From: lschuler@cellular.uscc.com
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 09:09:18 -0600
Subject: COZY: Ch 14 Ceneter Spar

Ok gang, it's the idiot who can't read again.

Chapter 14, Page 2, Step 3, 1st paragraph describes "layup 2".  Later 
paragraphs/steps call out successive layups (3, 4, 5 etc). I can't seem to 
find layup #1 anywhere.  Could someone point out the obvious to this 
illiterate builder?

Larry Schuler MK-IV plans #500


Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 20:53:48 -0400
From: "Marc J. Zeitlin" <marcz@ultranet.com>
Subject: Fwd: COZY: Ch 14 Center Spar

Larry Schuler writes:

>Ok gang, it's the idiot who can't read again.

No, that's not the problem.  The problem is that you're stuck in the
Western linear thinking modality.  You're laboring under the (exceedingly
common) misconception that Layup #2 should come _after_ Layup #1.  Think of
these numbers merely as nomenclature, rather than as ordinates, and
everything will become clear.

>Chapter 14, Page 2, Step 3, 1st paragraph describes "layup 2".  Later 
>paragraphs/steps call out successive layups (3, 4, 5 etc). I can't seem to 
>find layup #1 anywhere.  Could someone point out the obvious to this 
>illiterate builder?

Sure.  Look at Step 4, same page, third line.  Bingo.  Layup #1 comes after
Layup #2.  Free your mind from the strictures of Western philosophy, and
become more zen-like :-).

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

From: lschuler@cellular.uscc.com
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 08:59:50 -0600
Subject: Re: Fwd: COZY: Ch 14 Center Spar 

Marc wrote:

>The problem is that you're stuck in the Western linear thinking modality.  
>You're laboring under the (exceedingly common) misconception that Layup #2 
>should come _after_ Layup #1.

Ahhh, I see the light; and now am blinded by the facts.  So much for my 
Logic-101 classes way back when...  Higher education sure does come in 
handy.  Shoulda taken Zen-101 instead.  Isn't that where you just think (ie 
meditate) about something long enough, it all just kinda falls into place 
by itself... :-)

Maharishi U (Fairfield, Iowa) here I come... (Always did want to learn how 
to levitate).  :-)

So much for levity {cute play on words; couldn't help myself}...  In any 
case, the answer brings up another question:   Should we be doing layup #1 
first (since the number 1 comes before the number 2 in our western way of 
thinking); or do we complete step 3 first [which contains layup #2] and 
then step 4 [which contains layup #1] because 'step' numbers have some kind 
of priority over other numbers of the same base-10 system?

Larry


Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 23:08:00 -0400
From: "Marc J. Zeitlin" <marcz@ultranet.com>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: COZY: Ch 14 Center Spar 

Larry Schuler writes:
>...  In any 
>case, the answer brings up another question:   Should we be doing layup #1 
>first (since the number 1 comes before the number 2 in our western way of 
>thinking); or do we complete step 3 first [which contains layup #2] and 
>then step 4 [which contains layup #1] because 'step' numbers have some kind 
>of priority over other numbers of the same base-10 system?

Since it doesn't matter (one is not a prerequisite of the other), it
doesn't matter.  Feel free to use whatever order brings you enlightenment.

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

From: lschuler@cellular.uscc.com
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 17:12:09 -0600
Subject: COZY: Ch-14 Spar Cross section

Since I haven't recovered yet from my last foolish note about reading, 
figured I'd just jump right back in and continue the downward slide of my 
otherwise 'perfect' reputation.

Ch 14, Pg 8, Section A-A shows jig dimensions of 5.12" and 8.41".
Ch 14, Pg 6 shows jig to be 5.12" and 8.51" respectively.
Ch 14, pg 7 CS1 and CS4 foam pieces show 8.51" width.

May be misreading again, but either section A-A is right and the jig and 
foam layout is wrong or vis versa (or, I still can't read worth a flip 
:-)).

Larry Schuler

Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 20:01:14 -0400
From: "Marc J. Zeitlin" <marcz@ultranet.com>
Subject: Fwd: COZY: Ch-14 Spar Cross section

Larry Schuler writes:

>Ch 14, Pg 8, Section A-A shows jig dimensions of 5.12" and 8.41".
>Ch 14, Pg 6 shows jig to be 5.12" and 8.51" respectively.
>Ch 14, pg 7 CS1 and CS4 foam pieces show 8.51" width.
>
>May be misreading again, but either section A-A is right and the jig and 
>foam layout is wrong or vis versa

I used 8.51" and everything worked out OK.  I think the answer is "vice
versa".  Never noticed that one - guess I figured that since I already had
the jig built before I cut the foam, what did I care what the dimension was
after it was already done? :-).

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

From: "Schuler, Larry" <Larry.Schuler@uscellular.com>
Subject: COZY: Center Spar Cap Tapes
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 19:12:00 -0500 

Hi all,

I just finished laying up the top spar cap on the Center section Spar using 
3" wide UNI tape supplied by Wicks.  This was their part number 1600-3 
which I received from them a few years ago.  I had ordered more than needed 
for the Canard, but not enough for both sides of the main spar ($$$ issue 
at the time).

Last summer I ordered more of the UNI tape (same part number) and just now 
opened the package to begin the bottom spar cap.  Nice surprise.  The tape 
is exactly 2-1/2" wide rather than the specified 3" and the cross threads 
are rather tight (very likely the cause of the reduced width).  The tow 
count appears to be the same at 30, but I'll be darned if I'm going to try 
to count the fibers...

I called Wicks and was categorically told that the tape is supposed to be 
2-1/2" wide, that it always was, and that there is only one manufacturer of 
this stuff, and is therefore correct as it was received.  I explained that 
an earlier shipment from them was the correct width of 3" as specified in 
the catalogs (for at least the last 4 years, in addition to current).  I 
was told it must have been a misprint.  They told me I could ship it back 
(at my expense of course), but offered no means of obtaining the correct 
tape from them.

Nat,  I think you have a problem here.  This is extremely fishy to me and 
potentially very dangerous.  It appears that Wicks got stuck with a bad 
mill run and is now trying to pawn it off on unsuspecting builders rather 
than getting the manufacturer to correct the boo-boo and replace it.  You 
might want to 'ground' them as approved supplier (at least for the spar cap 
tape) until they fix this.  Let me know if you need anything from my end to 
help you.  I still have the entire 145 yard roll if you'd like a chunk of 
it.

I find it difficult to believe that I could spread the 2-1/2" tape out to 
the required full 3" width during wet-out without making a mess of the 
structural integrity.  It will be near impossible to keep the fibers 
straight, particularly going along the bend in the spar.  Not good.  Has 
anyone else run into this?  If so, what was your solution?

Any other suggestions?

Larry Schuler, MK-IV Plans #500
Befuddled in Wisconsin

From: "Russ Fisher" <rfisher1@rochester.rr.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Center Spar Cap Tapes
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 21:21:53 -0400

Hi Larry,

>Last summer I ordered more of the UNI tape (same part number) and just now
>opened the package to begin the bottom spar cap.  Nice surprise.  The tape
>is exactly 2-1/2" wide rather than the specified 3" and the cross threads
>are rather tight (very likely the cause of the reduced width).  The tow
>count appears to be the same at 30, but I'll be darned if I'm going to try
>to count the fibers...


Yesterday I received the order I placed with Wicks at Osh which included the
tape for the canard.  I just measured it, and on the spool it varies from
2-5/8" to 2-7/8".  As you said, the cross threads are somewhat tight.  If
you lay it down flat like it will be in the spar, I seems to spread out to
3" without any gaps.  I don't think you should have a problem.

This topic was addressed quite thoroughly here within the last few months
and if memory serves me correctly, I think the general concensus was that
the tape was identical in mass, just woven tighter.

Russ Fisher


From: "Michael Antares" <mantares@pacbell.net>
Subject: COZY: Spar tape
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 19:16:28 -0700

I just measured some left-over tape that I purchased from Wicks some time
ago (I could furnish an invoice number if asked).  It measures three inches
as it should.

However in one way it shouldn't really matter as once the cross threads are
removed the objective becomes filling the trough up as much as possible.  I
remember squishing the fibers around to even out the trough at the top.
There really aren't layers as such but just a mass of fibers, so it seems
you would just use proportionately more tape to achieve the same final
thickness.

My two cents...

Michael Antares

Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 07:49:57 -0500
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Center Spar Cap Tapes

Larry,

    re "Not good.  Has  anyone else run into this?  If so, what was your
solution?
            Any other suggestions?"

    I think you will be OK....just make sure the spar trough is full
when you finish the lay up.

dd



From: "John Slade" <rjslade@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Center Spar Cap Tapes
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 11:57:33 -0400

Larry,

> I think you have a problem here.  This is extremely fishy to me and
>potentially very dangerous.

I have the same tape from Wicks. I did the canard already and am about to do
the center spar. I had no problems laying the tape down and filling the
trough. It spreads when wet and the cross threads are removed. I watched the
Rutan video where Burt did a spar cap without removing the cross threads.
The tape was clearly wider in the video. I think they've changed the way
they "package" the roving threads, but the net result is _exactly_ the same.

>I find it difficult to believe that I could spread the 2-1/2" tape out to
>the required full 3" width during wet-out without making a mess of the
>structural integrity.  It will be near impossible to keep the fibers
>straight, particularly going along the bend in the spar.
Not true. As you squeege out from the center and push down on the wetted
threads they will remain straight as they fill the trough.

my 2c - Its not a problem. Use the tape and move on.
John Slade
Cozy #757
http://kgarden.com/cozy



From: "Darcy & Karen Reed" <reedinc@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Center Spar Cap Tapes
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 10:22:47 -1000


I found that the 2 1/2 UND tape spread and filled the canard spar cap
troughs to the top as planned, also the main spar caps' top trough has the
correct number plies after I was done.  On the top spar of the canard I used
two extra lay-ups to fill the trough (I cut it a little to deep) and the
bottom spar cap was correct.  I would have to go back and find the exact
number of plies used in all. The main spar caps' top trough was dead on in
the number of plies used and final contour.  I will be filling the bottom
trough next Saturday. My experience is that once the thread is removed the
glass spreads out to the full width of the trough, including the lay-ups to
fill the trough results in singular piece of "straight" und glass 3" wide
and ? deep,  after I rolled, stippled and squeegee out the air pockets. At
first I wondered about the width, but that went away after the first couple
of lay-ups.

Have fun and just do it.  :-)

Darc


>I find it difficult to believe that I could spread the 2-1/2" tape out to
>the required full 3" width during wet-out without making a mess of the
>structural integrity.  It will be near impossible to keep the fibers
>straight, particularly going along the bend in the spar.
Not true. As you squeege out from the center and push down on the wetted
threads they will remain straight as they fill the trough.

my 2c - Its not a problem. Use the tape and move on.
John Slade




From: "Schuler, Larry" <Larry.Schuler@uscellular.com>
Subject: RE: COZY: Center Spar Cap Tapes
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 18:40:00 -0500 


Nat wrote:

>You now have answers from many builders saying the same thing I would have 
>said (I have been away). There is no problem. Just pull out the cross 
>threads and fill up the trough.

So it's OK to squish the fibers around so that they may or may not maintain 
the horizontal or vertical straightness?

If this is true, would standard uni work just as well and be as strong as 
normally straight tapes (lots of UNI plies I'm sure...)?

Larry

From: "Michael Antares" <mantares@pacbell.net>
Subject: RE: COZY: Center Spar Cap Tapes
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 08:26:53 -0700

So it's OK to squish the fibers around so that they may or may not maintain
the horizontal or vertical straightness?

If this is true, would standard uni work just as well and be as strong as
normally straight tapes (lots of UNI plies I'm sure...)?

Larry

I did a tremendous amount of "squishing" when I did my spar cap layups.  The
single fibers can be moved around very easily and it is possible to keep
them straight while doing so.  I actually dragged a steel straightedge along
the top to even out the fibers when the trough was essentially full.  That
saved a lot of sanding later.  I also (with heart in mouth) used a three
inch wide belt sander to take off the bumps where the layers tapered.  It
was scary to contemplate what would happen if the belt sander slipped off
the top of the spar cap but it actually was quite easy to keep it centered.
The spar cap is NOT easy to sand by hand, believe me!

From: jhocut@mindspring.com
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 12:05:08 -0400
Subject: RE: COZY: Center Spar Cap Tapes


>If this is true, would standard uni work just as well and be as >strong as 
>normally straight tapes (lots of UNI plies I'm sure...)?

A Vari-EZE builder told me that that's exactly what he had to do before the spar-cap tape was available.  I'm sure it would be MUCH more work using UNI than it would be with the tape. 

I used one of the notched squeegees from West with some amount of success to keep the fibers straight.

Jim Hocut

From: SWrightFLY@aol.com
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 18:11:02 EDT
Subject: Re: COZY: Center Spar Cap Tapes

In a message dated 8/10/99 10:32:18 AM Central Daylight Time, 
mantares@pacbell.net writes:

<< If this is true, would standard uni work just as well and be as strong as
 normally straight tapes (lots of UNI plies I'm sure...)? >>

I was of the understanding that the standard uni is E-glass. The straight 
tape is S-Glass. If this is correct you not have the same strength as uni.
Steve
 <A HREF="http://www.canard.com/noselift/">Wright Aircraft Works LLC: 
Electric Nose-Lift for EZEs</A> 

From: "Schuler, Larry" <Larry.Schuler@uscellular.com>
Subject: RE: COZY: Center Spar Cap Tapes
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 20:20:00 -0500


>I was of the understanding that the standard uni is E-glass. The straight 
>tape is S-Glass. If this is correct you not have the same strength as uni. 
>Steve

I wonder if it's still better than squirly fibers though???? :-)

Larry

From: "John Slade" <rjslade@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: 3" spar tape
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 00:01:51 -0400

Was said:
>    I can help out on the 2.5" width spar tape problem.

While the "old" tape may be just fine, I want to point out that there IS NO
PROBLEM with the 2.5 inch tape currently being supplied.  I just finished my
top spar cap and It worked just fine.  Once the cross threads are removed it
lays down nicely in 3 inches.  The trough was easily filled with the plans
recommended number of plys so we're definately getting the same amount of
glass. In fact I had to skip a couple of plys to avoid overfilling.
John Slade (finishing off Chap 14)
http://kgarden.com/cozy


Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 10:30:53 -0400
From: "Marc J. Zeitlin" <marcz@ultranet.com>
Subject: COZY: Center Spar Cap Tapes

Schuler, Larry writes;

>I wonder if it's still better than squirly fibers though???? :-)

I see the smiley, but the point is (and I agree with it, having laid up the
main spar caps and the canard spar caps) that you don't GET squirrelly
fibers - they straighten out with no problem with a squeegee and hair
dryer.  In fact, they straighten out so much that you've got to be careful
not to get them piled up around the corner on the main spar.  Gently
pushing and squeegeeing WILL get you straight fibers and completely fill
the trough.  You'll be amazed how the tape spreads out.

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

From: "Chris Byrne." <jcbyrne@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: COZY: Chap 14
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 12:16:37 +1000

Builders

Have just inspected the bottom spar cap on the center section spar and find
that the area 12 inches either side of the sweep back point is a little low.
(trough must have been a bit deep). Looks like it will need extra 3 to 4
extra layers.

----------------------   24 in
     ------------           14 in
         ------                8 in
           ---                  4 in


Will this destoy the stress (bending) distribution of the spar?
Should I just leave it and accept that its a bit low, after all, the
required layers are all there.


Thanks

Chris Byrne
Sydney



From: MARC_ZEITLIN@HP-Andover-om1.om.hp.com
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:18:56 -0400
Subject: FW: COZY: Chap 14

Chris Byrne writes:

> Have just inspected the bottom spar cap on the center section 
> spar and find that the area 12 inches either side of the sweep back point 
> is a little low. (trough must have been a bit deep). Looks like it will need 
> extra 3 to 4 extra layers.

> Will this destroy the stress (bending) distribution of the spar?

No, with caveats.  You have locally increased the stress in the bottom spar 
cap.  How much is not clear.

> Should I just leave it and accept that its a bit low, after all, the
> required layers are all there.

Yes, depending upon the definition of "low".  If you're talking about 1/16" or 
less (which it sounds like from your estimate of 3 to 4 layers) then I wouldn't 
sweat it.  You've increased the stress by at most 4% (given an 6" to 8" high 
spar).

If it's 1/8" or more, then you may have a problem.  You will have increased the 
stress level in the glass in that area a substantial amount and without a fix, 
you might have to reduce the ultimate loading on your aircraft from 12 G's to 
10 G's :-).  (That's a joke, for those of you that aren't familiar with ":-)"'s 
).

--
Marc J. Zeitlin                          email: marcz@ultranet.com

From: MARC_ZEITLIN@HP-Andover-om1.om.hp.com
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:00:18 -0400
Subject: COZY: Chap 14

I wrote:

> > .......  You've increased the stress by at most 4% (given 
> > an 6" to 8" high spar).

Someone asked:

> How does making the spar cap too thick/strong increase the 
> stress?

Maybe I wasn't clear enough - what I meant was that by decreasing the effective 
height of the spar (by having the cap be slightly below where it's supposed to 
be), the spar would be marginally weaker than it would otherwise have been.  I 
was assuming with NO extra glass added, since this was the current condition of 
the spar.

> ....  And how in the world would any local increase in stress exceed the
> extra strength afforded by the extra material?  It's just not intuitive, and 
I 
> am weak in really sophisticated structural analysis.....

Anytime you change the structure by either adding or removing material, you 
change the way that stress flows through the structure.  It's possible (I'm not 
saying its GOING to happen, but it CAN) that adding some material to the spar 
cap could shift some stress to areas of the spar that weren't meant to have it, 
and this could cause them to break when they otherwise wouldn't have.  When you 
add material, you're stiffening one area, and that could force another area to 
deflect instead, causing higher stresses.

Hope this explains it better.

Intuition is not always correct :-).

--
Marc J. Zeitlin         marcz@ultranet.com
                        http://cozy.canard.com

    Non Impediti Ratione Cognitanis (C&C)

Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 16:28:58 +0200
From: "Rego Burger" <BurgerR@telkom.co.za>
Subject: Re: COZY: Chap 14

There is a formula that goes somthing like this.
The strength of a laminated core is a multiple of the 2 x the sq.rt of the distnace between them. 
Sorry for the lack of detail, I don't have the design file with me at work...

Therefore do not make any big changes of core thickness.


Rgo Burger
RSA

Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 18:06:39 -0400
From: Blake Mantel <blakem@tiac.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Chap 14

MARC_ZEITLIN@HP-Andover-om1.om.hp.com wrote:

> I wrote:
>
> > > .......  You've increased the stress by at most 4% (given
> > > an 6" to 8" high spar).
>
> Someone asked:
> > How does making the spar cap too thick/strong increase the
> > stress?
>
> Maybe I wasn't clear enough - what I meant was that by decreasing the effective
> height of the spar (by having the cap be slightly below where it's supposed to
> be), the spar would be marginally weaker than it would otherwise have been.  I
> was assuming with NO extra glass added, since this was the current condition of
> the spar.

SNIP!

> Marc J. Zeitlin         marcz@ultranet.com
>      Non Impediti Ratione Cognitanis (C&C)

Now I know when one is new to a place he shouldn't make waves, but...


Here is an idea that I had a long while ago. And I discussed it with a employee of
Hexel who was building a Mk IV but due to the minimum order quantity, I never
pursued it.

Have a "custom" run of the spar cap uni tape made from S-glass strands rather than
the standard E-glass. (Making the exact same tape with the different glass fibers)
Since S-glass is stronger, tougher and stiffer than E glass, one could build the
cap to the same physical dimensions and specs but have a stronger end product.

IMHO the caps are already the stiffest structure in that area and the switch from
the E to the S would be a benefit with out any noticeable side affects. (but any
change can be dangerous)


The drawback was that the smallest run possible was, I think, on the order of 5000
yards of finished tape. This was a bit much for my personal use, but if enough
interest was shown it can be done.

Just an idea,
Blake
MkIV Plans #0008
--
CUM CATAPULTAE PROSCRIPTAE ERUNT TUM SOLI PROSCRIPTI CATAPULTAS HABEBUNT.
(When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults....)
Triumph Tiger Motorcycle page at: http://www.tiac.net/users/blakem/
My Email address is altered due to the prevalence of bulk Email senders.
To send me mail remove the two *'s before the TIAC.NET.


From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 11:13:55 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: Chap 14

was said <S-glass is stronger, tougher and stiffer than E glass>

As part of normal flight, both hard landings and turblence, the structure including spars flex. Part of the design is that 
this flexing absorbs some of the load, reducing loads on fasteners and adjacent structure. I might be detrimental to change to 
a stiffer material. As an extreme example, take a weight suspended by 2 rubber bands, replace one with a string. A quick 
upward movement of the support most likely will break the string, and then overlading the rubberband either allowing movement 
beyond allowables or breaking entirely.

From: "John Slade" <rjslade@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Chap 14
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 13:31:19 -0400

>build the cap to the same physical dimensions and specs but have a stronger
end product.

Blake,
I think someone else answered this, but I just wanted to reinforce (: the
point.
Nat told me that the spar is built to withstand 18g. Unless you're planning
on pulling 19g I don't think you need it stronger.  What you want is
flexibility. The Cozy is VERY smooth in turbulence. I understand that this
is partly because of the fact that you're suspended between the wings and
the canard and partly because of the ability of the wings to absorb shock.
John


Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 09:22:08 -0400
From: "Marc J. Zeitlin" <marcz@ultranet.com>
Subject: COZY: Chap 14

Blake Mantel writes;

>Now I know when one is new to a place he shouldn't make waves, but...

Oh, what the heck :-).

>Since S-glass is stronger, tougher and stiffer than E glass, one could build 
>the cap to the same physical dimensions and specs but have a stronger end
product.

On the other hand, since the spars are already more than strong enough, why
would one want to pay extra money to make them stronger still?  It's good
to improve things, but only if there's actually some payback to it.

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

From: Fritzx2@aol.com
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:59:35 EST
Subject: COZY: RE: Cozy: FEAR OF FLYING IN CIRCLES

>I have been fearful of installing my 
>main spar for weeks now.  I'm having 
>a hard time getting everything perfect. 
>I have actually found differences in all 
>3 of my levels.  Any tips on this subject 
>would be greatly appreciated. 
>Hugh Farrior
>Tampa
 
You could approach this a couple of ways.

1) You could level the fuse with any level
without regards to how level it is to the
earth noting the orientation you placed the
level on the fuse longerons to level it.  Then
when you level the center spar, simply
place the same level on the spar the same way
you placed it on the fuse side to side.
After all, all your woried about is that
the spar is matched to the fuse.  For example,
if the fuse leveled 1 degree lower on the
port side because the level was off and then
you leveled the spar with the level in the
same orientation, then the spar would be 1
degree lower on the port side with a difference
between the fuse and the spar of 0 degrees
difference which is what you are really looking
for in the first place.  Imagine, then, that
you could tilt both the fuse and the spar
(which is now attached) 1 degree to absolute
level and the plane is assembled correctly
which would be the same as if you had a
perfect level in the first place.  This is cheap
(can use any level) but takes a bit more care.

2)Check to see if any of the levels are correct
relative to the earth's magnetic field by supporting
the level at each end with small shims like a penny
on top of a stack of paper until the level
is centered and then swap the level end for end
placing the level on the pennies at the same
points (using the same points negates the fact
that your level is not perfectly straight)
and then see if the bubble is centered.  If so,
then you can use the level in any orientation
without having to keep track.  If not, adjust
the bubble if possible, otherwise note the
orientation.  It's always a good idea to
calibrate your level periodically just to
make sure nothing has changed like when the
level tipped over and smacked the concrete
floor.  Never happens right? :)

3) Or, you could use a water level which would
always be the correct except in a hurricane
while your house was spinning around the
funnel cloud in which case forget about the
plane.  For small diameter tubing you have
to keep track of the miniscus especially over
a short level distance.  Also, you would
need a straight edge to compare the
water level to and then you would eventially
start to question how straight is that
straight edge anyway which would put you right
back where you started.  Not really.  

More than one way to build it straight.

John Fritz
fritzx2@aol.com

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 17:16:29 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: COZY: RE: Cozy: FEAR OF FLYING IN CIRCLES

I had the wings bolted to the spar, and leveled/aligned the wings for alignment when installing the center section spar. Note 
that the spar is flexible in torsion and when the strakes are built is your last chance to change the incidence of the wings.

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:39:42 -0500
Subject: Re: COZY: FEAR OF FLYING IN CIRCLES
From: "Paul Comte" <pcomte@thepark.net>

> I have been fearful of installing my main spar for weeks now.  I'm having a
> hard time getting everything perfect. I have actually found differences in
> all 3 of my levels.


Water levels can't lie.  For leveling stuff I use plastic tubing and water.
I bought T's and cut the hose into sections, try to keep an extra line in a
jug of water, use a rope to raise/lower jug to get water to required height.
Remember to empty tubing when finished as some product may absorb water and
cloud.

I like this method because you are measuring all points at once.

Paul Comte
Milwaukee, WI

