Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 15:08:18 -0500
From: Gary Dwinal <gdwinal@exploremaine.com>
Subject: COZY: Exhaust Pipes

Hi Folks,
    I have already bought my exhaust system for my Cozy/AeroCanard and
have them installed but I am very interested in the pipes that exit
inside the cooling outlet.  Or, I would also be interested in a 4 into 1

exhaust system.  Does anyone know where I could purchase either one.  I
think Hal Hunt makes the "inside" pipes but I don't know how to get in
touch with him.  I have seen the 4 into 1 system on a Velocity at Osh
Kosh but have no idea who makes them.  Are they a tuned system with
all pipes being the same length?  What I don't like about the system I
have is the rear two pipes are way too short for the engine to run with
a high rate of volumetric efficiency.  In my past life I used to build
racing engines ( V6 and V8 race cars ) and realize there is a real
possibility for significant horsepower gains from having an efficient
exhaust system.  I know Lycoming engines ( 0-360-A1A ) run at a
relatively low RPM but we are still pumping lots of air through these
large 360 cubic inch engines.   Thanks in advance for any help.
Gary Dwinal

From: Epplin John A <EpplinJohnA@jdcorp.deere.com>
Subject: COZY: Alternator belt
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 13:13:11 -0600

Have a 0360-A1A with as 40 amp Denso alternator installed by Pro Aero of
Canada.  It came without the alternator belt.  Anyone have a part no. that
has a good track record for this arrangement?

Thanks again

John Epplin   Mk4  #467

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 16:21:21 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: COZY: Alternator belt

There are several issues to find the correct belt:
1: The belt crossection could be a fractional horsepower (light) belt series or an "A" belt series. 
Borrow one of each and see  which fits the pulleys. (BOth engine and alternator.

2; The 2 series measure length different, one an O.D. and the othe I.D.. Trial and error length.

3: Gates brand belts are preferred, but any good quality belt should work.

4: Some belts have notches on the I.D., thats better if you have a small diameter pulley.

a 20 amp alternator is mighty small, have you added up the electric load. Thats barely enough for 
minimal radio and position lights, and no strobes, landing lights, or etc.

From: Epplin John A <EpplinJohnA@jdcorp.deere.com>
Subject: COZY: Engine primer
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:50:06 -0600

I have an O360-A1A that was purchased with an Ellison TB injection unit.  It
does not have a primer system.  Also have the solenoid valve etc but do not
have the nozzles or plumbing.  Anyone have any suggestions on the best way
to go?  Where to get nozzles, use stainless or copper lines on the engine
etc.

Thanks for any suggestions.

John Epplin   Mk4   #467

Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 16:19:22 -0600
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Engine primer

John,

    The primer nozzles are available from Wicks.  I am using copper and
have installed the nozzles (one each cylinder) in the injector ports on
the top of the cylinders.

    So far so good, i.e,, no leaks and it starts like right now.

dd

N10CZ
MKIV #155
About 60 hours TT with used engine removed for OH


Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 21:07:36
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: Re: Electric Primer

Any who have read my rantings for long know of my
affection for failure tolerant systems. I've been
watching a thread on electric primers wondering 
if anyone would remember some words I wrote in 
Appendix Z to the 'Connection which I repeat
here as follows:

---------
Note 14.  Consider  installing  an electric solenoid valve 
between the pressure side of your fuel system and the 
primer ports on  your  engine. Aircraft Spruce offers 
a suitable electrically operated valve for primer 
service. Further, consider using a 4 or 6 port primer 
system (depending on the number of cylinders on your 
engine). Two advantages:  (1)  no wet fuel  lines  
in  the cabin, (2) many an engine plagued with a 
plugged carburetor or broken mixture control  has  
been  kept running to an uneventful landing by a 
multi-port primer system. This setup will perform 
very nicely in such  circumstances. Throttle  full  
open. Tease the boost pump switch as required to 
develop considerable power and pick a  landing  
spot  well beyond your normal glide ratio!
----------

Some of my builders have gone a step further
and installed a needle valve in the line downstream
of the solenoid valve. With a bit of tinkering,
the right combo of needle valve setting and throttle
position was determined for getting 60-75% power
with mixture at idle-cutoff. The also plumbed the
primer valve into its own pump with a separate feed
from the last-tank-to-drain in their standard flight
procedures.

What results is a totally independent, fuel supply
system that will keep an engine running. One of
my builders was able to use this feature to his
advantage about 8 years ago when the mixture control
on his Long-Ez became detached. He flew an additional
45 mintues to a much more desirable airport where
repairs were quickly accomplished.




       Bob . . .
                       ////
                      (o o)
       ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
       <   If you continue to do       >
       <   What you've always done     >
       <   You will continue to be     >
       <   What you've always been.    >
       =================================
         <http://www.aeroelectric.com>

From: Wayne Hicks <WHicks@SPACETEC.Zeltech.com>
Subject: COZY: George Shell's Long EZ Downdraft Cooling
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 14:14:28 -0500


Thanks to bil kleb, you can now view pictures of George's downdraft cooling
at:

http://www.geocities.com/~kleb/homebuilt/shell


__________________________________________
L. Wayne Hicks		SpaceTec
Sr. Engineer		3221 North Armistead Ave
757-865-0900 phone	Hampton, VA 23666
757-865-8960 fax	http://www.spacetec-inc.com

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:18:34 -0500
From: "Marc J. Zeitlin" <marcz@ultranet.com>
Subject: COZY: Chap. 23: Engine Mount and Gascolator

People;

So I receive my engine mount today and unpack it.  I bring it over to the
firewall to see how well it fits, and danged if the gascolator isn't smack
dab in the way of the lower left diagonal brace!  I pulled out M-29 to
ensure that the engine mount meets the dimensional requirements of the
drawing, and as far as I can tell it does.  I looked at the instructions
for mounting the gascolator again (for the 374th time) and I seem to have
it in the suggested place (+/- 1/2").  Now, it seems to me that there's
almost no place on the lower firewall where I'd be able to mount the
gascolator where it wouldn't be in the way of the lower diagonal (or where
I wouldn't have a hell of a time routing the fuel lines.

What did the rest of you people do?  Does anyone have a photograph of their
firewall they can email me?  There's no picture of the firewall (with
gascolator/engine mount installed) in the plans, AFAIK.

I don't want to lift the gascolator up higher - it's supposed to be the
lowest point in the fuel system, I believe.  The plans show it off center
with the bottom sticking into the NACA scoop area - the measurements I've
taken of gascolator size and engine mount dimensions indicate that if I
mount the gascolator dead center just behind the spot where all four engine
mount diagonals join together, I MIGHT have a few thousanths of clearance.
The other option is to space it much further off the firewall, but until
I've got the engine on, I don't know what ELSE it might interfere with......

What am I doing wrong?

P.S. - for those of you who need to hear this, please, please don't quote
my whole 
       message in your reply.  Thanks.

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 07:25:15 -0800
From: Eric Westland <ewestland@altavista.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Chap. 23: Engine Mount and Gascolator



"Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote:

> What am I doing wrong?
>

How's that for a reduced quote :-) ?

While my situation is a little different (fuel injected) from yours, here's what
I did.  I am using the Andair gascolator, but as I remember, it's essentially
the same size and mounts the same way as the ACS one.  I got mine to fit so that
the bottom of the gascolator is even with the bottom of the NACA scoop opening.
This way I can get to the drain without removing the lower cowl to check for
water.  I believe I saw this same arrangement on Nat's plane.  Just like you, I
could not find any other location where it would fit and be at the lowest
possible point without interfering with the mount.   However, this location is
still well below the sumps.  I'll take a few pictures tonight and send them to
you.

Eric Westland

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:56:04 -0800
From: hrogers@slac.stanford.edu (Howard Rogers)
Subject: Re: COZY: Chap. 23: Engine Mount and Gascolator

>"Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote:
>
>> What am I doing wrong?
>>
>Eric Westland wrote:
However, this location is
>still well below the sumps.

I don't know how the Cozy may differ from the Long EZ in this specific
area, but there is a related subject I want to point out.  I believe that
Eirc's take on this is fine, and I wanted to add this consideration:  Think
in terms of a really bad landing that will tear your main gear off, and
drop the plane onto its bottom rear, and scrape and drag along.  This is
how the gear are intended to fail under these conditions.  Make sure that
this occurrance won't rip some vulnerable part of your fuel system off and
make a minor problem a major one.  FWIW.

Howard Rogers

--Howard Rogers

 650-926-4052
hrogers@slac.stanford.edu
pager: 650-997-1089
Web Page:
http://www.stanford.edu/~hrogers/index.htm

New! email directly to my pager (approximately 50 word limit).  Try it!:
6509971089@alphapage.airtouch.com


Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:18:33 -0600
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Chap. 23: Engine Mount and Gascolator

Marc,

    Since I have my engine removed at this time, it was easy to take a
few measurements at the gascolator and engine mount.

    My gascolator is a full inch forward of the lower left engine mount
structure.  The device is up close to the firewall.  I have it secured
with two DG clamps around the fuel lines.  I did not use the mount
bracket that came with the gascolator.  The DG clamps are mounted to the
firewall with AN3 bolts and stand off from the firewall about 1 inch.
Standoffs are aluminum tubing about 1 inch.

    Hope this helps.

dd

From: "Nat Puffer" <cozy@extremezone.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Engine oil cooler lines
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:57:34 -0600

John,
It will be just fine if you don't get a bad batch and it later springs a
leak. I think this is what I used on my fuel lines in the 80s. And then one
day, as I was preflighting the prototype 4-place with the fuel pump on,
there was this huge fuel leak, right through the stainless braid (good
thing it didn't happen when I was flying). I was told by Vargas (they have
an Aeroquip shop) that no one else that bought this same batch had
complained. I found out later that there were many complaints after mine--I
was the first one, and they eventually had a recall. RAF confirmed that
Teflon was the premier stuff, and that is when I switched. You might be
lucky and get a good batch.
Regards,
Nat

----------
> From: Epplin John A <EpplinJohnA@jdcorp.deere.com>
> To: cozy builders <cozy_builders@canard.com>
> Subject: COZY: Engine oil cooler lines
> Date: Monday, February 15, 1999 2:15 PM
> 
> Looking at Wicks catalog for 666 hose and end fittings.  The hose in -8,
> recommended by Nat, is almost $10 per foot, not unexpected but the end
> fittings are $38 each.  This is a bit painful!  Would Stratoflex 156,
> MIL-H-83797 be adequate?  Specs look OK to me, good for petroleum base
oils,
> JP fuel, aviation gasoline.  Not affected by alcohols etc.  Price is $11
per
> foot but the fittings are $15 each.  Makes total cost easier to handle. 
Any
> Cozy experience with this out there?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> John Epplin   Mk4  #467

From: Todd Carrico <todd.carrico@aris.com>
Subject: RE: COZY: Engine oil cooler lines
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:30:26 -0800

If this Aeroquip 666, your talking about Teflon hose.  If this is Teflon,
those fittings are probably "reusable".  They would be stainless and heavy
for -8.

I spent a couple of years at Superior in the hose shop.  We used a crimp
style fitting.  Much lighter, but it took a $50,000 machine to fabricate
them.

I believe the 308 hose (MIL-H-83797??, Black rubber, thick wall, 1500 PSI I
think) was what we used for oil cooler lines with a -12/-14 firesleeve.

Teflon would be premium hose for this application.  It is usually used for
the higher pressure applications, and IMHO would be overkill.  You may try
contacting a Stratoflex hose shop to what material they use for oil cooler
lines.  As I remember their stuff was a little friendlier to use in the
"Field", and if aluminum, lighter too!!

Todd Carrico
From ???@??? Tue Feb 16 23:17:31 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 SAA10157 for <marcz@ultranet.com>; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 18:08:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA06491
	for cozy_builders-list; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:28:30 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: twc2.betaweb.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cozy_buiFrom ???@??? Tue Feb 16 23:17:31 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 SAA10157 for <marcz@ultranet.com>; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 18:08:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA06491
	for cozy_builders-list; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:28:30 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: twc2.betaweb.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com using -f
Received: from gatekeep.uscc.com (relay1.uscc.com [205.229.240.3])
	by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA06483
	for <cozy_builders@canard.com>; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:28:23 -0500
From: lschuler@cellular.uscc.com
Received: from cellular.uscc.com (cellular.uscc.com [165.27.237.27])
	by gatekeep.uscc.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA20880
	for <cozy_builders@canard.com>; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:14:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ccMail by cellular.uscc.com (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.20.00.25)
    id AA919117438; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:24:01 -0600
Message-Id: <9902159191.AA919117438@cellular.uscc.com>
X-Mailer: ccMail Link to SMTP R8.20.00.25
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:55:58 -0600
To: <cozy_builders@canard.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Engine oil cooler lines 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: "cc:Mail Note Part"
Sender: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: lschuler@cellular.uscc.com
X-UIDL: 9ed27e1f97617ebbdcf1c67f0a59ba4d

John Epplin wrote:

>Specs look OK to me, good for petroleum base oils, JP fuel, aviation 
>gasoline.  Not affected by alcohols etc.
>Any Cozy experience with this out there?

Sorry no experience yet (I wish!).  Maybe just an oversight while typing, 
but you didn't mention temperature or pressure.  I'd want to make sure 
those specs are appropriate for the application also; ditto with the 
fittings.

Larry


From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:25:08 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: COZY: Engine oil cooler lines

GEt prices from Varga Enterprises 1-800-966-6936. They had best prices for teflon 6 years ago, and 
their service was great. They will  be crimped fittings with fire sleeve if requested. 

I was shown Stratoflex at OSH, and liked its construction better than the other Teflons. It could be 
bent to tighter radius without damage. The regular teflon is a plain plastic tube, similar in 
appearance to nylaflow, slipped into a stainless steel braid. The fire sleeve is then slipped over 
the braid. IF the teflon is kinked, its scrap.

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 18:21:24 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: COZY: Engine oil cooler lines

There was a rash of rubber (neoprene or whatever) oil and fuel hose 
failures about 6 years ago, and a rush to replace with teflon. Apparently 
it was not limited to one manufacturer, where a bad batch was the issue. I 
have concern for the teflon hoses - the installation MUST be correct, 
allowing for movement, held snugly with cushion clamps, but not too tight, 
not twisted (if angle fittings at both ends, must be ordered with correct 
orientation, or if straight, not twisted while tightening the nut). Find 
the Parker Hannifin, Aeroquip, or other industrial hydraulics installation 
manual, and follow recommendations.

All fitting in the engine compartment should be steel. There are 2 
varieties, those forged or machined from one piece, and those made from 
several pieces spigoted together and brazed. Use only the one piece type. 
The oddball fittings that are not available from aircraft sources can be 
had from industrial hydraulic houses. The flare is 37 degree, and you will 
also find straight thread O-ring type (fuel pumps, and others), and tapered 
pipe thread. Don't mistake and use the wrong one.

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:58:18 -0800
From: hrogers@slac.stanford.edu (Howard Rogers)
Subject: Re: COZY: Engine oil cooler lines

>Looking at Wicks catalog for 666 hose and end fittings.  The hose in -8,
>recommended by Nat, is almost $10 per foot, not unexpected but the end
>fittings are $38 each.  This is a bit painful!  Would Stratoflex 156,
>MIL-H-83797 be adequate?  Specs look OK to me, good for petroleum base oils,
>JP fuel, aviation gasoline.  Not affected by alcohols etc.  Price is $11 per
>foot but the fittings are $15 each.  Makes total cost easier to handle.  Any
>Cozy experience with this out there?
>
>Thanks,
>
>John Epplin   Mk4  #467

John,  There is a lot of good advice that has already been stated here, so
I would just like to add an additional 2 cents worth.  Though the fittings
are expensive, they are re-usable.  That makes regular replacement easier,
and cheaper, since you only have to buy the hose.  If you go this route, be
sure to get the appropriate mandrels, or your hose assemblies cannot be
considered reliable.  There is a way to make your own mandrels quite
easily, but it is beyond the scope of a verbal discussion here.  Another
suggestion would be to visit a local aircraft junkyard for the
hoses/fittings, if there is such a thing in your neighborhood.  Even if
there isn't, there are a couple of really big ones in Trade-a-Plane that
could help you out.

--Howard Rogers

--Howard Rogers

 650-926-4052
hrogers@slac.stanford.edu
pager: 650-997-1089
Web Page:
http://www.stanford.edu/~hrogers/index.htm

New! email directly to my pager (approximately 50 word limit).  Try it!:
6509971089@alphapage.airtouch.com


Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 10:21:46 -0800
From: Eric Westland <ewestland@altavista.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Engine oil cooler lines

John,

You may want to check out the teflon smooth bore hoses at Tampa Rubber and
Gasket.  I bought some from them (the conductive liner ones), the specs listed
meet or exceed the Stratoflex and come with stainless steel fittings that are
crimped on at the factory.  The only difference I could tell from examining them
to my "aircraft approved" hoses was the price, about 40% less.  Their web site is
http://www.tamparubber.com/HOSETEFL.HTM.

Eric Westland

From: Todd Carrico <todd.carrico@aris.com>
Subject: RE: COZY: Engine oil cooler lines
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 11:14:46 -0800

I would like to add a note about the re-usable Teflon fittings.

Again, my experience is with Aeroquip.  The smaller the reusable fittings,
the harder it was to get them leak free.  We only did them on special
occasions, because our crimp style was much cheaper.  -8 should be pretty
easy.  The braid opens easily, and the tube is pliable enough to get the
"Collar" in with little effort (A table edge comes in handy).  The only
tools we used were a soft jawed bench vice, and box-end wrenches.

We had the benefit of testing, and I would highly recommend that you get
them tested. Industrial hose manufacturers may help here. Make sure the test
facility has the 37 degree flare adapters for their equipment.  The test
procedure was simple.

Twice operating pressure for Three minutes.

We used water, and quite a bit of water soluble oil (It looked like skim
milk).  You cold make your own test fixture with a hand pump and a gauge,
and use what ever fluid you like.  I will take this extra step.  It is cheap
insurance.  Bad batches are the least common form of leak.  Improper
assembly would be number one, improper installation (kinking, colapsing,
etc.) would be number two.  Bad batches are just easier to remember, and
their effects are more widespread.

Also, anything in the firewall area should have firesleeve.  To install
firesleeve properly, the ends should be sealed.  We used a silicon product
from AE, but high-temp silicone thinned to a "Slurry" would do as well.  Cut
your firesleeve about 1/8" longer per foot than your hose, dip the ends so
the silicone wicks up for the length of the fitting.  After the ends dry,
slip the hose in, and clamp right under the B-Nut.  Do not forget to remove
the Firesleeve when inspecting hoses.  This is very important!!  You cannot
possibly inspect a hose if you cannot see it.

Your mileage may vary :-)

Todd Carrico

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 00:58:54 -0500
From: "Marc J. Zeitlin" <marcz@ultranet.com>
Subject: Fwd: COZY: Chap. 23: Engine Mount and Gascolator

I wrote (I know, bad form to quote myself):

>...... danged if the gascolator isn't smack
>dab in the way of the lower left diagonal brace!

>...... if I
>mount the gascolator dead center just behind the spot where all four engine
>mount diagonals join together, I MIGHT have a few thousanths of clearance.

Thanks to Ed Richards, Chris Van Hoof, and Eric Westland for pictures of
their (or Vance Atkinson's) firewalls, and thanks to Dave Domeier for his
explanation.  Eric and Ed both have the "Weldtech" engine mount.  This
mount does NOT match the COZY drawings, in that the diagonals are not in
the specified place and there's a horizontal cross member that isn't in the
plans.  Clearly, you guys will not be able to call your planes "COZY's" :_)
 JUST A JOKE!!  Dave, what engine mount do you have?

Anyway, given the differences between the stock engine mount (which I
bought from AeroCad and is apparently made by RANS for AeroCad exactly per
plans), the Weldtech mount has a lot more room behind it down where the
gascolator is supposed to mount.
You people with Weldtech mounts will NOT have my problem.

I have determined, however, that I will be able to mount the gascolator
right in the middle of the diagonals and have a bit of space to spare -
maybe 1/8" clearance or so.

I also found some 10-32 threaded spacers in the hardware store today that I
may use instead of the long bolts through hollow spacers.  This would allow
me to mount the spacers permanently to the firewall, and then just bolt the
DG-12 clamps (for the life of me, I couldn't get a DG-11 to fit over the
tubing fitting as called out in the plans) to the spacers.  I'd use
locktite.  Or else I'll use a couple of nutplates glassed to the inside of
the firewall and stay with the long bolts.

Thanks again to those of you who sent pictures - they helped and explained
a lot.  When I get my setup done, I'll have pictures of what I did on the
web pages - it may be a while.

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 07:43:31 -0600
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Fwd: COZY: Chap. 23: Engine Mount and Gascolator

Marc,

    re " Dave, what engine mount do you have?"

    Mine came from Brock.

dd

From: "Will Chorley" <anneandwill@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Chap. 23: Engine Mount and Gascolator
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 20:01:13 -0600

I put my gascolator in the "hell hole" with the drain coming down through
the inspection hatch (of course, mine is a 3 place so it might no match).  I
did this because I got the Andair (English, (like me!), very nicely made
(not sure that applies to me!), but pricey) and the "in" and "out" were in
the wrong sides without some contorted plumbing.  Putting it the other side
of the firewall actually made the plumbing very easy.  I used an off cut of
engine mount angle for the bracket.  (I got Nat's permission first !!!)  I
also got their fuel valve which is very nice and has a stop so you can't
inadvertently turn it off.  You have to lift a little plunger to get it to
turn off.  Just an idea.

Will
From ???@??? Sun Feb 28 22:54:34 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 WAA02601 for <marcz@ultranet.com>; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 22:52:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA21955
	for cozy_builders-list; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 22:10:38 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: twc2.betaweb.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com using -f
Received: from enterprise.extremezone.com (enterprise.extremezone.com [208.129.255.5])
	by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA21950
	for <cozy_builders@canard.com>; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 22:10:34 -0500
Received: from default (i087-2.phx.extremezone.com [208.152.73.87])
	by enterprise.extremezone.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA19710;
	Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:57:43 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199903010257.TAA19710@enterprise.extremezone.com>
From: "Nat Puffer" <cozy@extremezone.com>
To: "Epplin John A" <EpplinJohnA@jdcorp.deere.com>, <cozy_builders@canard.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Engine installation
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 18:51:00 -0600
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Nat Puffer" <cozy@extremezone.com>
X-UIDL: 2f1e2b3d435df2d389a9bc85a3563c62

John,
If you are going to use the B&C right angle oil filter adapter, don't mount
the oil cooler at the top of the firewall. The perfect place is mounted
from the right wing butt, exhausting out the bottom of the cowling. I have
a 13-row cooler mounted there and get 170-180 deg oil temperatures in
summer in Arizona.
Nat

----------
> From: Epplin John A <EpplinJohnA@jdcorp.deere.com>
> To: cozy_builders@canard.com
> Subject: COZY: Engine installation
> Date: Sunday, February 28, 1999 8:22 PM
> 
> The plans say to mount the oil cooler 1 in right of center.  Does this
mean
> left edge of cooler 1 in right of center or center line of cooler 1 in to
> right of center?  I intend to use the B&C right angle oil filter adapter,
> this may make a difference.  I looked at the pictures and the oil filter
is
> not shown and it is not easy to judge just how far from center Nat has
the
> cooler mounted.
> 
> Thanks for any help on this
> 
> John Epplin   Mk4  #46

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 21:21:47 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: COZY: Engine installation

Epplin said <B&C oil filter>

Check out the Lycoming unit, the vernatherm mounts on it, making it easy to  inspect at the 
annual inspection.

From: "Paul Stowitts" <CozyBldr@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: COZY: Filtered air
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 21:45:18 -0800

I'm in the process of installing the Airflow Performance fuel injection
unit.  The unit is a tight fit and I understand that some builders have
unfiltered ram air and filtered alternate air.  It would save a lot of time
and work not filtering the ram air.  Can anyone tell me the pros and cons
of such an approach?

Thanks for your help.


Paul Stowitts
Cozy Mark IV #200


Baffling completed (what a pain), working on panel, electrical and engine
"stuff" - hope to be in the air this year.

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 08:14:33 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: COZY: Filtered air

Stowitts asked <unfiltered ram air and filtered alternate air?>
For fuel injection either Bendix or Airflow, the only time you will use alternate air is if the air filter clogs. This will 
only happen under rather unusual circumstances like: flying through a volcano dust plume, a mess of insects, or icing 
conditions. Therefore nearly all air going into the engine will be ram air, and should be filtered for 2 reasons: 1. prevent 
ingestion of large particles (screws, tape, tree leaves and other debris either loose from in the cowling or kicked up by the 
nose wheel). This could cause sudden loss of power, and the alternate air should be screened with metal insect screening. The 
Bendix, and I assume Airflow servos (trottle body in automobile terms) have sensor tubes that are about 1/8" i.d. at the air 
inlet, these must be protected to prevent clogging. 2: prevent ingestion of abrasive particles into the engine. This is a long 
term issue, for what it costs to top overhaul an engine, should not even think about not filtering. Yes there are a few that 
don't filter, but those are usually race engines that don't last long for other reasons. I don't remember seeing an internal 
combustion piston engine without a filter, except race engines. Even my mowers, chainsaw, and weed eater have them.

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 00:27:55 -0500
From: "Marc J. Zeitlin" <marcz@ultranet.com>
Subject: COZY: Chap. 23 - Mixture cable bracket, etc.

People;

While making the 1/16" aluminum mixture cable bracket called out in the
plans for the Ellison Throttle Body, I saw that the large hole was supposed
to be 1.06" Radius, or 2 1/8" diameter.  I just happen to have a 2 1/4"
hole saw I used for the small instrument holes in the Instrument Panel, so
I measured the hole diameter in the Ellison (model 4-5 for an O-360).
Magic - it's exactly 2 1/4", give or take the width of the lines on my
scale.  I used my hole saw and voila' (not viola :-) ), a perfect fit.

Other engine installation info - I'm using the B&C right angle oil filter
adapter as recommended by Nat - it's a beauty, and comes with everything
needed, down to the safety wire for the Vernatherm.

Also, if you order the engine chapter kit(s) from Wicks, for some reason
the NAS1291-7 nuts for the engine/engine mount bolts aren't included - you
have to order them seperately.

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

From: Epplin John A <EpplinJohnA@JDCORP.deere.com>
Subject: RE: COZY: Chap. 23 - Mixture cable bracket, etc.
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 08:09:51 -0600



	Mark writes: 
> People;
> 
> While making the 1/16" aluminum mixture cable bracket called out in the
> plans for the Ellison Throttle Body, I saw that the large hole was
> supposed
> to be 1.06" Radius, or 2 1/8" diameter.  I just happen to have a 2 1/4"
> hole saw I used for the small instrument holes in the Instrument Panel, so
> I measured the hole diameter in the Ellison (model 4-5 for an O-360).
> Magic - it's exactly 2 1/4", give or take the width of the lines on my
> scale.  I used my hole saw and voila' (not viola :-) ), a perfect fit.
> 
> 
	[Epplin John A]  
	I posted the same thing a few months ago.  Nat said he would look
into it.  I don't remember the exact size I made mine, tried to fit it best
I could to both the Ellison and the engine mounting flange.  I used a boring
bar in the mill for the hole so could make any size.

	John Epplin   Mk4  #467
>                       

From: "Tonya Davis" <flyboy@creative-net.net>
Subject: COZY: Bendix Fuel Injection
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 20:01:45 -0600

I am in the process of routing the throttle and mixture cables on an I0360.
Idle and full throttle was easy enough to determine but I'm not sure about
the mixture.  Can someone clear this up for me?  At the moment the Bendix is
mounted on a 90-degree elbow and the inlet facing forward.  I seem to recall
that Mike Melvill thought we could point the inlet aft to pick up high
pressure that builds up in the aft end of the bottom cowl.  Any thoughts on
this?

Thanks in advance,

Mike

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 08:07:45 -0600
From: Vance Atkinson <vaatk@flash.net>
Subject: COZY: prop seal

Ken,
That's too much oil loss..........
>From what I've experienced, the prop seal will move slightly aft
(assuming too much crankcase pressure) with out the retainer plate
that you should have on there.  If you have the timing ring on there
instead, it will allow the seal to leak some oil, but not the great
amount of oil that will leave if the seal is completely blown out.  I
have both.....peace of mind.  WITHOUT THIS SEAL RETAINER YOU RUN A
HIGH
RISK OF LOOSING A SEAL.  Numerous people have dead sticked in because
of 
this omission, Including Uli Wolters in Germany, and Nat lost one but 
managed to get it on the ground before all the oil left and the engine
siezed.

You don't mention if you have a oil/air separator.  If you don't , get
one.  This unit must be mounted higher than the engine outlet breather
fitting on the engine accessory case.  From the oil separator, my
breather tube goes straight back along the pilots side of the exhaust
pipe and exits out the exhaust pipe area. It is heated on the exhaust
so it cannot be blocked due to moisture freezing.  The tube is scarfed
so that oil doesn't dribble. 

For several years I allowed the oil that was collected in the oil/air
separator to  drain back into the engine ) via a hole that I drilled
in the dipstick tube.  I believe my camshaft went flat due to
corrosion set up by the acid of the oil returning to the engine. Gus
Sabo sent me a article several years ago, about how this happens.  I
then switched to a plastic bottle container to capture the "used" oil,
rather than dump it overboard streaking the cowl.  I empty the
container every 3 to 4 months.

To answer your question, 'does the tipping the breather tube into the
slipstream cause increased chance of the prop seal to blow
out.....yes.  That's assuming you have the standard arrangement of the
tube running straight down the firewall and exiting ot the bottom of
the cowl.  Some EZ guys have had experience showing, that scarfing or
increasing the negative pressure on the tube (that exits straight down
the firewall and exits on the bottom of the cowl),  magnifies the oil
problem of excessive oil consumption.  Nat Puffer once calculated that
our fuel vents pointed in the full forward position provided much more
pressure than we needed to accomplish its task and advised the
builders to use an angle less than shown in the plans.  With my fuel
setup of both strakes feeding a sump, I have found the fuel vents to
be extremely sensitive to air stream angle for feeding the sump
evenly.

>From what I know about excessive oil breathing or, high crankcase
pressure, is, its usually caused by excessive blowby from the rings,
(broken, stuck, not seated)  BUT, of course, not always.

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 15:29:42 -0600
From: Vance Atkinson <vaatk@flash.net>
Subject: COZY: Oil Seal

Fellow carnardians, the true story from Nat's lips about his prop oil
seal failing, is as follows;
 "The true story is that when I heard about Uli's
problem, I decided to install a seal retainer. When I took off the
prop 
etc. I found that I didn't even have a seal, and I hadn't lost any oil
at
all, nor was I losing any. The seal was sitting all by itself around
the
crankshaft, not doing a thing except grinning at me. In analyzing how
this
could be, it was because I had my vent pipe cut at an angle so the
airstream reduced the pressure in the crankcase. If the pressure in
the
crankcase is less than atmospheric, any leakage will be air in, not
oil
out. After I discovered this, I vowed not to have anything in the vent
line
at all, like an oil separator, or a back pressure valve, or anything
which
might plug up and pressurize the crankcase, even if I did have a
retainer
installed. You know Mike Melvill almost burned up his engine because
the
back pressure valve froze up. I would always be willing to accept some
oil
loss in exchange for the peace of mind that I will never blow a seal
and
burn up my engine."

I guess my memory is going.....is that the first thing or the second
?  I stand
corrected.        Vance Atkinson

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 21:19:57 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: COZY: prop seal

The retainers are Lycoming part number 73952 (2 req'd), bolts STD-1919 (1/4" x 9/16" coarse 
tread)(6 req'd), and 6 lockwashers. I used drilled head bolts, and safety wire them. If your 
crankcase doesn't have holes, they can be drilled by removing one of the prop bushings. I used 
crazy glue to hold in the right location, a transfer punch (full bolt diameter with a short center 
punch tip) to locate the holes. then Drill and tap. The sealant is specified as a Lycoming number 
or #20 Pliobond adhesive.

I have had to replace several seals in near 700 hours, my engine runs on the hot side, and the 
seals seem to get hard and crack. A small oil leak results, nothing disaster, but there is an oily 
cowl.  

Uli Woelter, the designer of the Cosy Classic, made a forced landing in Europe, after his seal 
popped out, and big time oil leak siezed the engine. The plane was near scrap, but no injuries when 
he landed in a tall grass pasture. This is an easy precaution, should be mandatory.

From: gperry@usit.com
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 14:44:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: COZY: Wing Root Shields

Hi everyone,

     Has anyone a better (or easier) solution to those #$%^& aluminum
shields that fit between the cowling and wing root?  I'm going crazy cutting
aluminum pieces that look awful and change shape in the middle of the night
when the lights are off (I swear they do).  There must be an easier way...

                                Gregg

Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 15:36:48 -0600
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Wing Root Shields

Gregg,

    re " Has anyone a better (or easier) solution to those #$%^&
aluminum
shields that fit between the cowling and wing root?"

    I do not like mine either...they're held in position with tabs top
and bottom that have holes that align with two cowling cam locks top and
bollom.  At present I have eveything apart getting the engine overhauled
and am putting my brain to work on something better (not different).
I've found the tabs do not last long....two have broken already.

    What I'm thinking about is a vertical stud like device inside the
root with cam locks or nut plates to hold the shields in place....also,
I have my shields lined with that 3M silver fire/heat stuff....should
keep high temps inside the cowling and away from the root and elevator
rigging.

dd



From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 15:57:35 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: COZY: Wing Root Shields

On 03/26/99 14:44:57 you wrote:
>
>Hi everyone,
>
>     Has anyone a better (or easier) solution to those #$%^& aluminum
>shields that fit between the cowling and wing root?  I'm going crazy cutting
>aluminum pieces that look awful and change shape in the middle of the night
>when the lights are off (I swear they do).  There must be an easier way...
>
>                                Gregg
>
>
>

Make a posterboard template. masking tape pieces to fill, and cut some more, and do it again till it fits, then cut aluminum. 
Mine are aluminum, but its on my list to change them to stainless steel.

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 21:07:43 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: COZY: Wing Root Shields

I just 15 minutes ago, installed mine, after reinstalling the wings as part of the annual inspection. I have fiberglass 
flanges recessed in the wing inboard end recesses. The flanges are approx. 1" in to give clearance to the cowl fasteners (mine 
are Camlock 4002 series) and are full fore/aft length of the top and bottom. THe shields are cutout locally to clear the cowl 
fasteners, cable and pushrod. The flange projects about 3/4", which is sufficient to overlap the shield at cutouts. The 
shields are held in place with the smaller camlocks with slotted heads, 4 or 5 top and bottom.

A picture is worth a 1000 words, I'm sure this is clear as mud. What I remember this detail is straight Cosy Classic. 

From: Epplin John A <EpplinJohnA@jdcorp.deere.com>
Subject: RE: COZY: Wing Root Shields
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 08:17:46 -0600

I am just finishing the first one.  I used a piece of 1/2 in plywood, fitted
to the opening with just a slip fit.  Then trimmed it such that the
thickness of the aluminum would fit between it and the fiberglass.   I
radiused the edge for bend radius and used the plywood as a template to cut
the aluminum 5/8 over size.  Made cutouts for the aileron pushrod and rudder
cable.  I then drilled 3/16 holes to notch into for tabs.  A tab for each
cowling fastener to go into and one in between each of these.  Cut and filed
the notches smooth.  Cut another piece of wood the same shape as the
curvature to lay on top, sandwiched the aluminum in between and used wood
blocks and a mallet to form the tabs.  Worked quite well, the piece just
slips into place.  Next is to rivet nut plates on the between tabs and use
countersunk screws through the flange t hold it in place.  At this point I
am planning to use screws and nut plates for the cowling so these nut plates
will be riveted to the heat shield also.  I used 2024-t3 aluminum for
material, .016 except for the forward half of the right one which has the
oil cooler involved in it.  This is another story.

John Epplin,   Mk4  #467

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	gperry@usit.com [SMTP:gperry@usit.com]
> Hi everyone,
> 
>      Has anyone a better (or easier) solution to those #$%^& aluminum
> 
>                                 Gregg

Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 14:11:54 -0800
From: "LCDR James D. Newman" <infaero@flash.net>
Subject: COZY: Re:  Wing Root Shields

Hi John and All,

> <snip>  Next is to rivet nut plates on the between tabs and use countersunk screws through the
> flange t hold it in place.  At this point I am planning to use screws and nut plates for the
> cowling so these nut plates will be riveted to the heat shield also.  I used 2024-t3 aluminum for
> material, .016 except for the forward half of the right one which has the oil cooler involved in
> it.  This is another story.

    We did something similar 11+ years ago except . . .
    Like the firewall that is stainless steel with fibra fax behind it then the wood firewall, the
wing root closeouts are a "firewall".  The wing roots should be thin wall stainless steel too.
    We made 2 sets of wing root rib templates from wood like the metal spam can guys do making their
wing ribs, except they are staggered in size so that we could make 2 sizes of wing root skins per
side.  One skin over laps the other around the flange, and we put fibra fax between the stainless
steel skins - a sandwich of stainless steel, fibra fax, then stainless steel.  Then the nut plates
or cam locks are mounted to the flange of the wing root fire walls.  Then the cowling machine screws
with stainless steel tinnerman washers pass through the cowling, pass through the wing skins, pass
through the sandwich wing root closeout, then into the nut plates.  Also, don't cut the sandwich
flanges to make tabs - they will eventually crack off.  Leave it as a continuous flange like the
spam can wing ribs.
    Passages for the rudder and aileron are made into the wing root fire wall, with fire proof boots
around them.
    Finally, since I hate any kind of  screw or antenna on the outside of my plane, I have no screws
or antenna on the outside of the Infinity 1 airframe *anywhere*.  The cowling is the last hurdle.
It will have no screws to hold it down either, and will be able to pop up easily like a hatch back
or car hood for easy easy maintenance.  The bottom cowling will just swing down.
    HTH.


Infinity's Forever,

        JD

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 08:13:41 -0800
From: hrogers@slac.stanford.edu (Howard Rogers)
Subject: Re: COZY: Wing Root Shields


>Make a posterboard template. masking tape pieces to fill, and cut some
>more, and do it again till it fits, then cut aluminum.
>Mine are aluminum, but its on my list to change them to stainless steel.

This is on my to-do list, also, with one addition:  They will also be
painted with the ablative paint, as will just about everything else behind
the firewall that I would prefer not to burn through.

--Howard Rogers




From: SWrightFLY@aol.com
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 09:52:39 EST
Subject: COZY: Re-Fire-Wall test

Being curious about a material previously called Ocean 77 and presently called
477 Epoxy (call 1-800-877-3473 for technical information)  and its possible
use as a sole firewall material.I purchased a gallon from Hi Grade paint
company in Chicago (773-463-3050)  Mike Boden (twin engine Long EZ designer)
and I conducted several test of firewall material which have been recommended
in the past for the Long EZ and Cozy along with the 477 to see which
combination of firewall protective material is the most effective in
preventing a propane torch from burning through the material tested. All the
material used were obtained from Wix Aircraft (except for the 477 Epoxy) and
are the "normal" material used for firewall protection in our planes. I fully
realize these test were not very scientific but it gave us a good indication
of the most effective and lightest firewall system l plan to use for my
Stagger EZ. All the test were conducted with a 6"X 6" firewall mounted on a
long stick. The plywood use was given 2 plys of BID with safety poxy. The 477
epoxy was applied as the manufacturer recommended (2 coats) with a spray gun
except for test 5 where I rolled it on. The carbon use was the 282 BID cloth
5.7 oz/sq.yd.

Firewall Test 1....Plywood -fiberfrax -aluminum
After 30 seconds the aluminum melted and after one minute the plywood began to
smoke on the aft side.

Firewall Test 2.....Plywood -fiberfrax -stainless steel
This combination lasted for 5 minuets before aft side of the plywood became
hot to the touch (seconds to pain).
This is the current recommended firewall system and performed as good as any
we tested.

Firewall test 3....2plys glass-1/4" 20 LB.clark foam-2plys glass-477 
We were amazed that this performed almost as good as the stainless. After 4
minuets we gave up as the aft side of the composite firewall became hot. The
torch melted the BID surface and began to burn through after 4 minuets

Firewall test 4......Same as test 3 but with one ply of carbon over the 477.
This combination was an improvement over test 3 as the carbon behaved similar
to the stainless preventing burn-thru to the glass surface.

Firewall test 5......2 plys glass- 1/4" plywood- 2plys glass - one ply of
carbon-477
This combination lasted as long as test 2 and the aft side of the plywood felt
cooler than test 2 after 5 minuets. The carbon BID prevented burn through. I
rolled the 477 on and applied 3 thick coats.

Results/comments/opinion.........The presently recommend firewall system while
heavy works well. I plan to use the combination of materials in test 5 on my
Stagger EZ  as it is light (half the weight of stainless) and performs as well
as stainless. The least effective firewall system was test 1. If anyone is
flying with the firewall system used in test 1, I would strongly recommend you
change to the recommended system. When heated, the 477 will expand and swell
up to a thickness of 1 1/2" to 2". This material acted as both an insulator
and as an extinguisher as during one test the 477 extinguished the flame. As
the 477 expands it is soft and pliable and would not interfere with control
systems and may even act to protect them from heat. The concern we had about
this product is as it expands it can be blown off the surface with an air gun
and this may degrade its effectiveness as a firebarrier. I plan to build a
small box that will represent the inside of an engine cowl and  blow high
velocity air in it as the firewall system is heated. This will give me a far
better idea of the performance of 477 in a real-life situation. 
Steve Wright
Wright Aircraft Works LLC
Stagger EZ 
N700EZ

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 08:14:38 -0800
From: hrogers@slac.stanford.edu (Howard Rogers)
Subject: Re: COZY: Wing Root Shields


>
>     Is "ablative" paint the "Ocean" stuff that I've heard others talk about?
>
>                                Gregg
>>

Gregg,
        Yes, it is.  You have to see this stuff in action, to fully
appreciate how incredibly well it works.  It builds a thick, insulating
char, when exposed to flame, a bit like those "snakes" you used to get at
the fireworks stand, as a kid.

Howard Rogers


Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 10:02:31 -0800
From: hrogers@slac.stanford.edu (Howard Rogers)
Subject: Re: COZY: Re-Fire-Wall test

>In a message dated 3/31/99 10:21:48 AM Central Standard Time,
>hrogers@SLAC.Stanford.EDU writes:
>
><<  Excellent information!  Are you saying that the Ocean equivilent is
> no longer available through Wicks or ACS? >>
>Correct.........The ocean folks will not sell it to them
>Steve

What a revoltin' development this is!  I find this incredibly ironic.  I am
assuming that this has something to do with percieved liability risk, on
the manufacturer's part, as it pertains to aircraft.  The irony is that
this stuff was specifically developed for aircraft use.  I met the man
(sorry, I don't remember his name) at an EAA chapter meeting many years
ago, who developed this product.  He fought in WWII as a bomber crewmember.
His plane caught some flak through one wing and was engulfed in flame so
quickly that the crew barely got out in time.  It made an impression so
strong that it became his life's work to develop things related to aircraft
fire safety.  At the time he gave us his presentation, he was the head of a
lab at NASA Ames Research Center, in his capacity as a polymer chemist.  He
had developed a plastic canopy material that built a char when flamed, and
carried that work over to the ablative paint.  He also developed a
laminating resin that was flameproof (my word, not his).  I say flameproof,
because he brought a slab of carbon fiber laminate and passed it around for
inspection*.  There was nothing about it that indicated that it had spent
15 minutes in an infinite pool fire.  It was pristine.  He showed films of
a new dry chemical he had developed for engine fire extinguishing bottles
that not only put out the fuel-fed fire in a jet engine nacelle, but
TOTALLY eliminated re-ignition, in spite of the continued prescense of
gushing fuel, and hot surfaces.  All this wonderful stuff was freely
distributed to industry, in the interest of everyone's safety.  A shining
example of how our government money SHOULD be spent, IMHO.  Shame on this
company for refusing to sell this product to anyone, regardless of their
intended use.  In my opinion, this is unforgivable, and the solution is
obvious:  disclaimers, more insurance, and a higher price.  So What?

I'm getting down off my soap box, now.

--Howard Rogers

*At the time, the Boeing 767 was not quite released, and thanks to this
man's efforts and contributions in  working with Boeing, this or similar
laminates were being used for the first time in this particular aircraft's
interior panels, overhead storage bins, etc.


Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 00:40:58 -0400
From: John <n69cz@usa.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Engine Stand

Steve,
    Do you have a chain fall and a place to hang it from?  That's how
I'm doing it.  My engine has been hanging from my garage ceiling for the
past few years.  No messing with engine stands.  It keeps the engine off
the ground and away from moisture, bugs, and little fingers.  Also,
having the chain fall gives the advantage of installing the engine on
the firewall in less than ten minutes.  I just lower the engine, back
the plane to it and slide in the bolts.  I hope I helped.
Johnny V
N69CZ

STEVE HALL wrote:

> Does anyone have or know of a compact engine stand
> to store an IO-360!!
> And has anyone used the "Engine Overhaul Stand"
> that is sold thru "AS"
> I need a Solution ASAP!!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve


Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 16:08:28 -0500
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Engine Stand

Steve,

    I built a stand our of 2x4's, installed 1" wheels, and bolted the
Brock engine mount to it with the engine attached to the mount.  It was
easy to move around and work on.

dd

Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 22:11:19 -0400
From: "Marc J. Zeitlin" <marcz@ultranet.com>
Subject: Fwd: Re: COZY: Engine Stand

STEVE HALL wrote:

> Does anyone have or know of a compact engine stand
> to store an IO-360!!

Having just installed my engine (O-360-A2A) for the first time, I built the
engine stand called out in the COZY MKIV plans exactly.  I put four casters
on it, and it works like a charm.  I built it from scrap plywood and 2x4's
I had laying around.  Maybe it cost $20 for the wood and casters, and I
built the thing in less than two hours with a circular saw and a electric
screwdriver for the drywall screws.  I can wheel the engine around, and the
bottom is great for storing all the engine related stuff.  It's barely
bigger than the engine in area.  I can put it anywhere in the garage.

While I thought about hanging the engine like John Vermeylen (John, sign
your messages so we have a clue who wrote them :-) ), I was just too
nervous about hanging $15K over a concrete floor :-).  I was nervous enough
for the one minute I had it three feet off the floor under the hoist while
I slid the stand under it.

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

Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 08:11:02 -0500
From: Michael Link <mglink@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: COZY: Engine Stand



"Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote:

> STEVE HALL wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have or know of a compact engine stand
> > to store an IO-360!!
>
> Having just installed my engine (O-360-A2A) for the first time, I built the
> engine stand called out in the COZY MKIV plans exactly.

I too built the plans engine stand, and it worked great---for storage.
Unfortunately, once you begin putting accessories and baffling on the engine,
the stand  no longer works for the many times the engine must be mounted and
then taken off the plane.  The best solution is either an overhead or
roll-around hoist. My neighbor loaned me his, but I later saw an ad in the
paper for new hoists at $149.95.  That is quite a lot to spend, but I would do
so for the convenience that it provided me.
Regards,
Michael Link  Cozy MK-IV  N-171-ML

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 12:01:26 +0200
From: Jean-Jacques CLAUS <jjclaus@club-internet.fr>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: COZY: Engine Stand



Marc J. Zeitlin a crit:

> STEVE HALL wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have or know of a compact engine stand
> > to store an IO-360!!
>

Put some steel round tubing on the floor ( remember ancient pyramid builders )
. Cover with a plate ( made of wood in my case ) and put some big scraps of
styrofoam on the plate. So you can put down the engine on the foam. It'll find
its place naturally.

In my single car garage, this stand takes only 3 cubic feet and can go under my
worktable wheeling on the round tubing.

Jean-Jacques CLAUS
Cosy F-PJJC ( reserved )
France


From: Epplin John A <EpplinJohnA@JDCORP.deere.com>
Subject: COZY: chap 6 & 23, engine controls
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:58:38 -0500

I opted to use the ball screw actuator for the speed brake.  This leaves a
problem when you get to the engine control installation.  
There is no place to anchor the cable housings.  I made a bracket of 2024-T3
with plate nuts and bonded it to the heat duct just if front of the seat
belt hard point.  I layed up 3 UNI plus one BID to hold it in place.  The
bracket is a hat section, lay-ups over each leg.

It would have been easier to do this at the time the heat tunnel was
fabricated, it could have been a flat plate bonded under the top skin of the
tunnel with appropriate reinforcement.  If you are not using the plans speed
brake actuator, might think about this before I did.

John Epplin   Mk4   #467   N100EP

From: Epplin John A <EpplinJohnA@jdcorp.deere.com>
Subject: RE: COZY: chap 6 & 23, engine controls
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:48:48 -0500

Dana,

Sorry about the delay.  I am at work and do not have the plans book with me,
take a look in the engine installation section on the page where the
throttle control is detailed.  The bracket that holds the cable housing is
detailed here.  It is to be installed on a bracket that is part of the speed
brake linkage.  If I were doing this over again, I would make a couple of
aluminum plates just short of 2 in long and about .75 wide out of .032
2024-T3.  Put 2 10-32 plate nuts in each near the ends, leave plenty of edge
distance for the screws.  Then inlet these into the top foam, one about 1.5
inch forward of the seat belt anchor and the other forward of that a couple
of inches.  Fill the plate nuts with RTV and glass over these with the
scheduled lay-up, forgot, but think it was 2 layers bid.  Add a reinforcing
layer or two over the plates, extending about a half inch in front and rear
of each plate and lapping down the sides of the tunnel.

If you find you don't need one or both, it is no big deal.  The ones you
need can be carefully drilled into the RTV and the RTV picked out easy
enough.  I would drill through the nut and into the heat duct with a drill
that is small enough not to destroy the locking feature of the nut, the
screw or bolt you use will push its way through the inside glass.

I made a 3 lever control assembly, throttle, mixture and alternate air.  The
good part is it looks and works just great, bad part is it took an awful lot
of time.  If your interested I could take a couple of pictures and forward
them to you.

John Epplin.   Mk4  #467  N100EP


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Dana Hill [SMTP:dhill36@juno.com]
> Sent:	Saturday, April 17, 1999 3:32 PM
> To:	Epplin John A
> Subject:	Re: COZY: chap 6 & 23, engine controls
> 
> Hi John,
> 	Re the above, I am just now constructing the heat duct and at
> this point very unknowledgable about the controls installation.  Even
> with my looking at the plans, it is unclear to me just where to locate a
> 1/4" piece of aluminum as you generally suggested. If you have time could
> you come up with a rough stationing and width for this aluminum support
> plate?  Thanks for any help.
> __________________  _
> or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 08:34:51 -0400
From: "Johnson, Phillip" <phillip.johnson@lmco.com>

Al Wick writes:

I'm going to try using engine vacuum augmented with a few electric
vacuum
pumps normally used to control your automobile cruise control.

End<

I'm using the EG33 Subaru engine (still unproven) and have configured a
nozzle within the exhaust collector where three pipes come into one.
This nozzle is supposed to cause significant vacuums, according to the
auto racing boys, and achieves its best performance is at high power
levels unlike the induction manifold method. The system is similar to
the venturies found on the antique aircraft except that the airspeed is
achieved using exhaust gasses rather than prop wash and physical motion
through the air. Using this configuration it is important to incorporate
an anti-backfire valve to ensure that no positive pressure pulses are
sent back down the vacuum system in adverse conditions. We'll see how it
works once the system is complete.

Phillip Johnson
Cozy MK IV RG S/N 30
Subaru SVX powered 


Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 08:16:22 -0700
From: hrogers@slac.stanford.edu (Howard Rogers)
Subject: COZY: Re: alternate vacuum sources

>Phillip Johnson wrote:

>I'm using the EG33 Subaru engine (still unproven) and have configured a
>nozzle within the exhaust collector where three pipes come into one.
>This nozzle is supposed to cause significant vacuums, according to the
>auto racing boys, and achieves its best performance is at high power
>levels unlike the induction manifold method.

This sounds good, on the face of it, because the manifold vacuum is just
about worthless in a climb.  On the other hand, as you are making your
approach, and descending, the above described system  would be at the same
kind of disadvantage.  I wonder about a system to automatically regulate
between the two?

> Using this configuration it is important to incorporate
>an anti-backfire valve to ensure that no positive pressure pulses are
>sent back down the vacuum system in adverse conditions.

There is a positive crankcase ventilation kit sold for canards (sorry, I
can't remember who markets it) that uses a system like this, including the
anti-backfire valve.  A friend installed it on his O-235 powered Long EZ,
and loved it.  "Sales Points": it eliminates the annoying little oil
seepages that always creep in.  It prevents the blowout of a nose seal
(though I have never seen this happen, unless the crankcase breather
becomes kinked).  Stops the oil mess on the prop.  BUT..... I seem to
remember reading, somewhere on this newsgroup, that someone had a problem
with this type of system, and it related to the anti backfire valve.  Does
anyone remember that?  Details?

--Howard Rogers


From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 11:14:57 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: Air Flow Performance

For work on Bendix injectors, I use D& G Supply in Niles Michigan. phone 1-800-684-4440, http://www.dgsupply.com, E-mail: 
Russ@dgsupply.com. They are FAA certified repair station and have several times treated me with excellent service and very 
reasonable prices. I have the highest regards for Airflow Performance, but try to keep all certified equipment as certified 
with a paper trail for legal reasons. 

Remember on an EZ, the injector tubes and distribution block need to be mounted on the cool side of the air. I have a set of 
IO-320 Lycoming injector tubes for sale. WHen I did the major overhaul, I thought it would be best to got to the original 
installation, which was a mistake, after 6 hours of flying I switched back to my original installation with the distribution 
block mounted on the prop governor pad. 

Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 23:56:57 -0600
From: James Russell <fshort@flash.net>
Subject: COZY: Emergency vacuum

>Am planning an all electric panel, had bad experiences with cheap vacuum
>pumps and lost a friend do to a situation that started with a vac pump
>failure in IMC.  Will have redundant system, 2 batteries, 2 alternators and
>monitoring systems.  My goal is to have a comfortable IFR airplane....

 Hi John:

	Have you looked at a venturi? I have decided to have a vacuum pump
w/ a emergency venturi as back-up. I have looked at the electric motor-powered
vacuum pump as back-up ( too heavy and expensive ) and the manifold vacuum-
powered back-up vacuum system ( not enough vacuum at full throttle ).
	You can get venturis big enough to run 3 instruments and they are
light
and cheap ( especially used! ) The drag when deployed is the only negative
I can think
of ( others? ).
	I haven't looked at where to mount it yet....The venturi will be
mounted on a
spring-loaded door.  Pull a handle, the door opens, a check valve seals off
the failed vacuum
pump. The engineering for the airloads on the door, etc. and the location I
haven't done
yet.
	I also want a safe, reliable IFR platform - 2  independent GPS/coms
w/ a
handheld back-up, radio altimeter, and a Strikefinder, etc...
	I got this idea from a Challenger I was working on... they have Ram
Air Turbines
for emergency power (also Boeing 737s...)

Regards,
James

PS:  It takes from 2-7 hours on the ramp to align both flux gates in a
G-II/III/IV after setting them
up on the bench.... I looked at a remote mag compass also but the
weight/cost/complexity killed
it for me.

============================================================

Q: How many Microsoft engineers does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None, Bill Gates will just redefine Darkness00 as the new industry standard.

============================================================


From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 08:42:31 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: Emergency vacuum

Was said:
vac pump failure in IMC
-- Training, training, training until reflexes make the situation manageable. My IFR practice safety pilot and I have 
literally no holds bared. Pull the breaker on the ADF on a NDB approach, crank the trim control on his Mooney while on an 
ILS, cover instruments, several at a time including T&B, horizon and attitude gyro all at the same time. 

My goal is to have a comfortable IFR airplane....
No airplane is comfortable IFR! Even John Travolta's Gulfstream had a complete electrical failure at altitude on top 
approaching New York. Single Engine, Single pilot IFR is TOUGH. Its the hardest video game, no pause control, must play all 
cards delt to you, and its as you have said FOR KEEPS!!! Flying an EZ IFR is a whole lot more difficult than a C-150 or 172 
just due to the speed. I have had going into BOston on arrival: 4 altitude changes (retrim and stabilize) from 11,000', 3 
different contollers (interupt train of thought, tune radios), and ready to copy, changed to an intersection, a Vor, an 
intersection, and the ILS with 600 broken moderate rain, with none of the legs more than 5 minutes in length. Taught me to 
back off on my arrival minimums.


The drag when deployed is the only negative With no spinner costing 5 knots, and wheel pants 10 or 15 K, I'm sure its a lot 
more than you would believe.
>
>spring-loaded door.  Pull a handle, the door opens, a check valve seals off
>the failed vacuum
More things to go wrong, new territory.

2  independent GPS/coms
Relying on GPS is not backup, its more of the same. THe Government has been jamming GPS for 300 mile radius's at locations 
all over the country from BOston to New Mexico and St. Louis. Last weekend on a nice hour flight for dinner to Muncie, In. 
(the restaurant was closed, ended having ribs at Bolton Airport, Columbus, Ohio), my GPS internal battery went dead. The 
terrain is flat farm land without many significant landmarks. It was no big thing, at 1000' above the surface enjoying the 
scenery, used VOR, and ADF to confirm position.

Most of the GPS approaches are much harder than the others, yes you know better ?? where you are, but when do you hit the 
hold button? Thats the question (and I don't need an answer) when being vectored, it can be confusing. In general GPS's 
receivers are reliable, use a panel mount so the power is coming from a good source, and not little batteries that could go 
dead at the wrong time, thats OK for your backup.

For IFR I recommend 2 Navcom (King KX-155) one with ILS, Marker beacon and ADF (for ILS), GPS, then if you can afford it 
make the GPS approach enroute certified, and a handheld as backup, mine is a King Kx-99, but one with a GPS would be nice. 
This will be about as full of a panel that a Cozy can fit.


Strikefinder, etc...
More weight, pretty soon no weight for fuel

Challenger ,Boeing 737s
Yea, and 2 pilots, lots of training and actual experience
>
remote mag compass also but the
>weight/cost/complexity killed
>it for me.

Agreed
>

The bottom line the COzy is a fine airplane with limits, it can't flown like a C-172 or 747, everone must set their own 
limits which are conservative with respect to the FAR's, its usually not one item that makes a "no go", but a combination 
of items, I could talk on that, but its more a line of thinking than a set of hard number things.



Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 07:43:16 -0400
From: Paul Krasa <p.w.krasa@larc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: COZY: Baffling

snip

The way I did my baffling is to wrap the tops of the cylinders up to the
top of the push tubes.  This forces all the air out between the push tubes
causing as much air as possible onto the fins between the push tubes.  The
reason I did this is the fin area between the push tubes is the hottest
part of the cylinder.

Paul Krasa
Long EZ 214LP

Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 06:55:59 -0500
From: Curt Smith <csmith@siue.edu>
Subject: Re: COZY: Baffling

I did my 0235 last summer and wrapped the BID/RTV up around the inside of
the pushrod tubes on top (and on around the tubes) and left 2-3" on the
bottom. Seems to be working fine.

Curt Smith
N86CS

At 06:59 AM 5/12/99 -0400, Jim Sower wrote:
>Hey all,
>I was interested in the considerable thread on baffling a while
>back.  More recently, during annual, I discovered that my
>Long-EZ which I purchased last year had two bad cylinders, most
>likely caused by a pretty awful job of baffling by the builder.
>I am in the process of re-baffling.  I have the 'fences' pretty
>nearly done and have elected to use the 'fiberglass-RTV' method
>of doing the jugs and heads.   I have an O-235 (to be upgraded
>next winter to O-320) and I need to find some consensus
>regarding the 'gaps' in the barrel and head 'C-wraps'.
>
>I have figured that the heads should be covered on the
>'vertical' portion of the fins, and just a little (around the
>'corner') toward the 'top' and 'bottom' portions.  I mainly need
>some opinions on the entrance and exit gaps on the barrels.
>I've been told anywhere from 2" to 3" on the bottom to 3" to 2"
>on the top.  I need your thoughts for the O-235 and also for the
>O-320 so I don't have to pester y'all again next fall.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Jim Sower
>
>

From: "james leturgey" <julietlima7@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Baffling
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 15:23:37 PDT

Jim;
I am using the bid wrap on my 0235 longeze from day one, and I used a 
reference I read from Gary Hunter of 2.5" opening on the bottom of the 
barrel and 1.5" on the top. I may have read this is one of the older Canard 
Pushers. Every system seems to be different and this may not work for you so 
experiment.
Jim (longeze 537JL)

>From: Jim Sower <jimsower@mindspring.com>
>Reply-To: Jim Sower <jimsower@mindspring.com>
>To: Canard Aviators <canard-aviator@canard.com>,        Cozy Builders 
><cozy_builders@canard.com>
>Subject: COZY: Baffling
>Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 06:59:54 -0400
>
>Hey all,
>I was interested in the considerable thread on baffling a while
>back.  More recently, during annual, I discovered that my
>Long-EZ which I purchased last year had two bad cylinders, most
>likely caused by a pretty awful job of baffling by the builder.
>I am in the process of re-baffling.  I have the 'fences' pretty
>nearly done and have elected to use the 'fiberglass-RTV' method
>of doing the jugs and heads.   I have an O-235 (to be upgraded
>next winter to O-320) and I need to find some consensus
>regarding the 'gaps' in the barrel and head 'C-wraps'.
>
>I have figured that the heads should be covered on the
>'vertical' portion of the fins, and just a little (around the
>'corner') toward the 'top' and 'bottom' portions.  I mainly need
>some opinions on the entrance and exit gaps on the barrels.
>I've been told anywhere from 2" to 3" on the bottom to 3" to 2"
>on the top.  I need your thoughts for the O-235 and also for the
>O-320 so I don't have to pester y'all again next fall.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Jim Sower
>


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 10:25:40
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: Re: CHT/EGT variations


><< We put a GEM-602 (4-cylinder engine monitor) on our Traveler several weeks
> ago and have been watching it ever since to get an idea of 'how things are'.
> I don't understand something we are seeing and before we start switching
> probes around I thought I would see if someone else with more experience
> with these sorts of things can lend me a clue.
> 
> On climb out, the CHTs for all 4 cylinders is 'fairly' flat, but the EGTs
> are all over the chart. The EGTs for cylinders 3 and 4 seem to be close to
> the anticipated levels, but the EGTs for cylinders 1 and 2 are much lower.
> Once at cruise settings, the EGTs for 3 and 4 remain at expected levels and
> the EGTs for 1 and 2 rise to expected levels.

  A friend of mine retired from GM after 'bout a bizzilion years as
  an engine guru and went to work for McClarin (sp?) to help with
  development of specialized engines including very high performance
  engines for racing. I recall some conversations we had about 10
  years ago when he was running his Lyc O-235 in a test cell 
  in anticipation of putting the engine in his Long-Ez fitted with
  a special carburetor. I can share some things I learned from our
  discussions.

  Two considerations high on the list of priorities for induction
  system design are FLOW and MIXURE. The two qualities are interdependent
  to a degree that causes a lot of brick throwing between guys trying
  to whip carburetor problems and those designing the plumbing that
  hooks everything up.

  CHTs are an indication of a balance between cooling air over the
  cylinders and the heat energy thrown off by the fires and friction
  within the cylinder . . . and may have very little significance
  with respect to how well that cylinder is puttine energy into the
  propeller. For example, if one cylinder is putting out half the
  horsepower it was designed for, it may still show the same temperature
  as the others if it suffers from restricted air flow for cooling.

  EGTs are a stronger indicator for energy produced by the cylinder
  but I undestand that the temperature can be influenced both by
  flow (amount of fuel/air consumed each stroke and restrictions
  in the ability of the exhaust system to move the spent gasses 
  out) and mixture (the most efficient use of fuel is indicated
  by adjusting mixture for maximum EGT reading meaning that their
  is neither an excess of fuel or oxygen).  Mixture is the most
  powerful infuluence of the two.

  The ability of carbutetors to discharge a completly homogenous
  concoction of fuel vapors and air is a dicy proposition. By-
  in-large, carburetor designs on most certfied airplanes have
  not been modified in things that affect performance since they
  were liberated from the farm over 50 years ago.  Updraft 
  carburetors for deep breathing engines were fairly common 
  on tractors back then . . . while cars were moving rapidly
  away from the design. Given aviation's reverence for things
  traditional, it's not hard to understand why cars run so
  much better than our airplanes.

  If one observes a large difference in EGT readings on an aircraft
  engine, there's a relatively easy way to scope out the cause.
  In straight and level flight, adjust the mixture over a range
  as needed to observe the peak in each cylinder.  Do this one
  cylinder at a time returning to a "too rich" setting for a
  minute or so between each reading.  It's not sufficient to
  do this test at a very low power setting where continuous
  operation at peak EGT is allowed. The ability of
  a carburetor to maintain the same mixture characteristics
  over the full range of throttle travel is generally poor.
  The differences you cited for various power settings
  is an example of this phenomenon.

  If this test shows that you can achieve the SAME peak reading
  on every cylinder, then you know that the unballance is due
  to mixture variations on a cyclinder by cylinder basis. If
  all cylinders peak at the same time but show different 
  tempratures, then there is a difference in flow of gasses
  on a cylinder by cylinder basis -or- there is a variation
  in the calibration the probes and indicating system on a
  cylinder-by-cylinder basis.

  Institutionalized aviation has managed to push this design
  flaw under the rug for decades by installing a single
  EGT probe in the exhaust gas stream of the cylinder that
  peaks first as the mixture is leaned. After enriching to
  the value recommended for cruising flight one could be
  assured that all other cylinders are operating at or below
  the same temperature on the rich side of peak. It was
  not apparent when one or more cylinders operated a 
  hundred degrees cooler than the hottest . . . not until
  you folks started installing fancy instrumentation.
  
  See what progress has done for us? After decades of 
  operation in the fat, dumb and happy mode, we now have
  something new to worry about, as if good pilotage wasn't
  enough to occupy our minds while airborne.  My suspicions
  are that wide variations in EGT readings are pretty common
  in carbureted engines. Injected engines can be fine tuned
  by adjusting the ports for each cylinder but you guys
  with tractor carbs are pretty well stuck with what you've
  got.

  By the way, my friend was considering installation of
  a more modern carburetor design on his Long-Ez and was
  so disappoined in the test-cell results that he bolted
  the tractor carb back onto the engine. His experience
  suggests to me that carburetors should have been
  eliminated from aircraft engines a LONG time ago. But
  then, we're not nearly the influencial consumer group
  as car buyers. Regulation has so discouraged competition
  and new development;  we must resign ourselves to living 
  with the unhappy information acquired by sticking that
  new-fangled gage on your antique airplane!


  
       Bob . . .

                       ////
                      (o o)
       ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
       <  Independence Kansas: the     >
       <  Jurassic Park of aviation.   >
       <  Your source for brand new    >
       <  40 year old airplanes.       >
       =================================
          http://www.aeroelectric.com

Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 21:12:23 -0500
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Re: CHT/EGT variations

Bob,

    re "See what progress has done for us? After decades of
  operation in the fat, dumb and happy mode, we now have
  something new to worry about, as if good pilotage wasn't
  enough to occupy our minds while airborne."

    I've been breaking in a newly overhauled Lycoming 0-360 with
Millennium cylinders and the EGT's are consistent - during climb #1 is
about 180 hotter than 2-3-4, but in cruise they're all about the same.

    And guess what?  I've about decided to ignore it.  These engines are
like the old Farmall Super M, they get the job done and what does it
matter if the EGT's are all over the board.  It's been like that since
day one (some 50 years ago) and many of these motors routinely run far
beyond TBO.  Mine was 18 years old when tore down, and still in very
good condition including a crank in "new" limits.

    I spent a lot of money for the device that reads, records, and tells
me everything going on back there and sometimes wonder if it is at all
necessary.

dd

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 23:26:37 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: Re: CHT/EGT variations

Get to know your EGT's, they will point a cylinder going sour quicker than anything else! Electronics International puts out 
an excellent troubleshooting manual that comes with their ultimate scanner. They suggest getting many readings with a good 
running engine (hate to say it, but I haven't done it) then when there is a problem, its easy to go back to the baseline. But 
it has helped me find a clogged injector nozzle that took 10 minutes time once the top cowl was removed to correct at a 
strange airport, fouled sparkplugs, where I pulled only one plug to correct the problem happened several times, and a badly 
mistimed mag after they both were off, and one slipped a tooth on installation. I wouldn't be without EGT and CHT on all 
cylinders. For leaning, I use 1450 degrees as maximum EGT and lean just short of that near maximum power for a manifold or RPM 
maximum limit.

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 21:22:44 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: [Fwd: Fuel System Do's/Don'ts]

On 06/06/99 07:58:20 you wrote:
>
>>
>> Bill Freeman wrote:
>> >
>>   The teflon hose has an unlimited SHELF LIFE,
>> > **not** service life and should be replaced every decade or
>> > sooner, just exactly like H-8794.  Also, this hose is known to have
>> > caused fuel system fires if the teflon gets too hot and starts to flow
>> > and break down. If you doubt the above, go to Parker's web site
>> > and verify it.
>
>OK, I did.  The H-8794 has a temp. range of -65 to 250 degrees F.  The 124
>teflon goes up to 500 degrees.  Am I missing something here?
>
>-ew
>
>
>

I am at 5.5 years in the process of changing all my hoses (from teflon to teflon). I have had the 2 going to the oil cooler 
installed a week, and expect to finish by next annual in April.

From: "Nat Puffer" <cozy@extremezone.com>
Subject: COZY: Fuel hose leaks
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 20:15:36 -0500

Builders,
I got rid of my synthetic rubber fuel lines when mine started to leak
profusely, and switched to teflon, same as RAF. I always turn my fuel pump
on, hit the primer button, and then (with the fuel pump on) go back and
pull the prop through 3 blades. This is something we were required to do in
the Navy with radial engines, to make sure oil hadn't collected in the
bottom cylinders. On one occasion, when I went back to pull the prop
through with the fuel pump on, fuel was gushing out of the NACA scoop. I
pulled the bottom cowling and my 303 Aeroquip fuel lines were leaking like
sieves! I don't think they were 2 years old. I took them back to Varga, at
Chandler. They said no one else with this same shipment had complained. I
found out later, I was the first of many that had the same experience. If I
hadn't gone to the back of the plane with the fuel pump running, but
started the engine instead, I am sure I would have had an engine fire as
soon as the exhaust pipes got hot. That is why I switched to Teflon! Not
all synthetic fuel lines are bad, but do you want to take a chance?
Nat

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 21:16:05 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: [Fwd: Fuel System Do's/Don'ts]

Was said: With just 6 psi pressure the entire hose was wet from fuel pump to carb.  It
leaked dangerously and could not be detected with the engine shut down.


The annual inspection wouldn't be complete without pressurizing the fuel system with the electric pump, and check for leaks. 
100LL fuel leaves a good telltale stain, just don't look for wet, the fuel evaporates easily but the stain remains. Its not 
unusual for one of the fuel quick drains to seep when a small particle of fiberglass debris gets at the O-ring. It leaves a 
telltale stain on the quickdrain (blue instead of shiny brass) and possibly a circle on the floor.

Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 22:50:23 -0500
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: [Fwd: Fuel System Do's/Don'ts]


    re "David;  It took you FOUR years to look under the cowling????"

    No Henry, it did not take 4 years to look under the cowling.  It
took 4 years for the hose to begin leaking and be noticed.

dd

From: "Chris Byrne" <jcbyrne@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: COZY: Cowling
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 10:21:59 +1000

Hello

Not sure if you can help me here but I'll ask anyhow.
I am about to order the landing gear, foam for the wings and canopy and have
ASS combine all these high volume pieces it into one shipment to save on the
freight. Am also thinking of the cowling as well but not sure which engine I
will be using. Will be either be an IO-360, or depending on my building
time, one of the diesels from LYC or Continental (should be well and truley
avail by the time I require it.)
Do any of you have any idea of the size of these new engines and will they
fit in the IO-360 cowl?


Thanks

Chris Byrne
Sydney

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:27:54 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: Cowling

On 06/09/99 10:21:59 you wrote:
>Do any of you have any idea of the size of these new engines and will they
>fit in the IO-360 cowl?


All have heard, they are being designed as replacements, which means not a larger envelope. But I'm sure there will be some 
issues, atleast minor. I just got finished installing a new oil cooler that was supposed to be the "SAME AS". Turned out that 
many little problems, turned in to almost a week of spare time instead of a couple of hours. As soon as I get a little time, 
I'll describe what happened.

Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 09:19:14 -0500
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: COZY: Oil Cooler Location..


    For those interested in an upper cowling oil cooler exit position,
the 13 vane oil cooler from Wicks fits above the B & C 90 spin on oil
filter.  Don't use the plan flange, but mount the cooler flat up to the
cowling top with a 2" anle attach at the firewill with a small brace to
the aft lower cooler flange.  There's still about a 2" clearance to
remove the filter.

dd

From: "Morten Brandtzaeg" <morten@scandisoft.no>
Subject: Re: COZY: 4 pipes - how much better performance
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 22:54:38 +0200

Thanks a lot for good advice Jack!
I will change the pipes to four, it seems as a good value for money
solution. I will buy it from the authorized supplier and spend the winter to
modify it.

Brgds Morten Brandtzaeg, Cozy III LN-USA
Tel: +47 6126 1050 Fax: +47 6126 4392 Mob: +47 9011 7526
-----Original Message-----
From: Wilhelmson, Jack <Wilhelmson@scra.org>
To: 'Morten Brandtzaeg' <morten@scandisoft.no>; cozy_builders@canard.com
<cozy_builders@canard.com>
Date: 10. juni 1999 16:20
Subject: RE: COZY: 4 pipes - how much better performance


>Morten:
>
>I have a 0320 and changed from two to four. It added 100 rpm at cruise full
>throttle.
>Which is a large power increase. Power goes up as the square of RPM.
>This works because the exhaust pressure standing wave in the pipe at full
>throttle
>is exactly in sync with the exhaust valve opening timing.
>
>You can gain this by adding a SS divider to your existing single pipe
>system. Make sure it is securely
>welded in. If it comes loose it will hit the prop.
>
>Jack Wilhelmson N711CZ
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Morten Brandtzaeg [SMTP:morten@scandisoft.no]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 1999 3:31 AM
>> To: cozy_builders@canard.com
>> Subject: COZY: 4 pipes - how much better performance
>>
>> My Cozy III has O-235 and old bendix mags. I operate the plane mostly out
>> of
>> 800m RWY's and need to improve takeoff performance.
>> Anyone who has experience from changing exhaust pipes from two to four
and
>> what one should expect in performance gain..
>>
>> Brgds Morten Brandtzaeg, LN-USA
>> Tel: +47 6126 1050 Fax: +47 6126 4392 Mob: +47 9011 7526

Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:04:59 -0700
From: marcna <marcna@concentric.net>
Subject: COZY: Alternate to the B&C alternators

Has anyone found a alternate to the B&C alternator that will fit in
the Cozy cowl.  Van's Aircraft catalog list a Generic bracket kit with
a list of alternators that fit the 320 and 360 engines.  Has anyone
had any luck with a alternative. 

I installed the Sky-Tek lightweight starter and it looks like it
should work out just fine.

Marc Parmelee

-- 

  ___                                   _       _____         
  / __\___ _____   _    /\/\   __ _ _ __| | __   \_   \/\   /\ 
 / /  / _ \_  / | | |  /    \ / _` | '__| |/ /    / /\/\ \ / / 
/ /__| (_) / /| |_| | / /\/\ \ (_| | |  |   <  /\/ /_   \ V /  
\____/\___/___|\__, | \/    \/\__,_|_|  |_|\_\ \____/    \_/   
               |___/                                           
 _  _  ____  ____    ___  _____
| || ||___ \| ___|  / __\/ _  /
| || |_ __) |___ \ / /   \// / 
|__   _/ __/ ___) / /___  / //\
   |_||_____|____/\____/ /____/

Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 10:41:47 -0700
From: Eric Westland <ewestland@altavista.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Alternate to the B&C alternators

I am using an IO-360 which is a little larger and longer than the O-360
and the Featherlite cowls.  I don't think you will find any trouble using
any of the lightweight car alternators fitting in your cowls.  Getting the
brackets to work can be a different matter.  I used a light weight Hitachi
40 amp alternator, I don't have the model number  handy, but it weighed
only a pound or two more than the B&C and cost about $50 for a rebuilt.
Of course, B&C does a pretty good job overhauling them, but I decided to
spend the money elsewhere.

Van's bracket would be a good way to go.  I ended up fiddling a bunch with
the ones that came with my Lycoming and they ended up working.

Eric Westland

marcna wrote:

> Has anyone found a alternate to the B&C alternator that will fit in
> the Cozy cowl.  Van's Aircraft catalog list a Generic bracket kit with
> a list of alternators that fit the 320 and 360 engines.  Has anyone
> had any luck with a alternative.
>
> I installed the Sky-Tek lightweight starter and it looks like it
> should work out just fine.
>
> Marc Parmelee
>
> --
>
>   ___                                   _       _____
>   / __\___ _____   _    /\/\   __ _ _ __| | __   \_   \/\   /\
>  / /  / _ \_  / | | |  /    \ / _` | '__| |/ /    / /\/\ \ / /
> / /__| (_) / /| |_| | / /\/\ \ (_| | |  |   <  /\/ /_   \ V /
> \____/\___/___|\__, | \/    \/\__,_|_|  |_|\_\ \____/    \_/
>                |___/
>  _  _  ____  ____    ___  _____
> | || ||___ \| ___|  / __\/ _  /
> | || |_ __) |___ \ / /   \// /
> |__   _/ __/ ___) / /___  / //\
>    |_||_____|____/\____/ /____/

From: "Chris Byrne" <jcbyrne@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: COZY: Engine Cowling
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 23:52:18 +1000

Builders

At Marc's suggestion I have included the replies that were sent direct to
me so that they can be included in the archives.

Question

........ Am also thinking of the cowling as well but not sure which engine I
will be using. Will be either be an IO-360, or depending on my building
time, one of the diesels from LYC or Continental (should be well and truly
avail by the time I require it.)
Do any of you have any idea of the size of these new engines and will they
fit in the IO-360 cowl?..............


*From Wayne Blackler

I encountered a similar problem with my Long EZ when I chose to install a
parallel valve IO-360. This was solved with the use of Berkut cowls... Now
for your fix...

I would suggest that the only real problems with fitting the new diesel
engines is the overall width (cowl easily modified), and height above the
cylinders (unknown but again easily modified). I would suggest that you
probably would be best to borrow an IO-360 off somebody (preferably a
core), install it, install the cowls then fit the engine of choice later -
this is provided the new diesels have the same mount geometry and you can
use the standard mount.

If you are fitting the IO-360 angle valve engine I would consider doing
what Bruce Elkind has done. He has used Aerocanard canopy and cowl products
and an IO-360. He has extended the nose slightly also and I personally
think it is the nicest looking Mk.IV around. The cowl looks to be capable
of handling any of the engines you have commented on in your mail. This is
certainly the direction I would go if I were building a Mk.IV.

I can supply Bruce's email address. It was in a Sport Aviation - what our
members are building section within the last year or so and also in
Kitplanes. Let me know.

*From Nat

You are much better off to start with a cowling, than no cowling at all.
When I installed the Franklin, I started with a Lycoming cowling and made
modifications progressively until it worked. I didn't say until it fit
because it fitted in the beginning. I just had to find out where the air
needed more room to exit.


*From Carl Denk

All have heard, they are being designed as replacements, which means not a
larger envelope. But I'm sure there will be some
issues, at least minor. I just got finished installing a new oil cooler that
was supposed to be the "SAME AS". Turned out that
many little problems, turned in to almost a week of spare time instead of a
couple of hours. As soon as I get a little time,
I'll describe what happened.


What I have done.

As Nat in the last newsletter recommends the Aerocad cowl for the IO 360 and
Wayne says it looks like a good way to go, I contacted Jeff. He was good
enough to mention that he was about to ship an order off to Australia and it
might be a good idea to share the freight. So I have a cowl on the way.



Chris Byrne
Sydney

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:38:49 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: engine cooling

THe gaps between the cylinder wrap baffles should be not less than 3/4", wider on top. There must be NO openings around the 
baffling, except where you want air to move, and cool something. Use a light, mirrors, or whatever to verify that the 
flexible baffle material is lying in the right direction, and tightly against the cowl or whatever. What is your oil temp? Low 
(relatively) oil temp is saying there is obstruction in the cylinder area. Is this a new/rebuilt engine? Has plane flown 
before with OK Temps? Are your oil cooler tubes -8 size? Have you checked the vernatherm if high oil temp? Is the oil cooler 
clean internally? And I mean new or very clean, no sludge or varnish type deposits.

From: "Glenn Murray" <GlennMurray@currantbun.com>
Subject: COZY: engine cooling
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:04:38 +0100

8 Hours completed now but I can't seem to get the CHT's below 
400 in the cruise,
all are within 10 degrees of each other.I have made sure the 
baffles are 110%.
I'm using a 6" prop extension,the cowlings are approx 
2" away from the prop,
could they be too close? do I need to put an extra vent in the 
upper cowling to
aid removal of the air in the low pressure area? Any other 
tips?


Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:27:22 -0400
From: Paul Krasa <p.w.krasa@larc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: COZY: engine cooling

Have you made a manometer and took pressure readings inside your cowl? 
If you have not, then anything you do is speculation and you are  just
shooting in the dark.  Once you have the pressure readings, you will know
what is going on inside the cowl, and be able to fine tune your cooling. 
 The article I wrote on cooling is in the archives.

Paul
Long EZ 214LP


Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: Michael Pollock <Michael.Pollock@wcom.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: engine cooling

Glen,

Where are your CHT probes located? Also, what type of instrument are
you using to read the CHTs? Remember, if you are using analog, the
cold junction temperature was calibrated at 75 degrees F. If the probe
cold junction temperature are not at that temperature, you will have
to add or subtract the difference in the calibration temperature and
the actual cold junction temperature. They are inversely proportional.
Your probes should have come with information on that if they are analog
outputs.

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


From: "Nat Puffer" <cozy@extremezone.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: engine cooling
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 12:30:09 -0500

Dear Glenn,
The allowable temperatures that Lycoming publishes assume that you have
downdraft cooling and are using temperature probes on the hot side of the
cylinders, which would be the bottom with downdraft cooling. Thermocouples
under the spark plugs read 40 degrees fahrenheit hotter than a probe on the
same side of the cylinder. So you need to subtract 40 degrees from each of
your readings. In other words, if you read 400 under the plug, it would be
360 with a probe, as far as Lycoming is concerned. Thermocouples under the
bottom spark plugs would read about 40 degrees less than on top in climb,
and about 70 degrees less in cruise. Why don't you move them to the bottom
so it makes you feel more comfortable?
Nat 

----------
> From: Glenn Murray <GlennMurray@currantbun.com>
> To: Nat Puffer <cozy@extremezone.com>
> Subject: Re: COZY: engine cooling
> Date: Wednesday, June 16, 1999 1:11 PM
> 
> Hi Nat ,
> Thanks for the reply,
> I have built a 3 place classic here in the UK from plans bought from
> Uli Walter in Germany.
> I am using thermocouples under the upper spark plugs.
> The temperatures were even higher until I filled all the gaps with
> silicone sealant.
> How do the guys in texas and other hot spots keep their engines cool
> if here in europe I can't seem to get the temps down?
> Would an exhaust vent like Mark Beduhns help?
> Any tips you have that might help, would be  appreciated.
> Other than the cooling the Plane flies beautifully and is every bit as
> fast as quoted.
> I have also solved the problem with the canopy opening slightly in
> flight,there were very small amounts of play in the bearings behind the
> seat which once eliminated by shortening the rods slightly (1/8 ")
> I now have a super-tight canopy.All the hooks must also be at the same
> angle.
> Manouvering at low speeds on the apron 2 up forward CofG is also
> a bit tricky.
> Once in the air though no one at the field comes close!!!
> Regards
> glenn
> 


From: "Morten Brandtzaeg" <morten@scandisoft.no>
Subject: Re: COZY: engine cooling
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 22:15:08 +0200

I have the oil cooler aft and quite low, almost 
level with carburetor. No cooling problems whatsoever. Works great both summer 
and winter.
PS: For winter operations I 
recomment to have the oil vent inside the cowling to avoid icing at the outlet 
and risk blowing the crank shaft oil seal (rubber band).
Brgds Morten Brandtzaeg, LN-USA Cozy III
Tel: +47 6126 1050
Fax: +47 6126 4392
Mob: +47 9011 7526From ???@??? Fri Jun 18 22:32:55 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 PAA20190 for <marcz@ultranet.com>; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 15:42:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA20395
	for cozy_builders-list; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 13:57:50 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: twc2.betaweb.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com using -f
Received: from smtp1.erols.com (smtp1.erols.com [207.172.3.234])
	by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA20389
	for <cozy_builders@canard.com>; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 13:57:45 -0400
Received: from administrator (207-172-109-56.s56.as1.war.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.109.56])
	by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA24874
	for <cozy_builders@canard.com>; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 14:39:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: "DL Davis" <dldavis@erols.com>
To: <cozy_builders@canard.com>
Subject: RE: COZY: Electronic Ignition
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 14:46:03 -0400
Message-ID: <000001beb9ba$d160f300$386daccf@administrator>
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 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <63dcc027.249be1c1@aol.com>
Sender: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "DL Davis" <dldavis@erols.com>
X-UIDL: f963a4fa43e85bedcfdcd2ebc3d133bd

The use of one electronic ignition with advance timing will decrease, not
increase, exhaust gas temp.  Starting the burn early with the electronic
ignition will only improve the fuel burn, so I don't think it is analagous
to the one mag situation.
Dewey Davis

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com
> [mailto:owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com]On Behalf Of EJCV@aol.com
> Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 1:54 PM
> To: cozy_builders@canard.com
> Subject: COZY: Electronic Ignition
>
>
> A recent suggestion that , because one electronic ignition will
> give nearly
> all the apparent benefit,  why fit two, makes me want to comment.
>
> Lyc. or Conti. engines have dual ignition, with two plugs in each
> cylinder
> for redundancy. These plugs are siginficantly separated and thus help to
> reduce the time for the flame front to spread from them to the
> extemities of
> the combustion chamber.
>
> If there is one electronic ignition, with variable timing, and
> one mag. with
> fixed timing, there is a risk that one will fire sufficiently before the
> other that it becomes effectively a one plug operation, as though
> one mag has
> failed, and part of the charge may be still burning as the exhaust valve
> opens. This can require a richer mixture to run smoothly and lead to
> overheating. In extreme cases to valve or even piston burning.
>
> I was taught never to operate for long with a dead mag. because
> of this risk
> and thus I question the wisdom of running continuously with 1
> Elec. Ign. & 1
> Mag?
>
> Eddie Vann
>

Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 22:47:50
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: RE: Electronic Ignition

At 02:46 PM 6/18/99 -0400, DL Davis wrote:
>The use of one electronic ignition with advance timing will decrease, not
>increase, exhaust gas temp.  Starting the burn early with the electronic
>ignition will only improve the fuel burn, so I don't think it is analagous
>to the one mag situation.
>Dewey Davis
>
>> -----Original Message-----

>> Lyc. or Conti. engines have dual ignition, with two plugs in each
>> cylinder for redundancy. These plugs are siginficantly separated 
>>and thus help to reduce the time for the flame front to spread 
>>from them to the extemities of the combustion chamber.

   . . . which IS an issue at high manifold pressure ops (full
   throttle, sea level) because a pressure wave travels across
   the top of a cylinder faster than the flame front. Detontation
   is directly related to pressure in the cylinder. If one wishes
   to run the most advanced timing possible, then igniting the
   fire from both sides of the cylinder produces an effective
   advance in timing in spite of the fact that either mag by
   itself is timed late enough to prevent detonation of the
   mixture ahead of the flame front under worst case conditions.

>> If there is one electronic ignition, with variable timing, and
>> one mag. with
>> fixed timing, there is a risk that one will fire sufficiently before the
>> other that it becomes effectively a one plug operation, as though
>> one mag has
>> failed, and part of the charge may be still burning as the exhaust valve
>> opens. This can require a richer mixture to run smoothly and lead to
>> overheating. In extreme cases to valve or even piston burning.

   The overheating case occurs when timing is too LATE to allow
   complete combustion of mixture before exhaust valve opens.
   Since a single mag is already timed late enought to prevent
   problems at worst case conditions (high manifold pressures) then
   how would an electronic ignition which is timed equal to or
   EARLIER than the magneto pose a problem?

>> I was taught never to operate for long with a dead mag. because
>> of this risk
>> and thus I question the wisdom of running continuously with 1
>> Elec. Ign. & 1
>> Mag?

   Don't know where the prohibition against operating with one
   mag would have come from . . . the conservative timing of
   a single mag for best possible performance at worst case
   conditions is what makes the engine perform poorly on one mag.
   The effective retardation of timing . . . while
   it's later than we'd like for best performance, is still
   timed to prevent engine damage under any power setting should
   one magneto fail. This makes high altitude performace on one
   mag quite dismal but still benign with respect to strsses on
   engine.

   The fact that an electronic ignition lights the fires many degrees
   earlier than the companion magneto poses no threat to the
   engine because of timing is scheduled against RPM and manifold
   pressure. Exhaust gas temps go DOWN when the slngle electronic
   ignition. It's possible to measure a further decrease should
   a second electronic ignition be added but it's very small compared
   to the initial improvement. However, this phenomenon will be
   noted only at low power settings, i.e. high altitude. At higher
   power settings, the electronic ignition timing retards to a
   point equal to but not later than the magneto hence, no 
   improvement in anything except starting performance.

From: mfacchinelli@sogei.it
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 11:43:23 +0200
Subject: COZY: Allison fuel injection system

Canardians,
I'm planning to use O-360 A1A (180 hp) on my C.Classic with the option of
Bendix Fuel injection or, in alternative, Allison system...
Can someone give me technical info about the ALLISON FUEL INJ. SYSTEM ?
How can I contact them ? (phone / internet /fax)
Thanks in advance for your help
Massimo Martino Bonicelli
COSY CLASSIC


From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 16:01:20 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: Allison fuel injection system

I like the Bendix since its aircraft equipment, easily maintained, replacements and expertice if needed available at distant 
airport when traveling. Airflow people are fine, excellent service. If your engine came with Bendix, use it, otherwise your 
choice either airfow or bendix.

Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 08:52:59 -0700
From: Eric Westland <ewestland@altavista.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Ellison fuel injection system

The Ellison folks have a home page at:

http://www.ellison-fluid-systems.com/

You may also consider the Airflow Performance System if you are
interested in an alternative to the Bendix.  Don Rivera runs it and is
at AIRFLOW PERFORMANCE SYSTEMS, 864-576-4512.  His e-mail is :
airflowinc@Juno.com.

Eric Westland

mfacchinelli@sogei.it wrote:
> 
> Canardians,
> I'm planning to use O-360 A1A (180 hp) on my C.Classic with the option of
> Bendix Fuel injection or, in alternative, Allison system...
> Can someone give me technical info about the ALLISON FUEL INJ. SYSTEM ?
> How can I contact them ? (phone / internet /fax)
> Thanks in advance for your help
> Massimo Martino Bonicelli
> COSY CLASSIC

From: Cozy7971@aol.com
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 17:33:31 EDT
Subject: COZY: Window Screens on Canards

I imagine the subject line caught a few peoples attention.  No, I'm not 
suggesting a canopy replacement for hot days.

I found the following accident report on the web and remember reading about 
several other incidents of nuts, bolts, etc. exiting from the cowling and 
going through the prop.  Invariably this creates an unpleasant situation.  
While reading the article, it occured to me that it would be fairly 
straightforward to mount a screen (similar to a window screen) across the 
back of the cowling (no, I don't have any specific thoughts as to how to do 
it).  This could catch any debris and still allow for proper airflow.  
Obviously it would not  be a 100% solution as the screen or screen mounting 
hardware could also come loose.  It would seem that the screen would be easy 
to preflight though.

My questions are:
1.	Has anyone tried this?  If so, what were the results?
2.	Has anyone thought about it and immediately shelved the idea as being 
hare brained?  If so, what were your thoughts?
3.	Is this a new concept to some of you?  If so, what are your thoughts?

Dick Finn
Cozy Mark IV #46
----------------------------
July, August, 1996 Accident Reports
>From CP86, Page 11 (October, 1996)

    On August 6, 1996 after departing Oshkosh for a scheduled fuel stop in 
Cedar Rapids, a Long-EZ pilot experienced a vibration that rapidly became 
very severe.
     Suspecting a propeller failure, the pilot shut the engine down and 
pulled the nose up to bleed off airspeed in order to stop the propeller from 
wind milling while establishing a safe place to land.
     On the ground the pilot discovered damage to the right side exhaust 
system where about 6 inches of the tailpipe was missing plus damage to one 
blade of the propeller. It was broken chord-wise at a point behind where the 
exhaust pipe exited the cowling, approximately 6" from the tip. This break 
was about 2" wide and from that point a tapering break toward the back of the 
prop running toward the hub for about 12". Everything outboard and aft was 
missing.
     The pilot believes that the exhaust pipe broke and exited the cowling, 
striking and breaking one blade of the propeller. The first break set up a 
vibration that caused the second break.
     

From: Wayne_Blackler@ansett.com.au
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 08:27:59 +1000
Subject: Re: COZY: Window Screens on Canards

G'Day,

I recall seeing an article on Mike Melvill's Vari Viggen in Sport Aviation
that had pictured a fairly heavy mesh across the entire outlet area of the
cowl. I have never seen it used since. This would obviously not cover the
exhausts unless you had the type that exit out the air outlet area of the
cowl.  It always looked like a good idea to me but I wonder why I have not
seen it around since. I would like to hear Mike's comments... Maybe an
Oshkosh question ?

Regards

Wayne Blackler
O-360 Long EZ
AUSTRALIA


_____________________________________________________________________
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: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 19:10:13 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: Window Screens on Canards

I have had 3 propellers crack due to debris colliding with a blade.
1 was before first flight, something off the runway/taxiway.
1 was an exhaust valve that broke up and came out of one of the 4 exhaust pipes
1 was debris off the runway/taxiway.

My cowl fasteners are Camloc 4002 series (except 2 #10 machine screws) and have not lost one yet (knock on wood for good 
luck). With the availability of the camlocs, I don't know why anyone uses screws (my 2 are due to lack of space at a 
location), with all the millions of times the cowl gets removed, a quarter turn is all it takes, and they are spring loaded 
and don't vibrate loose.

Never have lost anything out the cowl air exit opening. Have on my lower priority list to make a new set of wheel pants that 
are more of a fender or mud flap for the main wheels to shield prop from stones thrown up. The Cessna Citation has a flange to 
deflect water, etc. molded into the tires.

From: alwick@juno.com
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:35:22 -0700
Subject: Re: COZY: Window Screens on Canards

On Thu, 1 Jul 1999 17:33:31 EDT Cozy7971@aol.com writes:
> how to do it).  This could catch any debris and still allow for proper 
airflow.  
> Obviously it would not  be a 100% solution as the screen or screen 
mounting 
> hardware could also come loose.  It would seem that the screen would 
be easy 
> to preflight though.
> 
> My questions are:
> 1.	Has anyone tried this?  If so, what were the results?

No one that I know of has tried it.

> 2.	Has anyone thought about it and immediately shelved the  idea as
being 
> hare brained?  If so, what were your thoughts?

All new ideas are immediately shelved as being hare brained. Know what I
mean? I'd recommend tallying up the number of similar failure reports.
Separate the ones that have engine compartment as source (vs rocks). Then
estimate the real risk using that info. Keeping in mind that only a small
portion of those failures would ever be reported. I would also expect
engine components would tend to strike the inner portion of prop, thus do
more denting than fracturing. Don't know.
I also would expect a small mesh screen would retard air flow thru cowl.

> 3.	Is this a new concept to some of you?  If so, what are 
> your thoughts?

Definitely new concept. Your solution is theoretically very effective.
Instead of trying to prevent the source of loose components, you devised
a method to alter the EFFECT of the failure.... the nut still can come
off, but now it just rolls around in engine cover instead of hitting
prop. Valuable concept.
I have a pusher ultralight aircraft. Broke two props in total of 1 hour
flight time. Rocks kicked up by tires hit wood prop. Causes were: no
wheel pants, airport with remnants of gravel road at midfield, wheel
spacing, weak prop material.

That said, my  gut feel is that risk of mod to your plane is greater than
risk of engine component related prop failure.

-al wick
Canopy Latch System guy.
Artificial intelligence in Cockpit
Cozy sn 389 driven by stock Subaru 2.5 ltr.95% complete.

___________________________________________________________________
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: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 22:05:28 -0500
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: COZY: Window Screens on Canards and other things....

Dick,

    re "My questions are:
1.      Has anyone tried this?  If so, what were the results?
2.      Has anyone thought about it and immediately shelved the idea as
being
hare brained?  If so, what were your thoughts?
3.      Is this a new concept to some of you?  If so, what are your
thoughts?"

    My thoughts on the subject - and I never thought of it before but
you've stimulated my brain and I'll comment on any airplane idea just
for the hell of it - are this:

    Wire baskets are used on air boats all the time, probably to keep
people and flying alligators from going through the prop.  But these
machines don't get up to lift off speed of a Cozy, so how would they
work on an airplane?  No doubt such a device would introduce a greater
risk of coming apart and removing the prop than anything that might come
off the airplane.

    A screen door?  Are you thinking a fine screen to keep big bugs off
the prop or something to snag say, a Canada Goose?  Either way, it will
have to be mighty hefty to catch and hold anything at 160 knots.

    Turbine engines have always been and still are subject to FOD
damage.  To my knowledge, no one has ever put a screen in front of the
compressor (except maybe on the PT6 turbo props) probably because it
couldn't be built strong enough to not come apart when something hit it
and also it would be a good ice catcher when you don't need to catch
ice.

    The best we can do in the this area, I think, is to make sure
everything inside the cowling is tied down, check the pipes once in a
while for cracks and lose bolts, and don't fly off of gravel strips.

dd

 ps...   (Speaking of gravel strips, I spent some time in Alaska this
month with an old friend and relative, who is a retired bush pilot, and
his Super Cup.  He has numerous little landing spots on the Southwest
Kenia Peninsula ...all for the express purpose of fishing or hunting or
simply to get away from civilization.  We flew into this one site no
more than 500 feet long and with no more than 10 feet of wing tip
clearance from the trees.  He says the trick is not to look at the trees
but to focus on the middle of the opening and it works, at least for
him.  He said quite a few guys had hit the trees at this site and I said
if they keep that up, the runway will get wider.  We hiked about a mile
through the brush, found the salmon we had spotted from the air, took
the legal limit of 6 big fat ones and were out of there in about 2
hours.  Take off procedure in the Cub is rather simple - full throttle,
stick forward to get the tail up, stick aft and you're airborne and out
of there.  What a flying machine!!  Truly, one of the best airplanes
ever built for down to earth, literally, flying.)

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 20:46:58 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: COZY: Cooling air outlet at Prop

Once or twice, I have found screws in the aft area of the cowling, where I reached in the opening to retrieve them. With a 
typical opening, I don't think most debris would exit the opening, but just lay in the bottom cowl against the baffle 
fiberglass fence.

Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 09:36:47 -0500
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: CHT and Landing Brake Problems solved.

Paul,

    re "Well, I made the second flight yesterday.  A solid .7 hours."

    Good show!

    Just a note on this business of flight testing and one more thing to
check.....did you see the article on fretting streaks on the starter
ring in the latest issue of CSA newsletter?

    I have had very small streaks after every flight, barely noticeable,
and in talking to Judy Saber at Prop Hub Extension, have concluded my
bolts may be bottomed out or the extension surface/starter ring has a
slight nick which prevents a good friction bond.  I will remove the
extension today to confirm it......

dd

Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 14:32:04 -0500
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: COZY: Fret no more...


    I must admit, I was, at first reading, a bit skeptical of the CSA
newsletter #55 article on prop flange/extension fretting.  Those lines
sure look like and feel like oil in the real world.

    But skeptic I am no more.

    I removed my prop and extension for exploration because the starter
ring was showing ever so tiny lines after each flight.  As I reported
earlier on the subject, my bolts very tight and not bottomed out.  What
I found was a small build up of crushed paint and dirt between the
extension and starter ring.  It looked, from the impression on the ring,
like the extension was contacting the ring surface on about 70% of the
area.  There were several shades of gray and black in the contact area
and also a little white around the lugs.

    I wet sanded both surfaces to remove all paint and dirt, reinstalled
everything, torqued the extension to 60-65 foot pounds (used Piper
torque numbers) and blasted off for a test hop.  After 30 minutes of
flight, there were no lines on the starter ring.

    I am a believer.  What looks and feels like oil in this scenario is
probably very fine metal coming from the 2 parts that are moving against
each other ever so slightly.

    A friend who is pulling an annual on his twin Comanche next door has
lots of lines of the same material on his right starter ring.  How
serious this is, we don't know.  I'm sure his IA will have something to
say about it.

    How many of you guys flying have a clean starter ring?

dd





From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 07:43:44 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: Fret no more...

I have experienced fretting of some of the propellors I have been testing that was bad enough to cause charring (heating 
enough to brown the wood lightly) from movement similar to a boyscout making fire with 2 sticks. This has happened both with 
tight and bolts that loosened during the flight. For a 320, the prop hub and flange should be 7" diameter, anything less is 
marginal. Also the radius blending the leading edge to the hub must not be too tight of a radius. Watch for slight dust or 
other deposits between the prop and flange near the leading edge lines. I am told that on a forward propeller installation, 
loose bolts is noticable sometimes as an odor of burning wood, but that is not us.

We do know that the large hub/flange works, but don't have a specific reason why some props are not an issue, but others are. 
One issue may be an out of balance or excentric spinner/bulkhead/fairing. Lots of items that can be out of balance, exhibiting 
vibration modes or whatever. Klause indicated at SunNFun that the Kiss spinner blade opening reinforcement is important to 
prevent the spinner from deforming due to centrifugal forces. 

I will have a Woofter 6" long, 6" diameter prop flange for sale shortly, I'm switching to a 7" flange.

Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 15:03:48 -0500
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: COZY: Prop Extension fretting....



    For those of you interested -

    I removed my prop extension this morning and found the bolts were
not bottomed out (they are Sensenich with plenty of unused thread) and
they had been torqued to over 50 foot pounds.  I think the problem is
paint on the starter ring.  The extension flange is not making a good
mate to the ring gear wheel surface.  I will remove the paint completely
and smooth the surface with 1000 or better sand paper, put it back
together, and see what happens.

dd

Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 09:08:25 -0400
From: Paul Krasa <p.w.krasa@larc.nasa.gov>
Subject: COZY: Re: Cooling



Pull your vernitherm and place it next to metal ruler in a pan full of
water.  Place a cooking thermometer in the water.  Heat the water to 200
deg.  You should be able to see the vernitherm expand.  If it expands look
carefully at the seat on the accessory case.  It should be shinney around
the entire edge.  If it does not expand replace the valve.  For an O-320
the part number is 75944. 

Now that my airplane is flying, I am having the same problem you are.  Last
night I checked my Vernitherm in the way I discribed above and sure enough
it was not expanding.  My indications where simular.  CHTs in the red and
oil temp. at 220 deg. F.  The only reason I suspected the vernitherm was I
had seen the problem before.

Now for the other part of the story.  There is a good possibility that you
are only getting 1 1/2" of pressure drop across the cylinders.  Make sure
you use the cotton balls.  If you have the cotton balls around the end of
the tubes then the orientation does not matter because the cotton ball acts
as a difuser.  You are positioning your tubes properly.  One at the high
pressure side near the fin and one on the bottom.  I place the tubes about
an inch behind the spark plugs on the fins and secure the tubes to the push
rods or intake tubes.  If necessary to hold the tubes in place, I loosely
warp safety wire around the tubes.

Paul
Long EZ 214LP



At 07:57 6/29/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi paul.
>I used your manometer to find cooling problems on my Vari-viggen N106VV.
>I couldn't get any readings above 1-1/2 inches.  Cylinder head temps are
>in the 450 - 550 range.  The tube ends were placed at  90 deg to the air
>flow, actually tied to the pushrod tubes.  Is this correct, or should
>the ends be facing the fins?  I've still got a problem after replacing
>the cowl seals, plugging all leaks, and adding ramps to the inlet.  I
>guess this sounds familiar.  I'm reluctant to blame the vernatherm just
>yet, the oil temp doesn't seem to be a problem.  However, I'll pull it
>out and check it today. I'd appreciate any comments or suggestions.
>Thanks.
>Ed Dokus
>
>
>

Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 09:19:25 -0500
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Cooling

Paul,

    re " There is a good possibility that you are only getting 1 1/2" of
pressure drop across the cylinders."

    Another area that might be contributing to loss of air across the
cylinders is the outboard wing/center section spar joint.  Lots of air
will escape past that junction and forward out the space between the
wing and strake.  Also check for air leaks around the oil dip stick door
and around the oil cooler.  I also sealed up the area around the exhaust
stacks with the handy 3M insulator tape on the cowling.

    There is no question high CHT's are related to high oil temp.  But
like the hen and the egg, which came first, I don't know.  The 13 vane
oil cooler is almost a must, in my opinion.  I flew with the 7 vane
cooler for 60 some hours and found it OK for a launch and cruise at
altitude, but for low altitude high OAT situations, the oil temp had to
be monitored constantly.  Three take offs and landings in succession
with OAT at 90 resulted in an oil temp over 200 and corresponding high
CHT's.

    OAT is a mighty factor in all this.  I've found that at 60 or less,
an oil cooler probably wouldn't be needed, i.e., the oil temp doesn't
get up to the magic 190 when the valve opens.  But most of us don't
live in Alaska so we need good oil cooling.

dd

Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 10:56:37 -0400
From: Paul Krasa <p.w.krasa@larc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Cooling

>    There is no question high CHT's are related to high oil temp.  But
>like the hen and the egg, which came first, I don't know.  


The only reason I suspect the vernitherm when it comes to the combination
of high CHT, and oil temp. is experience.  You will find in the Cozy
archives an article I wrote about the first encounter with this problem.
To make a long story short, after butchering a cowling trying to increase
airflow, we placed manometer tubes in the cowl and found out we had gobs of
pressure differential across the cylinders.  We changed out the vernitherm
valve and all the temperatures fell to well below limits.  The moral of the
story get the data, and then make changes based on the knowledge.  Checking
the vernitherm is easy, so eliminate it from the possible problems and it
is one less thing to worry about.

Paul Krasa
Long EZ 214LP

Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 15:57:41 -0500
From: vance atkinson <vaatk@flash.net>
Subject: COZY: improved fuel effeciency

In answer to your question, "will the electronic ignition give 10%
more fuel efficiency,"  the answer is absolutely YES.  It may be more
or less about one or two percent but I documented mine at about .8 of
a gallon.  Its easy to do.  Since I have one Roses first units out,
Jeff helped me put in a variable spark advance in the cockpit, and a
digital read out of the advance.

There is a definite advantage of advancing the spark vs. not.  To
prove it fly the plane at altitude all trimmed up and in a cruising
state.  Note speed, RPM MP and Fuel Flow.   Then simply turn the
electronic advance off and see what happens. Notice I said ADVANCE,
not the electronic unit itself.   The advance is what gives you the
power, smoothness and mileage.

Any doubting thomas is welcome to fly in my aircraft to observe this
change, providing they are willing to bet a tankful of gas that there
is no savings of fuel conserved given a standard setting.

Saving fuel is one of the perks of using and advance, (at 10,000' its
advanced about 38 to 40 degrees) . Using a solid state electronic
device to trigger all this wonderful stuff  gives you peace of mind as
there are NO moving parts to wear out.  I would suspect if you could
physically advance a std. aircraft mag the same amount of degrees in
flight you would get the same spectacular results.  By the way I
haven't run any mags since 1991 and I have had one failure of a
magnetic pickup coil in all that time, I seriously doubt a mag would
go that distance.

Vance Atkinson
COZY N43CZ
1200 TT

From: RoyN9869L@aol.com
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 19:54:43 EDT
Subject: COZY: Ellison TB

Presently putting my engine package together, I'm using a Lyc O-320 AIA, 150 
hp, I have all the accessories minus a carb which requires an MS4-SPA, but 
would rather have an Ellison throttle body, any of you got one for sale due 
to an injection upgrade?  But the carb will do as a second choice, hope to 
have many responses?

R. Roy

Cozy 3

From: "Bill Kastenholz" <wkasty@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: COZY: Ellison TBI
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 20:45:17 -0400

        About a week ago I inquired about using the Ellison TBI for the
O-360 engine I am having built.  I received many public and private
responses from some very knowledgable and respected individuals in the
canard community. Thank you for the great support!  After reading through my
e-mails, the Cozy MKIV plans, and the Ellison literature; I have decided to
use the Ellison TBI. Here are some of the reasons:

    1.  Everyone who responded liked or highly approved of the Ellison. This
included users with 15 years of experienced and more.

    2.  You can expect up to 1 gal/hr better fuel comsumption vs the
Marvel-Schebler carb. if you properly lean in cruise.  At first I thought,
yah! more money up front to save $100-$150 per year. Another advantage is
only 1/3 as much money for the eventual overhaul. The TBI will cost me about
$1,000 more in the initial cost.

    3.  The lower overhaul cost could result from the simplicity of the
Ellison vs the carburetors which have many times as many parts.

    4.  The Ellison EFS-4-5 weighs 3 LBS. vs 5.25 LBS. for the
Marvel-Schebler.

    5.  The Ellison produces more power and smoother operation.

    6.  The Cozy MKIV plans describe installation of the TBI.

    7. The company literature indicates a good customer support and guaranty
of satisfaction.

        These were some of the major reasons for my decision. It was pointed
out, I will need carb. heat and an electric primer system.  Fuel injection
may be better for other reasons and less suceptible to icing, but also cost
more.  Hope this helps someone out there in their hot garage!

Bill Kastenholz

Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 21:08:17 -0500
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Ellison TBI

Bill,

    re " Hope this helps someone out there in their hot garage!"

    I concur with all you say about the Ellison TBI.

    My experience level is very light compared to some of the guys on
the forum, but the 70 plus hours I've logged in an old engine and a
newly overhauled one has been very satisfactory.  The only comment I
have which you may or may not have heard is that it must be leaned very
aggressively on the ground at idle power.  My overhauled engine quit on
the runway after the first landing because it flooded out.  The idle
speed was at about 500 rpm.  I kicked it up to 1000 but found that to be
no good because the airplane did not want to stop flying.  I now have it
reset to 650-700 and lean the engine on final.

    On very hot days, like the 96 in St. Louis today, the engine won't
run unless I pull the mixture about half way back, and then it runs very
smooth at 650-700.  When going to full throttle for take off, I move the
mixture to full rich as I push the throttle up.  After take off, I pull
the throttle out of 100% and also pull the mixture back just a bit.  At
full rich this thing is pushing 15-16 gph through the engine which is
ridiculous.  It doesn't need that much fuel for cooling or any other
reason.

    The Ellison unit I have does not have an idle mixture setting
needle.  There is a procedure in the manual to set it, but mine does not
have a needle to set.  I think it was deleted to simplify the unit.

    The engine will not quit at a 1000 rpm when the mixture is pulled to
idle cut off.  It's drawing so much air it keeps sucking fuel out of the
injector.  At 650-700 it will quit right now.

    I have electric prime, but never use it in warm weather.   Just push
the mixture to rich, turn on the boost pump, hit the start button and
it's running.  Jeff Rose' electronic ignition makes the start happen on
one or two compression strokes.  The engine runs rough until I pull the
mixture way back to smooth it out.  Then it just sits there and purrs.

    If you have not decided to go with a 13 vane oil cooler, do think
about it.  Last summer I was flying around with a 7 vane unit and had to
monitor the oil temp more than I care to do.  One could get by but why
put up with that chore when the big unit will do the job without
thinking about it.  Wicks sells an uncertified unit for about 35% of the
certified ones.

    Hope you are airborne soon.  There airplanes are a lot of fun to
fly.

dd



From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 18:44:54 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: Ellison TBI

Was said <must be leaned very aggressively on the ground at idle power>

This doesn't sound right, have you talked to Ellison? What is the experience of others. I would consider this dangerous, and 
ground the aircraft until corrected. With original  equipment accessories, or modifications, the engine should as a minimum 
perform according to the engine manufacturer's manual, in this case no leaning below 5000' (or there abouts) and run smoothly, 
including at normal idle speed. 

From: "Nat Puffer" <cozy@extremezone.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Ellison TBI
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 07:27:20 -0500

Builders,
I believe it is typical of the Ellison that you should lean it on the
ground at idle, if for no other reason than to avoid fouling the plugs
before mag check and takeoff.
Nat

----------
> From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
> To: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
> Cc: canard-aviators@canard.com; cozy_builders@canard.com
> Subject: Re: COZY: Ellison TBI
> Date: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 8:29 AM
> 
> Carl,
> 
>     re "I would consider this dangerous, and ground the aircraft until
> corrected."
> 
>     Give me a break, Carl.
> 
>     One does not have to be a rocket scientist to know that an engine
> must be leaned when it is running rough due to a rich mixture.  The
> fuel/air mixture ratio is the same at 20F as it is100F.  The constant
> fuel meted at one particular setting can not accomodate that dramatic
> change in air density.  I lean the engine on take off at high OAT's for
> that reason.  To run a full rich mixture to 5000' without considering
> OAT is not good operating practice, IMHO.  There is no perfect mixture
> setting to accomodate the difference in OAT in which we operate.  My
> procedure has been to accomodate that need and it has been working just
> fine.  My CHT's are well with in the manufacture's limits at all times.
> 
>     I may well be screwed up in not locating the idle mixture setting
> screw on my TBI unit due to a dated manual, but I have not been flying
> an unsafe airplane.
> 
> dd
> 

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 08:29:31 -0500
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Ellison TBI

Carl,

    re "I would consider this dangerous, and ground the aircraft until
corrected."

    Give me a break, Carl.

    One does not have to be a rocket scientist to know that an engine
must be leaned when it is running rough due to a rich mixture.  The
fuel/air mixture ratio is the same at 20F as it is100F.  The constant
fuel meted at one particular setting can not accomodate that dramatic
change in air density.  I lean the engine on take off at high OAT's for
that reason.  To run a full rich mixture to 5000' without considering
OAT is not good operating practice, IMHO.  There is no perfect mixture
setting to accomodate the difference in OAT in which we operate.  My
procedure has been to accomodate that need and it has been working just
fine.  My CHT's are well with in the manufacture's limits at all times.

    I may well be screwed up in not locating the idle mixture setting
screw on my TBI unit due to a dated manual, but I have not been flying
an unsafe airplane.

dd

From: "Wilhelmson, Jack" <Wilhelmson@scra.org>
Subject: RE: [c-a] Re: COZY: Ellison TBI
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 10:31:23 -0400 

Answer about the Ellison leaning on the ground question: My experience
after 500hrs on a Ellison.

The Ellison mixture control has a very large range. Mine will go from very
rich
to cutoff in about 90 degrees of rotation. The stop on the mixture control
is adjustable but
even screwed all the way in you still have a  very rich condition. If the
cockpit control is set
to match this condition. (full rich stop matches full rich stop on TBI). The
engine will be in a 
very rich condition that is only satisfactory for a sea level takeoff.
Leaning on the ground is normal
and reduces plug fouling (not a reason to be concerned.) 

Jack Wilhelmson N711CZ 
From ???@??? Tue Jul 06 22:33:02 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 VAA16730 for <marcz@ultranet.com>; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 21:56:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA24628
	for cozy_builders-list; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 21:13:13 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: twc2.betaweb.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com using -f
Received: from zeus.eniac.com (poseidon.argonaut.net [206.98.183.1])
	by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA24621
	for <cozy_builders@canard.com>; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 21:13:03 -0400
Received: from argonaut.net ([200.44.59.209]) by zeus.eniac.com (8.8.8/8.6.9) with ESMTP id VAA17282 for <cozy_builders@canard.com>; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 21:18:29 -0400 (AST)
Message-ID: <37834E58.B66938ED@argonaut.net>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 08:55:52 -0400
From: Carlos Vicente Len <services@argonaut.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cozy forum <cozy_builders@canard.com>
Subject: COZY: Ellison TBI
References: <199975194255241@ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-cozy_builders@bFrom ???@??? Tue Jul 06 22:33:02 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 VAA16730 for <marcz@ultranet.com>; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 21:56:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA24628
	for cozy_builders-list; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 21:13:13 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: twc2.betaweb.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com using -f
Received: from zeus.eniac.com (poseidon.argonaut.net [206.98.183.1])
	by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA24621
	for <cozy_builders@canard.com>; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 21:13:03 -0400
Received: from argonaut.net ([200.44.59.209]) by zeus.eniac.com (8.8.8/8.6.9) with ESMTP id VAA17282 for <cozy_builders@canard.com>; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 21:18:29 -0400 (AST)
Message-ID: <37834E58.B66938ED@argonaut.net>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 08:55:52 -0400
From: Carlos Vicente Len <services@argonaut.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cozy forum <cozy_builders@canard.com>
Subject: COZY: Ellison TBI
References: <199975194255241@ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Carlos Vicente Len <services@argonaut.net>
X-UIDL: ed3a5f54e0a144b44695969e73ff6535



cdenk@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> Was said <must be leaned very aggressively on the ground at idle power>
>
> This doesn't sound right, have you talked to Ellison? What is the experience of others.

We have the same problem in our twin cozy with Suzuki engines and Ellison EFS-5 TBI's



Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 08:05:15 -0700
From: Eric Westland <ewestland@altavista.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Fret no more...



David Domeier wrote:
> 
>     I must admit, I was, at first reading, a bit skeptical of the CSA
> newsletter #55 article on prop flange/extension fretting.  Those lines
> sure look like and feel like oil in the real world.
> 
>     But skeptic I am no more.



Nor am I.  When I went up to the airport yesterday, I looked carefully
and there were the lines.  Mine were much fainter than the CSA
newsletter photo, but they were there none the less.  Now, they could
have been there from the previous engine installation, but I doubt it. 
I don't recall ever cleaning the flywheel.  I also know that I had a
very slight oil leak at the crankshaft plug, so I had re-set that as
well.  However, the little amount of oil that did come through left a
trail.  When I pulled the prop extension yesterday, I could see a light
trace of oil where the extension face did not make contact with the
flywheel face. This was due to some very light build up of it on the
flywheel face from the previous installation.  I had not even noticed it
before, but I wet sanded it like David did and it's now absolutely clean
(and flat).


Thanks for the heads up, David.

Eric Westland
N325PD
Mukileto, WA

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 21:52:57 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: Ellison TBI

Was said <Give me a break Carl>

What caught my attention was <quit on the runway after the first landing because it flooded out...lean the engine on final.>

I think you are at around 1000' airport elevation, about the same as here, and not at a high altitude airport. Every landing 
checklist I have seen, says "Mixture Rich". How would one lean partially on landing? Too lean, and a go round is not the time 
to play with mixture, one should be able to go full rich and have consistantly a good running engine! Even at high altitude 
airports, I usually will go to full rich even at a high altitude (5000'+), but may temper that some with a light leaning, but 
err on the rich side), and after going to full trottle, trimming, gear up, etc. then adjust the mixture for max. power. If 
another pilot flys the aircraft (hope it never happens, but due to a minor medical issue, the regular pilot is unable to fly 
it home, and a friendly pilot flys it home as a favor).

(Comments on low altitude airports) I don't lean on the ground and not bothered with fouled plugs, friend leans his Mooney 
(IO-360) on the ground most times. Mixture must be slightly rich with mixture rich to err on safe side, a lean mixture is bad.

Graham Singleton suggested an internal leak which sounds worth checking out. With all the Ellison's out there, it still 
doesn't sound good to me.

I don't give breaks when safety is an issue, If that Ellison is performing correctly, then Ellison has some real calibration 
issues that are not safe. If its not correct then fix it. An aircraft should not have a fix it list. And I ask again - 
Ellison's comments??, Other's experience??? Read something about old manual - Always contact the manufacturer for latest 
manuals, not a place to skimp, check for A.D.s, service letters, etc. 

The Lycoming 320 (both injected or carb)(I'm sure the 360 is very similar) idle mixture adjustment says an increase of more 
than 50 RPM as gradually leaning indicates too rich of a mixture, and an immediate decrease in RPM indicates a lean idle 
mixture. This is the performance required on original equipment, or any replacement! 


Date: Wed, 06 Jul 1999 03:25:13 -0600
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Ellison TBI

Carl,

    Thanks for expressing your concerns on flight safety.  And I mean
it.  If every pilot were as concerned about safety as are you, the
general aviation accident rate would be less frightening.  I read the
NTSB monthly reports and to see 50-60 body bag reports some months is
most disconcerting.

    re "An aircraft should not have a fix it list...."

    It is not a fix it list.  It is a matter of operating technique.

    Without doubt, the industry, over the years has tried to present a
homogenized set of operating procedures to accommodate the lowest common
denominator pilot (the dumbest).  That in itself is good.  There are
pilots who do not think much about aviation, except to get into an
airplane and fly it on rare occasion.  If such a pilot sticks to what he
has been taught, he might not get into trouble.

    Those of us who are engaged in the subject of this forum are not run
of the mill average pilots.  To a man, I think we are very concerned
about safety in what we are doing and also aware of the vagaries and
departures from the industry "standard" in "experimenting" with our
machines.  None of these aircraft are certifiable because the vagaries
and departures from the industry "standard".  And I choose to extend
that philosophy to a personally developed operating technique for my
unique airplane.  I would never teach it to a student pilot, but I think
it is best for my engine and airplane, and it works for me.

    I always leaned my LEZ very aggressively.  In 250 hours plus, I
never once experienced lead fouled plugs and the exhaust stacks were a
pleasing gray color.  The engine had over 2200 hours SMOH and ran like a
fine clock.  Meanwhile, at the same airport, the 0235 powered trainers
were experiencing rough running engines with fouled plugs that had to be
removed and cleaned in less than 50 hours time. (talk about a safety of
flight issue!)  Lycoming finally approved the REM37BY plug and a
procedure of leaning the engine even at traffic pattern altitude to
solve the problem created by 100LL fuel.

    I know experienced pilots who NEVER lean their engines.  One can try
to explain why that is not a good idea, even talk about the Mooney
driver who ran out of fuel on an extended flight that could have been
completed safely with proper leaning, but it is to no avail.  So be it.
You won't get into trouble most of the time but it is not necessarily
the best way to operate your airplane.

    In think, in philosophy, we agree, Carl.  But, I simply can not
adopt a set of operating techniques that I feel do not apply to my
airplane, the TBI and the engine.  The TBI does not operate like a
carburetor or fuel injection system.  The technique of operating it can
not be a rote industry standard procedure.  It is an experimental device
that happens to be quite simple and works very well.  But it must be
operated with a grain of common sense and I do not think a little common
sense in this business in anyway compromises safety.

dd

Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 10:57 -0500 (CDT)
From: Michael Pollock <Michael.Pollock@wcom.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Ellison TBI

cdenk wrote:
>the engine should as a minimum 
>perform according to the engine manufacturer's manual, in this case no 
>leaning below 5000' (or there abouts) and run smoothly, 
>including at normal idle speed. 

To all who have questions about leaning, I suggest you read a very
good article in AVweb called Pelican's Perch by John Deakin called
"Mixture Magic". The article can be found at
http://www.avweb.com/articles/pelperch/pelp0018.html.

I have used his procedures and got exactly the same results as the
author did - lower CHTs across the board, closer CHT spread, lower oil
temp, lower fuel flow, no fowled plugs, and a better running engine. I
thought I already knew all there was about mixture until I read the
article. Try it, you will like it.


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


From: "Wilhelmson, Jack" <Wilhelmson@scra.org>
Subject: RE: COZY: Fret no more...
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 15:00:03 -0400 



> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Wilhelmson, Jack 
> Sent:	Wednesday, July 07, 1999 10:29 AM
> To:	Wilhelmson, Jack; 'david010@earthlink.net'
> Subject:	RE: COZY: Fret no more...
> 
> 	-----Original Message-----
> 	From:	Wilhelmson, Jack 
> 	Sent:	Wednesday, July 07, 1999 9:29 AM
> 	To:	'david010@earthlink.net'; Wilhelmson, Jack
> 	Subject:	RE: COZY: Fret no more...
> 
> 	David:
> 
> 	My bolts are 3/8" and I also had fretting. I removed the extension
> 	and found some small dents and nicks in the extension flange that
> were holding
> 	it from plane contact. I worked them down and added one washer to my
> bolts to make sure they are not 
> 	bottoming. I think the bottoming is the real problem because the AN
> bolt thread length is very close.
> 	The bolts are AN bolts and the Aircraft repair bible says 390" lbs
> (32.5 ft lbs) max.
> 	So that is what I am using.
> 
> 	Wood Prop bolt torque is the question with many answers. I use 25 ft
> lbs on 3/8" bolts and Demuth
> 	who made my prop seems to think that is excessive. I have come to
> the conclusion that
> 	the type wood in the prop is what determines the recommended torque
> and that is why 
> 	we get many different answers from different prop builders.
> 
> 	Not too long ago Mr Denk (who is a active particapant of this forum
> and a prop tester for Sensenich) 
> 	ask all the list menbers to submit their prop bolt torques to him
> for a "pole". You know you can find the answer
> 	to any question with a pole: Right! 
> 
> 	Ok Carl, how about sharing the results of your pole with us?  
> 
> 	Thanks for the reply. David
> 
> 	Jack Wilhelmson N711CZ
> 
> 		-----Original Message-----
> 		From:	David Domeier [SMTP:david010@earthlink.net]
> 		Sent:	Wednesday, August 09, 1972 3:52 AM
> 		To:	Wilhelmson, Jack
> 		Subject:	Re: COZY: Fret no more...
> 
> 		Jack,
> 
> 		    Re bolt size - I bought 'em from Sensenich - they are
> 1/2".
> 
> 		    One guy got all concerned that I torqued 'em to 60-65
> 		pounds...thinking it was the prop torque.  It is the
> extension to engine
> 		flange torque.  Just in case you're wondering.  My prop
> bolts are from
> 		Performance and are on at 40-45 pounds.  Also 1/2"
> 
> 		    Thanks for the infor on your TBI...
> 
> 		dd

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 16:33:16 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: RE: COZY: Fret no more...

Jack said < (I, Carl) ask all the list menbers to submit their prop bolt torques to him
> for a "pole". You know you can find the answer
> 	to any question with a pole: Right! 
> 
> 	Ok Carl, how about sharing the results of your pole with us? 

Here are the results:

Nil

No one responded! Several times I have asked for basic data from the group on a variety of subjects, and have had few if any 
response. I heartily thank those that have contributed. When I have asked for info, it has been where I (or in a few instances 
others) have been experiencing some issue, and I'm trying to determine if this is the norm, or whether this is the unusual. 
THe last time was on someone elses Ellison problem.

Right now with 3/8" prop bolts, and an 6" flange I am using 350 or 400 in-lbs., this is my opinion what is needed with a 
yellow birch prop. I am changing to heavier bolts and a 7" flange shortly, I have a new Woofter extension on order. My present 
Woofter extension is for sale and if anyone is interested please contact me privately for details. 


From: SWrightFLY@aol.com
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:34:02 EDT
Subject: COZY: Re: Engine alignment question

I have positioned my 0-360 behind my Stagger EZ to construct my motor mount. 
The engines thrust line is 7" higher than the Long-EZ or Cozy.
Am I correct in my understanding that the reason for the engine thrust line 
to be 1.5 degrees relative to the center line of the fuselage (the rear -prop 
end- of the engine higher than the front) is so the vertical plane of the 
propeller will be perpendicular to the relative wind in flight?
Steve 
 <A HREF="http://www.canard.com/noselift/">Wright Aircraft Works LLC: 
Electric Nose-Lift for EZEs
</A> 

Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 13:25:40 -0500 (CDT)
From: Tom Brusehaver <tgb@wamnet.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Engine alignment question


>Dave is correct. That was a problem with the Prescott Pusher. When you
>added power, the nose would go down. On take off, you had to chop power to
>rotate. Not a very desireable characteristic.

A lake amphibian (I've heard the seawind does too), will have the same
phenomenon. The Lake Amphib will litterally jump off the water if you
chop power at the right time, some poeple use that as a short field
(lake?) technique. 

Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 17:22:36 -0400
From: Carl Denk <cdenk@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Engine alignment question

Taking several numbers from recent messages:
Thrust = 400 lbs.
Line of trust highrer be 7"
Guess at center of lift of canard to wing = 90"

Then the added load on the canard down, and wing upward
= 400 x 7/90 = 31 lbs., not a lot, but added load on the canard is not
desirable, likely significant changes in trim with changes in power settings
will result. My Cosy has 37 lbs on the nose gear, which is basically the same
location as the canard when empty, and it has a definate affect on runway
length and speeds. Would be better if the line of thrust was lower than usual,
but there is clearance to the prop tips too.



From: "Nat Puffer" <cozy@extremezone.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Engine alignment question
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:42:13 -0500

Builders,
Dave is correct. That was a problem with the Prescott Pusher. When you
added power, the nose would go down. On take off, you had to chop power to
rotate. Not a very desireable characteristic.
Nat
----------
> From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
> To: SWrightFLY@aol.com
> Cc: cozy_builders@canard.com; canard-aviators@canard.com
> Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Engine alignment question
> Date: Friday, July 09, 1999 10:38 AM
> 
> Steve,
> 
>     re "Am I correct in my understanding that the reason for the engine
> thrust line
> to be 1.5 degrees relative to the center line of the fuselage (the rear
> -prop
> end- of the engine higher than the front) is so the vertical plane of
> the
> propeller will be perpendicular to the relative wind in flight?"
> 
>     Yes that makes sense, assuming 1.5 is an adequate angle of attack
> at some point in the cruse envelope.  It probably is.
> 
>     It would also seem logical to assume that if you are mounting the
> engine 7" above where the LEZ and Cozy engines are mounted, you will
> experience some pitch change when you change power.  Your thrust line
> will be above the center of gravity if the Stagger is otherwise simular
> to the LEZ/Cozy.  This effect would be contrary, in a sense, because
> when power is added the nose will go down, and when power is reduced,
> the nose will tend to rise.
> 
> dd
> 

From: "PHIL CHASE" <philchas@rely.net>
Subject: COZY: Re: [c-a] Re: Engine alignment question
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 23:16:33 -0700

Steve - I think your assumptions are the right ones.  The thrust and drag
vectors
will always pass thru the center of gravity theoretacal point during flight.
If thrust
is 7" above drag it makes a force couple that will drop the nose if they are
parallel

You can adjust the thrust offset angle with shims (large Washers) at the
firewall in a
flight test program.

Model airplane designers/builders/flyers like me and Burt have learned about
that.
Phil Chase


From: Epplin John A <EpplinJohnA@jdcorp.deere.com>
Subject: RE: [c-a] RE: COZY: Ellison TBI
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:07:29 -0500



I have a related question concerning the Ellison as installed on the Cozy
Mk4.  I have mine set up according to plans, made the filter box according
to plans and am using the recommended air filter.  Carb heat per plans
except the connector for cabin heat, made my own assembly that attaches to
the firewall with a metal gate valve to shut off air through the firewall.

Now the question:  What happens if the air filter ices up?  If this goes to
the point of engine failure before it is noticed can it be cleared?  Dead
engines produce little heat!  I have been contemplating a spring loaded door
in the air filter lid that would open at some differential in case of filter
plugging for any reason.  Don't know what would plug it except ice.

Anybody else have any thoughts about this?

John Epplin    Mk4   #467,   starting fill and prime.   

From: john.cannon@lennoxind.com
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:33:01 -0500
Subject: RE: [c-a] RE: COZY: Ellison TBI

I am sure Ben Ellison can give us the answers, in the meantime, my two cents worth. There are potential problem areas for ice to form. One is on the fuel distribution tube, which will cause a reduction in fuel and therefore a leaning of the fuel mixture until the engine can no longer keep running.
Another is in the intake manifold itself, where it is possible to have moisture freeze. In this event, the aircraft probably has flown into an area of super cooled moisture, and there will be airframe icing likely at the same time.
What you describe sounds like the former situation, and heat application should have an immediate recovery effect.
John,

N4ZX
From: 	PC :Wilhelmson@scra.org[SMTP:PC :Wilhelmson@scra.org]
Sent: 	Tuesday, July 13, 1999 12:20 PM
To: 	david010@earthlink.net; canard-aviators@canard.com
Cc: 	canard-aviators@canard.com; cozy_builders@canard.com
Subject: 	[c-a] RE: COZY: Ellison TBI

[The Canard Aviators's Mailing list]



David and other Ellison users:

I have been running a Ellison for a 500 hrs and in spite of my
satisfaction with it I have a lack of understanding about how it
actually acts when icing is present. Several times when I suspected
icing the engine felt like it almost cutoff for just a split second. I
cannot logically relate this to icing in a normal carburetor because it
fells completely different.

In all cases the engine continued to run perfectly for many hrs after
this happened, and in in all cases the conditions were right for icing.
So I have to assume that icing was the cause. I wonder if other users have had this same experience. I am rather
paranoid about this because I did have one complete engine failure due
to icing with the Ellison. My carb heat system was not effective enough
in that case. I have changed it since then to make sure it is effective.
I would also like to install a temp probe in the Ellison to be able to
monitor the temperature. Since it does not have a port for this I wonder
where the best position for it would be.

If Ben Ellison is monitoring this list maybe he could give us his views
and recommendations on the above subjects.

I welcome all users of the Ellison TBI to share there opinions and
experiences on this with me and the list.

Jack Wilhelmson N711CZ


                                                  \
->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-|-
                                                  /
-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
        /
   -|-<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
        \





Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:42:01 -0500
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [c-a] RE: COZY: Ellison TBI

Jack,

    Thanks for sharing your experience with the TBI.

    My experience is quite limited - about 80 hours - so I can not
report any icing events.

    I did call Ellison about installing a temp sensor in the unit and
Ben suggested not doing it because it would screw up the incoming
airflow.  I did install a cheap radio shack type temp sensor just aft of
the carb heat door to see what the temp change was with the heat on.
Unfortunately it took about a minute for this unit to respond to any
temp change.  I only did it once and the temp rise was about 10F using
the plan heat system.

    I had a Cessna quit cold once at 10,500 due to carb ice.  The
surface temp that day was in the 90's.  Unfortunately, while the carb
heat system is certified, they are not worth much to get rid of ice.  By
the time it is needed the heat available is insufficient.  They do
prevent ice if applied early.

    Incidently, that Cessna started running again at about 5,000 feet.
It cured itself in warmer air.

dd



From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 15:54:20 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: RE: [c-a] RE: COZY: Ellison TBI

<What happens if the air filter ices up?  >
There should (MUST) be an alternate air supply. With my Bendix injector, I have a butterfly that opens to the cowl area after 
the air filter. Its not only ice, but dust (volcanoes), and bugs (locusts, grasshoppers, canadian soldiers,etc. With most 
injectors you don't need carb heat (heated alternate air), but need the alternate air. 

From: "Nat Puffer" <natp@cozyaircraft.com>
Subject: COZY: Ellison TB
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 07:30:32 -0000

Builders,
Ben Ellison did a study on ice formation in the Ellison, and produced a
video showing what happens. The main point of ice collection is on the fuel
tube. But in the video, the ice, after forming, broke off and was ingested
into the warm intake manifold. He flew his Long EZ for many years without
carb heat, as I did in my 4-place prototype. However, just to be safe, he
and I advise installing carburetor heat. If you are flying an Ellison, with
or without carb heat, and suspect ice formation, working the mixture
control lean and rich will rotate the fuel tube and probably cause the ice
to break off from the trailing side. You also have the option of closing
the throttle and opening it again, which causes the slide to wipe anything
off from the fuel tube. Not to worry, guys!
Uli Wolter, on his flight across the north Atlantic, encountered ice build
up on his Cozy, and dropped down to a lower altitude to melt it. Another
builder (can't quite bring up his name) also told us about ice build up,
and dropped down to a lower altitude to melt it off. We were up high enough
one time to see ice starting to form on the canopy, and dropped down to
melt it off. You need only to take the same reasonable measures you would
take in any GA single.
Regards,
Nat

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:18:04 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: COZY: Spinner Bulkheads cracking

Was said in a private message to me <Klaus said the problem with the ACS bulkhead was that the flange radius was to tight.  He 
had some with the correct radius.

Not long ago I purchased a Spruce Aluminum bulkhead, along with a kiss spinner bulkhead from Lightpeed Engineering, which I 
used with an existing Spruce fairing. The Spruce bulkhead cracked at the O.D. of the extension flange within 70 hours. I had 
previously had a spruce bulkhead crack at the flange radius. All this cracking is saying there is a compatability problem with 
the spinner and bulkhead.

Have used a composite bulkhead for considerable time with no ill effects.

From: "Bill Kastenholz" <wkasty@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [c-a] Re: COZY: Prop Extensions 
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 09:21:18 -0400

>
>
>Depends on your engine mount but I have the Brock "Heavy" mount.  I
>
Will,

    Sounds like great advice about buying the prop extension!  Why do you
refer to the
engine mount as the Brock "Heavy" mount?

Bill Kastenholz
wkasty@ix.netcom.com


From: "Richard  Goodwin" <richgoodwin@email.msn.com>
Subject: COZY: Custom Exhausts
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 16:25:50 +0100

Just went to order a Cosy exhaust from ACS.  Shock horror the price has
jumped from $500 to $689 some 40%. (excluding springs)  I rang Custom AC who
said they sell it for  $615 including springs.  Normally the ACS was cheaper
due to bulk purchase.  They are going to look into it for me.  I will advise
the result.
Richard



From: Militch@aol.com
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 15:28:22 EDT
Subject: Re:  COZY: Custom Exhausts


In a message dated 7/20/99 6:11:04 PM, richgoodwin@email.msn.com wrote:

>Just went to order a Cosy exhaust from ACS.  Shock horror the price has
>jumped from $500 to $689 some 40%. (excluding springs)  I rang Custom AC who
>said they sell it for  $615 including springs.  Normally the ACS was cheaper
>due to bulk purchase.  They are going to look into it for me.  I will advise
>the result.

Are bending templates available for the exhaust system's?  It is a pain in 
the rear to weld up exhaust manifolds, but I have done them.  If the price is 
heading towards $700 now, it will probably be even higher by the time I 'm 
ready to buy.  You can probably figure on spending 20 or 30 hours of work to 
make a set, but it can be done.  The trick is to weld them onto pre-cut, 
extra thick header plates, plan on having them warp, and finding a machine 
shop who is willing to mill or grind the flanges till they are flat and the 
right thickness.  Not an elegant approach since it's very hard to hold the 
welded assembly for milling, but it works.

Peter Militch  Cozy Mark IV #740 Chapter 6

From: "Wilhelmson, Jack" <Wilhelmson@scra.org>
Subject: RE: COZY: Cozy III Engine Mount
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:49:06 -0400

Matt:

Been there, done that. Hope this helps.

I have a Cozy with a O320 and I used 1.25 inch x 1/8 aluminum angles. I now
have
500 hrs+. I recently removed the engine and inspected the angles. There was
absolutely no
hole elongation or cracking.

My experience is not too significant because engine mounts and hard points
for the same
are (should be) designed for the dynamic loads that occur with hard
landings, turbulence, etc.
I have heard of cracks being found in EZE angles, but we have no idea how
many hard landings
or other high g forces the airplane was subjected to.

I am a engineer and I specialize in structural analysis using 3d analysis
software.
I have designed several engine mounts and I use 10g as the 
worst case load directly downward and a minimum 1.5 safety factor.
The reason for this is that this is the way most airplanes are broken. (Hard
Landings). I
could look back at some of my work and tell you exactly what the shear,
tension, and compression
in the extreme fibers of the aluminum angle is at the worst case loading, 
but my experience tells me that this is not the answer to your question.

So, The O320 weight is about 30# greater than the O235. 
This translates to 300# more downward engine weight on the
during a 10g landing. This is still only 10% more and you
will not be able to ignore a 10 g landing because there will be other
damage.

Given the above info; you should be able to answer your own question after
you
decide if you are willing to fly the airplane with a 10% less safety factor
for the engine mount
angles when subjected to worst case loading conditions.

Jack Wilhelmson N711CZ


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Iflycozy@aol.com [SMTP:Iflycozy@aol.com]
> Sent:	Wednesday, July 21, 1999 4:15 AM
> To:	cozy_builders@canard.com
> Subject:	COZY: Cozy III Engine Mount
> 
> For Cozy III place birds:  
> 
> Is the engine mount extrusion of 1/8" 2024 T-3 alum (EM12) acceptable for
> the 
> larger engine of an 0-320, or should the extrusion be 1/4" thick?
> 
> If the 1/8" thick alum is not acceptable, how should I proceed to exchange
> it 
> to 1/4" thick alum extrusion?
> 
> Matt Bunch
> iflycozy@aol.com

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 16:04:15 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: Cozy III Engine Mount

On 07/20/99 23:14:35 you wrote:
>
>
>If the 1/8" thick alum is not acceptable, how should I proceed to exchange it 
>to 1/4" thick alum extrusion?
>
>Matt Bunch
>iflycozy@aol.com
>
>

The Cosy Classic calls for 1/8" stainless steel angles.

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 07:18:43 -0400
From: Paul Krasa <p.w.krasa@larc.nasa.gov>
Subject: COZY: Re: [c-a] Oil Pressure - at cranking speed

I think you may be miss reading the spec.  I am dealing with an oil
pressure indication problem myself right now, so I have been researching
this.  Normal oil pressure on parallel valve Lycomings is 65-75 psi.  Low
redline is 25psi.  Oil Pressure is adjustable by adding or taking away
washers under the spring in the valve which is mounted to the case right
behind the #3 cylinder or the valve is adjustable by screwing it in and out
(see figure 1-3 in the Lycoming Parts Catalog).   By design, once the pump
is putting out pressure above the set point of valve, the engine will run
at a constant pressure.  If your engine is putting out 45psi while cranking
you are in good shape.  Press on.  Make sure when you fire it up the
pressure comes up within 30 sec.


At 19:36 7/20/99 -0400, you wrote:
>[The Canard Aviators's Mailing list]
>
>Here's another one for you experts;
>
>I have now filled my engines with oil, removed the plugs and cranked
>them over for a period of time, to check for oil pressure, circulate
>some to the camshaft, etc.  I was pleased to see that both of them are
>building oil pressure, but a little concerned that it is so much
>pressure.  
>
>Both of them, after maybe 30-40 seconds of cranking, are building as
>much as 45 psi.  I noted that the Lycoming spec is 25 for an engine at
>idle.  I'm nowhere near idle speed.  Should I not worry about this? 
>Will a running engine maybe raise the pressure to a point where it drops
>due to a valve or something?
>
>Thanks again everyone for all the help
>
>Harry Manvel
>Defiant N2HM
>
>
>                                                  \
>->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-|-
>                                                  /
>-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: "H Andrews" <handrews@telusplanet.net>
Subject: COZY: Re: [c-a] Harmonic Engine Vibration...
Date: 	Mon, 26 Jul 1999 11:33:15 -0600

I had the same problem with a performance 3 blade prop on an 0 235.  The
vibration wasn't particularly subtle, however, and always caused me some
concern.  I would be interested in knowing whether I was right to be
concerned or not.

The vibration  was most noticeable at about 2300 RPM as I was accelerating
for takeoff.  As the plane picked up speed the vibration would die out.  I
never noticed it while flying; only on the ground.  Even with the cowling
off it would still vibrate.  As I recall there was also a lower rpm range at
which it would also vibrate.  I have since switched back to a two blade
propeller, and the vibration has gone.  I switched to the two blade
propeller not because of the vibration, however, but because I wanted a
coarser pitched propeller.

Ed A.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
To: canard-aviators@canard.com <canard-aviators@canard.com>;
cozy_builders@canard.com <cozy_builders@canard.com>
Date: Monday, July 26, 1999 7:47 AM
Subject: [c-a] Harmonic Engine Vibration...


>[The Canard Aviators's Mailing list]
>
>
>
>Canard Drivers,
>
>After 20 plus hours on this engine, I am beginning to notice
>things....like a buzzing, high frequency, type vibration between
>1200-1400 rpm, and 2000-2150 rpm.
>
>It is not air frame shaking in nature, but noticeable, especially in
>calm air, and it does change with throttle movement, hence my conclusion
>it is an engine/prop induced vibration.  The vibration is so subtle, I
>don't feel it in rough air.
>
>I am running a Performance 3 blade on a 6" extension all hooked up to an
>0-360.
>
>Has anyone experienced anything like this?  Also, does anyone know how
>Mark Landoll's harmonic dampener works?  Is it a fluid dampening device
>or what?
>
>dd
>
>
>                                                  \
>->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-|-
>                                                  /
>-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
>        /
>   -|-<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>        \
>

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:11:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Carl Stevens <carl@sigil.kasslar.com>
Subject: COZY: Re: [c-a] Harmonic Engine Vibration...

Dave:

You might want to consider dynamic balancing. I do not know
where you base out of but we have a couple shops down here
(WJF, VNY) that do this type of balancing. A friend of mine
had his BD-4 done as part of one of out Chapter meetings and
noticed a real improvement. Since then two local RVs, two 
Thorp T-18s have done it and recommend it.
 
They also look for and map RPM bands that you should not 
operate in.

I will have my EZ done when I get it up and running again.

Carl
N223MM


On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, David Domeier wrote:

> [The Canard Aviators's Mailing list]
> Canard Drivers,
> 
> After 20 plus hours on this engine, I am beginning to notice
> things....like a buzzing, high frequency, type vibration between
> 1200-1400 rpm, and 2000-2150 rpm.
snip ...

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 14:18:19 -0500
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Re: [c-a] Harmonic Engine Vibration...

Carl,

    Thanks to you and about a dozen other guys for info on the
phenomena.  It is a common occurrence and some are going with harmonic
balancing, some with Landoll, and some are living with it.

    I think the first thing I need do is check the prop and extension
for security - I've had it off and on about 6 times recently - I think
it is OK.  Then I will check some local shops for balancing, and them
maybe consider the Landoll, but I sure do not need the extra weight that
far aft.  I'm carrying 26 pounds of ballast for solo as it is.

dd



From: "Wilhelmson, Jack" <Wilhelmson@scra.org>
Subject: RE: COZY: mufflers on airplanes?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:52:10 -0400

John:

Ok, you ask for it:

There are mufflers on airplanes, Many socialistic countries
mandate it. This becomes a political thread very quickly.
But as a practical thing, my airplane makes a lot less noise
than a military plane, a commercial jet, or for that matter a
heavy diesel truck. So why should it be
regulated to produce a hundred times less noise than they do?
That's what the socialistic countries do.

>From a purely technical thing. A prop airplane's noise level cannot
appreciable be reduced by mufflers on the engine.
The prop is the noise maker. Listen to a turbo prop fly over sometime.

It is possible to reduce the noise of a light prop type aircraft but it is
not a simple task. The polish Wilga is a good example of this. It has two
large
mufflers hanging under it and a large slow turning prop that keeps the prop
tips
away from the speed of sound. It is very quiet and is used for banner
towing.

In any case, anything that reduces the taleoff power of a airplane becomes a

safety issue.

If you want a practical no cost solution to the noise inside of  your own
airplane just fly at
lower speeds. My Cozy is very quiet at speeds below 150 mph. 
 
Jack Wilhelmson N 711CZ


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	John Slade [SMTP:rjslade@bellsouth.net]
> Sent:	Tuesday, July 27, 1999 2:55 PM
> To:	Cozy Builders Mailing List
> Subject:	COZY: mufflers on airplanes?
> 
> OK, while the lucky ones are busy at OSH, here's a question to give the
> rest
> of us some entertainment.....
> 
> I've been wondering lately about something that is probably quite obvious.
> In all my years of aviation I've never seen a muffler on an airplane. Why
> is
> that? I can take the muffler off my car and if I  balance the exhaust
> system
> I might get better fuel economy and performance, but the noise would be
> intolerable.  Sure there would be plenty of problems with a muffler on an
> airplane such as space, cooling, aerodynamics, performance, economy etc.
> etc., but reducing the noise level by 50% or more would be worth a LOT of
> trouble. So what am I missing? Why are there no mufflers on airplanes?
> 
> When you're all done laughing, let me know.
> John Slade
> Cozy #757 (chap 13 almost done)
> 
> http://kgarden.com/cozy
> 

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:27:19 -0500
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: mufflers on airplanes?

John,

    re "In all my years of aviation I've never seen a muffler on an
airplane. Why is
that?"

    Probably 'cause you are a pilot and not a mechanic.  Most are under
the cowling.

    Lot's of airplanes have mufflers.  The Cessna 152 muffler costs
$329.50 and the shroud $179.50.  The Pipers all have mufflers, including
the J3 through J18.

    Why aren't they on our airplanes?  Probably 'cause they are dead
weight, reduce HP, and could come off and wipe out the prop.

dd

From: DougSheph@aol.com
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:22:21 EDT
Subject: Re: COZY: Re: mufflers and noise

I've wondered about the lack of mufflers on airplanes as well, and I've 
gotten a lot of the same responses we've seen posted.  Some random thoughts 
of mine on the subject:

1) Of course they make the plane heavier.  But 'dead' weight?  Not if they're 
doing a job I want done.

2) I'm willing to believe that they won't make the cockpit much quieter, 
especially in a pusher where the exhaust and much of the noise is expelled 
behind the plane in a 200 mph slipstream.  But I DO believe that they will 
reduce the noise level on the ground considerably.  I live a couple of miles 
from a GA airport, and there's quite a difference in noise level between 
airplanes, with the homebuilts being some of the loudest.  I think good 
citizenship counts for something.

3) I'm not like I want to make a stealthy plane or anything -- a modest 
reduction in noise level is all I would ever want.  I can't believe a fair 
reduction in noise level would cost more than 5 horsepower or 20 pounds.  A 
couple of baffles in a widened portion of the exhaust stack, and maybe some 
packing, would probably make me quite happy.  Mufflers are one of those 
things where 20% of the medicine gives 80% of the cure.  Granted, those 5 
horsepower and 20 pounds are very dear, but every design is a series of 
tradeoffs and the manufacturer (you) has to decide where his priorities are.

4) Whether even a modest muffler would fit inside a tight cowl, or mess up 
the airflow inside the cowl, would have to be addressed.

5) It's true, propeller noise can be at least as much of a problem as engine 
noise.  But as someone pointed out, there are quieter designs for propellers 
as well.  Someone mentions in the archives that the Prince design, with its 
funny tips, is very quiet (although quite expensive as well).

6) Since none of this is an issue at altitude anyway, throttling back and 
avoiding low-altitude flight is probably at least as effective as mufflers, 
except at takeoff.

And I don't think this is off subject at all.  I think this is a good forum 
for this kind of discussion.  What do you think, Marc?

Doug Shepherd

From: Todd Carrico <todd.carrico@aris.com>
Subject: RE: COZY: Re: mufflers and noise
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 13:56:34 -0700

Tony Bengilis's (did I spell it right?) book had some interesting ideas
about this very thing.  Some of them were not at all heavy, or cumbersome.  

I have heard some racing types swear by a contraption similar to a glass
pack, but instead of fiberglass it is packed with that really thick
stainless steel wool used for cleaning dishes.  It is supposed to last
longer than the fiberglass, but does the job just as well.

I imagine these AC do not have mufflers due the fact that they are not
needed for safe flight.  It is one less thing to buy, build, or break.  

tc  

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 20:07:40 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: Orifice fittings

On 08/03/99 16:10:20 you wrote:
>
>The plans call out for "orifice fittings" for the fuel and oil pressure
>sensors.  I don't see these fittings listed in either the Wicks or Aircraft
>Spruce catalogs.  Am I missing them somewhere?  Thanks for any help.
>
>Paul Stowitts
>Cozy Mark IV #200
>
>

The orfices are to dampen pulses, and in some instances serve to minimize the leak if the hose going to the sensor would leak. 
Sensors are never mounted on engines, but the airframe to minimize vibration damage. The manifold pressure also gets a orfice. 
Try a certified aircraft parts or engine parts like El Reno Aviation, since they are airframe specific, but most any will do. 
Or make your own by threading a solid corrosion resistant (SS or brass) screw, cut flush, peen to never come out, and drill, 
kind od small, maybe less than 1/16"

From: "Nat Puffer" <natp@cozyaircraft.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Re: mufflers and noise
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:36:57 -0000



----------
> From: DougSheph@aol.com
> To: cozy_builders@canard.com
> Subject: Re: COZY: Re: mufflers and noise
> Date: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 6:22 PM
> 
> Builders,
Many countries require mufflers on all GA airplanes, including the Cozy. I
don't believe there is room inside the cowling for mufflers, so installing
them would involve some major modifications. We did modify a previous
exhaust pipe design with baffles inside, and I know of at least one
instance where the baffles came out and did a job on the prop. We get more
horsepower without a muffler, and hope that all of you will observe good
noise abatement practices so we do not have new regulations requiring
everyone to install mufflers.
Nat

Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 12:46:45 -0500
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Orifice fittings

Paul,

    re "The plans call out for "orifice fittings" for the fuel and oil
pressure
sensors."

    The oil pressure line fitting at the engine should have a tiny hole
so as to preclude a major oil leak if the sensor comes apart (never
heard of that happening, but I'm sure it has).  I had a guy weld the
fitting shut and then drilled a tiny hole through the weld.

    I don't have an "orifice fitting" for the fuel pressure sensor.  The
pressure is much lower and I don't think it is necessary.

dd

From: "Reid Siebert" <Reid@siebert.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Engine, Mag drive gears.
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 08:22:11 -0500

I too have installed a couple of sets of Electroair systems.  I get my spare
mag drive gears, and mag hold-down clips from my engine builder, Larry
Conway, at Aircraft Engine Resources, in Brighton, Iowa.  His email address
is: aircrafteng@lisco.com.  He often has new, and used mag parts, on hand.
You don't have to know the part numbers, he knows what you are talking
about.  He has installed a few of Jeff's systems, too.

Tell him Reid sent you.

Reid Siebert
Reid@Siebert.com




From: Lee810@aol.com
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 09:33:58 EDT
Subject: COZY: Re: [c-a] Ellison TBI/auto fuel

In a message dated 8/6/99 5:57:52 AM Mountain Daylight Time, PNGUNN@aol.com 
writes:

> Another difference in Avgas and auto gas is the composition.  Avgas is
>  made mostly from Toluene, and Alkalate.  Both of these are very clean
>  and very stable.   Auto gas is made from a combination of as many as 5
>  to 10 different components. 

I once ran a sample of avgas and auto gas through a gas chromatograph and was 
surprised to see the difference in the number of compounds in the auto fuel 
vs. the avgas.   The avgas showed only two peaks whereas the auto fuel had 
many.  I didn't have a mass spectrometer to identify the compounds, but I'll 
take Patrick's word for it contains the compounds listed above.

I used to use auto gas in my Colt and it worked fine, but it had a gravity 
feed system and metal tanks.  Now that I'm flying a LongEZ, the incentive to 
use auto fuel has diminished.  Also, in Colorado, the difference in price 
between auto gas and avgas isn't as significant as it was when I lived on the 
east coast.  They also mandate alcohol in the fuel around here in the winter.

Lee Devlin
Greeley, CO

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 10:25:02 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: Noise cancel headset??

Does anyone know a clew as to when the rings are properly
seated?  

Watch the oil consumption, the first hour or 2 it is likely to be high, maybe even as high as a quart an hour. Within a few 
hours it should settle to say 8 hour/qt., some take much longer, and some get much better than that up to 20 hrs/qt. but I 
wonder if those are getting correct lube to the compression rings. If within say about 5 hours your not above 5 hours/qt. I 
would seriously consider pulling the cylinders, honing and new rings. Probably send them beck to the shop that originally done 
them under warranty. My cylinders are Nuchrome by Harrison Engine in Laporte, In. They usually around 8 hours/qt. I pulled the 
cylinders a while ago to replace the piston pins (Superior proposed AD, they were badly pitted and not that old), honed the 
cyl. myself, since I have been running 5 hours/qt. hoping it would get better, but has been stable, would like better, but 
living with for the time.

Change from mineral oil after the oil consumption settles on some number. Fly normally when oil consumption gets to a quart in 
6 or 8 hours. In the mean time go like H..., watch cylinder head temps, hope you have all cylinders. 

From: extensionsystems@mindspring.com
Subject: Re: COZY: Re: [c-a] Prop Bolts
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 12:59:58 -0000

DON'T DON'T DON'T DON'T Ever recut the threads on a aircraft bolt !!!!!
the bottom of the thread is round and if you run a die onto it for any
reason you cut the round out or at the very least groove the bottom.

If you have done this on any of your bolts, that hold anything IMPORTANT on,
throw the bolt away.

Also don't recut a nut. this is for the same reason.

Aircraft bolts are expensive but worth every penny.

Brian Dempster
A&P  IA



-----Original Message-----
From: Neil Clayton <harvey4@earthlink.net>
To: cozy_builders@canard.com <cozy_builders@canard.com>
Date: Thursday, September 09, 1999 4:26 PM
Subject: COZY: Re: [c-a] Prop Bolts


>>Edward Masterson wrote; I ran a die over these bolts to clean up the
>threads. I then wondered if this was a smart thing to do, would doing this
>decrease their strength and make them not airworthy?
>
>From my old metallurgy days...
>
>High tensile bolts have their threads rolled, not cut, so that the grain
>flows into the thread "peaks" making them an integral part of the shaft and
>more resistant to shear. The threads are then heat-treated to relieve
>manufacturing stresses. Running a die down them to just clean out the
>thread V's of dirt, etc is OK, but if you cut metal you risk affecting the
>design shape & strength of the bolt. I have personal rule to always re-new
>critical bolts after a maintenance removal.
>
>Also torquing correctly is very important. Under-torquing means the bolts
>isn't working as hard as it can, loading the others more and risks
>loosening; over-torquing risks taking the steel beyond it's Hooke's Law
>limit into the plastic region and causing permanent deformation, probably
>necking at the end of the threaded portion - another good reason to re-new
>the bolts if you're not sure of the loading they've been subjected to.
>
>Along with wing mount bolts and engine mounts, prop bolts are about as
>critical as an application gets. Wrap them in cotton wool till you're ready
>to use them (figuratively speaking) and treat them like you would a close
>family member!!!
>
>Neil C.
>

From: "Mike Davis" <flyboy@creative-net.net>
Subject: COZY: prop torque
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 07:31:51 -0500

The thread on torque brings up another point to ponder.  Does everybody out
there lubricate their prop bolts with pure bee's wax prior to installation?
I find that without it the torque was not accurate due to the friction
between the bolt and wood.  A cheap source of wax is from the hardware
store.  The seal that is used to install your bathroom throne is made of
bee's wax.

Mike
Cozy N141MD

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 08:23:46 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: prop torque

BOlt torque does vary, with the lubricant. BUT the wrong lubricant can result in over 
stressing, or not tightening the bolt. Other factors are the microfinish of the threads, the 
under nut or head, washer material, friction of the hole, etc.

The object of using some method of measuring tightness is the actual tension (pulling) force in 
the bolt. I'm not going to get into bolt size selection here, which includes fatique, impact, 
and other issues. Current technology of fasteners is "Turn of the NUT". For this, the nut(s) 
are brought snug, where the clamped parts, are just snug against each other, and basically the 
bolt is under no load (actually very low, ignorable, relative to full load). Then the nut is 
turned a specified angle, for structural steel bolts, a common amount is 2/3 of a revolution. 
The angle is determined by the length/size/thread-pitch of the bolt. After the nut is turned 
the required angle, the bolt has been stretched a distance that is close to the yield point 
(where further stretching will result in permenant length change). This method doesn't care 
(within reason) what the lubricant or thread condition is.

IF use of torque wrench is desired, then the nut & bolt should be assembled in a load measuring 
device, and the torque required to bring the bolt to its required loading noted. This is only 
good for that production batch of nuts and bolts, lubricant, etc. It might be that for certain 
specification (AN or NAS) fasteners that the variables are controled close enough that torque 
can be used, but I would be careful of using special lubricants. Also the drag of a locking 
nut, when not tight should be added to the torque required.

Among those going to turn of the nut method, include the American Institute of Steel 
Construction, and Sensenich wood propeller Co.



From: SWrightFLY@aol.com
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:38:30 EDT
Subject: Re: COZY: prop torque

In a message dated 9/12/99 8:27:19 AM Central Daylight Time, 
cdenk@ix.netcom.com writes:

<< Then the nut is 
 turned a specified angle, for structural steel bolts, a common amount is 2/3 
of a revolution.  >>

Will this result in the 250 to 300 inch pounds most multi-laminate props are 
using?
Steve

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:24:06 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: prop torque

On 09/12/99 10:38:30 you wrote:
>
>In a message dated 9/12/99 8:27:19 AM Central Daylight Time, 
>cdenk@ix.netcom.com writes:
>
><< Then the nut is 
> turned a specified angle, for structural steel bolts, a common amount is 2/3 
>of a revolution.  >>
>
>Will this result in the 250 to 300 inch pounds most multi-laminate props are 
>using?
>Steve
>

Not necessarily, in fact probably not. The amount must be calculated taking into account both the 
bolt stretch, and the clamped material crush, that probably not the correct word, since it implies 
damage, elastic squeezing or compression would be better wording, but less layman talk. Sensenich 
includes directions for "Turn of the Bolt (Nut)" with torque values as a check. I just couldn't 
find it while on line. The table, includes variables for wood thickness, bolt length, bolt 
diameter. Thread pitch, and other details are assumed a standard.

From: "John Stricker" <jstricke@odsys.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: prop torque
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:30:36 -0500

Steve,

The "turn of the nut" method Carl is talking about (a new term for me, BTW,
and I've used this for over 20 years in certain instances) is used on highly
stressed bolts that are called "torque to yield" bolts.

Most typically, these bolts are NOT re-used.  They are becoming more common,
as Carl pointed out, as the output per displacement of engines is getting
higher and the loads on them are going up as well.  Common places to find
torque to yield are on connecting rod caps (Caterpillar has used them for a
long, long time) and head bolts, particularly on engines with different
metals in the heads and blocks (aluminum head on cast iron block).

If Sensenich is using this, I'd bet they're recommending only one use on a
bolt and then throw it away.

What Carl didn't mention though, was you still need your torque wrench.  For
example, on a hypothetical engine with TTY head bolts, you torque the head
in a specific pattern, evenly, to a given (lower) setting.  Say 50 ft/lbs
instead of 85.  When everything is snugged down at 50, you go another so
many degrees rotation on the bolt.  This too can vary, and you can get a
gauge from Snap-On and others that goes on your ratchet marked in degrees to
determine just where you're at.

Simply, what you're doing with this method is putting an actual dimension on
bolt stretch.  The lower torque reading is what the engineers have
determined is clamped tight, with "0" slop in the fastened assembly.  Then,
given the fact that we can't get it any closer together, but the threads
will tighten up regardless, we know precisely how much we're stretching the
bolt.  Clear as mud??  It's theoretically a more accurate indicator of bolt
stretch and typically an unnecessary one UNLESS you're using torque to yield
bolts.

While you could use this method, I wouldn't.  First off, you need to know
how much stretch the engineers want from the bolt.  We don't know that.  All
we know is a torque spec.  With enough trial and error, we could probably
figure it out, but for most all applications, it's not necessary because we
aren't using TTY bolts.

The one exception I can see might be on a wooden prop hub, where an exact
amount of clamping force well below that of the yield of the bolt is
desired.  Just remember that you still need to use beeswax, anti-seize, oil,
or whatever the specific part calls out for on assembly because you need to
get your initial torque reading before making the final turn accurate.

John Stricker

jstricke@russellks.net

"I didn't spend all these years getting to the top of the food chain
just to become a vegetarian"
From ???@??? Mon Sep 13 07:55:37 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 SAA24590 for <marcz@ultranet.com>; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 18:31:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA31138
	for cozy_builders-list; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 17:57:54 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: twc2.betaweb.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com using -f
Received: from dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.comFrom ???@??? Mon Sep 13 07:55:37 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 SAA24590 for <marcz@ultranet.com>; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 18:31:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA31138
	for cozy_builders-list; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 17:57:54 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: twc2.betaweb.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com using -f
Received: from dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.8])
	by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA31133
	for <cozy_builders@canard.com>; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 17:57:49 -0400
From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id QAA11357; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 16:58:14 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 16:58:14 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ely-oh4-08.ix.netcom.com(206.216.59.136) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
	id rma011243; Sun Sep 12 16:57:48 1999
To: jstricke@odsys.net
To: cozy_builders@canard.com
Message-Id: <1999912175438141@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: prop torque
X-Mailer: Netcomplete v4.0, from NETCOM On-Line Communications, Inc.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
X-UIDL: bc69caba1bd83a51baf13a53a4d9602e

To clarify on John Stricker's well appreciated comments:

The "turn of the nut" (This term is per the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), 
which is included in nearly every building code in the world) method as I was referring to is 
for bolts not stressed highly, but well within there eleastic range. This method can also be 
used for bolts that are stressed out of there elastic range where they will not return to their 
original length. These highly stressed bolts must not be reused. A more common application that 
must not be reused include Ford Escort 1.9L head bolts, and Dana 44 four wheel drive front axle 
ring gear bolts.

All bolts that are to be tightened to some specification will have a rotation angle and/or 
torque specified. In all cases the tightening specifications is an engineering decision, 
whether the bolt is highly stressed or not. Yes, there are ones that are based on someone's 
judgement, but typically, its more a cookbook approach. One selects a bolt size from a table, 
or some elementary formula, such as the AISC manual, or F.A.A. approved manual. Then another 
part of the manual defines the required tightening criteria. Someone learned person, usually an 
engineer that understands all the issues involved will define the tightening procedure to be 
followed. The reference to "First off, you need to know how much stretch the engineers want 
from the bolt.  We don't know that." -- For aircraft bolts, there are well defined tables of 
required torque, that have been the same for many years, they just haven't caught up with the 
technology yet. When Ford Motor builds up an engine they monitor both torque and rotation for 
the entire tightening sequence. The allowables have been determined from much engineering and 
testing. 

In Sensenich's procedure, the bolts are NOT highly stressed, they, and the wood hub, are well 
within the elastic limits. Since the bolts are not being subject to deforming forces, and 
fatigue (A whole new subject) is not an issue, and if the threads are in good shape with no 
gaulling, run freely (pre-assembly inspection), etc. there is no reason these bolts can't be 
reused. Sensenich's procedure for their wood propellers does not mention bolt replacement. The 
majority of the deformation is in the wood, which is not the usual with metal sandwiches.

From: Militch@aol.com
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 09:00:25 EDT
Subject: Re:  Re: COZY: prop torque


In a message dated 9/12/99 3:33:36 PM, jstricke@odsys.net wrote:

>The "turn of the nut" method Carl is talking about (a new term for me, BTW,
>and I've used this for over 20 years in certain instances) is used on highly
>stressed bolts that are called "torque to yield" bolts.
>
>Most typically, these bolts are NOT re-used.  They are becoming more common,
>as Carl pointed out, as the output per displacement of engines is getting
>higher and the loads on them are going up as well.  Common places to find

I had to replace the head gasket in my wife's 86 BMW last year. The head bolt 
tightening spec was 20 ft. lbs + 90 degrees + 90 degrees. You can only use 
the bolts once.  I used my torque wrench to make the turns just to see what 
that translated to in actual torque.  It varied from about 105 ft. lbs. to 
125 ft. lbs.

Regards,
  Peter Militch Cozy Mk IV #740 Chapter 6.

From: "DougSheph" <dougsheph@home.com>
Subject: COZY: Bolt-tightening procedures
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 16:52:11 -0700

I'm an electronics engineer, not a mechanical engineer, but the
manufacturers of the high-strength, superalloy con rod bolts I've used in
high-performance motorcycle engines recommend the following procedure:

1)  Lubricate the threads.  A dry lube such as silicone or Teflon spray-on
is preferred, but WD-40 or even engine oil can be used in a pinch (sorry!).
Unlubricated threads result in artificially high torque readings.

2)  Measure the length of each bolt accurately (a micrometer is necessary).

3)  Tighten the pair of bolts slowly and evenly, monitoring both bolt
stretch and torque.  Tighten to the specified amount of bolt stretch but
DISCARD any bolt which reaches the specified stretch before the specified
torque is reached (never happened to me).  Since the elasticity of the alloy
is well-known, the specified stretch results in the correct amount of
clamping force being applied; bolts which reach the specified stretch
prematurely are either made of substandard alloy or have weakening
inclusions.

4)  NEVER reuse these bolts or the nuts that come with them, even for test
assembly at lowered torque!  Save the old hardware to do the test assembly
of the engine.  I would imagine the same would apply to any highly-stressed
bolt in a critical application.

Of course, the method Carl describes, of measuring the nut rotation, is
equivalent to measuring the bolt stretch -- thread rotation with a given
pitch and bolt length will be proportional to bolt stretch, in the absence
of thread deformation.  Additionally, this method can be used in a blind
hole, where you can't access the end of the bolt to measure stretch
directly.

And as Carl points out, these procedures are only useful when clamping rigid
metal pieces together.  Follow the recommendations of your prop manufacturer
carefully to achieve adequate clamping force without crushing the wood.

Doug Shepherd

From: "Nat Puffer" <cozy@extremezone.com>
Subject: COZY: exhaust systems
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 13:56:43 -0500

Builders,
I talked to Clinton Anderson today and he told me that he is making "inside
the cowling" exhaust systems for Varieze and Long EZ builders. They are
curved so that they exit the cowling at the same outlet as the engine
cooling air. We don't know if they would fit a Cozy cowling, but for sure,
one would have to remove the separate exits we now have for the pipes. It
is now known whether these pipes would have any advantage either in speed
or in engine cooling over the present design. I don't know whether I will
evaluate them if there is no definite advantage, because it would mean
modifying my cowling, and a duplicate expense for a new set of pipes. But
if anyone is interested in trying a set, everyone would be interested in
the results. Incidently, Custom Aircraft's new phone number is different
than what is in the newsletter. It is: (800)561-1901 or (619)561-5757 and
web page www.customaircraft.com
Regards,
Nat

Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 18:25:39 -0400
From: Carlos Vicente Leon <carlos.leon@diekmann.com.ve>
Subject: COZY: Anyone heard from the Leon's ?

We apologise to the Cozy group for not reporting our arrival, specially
Nat and Shirley, who were ever so helpful to us durring the whole of
Oshkosh.  When we got ready to fly back we were so anxious that we
forgot to say goodbye.

This is the story of our trip back as we told it to Sports Aviation:
"We took off on Sunday August 1st from Runway 18 in Oshkosh.  This was
our scheduled day with the FAA, you know we needed a special flight
authorization from the FAA limited to an itinerary.  The itinerary
included dates and stop airports.

In our 4.5 hour trip we had splendid weather, even when we landed in
Rome, Georgia.    We had a two hour rest with nap and lunch and took off
for Fort Lauderdale Executive airport where we arrived at 5pm local
time.  Our friend picked us up and took us to a crab house dinner.  On
monday we stayed at Miami to rest for the tuesday flight.

On tuesday we took off from FXE at 6am for Puerto Plata but after about
45 minutes flying (aprox. 100 miles out) the left engine started missing
until it stopped completely.  We were flying 100 miles into the Sea.
After the left engine quit completely we did a turn to the nearest
airport which was the island of Bimini. From 9500 feet we spent a lot of
time trying to start the engine,  descending to 5000 feet in the mean
time (while trying to start the engine the propeller is engaged causing
a lot of drag).  We realized then that no engine start was possible and
reduced speed to 80 kts so that oil press pressure would drop an
disconnect the idler pulley, this causes disengagement of the propeller
from the engine.   We flew like this for 20 minutes or so arriving at
Bimini at 5000 feet.  We then told Miami control that we were landing
safely at Bimini.  We did not declare an Emergency but had told them
that we had enginge trouble so they asked us to call once we landed.

After we landed we took our coulings off to and found a dead Ignition
Coil.   Our plane has a single electronic ignition system for each
engine.  A broken Coil is a dead engine.   Our friend in Miami sent us a
part on a charter plane that was flying from FXE but the coil we
received did not work.   In desperation we disassembled the old coil (it
is the oil filled type that you can take apart) and found a broken
connection inside.  It had broken due to vibration from the engine.  We
made the mistake of installing the coil on the engine itself.  It should
be installed on the firewall like we have on our right engine...there is
no vibration there.

After we repaired the coil we took off and flew to the nearest
civilization which was Nassau.  There we spent the night on Tuesday. On
Wednesday morning we went out shopping and bought a brand new coil at
the local Nissan dealer.  We installed it and flew to Santo Domingo
(Dominican Republic). We skipped all the bad cells of thunderstorms and
bad weather on the way and landed at Santo Domingo at 5pm (after almost
5 hours).  Our surpprise was to find a bunch of EAA guys that flew
Chinnuc Helicopters for the Alabama CO F (military).  They were based
there at the airport, right next to were our cozy was parked.  They
offered accomodation and gave us some survival food.   We were really
grateful although we could not accept to sleep there because our friend
picked us up at the airport.

To our friend's disappointment we took off on Thursday morning for
Valencia (we were so eager to get there after two day's delay) and
arrived at Valencia at 1pm for the usual welcoming."




Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:59:28 +0200
From: Rego and Noleen Burger <rnb@intekom.co.za>
Subject: COZY: Exhaust position

Hello folks,
With Ref: to a std. Cozy!
I would like the measurement of the distance between the exhaust pipe
and the prop please. As I am busy with my own home made cowling and
would like to trim the Exhaust pipe on my auto conversion system to a
similar clearance.( to keep hot gases from prop balde ) 
Thks in advance.
-- 
Rego Burger
CZ4#139 South Africa 
Web:http://home.intekom.com/glen/rnb.htm 
Work e-mail, mailto:burgerr@telkom.co.za

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:05:00 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: COZY: Exhaust position

With a 4 cylinder engine and no more than 2 cylinders per exhaust pipe, 3" from end of pipe to prop seems to work. BUT at 
Rough River flyin, a Suburu, with one pipe exiting inside the cowling aft opening, there was evidence of prop glue line 
damage. The owner had recently moved the exhaust to below the cowl opening and probably 5" from the prop.

Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 18:47:50 -0700
From: marcna <marcna@concentric.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Another Cozy IV takes to the air

Hi Gregg,
We used the plans design cooling.  I think that changing to the armpit type will be
an improvment, but not at this time.   If  you are still building though, leave it
as the plans call for.  When you change anything it takes soooo much longer.  If
you want to finish, go by the plans.  I made many small changes during the building
process (power nose and air gear, power air brake, nose light, matco brakes,
non-ellison carb, etc, etc, etc.).   God knows how we finished.  This is a very,
very long and hard process.   Only 15% of builders finish their projects, only
15%.  Don't make the process harder than it is.  Nat makes a good point - build to
plans first, then make the changes.

Good Luck

Marc Parmelee
N20MN


Gregg Perry wrote:

> Marc,
>
>      Sorry I didn't clarify the "cooling question" fully.  From what I've been
> reading/hearing, some folks are using the NACA scoop per plans, some are using
> "downdraft" cooling with scoops, some are using smaller NACA scoops on the
> upper surface of the cowling, some are using scoops beneath the cowling.
> YIKES!  Too many choices.  Since you mentioned that all your temps were in good
> order, I wanted to see which type of cooling system you had gone with.  Hope
> this helps...
>
> Gregg Perry

