Kent's Long-EZ project

[Kent Ashton]

7 minutes ago, Royal said:

Say you had the outside skins with the spar made in  5 sections, nose cone in 2, body in 2, canards in 2 and the alerions and small parts can be left for them to build. 

I did notice while putting them in CAD and mirroring the other side that it wasn't perfectly symmetrical. Is that something you have found on the open-ez? 

There is a very small market for the canards, getting smaller from lower pilot numbers, a troubled economy, and the expense of flying.  If you wanted to do it for yourself, for fun, that's one thing but I wouldn't expect to find a lot of people seriously interested in buying kits.  Search for "A-Solution" in my "Sales I've seen" thread.  Tons of work came to nothing (so far).  After all, the airplane IS pretty simple to build from plans.  Berkut, a full kit, was not a very successful business.  Aerocad is still around but does not do much.  I see lots of Velocity kits being sold as projects.  Revelaero (recent canard-like kits) seems inactive.  Yeah, Vans does great but that's Vans.

Generally, millimeter precision is not required.  The only asymmetry I noticed building the EZ was in mounting the rudders [crooked] which was my fault and I discussed in this thread.  There is a better way to align them than in the plans, IMO.  In fact, I think I had one wing a couple inches longer than the other but it didn't make any difference.

[Royal]

I think more people don't built them because you do have to build everything and it seems daunting to a non-builder of things. I'm sure they are easy to build but for the people that started and then sold half finished kits would say otherwise. 

[Kent Ashton]

14 hours ago, jridge said:

Jason-  Post some photos of what you've got going.

Yes but start a new thread.    🙂   Just reading this Mooney accident--engine failure in flight   http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2020/06/loss-of-engine-power-total-mooney-m20k.html 

The Continental engine was overhauled at 2185 hrs, 255 hours later it went south.  What is interesting is that the overhauler used silk thread where silk thread is not called for (red area in pic 1).  The report says remnants of the thread can be seen around the bolt hole (pic 2).  The silk thread did not allow the through-bolts to be torqued properly.  

In a related problem, I know that Lycoming overhaulers that used RTV where the cylinders mount on the case can cause the cylinder bolt torque to relax and then a cylinder gets loose (or comes off!).   Be careful.

-------------------------

Then there is this one--a Cirrus--where the pilot appears to have used fuel pump high boost for takeoff--a no no with that engine.  It caused the engine to quit, he pulled the parachute below 200' and died.  Pictures show the airplane in the middle of big clear field.   http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2020/06/loss-of-engine-power-total-cirrus-sr22t.html   A while back I did a "return-to-the-field" exercise in the Cozy.   It's a little uncomfortable to chop power at low altitude but it was very instructive as to what options I might have for an engine failure on takeoff leg.  Below 400', dicey.  At 500' agl pretty doable.   I am not suggesting this Cirrus fellow should have tried to return to the field.  It appears a controlled landing in the field would have let him live.  We have to read these accidents and play them over in our minds--reinforce them with some flying practice so when the time ever comes, we can say "I have been here before and ____ is my best option."

Edited June 25, 2020 by Kent Ashton

[Royal]

$12,000 will get you a Honda fit engine ready to drop in. Brand new engine is $5,000 from the dealer. 

[Kent Ashton]

This posted today on the Cozy list (pic).   These newsletters are a must-have for EZ owners and builders--filled with hundreds of ideas on building and owning EZs compiled by Terry Schubert over years and years.  There is a follow-on organization with a continuation of the newsletter    https://canardowners.com/content.aspx?page_id=9&club_id=391558 and    https://www.facebook.com/centralstatesassociation but I do not see that they make the old newsletters available.    Well worth the bucks if you are new to EZs.

[jridge]

I'm hoping the digital version of the CSA newletters will contain photos that are clearer to view than the printed copies.

Not that many are building Long EZ's anymore, but I wish someone would rescan the old Canard Pusher newsletters at a better resolution.   I'm working from the low resolution digital versions posted on the web and many of the photos in the newsletters are nearly worthless.

Jeff

[Kent Ashton]

The Canard Pushers at Marc's site are pretty readable.  http://www.cozybuilders.org/Canard_Pusher/

[Kent Ashton]

Found an excellent website on Ellisons/Rotecs and rebuilding them.    http://www.miravim.org/4RE/

I have never taken mine apart but might try it if I needed to. 

[Kent Ashton]

Just reading this Mooney crash right after takeoff.  Foggy day, 600 and 3/4 mile viz, older pilot (75). The day before he asked another pilot about instrument departures from RW 29.  Next day, he told ATC he would take off from RW 29.  He announced taxi to RW 29 and that he was taking-off from RW29, however, he was actually using RW 11.  A helpful observer told him "Runway 11" on the freq as he made his initial call to ATC.  Pilot said "Thanks for the help" but never contacted ATC and flew into the ground after about 180 degrees of turn.

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2020/07/loss-of-control-in-flight-mooney-m20j.html

https://goo.gl/maps/BWCzC58DCtk6WjVq8

I feel for the guy.  Been there myself in cases where your mind is quite certain of your present situation but the actual situation is much different.  There is a second for the mind to grasp the new understanding and reorient.  The flight path indicates he knew he needed to turn around.  I imagine he was shuffling papers or fingering instrument departure pages and just did not keep track of the airplane.  I has been my habit at strange fields to know the first heading after takeoff and visualize which direction it will take me.  Maybe if this pilot had looked out the window and thought "My first heading is 290 and 290 is . . . wait!?  Behind me?"  

BTW, I recommend this guy who does a great job of discussing recent accidents like the Pakistani airliner that did a gear-up touch-and-go recently (then crashed)

 

Edited July 6, 2020 by Kent Ashton

[Voidhawk9]

I always make a habit of checking the compass once I line up. Obviously it should be close to the runway number, or something is amiss, in which case it is time to abort or delay the take-off until whatever is resolved.

[Kent Ashton]

Here's another one that makes you just shake your head.  Tri-pacer had not flown since 1996.  The AI that signed off the the annual did not supervise the owner's inspection.  The 68 year old pilot and his passenger on their way to get a Wt & Bal at another airport landed in a cornfield when the engine failed.  Inspection found an ancient, leaking fuel line, fuel valve that only opened 25%, debris in the gascolator, and a large insect nest in the engine compartment.  Maybe the owner didn't want to disturb the wasps.  🙂

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2020/07/piper-pa-22-150-tri-pacer-n7208d.html

[Kent Ashton]

Saw this plaintive post on FB (pic).    Been there, sort of.  I bought a Cozy III when I was about 210 (and  5'-10.5") and flew it a number of years.  Eventually I flew it without seat cushions to get a little more hip room.  It was fun but the C-III is not an airplane for big people.  With two persons, it's like flying an EZ with two people in the front seat.  Contemplate that!  🙂

Just look at the thickness of those seat cushions!  They look like booster seats for a child.  Whoever owned it last was Puffer-sized, for sure.  That, my friends, is an original C-III panel.  Lowrance hasn't made avionics for a decade.

At 240, he is probably a bit large even for a C-IV.  I always point those folks towards a Bearhawk or Murphy Moose.

[Royal]

That plane looks like it would fit me perfect. 5'8" 120 lbs 

[Kent Ashton]

Had a little gotcha yesterday.  "Trim - check"  is in my Before-takeoff checklist but if I am flying solo after a previous solo, the trim setting I landed with is fine to take off with so I don't really look at it very hard.    Took off yesterday and found I  had somehow run the electric trim to the nose-up limit and actuated the limit switch   https://www.canardzone.com/forums/topic/18661-kents-long-ez-project/?do=findComment&comment=61724   No big deal but 10 minutes of pushing on the stick is enough for me.  I probably should have wired the limit switches so one limit switch does not kill the entire trim system.

However, it will prompt me now to actuate the trim before takeoff as a check.  That reminds me of a time when I was hand-proping my Cozy III.  I would prop the airplane, jump in, strap in, and go.  One time the engine quit about half-way down the taxiway.  I got out and propped and propped but it would not start; finally had to push it back to the ramp while my EAA buddies made the usual remarks.  It turns out that as I was strapping in, my mic cord or lap belt had pulled the fuel control to the straight-up (off) position.   After a minute of taxi, it starved the engine.  I thought "Whew,  I'm glad that didn't happen during takeoff."   So nowadays when the checklist says "Fuel - Check" I am careful to recheck the position of the fuel valve even though I "know" it was selected before engine start and got me to the hold-short line.

I am flying only about every two weeks now.  It always seems a bit strange getting back into the plane after a few weeks off.  Things do not seem as automatic. I am behind a half-step.   Little things I would notice when I'm current--say, the elevator position taxiing out, or takeoff rpm, or who else is in the pattern--get missed.  No, it is not age-related!   🙂

[Kent Ashton]

A two-post day, Callooh! Callay!  Saw this pic on a FB page.  Apparently the prop was trashed but what I noticed is that the prop bolts seem to be too long.  It is certainly worth a check. You think you are getting the wood torqued but you are really just bottoming the threads.  Maybe that's why this prop is delaminating.  Is that a bit of aluminum /wood dust coming out?   Hmmm.  Very suspicious.

BTW, as most builders know, it is the friction of the wood clamped against the prop flange that keeps the prop secure.  If the prop has to depend on the bolts-in-shear, you could be in for a very bad day.

Edited July 14, 2020 by Kent Ashton

[Kent Ashton]

Just reading this recent report on the crash of Atlas Air 3591.   At around 6000 descending in IMC, somebody put the airplane in Take-Off Go Around mode.  The First Officer (flying) mistook the acceleration and climb for a stall and put the airplane in a 50 degree dive.  When they came out of the clouds at 3000 feet they could not pull out.  Hit the ground at 433 knots in a perfectly good airplane.  The FO had failed a bunch of training at other airlines and nobody caught that during his hiring.  He had a history of panicing on emergencies. 

 

Edited July 16, 2020 by Kent Ashton

[Voidhawk9]

Between this and the PIA A320 crash recently, there have been some truly shocking pilot error accidents of late.

There are those that have been predicting this sort of thing for some time given the changes to training and hiring practices in the last decade or so. Maybe related, maybe not, but I cannot help but wonder...  Maybe these are isolated, freak accidents, or maybe we will be seeing more of these sorts of accidents in the years to come.

[2High2Fast]

2 hours ago, Voidhawk9 said:

Between this and the PIA A320 crash recently, there have been some truly shocking pilot error accidents of late.

There are those that have been predicting this sort of thing for some time given the changes to training and hiring practices in the last decade or so. Maybe related, maybe not, but I cannot help but wonder...  Maybe these are isolated, freak accidents, or maybe we will be seeing more of these sorts of accidents in the years to come.

I can speak personally to the training at the US’s largest carriers, and it is excellent. I would argue that due to changes in training philosophy, it’s the best it’s ever been. Our safety record bears that out.
I’m VERY selective about foreign carriers for my own travel. Most are fine, some are horrific.

[Voidhawk9]

It isn't really US carriers that are the concern, nor here in NZ. It is the places that put pilots with absolutely minimum time and experience in the cockpit, and especially those people when they move up to captains and have someone with equally little experience beside them. So many pilot 'sausage factories' teach to pass the exams (even to the extent of memorizing question banks), not to create the best pilots.

[Royal]

15 hours ago, Voidhawk9 said:

It isn't really US carriers that are the concern, nor here in NZ. It is the places that put pilots with absolutely minimum time and experience in the cockpit, and especially those people when they move up to captains and have someone with equally little experience beside them. So many pilot 'sausage factories' teach to pass the exams (even to the extent of memorizing question banks), not to create the best pilots.

Sounds like high school.

[Kent Ashton]

This complaint (pic 1) grabbed from FB.   Experience--mine and others-- has demonstrated that a transponder antenna in the nose is problematical.  Pic 2 is an EZ tilted to about a +2º  deck angle as one might see in cruise.  If you are climbing away from a radar station, the deck angle might be 3-4º nose high.  Say you are 20 NM from the radar station at 5,000' AGL.  The look angle from the aircraft to the radar is only 2.5º low.  If you're cruising with a +2º deck angle, large bags of water (you) and the engine are between the antenna and the radar.  Worse when climbing.

A commenter to the FB post said he put the antenna in the strake but the same effect can occur if the bodies get between the antenna and the radar.  Also, there is relatively high loss in a long transponder coax so for my money, the best place is on the belly below the seat.  A transponder reply burst is only miliseconds--too short to heat up any important parts of your body.

[Kent Ashton]

Cleaning out some things and thought I would post a pic of first-efforts at making sparkplug thermocouples.  I have previously talked about making bayonet thermocouples for Lycomings.     https://www.canardzone.com/forums/topic/31152-homemade-cht-bayonet-sensor/

Those things are outrageously expensive--$100 or more--but can be made for a few bucks in parts with a bit of practice with silver solder.

https://www.jpinstruments.com/shop/cht-bayonet-probe/

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/gem6.php?

 

 

 

[Kent Ashton]

This post on FB reminded me of my Miniature Pincher named Charlie.  One day while my wife was a work, I decided to take Charlie to a fly-in not far away.   I put him in the right seat and off we went.  After leveling off, Charlie came over and stood on my chest.  "How cute", I thought.  "He is looking around."  Then he threw up all over me.   Sorry Charlie.   Good thing he was a small dog.  Unfortunately my wife has the same sort of stomach.  After returning from a short flight in bumpy conditions, she got out and sprawled out on the floor of the hangar for 30 minutes to recover. 

Edited July 27, 2020 by Kent Ashton

[Kent Ashton]

Saw this nice baffle job on FB by Henry Herbert who posts as Northwest Cozy.   https://www.facebook.com/NorthwestCozy  Note the fences on the upper cowl (pic 3).  Lots of work to make those.  I am more inclined to leave top forward baffles floppy.  They will still make a good seal.  I have used fences in the top of my cowl but only to backup the top side baffles which did not want to flop outboard . My two fences worked but if I am not careful to mount the top cowl properly, the fence can sit on the silicone baffle and give me noticeably-worse cooling. The only thing I would question on Henry's job is that I don't see a lot of sealant in the cracks.  Even very nice baffles usually have gaps and crack that need to be sealed.  Aluminum-colored RTV from the home stores is my favorite.

He complains that these nice baffles did not help his CHTs very much.  I would bet his cowl exit opening is too restricted and he just isn't getting the exit flow he needs.  Said this before:  I think the prop hub restricts flow out of the cowl and the air comes out at the sides of the opening.  That might be why he has cooling complaints.  The only way to prove it is to do some before-and-after testing with piccolo tubes and a manometer.  On my EZ project with downdraft cooling I planned to have all the air exit around the prop hub and through large exhaust-pipe openings.  I could barely get to pattern altitude before it overheated.  😞  Installing some big exits fixed it.  You can see the mods here.  https://www.canardzone.com/forums/topic/18661-kents-long-ez-project/?do=findComment&comment=57587    I think an exit must be larger than an intake to get good flow.  The air is heated and expanded through the cylinders.  More volume must come out than went in.  That's my poli-sci. major theory anyway.   🙂

Personally, I wouldn't bother with fireseal covering on fuel injection lines.  If there is a fuel leak, what's the ignition source?  The engine is not hot enough.  I suspect the fuel would evaporate as fast as it leaked out.

 

Edited August 8, 2020 by Kent Ashton

[Barry]

Good point on the exit needing to be larger than the entrance due to the expansion of the heated air. On industrial ovens we bring the fresh room temperature air in an opening 1/3 to 1/2 the size of the exhaust. The water vapor in our application expands quite a bit as well.