Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Put some new pads on the Matcos and new tires. I have a small hole in the wheel pants for airing up the tires. Here's how I can align the hole with the valve stem. Those tires are Desser retreads; really stout. I think Marc has reported getting more landings out of them. If I'm wrong, he will correct me. 🙂
  3. Ah yes, feeling reduced G due to acceleration. Thanks, Marc It was not too bad if you got a good briefing on how to do it. I never really had to land one for a student from the back seat. Actually, for a guy moving from the T-37, my first impression was the rather poor front seat vision with a sight mechanism and RHAW scope in the way, and the pitch sensitivity flying formation. Most pilots flew formation with their forearm braced lightly on their knee to avoid a PIO--at least initially.
  4. As I read thru this - I just saw a little old lady that could not see over the panel and just a tuft of blue grey hair visible from the side windows... (I am certain we have all driven our cars behind this view...). Glad she is ok. IF she was flying by the numbers (airspeed and decent rate (yes vsi has a lag time)) she should not have landed up like this. This is (should) be all configured well before final and the "view" is the only thing that she should have worried about. I suspect low airpeed causing geater decent rate - and exacerbated by pulling back on the yoke to "keep the view"... Just an armchair quarterback - but I think about this every flight I take (and I am not NEARLY as old and grey (yet)....
  5. Actually, a constant descent rate is still at 1G - the only time there is acceleration or deceleration vertically is if the descent RATE is changing. That's the definition of acceleration. So no matter what the descent angle is - 1 degree, 3 degrees, 10 degrees - if the descent RATE is constant (300 fpm, 500 fpm, 1000 fpm), you're still at 1G. Now, what MAY be going on in what you're feeling is a CHANGE of descent rate, and that's an acceleration, and that you CAN feel. But you can't feel velocity, and downward velocity does not imply a change of "G" loading. For this poor woman, what she probably didn't feel was the backside of the power curve increasing her descent RATE, and the wing stalling and slamming the nose gear into the ground.
  6. A Vari WITH A/W... (sans engine) https://www.barnstormers.com/listing_images.php?id=1599238
  7. Yesterday
  8. Most people can learn this. Some take awhile to get it, a few never do. At least in my experience. Sort of an 'art' to it. How did you find landing an F-4 from the back seat? I guess you wouldn't do it very often in practice, but how were your landings compared to the front seat position? Just out of interest!
  9. Barnstormers: I wonder if this could be what's left of the Todd's Canopies business? Todd blew a lot of canopies for a lot of airplanes before he died in a crash. Might be a good business for anyone interested There'd be a learning curve but there is nothing very complex about blowing canopies. More pics in the ad
  10. Just reading this incident where a 70 year-old student pilot pranged her Cessna. http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2021/01/abnormal-runway-contact-cessna-172r.html What interests me is her narrative (pic 2): "[In the flare and roundout] I looked down the runway as I had been taught. And when the runway 'zoomed' in (as I had been taught), I started my flare, and held it . . . waiting for the aircraft to settle and I was on centerline. Then in the next split moment, the nose wheel dropped down completely, hit the runway. I recall that it came down hard" It is clear to me this person did not have a sense of her height above the runway or a sense of sinking and likely dropped the aircraft in. I have often heard instructors advise to "look down the runway in the roundout" but that's only half of it. Of course, you have to keep the aircraft track aligned with the runway but a student can't rely on an automatic flare technique, i.e., approach at XX speed, reduce power at X, begin a roundout shifting your eyes down the runway and a good landing just happens. I have never been conscious of a runway "zooming" in but a student must develop the ability to judge his height above the landing surface using his sense of height. When I have had students that had trouble judging their round-out I would have them fly down the runway a few feet above it. To do that successfully the student has to develop a sense of his height above the surface in his peripheral vision. That sense is essential to avoiding a high or low roundout but what is it? It is an awareness--in your peripheral vision-- of runway scale and the texture of the asphalt, grass, and runway markings. In the F-4 instructor course, we had to land from the back seat with very little forward vision. On final we could check runway lineup by putting our helmet up against the canopy and looking through a pretty small hole above the instruments (pic 3). That worked from several miles out until the roundout but at the start of the flare we were generally advised to sit up straight, stare at the back of the front seat, and rely on peripheral vision to keep the wings level and sense the runway height. It is also important to feel "sink". I have often flown with pilots who set themselves up nicely out on final. They had the perfect final approach picture but they did not realize that they were sinking, i.e., they did not feel "sink" in the seat of their pants (actually, a very slight G reduction). They allowed the airplane to sink below the glideslope. I often found myself saying "Do you feel that sink? Make a pitch correction" Some of them said "I never felt that before but I see what you mean." A worse case is when a student does not feel the sink developing that results in a dropped-in landing. I suppose the G one feels on final is the cosine of the approach angle. For 3 degrees it is .9989 G. I doubt you can really feel the difference between 1 G and .9989 G but you CAN feel the difference in .9989 G and say, .95G which is what you might feel if the airplane is sinking on final. Once you are conscious of sink (G), you will have better approaches. Again in the Phantom, we wanted to fly a steady ON-SPEED AOA tone on final. Once in a while on a calm day you would get just the right speed, approach angle, and aimpoint that would result in a steady ON-SPEED tone. Then, by holding the same power and keeping the same G in the seat of your pants, you could maintain that ON-SPEED most of the way to the roundout. So satisfying! I hope you found this discussion interesting.
  11. Last week
  12. Progress, cross-checked the new T-30 with a TruTach, and it is accurate to 1% throughout the range. Next to finish the wheelpant install, though that won’t change the 2150 static, or the doggy takeoff performance. Preference still to glass the transition to the gearleg, instead of to the top of the pant?
  13. If you buy all new parts, no scrounging, new engine, glass panel... its taking around $100k to build a Cozy MKIV. Its possible to complete one with second hand parts, mid time engine, simple panel for $50k. I don't see how it would cost a whole lot less to build a new Varieze. Metal parts, engine mount, foam, epoxy, avionics, engine.... maybe it could be done for $30k to $40k. Just a guess... but other than being smaller, there are a similar number of parts. You can buy a nice flying Varieze for $15k to $20k. Have it inspected by one of the excellent leaders in our community, and you'll be YEARS and MONEY Way Ahead. If you want to build... then build. If you want to fly an EZ... I recommend buying one.
  14. Welcome to the group. I suggest that you join the "Canard Owners and Builders". It is a group of about 1000, many of which are just wanting to build or just starting to build. We have a32 page newsletter (now in color) for $39 in the U.S. ! don't know about outside. The newsletter comes 4 times per year. I assume we get the directory in Jan. which was the usual practice in the past. There is more info on https://canardowners.com The directory will list several members who are ourside the U.S.: British, French, Australian. Also see https://facebook.con/Central States Association. The guys really running the editing and printing get a lot os news and suggestions but the change to color is very recent. My particular copy is quite damaged by the USPS but I can read most of it. The first 26 pages are VERY good compared to the black and white ones done for many years. Back issues of several quarters are still available from Terry Schubert.
  15. My name is Ray, currently live in Kent, England. I am about to retrain after working in education in some years to be an aerospace engineer, was looking for more information on the Long-EZ and stumbled across the Open-EZ. I am here to watch for now with a view to building in the future. I was training for my PPL before the current hoohah nixed that. Very interested in canard aircraft, in particular love Rutan designs (I've had a bit of obsession with his Proteus aircraft recently). Thank you for allowing me to join your forum.
  16. Fasteagle

    Berkut wings.

    What was the starting serial number of the Berkut kits with the “2nd generation Ronnenburg wings”?
  17. How exciting! I think I will spend some time searching for a Varieze or Long Eze. I think working an aircraft back into the air might be best for me. Open EZ will be the backup plan. Thank you all.
  18. Very interesting. I missed that one. Thanks for posting.
  19. My advice is to find an existing VariEze if it fits yours needs. You cannot beat the value. I went through this process last year. I found a good deal on a well-built VariEze with 570 hours on it. It had not flown for 16 years. I put some time and a little money into getting it back into flying condition (mags, carb, hoses, electrical, starter, instrumentation). I learned everything I could about the construction by working through these items. I got checked out in flying canards, had a thorough condition inspection in Covington, TN, and then flew it home to Minnesota in November. MN weather is not very cooperative in the winter, but I have managed to put over 20 hours on it in the last 2 months. I am 5'9" and 175#. I fit just fine, but not a lot of extra space. You have to be organized with your cockpit. I absolutely enjoy flying the VariEze. Here's a story I wrote for Ryszard with RAFE about my VariEze. https://www.rutanaircraftflyingexperience.org/post/an-rafe-christmas-story
  20. Ok, I like the capabilities of the Aerocanard. Also, with the option of a few kit parts, the build time could be cut down when money is freed up. Buying a used canard sounds very interesting. It would have to be a solid specimen. I'm sure there are some very experienced members here that would know what to look for. Does anyone know if there is a compounded list of available mods/upgrades/fixes for Long EZs? I guess maybe since its experimental, the sky is the limit? (pun unintended) More importantly would be fixes for safety and efficiency.
  21. The most economical way is to buy a project. See my “sales I’ve seen” thread. You generally get the builder’s labor for free and a discount on materials. Often older airplanes come that need a refurb. That can be fun.
  22. Variezes are rather dated now - still and excellent and efficient aircraft, but building techniques, materials etc improved a lot with the Long-Ez, etc. Some aspects of the design (wing attach) haven't aged all that well, and were improved in later designs. The Aerocanard plans are here: https://aerocad.com/14-aerocanard-plans I own the complete set if you have any questions. FWIW I'm building from the plans, not kit parts.
  23. I appreciate that, gentlemen. I figured a Varieze would be my most economical option into the world of canards. I like the CozyIV, but the price seems to go up quick with the engine requirements. Aerocanards still need the builder to acquire plans first, correct?
  24. I wouldn't hesitate to build an Open-EZ (but a Cozy better fits my mission). Cross-check your printed plans, easy to do, and will give peace of mind. Remember as well, these are hand-crafted machines, a couple of mm difference here and there isn't the end of the world.
  25. The Open-ez plans are identical to what Rutan sent out or so close you can't tell any difference. However, there are lots of improvements made to the Long-ez over the years: bigger engine, longer nose, beefed up engine mounts, changes in the foam available, so there are changes that could be made. 100 Hp won't be enough, though. 150 hp is about right
  26. After finally discovering the coolest aircraft to build for cross country adventures, I was discouraged to find out that plans for the Varieze and LE are no longer available. I liked the idea of using an economical 100hp engine without sacrificing speed. Are my only options to upsize “$$$” to the CozyIV (plans and parts available) or search for used aircraft (build quality questionable)? I’m not convinced on the Open Ez. I read a lot concerns about measurements being off or skewed images. Any advice is greatly appreciated.
  27. Earlier
  28. slk23

    lights on a Vari

    Regardless of the original intention, the lower winglet serves almost no aerodynamic purpose, as you acknowledge. It does, however, provide physical protection from a wing strike. So I stand by my statement that its purpose (now) is the latter. If you're not worried about hitting the wingtip then remove the lower winglet as many have done (speaking about the VariEze only). By the way, assuming that data was available at the time, it seems likely Burt knew that the lower winglet wouldn't contribute much aerodynamically in normal operations.
  29. The first sentence is incorrect. The Varieze was the first implementation of the "Whitcomb" winglet, and Whitcomb's original design included the small lower winglet, so when Burt adopted the Whitcomb design, he included the lower winglet as well. As it turns out, unless you're cruising around at the Max. L/D speed (which we never do, because it's very slow or unless you're very high), it does, in fact, contribute little to aerodynamics. But the lower winglet was NOT put there as physical protection, but as an aerodynamic feature. With the anhedral in Varieze wings, runway contact of the lower winglet is not unknown, but is purely a cosmetic issue, as the lower winglet is not structural.
  1. Load more activity


The Canard Zone

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information