Open-EZ CAD Drawings

[raiki]

Forgot to add that I was also going to include the internal rudder bellcranks as standard, but Jon really just said that with "the best Long-EZ developed".

I did not intend to include some optional mods like the extended nose.

[emteeoh]

I really like what you've done to the plans! They look very clean. (not that the RAF plans were messy exactly...)

I have a few suggestions&corrections:

1) Label all images

2) Explicitly refer to the images with phrases like "See figure 1".

- As it is, users of the plans have to play connect the dots. Its not super difficult to do, but why play the game at all if it can be avoided?

3) why did you change "0.8in thick" to "3/4in thick" in step 1?

4) The first step wants you to make 2 0.7in tapers, but the dimension of the taper is mentioned only w.r.t. the second taper. I would include it with the first for clarity.

5) There are some differences in the labeling of the images. The Long-EZ plans say "see section VI" w.r.t. the right hole cut in the front seatback. Your Open-EZ plans say "see section IV".

6) The Long-EZ plans show, in the drawings, that the back of the front seatback has a single ply BID at 45degrees. the Open-EZ plans have dropped the "at 45 degrees" from the drawings, so its now unstated...

7) step2, there is no e in "strong". There is also only one d in "sanding"

8) At this point, it occurs to me to ask: why are you not consistently using the blue for the foam in all the drawings so far?

9) The Long-EZ plans' drawing showing that the rear seatback is 18.7in at the top and 20.6 at the bottom also clearly shows that both sides narrow evenly (ie: its an "isosceles trapezoid" if wikipedia is to be believed) because it has that little extra 0.95in dimension. Your Open-EZ plans lack that dimension.

10) I guess its not strictly necessary, but since the forward bulkheads have full-size templates... might it be easier on the builder to make full-size templates for the seatbacks too?

... I'll look at steps 3 and 4 later.

[mfryer]

I seems to me that at this point there is gathering a great deal of information and input from many different directions and that is a good thing. However I wonder if perhaps there would be a better format for consolidating this information. Perhaps a wiki site, or some format that open software uses to collect and maintain the information.

[raiki]

emteeoh, thanks for you input. First up remember that this release was purely to test the idea. It is not a release candidate. I will however answer your questions.

emteeoh said:

1) Label all images

2) Explicitly refer to the images with phrases like "See figure 1".

- As it is, users of the plans have to play connect the dots. Its not super difficult to do, but why play the game at all if it can be avoided?

That is something I can do. I didn't because the Long-EZ hasn't but I think I will.

emteeoh said:

3) why did you change "0.8in thick" to "3/4in thick" in step 1??

If you look at the kits for the Long-EZ and the Cozy from Wicks and Aircraft Spruce they are selling 3/4". This is why I used it. I am not sure if RAF used different foam back in the day or if they rounded up 0.75".

emteeoh said:

4) The first step wants you to make 2 0.7in tapers, but the dimension of the taper is mentioned only w.r.t. the second taper. I would include it with the first for clarity.

Thats an easy addition.

emteeoh said:

5) There are some differences in the labeling of the images. The Long-EZ plans say "see section VI" w.r.t. the right hole cut in the front seatback. Your Open-EZ plans say "see section IV".

Disregard anything to do with Section IV at this stage. The landing brake will be included in the plans (like the Cozy) and will not require a Section IV. This will be added when that chapter is written so I can properly reference it.

emteeoh said:

6) The Long-EZ plans show, in the drawings, that the back of the front seatback has a single ply BID at 45degrees. the Open-EZ plans have dropped the "at 45 degrees" from the drawings, so its now unstated...

Fixed.

emteeoh said:

7) step2, there is no e in "strong". There is also only one d in "sanding"

Fixed

emteeoh said:

8) At this point, it occurs to me to ask: why are you not consistently using the blue for the foam in all the drawings so far?"

If you mean that there is only one shaded picture of the front seatback with all the others simple line drawings, for example, I did this for clarity. I think line drawings are easier on the eye for step by step guidelines. I intend only for there to be one 3D "rendered" image of MOST bulkheads.

emteeoh said:

9) The Long-EZ plans' drawing showing that the rear seatback is 18.7in at the top and 20.6 at the bottom also clearly shows that both sides narrow evenly (ie: its an "isosceles trapezoid" if wikipedia is to be believed) because it has that little extra 0.95in dimension. Your Open-EZ plans lack that dimension.

10) I guess its not strictly necessary, but since the forward bulkheads have full-size templates... might it be easier on the builder to make full-size templates for the seatbacks too?

I didn't think that was neccessary because it is obvious the general shape is symetrical. I will add it to make you feel better.

Again thanks for the input and remember this is the first draft of a project that may or may not happen. We are currently at the feasibility stage.

[raiki]

mfryer said:

I seems to me that at this point there is gathering a great deal of information and input from many different directions and that is a good thing. However I wonder if perhaps there would be a better format for consolidating this information. Perhaps a wiki site, or some format that open software uses to collect and maintain the information.

I agree we need to find a way for multiple people to work on this project, however initially what I have done was only for myself. I thought it turned out better than expected, thats when I decided to release it to the forum. Thats why it is done is a one user sort of environment.

As for the CAD templates, there are already multiple people working on that. If we keep going the way we are going we will end up with a big pot of drawings. I guess we could just vote on what is the best of each template and consider that the release candidate.

A wiki might be good, but at this stage we dont have that.

[Jon Matcho]

Great feedback.

raiki said:

I guess we could just vote on what is the best of each template and consider that the release candidate.

That's how open source generally works, but generally comes to a "benevolent dictator" for the final word (ex. Linus Torvalds for Linux). Without that I think the voting scheme is good.

Anyone ever hear of SharePoint? I customize SharePoint full-time as part of my day job. I have been fixing to setup a SharePoint site for these activities some time now. Web-based access, check-in/out, simple wikis, etc. Let me see about setting it up ASAP to bring some order to this, but we are on the right track.

[emteeoh]

raiki said:

If you look at the kits for the Long-EZ and the Cozy from Wicks and Aircraft Spruce they are selling 3/4". This is why I used it. I am not sure if RAF used different foam back in the day or if they rounded up 0.75".

Ahh! That explains that.

Quote

Disregard anything to do with Section IV at this stage. The landing brake will be included in the plans (like the Cozy) and will not require a Section IV. This will be added when that chapter is written so I can properly reference it.

The part I want to emphasize is that IV is not the same as VI. It *looks* like you've missed that fact twice now.

Quote

If you mean that there is only one shaded picture of the front seatback with all the others simple line drawings, for example, I did this for clarity. I think line drawings are easier on the eye for step by step guidelines. I intend only for there to be one 3D "rendered" image of MOST bulkheads.

I think I'll prototype a different layout when we can share sources... I think it'll be clearer with consistent colour.

Quote

I didn't think that was neccessary because it is obvious the general shape is symetrical. I will add it to make you feel better.

In case its not obvious: when writing documentation, I'm of the opinion that you should insult the intelligence of the reader in the interests of being precise.

Quote

Again thanks for the input and remember this is the first draft of a project that may or may not happen. We are currently at the feasibility stage.

NP. I figure the better even the demo docs are, the better the chances of whatever we might consider success.

[emteeoh]

Jon Matcho said:

Great feedback.

That's how open source generally works, but generally comes to a "benevolent dictator" for the final word (ex. Linus Torvalds for Linux). Without that I think the voting scheme is good.

The thing is that the "benevolent dictator" is self-appointed, and usually the guy who started the project. In this case, that would be you!

Quote

Anyone ever hear of SharePoint? I customize SharePoint full-time as part of my day job. I have been fixing to setup a SharePoint site for these activities some time now. Web-based access, check-in/out, simple wikis, etc. Let me see about setting it up ASAP to bring some order to this, but we are on the right track.

yeah, we use sharepoint here too. I'm not a huge fan, but that's because I can be a little bit of a luddite when it comes to the web. HTML1.0 ought to be good enough, IMO. Also... Microsoft. 'nuff said.

In this case, I would just like to suggest we keep it clean of embrace-and-extend-isms enough that it works with non-IE browsers and non MS office tools . You've done a fine job of that on canardzone so far, so I'm not particularly worried.

[Vortal]

Jon Matcho said:

Great feedback.

That's how open source generally works, but generally comes to a "benevolent dictator" for the final word (ex. Linus Torvalds for Linux). Without that I think the voting scheme is good.

I'm also ok with the vote stuff, but if we vote, we need to go with a hole package, to be homogeneous from a drawing to an other, you can't have one template from one standard and the next one from someone else with a different standard...

The sharepoint (or similar) is also a good idea to access and order what is beeing done and by who (20 person doing the same job doesn't add much.

..

Is someone thinking about an electronic and revised (with the modifications like the air brake...) version of the POH?

I redid the title blocks using mfryer's logo (with your permission?) i'll update the initial drawing of the instrument panel with a couple of modification i was thinking about, i will resubmit when it's done

Then ill start on one of the airfoils (there to i have ideas)

I'm happy it all goes so well on this, i have seen so many projects on many forums dying in the middle of nowhere because standing on one person's shoulders, but for this project, there is a real community, and i'm realy confident about all this (happy note )

[raiki]

emteeoh said:

The part I want to emphasize is that IV is not the same as VI. It *looks* like you've missed that fact twice now.

No I didn't miss it. My point was there will be no section anything. It will refer to a chapter.

[raiki]

Ok, here's something that is missing from the Open-EZ project that has been asked for a lot. I had been working on it for some time but let it lapse. This new topic has renewed my interest so I finished it.

Here are the Roncz canard templates. There are some dimensions added to the checking templates and also 1" strikes all around the page. This will verify your printing is correct. It is on one D sized sheet (36"x24"). I may actually include the templates in pages of the plans if we decide 11"x17" is the size the plans will be. Initially I was using A4/Letter so they were easy to print at home.

I don't have a title bar like Vortal, but I have a logo. Hope you like.

Canard Templates.pdf

[raiki]

Updated dimensions with better font and decimals instead of commas. Much better.

Canard Templates.pdf

[Jon Matcho]

emteeoh said:

The thing is that the "benevolent dictator" is self-appointed, and usually the guy who started the project. In this case, that would be you!

I'll provide some guidance with how to manage the overall project, maybe make a decision, but NOT having built a Long-EZ should preclude a bunch of us from getting too "fancy" with providing alternate content for the plans. We need to think of ourselves as editors who aim to produce a better organized and better written set of plans than the Long-EZ. The design, except for the rudders, canard, and landing brake, will remain unchanged for the baseline.

Also, it's very important to keep the chapter numbers and steps the same. Then again, maybe the Open-EZ chapters can be aligned to the Cozy IV chapter numbers. That way when someone says "I'm stuck with an issue in Chapter 11", everyone will understand what that's about.

emteeoh said:

yeah, we use sharepoint here too. I'm not a huge fan, but that's because I can be a little bit of a luddite when it comes to the web.

Or possibly due to SharePoint not being deployed all that well. You seem to be doing quite fine interacting here on this Web thing, so I wouldn't blame SharePoint. SharePoint is just another tool and it's up to the builder for how it can be used. Let's give it a chance.

Vortal said:

I'm also ok with the vote stuff, but if we vote, we need to go with a [whole] package, to be homogeneous from a drawing to an other, you can't have one template from one standard and the next one from someone else with a different standard...

I completely agree! Drawings are sometimes useless without a good title box, dimensions, and other consistent standards. It doesn't necessarily matter what tool they come from, but consistency is key. Great tool BTW Vortal (that free one you mentioned).

Vortal said:

Is someone thinking about an electronic and revised (with the modifications like the air brake...) version of the POH?

Yes, I've seen a couple versions of this already. I can track those down and setup a placeholder in the versioning site.

raiki said:

Here are the Roncz canard templates.

Yes! I'll still go through the trouble of scanning and retouching the originals, but this is where we'll end up.

raiki said:

Updated dimensions...

Sounds like we need a versioning site sooner than later! I'll setup a new server and get this going ASAP.

[mak790]

It really looks like you guys have too much free time I wish I have similar problem anyway.

Maybe we should design new fuselage instead redesigning old one. We have here few people who work with CAD programs we have couple engineers, we have "couple" experienced builders. So why not? I believe we have 2 options:

- first moulded technic but it will require lot of engineering works (designing new layup etc)

- second we can use same technic like for original Long Ez but we can change shape (just a little bit- I really dont like original box shaped fuse).

Finally I found today just almost 3 hours of free time so I quickly did short sample. What do you think. Will it be work?

1-3 Comparison box fuse to rounded.

4-5 Assembly process.

Mak

btw I did it with Inventor 2008 just in case.

[Vortal]

Ok guys!

1) i have received my TERF cd () I'll get cracking on that!

2) about Mak790 statement i don't agree : once you have started introducing modifications, you never stop and you end up with a mach1twinrock8seatdualmagneticfieldinductedaircraft and your lost, i think in our structure we shoul have a "baseline" defined as Jon has said (i.e. LongEZ+Roncz+airbrake+Ruder bizness) with associated CAD and instructions, manuals and so on, an the in a "modification" section (juste like in this site) you would have all the gizmos (with eventually associated CAD and instruction) that people can chose to use or not, and having a standard will help us in that direction i'll tel you why later.

3) what Jon stated about standards and revisions and release system, i also agree, working as an aerospace engineer, i can tel you what is usually done in the business (what works and what doesn't, we will decide where to go next as a vote, and suggestions). i can also provide you with my drawing standards so people can use it (if we chose to use these ones, i'll write a new reply). (it goes quite deep in details). Having a standards enables us to know what is people taking about (as Jon stated whit the chapters) and also enables easier modification (a DWG with the same format as the standard ones but replacing informations, views, templates... (and these info clearly documented)

4)no problem Jon for Alibre, if you are looking for a more powerful 2D cad (free also) try solidEgde 2D, autocad is better but not free, and this is the best you'll get for free (unless someone has a better chose, i'll go for it!)

5) the website is already structured in chapter on the construction area, lets make a new locked thread and use it as our release database whith the same structure as we ar using now.

final : i'm going we you are going, what ever i'll follow

Voila

thoughts?

[airnico]

mak790 said:

It really looks like you guys have too much free time I wish I have similar problem anyway.

Maybe we should design new fuselage instead redesigning old one. We have here few people who work with CAD programs we have couple engineers, we have "couple" experienced builders. So why not? I believe we have 2 options:

- first moulded technic but it will require lot of engineering works (designing new layup etc)

- second we can use same technic like for original Long Ez but we can change shape (just a little bit- I really dont like original box shaped fuse).

Finally I found today just almost 3 hours of free time so I quickly did short sample. What do you think. Will it be work?

1-3 Comparison box fuse to rounded.

4-5 Assembly process.

Mak

btw I did it with Inventor 2008 just in case.

I really like your work on inventor and share your rounded fuselage purpose:

seeing your drawing it seems quite easy to realize a rounded shape with the original Long-Ez technic, but are you sure it's really faisible?

I started one year ago trying to do what you made virtually, but I did not realize the problems related to bending something in two different directions:

it simply did not work for me(may be I have no skills for it) and soon I realized it was not the way (may be my way).

It was not possible for me to get the shape I was looking for exactly, it was like I was doing just a rough job(of course it was not straight) so I started again from the beginning and realized a plug for a moulded fuselage.

It needs obviously A LOT of work more, after one year I'm about to finish the plug and now I'm pleased with its shape, but after this I'll have to study a new layup process and it will be like starting again from zero!

I really would like to see someone else pursuing this way, it would be very interesting to see different solutions for the same problems I went through.....

[mfryer]

I think that many of these recent post (the alternative fuselage designs aside) only reinforce the need for some sort of collaboration. I too have developed roncz cad drawing, but i have not shared them with many because they needed to be checked for accuracy. I have worked on other drawings as well. Many of us are performing duplicating the work.

Does anyone out there have any experience with open source development?

Jon, thanks for taking the lead on the versioning site.

[Cozy1200]

interesting look airnico.

Reminds me of the nose off a F111.

[raiki]

mfryer said:

.... because they needed to be checked for accuracy.

This reminds me, I should have stated this in my original post of the drawing that I have verified these against a COPY of the Roncz plans from RAF and the ORIGINALS from my Cozy plans. I am very happy with the results of both tests.

I have printed each template on A3 (17"x11") for this test which verifies each can be printed that size which helps because thats the printer size I have at home. The CAD images are much cleaner than the originals, as you'd expect.

As for the ideas above about different fuselages and so forth, I am against that for the Open-EZ project. While I think they are good ideas for individuals, I doubt we could all agree on which design was best (were all different people with different missions). Also the compound curves involved would make it a little different to build, in which case I dont think plans can be released until one is built. Also by using the Long-EZ as baseline we are just about guaranteed success. Perhaps in the future there can be "suplemental" drawings released for optional modifications. I'd be interested in working on that. Maybe a Burket type clone, using EZ construction like Maks pictures.

I should have the wing templates finished today, but they will be a larger paper size because I have made them all one piece. Jon has already seen these so I think he is happy with them (although I don't think he has confirmed accuracy). They are the ones I used to make the 3D wing that is on CZ somewhere.

[mak790]

airnico said:

I started one year ago trying to do what you made virtually, but I did not realize the problems related to bending something in two different directions:

it simply did not work for me(may be I have no skills for it) and soon I realized it was not the way (may be my way).

I was thinking only about bending in one direction. Side could be cut from thick foam like on pic, probably it will be necassary to make sides in 2 or 3 segments but with proper 3D software it wont be problem to design templates.

Quote

I'm about to finish the plug and now I'm pleased with its shape, but after this I'll have to study a new layup process and it will be like starting again from zero!

Looks like a shark. Is that possible to design and build your own fuselage in Italy?

Vortal said:

about Mak790 statement i don't agree : once you have started introducing modifications, you never stop and you end up with a mach1twinrock8seatdualmagneticfieldinductedaircraf t and your lost

It wasnt statement it was just a thought. But i must disagree with you, before work u need to decide what type of modification u r going to do, (like rounded fuse, split canopy etc) design it and next build it. U just cant changing mind all the time. If u know what u want to do it wont be problem.

Mak

[raiki]

Guys. Although all the ideas are possible, the Open-EZ project has always been about a Long-EZ clone. The templates that exist are Long-EZ clones. Jon started this project so people that wanted a Long-EZ but couldn't get plans could build this. These people want a PROVEN design with existing builder knowledge. It was never about a brand new custom aircraft. I agree with Jon. The baseline will (should) be the Long-EZ with the Roncz canard, long rudders and a speed brake (under belly only). All proven mods (proven by RAF). Beyond that you can do whatever you like, just like any other exp. aircraft.

Having a proven aircraft as the base line will also make this a fast process. Any changes add many delays and unknowns until test flights (structural tests even).

Please dont turn this thread into a "but I think we should do it this way, I know better" type argument. I am not saying anyone has done that yet, I just dont want it to happen. If it becomes a little heated, some of the talented people that want to contribute to this project may think again.

I am not trying to be the ruler of the world, I am simply reminding you of what this project is all about.

Back me up Jon.

[Jon Matcho]

raiki said:

Back me up Jon.

Okay! We should be able to keep this simple:

First, let us produce a standalone Open-EZ release, effectively a clone of the most current Long-EZ to come from the Rutan Aircraft Factory. Once that foundation is established, that should truly become 'open source' and fall under an open source license for all to freely use. Now if someone wants to create their own derivative, that's up to them (provided they follow the agreement) and any others who might want to utilize those modified/derivative plans.

Just like open source. Take a look at Linux and Ubuntu for example.

We should be good.

[airnico]

Also by using the Long-EZ as baseline we are just about guaranteed success.

I totally agree with this sentence, everything else than a Long-Ez clone is a question mark (???) and something that everyone develop for his own preference like a made to measure suit: it would not be possible to work togheter on something different from an original design and it would have no sense.

the baseline of a Long-Ez gives to everybody the chance to get the goal and to everyone else with a lot of time to waste a perfect base to play on with mods and different ideas.

[Big Steve]

You guys are really doing some cool stuff over here. I am way involved in building my Cozy IV right now but when I am done I wanted to build a second Longeze. I have been looking at plans for sale on Ebay and am un willing to pay 5 times what I paid for my original set. I think using a stock Longeze for your base line is the right thing to do. The really creative people out there can then change to their hearts desire. Let me know if there is anything a non computer genius can do to help achieve this very worthwhile goal. Build on STeve

[Edge 513]

I want to go on record as saying AIRNICO has got a GREAT looking plug there. Super lines! Not sure of how it works vs the Longeze windtunnel shape...but it really looks sharp. I also liked the subtle seat drop shown in the plug which looks to lower the shoulders against the longeron waterline. Very cool thought process design wise. The small 'strake' fairings leading to then canard are a great echo to the main wing strakes. Be interesting to see what that does to the air on the inboard area of the canard and elevators. Just a very subtle bow to the canopy [seen from the side view], and I would be totally digging it.[everything's so curvy[must be that beautiful Italian design influence] the canopy might benefit from a subtle flow-curve as well-see below]

Lots of work....good looking stuff AIRNICO:banana: .