Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 15:33:55 -0500 From: Robert and Carla Kittler Subject: COZY: Weldtech Deos anyone know whether Richard (Weldtech)is still in business? His work number doesnt belong to him any longer and his home phone is disconnected. Don't know how long this might have been for. If anyone has a current contact point for him, your help would be appreciated If Weldtech is no longer in business, any suggestions for a source for a retractable step for the cozy 4? Thanks. Regards Rob Kittler sn 589 From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 20:41:44 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Weldtech Suggest for a Cozy step, Vance Adkinson, slide out tube. See CSA newsletter 5 years ago plus/minus. For forward hinged canopy see me. Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 08:07:27 -0400 From: bil kleb Subject: Re: COZY: retractable step (was Weldtech) cdenk@ix.netcom.com wrote: > > Suggest for a Cozy step, Vance Adkinson, slide out tube. > See CSA newsletter... it'd be atkinson (not adkinson), and i don't see one specifically on retractable steps, maybe one of his general modification articles? Jan 92 p14 Modifications Atkinson Atkinson Cozy Mods Oct 95 p20 Modification Atkinson List of Cozy mods or his construction hints, but this isn't as old as carl recalls... Oct 97 p23 Construction hints Atkinson If I were building again however, there is an article about a retractable step by jim voss: Oct 94 p19 Modifications Voss Retractable step plans information courtesy of the csa newsletter online search available at: http://www.canard.com/csa/ btw: order some back issues from terry so that he can recoupe their printing cost and we can put the newsletters online... -- bil From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: COZY: Weldtech / retract steps Date: Wed, 15 Apr 98 9:40:50 EDT Rob Kittler writes: >Deos anyone know whether Richard (Weldtech)is still in business? His work >number doesnt belong to him any longer and his home phone is disconnected. >Don't know how long this might have been for. If anyone has a current >contact point for him, your help would be appreciated The last posting regarding Weldtech was in late October, 1997 from Don Ponciroli, who wrote: the person to call is Richard Lauzon @ (509) 375-1307, his address is 1925 Terminal Drive Richland WA 99352 Don't know if he's still there, or if this is the # you tried. Let us know what you find out, please. >If Weldtech is no longer in business, any suggestions for a source for a >retractable step for the cozy 4? Thanks. As suggested, talk to Vance Atkinson (vaatk@flash.net) and check the CSA newsletters. Also, Jeff Russell sells retractable steps (or at least plans for them). Personally, I thought Jeff's were excessively complex, so I chose to design my own, which is documented in the archives: get cozy_builders topics97/chap_08.txt I think there's also a description of Vance's in there, too, IIRC. -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com From: John Ellor Subject: COZY: COZY : Ch8 How long is that left front attach point plywood rei Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 15:35:44 -0400 Hi all, Looks like I must be really dumb or missing something here, so I'd better ask away : In Ch 8 where it discusses the seat belt attach points at the lower longerons, is the plywood reinforcement for the left front seat belt attach point 5+ inches long to support the two extra bolts coming through from the external step, or is it the same length as the other three (app 2 1/2 ") with those additional bolts passing either side of it? (I'm assuming my Mk3 (must be the last one still building) is the same as the majority Mk 4's in this respect) John Ellor MkIII #283 From: John Ellor Subject: RE: COZY: COZY : Ch8 How long is that left front attach point p Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 15:28:28 -0400 Thanks Norm, I appreciate the guidance. Hope you both have a happy 4th John Cozy Mk III #283 -----Original Message----- From: norm [SMTP:norm.doty@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Friday, July 03, 1998 8:13 AM To: John Ellor Subject: Re: COZY: COZY : Ch8 How long is that left front attach point plywood reinforcement ? its wider for the step bolts also. norm & monda cozy IV #202 From: lschuler@cellular.uscc.com Date: Mon, 06 Jul 98 14:46:02 -0600 Subject: Re: COZY: COZY : Ch8 How long is that left front attach po John Ellor wrote: >In Ch 8 where it discusses the seat belt attach points at the lower >longerons, is the plywood reinforcement for the left front seat belt >attach point 5+ inches long to support the two extra bolts coming >through from the external step, or is it the same length as the other >three (app 2 1/2 ") with those additional bolts passing either side of >it? I don't have the plans at hand to help with exact measurement; but, if memory serves, the left front inside plywood piece is longer than the others, as you suspected, to accomodate the additional two step bolts either side of the belt bracket. Center two step bolts pass through the belt bracket. Hope that helps. Larry Schuler MK-IV plans #500 lschuler@cellular.uscc.com From: Don Bowen Subject: COZY: RE: The Ken Brock Step Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 10:27:12 -0700 John Ellor wrote: "I notice the radius of curvature of my Ken Brock step is much greater than that of my fuselage corner at the lower longeron." I found this to be a problem when installing the step. At first I thought the fuselage curvature was off, but a double check with the templates showed it to be correct. I reworked the part to get it as close to the correct curvature as I could get it. I used a fair amount of flox on installation, and all seems to be o.k. During my years in the aircraft maintenance and modification business I often heard the expression "don't blame me, I built it to spec's". Maybe that mind set is coming into play here. I think the drawing for this part should be revised to reflect the proper curvature of the fuselage. There have been a number of complaints on this forum about the Brock parts. I think the situation is that Brock is building them to the RAF prints, and nobody at RAF is going to update the drawings for an airplane design that they no longer sell plans for. I do not know if Cozy Development is thinking of working with RAF to correct the drawings or if they would consider putting out their own drawings. In the mean time, get out your hammer and file and make the part work. Good Luck, Don Bowen Cozy Mk IV s/n 440 Chapter 9 From: lschuler@cellular.uscc.com Date: Wed, 15 Jul 98 13:14:41 -0600 Subject: Re: COZY: Cozy: The Ken Brock Step John Ellor wrote: >...Anyone else come across this or is it just me, - or is everyone else >putting in retractables :-) Ditto here. made my own 'adjustment' to the curvature of the step. Haven't bolted mine on yet though as plans say not to until fuselage is filled/finished. Way down the line... Leaves lots of time for me to maybe chnage to retractable. You'd think that the darn thing would at least match the curvature template contained in the plans for the amount of money it cost. Larry Schuler MK-IV plans #500 (workin' on nose) lschuler@cellular.uscc.com Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 17:59:50 -0500 From: Darren DeLoach Subject: Re: COZY: Cozy: The Ken Brock Step >Ditto here. made my own 'adjustment' to the curvature of the step. >Haven't bolted mine on yet though as plans say not to until fuselage is >filled/finished. Way down the line... > I'm also near the point of having to make a decision here. One thing I thought _might_ work: Install the wood block slightly recessed below the foam, say 1/8" give or take, and make the outer curve of the wood match the curve of the Brock step. Then not only would you have the step slightly recessed (so less micro fairing to do), but the specific curve the step was made to wouldn't matter as much. Anyone further along see any problems with this idea? It's hard to tell from the photos in the plans, but in one of the pictures it seems like the wood block is recessed on the plans plane; it made me think that was the intention of the plans, even though it wasn't stated anywhere. In any case, the step from Brock doesn't remotely match the template from the plans. -- Darren DeLoach http://www.deloach.com Chap. 7 Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 08:12:38 -0800 From: hrogers@slac.stanford.edu (Howard Rogers) Subject: Re: COZY: RE: The Ken Brock Step Don Bowen said: > >In the mean time, get out your hammer and file and make the part work. > Though I agree that the situation should be corrected at the source, I have a suggestion for those who are going to do what Don suggests above. I made this part from scratch, with relative ease. All you need is a hydraulic press. By playing around with roughly radiused wood blocks and a couple of variously- radiused steel cylinders, it was no problem to make the part match the curvature quite well. I then had it black anodized with a batch of other stuff. It looks so spiffy, I don't think I will bother chasing that .07 knot increase I could get from a retractable step! --Howard Rogers From: lschuler@cellular.uscc.com Date: Thu, 16 Jul 98 10:27:28 -0600 Subject: Re[2]: COZY: Cozy: The Ken Brock Step Darren DeLoach wrote: >snip >It's hard to tell from the photos in the plans, but in one of the pictures >it seems like the wood block is recessed on the plans plane; it made me >think that was the intention of the plans, even though it wasn't stated >anywhere. In any case, the step from Brock doesn't remotely match the >template from the plans. As I recall, the wood block is indeed imbeded in a cutout of the foam and it's surface ended up flush with the foam in prep for layup of the fuselage bottom and sides. I also recall having to do some sanding/shaping of the block to conform to the curvature of the fuselage. This was done at a time before I had the Brock step in my possesion. I don't remember the plans instructing us to make the wood block conform to the step rather than to the fuselage. Maybe Nat can comment on his intentions when he designed this step setup and the fuselage corner template. Larry Schuler MK-IV plans #500 lschuler@cellular.uscc.com From: mikefly@juno.com Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 11:23:28 +0000 Subject: COZY: Re: The Ken Brock Step >>In the mean time, get out your hammer and file and make the part >work. I made mine from scratch the really old fashioned way. Two blocks of hard wood in a vice and a big hammer. The hammer left some marks that were smoothed by sanding and then hidden with BID on installation. After several years of use during construction, ( I weigh 180 lbs.) it seems plenty strong. mbb Two EZ MS1 _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From: "Paul Comte" Subject: Re: COZY: RE: The Ken Brock Step Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 12:54:18 -0500 Howard, Thanks for reminding us that some things are easier to make than they first appear. Do you use a bearing press frame or did you build something similar? Best Regards, Paul Comte MKE,WI -----Original Message----- From: Howard Rogers To: cozy_builders@canard.com Date: Thursday, July 16, 1998 11:10 AM Subject: Re: COZY: RE: The Ken Brock Step >Don Bowen said: >> >>In the mean time, get out your hammer and file and make the part work. >> > >Though I agree that the situation should be corrected at the source, I have >a suggestion for those who are going to do what Don suggests above. I made >this part from scratch, with relative ease. All you need is a hydraulic >press. By playing around with roughly radiused wood blocks and a couple of >variously- radiused steel cylinders, it was no problem to make the part >match the curvature quite well. I then had it black anodized with a batch >of other stuff. It looks so spiffy, I don't think I will bother chasing >that .07 knot increase I could get from a retractable step! > >--Howard Rogers > > > Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 12:55:03 -0800 From: hrogers@slac.stanford.edu (Howard Rogers) Subject: Re: COZY: RE: The Ken Brock Step >Howard, > >Thanks for reminding us that some things are easier to make than they first >appear. > >Do you use a bearing press frame or did you build something similar? > >Best Regards, >Paul Comte >MKE,WI To tell you the whole truth, Paul, I don't remember exactly how I did it, because it was so long ago. I am lucky, as I work at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, where we build many large, exotic things, so we have a lot of exotic tools. I just brought the part to work (after hours, of course) and squeezed it till it matched my template, using an ordinary hydraulic press, such as might be found in many garages, machine shops, or fabrication shops. I have a small bearing press at home, but I don't think it would be beefy enough for this job. A larger one would probably do it. I used to straighten and re-pitch aluminum props for a living, so I have developed quite a feel for just how to squeeze things, but even for a rank beginner, this one is simple. Why not give it a try? You only have a little metal to lose! You know the saying: "Experience is gained in direct proportion to material ruined." -Howard Rogers Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 14:24:29 -0700 Subject: COZY: Re: The Ken Brock Step From: alwick@juno.com (ok How) I made two of the steps. One for me, one for another builder. Made profile gage out of cardboard to compare the shape to. Used hyd press and covered alum with plastic to prevent surface damage. 1st bend used large diam pipe on one side of the alum, supported alum on bottom with 2 rectangle blocks widely spaced. 1st bend piece of cake, very forgiving. If I went too far, just turn it over and rebend (actually better to overbend due to affect of 2nd bend). The 2nd bend was little tricky. I cheated and used actual bend tooling... any bend tooling will darn near work. I lost 1 piece due to overpressing. They ended up fitting profile perfectly ( a little luck contributed). I then spent $1 to apply powder coating. FWIW -al wick 81% comp. Cozy MkIV sn 389 with stock Subaru 2.5 engine. Computerized cockpit. Done building components, now sanding. Expect completion date 4-30-99. _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From: "Nat Puffer" Subject: Re: COZY: Cozy: The Ken Brock Step Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 11:07:32 -0000 Dear Darren, The step will be under compression in tightening the screws and also when someone heavy (it happens a lot for us) steps on it. You should use hard wood, such as birch plywood, which I used. You are correct in that its better to recess the step so you don't have to use a lot of micro to fair it in. Also, it will look better. When you install the insert, it should be shaped to fit the step. It wasn't intended that it be the same curvature of the fuselage bottom, because it wasn't intended to be surface mounted. Regards, Nat ---------- > From: Darren DeLoach > To: cozy_builders@canard.com > Subject: Re: COZY: Cozy: The Ken Brock Step > Date: Thursday, July 16, 1998 10:07 PM > > BTW, for the wood insert: Do I just make it out of a piece of 2x4? No > specific kind of wood appeared to be spelled out... > > > -- Darren DeLoach > http://www.deloach.com > Chap. 7 From: lschuler@cellular.uscc.com Date: Fri, 17 Jul 98 14:47:27 -0600 Subject: Re[2]: COZY: Cozy: The Ken Brock Step Darren DeLoach wrote: >BTW, for the wood insert: Do I just make it out of a piece of 2x4? No >specific kind of wood appeared to be spelled out... I used birch plywood. Tough to shape, but seemed like a good idea. Larry Schuler From: lschuler@cellular.uscc.com Date: Fri, 17 Jul 98 15:43:39 -0600 Subject: Re[2]: COZY: Cozy: The Ken Brock Step Nat Puffer wrote: >snip >You are correct in that its better to recess the step so you don't have to >use a lot of micro to fair it in. Also, it will look better. When you >install the insert, it should be shaped to fit the step. It wasn't intended >that it be the same curvature of the fuselage bottom, because it wasn't >intended to be surface mounted. Nat, I wish I had known this before. I don't remember the plans stating this at all. Mine would have been recessed if the plans had stated so. Unfortunately it will be hangin' out in the breeze so to speak. I'm not overly concerned about the extra drag; but it would have been nice to have that extra 1/4 knot and better looks. Could you take a look at plans and see if there is an appropriate spot for some clarification. Would help the folks who follow. LArry Schuler From: John Ellor Subject: RE: COZY: The Ken Brock Step - wood insert Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 11:02:37 -0400 Darren, I just used some of that ubiquitous scrap ply, (laminated a couple of bits actually to ensure I had the depth), - wouldn't use any unapproved material for structure. FWIW I'm using one of those cheap contour gauges you can get at any hardware store to find the right shape for inserts etc., very handy item. Cheers John Ellor From ???@??? Sat Jul 18 21:52:47 1998 Received: from twc2.betaweb.com ([206.43.209.18]) by antiochus-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult.n14767) with ESMTP id OAA01940 for ; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 14:39:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA28603 for cozy_builders-list; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 14:20:04 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: twc2.betaweb.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com using -f Received: from enterprise.extremezone.com (root@enterprise.extremezone.com [208.129.255.5]) by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA28591 for ; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 14:19:59 -0400 Received: from default (i021-2.px.extremezone.com [208.152.73.21]) by enterprise.extremezone.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA11142; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 11:18:02 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199807181818.LAA11142@enterprise.extremezone.com> From: "Nat Puffer" To: , Subject: Re: Re[2]: COZY: Cozy: The Ken Brock Step Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 10:05:17 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Nat Puffer" X-UIDL: 72547044e76dd1859815b4c11afd651b Dear Larry, It doesn't really make any difference whether you flush mount the step or surface mount it, except it should be obvious that you should either make the insert conform to the curvature of the step, or make the step conform to the insert. It is preferable to do the former, because the step (from Brock) is heat treated to remove the stresses after bending. This might not be important to some builders, but it is to us because we have so many people who want to climb in our airplane, and some of them are Very heavy. Every time someone 250 lbs or heavier steps on our step, I hold my breath, but so far it has withstood the test. We used the Long EZ step because it was already tooled up for mass production and was available off the shelf.There are many different designs for the step, many of which we have used on previous airplanes, but the step, ala Long EZ, is the simplest. Our philosophy has been to recommend to builders the simplest design which does the job. If individual builders wish to use a more complicated solution, it is their choice. From: lschuler@cellular.uscc.com Date: Mon, 10 Aug 98 11:18:04 -0600 Subject: Re[4]: COZY: Cozy: The Ken Brock Step Nat Puffer wrote: >It doesn't really make any difference whether you flush mount the step or >surface mount it, except it should be obvious that you should either make >the insert conform to the curvature of the step, or make the step conform >to the insert. Got it. Looks like what happened to me was that not having the step in hand before laying up the outside of my fuselage, nor having advance knowledge about Rutan's step design, I recessed the wood insert and formed it to conform to the curvature of the fuselage. Since the plans hadn't stated otherwise, I had assumed the step was made for the Cozy and that it was supposed to be surface-mounted (the plans don't say one way or the other). Evidently at least one bad assumption. Once I received the step, I had to bend it to make it conform, just as others have done; your second choice. Before I did that though, I spent a lot of time trying to figure out what I had done wrong and what I missed in the plans. From your posts, it appears that I didn't miss a thing in the plans; there wasn't anything in the plans to miss... no "obvious" words to indicate a Rutan-designed part was being adapted to this airplane, or that I should NOT expect the step curvature to match your template, or that it can be either recessed or surface mounted. I don't believe I am alone in saying that, as a first-time builder, not having written the plans, or advance knowledge of the methods, procedures, and parts design, I am forced to "trust" that all parts not made by me per plans are made specifically for the airplane I am building unless specified in the plans otherwise (such as the nose strut). As a first-time builder, there is absolutely nothing about building this thing that is "Obvious" prior to having done it (except that it's going to take a lot of time, effort and money). If I had built one before, some things would definitely be 'obvious'; but I'm not to that point yet. Maybe in another five years or so. A few sentences in the plans would have saved me at least two evenings of head-scratching and additional work. I don't particularly care any more since my step and primary fuselage are done; however, the info would likely save time and effort for builders who follow and may not have the benefit of the archives from this mailing list. You have provided some good clarification about the Brock step here: the reason it doesn't conform to the Cozy plans curvature; and, that either recessed or surface mounting is acceptable. Nat, Please consider adding this info (which seems to be 'obvious' only to you) to the plans for the sake of future, ignorant, inexperienced, first-time builders, such as me. Then, it can also be obvious to the rest of us. Larry Schuler MK-IV plans #500 lschuler@cellular.uscc.com From: Don Bowen Subject: COZY: RE: The Ken Brock Step Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 11:05:38 -0700 Nat Puffer wrote: It doesn't really make any difference whether you flush mount the step or surface mount it, except it should be obvious that you should either make the insert conform to the curvature of the step, or make the step conform to the insert. Larry Schuler wrote: I had assumed the step was made for the Cozy and that it was supposed to be surface-mounted (the plans don't say one way or the other). Just my two cents here on the Ken Brock step: I installed my step on the outside of the fuselage. This required a bit of rework of the part because it does not match the exterior contour of the fuselage. I went back and reviewed the plans. The text does not really address the issue of flush mounting or surface mounting. The step is shown in one of the drawings as being mounted on the surface of the fuselage. I am at work and I can't remember the figure number, but it is there in the plans. That is what I followed when performing my installation of the step. No big deal here, but a plans clarification / change notice in the newsletter could save future builders some time and trouble. Happy Building, Don Bowen Cozy Mk IV s/n 440 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 12:56 -0500 (CDT) From: Michael Pollock Subject: Re: COZY: Re: [canard-aviators] Throttle Bracket >Jean-Jacques CLAUS wrote: >It can be a solution to adapt the KEN BROCK step (COZY) to the radius of >the fuselage. I guess it could just be luck, but the Ken Brock step that I received within the past two weeks perfectly fits my fuselage side on my MKIV that was shaped using the templates. I used a block of spruce floxed into the side and shaped via the templates. Michael.Pollock@mci.com Flying Velocity N173DT Building Cozy MKIV #643 Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 13:20:28 -0600 From: "Joseph H. Hart IV" Subject: COZY: Headrests & Plans Deviation I've been considering deviating from the plans and installing headrests like Brian DeFord installed and are shown on his webpage. I understand that the headrests need to be very strong in the event of an impact, am convinced that I can make them strong enough, and am not worried about that particular issue. What I am not certain of, however, is whether the headrests as shown in the plans are important to roll-over protection. I won't deviate from the plans if the change affects safety in the event of a crash with roll-over. Does anybody know if they were designed with roll-over protection in mind? Thanks in advance for any insight. -- Jody Hart New Orleans, LA Cozy Mark IV plans no. 648 Chapter 5, see latest progress at: home.gs.verio.net/~jodyhart/home.html N359JH (reserved) From: "Kurt A. Schumacher" Subject: RE: COZY: Headrests & Plans Deviation Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 21:20:51 +0100 The naming on LongEZ, Cozy Mark III and on the Cosy Classic plans is clearly "Roll Over", sure this was in mind of the original designer. Nowadays the Mark IV is talking of headrests. This name change is basically a legal issue IMHO. Kurt Cozy Mark IV #717 working on minor modifications and on chapter 4 and 5 for status see http://elias.decus.ch/Kurt.Schumacher/CozyMkIV (update of the building progress is coming soon) From: "astrong" Subject: Re: COZY: Headrests & Plans Deviation Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 20:44:02 -0800 Jim, Check out the" Rear seat access" link in "Innovations" on my homepage"http://www.canard.com/trim"for my idea on head rest and roll over structure. Alex -----Original Message----- From: Jim Hocut To: cozy_builders@canard.com Date: Sunday, November 01, 1998 7:20 PM Subject: RE: COZY: Headrests & Plans Deviation > >> The naming on LongEZ, Cozy Mark III and on the Cosy Classic plans >is >> clearly >> "Roll Over", sure this was in mind of the original designer. >> Nowadays the >> Mark IV is talking of headrests. This name change is basically a >> legal issue > > >If you read through all the Canard Pusher's you will see that Burt >et. al. have investigated many many EZ incidents and accidents. Burt >came to the conclusion that the HEADREATS are only that, and that >they provide no occupant protection of any significance if a rollover >type impact occurs with any appreciable forward momentum. > > > >Jim Hocut >jhocut@mindspring.com > > > > From: "L. Wayne Hicks" Subject: RE: COZY: Headrests & Plans Deviation Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 09:57:14 -0500 -----Original Message----- From: Joseph H. Hart IV [SMTP:jodyhart@communique.net] Sent: Sunday, November 01, 1998 2:20 PM To: cozy_builders@canard.com Subject: COZY: Headrests & Plans Deviation I won't deviate from the plans if the change affects safety in the event of a crash with roll-over. Does anybody know if they were designed with roll-over protection in mind? Jody Hart [L. Wayne Hicks] Jody: There's a copy of an RAF letter in the Chapter 8 archives (1996) that thoroughly explains the structural purpose and limitations of the triangular headrest. Allow me to save you the time and trouble: >From RAF: VARIEZE/LONG-EZ ROLLOVER/HEADREST We have received a letter from Andrew Detroi of the FAA concerning the forcedlanding/crash of a Long-EZ that he investigated. This crash involved aLong-EZ that lost power after takeoff. The pilot made a successful 180degree turn, landed long and left the runway. The nose gear collapsed, the nose dug in and the aircraft flipped inverted with enough forward velocity tobreak the canard in half and rip one wing off at the end of the centersectionspar. The rollover/headrest was broken off. The pilot and passengerreceived minor head cuts, scratches and bruises.This letter has been distributed to the various FAA offices and in some casesredistributed with some inaccuracies. This has caused some consternationamong the local FAA and among groups and individual Long-EZ builders.We have spoken to the FAA in Chicago and they have agreed with us thatobviously the pilot's head rest is not, nor was it ever intended to be strongenough to resist the forces imposed in an inverted crash with any appreciableforward speed. It is a roll over structure, and has proven that it willremain intact in the event that one of these aircraft should roll over withlittle or no forward speed. This was in fact the case, when Ken Swainflipped his EZ in a corn field near Oshkosh after an engine failure. His aircraft ended up resting on the rollover structure (canopy broken), thefirewall and two broken winglets. He was not injured, but had to wait forothers to lift the aircraft to get out. The rollover has provided thisprotection in at least two other cases, one example is in CP #14.However, the rollover structure is obviously not designed to handle aninverted landing! This structure is also a head rest and doubles as a mapcase/storage area. It will not protect you should you strike the groundinverted or roll over with any significant speed or impact energy. We of course object to Mr. Detroi's inference that the rollover should have(or could have) provided protection in an earlier Minnesota Long-EZ accident that was not survivable, regardless of the head rest. (See CP #31).Design loads for an "adequate" roll over protection are difficult to define. Obviously, a second landing gear on the top could protect for 10 ft/sec dropat full landing speed and just as obvious a very heavy structure would besnapped off by a hole or curb at only 10 mph. RAF does not have a specific recommendation in this area and we will not be reinforcing our headrests. The decision to do this rests with each individual homebuilt manufacturer. RAF will continue to strive to openly pass along all information to help youin your building decisions. You may for example want to change references of "rollover structure" to "headrest" if you feel this is more appropriate. END OF ARTICLE Wayne Hicks Cozy IV #678 Chapter 8.5 From: "Nat Puffer" Subject: COZY: Roll over protection Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 08:08:41 -0600 Cozy Builder, We agree with RAF that it would be very difficult to define the requirements for roll over protection that would be adequate in every conceiveable situation, unless, of course, you installed a landing gear on top of the airplane similar to the one on the bottom. We can observe that the Cozy offers more protection than the Long EZ because it has only a half-bubble canopy, with the aft half being fiberglass. Also, in addition to the two headrests and fiberglass turtleback, the Cozy has a very substantial bulkhead immediately behind the pilot and passenger. The only time this structure has been put to the test that we are aware of, is when the Harris'es rebuilt Merle Musson's 3-place Cozy and were flying off the time. Mr. Harris had an engine failure, and put the Cozy down in a very muddy farm field. He made ruts about 8 in. deep before the Cozy flipped over upside down. It was pretty much totalled, with wings and canard ripped off, but the canopy was unbroken and Mr. Harris was not injured. Hope this gives you some reassurance. Regards, Nat