Newsletter# 48 / January 1995
NEWS FROM JOHN STAMPER IN ENGLAND
Many of you will remember several years ago at Oshkosh that John
Stamper, from England, spoke at our forum about his flying experiences
--- and what an entertaining speaker he was! We visited him in '87 when
he was building his Cozy. At that time he had only 40 hours of flying
logged, all in an ultralight. Now he has logged over 800 hours in his
Cozy, and has flown all over Europe. He recently modified his Cozy,
installing an 0-360 Lyc. He published a letter in the Cosy Europe
Newsletter describing his flying trip with his girlfriend Zoe to
Courchevel in the French Alps. It didn't sink in when I first read it,
but the runway there is at an altitude of 6368' and rises to 6581' in
its length of 1755'. That is a rise of 213' in 1755' for an average
grade of over 12%! The Jeppesen chart shows it starts out at 12.5%,
increases to 18.5%, and then levels out at the top. Can you believe
this? Landing is uphill, and takeoff is downhill. He writes:
We flew to the French Alps on Saturday, but thunderstorms prevented us
landing at Courchevel. However, it was fine on Sunday so we went again.
You will see from the Courchevel page that it is an interesting airport.
Landing (uphill) was no problem, but would the Cozy take off in
time???
We had 86 lbs of fuel, Zoe, myself, and our baggage. The outside
temperature was 58F and the apron was 6581' altitude. The initial slope
is 18.5% downhill, so you are committed to roll. Whether you reach
flying speed before the end of the runway is another matter!
Power checks at 2000 rpm, lean to peak power, line up, then wait two
minutes watching the approach in case anyone is out of sight, below,
landing. Full throttle, I guess it's similar to ski jumping, 65 kts
IAS, rotate, and we're off. Fantastic!!!
After a 30 min. flight (or was it a glide) we landed at Chambery and had
lunch. What a lovely airport and helpful people! The airport was
deserted except for the restaurant which was busy with local people and
was very reasonably priced even for us impoverished Brits.
The flight back to England was uneventful until we got to Humberside.
There was a line of thunderstorms which I picked up on the Metcom. They
stretched the full width of the country. We diverted East and flew at
500 ft. along the east coast. Zoe kept tightening her harness. When I
glanced at her she smiled, but when she thought I wasn't looking, she
wasn't smiling! At one point she asked what would happen if we were hit
by the lightning. "We'll probably explode", I honestly, but not very
reassuringly, replied. A few miles later we turned inland and landed at
Teeside, first seeing the airport when downwind at 500 ft. It's the only
time Zoe has ever wanted to be on the ground. After about an hour, it
cleared and 23 minutes flight time later we were home.
Newsletter# 49 / April 1995
12/17/94
Dear Nat,
1 wanted to thank you so much for your hospitality, first at Oshkosh
where you shared your campsite and then in Mesa where you shared your
hangar.
The most important was sharing your knowlege where I learned so much
about my own plane. You wanted a brief description of our flight from
Maryland to Mesa to visit my sister-in-law and return, exactly 2000
miles. We planned to fly two 3.5 hr. legs per day. We spent the first
night at Sparta-Hamilton, just SE of St. Louis. The airport treated us
royally, making reservations for us at the local motel, hangaring our
airplane free, and letting us use a courtesy car for the night. The
next morning they even carried a bucket of soapy water out to the plane
so I could wash the bugs off. The motel was old but cheap ($26), clean,
and everything worked, which is more than I can say for the $80 room we
had at the Grand Canyon. From a safety point of view, the trip was
uneventful; the only problem was our loran "C" went out (no real problem
as I have a Garmin moving map and a VOR). We had headwinds on the way
out, so my little 0-235 could only give me 156 mph. Those reclining
seats, a wing leveler, and CD made for a very relaxed flight.
After our visit, we proceeded to the Grand Canyon. We overflew Sonoma
and wished that we had stopped to visit this apparently beautiful town.
We were disappointed with the facilities at the Grand Canyon. The air
traffic was surprisingly heavy. The Park Service is attempting to limit
the number of people who use the Canyon. Flying over the Canyon is
limited to two narrow channels that are also used by 5 or more
sight-seeing flying services. The panorama of the Canyon was
magnificent. We left the Canyon and flew down the Painted Desert, but
the colors were not that impressive. We stopped in Pueblo, CO to see my
sister and then returned home, stopping again in Sparta. We had a
tailwind the whole way home and averaged 195 niph. Pretty nice speed and
when leaned out the fuel burn was only 5.2 gph. Our next to last landing
was at Shenandoah Valley in VA, which had a 20 kt crosswind. This made
the pucker meter get right up there, but it was unneccesary as the plane
handled perfectly. We later landed back at our home base of Easton, and
the crosswind was 23 kts. Again the landing was made very easy just by
keeping the windward wing a little low. My wife Janie joins me in saying
"hello" to your charming and talented wife.
Ken Brimmer
Bowie, MD
12/15/94
Dear Nat and Shirley,
My Mark IV has about 70 hours so far and is performing great. Cruise
speed of 180 knots at 8,500 to 12,500' altitude is normal. Everywhere
we go, a crowd seems to gather. I've enclosed two newspapers, one from
Clanton, AL (my parents' hometown, the photographer from the paper saw
us land and came running to the airport. The Miami Herald also had a
feature article on experimental aircraft. Hope you enjoy!
Dave & Vicky Higgins
Pembroke Pines FL
Newsletter# 51 / October 1995
6/22/95
Dear Nat & Shirley,
My prosthesis for flight, Cozy FPFMP, is still really enjoyable to use.
Recently Marie and I attended "Montpellier Composites '95. 27 canards
appeared from Switzerland, Britain, Germany and France. In France, I am
the only one with the 0-235 C2A engine, in a Cozy. Some Longs had this
engine too. I confirm that with a low pitch prop and not over 1500 lbs
gross, it is a very good flying platform. Like Shirley, Marie hates bad
weather. However she prefers flying in the Cozy rather than the 172;
visibility, turbulence, seat position, and even noise. I don't fly
fast: 120 kts/2300 rpm. and 20 L of gas an hour. Calculations are easy,
noise is light, sipping is light, and the engine is happy too. I use a
handheld GPS, and it is quite sufficient. As for CHTS, I am now in the
300 deg F range after paying attention to leaks around the altenator,
starter, and baffling. At climb, max is 400 F. My oil temp when
climbing can reach 240 F, but as soon as I level out, it goes back to
170-180 deg F, depending on outside temps. I am thinking of using #8
hoses instead of #6 to the oil cooler (Editor - YES!!).
I met Klaus Savier in Montpellier. He said the vents in my wheel pants
generates a lot of drag and suggested I close them. (Editor.
NO!) I closed them, and there was no change. He also said that
the pitch trim change with the GU canard was caused by insufficient gap
between the elevator and canard. Your opinion? (Editor. This is
news to me!) I am still happy with the 76 VGs (to eliminate the
pitch trim change) on my GU canard.
I have no problems with the "ram" air induction system mounted directly
on the carb and using the air filter from the 2CV Citroen car. Please
find a photo enclosed. The principle is exactly the same found on the
J3 50 years ago. If all goes well, we plan to got to Sun 'n Fun '96 -
but not with FPFMP! Aeronautically yours and friendly regards to you
two.
Marc Pichot
France