Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. Excellent information at Nate's ULpower site. Thanks again for that link. I am surprised Rupert at Hercules didn't get back to Nate. I have worked with Rupert on a Spitfire blade. Rupert uses a design program from Sweden, by an interesting chap called Jan Carlsson.
  3. That looks interesting. Thanks for the link.
  4. Nate also documented his UL power experiences here http://www.myulpower.com/
  5. Build log is broken - on the to-do list! I haven't found the distance from other canard builders to be a big deal. Online support is really good and with a little research most things can be figured out.
  6. Thanks so much for the information. It is good to know that I'm not going to be too out there building this far away from others. I'm just curious whether you find that you get enough support via questions in forums and pictures, or do you often find the lack of a human being that can come by and discuss issues with a real limiting factor? I have a very limited amount of experience in composites on a small boat project I built recently. I'm actually thinking about reordering my next two projects and doing a larger composite sailboat first before the Cozy. It looks like a significantly easier project, would get my hands dirty so to speak with composites, and would probably complete around the time that international travel restrictions start to lift and I could try to get some practice flights in a Cozy somewhere around the time I'd begin building the Cozy. I'll definitely check out your build log online. Thanks again and good luck on building!
  7. Last week
  8. Thanx, Kent! I love it when someone comes to my support! "Very high frequency Omni-directional Range".......sort of like where the cows graze (on the "range"), ehh? I suppose I will be caught making fun of VOR's on the forum when the GPS goes to crap nationwide as we bring on "a new phone service" and all we are left with is the few VOR's still ticking. John Caulkins
  9. You didn’t answer his question. 🙂. Very high frequency Omni-directional Range
  10. Eeek ! Thanks, but websites like that repel me almost instantly. It is interesting to look at the build website though. I should try to contact Nate.
  11. What"s a "VOR"? Responding to a rhetorical question ... that's the box I put in my airplane to give it a legitimate IFR capability. The VAL NAV2000 is "only" $1300 at Aircraft Spruce and gives me an ILS (using my Dynon SkyView) at the nearby towered field when I need it. Some people spend that much every couple of years on the "Garmin tax" (database updates for their GTNs, GDLs, and other TLAs* for LRUs** I don't need or want). * TLA == Three Letter Acronym ** LRU == Line Replaceable Unit
  12. > Not sure they are worth $400 though. That's about what Van's Aircraft charges for their RV baffle kit and I've never heard of anyone foregoing the kit in favor of sheet metal. BTW, Van's RV-14 baffles cost twice that! I would gladly spend $400 for Les Laidlaw's baffles except for the part about doing all the bending to fit. And cutting out the holes for the alternator and starter. And the inter-cylinder baffles, baffle seal material, and additional misc. items that always seem to be needed. Guess I'll stick with what I have. Yeah, no matter how you slice it, baffles suck.
  13. Nate Mullins has the UL powered EZ, and he did resolve the issues eventually. He can provide guidance regarding installing them in an EZ if you want it.
  14. Hi Larry. I'm in New Zealand, not Thailand, but we share some similar problems. I'm building a (modified) Cozy IV, but haven't ever flown a Cozy. I did get to see a couple and fly in a Berkut and Velocity while in the States a couple of months ago (pandemic spamdemic!). If the design / configuration is one that excites you and you have a passion to build, go for it! It is a lot more time and effort than one of those kits, but to me it's worth it - I look forward to flying it very much, but I really enjoy the building too! I'm 6'4", and am confident I can build the canopy to suit. I have sourced equivalent materials here for much of the raw stock. Foam, BID, epoxy, no problem. Hardware, Cozy-specific parts, and UNI glass I have imported from the USA so far, though I haven't had to get any 'big' parts yet. Colan in Australia has some some good glass options, and I believe is the new spar tape supplier for Spruce anyway. You're clearly the 'builder' type. Have you done much composite work yet? I hadn't, so I did a couple of small projects with the stuff first to make sure I enjoyed it. I did!
  15. Of course, Marc is correct. The RH antenna is connected to the ELT and I have not tracked down the LH antenna cable yet (batteries in my VOM are dead..... again!). What"s a "VOR"?
  16. $400 for baffles being worthwhile depends where you are in your trade-offs between time and money, right? Looks like a nice kit.
  17. These are nice (pic) . H/T Les Laidlaw. Not sure they are worth $400 though. .032 metal does not gain you anything and is harder to shape. I use .025" 6061 which is a good alloy. It is plenty stiff enough but can be bent fairly easily. Baffles are a chore no matter how you make them and you might end up remaking some of them. The process is very fiddly. I got some offest printer plates free from a printer. It is very thin metal and was useful for making test templates to cut out the final metal. Or posterboard. That'll work too.
  18. I think UL may be pricey your side of The Pond for the same reason that Lycomings are more expensive on our side. I think there is much more general aviation in USA, and you have good sources for new American engines, and parts. I reckon the sheer volumes of engine equipment sold over there means there is more competition, and lower pricing. It's possible I would use a Lycoming if I was over there. Over here, I have not owned a UL myself, but have helped on a few projects with installation and cowl design for ULs. I have found UL Power helpful in this too. It was interesting to read of the issues the EZ builder had over there. I'm sure it does not do UL's reputation any good over there. 'interesting to see that EZ has a 3 bladed propeller. I have not heard of serious issues among the UL owners I know. I will have a good look at the EZ builder's site you linked, when I get home from the office. UL are not the big one for experimentals here. Rotax are. I find them a bit complex, but incredibly compact, and quiet externally. I have flown with a Rotax, and it was a bit buzzy in the cockpit. I prefer the direct drive, and the simplicity of the UL engines. Also, they are not far from where I used to live, in Belgium. I could visit them on regular travels through Belgium (in normal times).
  19. I see that the UL390i is maybe 60 pounds lighter than an O-320 (220# vs 280) ( see https://www.supercub.org/forum/showthread.php?31942-O-320-O-360-What-do-they-really-weigh ) but do you really want to pay $29K for an engine? You can probably buy a mid-time O-320 for $15K--half the cost. By the time you get to needing an engine, the price for the UL might be over $30K. It's up to you but I would look at how many they are selling. The ULs do not seem to be used on a lot of airplanes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ULPower_Aero_Engines If I were to build another EZ, I'd plan for an O-320 again. It will be just as much fun and a lot cheaper. Yeah, I am a cheap guy 🙂 I saw that the guy who built an EZ with a UL put it up for sale for a short time at $95K then took it off. I'd like to know what happened there. I see that he had some small problems with the engine http://www.mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=jenatepilot&project=2121&category=9305&log=258399&row=51 Haven't read much about him lately. Came across this page with UL owners. http://www.myulpower.com/p/blog-page_13.html
  20. That's interesting, Kent. I am not so light either. I will be having a very minimalist panel with remote NAV, COM, XPDR units controlled from a glass PFD/MFD. I could use their installation position to tune CG position. The cockpit will be further de-cluttered, as the engine requires no mixture or carb heat controls. The aircraft will be a fully de-cluttered VFR machine, so any reduction in instrument/controls weight should not be overlooked.
  21. I met a German fellow at Oshkosh who bought planes in the US and sold them in Europe. He ferried them (and unfortunately died on a ferry flight) but he said he made a decent return on those airplanes. So, yeah, I suspect it would be cost-effective to buy an airplane here and ship it or (gulp) ferry it. 🙂. The Rutan airplanes are not hard to fly—just a matter of learning speed control in the pattern and landing. A competent seller could probably get you comfortable in 2-5 hours. These airplanes vary in quality. Most are safe but some safe ones are ugly or need updating. The main thing is to get good pictures from the seller and a pre-buy inspection from a person familiar with them. See www.burnsideaerospace.com Or www.jetguys.co we just had a chap here turn down a Cozy project after he saw it close up. I think he could have seen the problems in the pictures, though. A lot of the value is in the engine so you want to see copies of the logbooks and question the seller about how often it was flown and how it was maintained. If they want to sell, they will accommodate you. If they’re not forthcoming, find another airplane. yeah, building is fun but so is refurbishing an airplane and getting it the way you want it.
  22. I agree about the manual system but nobody is making them anymore. Not hard to make, though. it is very common to lengthen the nose. On my O-320 EZ with a longer nose and battery there, I still had to use 10-15# up by the rudder pedals to get what I considered a safe stall warning in the form of canard bob—and I am not a little guy—225#. With a lighter engine you may be OK
  23. Thanks, Kent. I don't know how some ppl run mogas for years successfully, but I can afford all LL so I will
  24. You've given me quite a bit to think about. Much of the materials on that list looks sourcable here. The brakes, nose gear and other airplane specific stuff, probably not. (But I'll check anyway.) I will look into this a bit, as well as looking into hiring a freight forwarder to simply take all the kits at once, load them onto a shipping container, and I'll deal with customs and delivery at the port of Bangkok. But you've also gotten me thinking about building vs buying. I'm a builder at heart, but I also need a "point in". And maybe more importantly, I assume I will need training in flying an already flight tested plane before I begin dealing with flight testing my own build. And maybe that training would be helpful prior to build, too? And not having a community here for in person support (at least in the beginning) sounds like it might be a problem. If I could request some advice: Would it make more sense to wait the year or two before international travel gets back to something resembling normal, and then make the trip to the USA (where it looks like most of the Cozy's are), and spend a week or two training with someone there? Even if I could get a basic set of kits imported here, given the difficulty in shipping replacement parts, spares, accessories, missing pieces, etc... would it really make more sense to buy an inspected, well built complete plane and just ship that over? I'm assuming I'll still be struggling with replacement parts, etc, but at least I'd be starting with all the pieces. I'm looking forward to building about as much as I'm looking forward to flying. But at the same time, it might make sense to have experience with the plane before building. I know these are newbie questions, as much for me to figure out myself as to ask advice from anyone else. But any opinions, judgments, thoughts, advice or suggestions on the matter would be quite welcome.
  25. Hello Kent, I like your ideas. You also suggested earlier, some interesting extra fairing upstream of the engine cowls, and I have been working with that too, and it looks good. I will go for armpit cooling inlets with louvres in appropriate positions in the top cowl. I don't really see the point of electric nose gear lifting. The standard system seems to be perfectly adequate. I would go with the standard manual system. KIS. Keep it lighter. I think the NG30s can be improved with a small modification. They seem have a load path to F22 that is not properly reacted there. Hundreds of flying EZ have proved this is not a problem, but it does look odd to me. I think the nose gear loads are probably not large, and the structure can handle it anyway. I think the nose skin structure also shares the nose gear loads. It is weird that the NG30s don't go high enough to have a seal, but maybe it is unnecessary. I have lengthened the nose , but with the nose leg pivot in the standard position. The underside profile remains standard. Any lengthening of the nose loads the canard more from the weight point of view, so is it wise to also move the battery forward ? The engine I am working with is the UL390i. It is about the same weight as the 0-235, and a bit more powerful,, with slightly lower frontal area. I lengthened the nose only 6" to reduce some aerodynamic down forces I think come from the upper surfaces of the standard nose. Moving the nose leg axis down a little could be beneficial, if it reduces the unstick speed on take-off, but I will work with the standard axis position for now. There is a dimensional conflict with the side foam. If that is 103", and the F22 frame profile goes to the side skin, page 5-1 must be wrong. I am not too bothered by this. The design is tolerant to it, but if the Open EZ project wants to make sense of all the design information, it should be resolved. The 103" dimension should probably be reduced by the thickness of F22, or the aircraft gets stretched by the thickness of F22. Cheers, Justin
  26. Very nice but a couple of ideas: Most people seem to prefer the wilhelmson electric nose lift which bolts in but barely leaves any space between the nose lift motor and the canard. That makes it hard to add a cover over the NG 30s to keep out drafts. It would help to make the NG 30s taller so the nose lift could be sealed with a simple cover over the NG 30s. Most people lengthen the nose but the pivot point for the NG strut is kept the same as for the stubbier nose. With a long nose, the pivot could be moved a couple inches forward and down. That would allow a more symmetrical nose profile with the longer nose, allow more space for the Wilhelmson nose lift below the canard, and give a bit more positive longeron angle which helps with rotation. While you’re redrawing the fuselage, you might as well incorporate the longer nose with a space for a battery as far forward as possibly. It is needed to balance the larger engines most people use. I believe the 103” dimension is only the length of the side foam, then the f-22 and firewall bulkheads are attached later
  27. I have been modelling the nose gear, and am moving on to the rollover structure. Here is a STP file of my nose gear. The castings are pretty much guesswork. It is clear that the extended nosewheel axle position in the attached sketch is impossible to get to if the section views A7 and A8 are followed. My gear and worm pitches are correct, but the actual tooth and work geometry are guesswork based on the Boston Gear data. There are still some things to add. Note, that the worm drive shaft hole in F22 should be offset to the right, and not on the centreline, as the plans sketch of F22 shows. I expect there is a CP newsletter correction somewhere for this. Now I find some anomalies in the position of the F22 bulkhead. Perhaps it is resolved in corrections in the CP newsletters, but I have not read all of them yet. Page 5-1 shows a side view with 103 inches between the aft side of F22 and the forward side of the firewall (F.S.125), but the forward side of F22 is at F.S.22 . It probably makes no difference to performance how it is built, but the sketches should be more correct. The pilot's seat back position is dimensioned from F22. It is all work in progress. Nosegear.zip Open-EZ r5 A3.tif
  1. Load more activity


  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Who Was Online

  • The Canard Zone has been visited from everywhere a red dot appears on the globe.
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      3,945
    • Most Online
      75

    Newest Member
    Mattholew
    Joined

The Canard Zone

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information