Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 12:26:54 -0600
From: "Joseph H. Hart IV" <jodyhart@communique.net>
Subject: COZY: Fuselage Bottom 3rd Ply BID

    The Chapter 6 FAQ states that the specifics regarding the 3rd ply of
BID on the fuselage bottom
are still being researched.  How have the rest of you done it?  Does the
layup go all the way to F-22 or does it end somewhere farther aft?  What
orientation is the BID?  Can we conserve materials by aligning it at 90
degrees rather than the usual 45 degrees?

    Thank you in advance for you wisdom.
--
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)


Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 08:15 -0600 (CST)
From: Michael Pollock <Michael.Pollock@mci.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Fuselage Bottom 3rd Ply BID

Jody Hart wrote:

>The Chapter 6 FAQ states that the specifics regarding the 3rd ply of
>BID on the fuselage bottom
>are still being researched.  How have the rest of you done it?  Does the
>layup go all the way to F-22 or does it end somewhere farther aft?  What
>orientation is the BID?  Can we conserve materials by aligning it at 90


Jody,

I installed my 3rd layer of bid just in front of the front seat bulkhead
where the weight will be concentrated when stepping into the fuselage
and only up to the instrument panel. If this layer of bid is being
used for strength of the fuselage bottom when stepping in, the
oreintation of the bid for the last layer could be at 90 degrees to
save materials. 

If another builder has done this differently, please let me know?

 
Michael.Pollock@mci.com
Flying Velocity N173DT
Building Cozy MKIV #643


From: Fritzx2@aol.com
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:32:51 EST
Subject: Re: COZY: Fuselage Bottom 3rd Ply BID

Jody asks and Michael Pollock replies:

>>The Chapter 6 FAQ states that the specifics regarding the 3rd ply of
>>BID on the fuselage bottom
>>are still being researched.  How have the rest of you done it?  Does the
>>layup go all the way to F-22 or does it end somewhere farther aft?  What
>>orientation is the BID?  Can we conserve materials by aligning it at 90

>Jody,

>I installed my 3rd layer of bid just in front of the front seat bulkhead
>where the weight will be concentrated when stepping into the fuselage
>and only up to the instrument panel. If this layer of bid is being
>used for strength of the fuselage bottom when stepping in, the
>oreintation of the bid for the last layer could be at 90 degrees to
>save materials. 
>If another builder has done this differently, please let me know?

>Michael Pollock

I placed the third layer of BID on the inside of the fuse bottom from 
the place where the front seatback joins the floor back to just
aft of  the front support of the back seat bottoms.  I don't have
the plans in front of me here but that was my interpretation
of the plans/newsletters at the time. Before that, I made the 
Clark foam doubler over the air landing brake extent aft an inch
or so further since the cutout of the brake makes for a thin
foam core section by the time all is said and done.  Just
turn off the room lights and shine a bright light at the aft
air brake cutout and you'll see.  With builder tolerances,
it was the aft end of the air brake foam doubler that could
be too thin and not support the weight of someone
standing in the back over this spot especially on
one foot when entering or exiting.  The front seat bottoms
have two ribs each  that distribute the weight so I didn't add
any extra BID there.

John Fritz
fritzx2@aol.com

Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 14:40:17 -0600
From: Terry Pierce <tpierce@ghg.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Fuselage Bottom 3rd Ply BID

When stepping into the front seat you will step on to the front seat
bottom.
The extra ply of BID needs to be in place for someone stepping into the
the
back seat.

I placed my extra ply behind the pilots seat where I thought someone
would
step climbing from the front seat to the rear seat.  Remember that they
will
be staying too the left side of the aircraft because there won't be much
headroom on the right side due to the canopy.


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


Michael Pollock wrote:

> 
> I installed my 3rd layer of bid just in front of the front seat bulkhead
> where the weight will be concentrated when stepping into the fuselage
> and only up to the instrument panel. If this layer of bid is being
> used for strength of the fuselage bottom when stepping in, the
> oreintation of the bid for the last layer could be at 90 degrees to
> save materials.
> 
> If another builder has done this differently, please let me know?
> 
> 
> Michael.Pollock@mci.com
> Flying Velocity N173DT
> Building Cozy MKIV #643

Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 14:55 -0600 (CST)
From: Michael Pollock <Michael.Pollock@mci.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Fuselage Bottom 3rd Ply BID

Since several different locations on installing the 3rd layer of bid
have been used, I have sent Nat a note asking him what is correct.


Michael.Pollock@mci.com
Flying Velocity N173DT
Building Cozy MKIV #643




Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 22:17:45 -0500
From: "L. Wayne Hicks" <lwhicks@erols.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Fuselage Bottom 3rd Ply BID

I hope I'm not too late on this thread.  I had the same question about
the 3rd ply of BID, so I asked Nat.  He response was that the 3rd layer
of BID was meant more to provide protection from people's feet rather
than add strength.  Yes, the 3rd layer adds strength, but two plies in
good enough in the strength department.  But scuff marks and abrasions
from people's shoes when getting in and out could weaken the floor if
the 3rd ply wasn't there.  The third layer could be any size and
direction just as long as it gets put where people will be stepping in
and out of the back seat area.

I had almost forgotten to add my 3rd ply, so I just rolled out the BID
from left to right.  So my 3rd ply is 38 inches from the forward landing
gear bulkhead to just behind the seatback.

Wayne Hicks
Cozy IV #678
Chapter 9

Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 00:46:44 -0500
From: Bulent Aliev <atlasyts@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Fuselage Bottom 3rd Ply BID

How about in locations that can be subjected to this kind of crushing loads, (heels and elbows) using
higher density foam. Some Divinicel foams are as hard as plywood. This way will avoid building up the
area with glass and resin?

cdenk@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> I think the 3rd (or more) plys is for local concentrated (A heel or other small highly loaded)
> loads. The same goes for for the strake tops, where if you have a front hinged canopy both sides are
> needed. On the strake tops 3 plys is marginal. I have several slight 2 inch diameter depressions
> from heel of the hand or something. With insufficient surface strength to spread the load, the foam
> underneath simply crushes.

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:16:00 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: COZY: Fuselage Bottom 3rd Ply BID

Bulent wrote <(heels and elbows) using higher density foam>
Difficulty of matching thickness of different foams, more weight. There are only a few places where 
this type of loading occurs.

From: "Oreste Muccilli" <o.muccilli@net-point.it>
Subject: COZY: Ch 6, valve bracket
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 19:44:59 +0100

<x-html>
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>Hi everybody. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>For reasons of job I'm 3 months that I don't have&nbsp; 
worked to the construction. I have restarted from a few days.&nbsp; <BR>If 
someone have ended the chapter 6,&nbsp; I desire to know, which is the purpose 
of the 4 holes of 5/16? (Ch6, page 4 fig. 17).&nbsp; <BR>I suppose that the 
holes are necessary to get retention in the flox.&nbsp; <BR>In archive I have 
not found the answer, therefore I suppose that my question is banal.&nbsp; 
<BR>Thanks for your patience.&nbsp; <BR>&nbsp; <BR>Oreste Muccilli&nbsp; 
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ITALY</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>
From ???@??? Sat Jan 16 17:56:14 1999
Return-Path: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com
Received: from twc2.betaweb.com (majordomo@betaweb.com [206.43.209.18]) by acestes-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult/n20340/mtc.v2) with ESMTP id PAA07079 for <marcz@burnside.ma.ultranet.com>; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 15:28:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA24440
	for cozy_builders-list; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 15:28:36 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: twc2.betaweb.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com using -f
Received: from mta3-svc.virgin.net (mta3-gui.server.ntli.net [194.168.54.144])
	by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA24433
	for <cozy_builders@canard.com>; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 15:28:31 -0500
Received: from paulkunt ([212.250.194.20]) by mta3-svc.virgin.net
          (InterMail v4.00.03.01 201-229-104-101) with SMTP
          id <19990116202252.RDPO4107.mta3-svc@paulkunt>;
          Sat, 16 Jan 1999 20:22:52 +0000
Message-ID: <36A0F4D7.77D6@virgin.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 20:21:43 +0000
From: Paul Kuntz <paul.kuntz@virgin.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Oreste Muccilli <o.muccilli@net-point.it>
CC: cozy_builders@canard.com
Subject: Re: COZY: Ch 6, valve bracket
References: <003901be4180$82892d40$837946c1@net-point.net-point.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Paul Kuntz <paul.kuntz@virgin.net>
X-UIDL: c86aba36d66b03aa519be9ce0264ea07

Oreste Muccilli wrote:

> If someone have ended the chapter 6,  I desire to know, which is the
> purpose of the 4 holes of 5/16? (Ch6, page 4 fig. 17).
> I suppose that the holes are necessary to get retention in the flox.

Oreste,

Yes, the holes are there to ensure a strong attachment between the valve
mounting bracket and the seat back bulkhead.

Best wishes for success with your project.

Paul Kuntz
Cozy MKIV
England

From: "Nat Puffer" <cozy@extremezone.com>
Subject: COZY: 3rd ply
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 14:05:22 -0600

Michael,
The 3rd ply of BID added to the bottom forward of the front seat back is to
provide additional strength where the weight is concentrated when someone
stands on the front seat. I installed it from the seat back to the
instrument panel. I have had many heavy (over 220 lbs) prospective builders
climb in my airplane to date and the floor hasn't caved in yet, although I
do hold my breath whenever someone that heavy asks to climb into my
airplane.
Nat

Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 20:53:21 -0500
Subject: COZY: Ch 6 - hole pattern in bracket for Allen valve
From: Dana Hill <dhill36@juno.com>

Dear Cozy gang,
	Would anyone be able to provide me with the hole pattern and
drill hole diameters required for the fuel valve bracket to allow
installation of the Allen valve as required in Ch 6?  I am hoping to put
off the purchase of the Allen valve so as to allow the purchase of other
more currently needed Cozy stuff.  If a sketch would be easier, please
email attach it to dana.hill@state.ma.us.
Thanks!
_________________________________
Dana Hill
CZ IV 
Ch 6	

___________________________________________________________________
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/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:15:36 -0800
From: "LCDR James D. Newman" <infaero@flash.net>
Subject: COZY: Re:  Ch 6 - hole pattern in bracket for Allen valve

Hi Dana and All,

> Dana Hill wrote:

> Would anyone be able to provide me with the hole pattern and
> drill hole diameters required for the fuel valve bracket to allow
> installation of the Allen valve as required in Ch 6?  I am hoping to put
> off the purchase of the Allen valve so as to allow the purchase of other
> more currently needed Cozy stuff.

    Check out AndAir's fuel valves, gascolators, one way check valves and their other products at:
http://www.andair.co.uk  .


Infinity's Forever,

        JD

From: "terren" <guy.terren@wanadoo.fr>
Subject: COZY: Bid layup in C6 step1
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 07:37:17 +0100

Hi all,

In Chapter 6 step 1:
After doing the layup of 6 UND after side of the forward centerspar
bulkhead, We have to tape 2 plies of bid over the joint between the upper
part of the bulkhead to the lower part.
I did this layup only over the central part of the joint which wasn't
covered with the UND not to have bumps (part of layup) over the main gear
fixing holes.

-Am I right ?
-Must i go on and cover a big part of the UND with BID, not to have bumps in
the hole area ?

Thanks for your advice

Guy

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:11:41 -0600
From: "Joseph H. Hart IV" <jodyhart@communique.net>
Subject: COZY: How flat does bottom need to be?

    When I microed the 3/4" foam to the 3/8" foam for the bottom, I
didn't end up using sufficient weight over the area from about halfway
between the IP and the bottom of the front seat back to the fore side of
the landing brake (where the hinge will be).  As a result, I have a gap
between the foam of about 3/16" that goes back about 6" - 8".  I figured
that I would just inject micro into the gap before I glass the bottom
and it would be no big deal.  Today, after finishing contouring both
bottom corners of the fuselage, I realized that the gap has resulted in
a depression in the fuselage bottom (again about halfway between the IP
and the bottom of the front seat back to the fore side of the landing
brake) that, at its midpoint, is approximately 1/4".  Question:  Does
this matter aerodynamically?  Should/can I ignore it?  It seems as
though such a gap would require too much filler at the end.  If I have
to fix it, any suggestions as to how to go about doing it.  Note that I
have found that the micro bond between layers of foam is overall good
and that this is an isolated problem.  Should I cut out this area of
3/8" foam, sand the mating surfaces and re-micro the piece in place?
I'm a little afraid of the responses that I am going to get on this one
as I really don't want to cut the foam out!

    Thanks for all of your guidance.

--
Jody Hart, New Orleans, LA
Cozy Mark IV plans no. 648, N359JH (reserved)
Chapter 6, see latest progress at:
<http://home.gs.verio.net/~jodyhart/home.html>


Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 21:34:52 -0600
From: "Joseph H. Hart IV" <jodyhart@communique.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Ch 6 -  Fitting Bulkheads



Dana Hill wrote:

> I was somewhat dismayed to find that 2 of the bulkhead corners
> were approx. an 1/8" short of the upper longeron in one case and the
> lower longeron in the other.I wonder if filling with flox and using a
> little bit wider BID tapes

> would be acceptable?

Dana:

    I wouldn't sweat 1/8".  I'd have no reservations about filling it in with
flox.

    Keep in mind, that I am not an engineer, I just play one in my hanger
(living room)!

--
Jody Hart, New Orleans, LA
Cozy Mark IV plans no. 648, N359JH (reserved)
Chapter 6, see latest progress at:
<http://home.gs.verio.net/~jodyhart/home.html>


From: alwick@juno.com
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 19:59:30 -0800
Subject: Re: COZY: Ch 6 -  Fitting Bulkheads

Don't cut any holes or notches until needed upon assembly. Avoid layups
over holes too. Layup quality much better, quicker if you don't have to
deal with surface variations. This was suggested to me by builder before
I started and worked very well. 
Don't worry about the gap at corners. When you tape the edges, these
dissappear, and they are not significant structurally. Quite a different
story if you were doing the rear bulkhead however. No gaps there.

-al

On Mon, 22 Feb 1999 21:31:12 -0500 Dana Hill <dhill36@juno.com> writes:
>Hi Group,
>	In fitting the ISP and seatback bulkheads to the sides this 
>past weekend I was somewhat dismayed to find that 2 of the bulkhead 
>corners were approx. an 1/8" short of the upper longeron in one case 
>and the lower longeron in the other.  The bulkheads match up well with 
>the M dwgs.  Either my sides are slightly off or this is typical 
>result.  I checked the sides for dimensions, use of the proper size 
>spacer foam, etc. and all appears ok.  I sure wish I had not trimmed 
>the corners of these two bulkheads in Ch 4.
>
>I wonder if filling with flox and using a little bit wider BID tapes 
>would be acceptable?  Please tell me I don't have to glue more foam on 
>the edge, with the foam faced with the same amount of glass as the 
>blkhds :-( 
>
>Well, regardless, I would be grateful to hear any suggestions.  What a 
>great resource this group is!.....your responses always seem to help 
>my confidence factor.  
>________________________________________________-
>Dana Hill, Ch6
>#676
>

___________________________________________________________________
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/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 08:12:08 -0600
From: "Mark D. Wunduke" <jetpilot@execpc.com>
Subject: COZY: seatback sides

Hello everyone, my name is Mark Wunduke (builder #748) and I have a
question concerning the seatback sides (not the top and bottom that are
beveled at a 45 degreee angle, but the sides that are later joined to
the fuselage sides). Are these "sides" glass over or are they left bare
foam to be later floxed at the joining of the fuselage. I don't know if
I am just not reading the directions right  or what but I don't see
where it says to glass the sides (when you do the front of the seatback
or when doing the back). Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you

Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 09:36:48 -0500
From: bil kleb <w.l.kleb@larc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: COZY: seatback sides

"Mark D. Wunduke" wrote:
> 
>  Are these "sides" glass over or are they left bare foam
> to be later floxed at the joining of the fuselage.

  4.6 - Do you cover the cutout areas (notches) in the seat
  back with BID or leave them uncovered? 

  There's no need to cover the notches or exposed foam. You'll
  apply flox to the exposed edges and 2-BID tape the entire seat
  back in place during fuselage assembly in Chapter 6.

from our frequently answered queries (faq) document at

  http://cozy.canard.com/mail_list/cozy-faq.html

also available through email via the venerable majordomo, e.g.,
mailto:majordomo@canard.com with

  get cozy_builders cozy-faq.txt
  end

in the body of the message (subject line is irrelevant).

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

From: Fritzx2@aol.com
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:11:39 EST
Subject: Re: COZY: seatback sides

Hi Mark D. Wunduke,

> I don't know if I am just not reading the directions right  or what but I
don't see
>where it says to glass the sides (when you do the front of the seatback
>or when doing the back).

Going from memory, you glass the front of the front seatback.  Then you
round the corner of the back of the seatback, remove foam for flox
corners, and then layup the glass on the back side around and onto
the side of the seatback that mates up with the fuse sides later.  The
bottom edge of the seatback also gets glassed when you glass the
back of the seatback.  The top edge of the seatback, on the other
hand, gets glassed when you glass the front of the seatback.

John Fritz

From: "Chris Byrne" <jcbyrne@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: COZY: Chapter 6 Ldg Gear Blk Hds
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 10:46:49 +1100

Bulders

This is similar to Danas question but I have not seen any thing in the
archives that specifically answers it.

I have floxed both the fwd and aft ldg gear bulk heads in place.
However when doing it I had a gap of about 1/16th on both sides between the
fuselage sides and the aft bulk head, this gap was 1/8th inch at the fwd
gear bulk head.
I checked all measurements.
Width of ldg gear bulk heads were spot on.
Width of fuse at seat back was spot on.
The upper and lower longerons as they pass through the mock firewall were
spot on.

So I installed the gear bulkheads with the above gap, with flox.

In hind sight I should have pulled the sides together as we did for the seat
back.
The gap was probably built in when I made up the sides in chapter 5 (jig
slightly out)

Is the 1/8th inch flox filled gap too large. At this stage I have only
floxed it and put on the initial 2" BID tapes, so I could cut them out, pull
in the sides and install again.
This is not too difficult, but as I have already drilled the 1/4 in holes in
the aft gear bulk head, putting it all back together in perfect alignment
will be the big problem.

Although this is a high load area I tend to think that it will be ok as it
is. There seems to be plenty reinforcing glass in this area and the flox is
reasonably strong (especially in compression).

Any comments.

Thanks
Chris Byrne

T


From: Jim Hocut <jhocut@mindspring.com>
Subject: RE: COZY: Chapter 6 Ldg Gear Blk Hds
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 19:28:32 -0500

.
> 
> I have floxed both the fwd and aft ldg gear bulk heads in place.
> However when doing it I had a gap of about 1/16th on both sides
> between the
> fuselage sides and the aft bulk head, this gap was 1/8th inch at the
> fwd
> gear bulk head.
> 
> Is the 1/8th inch flox filled gap too large. 

My vote says your just fine the way it is.

Jim Hocut
jhocut@mindspring.com



Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:26:53 -0500
From: "Marc J. Zeitlin" <marcz@ultranet.com>
Subject: Fwd: COZY: Chapter 6 Ldg Gear Blk Hds

Chris Byrne asks;

>However when doing it I had a gap of about 1/16th on both sides between the
>fuselage sides and the aft bulk head, this gap was 1/8th inch at the fwd
>gear bulk head.

>Is the 1/8th inch flox filled gap too large.

I would agree with Jim Hocut - you'll be fine.  From a strength standpoint,
this area gets lathered with tons of layups.  The flox is also much
stronger than the foam it replaces, and the glass layups have more than
enough overlap to make up for the small gap.  The only real issue is the
fuselage shape, but I believe there's enough "play" later on in the process
(canopy, strakes, etc.) to easily make up for this, probably without even
knowing it.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin           marcz@ultranet.com
                          http://www.ultranet.com/~marcz/

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 20:17:20 -0500
Subject: COZY: Ch 6: Location of F-28
From: Dana Hill <dhill36@juno.com>

Hi Cozy Builders,
	What is the best (or ideal) location for the installation of the
F-28 bulkhead??

At the plans specified 5.9" back from the fwd face of F-22, my upper 
longeron inside edges are 32.0" apart.  The M drawing for F-28 specifies
32.5".  
Dimensions of all bulkheads were checked and are ok.  F-22 top of tabs
were installed exactly over the ends of the longerons- seems ok.  I'd
like to make the F-28 a 1/2 " smaller and keep on building but wanted to
check with you guys. 
Thanks,
Dana Hill
#676

___________________________________________________________________
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/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 20:03:25 -0600
From: "Joseph H. Hart" <jodyhart@home.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Ch 6: Location of F-28



Dana Hill wrote:
 
> At the plans specified 5.9" back from the fwd face of F-22, my upper
> longeron inside edges are 32.0" apart.  The M drawing for F-28 specifies
> 32.5".

Dana:

	I didn't look for my F-28 template; however, I did measure the distance 
between the inside edges of my upper longerons and it was 32.0" so you
should be fine.  Are you sure that the extra .5" doesn't include the lip
that fits under the 
longeron?  Maybe you are trying to install your F-28 too high (too high
of WL).

	Hope this helps.

Jody Hart
Cozy Mark IV plans 648, Chap. 7, progress at:
http://members.home.net/jodyhart/index.html

From: "John Slade" <jslade@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Ch 6: Location of F-28
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 21:39:13 -0500

Hi Dana & all,
An extension to and comment on Dana's question...
>At the plans specified 5.9" back from the fwd face of F-22, my upper
>longeron inside edges are 32.0" apart.  The M drawing for F-28 specifies
>32.5".

Fig 3 on Ch 6 page 1 shows the 5.9 is from aft face of f22 (end of longeron)
to aft face of F28, not forward face of F22 as stated above. Perhaps the
extra 1/4 inch will help the width.

I happen to be at the exact same point in the plans (though I havent floxed
the seat back in yet).
I ran & checked my dimentions and find that I have 32.25.  If I force F22
in, the instrument panel (currently nailed) moves to be about 1/8 away from
the sides. If I flox the seat & panel in, will the sides bend to accomodate
the 1/4 inch for F28?  Also, I see that 5.9 leaves F28 only half on the
doubler. I'm 0.2 short to get it on the doubler completely. I saw in the
archives that you can "extend" the doubler, but should I do this for 0.2
inches?

>Dimensions of all bulkheads were checked and are ok.  F-22 top of tabs
>were installed exactly over the ends of the longerons- seems ok.
Same here

I'll await maillist wisdom before proceeding.
John Slade Cozy #757


From: "Nat Puffer" <cozy@extremezone.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Ch 6: Location of F-28
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 19:03:19 -0600

Dear Dana (and builders),
I don't remember anymore why I showed the 5.9 inch dimension, whether I had
a reason, or whether I intended it to be the distance from the aft face of
F-22 to the forward face of F-28. At any rate, the bulkhead designation is
supposed to be the fuselage station in inches from the forward face of
bulkhead F-0. On that basis, F-28 should be 6 inches farther aft than F-22.
If you look at drawing M-11, you will see that F-28 is in fact 6 inches
farther aft than F-22, and you need all of that distance to avoid
interference with the trailing edge of the canard. So my apologies for
causing all of this consternation.
Regards,
Nat

----------
> From: Dana Hill <dhill36@juno.com>
> To: cozy_builders@canard.com
> Subject: COZY: Ch 6: Location of F-28
> Date: Tuesday, March 30, 1999 7:17 PM
> 
> Hi Cozy Builders,
> 	What is the best (or ideal) location for the installation of the
> F-28 bulkhead??
> 
> At the plans specified 5.9" back from the fwd face of F-22, my upper 
> longeron inside edges are 32.0" apart.  The M drawing for F-28 specifies
> 32.5".  
> Dimensions of all bulkheads were checked and are ok.  F-22 top of tabs
> were installed exactly over the ends of the longerons- seems ok.  I'd
> like to make the F-28 a 1/2 " smaller and keep on building but wanted to
> check with you guys. 
> Thanks,
> Dana Hill
> #676
> 
> ___________________________________________________________________
> 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/getjuno.html
> or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 21:32:04 -0600
From: "Joseph H. Hart" <jodyhart@home.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Ch 6: Location of F-28



John Slade wrote:
> Also, I see that 5.9 leaves F28 only half on the
> doubler. I'm 0.2 short to get it on the doubler completely. I saw in the
> archives that you can "extend" the doubler, but should I do this for 0.2
> inches?

John:

	I'd "fudge" something like this, e.g. move F-28 forward .1 inch and
loaded it
up with flox aft of the doubler to make up for the other .1".  I don't
mean to sound complacent and I have tried to make my plane as "perfect"
as possible; however, I learned early on, from my questions and answers
from this group, that this minimal dimensional deviations don't matter,
at least not at this stage of the game.  Wings/canard, probably, but not
fuselage bulkheads.  You are a chapter away from realizing just how
incredibly strong your fuselage bottom is going to be -- it's a
tremendous confidence boost!

	Keep moving and enjoy.

Jody Hart
Cozy Mark IV plans 648, Chap. 7, progress at:
http://members.home.net/jodyhart/index.html

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 23:07:57 -0500
Subject: COZY: F-28 - J. Slade
From: Dana Hill <dhill36@juno.com>

	John (& builders),
	I've been researching the F-28 placement issue and one thing I
have discovered so far is--- don't move the F-28 forward at all.  It
seems that the 5.9 is a minimum dimension.  Any forward movement can
cause an interference with the canard.   W. Hicks has info on this issue
and perhaps he can chime in.
Dana

___________________________________________________________________
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/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

From: "John Slade" <jslade@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Ch 6: Location of F-28
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 23:06:26 -0500

>On that basis, F-28 should be 6 inches farther aft than F-22.
>If you look at drawing M-11, you will see that F-28 is in fact 6 inches
>farther aft than F-22, and you need all of that distance to avoid
>interference with the trailing edge of the canard.

So, for those of us who find that the 32.5 width of F28 is too wide at 5.9
(or 6) inches aft of F22. Should we move F28 aft a little (to say 6.25 or
6.5 aft of F22) so that it fits width wise without having to bend the sides?
John Slade #757

From: "Bill Kastenholz" <wkasty@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Ch 6: Location of F-28
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 03:50:55 -0500

>
>So, for those of us who find that the 32.5 width of F28 is too wide at 5.9
>(or 6) inches aft of F22. Should we move F28 aft a little (to say 6.25 or
>6.5 aft of F22) so that it fits width wise without having to bend the
sides?
>John Slade #757
>

To John and others struggling with F28,

    If you place F28 at the 5.9" dimension, you will end up with a very
tight fit for
the back of the canard. I had to add thickness to the front of F22 and trim
the TE of the
canard to fit . I would place F28 at 6.1" instead. You don't want to play
with moving
the canard position very much at all because of the change to flight
characteristics.
The pins through F28 simply hold the canard in correct alignment , and F28
provides
a construction bulkhead for building the top of the fuselage.


    The 32.5" width comes into play when you install the torque tube and
offsets to
control the elevator.  The center torque tube can be adjusted in size to
account for
the discrepancy in width here.>

Good luck,

Bill Kastenholz
wkasty@ix.netcom.com

From: "John Slade" <jslade@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Chap 6 - F-28 - location
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 08:48:27 -0500

Dana,
> I've been researching the F-28 placement issue and one thing I
>have discovered so far is--- don't move the F-28 forward at all.  It
>seems that the 5.9 is a minimum dimension.  Any forward movement can
>cause an interference with the canard.
I see that.  Forward ain't my problem. M11 drawing and Ch 6 seem to show it
5.9 (aft of F22 to aft of F28). Lets call it 6 inches (per Nat). Any further
forward and I can see how it would interfere with the trailing edge of the
canard. Given that we dont have the 32.5 width between the fuselage sides at
6 inches we can either fudge a poor fit on the instrument panel (at least I
can :), trim f28 (and in my case construct 1/4 inch of doubler), or move F28
back a bit. What worries me is that moving F28 back to, say 6.25 or 6.5
might weaken the canard support structure. In M11 and Ch. 12, F28 seems to
form the aft part of a hardpoint for the canard alignment tab.

BTW - are you sure you're measuring along the axis, not along the longerons?
John Slade #757


From: "John Slade" <jslade@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: F-28 location
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 08:51:26 -0500

Nat just answered my question before it was posted. Pretty good service!
Thanks Nat.

John,
>Lets go with 6 inches. If you wanted to make it greater, I would have to
research it.
>Nat



Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 17:53:20 -0500
From: "L. Wayne Hicks" <lwhicks@erols.com>
Subject: COZY: Re:  Cozy: Move F28 and bend sides?

Should we move F28 aft a little (to say 6.25 or
> 6.5 aft of F22) so that it fits width wise without having to bend the sides?
> John Slade #757

----> No. Move it to 6.25-6.30 and trim F28 to fit.

Wayne Hicks

Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 17:50:37 -0500
From: "L. Wayne Hicks" <lwhicks@erols.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: F-28 - J. Slade

Dana Hill wrote:
> 
>         John (& builders),
>         I've been researching the F-28 placement issue and one thing I
> have discovered so far is--- don't move the F-28 forward at all.   W. Hicks has info on this issue
> and perhaps he can chime in.


------> Yes, I volunteered to write the Chapter 12 FAQ.  From the
archives, F28 should be put at 6.25-6.30 inches from F22.  This location
should provide enough distance to adequately mount the canard (Chapter
12) without trimming its trailing edge or trimming the fuselage sides. 
The archives are a great source of info.  Use them and use them often.

Wayne Hicks
Cozy IV #678
Chapter 11

Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 22:47:42 -0400
Subject: COZY: Ch 6: attaching bottom
From: Dana Hill <dhill36@juno.com>

Hi Cozy Group,
A construction question for anyone who has a minute please:
	Upon flipping the fuselage to begin prep. for bottom instl. I
discovered that the seatback bulkhead protrudes below the lower longeron
by 1/4" on one side and an 1/8" on the other.  The way I was thinking to
address this is to leave the seatback alone and just carve a
corresponding groove out of the 3/4" white foam so that the bottom when
installed will fit as it should, ie. directly on top of the bottom
longeron.  Cutting down the seatback would be a bit more work.
	What's the best way to go?
Thanks in advance for your response.
__________________________________ _ _
Dana Hill
#676

From: "cliffordfamily" <cliffordfamily@provide.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Ch 6: attaching bottom
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 03:06:28 -0400

Dana,  we have 2 cozy mkIV under construction in unison. We are just now
fitting the bottom to number 2. Both were slightly different and off
somewhat.  You will end up with the same result either way but it would be
much easier to carve out some foam than to reshape the seatback.

From: lschuler@cellular.uscc.com
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 08:26:23 -0600
Subject: Re: COZY: Ch 6: attaching bottom 

Dana Hill wrote:

>The way I was thinking to address this is to leave the seatback alone and 
>just carve a corresponding groove out of the 3/4" white foam so that the 
>bottom when installed will fit as it should, ie. directly on top of the 
>bottom longeron.

Sounds like you may have a good idea.  Should not interfere with the belly 
board.

I'd be concerned about squareness of the fuselage though or maybe it was 
squareness of the seatback.  Something must be a bit off to cause the 
diference from one side to the other.  May not be significant at all, but 
I'd be inclined to figure out 'why' the difference; if for no other reason 
than peace of mind.

Larry Schuler MK-IV plans #500

From: Fritzx2@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 16:24:41 EDT
Subject: Re: COZY: Ch 6: attaching bottom 

Dana,

>...discovered that the seatback bulkhead protrudes below the lower longeron
>by 1/4" on one side and an 1/8" on the other...
>The way I was thinking to address this is to leave the seatback alone and 
>just carve a corresponding groove out of the 3/4" white foam so that the 
>bottom when installed will fit as it should, ie. directly on top of the 
>bottom longeron.

This is probably the best way to go.  Just make sure that your new
grove doesn't have any sharp corners so that the glass will lay
down nicely when the time comes to glass the inside of the bottom.
As you will find, by laying the BID at a 45 degree angle, there are
going to be a LOT of bumps going across all the foam doublers from
one side to the other even without your "new" depression which
takes quite a bit of attention to get all the transitions bubble free.

John Fritz
fritzx2@aol.com

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 16:41:24 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: Ch 6: attaching bottom

On 05/03/99 22:47:42 you wrote:
>
>Hi Cozy Group,
>A construction question for anyone who has a minute please:
>	Upon flipping the fuselage to begin prep. for bottom instl. I
>discovered that the seatback bulkhead protrudes below the lower longeron
>by 1/4" on one side and an 1/8" on the other.  The way I was thinking to
>address this is to leave the seatback alone and just carve a
>corresponding groove out of the 3/4" white foam so that the bottom when
>installed will fit as it should, ie. directly on top of the bottom
>longeron.  Cutting down the seatback would be a bit more work.
>	What's the best way to go?
>Thanks in advance for your response.
>__________________________________ _ _
>Dana Hill
>#676
>
>

The inside face of the fuselage bottom fiberglass should run through in a straight line for structural reasons. Adjust the 
bottom of the seat back carefully to fit so you don't have to use excess flox filler which is heavy weight. We never hear of 
the opposite problem, just lots of flox filler.

From: Militch@aol.com
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 12:33:25 EDT
Subject: COZY: F28 location

I floxed F28 in last night.  Today I read on a builder's web page that it 
should be 6.25" back from F22, not 5.9".  I got that thing in good and solid 
- am I going to have to find a way to pull it out?

Much scroaning going on here (cross between a scream and a groan)

Peter Militch #740

Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 19:21:10 +0100
From: Paul Kuntz <paul.kuntz@virgin.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: F28 location

Pete,

I'm just gettin ready to mount my canard.  I'd suggest you go ahead and
move F28 back a quarter inch now.  It's really no big deal to cut it
loose, then re-install it with a bit of flox filler and bid corner
tapes.  You can use a fine saw like an Xacto hobby saw to cut it loose
in a few minutes with almost no lost material.

Regards,
Paul Kuntz
Cozy MKIV England

From: Epplin John A <EpplinJohnA@jdcorp.deere.com>
Subject: RE: COZY: Fuel valve
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 11:42:25 -0500 

All things considered, the plans valve is a good choice in my book.  It has
a delrin or some such plastic part for the brass balve to rotate and seal
against, no sticking as the older brass on brass valves.  At least that is
what I am going with.

John Epplin   Mk4  #467,  fillilng and sanding.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Capital Steel Inc. [SMTP:capitalsteel@compusmart.ab.ca]
> Sent:	Friday, July 02, 1999 9:23 PM
> To:	cozy_builders@canard.com
> Subject:	COZY: Fuel valve
> 
> I think Iread somewere that the fuel valve called in the plans although
> economical is not the best for the job.  Does anyone have experiences to
> help me decide.
> Joe Toop

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 11:57:34 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: Fuel valve

On 07/02/99 20:23:13 you wrote:
>
>I think Iread somewere that the fuel valve called in the plans although
>economical is not the best for the job.  Does anyone have experiences to
>help me decide.
>Joe Toop
>
>
>

I have over 700 hours in 5.5 years on an Allen valve and am quite happy with it. THe detents are actually spring loaded ball 
bearing and have a nice feel. Would highly recommend!

Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 11:04:42 -0400
From: Paul Krasa <p.w.krasa@larc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: COZY: Fuel valve mount

You may be able to purchase 5052 locally.  For non-critical parts, it is a
substitute for 6061.

paul



At 08:25 7/2/99 -0500, Tom Brusehaver wrote:
>
>>Like many folks before me, I cracked the small piece of 2024 aluminum when 
>>bending up the fuel valve mount last night.  I decided to bend first, then 
>>drill and file so I wouldn't have stress concentrators.  I used a 3/8"
drill 
>>as a mandrel to bend the tab, which seemed like a fairly good radius.
Still, 
>>it cracked at both bends.  So, I need to try again.  What's the easiest way 
>>to buy a small strip of 2024? - they don't carry the stuff at the local 
>>hardware store, and I would prefer to avoid calling Wicks and asking them
to 
>>rush me $1.00 worth of metal.
>
>I think like everyone else, I cracked mine too.  Someone suggested
>6061 instead of 2024.  There isn't that much stress on the fuel valve,
>2024 is overkill.
>
>Get something softer and easier to bend.
>
>

Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 11:12:06 -0400
From: "L. Wayne Hicks" <lwhicks@erols.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Fuel valve mount

Militch@aol.com wrote:
> 
I cracked the small piece of 2024 aluminum when
> bending up the fuel valve mount last night. What's the easiest way
> to buy a small strip of 2024? 

-------> Remember your local hardware store!  Any aluminum will do in
this application.  In fact, you can probably find a small piece of
aluminum channel that's the perfect width.  You won't have to bend
anything.

Wayne Hicks
Cozy IV #678
Chapter 13, 18
http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/falls/2027

Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 11:21:07 -0500
From: Bulent Aliev <atlasyts@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Fuel valve mount

I made the same mistake until a RV builder told me about the grain in
the aluminum sheet metal. The sheet metal has grain just like wood
veneer. If you bend along the grain it will crack. You can see the
direction of the grain with a naked eye.
Bulent

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 20:30:02 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: Fuel valve mount

The grain everyone is talking of is parallel to the rolling direction, when the metal is made thinner in the steel mill. After 
it is cooled sufficiently, frequently the material's specification (4130n, 2024-T3), and other quality control info is printed 
with paint with the printing parallel to the grain and rolling direction (the very long dimension before being cut). All bend 
should be perpendicular to the printing, rolling direction and grain. And of course not tighter than the minimum bend radius.

Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 17:17:12 +0200
From: "Rego Burger" <BurgerR@telkom.co.za>
Subject: COZY: Re: Fuel valve mount

 I broke a few back 5 yrs ago when I was at that stage.... only learned after the second one that "grain" is important on alloys.
The bend must follow the lines of the grain... not against it.
Besides grain don't try to make too tight a bend / radius.

If all else fails get some U channel the same size as the seat back-rest.
If I did it again I would make a 12 ply bid layup and epoxy nutplates on a flat plate at the back.
:-)




Rgo Burger
RSA

From: "Russ Fisher" <rfisher1@rochester.rr.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Fuel valve mount
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 14:22:25 -0400

-----Original Message-----
From: Rego Burger <BurgerR@telkom.co.za>

>I broke a few back 5 yrs ago when I was at that stage.... only learned
after the second one that
>"grain" is important on alloys.
>The bend must follow the lines of the grain... not against it.

Sorry Rego, but I have to call you on that.  You must bend _against_ the
grain.  In other words, the bend must be perpendicular to the direction of
the metal's grain.  Bending along the grain line is inviting cracks.

Russ Fisher

From: SWrightFLY@aol.com
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:30:23 EDT
Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Fuel valve mount

In a message dated 7/2/99 1:26:07 PM Central Daylight Time, 
rfisher1@rochester.rr.com writes:

<< In other words, the bend must be perpendicular to the direction of
 the metal's grain.  Bending along the grain line is inviting cracks. >>

And............the radius must be the correct size for the bend.....go find 
an RV builder (they are everywhere) they understand metal, rivets, and such. 
I like the former idea of laying up about 6 to 10 plys of BID over a block of 
wood covered with duck tape. Whenever you can..... use glass with all it's 
advantages over metal.
Steve Wright 
<A HREF="http://www.canard.com/noselift/">Wright Aircraft Works LLC: Electric 
Nose-Lift for EZEs
</A> 

From: cozy623@juno.com
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 09:59:18 -0700
Subject: Re: COZY: Fuel valve mount

To bend this thing I just made the raduis of a 2x4 block a little bigger,
clamped the AL between that block and another one in my vice and bent it
over.  No problem on the first try.  Jeb
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 12:53:27 -0700
From: hrogers@slac.stanford.edu (Howard Rogers)
Subject: Re: COZY: Fuel valve mount

Tom Brusehaver wrote:
>I think like everyone else, I cracked mine too.  Someone suggested
>6061 instead of 2024.  There isn't that much stress on the fuel valve,
>2024 is overkill.
>
>Get something softer and easier to bend.

Good advice, but 6061 (usually T6 hardness) is harder, and therefore MORE
difficult to bend than the 2024 T3.  Yes, Grain is important, but save
yourself a bunch of trouble and bend it out of 5052.  It is softer, and a
whole lot easier to bend.  It should also be much easier to find than 2024,
locally.

--Howard Rogers, A&P 2005148


Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 09:23:37 +0200
From: "Rego Burger" <BurgerR@telkom.co.za>
Subject: COZY: Bending Sheet metal

Thanks Russ Fisher:
Ref: to bending and grain:
>>Sorry Rego, but I have to call you on that.  You must bend _against_ the
grain.  In other words, the bend must be perpendicular to the direction of
the metal's grain.  Bending along the grain line is inviting cracks.>>

I will never get my command of english sorted out in this life-time....
I'm a graphic kind a guy...

if the grain lines run like this (plan views)
========I==>=====
========I==>=====
========I==>=====
========I==>=====
The bending action must "follow" the arrow heads or grain lines up or downward. If the grain line represents a force then I reckon the bend is against it.... :-) 


not like this one.
=====^I=====
=====^I=====
=====^I=====
=====^I=====
The metal would tear along the "virtual" stress lines known as grain like breaking pieces of a chocolate slab if the bend was attempted in the direction of the arrows above.
Cheap ascii sketches.

The feel one gets from UNI cloth will illustrated it too. The MAIN fibres represent the grain and strength plane while the interconnecting cross weaves are weak and break easy.
So I guess the perspective and language skills are lacking on my part.

Regards.




Rgo Burger
RSA

From: Militch@aol.com
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 08:21:21 EDT
Subject: Re:  COZY: Fuel valve mount


In a message dated 7/3/99 1:34:09 AM, cdenk@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>All bend 
>should be perpendicular to the printing, rolling direction and grain. And of 
course
>not tighter than the minimum bend radius

I did bend the piece of 2024 that I broke across the grain.  Reading 
Bingelis' book and also the table of bending radii in the A/C Spruce catalog 
shows that the minimum bend diameter for this material is about 0.5" - I bent 
it over a 3/16 drill - so that's why it broke.  I took one poster's advice 
and made the bracket out of 12 layers of BID instead. Worked fine.

Peter Militch #740 Chapter 6

Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 19:17:10 -0500
From: "Rob Mozer, Jr." <Skyhawk@in-city.com>
Subject: COZY: Rear Gear Attach Bulkhead

Hi group,

I'm working in Chapt. 6 and getting ready to flox the Rear Gear Attach
Bulkhead into place between the fuselage sides.  I question what I
should do about the gap I have between the bulkhead and the sides of the
fuselage.  Should I just fill the 1/4 inch gap (total gap which works
out to be about 1/8" each side) with flox?  Or should I try and trim the
temporary firewall cutouts at LWY, upper and lower longerons and pull
the sides in to meet the bulkhead?

The dimensions for the bulkhead are as exact as I can get them and my
inclination is to try and cut a little from the temporary firewall
cutouts and pull the sides in to meet the bulkhead.

Any help here will be appreciated.

Rob Mozer, Fairhope, Alabama
Cozy MK IV #355

From: Militch@aol.com
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:34:10 EDT
Subject: Re:  COZY: Rear Gear Attach Bulkhead


In a message dated 7/12/99 12:18:27 AM, Skyhawk@in-city.com wrote:

>I question what I
>should do about the gap I have between the bulkhead and the sides of the
>fuselage.  Should I just fill the 1/4 inch gap (total gap which works
>out to be about 1/8" each side) with flox?

Gaps of only 1/8" seems pretty good to me.  I used flox to fill the gaps on 
mine.  I operate under the assumption that you want the various gaps between 
parts to be small because foam is a lot lighter than flox.  Having laid in a 
nice flox fillet, it will be the BID tapes that provide the strength to tie 
things together.

Peter Militch Cozy Mark IV #740

From: Militch@aol.com
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 08:07:46 EDT
Subject: COZY: Landing gear bulkhead cover

Can someone clarify the arrangement of the cover on the forward landing gear 
bulkhead for me?  The drawings (M5) show a 3 layer cover of UNI on the 
forward face of the cover and the bulkhead, with a few more layers on the 
back later. I am guessing that the cover should be arranged so that it's 
forward / lower bevelled edge sits on top of the forward landing gear 
bulkhead.  If I do that, the upper edges of this U-shaped item touch the 
forward edge of the top of the rear bulkhead, with just enough overlap so the 
cover ends flush with a line drawn on the back face of the rear bulkhead.  If 
you view the following in a mono-spaced font like courier, it should be to 
scale.  What I am trying to describe is this:

          *  <--rear face of the U-shaped cover
        *
      *****
    *  *  *  <-- rear landing gear bulkhead
  *    *  *
       *  *

Is this what it's supposed to look like?

Second, do I just use the UNI to join the cover and the bulkhead, and not (at 
this stage at least) tape, flox or otherwise join the cover to the fuselage 
side?

Thanks in advance,
 Peter Militch Cozy Mark IV #740



From: "Oreste Muccilli" <o.muccilli@net-point.it>
Subject: COZY: Ch 6 Final word on Location 3 rd ply on bottom fuselage question
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 18:01:59 +0200

Mr. Nat wrote me:

Oreste,
The plans say the first 2 layers of BID should be at 45 degrees. Don't know
why you chose 22.5 degrees, although that probably will be okay. It also
says that the 3rd layer should be where the load is concentrated when you
climb in the back seat. If you look at drawings M-14 and M-15, you will see
that it is from about F.S. 83 to F.S. 91. Covering a larger area is not
necessary and just ads weight.
Regards,
Nat

The purpose of this e-mail is to complete the FAQ of the Ch6 because for
this question there is not answer.

Oreste Muccilli
Italy
http://home.intekom.com/glen/italy.htm



From: "Denis Thomassin" <dthomassin@chca.ca>
Subject: COZY: chap 6 backseat lenght
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 10:07:37 -0400

So far I have not been very active on this 
cozy list because up to now I had very little interrogation about "how to" or 
"what for" while doing chapter 4 and 5 and also my experience still does not worth two pennies. 

But chapter six give me some trouble and I realise how much 
critical mesurement of everything is.

According to chapter 4 the back seat bulkhead must be 28.8 long.  Once in position inside of the fuselage the bottom front must be a 40 inches and the top aft must be at 60" (I don`t understand why the mesurement are not taken from the same side of the composant). My mesurement look ok but the seat bulkhead is .3 inches short of reaching the bottom of the fuselage.

What is the good to correct this ?

Change the angle of the bulkhead so it will end flush with the bottom but at 41 inches or so of the front.

Had a stript to the back seat.

Make the bottom support a little bit ticker at this point so it come in contact with the bottom of the seat (this would be 
my choice).

Any comment will be appreciated :)

Denis Thomassin builder 705
Montreal, CanadaFrom ???@??? Mon Aug 16 10:10:30 1999
Return-Path: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com
Received: from twc2.betaweb.com (majordomo@betaweb.com [206.43.209.18]) by acestes-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult/n20340/mtc.v2) with ESMTP id UAA04022 for <marcz@ultranet.com>; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 20:35:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA04026
	for cozy_builders-list; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 15:43:09 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: twc2.betaweb.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com using -f
Received: from ketch.iar.net (root@mail.iar.net [209.149.241.13])
	by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA04021
	for <cozy_builders@canard.com>; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 15:43:02 -0400
Received: from in-city.com (ppp034.iar.net [209.149.241.54])
	by ketch.iar.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA02202
	for <cozy_builders@canard.com>; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 15:13:14 -0400
Message-ID: <37B8A99C.80AADD7D@in-city.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 19:15:24 -0500
From: "Rob Mozer, Jr." <Skyhawk@in-city.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "cozy_builders@canard.com" <cozy_builders@canard.com>
Subject: [Fwd: COZY: chap 6 backseat lenght]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
 boundary="------------7265588AE3BAF77897621A27"
Sender: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Rob Mozer, Jr." <Skyhawk@in-city.com>
X-UIDL: bffcde208954d5dac910c127c4cc3ae9

 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Message-ID: <37B8A91E.937D6C51@in-city.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 19:13:18 -0500
From: "Rob Mozer, Jr." <Skyhawk@in-city.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Denis Thomassin <dthomassin@chca.ca>
Subject: Re: COZY: chap 6 backseat lenght
References: <003801bee7f0$b269d480$645164c0@chca.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> Denis Thomassin wrote:
> 
>     According to chapter 4 the back seat bulkhead must be 28.8 long.
> Once in position inside of the fuselage the bottom front must be a 40
> inches and the top aft must be at 60"   (I don`t understand why the
> mesurement are not taken from the same side of the composant). My
> mesurement look ok but the seat bulkhead is .3 inches short of
> reaching the bottom of the fuselage.
> 
>     What is the good to correct this ?

I found the same thing with my construction.  I queried Nat about this
and was told it should be flush with both the top and bottom longerons. 
I had made the top flush when I put the sides together.  I am working on
the bottom now and had to add about 1/2 inch of foam and cover it with
fiberglass to make it even with the bottom. 

I don't believe the measurement from the front to the top or from the
front to the bottom of the seat back is so critical that you couldn't
angle the back to make the top and bottom meet the longerons even.

>     Change the angle of the bulkhead so it will end flush with the
> bottom but at 41inches or so of the front

This is what I SHOULD have done.

Just my recent experience (very recent)

Rob Mozer, Fairhope, AL
Cozy MKIV #355
From ???@??? Tue Aug 17 06:48:50 1999
Return-Path: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com
Received: from twc2.betaweb.com (majordomo@betaweb.com [206.43.209.18]) by acestes-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult/n20340/mtc.v2) with ESMTP id WAA23199 for <marcz@ultranet.com>; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 22:47:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA05450
	for cozy_builders-list; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 17:36:57 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: twc2.betaweb.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com using -f
Received: from ligarius-fe0.ultra.net (ligarius-fe0.ultra.net [146.115.8.189])
	by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA05443
	for <cozy_builders@canard.com>; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 17:36:51 -0400
Received: from zeitlinhome ([146.115.235.235]) by ligarius-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult/n20340/mtc.v2) with SMTP id WAA11588 for <cozy_builders@canard.com>; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 22:07:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.1.19990816064546.009a2dd0@pop.ultranet.com>
Message-Id: <4.1.19990816064546.009a2dd0@pop.ultranet.com>
X-Sender: marcz@pop.ultranet.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 06:49:33 -0400
To: Cozy Builders Mailing List <cozy_builders@canard.com>
From: "Marc J. Zeitlin" <marcz@ultranet.com>
Subject: COZY: chap 6 backseat lenght
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Marc J. Zeitlin" <marcz@ultranet.com>
X-UIDL: 487f6d7ba82e3b4b5ded35e32d3f217f

Denis Thomassin wrote;

>  3)  Make the bottom support a little bit ticker at this point so it come in 
>      contact with the bottom of the seat (this would be my choice).

I vote for this one.  You get the right angle, the seatback is in the right
place for all subsequent operations, and it does not hurt the positioning
or strength of anything.

P.S. - Denis, if you could set Outlook Express to send mail in TEXT only
mode, it 
       would be nicer for all of us reading your mail.  Thanks.
--
Marc J. Zeitlin           mailto:marcz@ultranet.com
                          http://www.ultranet.com/~marcz/

From: mfacchinelli@sogei.it
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 12:53:22 +0200

Canardians,

My Cosy Classic kit (S.C.Aero) includes the premolded shell of the fuselage
already done??It is supposed to have the same dimentions as per plans, but
it is not?.
Making a check starting from the firewall (aft edge of the spar), with
Centersection Spar in place and the wings lined up with the strakes, the
distance of the precutted Canard slot (consequently F22-F28 bulkheads) is
ONE inch shorter than the plans (102? instead of 103?). I thought it was
precalculated but following your discussion and Uli Wolter suggestion (same
fuselage, same story), it seems mandatory that I must replace my Canard 1
inch forward to achieve the original distance?..is it right..??    PLEASE
CONFIRM !!
Anyway it seems very strange that every S.C.Aero fuselage could have the
same error?.OF COURSE we must follow the plans as close as we can, but
since no one built aircraft is ever identical, there must be an allowed
tolerance?????

Massimo Bonicelli
Cosy Classic - ITALY



Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:36:24 -0400
From: "Marc J. Zeitlin" <marcz@ultranet.com>
Subject: COZY: Fwd: 

Massimo Bonicelli wrote:

>...... the
>distance of the precutted Canard slot (consequently F22-F28 bulkheads) is
>ONE inch shorter than the plans (102? instead of 103?). I thought it was
>precalculated but following your discussion and Uli Wolter suggestion (same
>fuselage, same story), it seems mandatory that I must replace my Canard 1
>inch forward to achieve the original distance?..is it right..??    PLEASE
>CONFIRM !!

I'm not familiar with the Cozy Classic (don't know if it has the same
dimensions as the MKIV), but I'll take a crack at it.  I think that
modifying the fuselage to have the CORRECT dimensions (verified in the Cozy
Classic plans that I assume you have) would be the right thing to do.
While I'm sure it would be possible to mount the canard one inch to the
rear, recompute and verify the new CG position, and end up with a safe
plane, I think it would be less work and less risk to move the bulkheads to
the correct position.

>Anyway it seems very strange that every S.C.Aero fuselage could have the
>same error?.OF COURSE we must follow the plans as close as we can, but
>since no one built aircraft is ever identical, there must be an allowed
>tolerance?????

You are correct - there are tolerances.  The problem with plans built
aircraft is that no one knows what they are :-).  And no one's telling us,
either :-).  I can pretty much guarantee, however, that a 1" displacement
of the canard is NOT within whatever tolerance band there is - that's a
pretty substantial modification.

If I were you, I'd contact S.C. Aero (whoever they may be) and try to get
THEM to fix the problem, by either getting you an new fuselage with the
correct dimensions, or refunding some of your money for the time you have
to spend correcting their mistakes.

Good luck!


--
Marc J. Zeitlin           mailto:marcz@ultranet.com
                          http://www.ultranet.com/~marcz/

Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 21:38:44 -0500
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: COZY: Re: COZY Tolerances..

Marc,

    re "I can pretty much guarantee, however, that a 1" displacement
of the canard is NOT within whatever tolerance band there is - that's a
pretty substantial modification."

    I agree.  Nat does give one tolerance relative the wing and canard
and it is plus or minus .54".  The basic reference of the airplane is
113.9" at the wing leading edge/strake junction.  The canard L E must be
at 18.6 +/- 0.54" relative to it.  See page 38 of the flight hand book.

    A bulkhead off by an inch is no big deal but the wing/canard
relationship is.  The problem is, if the bulkheads (F22 and firewall)
are off an inch and the center section spar is glued in, it is difficult
to move the wing.  Same goes for F22.  So those 2 bulkheads must be
reasonably accurate.

dd



Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 22:39:59 -0400
From: Jim Sower <jimsower@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Fwd:

I would guess that the canard provides about 40% of the lift.
It shouldn't be hard to get a precise number. Nat and Burt should
know it off the top of their head. Anyway, whatever the exact number
is (40% for the sake of argument), then moving the canard aft 1.0" should
move the Aerodynamic Center or Center of Pressure (which drives CG location)
back 40% of 1.0" or 0.4". With the CP located 0.4" aft of the plans
airplane, you can reasonably expect your CG box should be about 0.4" aft
of the recommended box. That makes you just a tad more nose-heavy
than the vanilla calculations would suggest (and a tad farther from 'deep
stall' than the standard calculations suggest). Relocating the structure
that supports 40% of your lift, on the other hand, sounds like begging
for BIG trouble. Sounds to me like 0.4" migration of CP/CG is pretty
trivial, and relocating the canard is positively life-threatening.
Just a theory;

Jim S.
From ???@??? Fri Nov 19 19:33:13 1999
Return-Path: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com
Received: from twc2.betaweb.com (majordomo@betaweb.com [206.43.209.18]) by acestes-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult/n20340/mtc.v2) with ESMTP id MAA29844 for <marcz@ultranet.com>; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:06:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA03009
	for cozy_builders-list; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:31:24 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: twc2.betaweb.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com using -f
Received: from dns1.mks.net ([207.253.30.2])
	by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA03004
	for <cozy_builders@canard.com>; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:31:19 -0500
Received: from denis01 (www.chca.ca [207.253.32.82])
	by dns1.mks.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA31941
	for <cozy_builders@canard.com>; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:35:24 -0500
From: "Denis Thomassin" <dthomassin@chca.ca>
To: "'Cozy_builders'" <cozy_builders@canard.com>
Subject: COZY: Chapter 6 bottom layup
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:27:54 -0500
Message-ID: <NDBBKLMOOMJBBLEFKCPEOELFCJAA.dthomassin@chca.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
In-reply-to: <000f01bf31cf$25861a00$4c9b23a6@mpollock.mcit.com>
Importance: Normal
Sender: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Denis Thomassin" <dthomassin@chca.ca>
X-UIDL: d1d131a85bd86d018bd0152f8f692c22

For those of you who has read my previous post you already know to my
english knowlodge is
somewhat limited. Normally I have no problem interpreting the plan but
something puzzle me in
chapter six.

	"After cure, (the spacer on the fuselage bottom).... Cheack for smooth
transition to longerons, etc...."  then "The top edge should be radiused, so
the glass cloth will conform."

What is exactly the top edge ?
If the top edge mean the angle form by the side and the top of the spacer,
it is already at 30 degrees doest it nead an additional sloope ?

Thank you all

Denis Thomassin Montreal, Canada 705

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 11:13:08 -0500
From: Phillip <LUV2AV8@compuserve.com>
Subject: COZY: Chapter 6 Ldg bulkheads.....

I just finished floxing in the upper half of the fwd ldg gear bulkhead
.....my next step is Chapter 6, page 3 paragraph 4...."install the 3 -ply
layup of UND, right and left sides, shown on drawing M-5.

The way I read that drawing is to layup the UND on the upper half of the
fwd landing gear bulkhead and overlapping the lower fwd ldg gear bulkhead
to the bottom of the hard points.....left and right side(not the center
sections of the bulkheads).

Am I reading the drawing correctly??

Thanks,

Phillip Sill, #707
Chapter 6

From: "Paul Kuntz" <paul.kuntz@virgin.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Chapter 6 Ldg bulkheads.....
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 21:21:17 -0800

The layups go from the top of the upper half of the bulkhead and overlap the
lower forward bulkhead, extending past the hard points all the way to the
bottom.  The uni layup does not cover the center section.  There you just
use bid tape over the joint between the upper and lower bulkheads.

Paul Kuntz

>The way I read that drawing is to layup the UND on the upper half of the
>fwd landing gear bulkhead and overlapping the lower fwd ldg gear bulkhead
>to the bottom of the hard points.....left and right side(not the center
>sections of the bulkheads).


From: Militch@aol.com
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 12:52:03 EST
Subject: Re:  COZY: Chapter 6 Ldg bulkheads.....


In a message dated 11/23/99 4:25:38 PM, LUV2AV8@compuserve.com wrote:

>The way I read that drawing is to layup the UND on the upper half of the
>
>fwd landing gear bulkhead and overlapping the lower fwd ldg gear bulkhead
>
>to the bottom of the hard points.....left and right side(not the center
>
>sections of the bulkheads).
>

Yes, the layups are tetrahedrons (not rectangular because they are narrower 
at the top than the bottom).  I think I did it just as you describe.  
Certainly, the center part of the lower bulkhead is not covered.

Regards

