From: "Eric Holmberg" Subject: RE: Re[XXXXX]: COZY: Approved parts (was Aerocad) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 20:55:51 -0500 > I believe I asked a number of fair questions about the value of approval > etc and how to be able to tell when an 'approved' part is not acceptable > for use on my airplane. You did shed some light on the approval process > and, in general, how parts get approved by you. That's informative, but > does not answer the main question(s) I posed to the group. Please note the word "Experimental".... and that we only paid $500 for the rights to produce this plane and that since we are building 51 percent (and hopefully more) of these aircraft that we should have the wisdom and knowledge to know what a good part and a bad part is. Hence, the blessing of the FAA in certifying us as the A&P mechanic certified to do maintenance and repairs on OUR aircraft. Since we are the A&P, then we are required to be able to discern between good parts and faulty parts. Builder beware... Personally, I'm sick and tired of all this crap going back and forth and the *FLAMES* shooting out of everybody's mouths in trying to accuse someone because such and such broke and blah blah blah... Most of the time, these things started correctly with the proof being made (i.e. pics of broken parts, measurements of stretched parts, etc) and then everybody gets all up in a rage about so-and-so and then people come into the middle of the conversation and start picking at details again which are completely irrelevant at that point. > Not meaning to pick fly poop off pepper; but, you state that you "assume" > that because you tried a part once and it hasn't broke yet, > several hundred > similar parts made by the same company will perform and be of the same > quality for years to come as the one you received. That, company > reputation and copying Burt's work, in general are how you arrive at an > approval decision. All well and good, but that doesn't exactly > match up to > the considerable cost or detail of testing which the FAA requires for > certified stuff. I think equating your blessing to FAA certification is > terribly misleading. > Please reference the "Experimental" remark and the fact that Nat is selling plans and providing support as a bonus. I think you need to understand that he has spent a lot of time and money that he really doesn't have to in trying to help everyone out. Personally, as an engineer, I would not want to be in his place... He's designed a machine that is extremely well built and tested. He then authorizes other people and other companies to build parts. If the manufacturers don't live up to their standards, then who do the builders blame? Nat, exactly... Now, as a human being, don't you think you would be a little upset if someone throws a wrench in your works by screwing something up and everything comes down on you instead of who screwed it up? Think of it this way, he has done his part by providing the plans and as a nice guy, he's helping us out additionally. I think that his opinions go a long way and I know that it can be very misleading the way things are presented because *NONE* of us know the whole story. However, I would put a lot of faith in his words and then take that advice and make your own decision and make sure it is a good one, because your butt is going to be in that plane that you built. > Nat, please understand, the only reason I get concerned about > this stuff is > because it's my keester on the line. As such, it seems to me that I have > asked some fair and reasonable questions about approved parts I am > receiving. As the builder, you are responsible... Don't badger for answers like a little kid, make informed inquiries and be gracious for the support that he is providing to us. If I were him, I would have probably already decided that enough was enough and would have quit providing such dedicated support to the Cozy builders... But a few bad apples isn't reason to burn the orchard. Oh yeah, and if you've made it this far, I congratulate you because I doubt that most people have the patience and perserverence to read this whole thing! -Eric ·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º> Eric Holmberg Computer Engineering, Virginia Tech ------------------------------------------------------------- If you continue to do what you've always done, You will continue to be what you've always been. <º))))><¸...·`¯´·.¸.·`¯´·.¸¸.·`<º)))>< ..·`¯´·. . , .¸.·`¯´· Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 08:15:03 +0200 From: Jannie Versfeld Subject: COZY: Blue Blood Cozy-MKIV Dear All, Since I am the "culprit" that started the whole issue on the "difference" between the Aero_Cad & Feather_Lite main gear struts and reading some posts on whether your Cozy-MKIV should rather be called something else I would like to state the changes that I elected to make. I have discussed these with Nat and he has advised that I stick to the plans. I appreciate his views and reasons but since I am building a plans build aircraft and an experimental on top of that I suppose I have the right to choose. If I wanted a kit build plane I would surely have gone for the LancAir-IV. Ok here is what I am doing: After reading the older news letter about the Franklin installation the idea crossed my mind that a O-540-XXX sounds goog. I have a FRM at "0" hrs. (no need to get a 360/320 now. I weighed the engine at 364 lbs without starter, alternator, governor & vac. pump. I have a spin on oil filter. I calculated that adding B&C light weight starter & alternator with ETBI carb I will only be 80 lbs more than the IO-360 I had planned for. Pro's to this I believe is a simpler engine mount and a shorter prop shaft extension if any and much more power for take-off (260 Hp) and a much smoother and reliable engine. I fly from an airfield at 5300 ft and a short runway (2300 ft) so the extra power will help. I will not be installing a constant speed prop but figured that I would have to get performance prop to build me a 68" diam. X 91" pitch to get static within 2200 rpm. I will not be using any pre-molded parts and I will be making my own nose cone that is about 6" longer and more sharply pointed where the pitot goes. Other than all the above changes I will be buidling exactly per plans since it was my choice of an aircraft and living with the 51% rule. Thank you Nat for a fine airplane and all the development that you have done for us Cozy_builders. The more I build the more I realize how well everything was thought out and designed and how strong it is. I am sure that the changes I make will still have me a Cozy-MKIV but with much more power...... Maybe a Cozy-XL ????? I will be dealing with approved suppliers. Thanks, Jannie Versfeld # 673 From: lschuler@cellular.uscc.com Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 12:21:50 -0600 Subject: COZY: Approved Parts Nat and others have sent me some notes and I think there is some confusion afoot. The following was my response to a private note from Nat which I feel is appropriate for all, given the misunderstanding. Last paragraph has been added with this post (Nat's comments were private, and I'll keep it that way): Nat, I am truly sorry to hear that. As I told you before, if it weren't for you, I would not be building at all. PERIOD! No ifs, ands, or buts about it. I spent several long years evaluating a short list of designs and designers. I am on chapter 13 of the Cozy MK-IV plans for a reason; and it sure doesn't make sense to me that I would be doing so if I disliked and lacked respect for Nat Puffer or his design.... I have no idea why my questions would bother you or anyone in any way other than the possibility that it may be because I took my que from something you said in your Aerocad post. My post had, and still has nothing in particular to do with Aerocad or your debate with them. NONE of my questions or comments are slams, digs, attacks, innuendoes or anything else against you, your work, or anyone else. I am only asking some basic construction and parts selection/rejection/responsibility guidance questions; particularly concerning 'approved' parts (that's what the subject refers to), not necessarily FAA certified stuff. How, what, why, when, who stuff. No more, no less. Yes, I did mention a vendor and the difficulty I had in receiving a particular part, which was what prompted my query. No different and no less or more than I would state about Wicks if I had received a batch of bent AN hardware. This was simple personal experience FACT and was passed on to indicate a problem I personally had for the information and benefit of others (which is what Marc's list is all about). That particular issue (questionable nose strut quality and vendor delay), in my mind, has nothing to do with Aerocad or Nat Puffer nor your methods or reasons for selecting vendors. You offered information as to how you select vendors. That's great info and I appreciate you supplying it, but not really requested. The fact that you copied Burt's work on parts or portions of the entire design is wholly appropriate. The airplanes we, as the ultimate manufacturer, get certified as one-of-a-kind by the FAA are copies of your work too. Shoot, someone invented AN hardware, Lycoming engines and nose wheel inner-tubes at some point in time. EVERYTHING we do is a copy of someone elses original ("first") inventive, creative work (royalties passed as appropriate via purchase). Your plans are as much an idividual part of our planes as an AN-3 bolt; it takes a conglomoration of all parts and pieces to make the whole. It's the selection etc of the various parts (as the responsible manufacturer) that concers my original post. It should have been fairly obvious that I, at least initially, accepted the approved nose strut I refer to. It is indeed mounted on my airplane carcass and I appropriately accept responsibility for that decision (and the possibility of removing it, depending on what I read here etc). I did not think much of the quality at the time and filled in the voids; however, your concerns about possible voids in the main gear (under a different subject) prompted me to reevaluate my decision to use the nose strut I received and also promted me to seek guidance via this unofficial mailing list. Let me see if I can re-state my predicament: In a nut shell, I used the nose strut and accepted it because it is approved by CO-Z. Simple as that. In thinking further (the hindsight I referred to), it seemed to me that I could get a bad part from ANY vendor, Wicks, ASS, Oshkosh flymart, Featherlite, Lycoming, or any number of others. All I am looking for (via my earlier questions) is some guidance concerning the parts and vendors approved by CO-Z for use on our airplanes, in general, and how I might best make decisions on acceptance or rejection in the future; and, how much weight (value) should I place on CO-Z approval. In addition I was asking, specifically, how in the heck one might be able to identify a bad nose strut (or maybe bad mains) since these are mostly solid glass. I believe that parts we use are made by human beings capable of making mistakes the same as I do. I do not expect Featherlite, Wicks, Lycoming, Aerocad, CO-Z, or anyone else to be perfect; but it's my toosh on the line and I need to make informed decisions as to what goes in my airplane. Biggest issue is where do I stop doing personal acceptance testing and start trusting? If for some reason someone reads something into my questions that wasn't there, then all I can say is I'm sorry to hear that. I accept the responsibility for typing and sending occasional notes out on the list for all the world to see, but I do not and will not take the responsibility for any recipient's interpretation. With all due respect Nat (remember, I hold you in very high regard and would not be building if it weren't for your work and perseverance over the years [PLEASE REMEMBER THAT]), you are not required to respond to every post on Marc's mail list. If you do, great, super, fantastic, best I could hope for. I always love to hear from the guy who designed the set of plans which I have and darn glad to have you on this unofficial list. I also assume that you are pretty much like me; one leg in the pants at a time; you're as human as I am. Perhaps I made a mistake in kicking off my subject from your Aerocad post. Did not mean to associate my questions with Aerocad, nor to your ongoing emotional debate with them. If that is what happened, then I apologize for that boo-boo. In the meantime, if anyone is still reading this, I have a decision to make and would appreciate some constructive assistance from whomever would like to respond. Maybe someone else can learn from this as well. Larry From: JHTanstaaf@aol.com Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 13:36:35 EST Subject: Re: Re[XXXXX]: COZY: Approved parts (was Aerocad) In a message dated 12/14/98 8:52:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, eric@g3.net writes: > He's designed a machine that is extremely well built > and tested. He then authorizes other people and other companies to build > parts. If the manufacturers don't live up to their standards, then who do > the builders blame? Nat, exactly... Now, as a human being, don't you think > you would be a little upset if someone throws a wrench in your works by > screwing something up and everything comes down on you instead of who > screwed it up? The trouble is that Nat makes an enormous point of "Approved" vs. anyone else. In fact, if you've followed the recent threads he made an edict about only using the APPROVED (his CAPS) supplier for the landing gear legs just a couple of weeks ago. In deciding to make a distinction between Approved and non- Approved suppliers and providing recommendations, Nat assumed the responsibility to deal with the fall-out. I know that I am ultimately responsible for the results of my building efforts, but I also expect that if I am encouraged/urged/required by the plans seller to use certain suppliers that there is empirical evidence that those suppliers produce better (or at least acceptable) parts. Since it is impossible for me (or anyone else) to verify that all of the stuff we use in our planes is up to spec (when was the last time you mil-spec tested your AN hardware?), we need to use things like approved vendor lists to provide some sense of safety in dealing with suppliers. Otherwise we'll need to spend a lot of time researching/testing and not building/flying. In return for our faith in the vendor (and the corresponding favored trading status) we ought to expect that they commit to continued building of parts in accordance with the specs & in line with the quality of the acceptance-tested version. It ought not to be simply a case where they did ok by Nat or Burt once and no one's verified it since. From: JHTanstaaf@aol.com Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 14:36:23 EST Subject: Re: COZY: prefab parts. In a message dated 12/14/98 9:32:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, jkl@sonet.net writes: > When i purchased plans from Nat Puffer he agreed to give me the right to > build one Cozy Mark IV according to plans and give me technical support while > building which he has done, and I have agreed to build one Cozy IV according > to plans, which I have done. Nat is trying to stress safety to everyone out > there. He can only gaurantee a safe Cozy IV if you use approved parts and > build according to plans. If you chose to build your aircraft another way > then call your aircraft somthing else so you won't embarass the rest of us > who chose to stick to our end of the agreement if and when a unaproved part > fails. And so the slippery slope begins. Is it a deviation worthy of a name change when I use a bolt that fits rather than the one that is called out in the plans because I add an extra layup or *shudder* there is an error in the plan? If I choose to buy my hardware from someone other than Aircraft Spruce or Wicks, have I begun to use unapproved parts -- is an AN bolt not an AN bolt when it is not bought from those suppliers? Do parts that have been generally interchanged successfully -- for instance Cleveland & Matco brakes -- count as "per plans" or must they only be the ones in the plans Burt created 20 years ago (as modified by Nat)? I doubt there is a Cozy flying that was built 100% per plans (since there have been mods to the plans & newsletter corrections based on the real life experience of builders). Are they all now to be called something else? It's begining to sound like a type certified aircraft. Nat can't guarantee anything. Nor should we expect it. He's not responsible for the temperature in my shop, the quality of the weave that some glass maker supplies, the temper of my bolts, the dust in the air, or any of the thousands of things that daily go into building a plane. He can suggest, support, lend assistance; but in the final analysis it is the builder's responsibility. He can choose to provide support in a range anywhere from none-at-all to use- only-these-parts. Fortunately, he walks the middle road allowing deviations for the development of the type -- just as Burt allowed him the same freedom in developing the Cozy Classic and then the Mark IV. A rose is a rose whether I fertilize with Miracle-Gro or Scotts. Jim "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." From: "Wilhelmson, Jack" Subject: RE: COZY: What's it take? (Was: Approved Parts) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:27:49 -0500 Cozy builder's and flyers have a real stake (both quality, safety and financial) in the issues that are being discussed in this Email. I have seen the value of flying Cozy quadruple in the last ten years. As members of a group with common interests we should all be concerned about theses issues. I am sure many of you will disagree with me but here is my opinion on these issues as I see them: 1. Who is responsible for the airworthiness of materials and components used on experimental aircraft? The builder. We should never forget that as builders we are responsible for everything, including the design. This is a legal principal that has been tested by litigation many times. In fact, this legal principal is the only thing that allows the experimental aircraft builder to exist in a environment where he has a multitude of suppliers to chose his plans, materials and parts from. Don't forget this when you consider selling your airplane. You may still be held responsible for the materials, parts, and workmanship used. 2. Intellectual property issues. Who owns the rights to what? Anyone who designs, or makes improvements to something can claim intellectual property rights under copyright and patent laws. This is another well proven legal principal. This also is something (regardless of laws) that as Cozy builders and flyers we should strive to uphold. We should do this to protect the value of our investment. One builder in our group recognized this when he titled his Email on this subject "Blue Blood Cozy-MKIV". The designers who make their designs available to us by selling plans and paying for tooling to make some of the critical parts should be protected by the builders to preserve the support and on going value of our aircraft. Many experimental designs have stopped improving because the designers stopped support them. The Cozy line of aircraft is a much better airplane today than it was ten years ago because of the ongoing support from the designer. Jack Wilhelmson N711cz > -----Original Message----- > From: siegler@charm.net [SMTP:siegler@charm.net] > Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 11:10 PM > To: cozy_builders@canard.com > Subject: COZY: What's it take? (Was: Approved Parts) > > I'm just curious, What's it take to be an approved vender? > > The reason I ask is, at one time, Aerocad _was_ sort of an approved vender > (perhaps they were not listed on the approved Vender's list, but > they were sanctioned by Nat, by virtue of the notices in Newsletter 46, > (http://cozy.canard.com/newsletters/news_46.html) > > " 8.Aerocad has requested that we put a note in this newsletter > that > they wish to either borrow or purchase a plans-built Cozy Mk IV > fuselage..." > > Why would Nat post that in his newsletter? > > Even though Nat, correctly, points out: > > .... does not mean that we have approved or tested any of their > design changes > or exercise any control over their activities. It is our policy to > refrain from > recommending any design changes (particularly structural) which we > have not > tested in a flying airplane. > > Fine. We should test our own stuff. > > So what does this mean now? As long as Aerocad and Co-Z had this nice > relationship, > (and Co-Z got paid), Jeff was building quality parts. > > When this deal fell apart, (and Co-z stopped getting paid), Jeff started > making parts > that were unsafe to get back at Nat? I think not. > > Does Nat believe that we are going to build unsafe aircraft -- and crash > them -- just > to make Co-Z look bad? Not likely. > > > So, What's it take to be an approved vender? > (I know Aircraft Spruce gives him space for Booth in exchange for being on > the > list, but they sell only quality parts.) > > Looks to me like it's a kickback to Nat. > > Stuart > Cozy #575 if I crash; AC #29 if I dont. ;-) > > -- > Stuart Siegler > siegler@charm.net > http://www.charm.net/~siegler/ > > ... and we're gonna keep on having meetings 'till we find out why > nothing's getting done here. > From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 18:48:24 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: COZY: What's it take? (Was: Approved Parts) Rogers said Subject: COZY: prefab parts. Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 20:22:16 -0600 If you are going to use prefab parts, especially those from an unathorized supplier I wish you would call your aircraft somthing besides a Cozy Mark IV. Those of us that are building and have built their planes strictly according to plans reserve the right to call our planes mark IV's. If you are going to use Aerocanard prefab parts please call your plane an Aerocanard instead of a Cozy even if you are using Cozy plans. Since a Cozy Mark is a plans built aircraft using more prefab parts than is listed in the manual would make it a kit plane instead of a plans built. This would also clearify things like insurance also. If you use unathorized parts in your aircraft and call it a Cozy and your plane crashes then it hurts the Cozy builder As far as the arguement going on between Nat and Jeff that would seem to be their business. When i purchased plans from Nat Puffer he agreed to give me the right to build one Cozy Mark IV according to plans and give me technical support while building which he has done, and I have agreed to build one Cozy IV according to plans, which I have done. Nat is trying to stress safety to everyone out there. He can only gaurantee a safe Cozy IV if you use approved parts and build according to plans. If you chose to build your aircraft another way then call your aircraft somthing else so you won't embarass the rest of us who chose to stick to our end of the agreement if and when a unaproved part fails. As far as Jeff Russell I have never dealt with him. I have heard good things from other people and bad things from others. I am sure he would not sell a bad part to someone to put in his aircraft. I have been a police officer for twelve years and I was a crew chief in the Airforce before that. Stick to what you agreed to do. If you purchase plans from someone to build an aircraft and you want to use things that the designer says "no no" to, then either do what the designer says to or call your aircraft somthing else so you don't embarass the designer and others when you make a hole in mother earth.