Open-EZ - Open CAD design

[Sam Staton]

I have no problem taking ownership of Chap. 14. I will create the drawings in both AutoCAD 2002 and PDF, at least for the smaller ones. My fervent hope is that we also get drawings for the high-performance rudders and the updated speed brake plans. I have also seen reference to landing light plans - I'd like to see them, too.

[TMann]

you are welcome to my chapter 14 drawing just remember to remove 3 inches from the inside dimension. My spar was extended by 3 inches on each side to accomodate the curved sides.

 

I formatted them such that I could print them full scale (1:1) on my plotter

Chapter14.dwg

[raiki]

My fervent hope is that we also get drawings for the high-performance rudders and the updated speed brake plans. I have also seen reference to landing light plans - I'd like to see them, too.

The goal of the project frmo the beginning was to create a LongEZ clone with the "latest approved and tested modifications". This includes the HP rudders, SP canard (Roncz), landing brake etc.

 

This is why I am not so keen on Bruce's verbatim LongEZ plans text. With these additions it is just not possible. This was the decided goal long ago, and along the way people ask to change to the goal. They are finally convinced we should stick to the initial goal, but then someone else comes along and wants to change the goal again. That was why I initially dropped out as it seemed to be going nowhere.

 

If we revert to the original goal and stick to it, I am in and I would be happy to take ownership of chapter 4s drawings. If we are going to go around in circles all over again I am out. Don't take this a threat, as I am sure you can do this without me, it's just it causes me to lose interest.

 

All projects need a well defined goal or they will never be successful.

[Bruce]

The goal of the project frmo the beginning was to create a LongEZ clone with the "latest approved and tested modifications". This includes the HP rudders, SP canard (Roncz), landing brake etc.

...If we revert to the original goal and stick to it, I am in and I would be happy to take ownership of chapter 4s drawings...

We do not differ at all on this thought, we actually agree on this. We just have a different approach as to how to accomplish the same end result. I want to just add them to the plans and you want to re-write the plans with this information included.

 

If we are going to go around in circles all over again I am out. Don't take this a threat, as I am sure you can do this without me, it's just it causes me to lose interest.

Re-writing the plans to include all the updated improvements (which really needs to be done) is an enormous amount of work. That's a project that I would not be interested in doing. Having said that, I'm still willing to assist the project any way I can, it's a big elephant. A lot of us will come and go as this goes along, hopefully our contributions will be appreciated by future builders, so, I'll do what I can until I don't like elephant any more.

 

The templates will be printed tomorrow and I'll compare all three and report back in a day or so. Adrian or any of our CAD experts, if the drawings don't match for some reason, would you like for me to take pictures and post them so you can see the differences, or how would you want that information?

 

Here is the part of the WIKI I don't like.

 

"Please note that all contributions to Open Canard Project may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here."

At Pro Composites, they use "Google Docs" for the Personal Cruiser Plans. Being a Beta builder, some of us have editing permissions while others do not. This could be an option for the project to reside until it's ready for the public to download. My knowledge is limited about it's workings, but, I'll check into it.

[Bruce]

I have no problem taking ownership of Chap. 14. I will create the drawings in both AutoCAD 2002 and PDF, at least for the smaller ones. My fervent hope is that we also get drawings for the high-performance rudders and the updated speed brake plans. I have also seen reference to landing light plans - I'd like to see them, too.

I'll be glad to compare them for you as soon as you're done, thanks Sam.

 

you are welcome to my chapter 14 drawing just remember to remove 3 inches from the inside dimension. My spar was extended by 3 inches on each side to accomodate the curved sides.

 

I formatted them such that I could print them full scale (1:1) on my plotter

Thanks, TMann!

 

Anyone able to cut off the 3 inches in CAD for us?

[Super-eze]

Adrian has ch4, Bruce has the templates and Sam has ch14. Lets discuss accepted and flying improvements as they relate to each of these chapters. If there is one (or more) we can discuss it.

 

How does that sound?

 

We still have three openings for the design panel. Some of these issues would be decided by them. Previous or current builders PLEASE join up.

 

There is no reason for this to stall.

[Sam Staton]

I can take any drawing in DXF or DWG format and do what ever needs to be done. If TMann will send his drawing to me ( pj260@bellsouth.net ), I'll be happy to remove the three inches and post back to the group.

[TMann]

I can take any drawing in DXF or DWG format and do what ever needs to be done. If TMann will send his drawing to me ( pj260@bellsouth.net ), I'll be happy to remove the three inches and post back to the group.

I did that last night.

STD_Chapter14.dwg

[Super-eze]

I am going to purchase a domain for this project. Can we do better than open canard for a name?

[Bruce]

I took the PDF files to 3 different printers, Kinko's and two companies that print blueprints and got three different sizes. Kinko's - was off from 1/32" to 1/8", one other company(A) was off by 1/4"(both off length wise). The last one(B) suggested not using a laser printer but an ink jet, it was almost perfect using the tic marks Adrian provided. Company (B) also mentioned that they can adjust the PDF file so that the tic marks will align perfectly at the time of printing, they do that a lot. They mentioned that several variables come into play each time you print large format like this, type of paper, moisture, etc. Both (A) and (B) said having a .dwg file would make no difference in the end result when printing. PDF is less expensive.

 

When comparing the actual templates with the OpenEZ's, Kinko's and company (A) was off in the shear web from 1/16" to 1/8" in the width, depth was fine. Company (B) was a perfect match.

 

The other issue, the canard profile is off by quite a lot as you can see in the attached picture. Bottom profile, is from the OpenEZ plans.

[steve]

I took the PDF files to 3 different printers, Kinko's and two companies that print blueprints and got three different sizes. Kinko's - was off from 1/32" to 1/8", one other company(A) was off by 1/4"(both off length wise). The last one(B) suggested not using a laser printer but an ink jet, it was almost perfect using the tic marks Adrian provided. Company (B) also mentioned that they can adjust the PDF file so that the tic marks will align perfectly at the time of printing, they do that a lot. They mentioned that several variables come into play each time you print large format like this, type of paper, moisture, etc. Both (A) and (B) said having a .dwg file would make no difference in the end result when printing. PDF is less expensive.

 

When comparing the actual templates with the OpenEZ's, Kinko's and company (A) was off in the shear web from 1/16" to 1/8" in the width, depth was fine. Company (B) was a perfect match.

 

The other issue, the canard profile is off by quite a lot as you can see in the attached picture. Bottom profile, is from the OpenEZ plans.

the top is a lot like my cozy

[Eccentric]

The other issue, the canard profile is off by quite a lot as you can see in the attached picture. Bottom profile, is from the OpenEZ plans.

In the picture, the top profile is the Roncz canard. The lower profile looks like the original Long-EZ canard.

[Bruce]

In the picture, the top profile is the Roncz canard. The lower profile looks like the original Long-EZ canard.

You're absolutely correct. So I guess the question is, do we leave out the original (GU?) from the new plans?

[steve]

vote .............gu out

[raiki]

The other issue, the canard profile is off by quite a lot as you can see in the attached picture. Bottom profile, is from the OpenEZ plans.

Bruce, they should be off by quite a bit. You are comparing the GU canard from the original EZ to the Roncz (as stated by others, but I thought I'd confirm given I drew the templates).

 

As has been stated before the Open-EZ is a clone of the Long-EZ with all the proven latest technology. The top of the list would be the Roncz canard.

 

I doubt you will find one person that would suggest on a new build to use the GU. The GU is usable with VGs and the like and probably worth considering not changing if you already have a GU.

 

I, in no way, support including the GU in the Open-EZ plans. Other absolutes are I also will not support the original rudders.

 

Now I don't mean to be rude, but if you can't pick the GU from the Roncz airfoil (and the benefits of the mod) then I don't think you are at a level where you will add any value to this project. The Roncz is probably THE most known about EZ mod, everyone should know about it. Some may think this is bit rough, but that is my opinion.

 

On saying that, thanks for your efforts in checking my work. I appreciate it, as will the rest of the project.

 

Again, this is all my opinion only. I don't speak for the project as a whole, and I apologise if I have offended.

[Bruce]

Boy, somebody woke up on the wrong side of the world this morning.

 

Now I don't mean to be rude... .

Yes, Adrian, that's exactly what you mean here, you chose to type the words. Was someone twisting your arm? It's the sarcastic and condescending attitudes like yours that keep a lot of really knowledgeable people from wanting to participate in forums just like this. If you can't see where you're being condescending and sarcastic in your post, let me know and I'll be happy to point it out.

 

 

...Some may think this is bit rough, but that is my opinion...

It's not rough, just immature and sophomoric, personal attacks are boring and really get tiresome. Notice how the posters responses above you were simple and to the point, nothing personal said, just the facts. We all appreciate that type of etiquette, thanks guys. If more people were like them we'd have many more contributors.

 

 

Well, I can honestly say that over the years of building, I've had my share of "duh! what was I thinking" moments, well, evidently I wasn't in this case. So I was a little myopic while checking the plans so closely, for that, you summarily want to dismiss someone for not seeing the trees for the forest. And, from this you jump to the conclusion that I have no value to the project. I'm guessing from your grading system here, you grade yourself on a curve?

 

 

I apologise if I have offended.

You don't know me well enough for you to offend me. You did push my sarcastic/condescending nerve though and I felt a response was called for.

 

 

Bruce, they should be off by quite a bit. You are comparing the GU canard from the original EZ to the Roncz (as stated by others, but I thought I'd confirm given I drew the templates).

(Warning! Sarcastic/Condescending comment following) So, using your grading system for value, the only real value that I see in your post, was the first sentence (quoted above), the rest, was just internet dribble and did absolutely nothing to move this project ahead. (done)

 

Let's leave the sarcastic/condescending comments outside and try to raise the bar a little higher here.

 

 

 

Bruce

[mak790]

WOW another vivid discussion:) , there are no problems like that on the other aviation related forums like Homebuiltairplanes, vansairforce, biplaneforum etc, it's a pitty that some people don't realize that this type of discussion really repels people, not only from this page but also from canards, but it seems that some people don't care, not my business.

[Sam Staton]

To cast my vote, GU out, only Roncz.

[mfryer]

Another warning. The Roncz (special performance canard) has more differences than just the airfoil. The entrire canard and elevator construction is different. Make sure you read and understand the entire special performance canard instructions AND ALL canard pusher newsletters with regard to the canard construction and installation.

 

I have witnessed on this forum one builder who nearly completed his canard with the Roncz airfoil, but the GU elevator hardware. A new scary untested canard design.

[Sam Staton]

This is a bit off-topic, but if anyone has a copy of a large format 3-view of the EZ, I would greatly appreciate a copy. I'm trying to come up with a pleasing nose design, and don't have a 3-view anymore. Thanks in advance!

[Edge 513]

I just want to say that a guy like Bruce who has a fine artistic eye can obviously see a change in curvature from one profile shape to another.

Not sure about the wordage getting in the way of things, but the above is a given.

[Super-eze]

Adrian has ch4, Bruce has the templates and Sam has ch14. Lets discuss accepted and flying improvements as they relate to each of these chapters. If there is one (or more) we can discuss it.

 

How does that sound?

 

We still have three openings for the design panel. Some of these issues would be decided by them. Previous or current builders PLEASE join up.

 

There is no reason for this to stall.

Wen need to move forward. Canard is still far off in the future of this project. We were working on Ch4. Drawings and docs.

[longez360]

Bruce, they should be off by quite a bit. You are comparing the GU canard from the original EZ to the Roncz (as stated by others, but I thought I'd confirm given I drew the templates).

 

As has been stated before the Open-EZ is a clone of the Long-EZ with all the proven latest technology. The top of the list would be the Roncz canard.

 

I doubt you will find one person that would suggest on a new build to use the GU. The GU is usable with VGs and the like and probably worth considering not changing if you already have a GU.

 

I, in no way, support including the GU in the Open-EZ plans. Other absolutes are I also will not support the original rudders.

 

Now I don't mean to be rude, but if you can't pick the GU from the Roncz airfoil (and the benefits of the mod) then I don't think you are at a level where you will add any value to this project. The Roncz is probably THE most known about EZ mod, everyone should know about it. Some may think this is bit rough, but that is my opinion.

 

On saying that, thanks for your efforts in checking my work. I appreciate it, as will the rest of the project.

 

Again, this is all my opinion only. I don't speak for the project as a whole, and I apologise if I have offended.

 

The advantages of the Roncz outweight the GU, however some accurate flight testing has clearly shown the GU is a slower canard than the 1145MS. That value was measured as 4mph. I work in knots, so about 3.5. The Savier section, will give you about 8-9 knots over a stock GU on a VariEze and about 5-6 knots over a GU Long EZ. If the Savier section gives the same characteristics in rain and out, give me the Savier unit in a heartbeat.

[Sam Staton]

I'd be VERY interested to see the patterns for the Savier canard, but the link I found here didn't work. Klaus has done some absolutely amazing things, so I wouldn't doubt that his canard is an improvement.

[Lemans]

Hi everyone,

 

I offer CAD design time for anyone who wants 2D ore 3D files for any OpenEZ part.

Although I’m not up to building an OpenEZ right away I like to contribute to this project

without interfering into the discussion what to change or what to include into the original concept.

I’m not experienced enough to take part in these developments.

 

So, this is what can do for the project.

I can design any part - big or small- simple or complex - into 2D drawings (dxf) or 3D (iges) models.

If I can be helpful don’t hesitate to contact me.

dendaele@gmail.com or johan.daelemans@skynet.be

 

Just a little example of what I’m capable of.

 

http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/general-auto-conversion-discussion/5914-industrial-honda-gx620.html

 

Regards Lemans