From: mfacchinelli@sogei.it
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 13:05:46 +0200
Subject: COZY: Lower winglets

Canardians,
I'm working on the winglets section of my Cosy Classic and the question of
the day is: it is possible to cut off the lower winglets (see E-Racer,
Berkut, Velocity...) ?
Can someone explain me advantages and disadvantages ? Is it dangerous ? Can
the speed sensibly increase ?
What is better to do ???
Any info is wellcome...
CIAO
MASSIMO (I-COSI reserved)

"ONE KILOMETER ROAD DOESN'T LEAD YOU ANYWHERE,
 ONE KILOMETER RUNWAY LEADS YOU EVERYWHERE..."


From: Jim Hocut <JHocut@pxauto.com>
Subject: RE: COZY: Lower winglets
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 11:37:31 -0400 




> I'm working on the winglets section of my Cosy Classic and the
> question of
> the day is: it is possible to cut off the lower winglets (see E-Racer,
> Berkut, Velocity...) ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
In the aft CG / deep stall testing that Nat performed it was discovered
that the lower winglets add considerably to stability, and he strongly
cautioned builders against removing them.  As for any speed advantage /
drag reduction, it would be so slight as to be unmeasureable,  an
airfoil the thickness of the winglets will have an equivalent drag
around that of a wire the thickness of a paperclip.


Jim Hocut
Cozy IV #448



Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 10:51:07 -0700
From: hrogers@slac.stanford.edu (Howard Rogers)
Subject: RE: COZY: Lower winglets


>In the aft CG / deep stall testing that Nat performed it was discovered
>that the lower winglets add considerably to stability, and he strongly
>cautioned builders against removing them.  As for any speed advantage /
>drag reduction, it would be so slight as to be unmeasureable,  an
>airfoil the thickness of the winglets will have an equivalent drag
>around that of a wire the thickness of a paperclip.
>
>
>Jim Hocut
>Cozy IV #448

Jim has hit the nail on the head, and I cannot, for the life of me,
understand why anyone would want to give up this very measurable, almost
penalty-free benefit for what?....  aesthetics?  I am truly stumped.

In addition, the lower winglets provide some protection to the structure
that holds the winglets onto the wing tips in the unhappy circumstance
where a wing tip may drag the ground, for example in extreme
crosswind/gusty conditions.

Howard Rogers


Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 13:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: Michael Pollock <Michael.Pollock@wcom.com>
Subject: COZY: Lower Winglets

> I'm working on the winglets section of my Cosy Classic and the
> question of
> the day is: it is possible to cut off the lower winglets (see E-Racer,
> Berkut, Velocity...) ? 

The lower winglets on a lot of Velocity aircraft are not there due
to the fast build wing.  Dynamic Wing Corp does not add the lower winglet
because they feel it is too difficult to fabricate with the existing
methods that they use.  They also feel the lower winglets do not add
anything or take anything away, to which I totally disagree.

We do use them on our Velocity, and I recommend that you simply follow
the plans if you have any question regarding whether a change will
or will not cause a detrimental affect on the flight characteristics
of your airplane.    

Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 14:25:40 -0500
From: Michael Link <mglink@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Lower winglets



mfacchinelli@sogei.it wrote:

>  it is possible to cut off the lower winglets (see E-Racer,
> Berkut, Velocity...) ?
> Can someone explain me advantages and disadvantages ? Is it dangerous ? Can
> the speed sensibly increase ?

Oh Boy!  This will be sure to stir up controversy. I  SUGGEST that you leave
the lower winglets attached for the following reasons:

Near stall lateral stability.  Tests conducted by Nat Puffer with and without
lower winglets demonstrated a tendency for a rather sharp break near stall
without lowers.
(As I recall this happened at aft C.G.s)

Protection for the prop, rudders, etc. in the event of a "tip back" of the
airplane. (I hate to admit it but I have already benefited from this feature).

I read recently that the lower winglet may actually decrease drag by reducing
the flow of air around the wingtip from bottom high pressure to top low
pressure. I'm not trained in aeronautics, but  it sounded good. I do know that
the winglets, with their reversed cambers, were designed and tested as a unit.
I don't presume to try to outguess the wind tunnel boys.

Try 'em, You'll like 'em.

Michael Link    Cozy MK-IV    N-171-ML

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 16:06:43 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: Lower winglets

In addition to what has been already said: The lower winglets protect the wing tip from damage when (not if) the plane rocks 
on landing with the nose high. I have several times had to touch up the paint on mine (never felt or knew when it happened), 
and even have went to 2 plys of kevlar on the bottoms. Without them you could easily damage the rudder and be stranded at a 
distant airport.

From: "Steven Willhoite" <swillhoite@csi.com>
Subject: RE: COZY: Lower winglets
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 15:07:36 -0600

I recently completed a BFR in my Long Ez with a many thousand hour CFII and
he took great delight in flying my plane from the back seat at idle with
full aft stick, 60 mph indicated with full aileron control.  Very slight
nose bobbing, no surprises, just rock solid performance.  Never once did I
feel the need to touch the rudders in his maneuvering.  Try that in another
kind of airplane.  He had so much fun that he did not even charge me for the
BFR!

For whatever reason these planes fly very well as they were originally
designed with winglets.  I am leaving the winglets on on my Mark IV.

Steven



From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 21:11:46 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: Rudder question

Was asked <linear travel of the rudder operating cable>

I don't have an exact dimension, and don't have time now to go measure but:
1: Check the controls chapter for the correct amount of rudder movement somewhere around 4.5" 
or was it 5.5" measured at the bottom tip.
2: I have the RAF hidden rudder bellhorns.
3: Also I have laydown cylinders per the Cosy Classic plans. There is a forked slotted 
aluminum piece threaded on the master cylinder rod. The tab on the brake pedal has a round 
hole (actually several in a vertical line for stroke adjustment).
4: Originaly I had pulleys at the firewall to take the cable horizontal coming aft and 
turning it vertical to the pulley at the goofy angle. I ended up removing the pulleys and 
putting a bellcrank with the 2 arms at different lengths to adjust the cable travel. Trial 
and error persisted and I'm happy with the setup.
5: The cylinder's travel, slot length, and required cable travel for correct rudder travel 
need to be correctly coordinated for things to work correctly.

I haven't given solid info here, but food for thought whats necessary. The plane should be at 
Sun N Fun from Sunday noon, till Tuesday after the airshow.

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 17:08:32 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: Chap 4 - Firewall rudder cable pulley location

On 04/20/99 17:45:14 you wrote:
>
>Carl,
>
>Did you design the hidden belhorns yourself, or are there drawings available
>somewhere?
>
>Russ Fisher
>-----Original Message-----
>From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com <cdenk@ix.netcom.com>
>
>
>>I ended up making special brackets, but then with the hidden belhorns, and
>laydown brake cylinders, My bellcrank arm lengths
>>below the pulleys are different to.
>>
>>
>
>
>

The hidden belhorn drawings are from Rutan, I got mine for $10 7 years ago, has anyone got any lately?

From: Don Bowen <DonBow@symix.com>
Subject: RE: COZY:  "FLUSH BELLHORN" PLANS FOR RUDDERS
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 15:49:24 -0700

The "Flush Bellhorn" rudder plans supplement is still available.

I recently sent away for a set of plans from RAF.  The price is still
$10.

Contact Tonya Rutan at RAF@hughes.net.

Their address is:

Rutan Aircraft Factory
6154 Flightline
Mojave, California  93501

I have not received the plans yet, but I understand they work just fine
on a Cozy.

Best Regards,

Don Bowen
Cozy Mk IV s/n 440
Chapter 9

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	cdenk@ix.netcom.com [SMTP:cdenk@ix.netcom.com]
> Sent:	Tuesday, April 20, 1999 3:09 PM
> To:	rfisher1@rochester.rr.com; cozy_builders@canard.com
> Subject:	Re: COZY: Chap 4 - Firewall rudder cable pulley location
> 
> On 04/20/99 17:45:14 you wrote:
> >
> >Carl,
> >
> >Did you design the hidden belhorns yourself, or are there drawings
> available
> >somewhere?
> >
> >Russ Fisher
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com <cdenk@ix.netcom.com>
> >
> >
> >>I ended up making special brackets, but then with the hidden
> belhorns, and
> >laydown brake cylinders, My bellcrank arm lengths
> >>below the pulleys are different to.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> 
> The hidden belhorn drawings are from Rutan, I got mine for $10 7 years
> ago, has anyone got any lately?

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 18:49:00 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: RE: COZY:  "FLUSH BELLHORN" PLANS FOR RUDDERS

I highly recommend them. It is much smoother looking and less drag, and not that difficult, the plans show even how they can 
be retrofited.

From: "Russ Fisher" <rfisher1@rochester.rr.com>
Subject: Re: COZY:  "FLUSH BELLHORN" PLANS FOR RUDDERS
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 23:05:55 -0400

Thanks for all the inf. on the hidden rudder horn.  I have a couple of
sources for plans.  It seems the original design was by JD Newman and Rutan
added a spring to it to limit the amount of rudder travel at speed.  Even
though I'm a long way from building them, my initial feeling is that I don't
like the spring idea.  I'm curious as to what the group's thoughts were -
spring or no spring?  Advantages?  Disadvantages?

See ya,

Russ Fisher


From: Todd Carrico <todd.carrico@aris.com>
Subject: RE: COZY:  "FLUSH BELLHORN" PLANS FOR RUDDERS
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 07:08:17 -0700

BTW, A friend of mine has Long, and during a preflight, the passenger was
following him around, and got curious with the spring return of the rudder.
When the passenger was finished playing around with the rudder, he continued
on.  During the take-off run, it was discovered that the rudder cable was
binding on the control horn, and causing almost full deflection!  Needless
to say, the AC survived the incident, and the owner does his preflights
alone.

Might not have happened with the hidden horn, but make sure when you rig
your hidden horn, that you make sure it can't bind inside.  That would be a
good argument for the spring.

tc 

-----Original Message-----
From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
To: DonBow@symix.com; cozy_builders@canard.com
Sent: 4/20/99 4:49 PM
Subject: RE: COZY:  "FLUSH BELLHORN" PLANS FOR RUDDERS

I highly recommend them. It is much smoother looking and less drag, and
not that difficult, the plans show even how they can 
be retrofited.

From: lschuler@cellular.uscc.com
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 08:56:54 -0600
Subject: Re[2]: COZY:  "FLUSH BELLHORN" PLANS FOR RUDDERS 

Russ Fisher wrote:

>I'm curious as to what the group's thoughts were - spring or no spring?  
>Advantages?  Disadvantages?

The spring link is REQUIRED.  It is necessary because the internal belhorn has a
positive stop vs no stop with external belhorn.  Without the spring, the rudder 
travel stops (and so does the rudder pedal) and you can't apply brake.

The side benefit of the spring is that it can, if selected correctly, provide 
reduced rudder travel at higher speed and more travel at low speed.

Larry Schuler MK-IV plans #500


From: sdbish@juno.com
Subject: COZY: "FLUSH BELLHORN" PLANS FOR RUDDERS
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 15:58:42 EDT

I highly recommend them. It is much smoother looking and less drag, and
not that difficult, the plans show even how they can 
be retrofited.

To me,  one of the main benefits,  is not having something sharp sticking
out to catch and tear your clothing,  or bump into with your head,   or
gouge into skin,  while doing preflight,  or when others are walking
around your beautiful project.

Marv Bishop


___________________________________________________________________
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: "Russ Fisher" <rfisher1@rochester.rr.com>
Subject: COZY: Fw: Hidden rudder horns for canard aircraft
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 20:32:57 -0400

Sent the following message to Tonya at RAF concerning the plans for the
rudder horns:

>I'm building a Cozy Mark IV and the folks on my newsgroup said that you
have
>plans available for a hidden rudder horn.  Approximate cost $10.  Could you
>please confirm the availability and the price plus any shipping charges to
>New York and let me know if the following address is the place to send the
>check:

>Rutan Aircraft Factory
>6154 Flightline
>Mojave, California  93501

Her reply:

>Hi Russ,
>
>The price is right, and RAF pays shipping costs.  However, the correct
>address is
>
>1654 Flightline
>
>All else is correct.
>
>Tonya, RAF
>

From: "Russ Fisher" <rfisher1@rochester.rr.com>
Subject: Re: COZY:  "FLUSH BELLHORN" PLANS FOR RUDDERS 
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 20:44:54 -0400

Hi Larry,

>The spring link is REQUIRED.  It is necessary because the internal belhorn
has a
>positive stop vs no stop with external belhorn.  Without the spring, the
rudder
>travel stops (and so does the rudder pedal) and you can't apply brake.
>
>The side benefit of the spring is that it can, if selected correctly,
provide
>reduced rudder travel at higher speed and more travel at low speed.


Hmmm, I had a long discussion with JD Newman last night (even though he
forgot about the three hour time difference :-)  ) and he mentioned the
rudder travel vs. speed issue, but the subject of brakes never came up.  JD,
how did you overcome that?  (Just kidding about the time, you can call
anytime - it was very enlightening to talk to you.)

See ya,

Russ Fisher


Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 19:06:53 -0700
From: "LCDR James D. Newman" <infaero@flash.net>
Subject: COZY: Re:  "FLUSH BELLHORN" PLANS FOR RUDDERS

Hi Todd, Larry, Russ and All,

> Todd Carrico wrote:
> <snip>  Might not have happened with the hidden horn, but make sure when you rig your hidden horn,
that you make sure it can't bind inside.  That would be a good argument for the spring.

> Larry Schuler wrote:
> The spring link is REQUIRED.  It is necessary because the internal bell horn has a positive stop
vs no stop with external bell horn.  Without the spring, the rudder travel stops (and so does the
rudder pedal) and you can't apply brake.

    A little more history:  The original design did not require the extra spring since my winglet
(technically called a 'Tip Sail') is not shifted aft 4.5" (so I have plenty of hog out room in the
end of the wing tip), which is not really required since the "Big Rudders" came out the fall of '83,
and in particular, since my rudders are full span AND operate like a full span split flap (only one
side comes out - no rudder lock required), is less drag, and winglet attachment is a little stronger
(shouldn't have the cracks in the outer winglet skins at the leading edge as talked about in CSA
rag).
    Also, even if you have the winglet shifted aft the 4.5" per plans, if properly done (internal
rudder horn pocket maximum hog out in end of wing tip, proper height of rudder pedals and proper
master brake location), the rudder pedals (which have a spring) will stop and the brakes will have
maximum activation before the arm of the internal horn hits anything inside the wing tip, and the
rudder will still reach it's maximum deployment of 5.5".  Otherwise, you *will* need the extra
spring.
    One could shorten the arm a little (and I mean just a little - wouldn't take much), but it gets
pretty tight at the trailing edge of the wing for the internal rudder horn with the winglet shifted
aft the 4.5", and proper placement of the rudder cable conduit in the wing is a concern (located
close to aileron tips for original construction, particularly if you lengthen the ailerons 7" like
many have done, then you'll need to arc the rudder conduit ever so slightly).  Or move the winglet
forward an inch or so (I didn't say that).
    I just looked over the plans sold by RAF and could not find any reference to *why* the extra
spring was included (it just is), but stands to reason a spring is needed if the internal rudder
horn hits something after 4.5" to 5.5" of rudder travel and the brakes are not fully activated.  I
would think this extra spring requirement means the rudder pedal height and geometry, and the master
brake cylinder geometry, needs to be looked at (as I mentioned above).  Also, I think the brakes
were still mounted on the firewall, and the drawings sold by RAF are specific to the original
Long-EZ days rudder pedal geometry.  Lots has changed since these drawings came out.

> The side benefit of the spring is that it can, if selected correctly, provide reduced rudder
travel at higher speed and more travel at low speed.

    Now this is the reason I personally *do not* want an extra spring in the loop.  *I* want to have
full control of rudder deployment AND have the correct feel, and not rely on whether the spring
(affected by air loads) will give me enough rudder when I *really* want it.  The spring is, also,
affected by temperature, and can go soft over time, restricting my rudder needs.
    While the spring called out for in the RAF plans is pretty strong, and I'm probably splitting
frog hairs, but I just don't want a spring - that's just me :-) .  Like I said before, whatever
flips your bic.
    HTH.  OBTW - I'm not advocating moving YOUR winglets forward.  Just look at everything mentioned
above; i.e. - rudder pedal height and geometry, the master brake cylinder geometry, rudder cable in
wing conduit location, proper wing tip hog out for internal rudder horn, rudder horn length, etc. -
you are the builder.  I was just talking about what I did, and a little history, FWIW :-) .

Infinity's Forever,

        JD

From: "Nat Puffer" <cozy@extremezone.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Ailron balance weight
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:01:44 -0500

Ernie,
Full length.
Nat

----------
> From: ernie de goveia <edegov@iafrica.com>
> To: cozy_builders@betaweb.com
> Subject: COZY: Ailron balance weight
> Date: Thursday, June 24, 1999 10:47 AM
> 
> Hi Guys
> I am working on an aileron, which will have a layedup rib at each end,
> extending 0.4" into the aileron. The question is, does the round bar used
> as a balance weight,extend the full lenth of the aileron, or is it
> shortened by 0.8" to fit between the the two ribs?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Ernie in Cape Town
> 
> 

From: mikefly@juno.com
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 11:39:31 -0500
Subject: Re: COZY: Ailron balance weight



On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 17:47:32 +0200 ernie de goveia <edegov@iafrica.com>
writes:
>Hi Guys
>I am working on an aileron, which will have a layedup rib at each 
>end,
>extending 0.4" into the aileron. The question is, does the round bar 
>used
>as a balance weight,extend the full lenth of the aileron, or is it
>shortened by 0.8" to fit between the the two ribs?
>
>Thanks
>
>Ernie in Cape Town
>
>
Ernie, 
You should leave the rod full length. You will need as much counter
weight as you can get. You should also make shure the rod is as far
forward as you can mount it. I had to move one of mine forward 3/16"
because it would not balance.
Mike Bowden
Two EZ MS1
N102ML

From: "Frank C." <frankc@nol.net>
Subject: Re: [c-a] RE: COZY: Re:Wider rudders---possibly
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 22:40:42 -0500

TC,

Span. The originals were approx. 1/3 the span of the new design. They give
you plenty of yaw and roll authority (at least in my plane). Better yet they
were fully tested by the RAF folks.

....I would not mess with an extra inch of chord or full span,  things like
flutter really scare me. Can flutter can take place on a rudder? I don't
know but the potential is definitely there.

Full span rudders, ouch!!!  If you ever park your plane on its tail, your
hinges could take a beating.

I added a 5 layers of glass to the bottom of my winglets by the trailing
edge  in case my Ez decides to park itself on its tail.  Who knows may be it
will help minimize the damage during the unfortunate event.... "those who
did and those who will" type of paranoia in my part.

Take care

Frank C.
-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Carrico <todd.carrico@aris.com>
To: owner-canard-aviators@betaweb.com <owner-canard-aviators@betaweb.com>;
canard-aviators@canard.com <canard-aviators@canard.com>;
cozy_builders@canard.com <cozy_builders@canard.com>
Date: Thursday, July 15, 1999 9:33 PM
Subject: [c-a] RE: COZY: Re:Wider rudders---possibly


>[The Canard Aviators's Mailing list]
>
>
>RAF sells a set of plans that they call "Large Rudder".  Larger in what
>direction?  Cord, or Span (er. Height).  Which direction did they take?
>
>tc
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: SWrightFLY@aol.com [mailto:SWrightFLY@aol.com]
>
>I am completing the finishing (sanding and filling)  on the wing and
>winglets on my Stagger EZ and will now cut the rudders out and install
>the hidden rudder system I got from Dale Martin. I am making the rudder
>cut out full span (top to bottom) and am thinking about increasing the
>cord by 1 inch for greater yaw authority. This will give me a total of
>about 80 square inches of additional rudder area per side..............
>Opinions on this please?
>
>Steve
>http://www.canard.com/noselift/">Wright Aircraft Works LLC:
>Electric Nose-Lift for EZEs
>
>                                                  \
>->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-|-
>                                                  /
>-For details on sponsors of this list, copyrights, and how to remove
>-yourself from this list, please visit:
>
>     http://www.canard.com/ca-ending.html
>
>         (c) 1997,1998, 1999 Canard Aviators.     support@canard.com
>        /
>   -|-<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>        \
>


From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:41:00 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: [c-a] RE: COZY: Re:Wider rudders---possibly

Several times (and I don't know when or where) I noticed paint and some glass scraped on the bottom of my winglets. I now have 
a ply or 2 of kevlar on the bottoms, and it seems to minimize the damage, to a little filler and a teaspoon of mixed paint 
with the airbrush fixes.

From: SWrightFLY@aol.com
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:21:59 EDT
Subject: COZY: Re:Wider rudders---possibly

I am completing the finishing (sanding and filling)  on the wing and winglets 
on my Stagger EZ and will now cut the rudders out and install the hidden 
rudder system I got from Dale Martin. I am making the rudder cut out full 
span (top to bottom) and am thinking about  increasing the cord by 1 inch for 
greater yaw authority. This will give me a total of about 80 square inches of 
additional rudder area per side.............. Opinions on this please?
Thanks in advance
Steve
 <A HREF="http://www.canard.com/noselift/">Wright Aircraft Works LLC: 
Electric Nose-Lift for EZEs
</A>  

From: Todd Carrico <todd.carrico@aris.com>
Subject: RE: COZY: Re:Wider rudders---possibly
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:12:09 -0700

RAF sells a set of plans that they call "Large Rudder".  Larger in what
direction?  Cord, or Span (er. Height).  Which direction did they take?

tc

-----Original Message-----
From: SWrightFLY@aol.com [mailto:SWrightFLY@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 1999 2:22 PM
To: owner-canard-aviators@betaweb.com; canard-aviators@canard.com;
cozy_builders@canard.com
Subject: COZY: Re:Wider rudders---possibly


I am completing the finishing (sanding and filling)  on the wing and
winglets 
on my Stagger EZ and will now cut the rudders out and install the hidden 
rudder system I got from Dale Martin. I am making the rudder cut out full 
span (top to bottom) and am thinking about  increasing the cord by 1 inch
for 
greater yaw authority. This will give me a total of about 80 square inches
of 
additional rudder area per side.............. Opinions on this please?
Thanks in advance
Steve
 <A HREF="http://www.canard.com/noselift/">Wright Aircraft Works LLC: 
Electric Nose-Lift for EZEs
</A>  

Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:19:46 -0700
From: hrogers@slac.stanford.edu (Howard Rogers)
Subject: Re: COZY: Re:Wider rudders---possibly

Steve Wright wrote:

>I am making the rudder cut out full
>span (top to bottom) and am thinking about  increasing the cord by 1 inch for
>greater yaw authority. This will give me a total of about 80 square inches of
>additional rudder area per side.............. Opinions on this please?
>Thanks in advance
>Steve
> <A HREF="http://www.canard.com/noselift/">Wright Aircraft Works LLC:
>Electric Nose-Lift for EZEs
></A>

Steve,
        Have you read the Canard Pusher issues that deal with this subject?
It is not a trivial one.  To summarize, from memory, the first veriezes
had sufficient rudder athority to drive the airplane into a fully departed,
uncommanded, very scary "flip over" maneuver during strong side slips, and
under certain conditions.  This happened in a customer-built bird, and was
brought to RAF's attention.  This behavior was not discovered during the
inital, very extensive, flight testing.  When RAF's test pilot was also
able to duplicate the problem with the prototype, Rutan immediately put out
a mandatory/ground plans change, which included limiting rudder travel.  I
believe (rusty memory here) that the leading edge cuffs were added at this
time (to later be replaced by the vortilons).  Armed with all this new
data, Burt was able to "design out" this problem from the start, with the
Long EZ.  Later, he, and others, worked long and hard on the development of
nose gear steering, to help with crosswind takeoffs, but eventually gave up
on it.  Instead, he went to more rudder area with the "high performance"
rudders, substantially increasing their size and effectiveness.  This was,
of course, followed by intensive flight testing, before releasing the plans
for the new rudders.  I don't know how much safety margin is left, but be
aware that you are flirting with something here that could get you killed
real quick, if you guess wrong and get an inverted surprise on a gusty,
crosswind short final some day.  Personally, I wouldn't even consider it.
The Long EZ already has some powerful rudders, and I don't believe that
anything very worthwhile would be gained by trying to push this particular
envelope.  Even with more rudder athority, you are STILL going to have some
difficulties with cross-wind takeoffs.

-Howard Rogers


From: alwick@juno.com
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:39:05 -0700
Subject: Re: COZY: Re:Wider rudders---possibly

Last week at local flyin, EZ pilot told me that full span rudder is prone
to flutter. The way he just sorta blurted it out, it sounded like he had
personal experience with this. I'm clueless myself. FWIW.

-al wick
Canopy Latch System guy.
Artificial intelligence in Cockpit
Cozy sn 389 driven by stock Subaru 2.5 ltr.97% complete.

On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:21:59 EDT SWrightFLY@aol.com writes:
> I am completing the finishing (sanding and filling)  on the wing and 
> winglets 
> on my Stagger EZ and will now cut the rudders out and install the 
> hidden 
> rudder system I got from Dale Martin. I am making the rudder cut out 
> full 
> span (top to bottom) and am thinking about  increasing the cord by 1 
> inch for 
> greater yaw authority. This will give me a total of about 80 square 
> inches of 
> additional rudder area per side.............. Opinions on this 
> please?
> Thanks in advance
> Steve
>  <A HREF="http://www.canard.com/noselift/">Wright Aircraft Works 
> LLC: 
> Electric Nose-Lift for EZEs
> </A>  

___________________________________________________________________
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.

From: "Russ Fisher" <rfisher1@rochester.rr.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Re:Wider rudders---possibly
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:55:09 -0400

Nat Puffer wrote:

>Why does everyone keep wanting to change a tried and proven design. 

You mean like widening a Longeze and making a 4 place airplane out of it?

Russ Fisher


From: Wayne_Blackler@ansett.com.au
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:00:24 +1000
Subject: Re: COZY: Re:Wider rudders---possibly

G'Day Steve,

I have 0.5" more chord as I have no lower winglets and decided I wanted a
similar amount of area to the original high performance rudders. This was
recommended to me by a Long EZ builder/pilot friend with a lot of
experience with canards. I made one important mistake... noticed only after
I had filled and finished the winglets... You don't necessarily want to add
an additional 0.5" down the length of the rudder, you actually want to add
a percentage of the chord top and bottom ! In other words, if you make your
rudder cut line directly down a calculated percentage point both sides and
you'll get a straight rudder at the hinge line for one, and a stright line
on winglet and rudder on the inside. If not you get a curve...  I would can
the plans dimensions and work out a percentage line that best estaimates
the area of the original H.P. rudders. This is a similar line of thought to
finishing wings, you want to make sure your sanding block is in line with
the percentage chord position as your sanding block travels over the
airofoil. I would not change the rudder system if I had lower winglets
(oops... contentious issue !)..

Kind Regards

Wayne.
O-360 Long EZ
Australia





SWrightFLY@aol.com on 16/07/99 05:21:59

Please respond to SWrightFLY@aol.com

To:   owner-canard-aviators@betaweb.com, canard-aviators@canard.com,
      cozy_builders@canard.com
cc:    (bcc: Wayne Blackler/ENG/MEL/Ansett/AU)
Subject:  COZY: Re:Wider rudders---possibly




I am completing the finishing (sanding and filling)  on the wing and
winglets
on my Stagger EZ and will now cut the rudders out and install the hidden
rudder system I got from Dale Martin. I am making the rudder cut out full
span (top to bottom) and am thinking about  increasing the cord by 1 inch
for
greater yaw authority. This will give me a total of about 80 square inches
of
additional rudder area per side.............. Opinions on this please?
Thanks in advance
Steve
 <A HREF="http://www.canard.com/noselift/">Wright Aircraft Works LLC:
Electric Nose-Lift for EZEs
</A>






_____________________________________________________________________
CAUTION - This message may contain privileged and confidential 
information intended only for the use of the addressee named above.
If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby 
notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction 
of this message is prohibited. If you have received this message in 
error please notify Ansett Australia immediately. Any views expressed 
in this message are those of the individual sender and may not 
necessarily reflect the views of Ansett Australia.
_____________________________________________________________________

Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:57:07 -0500
From: Michael Amick <mkamick@wans.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Re:Wider rudders---possibly



Nat Puffer wrote:

> Why does everyone keep wanting to change a tried and proven design. The
> problem you are trying to solve exists only in your imagination.
>

Nat

I gotta call you on this one.

Steve is NOT building a Cozy!  His question relates to his own StaggerEZ
design.

See you @OSH.

Best Regards
Michael Amick


From: "Nat Puffer" <natp@cozyaircraft.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Re:Wider rudders---possibly
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:37:52 -0000

Builders,
Our flight test program proved that you lose 1/2 c.g. range (protection
against main wing stall and loss of control) if you leave off the lower
winglets. Dangerous to base a design change like this on a Long EZ builder
who hasn't made very rigorous aft c.g. tests, and particularly if they
weren't in the same model canard you are building. He might be always
flying at a forward c.g., or never flys at minimum flying speed. We
undertook our flight test program not for our own benefit, but to make sure
we provided a safety margin for our builders. 
Nat Puffer

----------
> From: Wayne_Blackler@ansett.com.au
> To: SWrightFLY@aol.com; cozy_builders@canard.com;
canard-aviators@canard.com
> Subject: Re: COZY: Re:Wider rudders---possibly
> Date: Friday, July 16, 1999 12:00 AM
> 
> G'Day Steve,
> 
> I have 0.5" more chord as I have no lower winglets and decided I wanted a
> similar amount of area to the original high performance rudders. This was
> recommended to me by a Long EZ builder/pilot friend with a lot of
> experience with canards. I made one important mistake... noticed only
after
> I had filled and finished the winglets... You don't necessarily want to
add
> an additional 0.5" down the length of the rudder, you actually want to
add
> a percentage of the chord top and bottom ! In other words, if you make
your
> rudder cut line directly down a calculated percentage point both sides
and
> you'll get a straight rudder at the hinge line for one, and a stright
line
> on winglet and rudder on the inside. If not you get a curve...  I would
can
> the plans dimensions and work out a percentage line that best estaimates
> the area of the original H.P. rudders. This is a similar line of thought
to
> finishing wings, you want to make sure your sanding block is in line with
> the percentage chord position as your sanding block travels over the
> airofoil. I would not change the rudder system if I had lower winglets
> (oops... contentious issue !)..
> 
> Kind Regards
> 
> Wayne.
> O-360 Long EZ
> Australia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SWrightFLY@aol.com on 16/07/99 05:21:59
> 
> Please respond to SWrightFLY@aol.com
> 
> To:   owner-canard-aviators@betaweb.com, canard-aviators@canard.com,
>       cozy_builders@canard.com
> cc:    (bcc: Wayne Blackler/ENG/MEL/Ansett/AU)
> Subject:  COZY: Re:Wider rudders---possibly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am completing the finishing (sanding and filling)  on the wing and
> winglets
> on my Stagger EZ and will now cut the rudders out and install the hidden
> rudder system I got from Dale Martin. I am making the rudder cut out full
> span (top to bottom) and am thinking about  increasing the cord by 1 inch
> for
> greater yaw authority. This will give me a total of about 80 square
inches
> of
> additional rudder area per side.............. Opinions on this please?
> Thanks in advance
> Steve
>  <A HREF="http://www.canard.com/noselift/">Wright Aircraft Works LLC:
> Electric Nose-Lift for EZEs
> </A>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _____________________________________________________________________
> CAUTION - This message may contain privileged and confidential 
> information intended only for the use of the addressee named above.
> If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby 
> notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction 
> of this message is prohibited. If you have received this message in 
> error please notify Ansett Australia immediately. Any views expressed 
> in this message are those of the individual sender and may not 
> necessarily reflect the views of Ansett Australia.
> _____________________________________________________________________

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:09:45 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: Re:Wider rudders---possibly

Have standard Cozy rudders, and am able to slip at good rates downward, or use both a speed brakes for good rates down. 
Certainly don't need more rudder. More rudder area will mean greater pedal forces, as it is forces get kind of high. Might 
result in even in the reverse effect, not enough force to affect full travel, resulting less rudder affect. And as I said 
previously, protection of bottom of rudder necessary.

From: SWrightFLY@aol.com
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:23:52 EDT
Subject: Re: COZY: Re:Wider rudders---possibly not

Thanks for all the input on this issue. It appears the yaw authority of the 
Cozy and Long EZ is more than adequate. No low speed handling improvement in 
yaw is needed according to the folks flying. Many potentially dangerous 
handling problems are possible by making this change. I will leave this one 
alone.
If the Internet was in use when we were building Variezes way back in the 
70s, Burt would probably be driven completely nuts by now. 
Steve
Stagger EZ
N700EZ
 <A HREF="http://www.canard.com/noselift/">Wright Aircraft Works LLC: 
Electric Nose-Lift for EZEs
</A> 

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 19:33:49 -0400
From: Tom Teek <tom58@digital.net>
Subject: COZY: Re: [c-a] Re:Wider rudders---possibly

IHMO
       Bad decision to go full span on the rudders. I have scraped the
lower winglet at leas twice locally in heavy x-wind. Nothing but a
scrape job on the winglet. I added a lot of flox in the lower winglet as
shown on Rutan's video. My latest escape was at sun-n-fun this year. The
day was thursday--you that were there would remember the high winds and
the fire that cancelled the air show. The control tower had me land on
the taxi way as a Challenger Jet took the main runway. Well you guessed
it. The heavy winds were blowing across the main runway to the taxiway.
The vortex flipped me right over on the right wing. It scraped a little
and then sorted itself out. Easy repair job. If it had been a full
rudder---who knows?? Those who saw it thought it would be a disaster!
          Just thought I would share this with you.
              Tom   LE N58AT

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:44:38 -0700
From: "LCDR James D. Newman" <infaero@flash.net>
Subject: COZY: Re: [c-a] Re:Wider rudders---possibly

Hi All,

> Bad decision to go full span on the rudders. I have scraped the lower winglet at leas twice locally in heavy x-wind.

	I think Steve is referring to making a full span rudder to the *top* of the winglet.

	Dick Rutan stated once after converting his Long-EZ rudders to the "Big Rudders" that are in vogue
today, that if he knew what he knew after converting, he wished he would have made them full span to
the top 'cause it would be easier to build the rudder.
	Food for thought.

	Rudder width, as well as aileron width, is usually expressed as a percentage of airfoil chord
parallel to flight.  A typical rudder hinge line is usually located at the 70% line of the airfoil
chord from the leading edge.  You'll find the present Big Rudder hinge line is already ~70% of chord
(remember the plans measure from the trailing edge along the winglet surface and not parallel to the
airfoil chord in flight.  The 70% line is along the airfoil chord).
	Aileron hinge line is typically 85% of wing airfoil chord.

	Overall vertical tail size in square feet is a function of design wing area and design wing span
(and a few other conciderations), and planned distance from the CG to the 1/4 chord of the planned
vertical tail location.  Then for canards, we divide by 2 since our vertical tails are winglets.

	For info only:  My rudders are full span to the top of the winglet and operate like a split flap -
only one side comes out.


Infinity's Forever,

	JD

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 07:11:58 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: Re: [c-a] Re:Wider rudders---possibly

J.D. said <rudders are full span to the top of the winglet and operate like a split flap - only one side comes out.>

Interesting, sounds like added weight and building time, is this more efficient (rudder action/surface area, or some sort of 
way) that then allows less rudder/vertical stabilizer area, and the more efficiency? Any other advantages?

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 16:49:21 -0700
From: "LCDR James D. Newman" <infaero@flash.net>
Subject: COZY: Re:  [c-a] Re:Wider rudders---possibly

Hi Carl, Steve and All,

> J.D. said <rudders are full span to the top of the winglet and operate like a split flap - only one side comes out.>

> Carl Denk wrote:
> Interesting, sounds like added weight and building time, . . .

    Nope and nope.

> . . . is this more efficient (rudder action/surface area, or some sort of way) that then allows less rudder/vertical
> stabilizer area, and the more efficiency? Any other advantages?

    Yeap.
    There is only one reason I decided to do this, but several other benefits came out of it:  what started me thinking about it
is that I *HATE* putting in control locks for parking (and I'm lazy) - how do I simplify this?  Pinning the stick in the cockpit
with a pit pin that has a red flag hanging from it is the best way - simple and efficient.  But using potato chip bag clips to
hold my rudders closed so the wind won't bang them for just parking in the hopes that the wind won't still knock them off didn't
appeal to me at all (and they look hen house - I don't like ho made look'n stuff, but that's just me).
    And if you forget them after start up for you left them on until you were totally done pre-flighting and loading the plane
'cause the wind was blowing so hard you didn't want your rudders to bang while you do your walk around and loading, then you
have to shutdown and go get them.  Some have said to push hard and pop them off, but you lose them - and you'll still need them
at your next stop.  And if they come off that easy, how well will they really hold the rudders closed from flopping in a *real*
breeze?  Guess it depends on how big that potato chip bag was that it was taken from :-) .
    Also, I've seen the chip clips rubber seal melt into the paint and/or clear coats in the heat leaving a ridge - looks like
hell.  Or the seal pulls off into the paint.
    So, as a split flap type rudder, the wind can't blow them open - no rudder control lock needed.  And if the wind can blow
them open, maybe I shouldn't be a go'in fly'n that day :-) .

    Other fall out benefits of my full span "split-flap" rudders (will let you know how well it works):  more rudder
effectiveness with less rudder throw needed in turns (because they are 'drag' rudders with a fatter aerodynamic trailing edge),
therefore, bleeding less energy/airspeed in a sustained turn; better cross-wind landing and taxi handling capabilities; and
better speed brake effectiveness in descents and after landing roll out with both rudders deployed (see Space Shuttle rudder,
B-2 ailerons, A-6 speed brakes, others).

    Someone commented about a Vari-EZE flipping over on final, so the VE rudders were changed.  The pilot got really slow
turning base to final at Mojave, and  greatly cross controlled the plane causing it to snap roll.  This could happen to you in
most any other airplane if you're not careful.
    And no, I'm not worried about inadvertently snap rolling my plane or having too much rudder :-) .  That's partly why the Big
Rudders throw was limited a little more than the little rudder door that was on the original LE.  And partly why someone added
the spring in line with my internal rudder horn design.

    Someone else commented that someone's rudders (I think he said full span rudders) may, or have, flutter.  A few other
questions need to be answered before we all panic, or at least before we all get too concerned, and a plethora of speculative
minutia comments come oozing out again.  Such as:  does this apparent flutter occur to both rudders, is the winglet(s) twisted,
what is the actual cant angle of each winglet, what is the actual incidence of each winglet, does the rudder(s) need a stronger
spring, is the rudder opened a little to counter a slight yawing problem, does the plane have rolling and/or yawing issues, what
is the actual sweep angle of the wing(s), etc., etc.
    If it does flutter, making the rudder (and all flight controls) of carbon might be prudent to stiffen it up.

    OBTW - the stuff I talked about above is just for info of what *I* did, not for anyone to start changing everything causing
even more mother hood and a plethora of speculative minutia comments that we all don't need to hear again.  I'm just
shaaarrrring :-) .

    HTH.  (Man, I gotta quite writing these novels.)


Infinity's Forever,

        JD

Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 21:06:03 -0400
From: Gregg Perry <gperry@usit.net>
Subject: COZY: Winglet question

Hi everyone,

     I'm just about ready to start priming my wings.  I seem to recall
that there is supposed to be a "drain hole" in the bottom winglet but I
can't find it in the plans right off hand.  Am I imagining this and if
not, what size should the hole be?   (BTW, I have the internal rudder
control - does this mean TWO drain holes?)

Gregg Perry

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 21:07:00 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: Winglet question

Winglet drain holes

I have 2 per side, one is a 1/4" I.D. polyethelene (could be amost any very light hollow material) tubing th drain when nose 
low. It drains the forward corner straight down (plane level) out the bottom surface. The other is a 1/4" hole drilled far aft 
through the inside face skin to drain when level. The object is all free water will drain, and not freeze and expand splitting 
some glass. This could happen flying or on the ground rain then freezing.

Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 06:03:12 -0400
From: Jeff Russell <JRaero@gte.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Winglet question

Gregg Perry wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
>      I'm just about ready to start priming my wings.  I seem to recall
> that there is supposed to be a "drain hole" in the bottom winglet but I
> can't find it in the plans right off hand.  Am I imagining this and if
> not, what size should the hole be?   (BTW, I have the internal rudder
> control - does this mean TWO drain holes?)

Just install a small (1/16 to 1/8") hole on the inside bottom winglet
at the lowest point when the airplane is parked nose down.  This is to
keep
water out of the pocket you made for the belhorn.  We also have the same
size holes in the nose on each side of NG-30 so if water gets in the
nose
it will also drain.

-- 
Jeff Russell/AeroCad Inc.                  
Website:   http://www.Aerocad.com

From: "John Slade" <rjslade@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Winglet attach questions
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 00:35:49 -0500

David,
>According to the plans (Chap. 20, pg 2), the WPRP reference point used...

Can't help you with your question. I just used the corner of the cut out. I
see your point, but I don't think it will make enough difference that we
could measure it either way.

If you're doing the hidden bellhorns and want to save yourself a few hours
of "orthoscopic surgery" check out my web page
http://kgarden.com/cozy/chap20.htm before attaching the lower winglets.
Regards,
John Slade
Cozy # 757


From: "Nat Puffer" <cozy@extremezone.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Chap 20 - lower winglets
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 12:48:31 -0600

John,
Not to worry. Because of the airfoils and the different chord lengths, you
can't have both the outside surfaces in the same plane and the trailing
edge straight. Either by itself would probably be okay, but for sake of
consistency, follow the plans.
Regards,
Nat

----------
> From: John Slade <rjslade@bellsouth.net>
> To: Cozy builders <cozy_builders@canard.com>
> Subject: COZY: Chap 20 - lower winglets
> Date: Thursday, December 09, 1999 11:35 AM
> 
> Hello all,
> How about a simple builder question for a change?
> 
> I've just finished attaching my lower winglets, and I'm a bit puzzelled.
I'm
> pretty sure that both upper and lower winglets were the correct shape per
> templates. When I fitted the lower winglets (both sides) I was faced with
a
> choice.
> 
> a. Either the trailing edge is perfectly straight vertically and the edge
of
> the lower winglet angles outwards slightly from the join on the outboard
> side.
> 
> or...
> 
> b. The outboard side of both upper & lower winglet are flat at the join,
(as
> shown in Pg 20-6 Section CC) and the TE of the rudder has a slight angle
> toward the inboard side beginning at the joint of the upper & lower
winglet.
> 
> Since all the EZ winglets I've seen are flat on the outboard side I opted
> for option b.
> 
> Could it be that I have the lower winglets reversed or hotwired wrongly.
I
> don't think so. The fishtails were on the correct side and there's no way
> they'd match up with the upper winglets the other way around. The plans
(Pg
> 20-1) talk about undercamber being reversed, but I think this refers to
the
> lower winglet bottom template. To meet up at the join, the shape has to
be
> the same for both upper and lower.  Both my upper and lower winglets have
> the "top" of the airfoil on the inboard side which "looks" right.
> 
> Does anyone have a clue what I'm talking about?
> If so, did I do something wrong here?
> 
> Please say no. I really don't want to cut those suckers off again!
> Regards,
> 
> John Slade, Cozy MKIV #757, progress: http://kgarden.com/cozy
> West Palm Beach, FL
> 
> 

