat up the brake shoes, may melt the
fiberglass wheel pants and struts & / or catch on fire, and warp the
brake disc -  now you are out of control AND in big trouble. This same
problem may occur at higher speeds because of a higher density
altitude.  Let's face it, many (most) EZ's / canards are flying heavier
and landing / taking off faster.
	The argument comes up, "I've never had trouble stopping before."  That
is because they never had to get on the brakes at maximum weights and
speeds in a worst case high density altitude and short runway length
situation!  Sure, they will work fine at lighter weights and/or slower
speeds. That's why this false sense of security abounds.  But you are
just testing fate - an accident that has found a place to happen simply
waiting for the opportunity.
	In July and August =9195 (as some of you may recall), 2 canard aircraft
and one life were lost partly because of the above - they both went off
the end of the runway while trying to abort.  There are numerous close
calls / incidences throughout canard history.
	A canard at 2050 lbs. and 80 knots., aborting or landing, needs a
minimum of 290,608 ft. lbs. per brake for a maximum effort stop! Even
the 2 puck MATCO's are not enough.  Set up different scenarios and
crunch the numbers yourself.
	As stated earlier, Cleveland's are wonderful products, but the stopping
power of the MATCO's is not the only reason we chose them for our
Infinity 1 aircraft and landing gear system needs.  We saved about
1.25+" in overall wheel width translating to thinner wheel wells and
fitting better in the retrofit aircraft strakes.  The brake =91lives'
within the diameter of the rims, so no part hangs below the rim to be
ground off during a blown tire take-off or landing and maybe ending up
in a brake / hydraulic fire.
	Also, the three puck brake and rotor system can absorb more energy and
dissipate heat better.  So, the brakes will stop you expeditiously
during maximum effort braking without getting hot, fading, eating up the
brake shoes and warping the brake disc; and aircraft with fixed
fiberglass main gear - no more melting the fiberglass wheel pants and
struts & / or catching on fire.  The brake shoes, also, last much, much
longer saving $$$'s and requiring less maintenance, paying for
themselves in many ways.  They are pretty, too.


	>have new, in the original box, the heavy-duty 600 X 6 four-puck
Cleveland wheel / brake setup I bought new about five years ago for my
Defiant project.  How do these compare to the MATCO product appropriate
for the Defiant?  What are the differences, and what are their energy
dissipation characteristics?<

	Fred, I think our e-mails passed in the night, but I'll re-post mine to
hopefully answer your question.  In addition to my previous posts below,
I don't know the ratings of the 6.00 x 6 Clevelands you have (they make
many versions), but they are wonderful brakes and will work fine for
your Defiant.  I wouldn't change to the MATCO 6.00 x 6 wheel and brake
system since you already have them for your Defiant.
	My concern is that there is a better wheel and brake system for the
5.00 x 5 world.

	What I posted earlier:
	The MATCO 3 puck brake on their 5.00 x 5 system is the same 3 puck
brake used on their 6.00 x 6 system - they both have the same stopping
ability of 337,932 foot pounds each with a 30% Safety Margin (439,312
ft. lbs.).  The difference is that the 6.00 x 6 has a Static Capacity of
1860 lbs. and a Load Limit of 5580 lbs. each, while the 5.00 x 5 has a
Static Capacity of 1420 lbs. and a Load Limit of 4260 lbs. each.
	The 6.00 x 6 wheel and brake system is way over kill for these little
airplanes, but what ever flips your bic.  Also, as discussed earlier,
the 6.00 x 6 wheels, brakes, axles tires and tubes would have more drag,
cause more pitching moment, weigh a lot more and cost more.

	And, also, posted earlier:
	The W51LT is the MATCO 3 puck, 5.00 x 5 wheel and brake system (337,932
foot pounds of stopping force each) that you need for most all the
canards except the Vari-EZE (overkill), the Defiant and probably the
bigger Velocities (their gross weight is higher).  ACS and Wicks does
not carry the W51LT 3 puck wheel and brake system.

	HTH.

Infinity's Forever,

        JD



 
 
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 13:34:54 -0700
From: "LCDR James D. Newman" <INFAero@flash.net>
Organization: INFINITY Aerospace
Subject: COZY: Re:  Brake Comparisons

Hi ? and All,

	>cdenk@ix.netcom.Com wrote:<
	>Where does MATCO get their ratings from? do they have a Dynometer for
testing and publish the test data? Cleveland data is based on Test data
from their dyno.<

	Yes, they have a Dynometer to test all their products.  Some of the
data is published on their Web Site.


Infinity's Forever,

	JD



 
 
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 14:58:17 -0400
From: bil kleb <kleb@ab00.larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Subject: COZY: chap 9:  brakes and wheels

just some passing on some infomation i have gathered
concerning wheel/brakes.  the following compares matco
wheels/brakes/axles (triple puck) and michelin "air" tires
(6 ply) for two sizes:

         wheels
        /brakes
        /axles   tires
5.00x5    6.1     6.2
6.00x6   10.5    10.5
        -------------
          4.4     4.3   or  8.7 lbs per wheel/brake/axle/tire combo

not included would be the weight penalty for larger wheel fairings.

let's call it a total of 18 lbs added to the airplane for
going with the larger tires.

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

 
 
From: Marc J. Zeitlin <marcz@hpwarhw.an.hp.com>
Subject: COZY: Landing Gear  (fwd)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 97 11:44:15 EDT

Chris Van Hoof wrote:

>.... Got a fright when mine measures 94" inside of leg?

Just don't trim it any more.  Sounds like they just molded it a little
short.

>Question 2
>Found some crevasses in the bow - +- 9" from the round centre part
>measuring outward where it becomes very wide - the crevasses are about
>1/16" wide and no less than 1/8 deep while about 2" long on the underside
>of the bow.
>Except for sanding & flox - any other advice?

Nope.  I assume this is before the torsional wrap - if so, just flox fill
them.  I had some voids in both my main and nose gear struts as well - I
think it's just a by-product of the unidirection strand/molding process.

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

 
 
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 15:16:09 -0700
From: C Van Hoof <cvh@iafrica.com>
Organization: Architect
Subject: COZY: Landing Gear 

Hi All,

Have this weekend sanded the Landing Gear Bow.
Was not too bad, normal long sleeved shirt & mask.

Question 1
In the notes they say the inside should measure 95.5" and to trim same to
94" - Got a fright when mine measures 94" inside of leg? the outside
measures 99" as described somewhere early in Ch 09 at the start of the
Bow workings.

Question 2
Found some crevasses in the bow - +- 9" from the round centre part
measuring outward where it becomes very wide - the crevasses are about
1/16" wide and no less than 1/8 deep while about 2" long on the underside
of the bow.
Except for sanding & flox - any other advice?

Chris
#219 getting on with it again :-)


 
 
From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 20:24:11 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: Landing Gear  (fwd)

On 09/15/97 11:44:15 you wrote:
>
>Chris Van Hoof wrote:
>
>>.... Got a fright when mine measures 94" inside of leg?
>
>Just don't trim it any more.  Sounds like they just molded it a little
>short.
>
>>Question 2
>>Found some crevasses in the bow - +- 9" from the round centre part
>>measuring outward where it becomes very wide - the crevasses are about
>>1/16" wide and no less than 1/8 deep while about 2" long on the underside
>>of the bow.
>>Except for sanding & flox - any other advice?
>
>Nope.  I assume this is before the torsional wrap - if so, just flox fill
>them.  I had some voids in both my main and nose gear struts as well - I
>think it's just a by-product of the unidirection strand/molding process.
>
>--
>Marc J. Zeitlin                              Email: marcz@an.hp.com
>
>

Be careful Marc with advice, There is a structural issue here, which was is 
the crevasse, does it go parallel or perpendicular to the strands of 
fiberglass? Parallel is maybe OK, perpendicular is cause probably for 
reject: see the chapter on quality control, straightness of fiberglass 
strands. Thanks...


 
 
From: Marc J. Zeitlin <marcz@hpwarhw.an.hp.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Landing Gear  (fwd)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 97 8:49:27 EDT

Carl Denk wrote (direct email);

>Be careful Marc with advice, There is a structural issue here, which was is 
>the crevasse, does it go parallel or perpendicular to the strands of 
>fiberglass? Parallel is maybe OK, perpendicular is cause probably for 
>reject: see the chapter on quality control, straightness of fiberglass 
>strands. Thanks...

Carl is right (of course) - my grooves were parallel to the strands - I
just made the assumption that Chris's were too.

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

 
 
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 14:38:45 -0700
From: C Van Hoof <cvh@iafrica.com>
Organization: Architect
Subject: Re: COZY: Landing Gear  (fwd)

Marc J. Zeitlin wrote:
> Carl is right (of course) - my grooves were parallel to the strands - I
> just made the assumption that Chris's were too.
> 
> --
> Marc J. Zeitlin                              Email: marcz@an.hp.com

Mine were as well - parallel that is - thanks for the advice anyway.

chris #219


 
 
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 12:31:00 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Rafael Bello <rafa@asterix.litec.csic.es>
Subject: COZY: landing gear strut FEA



Hello Cozy builders,

I began some months ago the FEA analysis of the main gear strut and got
some rough results. It will be possible for me to get accurate results if
there is a builder who wants to spend less than 5 min. by measuring a
couple of distances on the strut. Can you help me? I would be pleased to
put the results of the analysis on the net. I think we all builders can
benefit from this analysis.

Thanks in advance,
  Rafael Bello			rafa@asterix.cps.unizar.es




 
 
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 17:36:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Mr. Radon" <grossing@serv.net>
Subject: COZY: Speed Brake.

  Just a sugestion for the speed brake.  I thought the alignment, floxing,
and drilling of the holes might not be the best way to install the speed
brake.  I did not want the brake floxed in until after finishing.  I think
this is a better way to go.
   I pre drilled the AL blocks after the hinge was shimmed to LB-23 and
fit was checked.  I microed LB-23 in place as shown. (be sure you wrap the
hinge in saran wrap so it will not get microed in also.  I finished the
layups.  I opened the pilot holes and then pined the speed brake back to
LB-23, all fit exactly! 
Then I tapped the holes and screwed on the brake.  It alligned perfectly
and is removable for finishing until I decide to flox it for good to the
airplane. 
  Now back to working on the project.

ROY #503


 
 
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 21:25:04 -0500
From: "Steve & Mary O'Brien" <OBrien.11985@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>
Subject: COZY: Cozy III Gear Length

I have a question regarding the main gear length in a Cozy III.  	

About a year ago, I bought my main gear from a builder who was changing
from a Cozy III to a Cozy MkIV.  It appears that I am about the 3rd
person to buy this specific gear.  I lost the guy's name/address.  There
appears to be saw marks on the end of the gear, so I don't know whether
the gear has been trimmed or not.  (Yeah, I know, I should have asked
when I bought it - hindsight is 20/20)

Can anybody tell me how long the gear leg should be, either total length
or length from end to first bend?

Thanks!

Steve O'Brien
Cozy III

 
 
From: Marc J. Zeitlin <marcz@hpwarhw.an.hp.com>
Subject: COZY: Cozy III Gear Length (fwd)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 97 8:43:12 EDT

Steve O'Brien;

>Can anybody tell me how long the gear leg should be, either total length
>or length from end to first bend?

I only have plans for the MKIV, and I'm sure they're not the same size or
length.  However, the place to look would be Chapter 9, Section 2 -
that's where the length is called out in the MKIV plans - if it's called
out in the III plans, I'd guess that'd be where.

Good luck - someone building a III - can you help out here?

Steve - call Nat - he may have those #'s in his head, if you can't find
it in the plans.

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

 
 
From: wilhelmson@scra.org
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:32:31 -0400
Subject: Re: COZY: Cozy III Gear Length (fwd)

          Nat Puffer told me that the gear for the Cozy and the Mk
          Four are different. You should ask Him, he designed it.

 
 
 by x14.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KNG12692; Mon, 06 Oct 1997 10:28:41 EDT
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 10:27:44 -0400
Subject: COZY: Cozy III Gear length
From: gmellen@juno.com (George J Mellen Jr.)


Can anybody tell me how long the gear leg should be, either total length
or length from end to first bend?

Steve,
I don`t recall the plans specifically calling out how long the gear legs
are supposed to be. What I do recall was ,that after they are installed,
as supplied by the vendor, they were to be trimmed ( I believe 1" of
material) parallel to the longerons. I  also recall a newsletter update
(maybe #25 ?? ) on this subject that has you remove 2"  of additional
material.


George Mellen               gmellen@juno.com

 
 
 by InfoAve.Net (PMDF V5.1-8 #23426)
 with SMTP id <01IOHY0H7IQK91RL8O@InfoAve.Net> for
 cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:39:43 EDT
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 19:39:43 -0400
From: Jeff S Russell <JRAEROCAD@yadtel.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Cozy III Gear length
Organization: AEROCAD INC.

George J Mellen Jr. wrote:
> 
> Can anybody tell me how long the gear leg should be, either total length
> or length from end to first bend?
> 
> Steve,
> I don`t recall the plans specifically calling out how long the gear legs
> are supposed to be. What I do recall was ,that after they are installed,
> as supplied by the vendor, they were to be trimmed ( I believe 1" of
> material) parallel to the longerons. I  also recall a newsletter update
> (maybe #25 ?? ) on this subject that has you remove 2"  of additional
> material.

George, It's the same as the long-ez.  It was then suggested to cut
2 more inches for a better angle of attact on the ground in Nat's newsletter.  
My long-ez and cozy 3 plans have been sent to a Cessna engineer to quaify the 
differance between the long and the cozy.  Not much is different in 
the plans that I have exept for the wider fuselage and 2 side sticks.  
The plans are word for word.  If you ever have any questions on a 3 place 
cozy the long-ez people can help on your project because of this.

-- 
Jeff

 
 
 by x14.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id JpW25567; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:03:21 EDT
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:03:24 -0400
Subject: COZY: Re: COZY III Gear Length
From: gmellen@juno.com (George J Mellen Jr.)


Steve wrote:

>Thanks for the reply.  My problem is that I don't know if the previous
>owner(s) had already trimmed the gear legs, or if it is still "vender
>supplied length".

Steve ,
Sorry this took so long , but Here it is. I measured from end to end
along the inside of the bow and I came up with 82.25" 


George Mellen               gmellen@juno.com

 
 
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 09:51:54 -0400
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Re:  Brake Master cylinders

Jim,

	I haven't flown my MKIV yet but I have done a full power run to see
what rpm turned up and I was impressed with holding power of the
Cleveland brakes.  The airplane did not creep forward at all at
2460rpm.  My Long EZ with the original Burt brake system would not stand
still at full power...

	I figure unless you are going to do carrier type landings without a
tail hook, the plan (Cleveland) brake system is most adequate.  It's
sure a lot better than the original system in the Ez's and there are
plenty of them flying around for going on 20 years.

dd

 
 
From: Marc J. Zeitlin <marcz@hpwarhw.an.hp.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Re:  Brake Master cylinders (fwd)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 97 11:57:56 EDT

Dave Domeier wrote:

>	I haven't flown my MKIV yet but I have done a full power run to see
>what rpm turned up and I was impressed with holding power of the
>Cleveland brakes.  The airplane did not creep forward at all at
>2460rpm.  My Long EZ with the original Burt brake system would not stand
>still at full power...

I'm sure that Jim will expound here, but I'll chip in too.  First, the
broken record part - read the archives for all years for chapter 9 to see
the discussion history of this issue.

Second, the "holding power" and the "stopping power" of brakes are two
completely seperate issues. "Holding" only requires that the brakes can
exert enough _force_ to keep the wheels from rotating - it requires
nothing in the way of energy absorption capability.  Wheel chocks don't
have to be able to absorb energy - just exert a force.

"Stopping" requires that the brakes can absorb the energy in the object
being decelerated.  The heavier and faster the object, the more energy to
absorb.  A 2050 lb. gross weight COZY MKIV traveling at 80 kts doing an
aborted takeoff contains more kinetic energy than a pair of Clevelands is
spec'ed to be able to absorb - therefore, they are _guaranteed_ to
overheat and fade.  The fact that they can "hold" the plane under full
power is meaningless with respect to the "stopping" needs.

The archives discussion clearly demonstrates that the spec'ed Clevelands
are inadequate in this situation, although they obviously work perfectly
well under normal circumstances - less than gross, not applying full
braking power.

There have been numerous instances of Clevelands on L.E.'s and COZY's
overheating during long taxis or on landings - this should be an
indication that the energy absorption capability of these brakes is
marginal in this use model.


>	I figure unless you are going to do carrier type landings without a
>tail hook, the plan (Cleveland) brake system is most adequate.

This is incorrect, at least for a MKIV, using the energy absorbtion
numbers as provided by both Cleveland and MATCO, and assuming an aborted
takeoff on a short runway at full gross.

>........  It's
>sure a lot better than the original system in the Ez's........

Of that I have absolutely no doubt.

>..... and there are
>plenty of them flying around for going on 20 years.

Most of which have never (and will never) need to abort a takeoff at full
gross.  Can you guarantee that you'll never be in that category?

If brakes are available that allow this, and they don't weigh any more or
cost any more, are used in many other homebuilts, have a reputation for
quality, require no modifications to the airframe to use, don't affect
flying performance (if anything improve it due to lower profile), what's
the objection to using them, and why the attachment to a brake system
that was spec'ed for a much lower weight plane, and was not particularly
adequate even then?

If you couldn't tell, this is one of the few issues with respect to
COZY's that I feel extremely strongly about - it's a definite safety
issue, the alternatives are clear and the solution is easy.  Other than
the (possibly valid) concern over getting parts for the MATCO's in a
distant airport, I've not heard a decent argument for keeping the
Clevelands.  I'll pick stopping safely, not hitting anything, and having
to wait a day or two for parts over losing my aircraft and possibly my
life due to fading brakes (and it's happened, at least the airplane part,
to one member of this list) any day.

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

 
 
From: bernien@qconline.com
Date: 23 Oct 1997 14:23:38 EDT
Subject: COZY: RE: Master cylinders

>I figure unless you are going to do carrier type landings without a
>tail hook, the plan (Cleveland) brake system is most adequate.


I don't have any experience with the braking characteristics of the Mark
IV, however, I DO have some experience in my Vari-Eze, on which I have a
fairly effective braking system. Let me tell you, after landing with a
heavy load, on a narrow runway, just to find you have a flat main tire,
you will immediately develop some real affection for the brake that kept
you on the runway (maybe even to the point of wanting to kiss the rotor
while it's still hot).

I don't believe in operating in such a manner that a standard landing
requires heavy duty brakes. But should an emergency arise good brakes
make the difference!


Bernie Nitz
N12BN


 
 
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:38:40 -0700
From: "LCDR James D. Newman" <infaero@flash.net>
Organization: INFINITY Aerospace - http://www.flash.net/~infaero
Subject: COZY: Wheels and brakes

Hi Dave, Carl and Mark,

	>Dave Domeier wrote:
	>I haven't flown my MKIV yet but I have done a full power run to see
what rpm turned up and I was impressed with holding power of the
Cleveland brakes.  The airplane did not creep forward at all at 2460
rpm.  My Long EZ with the original Burt brake system would not stand
still at full power...<

	>Marc Zeitlin wrote:
	>First, the broken record part - read the archives for all years for
chapter 9 to see the discussion history of this issue.  >snip<

	Excellent post Marc, hits the nail right on the head!


	>Marc Zeitlin also wrote:
	>Other than the (possibly valid) concern over getting parts for the
MATCO's in a distant airport, I've not heard a decent argument for
keeping the Clevelands.<

	Except for needing to replace the brake shoes on the Clevelands a lot
more often (rare for Matco's), I can't think of anything one might need
at a distant airport.  But, whatever one may need, you'll probably need
to call ACS, Wicks, us, MATCO, or Cleveland direct - it will be about
the same time frame to get the part.


Infinity's Forever,

	JD


 
 
From: "ELKIND" <elkind@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Re:  Brake Master cylinders (fwd)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 20:18:29 -0700

I have a Cozy MK IV with 200 hrs, I read this is a prerequisite before
responding.  I have experienced fading on at least 4 occassions with our
clevelands.  Once the right brake failed completely after landing and
coming to a stop, it failed while taxing.
I had wheel pants that were not vented, I think the heat unable to escape
may be the reason for the fade.  I have since put in vents in the top of
the wheel pants.  Too soon to see if this alleviates the problem.  I
thought seriously about replacing our brakes with the matcos after talking
to Dave Ronnenburg who loves the Matcos, however Dave does modify his
brakes to get them to work well.  If my brakes fade once more out with the
clevelands.

We raced at Mesquite last weekend and did 212mph around the 120 mile/7 turn
course.  The races are a lot of fun it would be great to see more Cozy's. 
There is another race in a couple weeks at Jean NV, is anyone interested?

 
 
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 00:08:11 -0400
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Re:  Brake Master cylinders (fwd)

Marc,

	I suppose one of the privileges of being the creator and guardian of
this forum is that you can lecture at will - and I do feel lectured to
on the subject of brakes.
	Yes, I know the difference between stopping energy absorption and an
analogy of =93holding power at full throttle=94.  I wasn=92t born yesterd=
ay.=20
I fly airplanes for a living that weight up to 160,000 pounds and brake
energy factors are considered on every take off and landing as a matter
of routine operation.
	My point, or observation, was from a perspective of comments on
=93experimental=94 airplanes flown as such.  This endeavor can not be mad=
e
totally safe unless we leave these machines in the hangar and never fly
them.
	From a purely practical point of view, I stand by my statement that
Cleveland brakes are adequate for what we are doing.  If one feels that
much safer with Matco=92s, then go with them, but let=92s not make a fede=
ral
case out of it.  They are not THAT much safer, in my opinion.  How a
pilot operates his airplane is.  Burt Rutan once commented at a grass
seminar at OSH, if your brakes are overheating, take the wheel pants off
so you have the cooling you need....
	(For that matter, while you make such an issue over brakes, why not
consider a good anti-skid system, brake energy/abort speed/cooling time
limit charts, brake temp sensors, accelerate/stop distances, runway
slope/length, and the effect of headwind/tailwind on stopping ability -
and then we will really know what=92s going on.)
	I flew my Long EZ for 252.5 hours before donating it to a museum.  In
that time I made at least 300 takeoffs and landings from a 2600=92 strip
in temps from 20 to 95, and never once had a problem stopping the
airplane, nor did I ever overheat the brakes.  I changed the pucks once
and installed chrome disks at that time.  I like Cleveland brakes and
will not reinstall Matco=92s no matter what numbers are posted in your
archives.  I know from experience that they work, are reliable, easy to
maintain, and that=92s all I have say on the subject.

dd

P.S.  Notwithstanding what I consider a podium type lecture on your
behalf on this subject, I like your forum.  There=92s much to be learned
here and I think we all have an interesting perspective to offer on
building and flying the canard airplane.

 
 
From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 12:16:52 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: Re:  Brake Master cylinders (fwd)

Dave Domeier writes <Lectured on Brakes>
I agree, Tell us Marc, how many landings, hours, circumstances do you have 
on Clevelands, Matcos, Goodrich, etc. In general tell of personal 
experiences, or areas where you have special expertice.

The form should be concentrating on why do the various brakes have 
problems, their are a more than a few reasons why brakes don't work as they 
should, including:
1: Brakes undersized, Cleveland makes at least 3 sizes that will fit (I 
didn't say work) Ez's.
2: Air in the system, some are difficult to bleed.
3: THe geometry of the pedals, the mechanical advantage and limits of pedal 
travel.
4: General Condition, Orings, pads, sliding pins.
5: Brake fluid condition, maybe its boiling.
6: Cooling - ventilation of wheel pants.

When someone says something works or doesn't (in particular the later) we 
need to know details of the installation. Prehaps someone will have  
solution.
There are more than enough Clevelands and Matcos out there for people to 
express their personal experiences for the benefit of others, that 
overshadow any manufacturers claims. The literature is for first timers. 





 
 
From: Marc J. Zeitlin <marcz@hpwarhw.an.hp.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Re:  Brake Master cylinders (fwd)
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 97 10:45:06 EST

Carl Denk asks;

>.... Tell us Marc, how many landings, hours, circumstances do you have 
>on Clevelands, Matcos, Goodrich, etc.

Not one.  I've never been hooked up to an ICU monitor in a hospital,
either, but HP lets me design them.  I've never had arthroscopic knee
surgery (yet), but I've designed the safest knife for it that is (or was)
on the market.  I wonder how I managed to do that?

I'm not particularly interested in getting into a "horn tooting" contest
here - I don't need to prove myself to anyone, and everyone is more than
free to think I'm a moron and ignore anything I say.  However, Carl asks,
and I feel I must reply:

>........ In general tell of personal 
>experiences, or areas where you have special expertice.

Feel free to peruse my bio. at:

	http://www.ultranet.com/~marcz/bio.html

For those of you like Carl who may be interested in my credentials and my
quailifications to speak to the matter of aircraft brakes, but don't have
a web browser, I'll summarize here:

 Education:

  o - BS Aeronautical Engineering - M.I.T. (Massachusetts Institute of
                                            Technology, 1980)
  o - MS Aeronautical Engineering - M.I.T. (Massachusetts Institute of
                                            Technology, 1981)

  Thesis: "Design, Construction, and Testing of an
           Electromagnetically Launched Model Glider"
 
 Work History: 

  o - Designed Arthroscopic instruments for knee surgery - marketed by 3M
  
  o - Patent for medical infusion pump mechanism and disposable cartridge
  
  o - Design medical Intensive Care Unit monitoring equipment and
      monitoring transmitters
  
  o - Blah, blah, blah.

All this and a dollar gets me a cup of orange juice (I don't drink
coffee).  People should be judging the merits of issues based on the
facts, not on the basis of the papers hanging on the wall behind the desk
of the people in the discussion.  I don't care what education or
background someone has - if they make a cogent argument using facts and
reason, I'll pay attention.  If someone can show where _I'VE_ made a
mistake in my argument, I'll be happy to retract it and give credit where
it's due (and I've done so in the past, more than once).

So, Carl, does this help you understand the brake issue any better?  Are
the facts of energy absorption in different brakes clearer, now that you
know my C.V.?  I find this discussion particularly distasteful, because
there are very few people that won't be impressed by what they read here,
but that's _NOT_ what they should be paying attention to.  If I make
sense, pay attention.  If I don't, ignore me and/or refute me.  Facts
stand on their own, and don't need degrees to uphold them.

>The form should be concentrating on why do the various brakes have 
>problems, their are a more than a few reasons why brakes don't work as they 
>should, including:

All good points, and things that should be taken care of and understood. 
None of which have anything to do with the question at hand.

>When someone says something works or doesn't (in particular the later) we 
>need to know details of the installation. Prehaps someone will have  
>solution.

No one has claimed that the Cleveland brakes don't work - they're good
quality equipment for smaller, slower aircraft.  The ones specified are
marginal for standard usage and undersized for emergency usage as
installed on COZY MKIV's.  This has been shown over and over again by
reports of brake fade and loss of braking, and has led to accidents in
COZY's and L.E.'s alike.  The data is there for those who chose to look
for it, both in the COZY archives and in NTSB records.

>There are more than enough Clevelands and Matcos out there for people to 
>express their personal experiences for the benefit of others, that 
>overshadow any manufacturers claims.

And they have.  Read the archives and the NTSB records regarding brake
fade and brake failures.

Sigh.  If anyone has any facts or reasoned arguments refuting the
discussions regarding brakes that appears in the archives, or can show
where my reasoning in my previous post was incorrect, I'd be more than
happy to see them.

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

 
 
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 10:41:07 -0600
From: tpierce@ghg.net (Terence J. Pierce)
Subject: Re: COZY: Re:  Brake Master cylinders (fwd)

Marc J. Zeitlin wrote:
> 
> Carl Denk asks;
> 
> >.... Tell us Marc, how many landings, hours, circumstances do you have
> >on Clevelands, Matcos, Goodrich, etc.
> 
> Not one.  I've never been hooked up to an ICU monitor in a hospital,
> either, but HP lets me design them.  I've never had arthroscopic knee
> surgery (yet), but I've designed the safest knife for it that is (or was)
> on the market.  I wonder how I managed to do that?
> 
(snip)

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


Maybe I am simple minded, but when the manufacture says that the brakes
don't have enough stopping capacity for a Cozy Mark IV at gross, then
that is all I need to know to make up my mind to go with the Matcos
instead of the Clevelands.

I didn't personally hear this from the manufacture, but others have
claimed that is what they say.
-- 
Terry Pierce                     mailto:tpierce@ghg.net
Cozy Mark IV #600

 
 
From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 17:47:54 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: COZY: Re:  Brake Master cylinders (fwd)

I still question if Cleveland and Matco brake energy tests are done to the same standards, 
i.e. an FAA, ASTM, or other standard test that can be duplicated by anyone. Unless there is 
a standard test, the comparison has no meaning. Even then does the the test reflect the 
real world. In the absence of reliable tests, real world experience is the next best 
indicator.

Can anyone provide the actual test specification?


 
 
From: "Rob Atencio" <r_atencio@geocities.com>
Subject: COZY: Land Gear Strut Misaligned?
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 12:08:43 -0500

    I finally, finally, finally got the mounting tabs on the landing gear
strut completed.  I placed the strut into the fuselage between the L/G
bulkheads and of course the pilot holes in the bulkheads didn't line up with
the ones in the mounting tabs.
    Just out of curiousity I wanted to check the alignment of the pilot
holes in the fuselage. (I hadn't done this previously)  I placed metal rods
thru each set (after leveling the fuselage, of course) and found the set on
the right side were level, but I'm not quite sure if they were parallel to
the fuselage centerline.  Next I checked the left hand set and found the
rear hole to be slightly lower. (unsure about the parallelism of this set
also.  Next I check the level across the rods by resting a level on each rod
(laterally) both for and aft and found the set on the left side to be
slightly lower than the right set.  I then measured the distance between the
rods and that was pretty close to 26.25" but off enough so that they didn't
align with the mount tabs holes.  Now comes the fun part..... I file, file,
file and file the left set of holes so that the rod is now level for and aft
and side to side as measured against the rod on the right side.  After a bit
of grinding on the wooden tabs on the fuselage and a bit of refining the
pilot holes I was able to install the L/G strut.  Whew!
    Here's the part I'm concerned about.  After dropping plumb lines,
marking my garage floor as called out in the plans and centering the strut
between the L/G bulkheads, I measure the location of the forward end of the
strut.  The left hand side (fuselage upside down) lines up perfectly with
the line on the floor but the right side is forward of the line by
five-eighth's (5/8) of an inch.  I rechecked the level of the fuselage and
also level across the strut.  Everything was right on the money, except for
the location of the front of the strut on the right side.
    Should I be concerned about this?  Is there something I can do about
this?  Did I do something wrong way down the line?  Should I scrap the whole
thing up to this point and start completely over at chapter 4? <G>  Any and
all comments are welcome?

Rob Atencio
r_atencio@geocities.com
New Bern, NC
Cozy 496 - Chapter 9


 
 
From: Marc J. Zeitlin <marcz@hpwarhw.an.hp.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Re:  Brake Master cylinders (fwd)
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 97 12:21:24 EST

Carl Denk wrote:

>I still question if Cleveland and Matco brake energy tests are done to
>the same standards,  i.e. an FAA, ASTM, or other standard test that can
>be duplicated by anyone.

>Can anyone provide the actual test specification?

Well, I have to thank Carl (and Lee Devlin)  for forcing me to call both
Matco and Cleveland and get the details on the testing that both
companies do regarding the Kinetic Energy (K.E.) absorption capability of
their brakes.

1) Requirements:

  I visited:

  http://www.landings.com/

  and searched for FAR 23.735 (landing gear - brakes).  This gave a
  detailed account of how to easily figure out the K.E. needed per brake.
  Also notice that the FAR claims for commuter aircraft, but not an
  unreasonable assumption for GA:

   (1) The brake kinetic energy absorption requirements must be based on
       a conservative rational analysis of the sequence of events expected
       during a rejected takeoff at the design takeoff weight. 

  A 2050 lb. COZY MKIV going 80 kts.contains about 290,608 ft-lbs of K.E.
  per main wheel.  I use this velocity as a not unreasonable conservative
  touchdown speed, nor an unreasonable conservative aborted takeoff
  speed.


2) Manufacturer's Testing:
  
  I called Matco and spoke to Phyllis.  She told me that although their
  brakes are not TSO'd, they do design and test all of their products to
  the TSO C26C specifications for brakes, and will be getting TSO
  approval in the future.  She said that they perform standard
  dynamometer testing on their brakes to determine the K.E. absorption.

  Next, I called Cleveland and spoke to Vernon on the technical support
  line.  He faxed me a data sheet on their wheels and brakes, and
  verified that they too meet the TSO C26C specifications and dynamometer
  test their brakes to determine the K.E. absorption capability.

  
3) Our Parts:
  
  Cleveland makes a wide range of brakes - the Heavy Duty 199-152
  specified for the COZY has a K.E. rating of 192,000 ft-lbs.
  
  The heaviest duty 5.00x5 brakes that Cleveland make are the 199-197
  which have a rating of 289,000 ft-lbs.  These are NOT mentioned in the
  COZY plans or newsletters.

  Matco's triple puck W51LT 5.00x5 brakes that I purchased have a K.E.
  absorption capability of 337,000 ft-lbs.  They make a double puck
  version that has a rating of 283,000 ft-lbs.


4) Conclusions:

  From the data obtained from the two manufacturers (who each seemed
  perfectly happy to give it to me, and were both completely above board
  regarding their methodologies, test procedures and regulations complied
  with) and from the needs as determined from the FARs, I find it
  abundantly clear that the brakes specified in the COZY plans do NOT
  meed FAA regulations (with the caveat that since the COZY is
  experimentally certified, there is _NO REQUIREMENT FOR THEM TO DO SO_).
  I also find it clear that they do not meet my personal safety
  requirements for being able to stop my aircraft in a nunber of
  forseeable emergency situations.
  
  Now, while we have said that "Clevelands" are inadequate and "Matcos"
  are acceptable, we can see that Cleveland makes a brake system that
  marginally meets the needs of the COZY MKIV aircraft (the 199-197).
  The faxed sheet from Cleveland lists some 6.00x6 brakes, but I am
  unable to discern from the smudged sheet exactly the K.E. rating of
  these, other than to state that they are all apparently well under
  300,000 ft-lbs.  Clearly, the COZY plans do not specify any of these
  brakes.
  
  The Matco triple puck brakes _do_ meet the needs of the COZY MKIV, with
  some room to spare.  Even their double puck brakes would have marginal
  acceptability along the lines of the 199-197's.


  
If this document does not embody the definitive and canonical
determination of braking requirements and capabilities for the COZY MKIV
aircraft along with an evaluation of the specified units in relation to
other available braking systems, I am certainly at a loss to imagine what
that document might look like.

My $0.02.

--

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

 
 
From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 17:35:19 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: COZY: Re:  Brake Master cylinders (fwd)

Good work Mark, now we are getting somewhere, I quickly looked in Spruce and Wicks current 
catalogs and couldn't find the heaviest Cleveland brake. Any Ideas what thats about. 
Needless to say I am not going to buy brakes, other than pads anywhere in the near future, 
but others may want. That TSO number is the key. When the TSO certificate is issued, you 
can pretty much count on that the equipment is properly calibrated traceable to the 
National Standards Laboratory. 


 
 
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 20:13:53 -0800
From: "LCDR James D. Newman" <infaero@flash.net>
Organization: INFINITY Aerospace - http://www.flash.net/~infaero
Subject: COZY: Re:  Brake Master cylinders

Hi Marc,

	>Well, I have to thank Carl (and Lee Devlin)  for forcing me to call
both MATCO and Cleveland and get the details on the testing that both
companies do regarding the Kinetic Energy (K.E.) absorption capability
of their brakes.

	The MATCO triple puck brakes _do_ meet the needs of the COZY MK-IV,
with some room to spare.  Even their double puck brakes would have
marginal acceptability along the lines of the 199-197's.

	If this document does not embody the definitive and canonical
determination of braking requirements and capabilities for the COZY
MK-IV
aircraft along with an evaluation of the specified units in relation to
other available braking systems, I am certainly at a loss to imagine
what that document might look like.<

	Excellent post!  As you know, I've put out these numbers concisely a
few times before, but yours was a really nice thorough write up.  Now
the question of which brakes to have is clearly answered.


Infinity's Forever,

	JD


 
 
From: Marc J. Zeitlin <marcz@hpwarhw.an.hp.com>
Subject: COZY: Land Gear Strut Misaligned? (fwd)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 97 10:23:21 EST

Rob Atencio wrote;

>.....  The left hand side (fuselage upside down) lines up perfectly with
>the line on the floor but the right side is forward of the line by
>five-eighth's (5/8) of an inch.  I rechecked the level of the fuselage and
>also level across the strut.  Everything was right on the money, except for
>the location of the front of the strut on the right side.

>    Should I be concerned about this?  Is there something I can do about
>this?  Did I do something wrong way down the line?

Here's what I think happened, and what some options might be.  I think
that your pilot hole lines are not quite parallel with the fuselage CL
(as you surmised).  Since the gear is about 6' tip to tip, while the
holes are only about 2' apart, a 5/8" difference at the tips could be
caused be less than 1/2 degree offset in the pilot holes.  Since the
front and back landing gear bulkheads are only 8" apart, a difference of
1/16" in the distance from the centerline to the pilot holes in the front
and rear bulkheads could cause this.  You filed one side to match the
other, so now they're parallel with each other, but not quite parallel
with the centerline.

Is this a problem?  Well, you still haven't mounted your axles, and
there's more than enough room (at least there was on my LG strut) to move
the axle fore and aft to position it at exactly the correct position,
even with the strut 5/8" off.  You can also easily get the toe-in correct
as well, since you still have to make the flox pads.  So, I'd say that
the only problem would be a slight misalignment of the gear with the
airflow, which _might_ cause a tiny yaw requiring some rudder trim (but I
doubt it - we're not talking about much here) and/or some aesthetic
issues which are probably also unnoticable.

You don't say, but I'm assuming that you've still only got your pilot
holes drilled, and haven't drilled the final holes or installed the
bushings yet.  If this is the case, then you should be able to easily fix
the problem by widening the pilot holes by 1/32" - 1/16" to get them
parallel to the CL.  Then, when you drill out the holes for the bushings,
you can ensure that they are parallel to the CL.

Conversely, you could widen the pilot holes in the strut tabs and ensure
that you mount the MKMGA's so that the strut is parallel to the CL.

Good luck - let us know what you end up doing and how it turns out.

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

 
 
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 18:55:49 -0600
From: "Joseph H. Hart IV" <jodyhart@communique.net>
Subject: COZY: Re:  Brake Master cylinders

Does anyone know what affect the Matco triple-pucks will have on heat
dissipation.  I read Marc's post, totally agreed with regard to safety,
wondered why Nat didn't do this if it was so relatively easy, and-----,
immediately recalled that come people have had wheel pant/strut
distortion because of the heat given off by the brakes.

If the brakes are more powerful, it is obvious that K.E. is being to
converted to thermal energy more quickly and thereby allowing the
surrounding parts to get hotter and possibly melting.  Can anyone
confirm this?  Any ideas as to how to solve the problem?  What
effect/possible drawbacks would there be in using cross-drilled brake
discs, a la 911 Turbo?

P.S. Pardon my hogging of bandwidth with two messages in a row--I'm
going through a period of manic enthusiasm looking forward to getting
started with the project!

Jody Hart
jodyhart@communique.net


 
 
From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 19:04:00 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: COZY: Land Gear Strut Misaligned? (fwd)

Mark Z. says <Relocate axle fore/aft on strut> I don't recommend. Its necessary to carve 
away enough of the strut to clear the brake caliper (Clevelands). The strut only can take 
so much chopping. The torsion capacity is related to the 4th power of the dimensions. As I 
replied privately on the topic yesterday, the toe-in can be adjusted, but I prefer tapered 
BID pads. Make that #3 on my list after the warning horn delay and top compass mount.

 
 
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 19:23:00 -0600 (CST)
From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com

How does the weight of the Matco & Cleveland Brakes compare? Remember what Burt says, if 
you'r going to put it in an EZ, throw it up in the air, if it comes down, its too HEAVY.


 
 
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 17:31:18 -0800
From: "LCDR James D. Newman" <infaero@flash.net>
Organization: INFINITY Aerospace - http://www.flash.net/~infaero
Subject: COZY: Re:  Land Gear Strut Misaligned?

Hi All,
 
	>Its necessary to carve away enough of the strut to clear the brake
caliper (Clevelands).<

	Not required with Matco's.


Infinity's Forever,

	JD


 
 
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 18:19:47 -0800
From: "LCDR James D. Newman" <infaero@flash.net>
Organization: INFINITY Aerospace - http://www.flash.net/~infaero
Subject: COZY: Wheel and Brake Weight

Hi Carl and All,

	>Carl Denk wrote:
	>How does the weight of the MATCO & Cleveland Brakes compare? Remember
what Burt says, if you'r going to put it in an EZ, throw it up in the
air, if it comes down, its too HEAVY.<

	Good question!  I too wondered this about 5+ years ago when I first
found out about the MATCO 3 puck wheel and brake system.  I took the
Cleveland Super Heavy Duties (195K KE) in vogue at the time and the
MATCO 3 puck wheel, brake, axle, axle nut, etc. (complete and equivalent
parts for each to compare apples and apples) to the local post office
and weighed them.  The two were within a few ounces of each other.  With
a set of 5.00 x 5 Goodyear tires and tubes on the Clevelands and the
5.00 x 5 Michelin tires and tubes on the Matco's, within a pound.


Infinity's Forever,

	JD


 
 
From: Marc J. Zeitlin <marcz@hpwarhw.an.hp.com>
Subject: COZY: Re:  Land Gear Strut Misaligned? (fwd)
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 97 8:44:29 EST

Jim Newman wrote:

>Carl Denk wrote:
>	>Its necessary to carve away enough of the strut to clear the brake
>caliper (Clevelands).<
>
>	Not required with Matco's.

I wouldn't go that far, Jim, having installed a set :-).  I think that
Carl's worries may be justified regarding carving away too much of the
landing gear strut.  When I installed my Matco's as shown on:

   http://www-msy-me.an.hp.com/~marcz/cozy_mkIV/chapters/chap09_6.html

I _DID_ have to carve away some of the strut - the third picture shows
this to the best advantage.  As far as I could tell, I carved less than
was shown on the plans in Chap. 9 - page 7.  Marc/Nadine Parmelee's
installation with the Matco's is shown further down the web page, and I
believe that they carved away even less than I did, since they positioned
the caliper differently.

At any rate, with respect to Rob Atencio's issue, his strut is forward of
where it is supposed to be.  If he positions the axle 5/8" further _back_
he'd have to carve away even less of the strut than I (or Marc P.) did,
at least using the Matco brakes.  I don't know what effect this might
have if he's using Clevelands, and in that case Carl's worries may be
completely justified.

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

 
 
From: Marc J. Zeitlin <marcz@hpwarhw.an.hp.com>
Subject: COZY: Re:  Brake Master cylinders (fwd)
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 97 8:55:35 EST

Jody Hart wrote;

>If the brakes are more powerful, it is obvious that K.E. is being to
>converted to thermal energy more quickly and thereby allowing the
>surrounding parts to get hotter and possibly melting.  Can anyone
>confirm this?

Remember that this will only be the case if you're in a situation where
you have to brake very hard - in normal landings/taxiing, you're not
dissipating any more energy than you would be using the standard brakes -
the standard ones are just operating closer to their maximum capacity.
Slowing from 80 kts to 5 kts in 2000 ft. takes the same amount of energy
absorption no matter which brakes you're using.

>......  Any ideas as to how to solve the problem?

It's only a problem (or a potential one) in emergency braking situations
- then you _will_ be dissipating more heat with the high capacity brakes
(whether from Cleveland or Matco).

A number of the COZY newsletters show (and recommend using) aluminum heat
shields to protect the landing gear struts, and many of the wheel pant
I've seen have louvers or slots on the top surface to allow hot air to
exhaust even when sitting still.  These should be as much protection as
would be needed.

>......  What
>effect/possible drawbacks would there be in using cross-drilled brake
>discs, a la 911 Turbo?

I drilled out the brakes on my motorcycle to assist in braking in the
rain (I believe the purpose of the holes is to help clear the water from
under the pads).  If anything, since it's removing material, it may make
the temperature of the rotor higher, although the total heat disippated
stays constant, so it shouldn't affect the gear leg or wheel pants much. 
I wouldn't do it - don't think there's any advantage.

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

 
 
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 09:16:51 -0500
From: Ian Douglas <douglas@ibm.net>
Organization: WTC
Subject: Re: COZY: Re:  Brake Master cylinders (fwd)

Marc wrote:

> I drilled out the brakes on my motorcycle to assist in braking in the
> rain (I believe the purpose of the holes is to help clear the water from
> under the pads).  If anything, since it's removing material, it may make
> the temperature of the rotor higher, although the total heat disippated
> stays constant, so it shouldn't affect the gear leg or wheel pants much. 
> I wouldn't do it - don't think there's any advantage.
> 
One of the other reasons that the race cars all drill out their brake
drums is to interrupt the air flow around the brake disc causing more
heat to dissipate faster (acts somewhat like a fan).  Since our discs
will be hidden from air flow by wheel pants, airflow through the pant
(vents) will also be required as most builders already know.  Tim
Merril's Cozy does not have vents as he used 6" wheels and found that
even under heavy braking he has no brake fade.  If my tub was not
already sitting on wheels, I would opt for the 6" system myself.  When
we build MK0626 we will use 6" wheels.
-- 
Ian D.S. Douglas
MK0069

 
 
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 10:25:47 -0500
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Re:  Brake Master cylinders (fwd)

Marc,

	Certainly, the information you have posted on the Matco verses
Cleveland brake issue concerning the MKIV is food to ponder.  Especially
for guys who have not purchased a brake system.

	Since I was the guy who stated that the Cleveland system is =93adequate=94=
,
let me elaborate a bit beyond my experience with the system in the Long
EZ.

	Some years ago a friend asked me to fly with him because he was having
some difficulty with his landings.  The first approach and landing
revealed why he was dissatisfied - he was below a normal visual approach
slot and too fast.  His mini flare carried him far beyond the touch down
point and much braking was needed to stop.  We took off again and
climbed to altitude to determine what approach speed he should be
using.  I like dirty stall plus 30% and that=92s what we used on the next
approach.  I made him fly an approximate 3=B0 slot and things worked out
much better.

	I mention this little episode because I believe most landing over run
incidents after max braking are caused by a poorly executed approach and
landing.  Any brake system can easily have it=92s limits exceeded by spee=
d
alone.

	The MKIV Flight Handbook recommends a 65 knot touch down speed.  Why
are using 80 knots to determine brake energy requirements?

	Brake tests to determine energy requirements are always performed with
the wheel and brake exposed to the elements, I am sure.  If one is to
use a brake system with higher brake energy capacity, it only follows
there will be more heat to dissipate.  Since we are all bent on speed
and looks with tight pants, are we not somewhat compromising safety by
enclosing a greater generator of heat in that same confined area?  It
only follows logically, if one is going for max brake effort under any
circumstance, wheel pants, good looks, and extra speed, have to go.

dd

 
 
From: N11TE@aol.com
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 11:43:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Brake Master cylinders

I really thought about just letting this thread die.

However, I also do not believe it would be right to not make some builders
aware that there is another choice in brakes and wheels.

Like other builders, I personally talked to several Cozy owners who expressed
their dissatisfaction with the operation of recommended brake systems on
their flying planes.  So, I also looked for another choice. 

I found several builders, and several flying planes, with 600x6 wheels and
double-puck "super-duty" Cleveland brakes.  For example, AeroCanard specs
these as standard equipment for their kits.  Although I do not have the
details handy, they have more than enough power for our needs.  Most
importantly, the builders of these flying planes were and are very satisfied
with this particular Cleveland system.

Yes, it is a larger wheel and may cause more drag if not fared properly.  I
am using the low profile tires which are about the same diameter as the 500x5
tires... but they are a little wider.  Unfortunately, these brakes do cost
more.  It was a trade off that I was personally willing make for the
increased capacity.  And, a quality I thought I could rely upon.

I have no personal experience with the Matco brakes.  They very well may be a
great choice.  Based upon the numbers, they certainly sound good.  However, I
have just heard that Velocity is currently experiencing quite a bit of
trouble with them.  Maybe someone can get a report from the Swings and post
it to the group.

Posted only so that all can be completely informed of all of the available
choices before making an expensive decision.

Tom Ellis
N11TE@aol.com
Cozy MKIV plans #25
Now AeroCanard 540


 
 
From: Marc J. Zeitlin <marcz@hpwarhw.an.hp.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Re:  Brake Master cylinders (fwd)
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 97 11:49:10 EST

Dave Domeier wrote:

>	I mention this little episode because I believe most landing over run
>incidents after max braking are caused by a poorly executed approach and
>landing.  Any brake system can easily have it's limits exceeded by speed
>alone.

I am sure that this is a lot of truth in this statement.

>	The MKIV Flight Handbook recommends a 65 knot touch down speed.  Why
>are using 80 knots to determine brake energy requirements?

And, interestingly enough, if you calculate the energy requirements at
that speed, you end up with just about exactly the energy capacity of the
199-152 brakes - i.e. 192,000 ft-lbs :-).  While this may be the
recommended touch down speed, with cross-winds or rough air (possible
wind shear) you should be bumping up your speed somewhat - 10 kts or so? 
Also, this does not take into account the aborted takeoff scenario, where
your velocity may be substantially higher than touch down speed.  Also, I
personally like to have some margin of safety - while I _should_ touch
down at 65 kts, I may not always be good enough to do so.  Even at 70
kts, the energy requirements go to 222,000 ft-lbs, which is well above
the 199-152's capacity.

Anyway, I believe that these issues are the ones that caused the 80 kt
velocity to be used (starting 2 years ago) in these discussions regarding
the brakes - increased touch down speeds due to air mass issues, aborted
takeoff speeds, and safety margins.

>Brake tests to determine energy requirements are always performed with
>the wheel and brake exposed to the elements, I am sure.

That was certainly the impression I got from Cleveland and Matco,
although they made no mention of air blowing across the brakes while
doing the testing.

>....  If one is to
>use a brake system with higher brake energy capacity, it only follows
>there will be more heat to dissipate.

Only if you brake harder than you otherwise would, and this will only
happen in emergency situations (unless you use the higher stopping
capacity of the brakes to change your braking pattern - something that
no one has recommended).

>.......  Since we are all bent on speed
>and looks with tight pants, are we not somewhat compromising safety by
>enclosing a greater generator of heat in that same confined area?

During emergency braking, this may very well be true.

>......  It
>only follows logically, if one is going for max brake effort under any
>circumstance, wheel pants, good looks, and extra speed, have to go.

Not necessarily.  If, what I'm trading is a slightly melted gear leg
and/or slightly melted wheel pants during emergency braking for not
running off the runway due to brake fade during emergency braking, I'll
take that tradeoff.  Also, your conclusion would follow only if the extra
heat created during the emergency braking couldn't be controlled via the
heat shield and the wheel pants venting.

These are good points, and definitely things to consider.  We should not
be advocating making full brake capacity stops on a regular basis (and
the manuals and Nat have always said this) merely because we've got
higher capacity brakes.  Speed control is also extremely important in
these aircraft on landing, as you have pointed out.

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

 
 
From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 20:07:47 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: COZY: Re:  Land Gear Strut Misaligned? (fwd)

Should have thought about it, edge distance of bolts may be critical,(the strut could 
splinter parallel to the strands), I would prefer leaving as much material as possible at 
the same locations as the drawings. When you install the bolts, oil or wax them lightly so 
you can get them out. I have ruined a set when adjusting wheel alignment.


 
 
From: Marc J. Zeitlin <marcz@hpwarhw.an.hp.com>
Subject: COZY: Re:  Land Gear Strut Misaligned? (fwd)
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 97 9:01:36 EST

Doh;

I wrote:

>.....  When I installed my Matco's as shown on:
>
>   http://www-msy-me.an.hp.com/~marcz/cozy_mkIV/chapters/chap09_6.html

This is my internal HP web pages, and of course no one outside of HP will
be able to access them.  Here's the right address:

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

Sorry for the inconvenience....

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

 
 
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 11:01:20 -0800
From: "LCDR James D. Newman" <infaero@flash.net>
Organization: INFINITY Aerospace - http://www.flash.net/~infaero
Subject: COZY: Re:  Land Gear Strut Misaligned?

Hi Marc and All,

	>>>Carl Denk wrote:
	>>>Its necessary to carve away enough of the strut to clear the brake
caliper (Clevelands).<<<
	>>I wrote:
	>>Not required with Matco's.<<
	>Marc Zeitlin wrote:
	>I wouldn't go that far, Jim, having installed a set :-).  I think that
Carl's worries may be justified regarding carving away too much of the
landing gear strut.  When I installed my Matco's as shown on: 
http://www.ultranet.com/~marcz/cozy_mkIV/chapters/chap09_6.html  I _DID_
have to carve away some of the strut - the third picture shows this to
the best advantage.  As far as I could tell, I carved less than was
shown on the plans in Chap. 9 - page 7.  Marc/Nadine Parmelee's
installation with the Matco's is shown further down the web page, and I
believe that they carved away even less than I did, since they
positioned the caliper differently.<

	I see what you are talking about for your installation, which is still
less carving of the strut compared to the Cleveland installation.  You
must have wanted more of a straight shot for the brake line.
	How Marc Parmelee did it would be best, just rounding the bottom of the
strut and fitting the width of the strut in between the gold brake puck
housing, and using a 90 degree elbow on the end of the brake hose.  This
method carves away very little of the structure, particularly when
compared to how the Clevelands are installed.


Infinity's Forever,

	JD



 
 
From: "Johnson, Phillip" <Phillip.Johnson@lmco.com>
Subject: COZY: Re: Brake Master Cylinders
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:32:57 -0500

Jody Hart wrote;

>If the brakes are more powerful, it is obvious that K.E. is being to
>converted to thermal energy more quickly and thereby allowing the
>surrounding parts to get hotter and possibly melting.  Can anyone
>confirm this?

For the same input energy (KE), the temperature of the disk and the pad
is directly related to the mass of these items. The Matco triple puck
system is, I believe, a little heavier than the Cleveland's recommended
by Nat. Given that my assumption is true, (I've not had the occasion to
do a comparative test) the higher capacity is probably largely
attributable to this difference in weight. Thus there would be a lower
risk of a wheel fire under all conditions of braking when using the
Matco triple puck system.

Phillip Johnson



 
 
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 19:46:27 -0500
From: Jim Hocut <jhocut@mindspring.com>
Subject: COZY: Main Gear - axle location

The back cover of the plans has drawings which shows BL, WL, and FS stations
for many points on the plane.  It appears to show the main gear axles at WL
-22.  I would greatly appreciate it if someone who is far enough along could
attack their plane with a tape measure and tell me if this is accurate.  

Thanks,
Jim Hocut
jhocut@mindspring.com


 
 
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 20:19:00 -0500
From: Jim Hocut <jhocut@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Main Gear - axle location

Thanks for the responses thus far.  The reason I'm asking is that I have
been in contact with Grove Aircraft (the folks that JD mentioned in a thread
several months ago) about doing a set of aluminum gear legs for me.  Since
the financial investment is not going to be insignificant, it is my desire
to have them as near perfect as feasible.  The exact axle location is the
only dimension which we couldn't deduce from plans and drawings, and it is
obviously critical with respect to attaining the proper angle of incidence.
Since I don't have a per plans gear sitting in front of me I can't get out a
tape measure to check this dimension, thus my need for help.

As JD mentioned, aluminum gear legs will eliminate any possibility of
melting from hard braking, they won't require you to spread the gear legs
when parking the aircraft, and (very significantly for some) will basically
bolt into place right off the UPS truck.  I'll report back after I get the
finished product, maybe submit a photo or two.  I'm very impressed with
Robbie Grove's knowledge, he's a homebuilder himself and feel confident that
I'll receive a quality product.

Thanks

Jim Hocut
jhocut@mindspring.com


 
 
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 22:21:16 -0800
From: "LCDR James D. Newman" <infaero@flash.net>
Organization: INFINITY Aerospace - http://www.flash.net/~infaero
Subject: COZY: Re:  Main Gear - axle location

Hi Jim and All,

> Thanks for the responses thus far.  The reason I'm asking is that I have
> been in contact with Grove Aircraft (the folks that JD mentioned in a thread
> several months ago) about doing a set of aluminum gear legs for me.  Since
> the financial investment is not going to be insignificant, it is my desire
> to have them as near perfect as feasible.  The exact axle location is the
> only dimension which we couldn't deduce from plans and drawings, and it is
> obviously critical with respect to attaining the proper angle of incidence.
> Since I don't have a per plans gear sitting in front of me I can't get out a
> tape measure to check this dimension, thus my need for help.
> 
> As JD mentioned, aluminum gear legs will eliminate any possibility of
> melting from hard braking, they won't require you to spread the gear legs
> when parking the aircraft, and (very significantly for some) will basically
> bolt into place right off the UPS truck.  I'll report back after I get the
> finished product, maybe submit a photo or two.  I'm very impressed with
> Robbie Grove's knowledge, he's a home builder himself and feel confident that
> I'll receive a quality product.

	Yes, Robbie is VERY knowledgable.  I've known him for 14+ years.  He's
just 5 rows over from me here at the airport - we help each other out
sometimes, works out well.  He built a very nice looking Vari-EZE with a
cowl flap way back when.  He's made 18 Formula Race wings, props, many
fixed gear, including the main gear for the Catana.  He's involved with
WhirlWind constant speed props I've mentioned before.  He, also, does a
lot of stuff for Teledyne-Ryan and R & D projects for many people.

	Zero WL on the Long-EZ is 1" below the bottom of the fuselage.  The
ground is WL -26.00.  The WL -22.00 is the nose and main wheels center
line WL's for the Long-EZ on the back of the original plans when the
mains were evidentially the same diameter as the nose wheel (about 9" in
diameter nose wheel @ 70 PSI - yes, 70 PSI - and weight-OFF-wheels) -
probably left over from the Vari-EZE days.  The 4" distance from the
nose wheel center line WL of -22.00 to the ground WL of -26.00 is with
weight-ON-wheels, that's why the 1/2" difference.  Also, one assumes
that this is at the original GW of 1325 lbs. and the plane is level.  As
the GW increased, the nose spring went to the strongest made and the
fixed gear mains went from the Vari-EZE strut to a little beefer strut
just for the Long-EZ.  OBTW, the phone # for the nose strut spring
manufacturer is (800) 243-2659, and should be Catalog # 9-2416-36 for
the 1.5" x 4" Extra-Heavy Load Spring.  
	When the Lamb size tire (11.5" diameter @ 70 PSI with
weight-OFF-wheels) came into use because of heavier weights, the fixed
main strut was shortened a little.  When the 14" diameter @ 50 PSI with
weight-OFF-wheel 5.00 x 5 tire became the tire to must have because more
and more planes where getting even heavier with bigger and more HP, the
fixed main strut was shortened a little more.  Maybe Stet Elliott has
some input here, being the guardian of the digital CP's and a Long-EZ
builder.

	The back of the Cozy MK-IV plans say the nose wheel center line is at
WL -23.00 and the mains are at WL -22.00(?).  Again, one assumes this is
at a GW of 2050 lbs. and the plane is level.  One might also assume that
WL 0.00 for the MK-IV is 1" below the bottom of the fuselage too.  The
nose tire of the MK-IV is about 11.5" in diameter @ 75 PSI - yes, 75 PSI
(I looked it up) - and weight-OFF-wheels.
	Maybe from all this you can deduce the WL you need for your mains :-). 
It seems to me that if the nose tire is 11.5" in diameter, and the mains
are 14" in diameter, and both have their respective diameters with
weight-OFF-wheels and both are filled to their appropriate PSI, and that
they both will compress about the same with weight-On-wheels @ GW, then
the axle WL your are looking for is WL -20.75, assuming the nose wheel
WL is correct.  Don't worry that the Long-EZ ground WL was -26.00 at one
time.  The MK-IV ground WL should work out to be WL -27.5 with
weight-On-wheels and the tires compressed about a 1/2" each, assuming
the nose wheel WL is correct for the MK-IV.  You can always adjust the
nose strut height a little too with the nose spring with rod ends.
	Don't take my word, obviously check this all out for your self.  I'm
just trying to give you a starting point from what little bit I know
:-).  Looking forward to what those flying come up with.

	Robbie's polished airfoil strut that is gun drilled is really beautiful
- I hope this is what you are/can get (might be a little heavier if
airfoil shaped rather than just rounded).  He should be able to help you
with the gear height with all the above.  I'd be happy to go over to his
shop to go over anything for you with him if you need me too :-).

	HTH.

Infinity's Forever,

	JD


 
 
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 20:35:22 -0800
From: "LCDR James D. Newman" <infaero@flash.net>
Organization: INFINITY Aerospace - http://www.flash.net/~infaero
Subject: COZY: 5.00 x 5  vs  6.00 x 6  Wheels and Brakes

Hi All,

	I talked with one of Clevelands engineers today and received a FAX of
the specs of all their 5.00 x 5 and 6.00 x 6 wheel and brake systems
they offer.  The best 6.00 x 6 Cleveland wheel and brake system
(199-105) has a Kinetic Energy (KE) of 200,000 ft. lbs. stopping force
each (not enough for the weights and speeds most of the canards are
operating at).  The best 5.00 x 5 Cleveland wheel and brake system
(199-197) has a Kinetic Energy (KE) of 289,000 ft. lbs. stopping force
each (barely enough for the heavier canards, and certainly not enough at
higher density altitudes where ground speed would be higher than 80
knots, for example).

	As most of you know, the MATCO 3 puck 5.00 x 5 wheel and brake system
has a Kinetic Energy of 337,932 ft. lbs. stopping force each with a 30%
safety margin (KE = 439,312 ft. lbs.).
	The brake for the MATCO 6.00 x 6 wheel and brake system is the same 3
puck brake used on their 5.00 x 5 wheel and brake system which, also,
has a Kinetic Energy of 337,932 ft. lbs. stopping force each with a 30%
safety margin (KE = 439,312 ft. lbs.).

	Why then do airplanes use the 6.00 x 6 wheel, brake and tire system on
larger production aircraft rather than the 5.00 x 5's?  One of the
reasons to use the 6.00 x 6 wheel is that the 6.00 x 6 wheel has a
Static Capacity of 1500 lbs. (Clevelands) and 1860 lbs. (Matco's) each,
and a Load Limit of ???? (Clevelands - not listed) and 5580 lbs.
(Matco's) each, which obviously handles the heavier aircraft.  While the
Cleveland 5.00 x 5 wheel has a Static Capacity of 1260 lbs. each and the
Matco's have a Static Capacity of 1420 lbs. each, and Clevelands have a
Load Limit of ???? (not listed) and Matco's have a Load Limit of 4260
lbs. each.
	Also, the 6.00 x 6 tire handles the heavier weights (see below), and/or
the low profile 1500 - 6.00 x 6 has a maximum speed of 160 MPH.  Note,
there is a Michelin 8 ply tire that has a max. rated speed of 160 MPH if
you know of someone who needs it.

The 17.5" max. diameter 120 MPH 6.00 x 6 tire is rated at:

Plys	Load	Infla.	Max. Braking	Bottom Load
	(lbs.)	(PSI)	(lbs.)		(lbs.)
4	1150	29	1670		3100
6	1750	42	2540		4700
8	2350	55	3410		6300

The 15.2" diameter 160 MPH 1500 - 6.00 x 6 low profile tire is rated at:

4	1250	45	????		????
6	1950	68	????		????

The 14.2" max. diameter 120 MPH 5.00 x 5 tire is rated at:

4	800	31	1160		2200
6	1285	50	1865		3500 recommended
8	1800	70	????		???? 160 MPH
10	2150	88	????		????

	Like the Cleveland engineer said, the 6.00 x 6 wheel and tire system is
way over kill for these little airplanes as far as Static Capacity and
Load Capacity is concerned.  Also, the wider foot print is of little
benefit over the 5.00 x 5's, and he said their Cleveland 6.00 x 6's are
not enough stopping force when operating at higher speeds and/or
weights.
	While the MATCO 6.00 x 6 wheel and brake system has plenty of stopping
force, as stated above, the Cleveland 6.00 x 6 wheel and brake do not
have enough stopping power for a maximum effort stop at 2050 lbs. and 80
knots (290,608 ft. lbs. stopping force needed from each brake).
	Also, the 6.00 x 6 wheel and tire system would have more drag (1.5"
wider than the 5.00 x 5), cause more pitching moment, weigh 16 to 19
lbs. more and cost more, but what ever flips your bic :-).  Just make
sure you have the stopping force.

	Additional info:  Matco's brake and rotor lives within the diameter of
the wheel so will not grind on the ground if there's a blown tire
causing a potential brake fire, and they are about 1.25+" narrower than
the Cleveland 5.00 x 5's (narrower wheel pants/smaller wheel wells).

	For those of you who think this is dishonest data, the tire data comes
from the 'Tire and Rim Association Standards' book for aircraft tires,
and the Cleveland and MATCO wheel and brake specs come from the
respective companies.

	Before I sign off, there was, also, a thread recently concerning
Velocity having trouble with MATCO brakes at one time.  The problem was
that the 3 puck brake system needs a little more volume.  The Cleveland
Master Brake Cylinders and a version of the MATCO Master Brake
Cylinders, both with a 0.5" bore, did not displace enough fluid if the
brake pedal didn't have enough stroke.  Velocity switched to the 5/8"
bore Master Brake Cylinders, which have been out since '94, solving
their problem.  Note: I only ship the MC-4 horizontal or MC-5 vertical
Master Brake Cylinders (5/8" bore each) with the 3 puck wheel and brake
system I send out.
	If there are any other concerns by any one, please let me or MATCO
know.  TIA.

	Hope this clears up any confusion, and answers any other questions that
are not covered in the archives about brakes.


Infinity's Forever,

	JD


 
 
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 11:12:38 -0800
From: "LCDR James D. Newman" <infaero@flash.net>
Organization: INFINITY Aerospace - http://www.flash.net/~infaero
Subject: COZY: 5.00 x 5  vs  6.00 x 6  Wheel and Brake Addendum

Hi All,

	Yesterday I tried to make a little chart of all the brakes and tires
available to us.  After a post from Fred Mahan this morning concerning
the brakes he has on his Defiant (thanks loads Fred), I just found out
this chart I have from Cleveland of their 6.00 x 6's is ONLY of the
single puck brakes - I got some bum gouge :-(.  I, also, just found out
today from Cleveland that when I talked with Cleveland yesterday, that
the fellow I was talking to was not an engineer, but a draftsman who
just came over from engineering and was new to sales.
	Yesterday I asked him specifically about the stopping power of the
Cleveland single puck and 2 puck 6.00 x 6's.  He said the chart I had
from them was all they had, which shows the best 6.00 x 6 brake they
have has a Kinetic Energy stopping force of 200,000 ft. lbs., which is
just fine for lighter weights and/or slower speeds.  I was surprised
that was the best they had, but he said that was it.  This fellow, being
new to sales, didn't know this wasn't all they had, even though I
specifically quizzed him if he was sure this was the best stopping force
brake in their 6.00 x 6 line.
	Today, I found out from someone better in the know at Cleveland that
they have MANY more flavors of 6.00 x 6 wheels and brakes depending on
application, unfortunately they do not have all the 6.00 x 6's broke
down into a chart like the one I have from them.  This chart is a common
use list of their most commonly used brakes for the small homebuilts. 
They do have a $15 catalog of their entire brake line, but it has no
specs, just the application they are for - we need to know specs.
	Their most common 2 puck 6.00 x 6 brake is the 199-60, which has a
Static Capacity of 2500 lbs., a Load Limit of 8975 lbs., and a Kinetic
Energy (KE) stopping force of 395,000 lbs., more than enough stopping
force for a 2050 lb. aircraft at 80 knots, but heavier.  The rest of my
post from yesterday still applies.
	When you are determining the brakes you will need for the aircraft you
are building/mfg., you must be up front with the brake mfg. concerning
the maximum gross weight you will ever operate your aircraft at, and the
landing and take-off/aborting speeds that you will be operating at at
that maximum gross weight, or you will get a set of brakes that are
inadequate for your plane.  Don't just blindly use what was recommended
long ago when the plane you are building had a lessor gross weight and
lower landing and take-off/aborting speeds.  You are the aircraft
manufacturer.  Determine your needs and get what you really must have.
	Sorry for any confusion, and thanks again Fred :-).


Infinity's Forever,

	JD


 
 
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 18:41:08 -0500
From: "Jeff S. Russell (http://www.aerocad.com)" <jraero@gte.net>
Organization: AeroCad Inc.
Subject: Re: COZY: 5.00 x 5  vs  6.00 x 6  Wheels and Brakes

LCDR James D. Newman wrote:

>         Also, the 6.00 x 6 wheel and tire system would have more drag (1.5"
> wider than the 5.00 x 5), cause more pitching moment, weigh 16 to 19
> lbs. more and cost more, but what ever flips your bic :-).  Just make
> sure you have the stopping force.

The weight of the wheels and brakes less tires and tubes are 19.50 lbs.
How can they weigh 16 to 19 lbs more then the 5.00x5?

At least 2 MKIV and 2 AeroCanards and my old 3 place Cozy are flying with
the 2 puck 6.00x6 with 15-600-6 tires with enough stopping power at
max load.  Works for me and others.  What I like is that you have 3/8"
rotors to take the heat better than the 3/16" thick ones.  With 395,000
stopping force the heat can come up fast on the thinner rotors.
 
-- 
Jeff Russell/AeroCad Inc.                    E-mail:   Jeff@aerocad.com
P.O. Box 7307  Port St. Lucie FL. 34985    
Shop# 561-460-8020  Home# 561-343-7366

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

 
 
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 13:03:27 -0500
From: william l kleb <kleb@ab00.larc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: COZY: 5.00 x 5  vs  6.00 x 6  Wheels and Brakes

Jeff Russell wrote:
>
> >LCDR James D. Newman wrote:
> >
> > the 6.00 x 6 wheel and tire system would ... weigh 16 to 19 lbs.
> > more [than the 5.00 x 5 wheel and tire system].
>
> The weight of the wheels and brakes less tires and tubes are 19.50 lbs.
> How can they weigh 16 to 19 lbs more then the 5.00x5?

i think you might have misread jd's post (or maybe i have ;) ). he is
talking about everything hanging off the main gear struts: two sets of
wheels, tires and brakes.  i have attached the weight comparison i came up
with a few months back for 6.00x6s versus 5.00x5s.

i wrote (sep 97):
> the following compares matco wheels/brakes/axles (triple puck)
> and michelin "air tt" tires (6 ply) for two sizes:
> 
>           wheels
>           /brakes
>           /axles   tires
>   5.00x5    6.1     6.2
>   6.00x6   10.5    10.5
>           -------------
>             4.4     4.3   or 8.7 lbs per wheel/brake/axle/tire combo
> 
> not included would be the weight penalty for larger wheel fairings.
>
> let's call it a total of 18 lbs added to the airplane for
> going with the larger tires.

(note: this comparison does not include the low profile 15-6.00x6 tires
which weigh 6.6 lbs each. this drops the total weight penalty down
to around 10 lbs.  all information is taken from the manufacturers'
respective web sites: http://www.matcomfg.com/ and http://www.michelin.com/.)

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

 
 
From: SBLANKDDS@aol.com
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:40:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: COZY: Electric Speed Brake Installation question.

Speed Brake installed. This seems to slow the cozy quite well when hangar
flying.?@#$

Now I am installing Wayne Lanza's Electric Speed brake in a Cozy Mark IV.

Question: What is the measurement from the speed brake hinge to the center of
the LB-18's (center of LB-18 = hole to connect to mechanical arm).

Every time I cut aluminum (LB-18), I am glad I am building a COZY!!!!

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


 
 
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:34:08 -0500
From: bil kleb <kleb@ab00.larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Subject: Re: COZY: Electric Speed Brake Question

SBLANKDDS@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Question: What is the measurement from the speed brake hinge
> to the center of the LB-18's (center of LB-18 = hole to connect
> to mechanical arm).

figure 57 on page 10 of chapter 9 shows 4" on center (3-1/2 + 1/2).

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

 
 
From: Epplin John A <EpplinJohnA@JDCORP.deere.com>
Subject: COZY: Electric Speed Brake Installation question
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:24:56 -0600



	-----Original Message-----
	From:	SBLANKDDS@aol.com [SMTP:SBLANKDDS@aol.com]
	Sent:	Saturday, November 15, 1997 1:41 PM
	To:	cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com
	Subject:	COZY: Electric Speed Brake Installation
question.

	Speed Brake installed. This seems to slow the cozy quite well
when hangar
	flying.?@#$

	Now I am installing Wayne Lanza's Electric Speed brake in a Cozy
Mark IV.

	Question: What is the measurement from the speed brake hinge to
the center of
	the LB-18's (center of LB-18 = hole to connect to mechanical
arm).

	Every time I cut aluminum (LB-18), I am glad I am building a
COZY!!!!

	Steve Blank     Cozy Mark IV #36.     sblankdds@aol.com
	[Epplin John A]  

	Steve: 

	I installed Wayne's kit after building the brake according to
plans.  One problem is the spacing of the mounting tabs, (LB-18) I
think, don't have the book here.  They must be spaced apart enough to
mount the actuator between.  I removed the original aluminum ones and
made new ones from .040 4130 steel, this allowed me to bend at a minimum
radius and use the same mounting holes through the plywood doubler.  For
those who plan to install Waynes actuator and have not yet built the
brake, it would be worth contacting Wayne or buying the kit before
proceeding.  You could also install hardpoints in the seat brace at the
time you make it.  I think this would be easier than adding them later.

	Your original question concerning the center to center distance
from the actuator connection to hinge line.  I would look at this
closely and consider the actuator travel.  I found that my actuator does
not extend the brake as far as it might, maybe 70 deg although I have
not measured it.  Bill Kleb replied that the plans call for 4", that
will work but may not be optimum with Waynes actuator.

	All in all, Waynes kit is well thought out and easy to install.

	John epplin   Mk4  #467


 
 
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:00:58 -0500
From: bil kleb <kleb@ab00.larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Subject: Re: COZY: Electric Speed Brake Installation question

Epplin John A wrote:
> 
> One problem is the spacing of the mounting tabs, (LB-18)[.]
> They must be spaced apart enough to mount the actuator between.

correct. also, i made the wood hard point in the brake (lb-19)
a half inch wider to accommodate the wider spacing of the
lb-18s.  the slot and hole in the fuselage bottom also
needed to be widened considerably.  i think the slot is now
an inch wide and as wide as allowed by the seatback
brace where the lb-18s need to poke through.

> You could also install hardpoints in the seat brace at the
> time you make it.

i don't know that this is possible given all the variables,
unless you made the hardpoints fairly large so that you'd
be assured of hitting them when you fine-tune the position
of the actuator mounts.  of course you'd also need someone
to tell you where to put the hardpoints (i try to measure
mine tonight).

> I found that my actuator does not extend the brake as
> far as it might, maybe 70 deg.

the sine of 70 degrees is ~0.94, so you already have 94%
of the projected area that a fully deployed brake would
have.  i vote that 70 degrees is plenty.

> Bill Kleb replied that the plans call for 4", that
> will work but may not be optimum with Waynes actuator.

that is what i used for my lanza installation and it
works fine (at least electro-mechanically---no flight test
yet ;) ).

as far as i understand wayne's design: if you place the
lb-18s any further away from the hinge center line, you
won't be able to get enough deployment; and if you place
the lb-18s any closer to the hinge line, you would exceed
the motor's capacity when trying to deploy the brake at
maximum brake extension airspeed.

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

 
 
From: SBLANKDDS@aol.com
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:26:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: COZY: Cozy -Electric Speed Brake

Thanks for all the info.

The electric speed brake is installed and works!!!  A few pointers to follow:

1. Don't bother finishing the speed brake edges to the fuselage edges, until
finished with the installation. My tollerances were too close, and I had to
sand and will need to refill..... The speeb brake puts just the slightest
force on the hinge and trailing edge hangs up just a bit. 

2. Completely forget the plans size cut-out in the fuselage floor. Not even
close. I will measure and send specific dimensions when I am finished
covering the exposed foam.

3. I only drilled one hole through the map pocket...... before I got it
right....

Landing Gear next.....   Steve Blank   Cozy Mark IV #36   

 
 
From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 20:14:25 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: COZY: Electric Speed Brake Installation question

Bill Kleb wrote <Slot by landing brake> I use the hollow quarter round weatherstrip around 
the hole (not on the thin area) to seal the landing brake, therfore no cold draft at 
buttocks.


 
 
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 08:31:07 -0500
From: bil kleb <kleb@ab00.larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Subject: Re: COZY: Electric Speed Brake Installation question

bil kleb wrote:
> 
> Epplin John A wrote:
> > You could also install hardpoints in the seat brace
> > at the time you make it.
> 
> i don't know that this is possible given all the variables,
> unless you made the hardpoints fairly large.. of course
> you'd also need someone to tell you where to put the
> hardpoints (i try to measure mine tonight).

hole A:  2-1/4" up, 2-3/4" forward
hole B:  3-1/4" up, 5-3/4" forward

all measurements (+/- 1/8") are from the bottom (horizontal)
and back (vertical) edges of the triangular seatback brace,
i.e., not including the rear heatduct height.

this puts the holes just below the lower edge of the map pocket.

while i was there, i measured the slot in the bottom skin
of the fuselage to be 1-7/8" wide, transitioning to 1" wide
2-3/4" down the 4-1/8"-long slot.  the centermost edge of
1-7/8" wide section is very close to the edge of the heatduct.

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

 
 
From: Epplin John A <EpplinJohnA@JDCORP.deere.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Electric Speed Brake Installation question
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 12:42:57 -0600



A follow-up from yesterdays comments.  I measured my hole locations and
extension.  I am only getting 62 deg extension, still should be OK.  I
will try some printer graphics on the hole locations in the seat brace.

   
                                          
                   |\
                   |   \
                   |      \
                   |         \
                   |            \
                   |               \
                   |                  \
                   |                     \
                   |      6.3     x       \
                   |  3.4 x     3.34       \
                   |        2.                    \
                   ----------------------------------
>  
x marks the holes

from the lower rear corner, on top of the heat duct, forward 6.3, up
3.34 for the pivot hole,  forward 3.4 up 2. for the adjustment slot
hole.

Hope you can understand the crude drawing.   If this looks somewhat like
yours, feel free to pass it on.
I also mounted a small micro-switch on a aluminum plate with platenuts I
embedded in the right side of the heat duct.  I put a small aluminum
plug through the fuselage just forward of the rear of the brake cutout
and used a nylon pushrod I made to actuate the switch when the brake is
completely closed.  Can provide more details if anyone is interested.

John  Epplin.




 
 
From: Epplin John A <EpplinJohnA@JDCORP.deere.com>
Subject: RE: COZY: SPEED BRAKE ACTUATOR
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:17:18 -0600



> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Bulent [SMTP:atlasyts@idt.net]
> Sent:	Tuesday, November 18, 1997 2:56 PM
> To:	Canard Aviators; Cozy Builders
> Subject:	COZY: SPEED BRAKE ACTUATOR
> 
> Hi All; 
> I noticed that Grainger is selling a 12V actuator part #6Z087 ON PAGE
> 276 of the catalog.
> I would like to hear from someone if this actuator is suitable for use
> in our speed brake?
> Best Regards;
> Bulent
	[Epplin John A]  

	This does not seem to be the same that Wayne Lanza uses in his
kit.  It is much longer stroke, does not appear to have limit swithches
built in.  I am not saying you cannot use it but it is not a drop in
replacement by far.  Also it appears that you have to buy the actuator
and also a tube which gets up to about $280.  Wayne provides a swithch,
mounting bracket, and attaching hardware etc in his kit.  You will need
all of the above which will add to the cost.

	John epplin   Mk4  #467




 
 
From: "Rob Atencio" <r_atencio@geocities.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Electric Speed Brake Installation question
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:34:51 -0500

Just to add another point to the list, my dimensions are as follows:

Hole A:  1.25" up, 2.40" forward
Hole B:  2.25" up, 5.25" forward

Forward dimensions are measured from the rear edge of the seatback brace and
upward dimensions are measured from the top of the heat duct.  Trying to be
consistent with the other measurements provided.  I haven't measured the
opening angle of the speedbrake, but when I do, I will post it.

Rob Atencio
New Bern, NC
mailto:r_atencio@geocities.com



 
 
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:46:02 -0500
From: "Jeff S. Russell http://www.AeroCad.com" <jraero@gte.net>
Organization: AeroCad Inc.
Subject: COZY: Re: Main Gear Weight for Cozy

Jim Hocut wrote:
> 
> Hey Jeff,
> 
> I'm doing a little "comparative shopping" before I make a final decision, &
> JD @ Infinity suggested you'd be a good person to ask what the approximate
> weight of the main gear is after all the additional layups, mounting tabs,
> etc. (w/o axles, wheels, ....).

I can tell you that my gear WITH 600-6 wheels and 15-600-6 tires, unbolted
from the airframe is 75 lbs.  Less wheel pants  3.5 lbs each

-- 
Jeff Russell/AeroCad Inc.                    E-mail:   Jeff@aerocad.com
P.O. Box 7307  Port St. Lucie FL. 34985    
Shop# 561-460-8020  Home# 561-343-7366

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

 
 
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:08:28 -0800
From: Wayne Lanza <wlanza@iu.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Electric Speed Brake Installation question

Wayne Lanza wrote:
> 
> bil kleb wrote:
> >
> >
> > rob, the distance between your two holes is only 3.0".
> > for john e's and mine, the distance is 3.2".
> >
> > so either you're using an newer (or older) mounting
> > bracket then we have, your measurements are a little off,
> > or wayne doesn't hold too tight of tolerance on drilling
> > the mounting holes in the bracket...
> >
> > --
> > bil <mailto:w.l.kleb@larc.nasa.gov>
> 

> Hi Guys,  Old buddy Bill kinda hit it on the head re: I don't
> hold too close a tolerance... There has been a difference from
> run to run on the machining of the actuator 'forks' therefore
> I DONOT!!! recommend that you pre-drill the holes unless, you
> 
> 1) have already purchased the actuator kit or
> 
> 2) only drill the pivot (foremost) hole.
> 
> One way to avoid finding the drill locations is to strike a
> marker line on the seat brace foam about a half inch BELOW
> the BOTTOM of the foam floor of the map pocket. Then when
> you install the kit you'll know where to drill the holes.
> I'm not sure what you gain by pre-drilling the holes, except
> that it's easier to get into the tub in the early stages.
> I mounted my kit with the tub on it's side, and one in a
> friend's MK3 from the back seat. Neither installation seemed
> to present any real difficulty except that my BULK doesn't
> bend as well as it used to...
> 
> Best Wishes to All, please contact me with any questions.
> 
> Wayne Lanza

 
 
From: SBLANKDDS@aol.com
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 07:35:32 -0500 (EST)
Subject: COZY: Electric Speed Brake Installation question

Well I installed my Lanza electric speed brake and it works, but the mounting
holes are not the same for any of us that posted. Seem to be one of those,
put it where it works projects.

  Measuring from the back of the seatback support, and the top of the heat
duct the first hole is:

hole A = 2.7" up and 6.6" forward

hole B = 2" up and 3.6" forward.

The angle when fully deployed is 60 degrees.

Fun to operate, my first electrical part complete!!!!!!

Steve Blank - Cozy Mark IV #36

 
 
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 19:00:26 -0800
From: C Van Hoof <cvh@iafrica.com>
Organization: Architect
Subject: COZY: Chapter 09

Hi All,

I'm presently in chapter 09 and am trying to get to the gear attach 
points.

some toime earlier my gear was described and for clarity i'll do it 
again. 

When the gear is lying flat on the leading edge on the workbench (level 
all directions), then the gear leg ends - about 9 inch from the ends - 
are off the bench by about 1/8 inch on the one side and about 1/4 inch on 
the other.

OK now what...
so i marked my exact centre line but did not cut the gearlegs at the 8 
deg angle yet.

did the straws and that all worked very nicely...

then came the boxjig for the attach points.

There was a little discrepancy of 1/16in between the measured centre line 
and the new one measured on the flat/vertical surfaces

so as expected - both sides were not touching 100% against the vertical 
plywood one side (RH) was a paper thickness off (could be the sanding?)

now my box gets made and is level/plum/square in all directions.good.

but when i set this whole contraption on my table along the FS lines as 
per plan - my one gearleg is out by 1/8 of an inch.

Now the question:

DO I NEED TO WORRY?

WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE FIXES?

Any input will be appreciated
(sending the gear back was never an option from my continent)


 
 
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 19:08:08 -0800
From: C Van Hoof <cvh@iafrica.com>
Organization: Architect
Subject: COZY: Ch 09 errata

Sorry folks,

in my description i said

"then the gear leg ends - about 9 inch from the ends -"

but i meant:

then the gear leg ends - about 9 inch from the ends touching the table 
curve up ever so slightly, lifting the gear attach point ( end of leg) -
off the table by about 1/8 inch on the one side and about 1/4 inch on
the other.

sorry about that

anu advice still appreciated.

Chris
#219


 
 
From: Marc Zeitlin <marcz@hpwarhw.an.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 97 10:02:58 EST
Subject: COZY: Chapter 09 (fwd)

Chris vanHoof writes:

>When the gear is lying flat on the leading edge on the workbench (level 
>all directions), then the gear leg ends - about 9 inch from the ends - 
>are off the bench by about 1/8 inch on the one side and about 1/4 inch on 
>the other.

>...but when i set this whole contraption on my table along the FS lines as 
>per plan - my one gearleg is out by 1/8 of an inch.

This sounds almost exactly like the issue that Rob Atencio brought up not
one month ago.  I'd suggest reviewing the archives:

   topics/chap_09.txt

to see the recommendations.  In summary - not a major issue, but
definitely read the comments.

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



 
 
From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 19:05:36 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: COZY: Chapter 09 (fwd)

See Central States newsletter about 4 or 5 years ago for neat way to add fairing to main 
strut.