Updated Suppliers List

[787Guy]

I know I'm probably missing it but is there a sticky or something with a more modern list of suppliers for the more difficult parts for Long Ez and Cozy ?  When I try to do a search I get Brock Manufacturing and I know that Ken's been gone for quite awhile now so that's not any good. I see that Cozy Girls make a few bits but what about a main landing gear bow and or a Davenport Shimmy Damper - stuff like that. It appears that AeroCanard is tango uniform as well. 

[Jon Matcho]

...is there a sticky or something with a more modern list of suppliers for the more difficult parts for Long Ez and Cozy ?

 

For the Cozy you can look to these two lists (a lot of overlap to Long-EZ parts):

• Approved Suppliers
• Non-approved Suppliers

It's unclear what the criteria is to become 'approved', so I would take what you can from both lists.  For example, I would consider products from both Todd's Canopies and Eureka CNC (in the non-approved list).

 

The hard-to-make items include:

• Main gear bow (Feather Lite)
• Nose gear strut (Feather Lite)
• Canopy (multiple choices)
• Nose gear retract system (multiple choices)
• Metal parts (CG Products)

If you truly get into this you will realize that you can make just about anything you need, even the metal parts (or figure out how to tell a machinist what to make).

 

Hope that helps.

[Kent Ashton]

All the parts are available. For example, the nose gear forks: http://www.eznoselift.com/index.php/price-list

[787Guy]

Ok, thanks for that guys. I guess I could take the drawings for the original manual speedbrake to a machine shop and see if they would be up for fabricating the parts.

[Jon Matcho]

"Electric speed brake" is in my list of "safe modifications" (a must IMO)!  But yes, you are correct, that is an option to get the metal parts you cannot make or buy.

[Kent Ashton]

Here is a good pictorial on installing the electric landing brake.  It is probably easier to install than the manual brake, too.

http://longezproject.blogspot.com/2013_07_01_archive.html

 

If you have a cheap metal bandsaw and drill press or knee mill, you can make a lot of stuff for an EZ.  I started out with a knee vertical mill and finally moved up to a Bridgeport copy.    The only parts I bought for my EZ were the canard weldments which I have tried to make but botched them.  It takes a jig to get them right--easier to buy them.

 

The fellow who owns the site above shows a lot of machining: fun!

[787Guy]

Here is a good pictorial on installing the electric landing brake.  It is probably easier to install than the manual brake, too.

http://longezproject.blogspot.com/2013_07_01_archive.html

 

If you have a cheap metal bandsaw and drill press or knee mill, you can make a lot of stuff for an EZ.  I started out with a knee vertical mill and finally moved up to a Bridgeport copy.    The only parts I bought for my EZ were the canard weldments which I have tried to make but botched them.  It takes a jig to get them right--easier to buy them.

 

The fellow who owns the site above shows a lot of machining: fun!

Ok thanks, I am embarrassed to say that I don't even know what a knee mill is - I'll have to google that.

[787Guy]

"Electric speed brake" is in my list of "safe modifications" (a must IMO)!  But yes, you are correct, that is an option to get the metal parts you cannot make or buy.

Well Jon I certainly like the various choices for the electric nose gear retraction, some of  them actually seem quite idiot proof. But what kind of redundancies does the electric landing brake have ? I have never flown an Ez  but have read that the landing approach without the brake is quite flat and requires a longer runway. I think of all the electrical failures I have had over the years ( quite a few actually) and I factor in having to find a longer runway while cranking down the gear with a socket wrench at night and I can imagine that I would've rather had a manual landing brake. But maybe it's not that big of a deal to land without it. I would think the manual version would save a bit of weight though.

Edited October 29, 2014 by 787Guy

[Jon Matcho]

But what kind of redundancies does the electric landing brake have ?

None that I know of.

 

I have never flown an Ez but have read that the landing approach without the brake is quite flat and requires a longer runway.

I gather at least 3,000' at even low altitudes is preferred, less is doable, and the more the better. The landing brake definitely helps and, personally, I'll be going to a 4,000' runway for starters. I'd go to 5,000' if I could (and still may).

 

I think of all the electrical failures I have had over the years ( quite a few actually) and I factor in having to find a longer runway while cranking down the gear with a socket wrench at night and I can imagine that I would've rather had a manual landing brake.

The socket business is for the electric nose gear (not sure if both models have a manual option). In the case of the landing brake, I consider it safer to have the electric actuator rather than a manual lever that needs to fight the force of a 100mph+ wind. If that slips out of your hand it's going back to where it came from like a mousetrap.

 

I would think the manual version would save a bit of weight though.

I think the speed brake actuator is about the same weight, possibly even less than the metal parts and springs required for the manual system (that you will no longer need). The Wilhelmson electric nose gear system adds 4 pounds according to his web site.

 

But maybe it's not that big of a deal to land without it.

Yeah, the failure mode is a longer rollout with more foot braking. I'll take that over the mousetrap myself.

[Marc Zeitlin]

But maybe it's not that big of a deal to land without it. I would think the manual version would save a bit of weight though.

If you know how to slip, not having a landing brake is not an issue

 

And by the time you get through with it, the weight is about the same. And in my experience, the reliability of the electric system is far higher than that of the manual system.

 

And for the moderator, this forum's inability to intersperse responses with quotes is mildly annoying, unless I'm just not capable of figuring out how to do it...

[Jon Matcho]

And for the moderator, this forum's inability to intersperse responses with quotes is mildly annoying, unless I'm just not capable of figuring out how to do it...

 

If you mean as I did in the post immediately before yours, I created a post in the Forum Tips section for anyone else that might also be interested.

[rviglierchio]

Well Jon I certainly like the various choices for the electric nose gear retraction, some of  them actually seem quite idiot proof. But what kind of redundancies does the electric landing brake have ? I have never flown an Ez  but have read that the landing approach without the brake is quite flat and requires a longer runway. I think of all the electrical failures I have had over the years ( quite a few actually) and I factor in having to find a longer runway while cranking down the gear with a socket wrench at night and I can imagine that I would've rather had a manual landing brake. But maybe it's not that big of a deal to land without it. I would think the manual version would save a bit of weight though.

 

Something to consider.  Of the few off field landing wrecks I've seen those with electric gear extended stayed upright while those with the manual system were either up or overcentered and rolled up allowing the nose to dig in and flip over.  Have only seen a couple of these situations but I don't think it was a coincidence. 

 

My Wright system has an electric bypass that he felt was more useful than the original crank.  Fortunately the ramifications of a failed retract is slow speed and failure to extend just makes a stripe on the runway and requires some glass work....  Don't often hear of failures requiring it?  On the other hand, if an electric speed board fails to retract it can affect engine temps very quickly.  Good to check during climb out.

 

PS: a buddy flew without his 'brake' working for years and we went into some short (2100') runways so the 4000' to 5000' requirement is incorrect. (Long EZs)  It is definitely a flat approach.

[787Guy]

Well that's all good to know and expands my knowledge of the aircraft. One of the other things that I seemed to like about the manual landing brake is that it would not deploy at speeds above its envelope - or so I understand. Is the electric one like this too ? I know the nose gear electric system is plumbed into the pitot static system.

[Jon Matcho]

I gather at least 3,000' at even low altitudes is preferred, less is doable, and the more the better. The landing brake definitely helps and, personally, I'll be going to a 4,000' runway for starters. I'd go to 5,000' if I could (and still may).

...so the 4000' to 5000' requirement is incorrect.

Where do you get "requirement" from "I'll be going to a 4,000' runway for starters"?

 

I've had a few veteran canard flyers visit airports near me, and given the choice of local airports the landings have always been on the 3,500'+ strips FWIW.

[Jon Matcho]

One of the other things that I seemed to like about the manual landing brake is that it would not deploy at speeds above its envelope - or so I understand.

I suspect the answer is that it "cannot" be deployed, considering it requires manual operation and the forces at high speed are greater than one's arm strength.  I'm sure an improved design could allow for a cam-type lever design that required less force, but that's not how the original manual system was designed.

 

Is the electric one like this too ?

Same rules apply. Instead of your arm there's an electric actuator that is rated for a certain force. I have not seen a full analysis of actuator force vs. airspeed, but the operating manual for use of the manual speed brake would still apply.

 

I know the nose gear electric system is plumbed into the pitot static system.

I recall a discussion on the Cozy Mailing List that the auto retract systems are undesirable considering situations where you would not want the gear automatically deployed. I gather most prefer to operate its switch (up/down) manually. I have an auto-retract system attached to an EZ-Noselift that I was not planning to install if you want it... 

[787Guy]

I suspect the answer is that it "cannot" be deployed, considering it requires manual operation and the forces at high speed are greater than one's arm strength.  I'm sure an improved design could allow for a cam-type lever design that required less force, but that's not how the original manual system was designed.

 

 

Same rules apply. Instead of your arm there's an electric actuator that is rated for a certain force. I have not seen a full analysis of actuator force vs. airspeed, but the operating manual for use of the manual speed brake would still apply.

 

That was one of my concerns - deploying it outside of the envelope and having it depart the aircraft into the prop. But if the actuator cannot deploy the landing brake above the design speed limit I am better with this idea.

 

I recall a discussion on the Cozy Mailing List that the auto retract systems are undesirable considering situations where you would not want the gear automatically deployed. I gather most prefer to operate its switch (up/down) manually. I have an auto-retract system attached to an EZ-Noselift that I was not planning to install if you want it... 

I recall reading that the auto function can be defeated by a button push - but why would you want to drive around at 95kts in a go fast airplane?

[Jon Matcho]

I recall reading that the auto function can be defeated by a button push - but why would you want to drive around at 95kts in a go fast airplane?

Here's a link to the discussion from the Cozy Mailing list I mentioned:  https://groups.google.com/d/topic/cozy_builders/VsoHskVUToM/discussion

 

After reading that (again), I'm not so sure I would want to get rid of my AEX device.

 

Randy, I fixed your post quoting attempt following the instructions here.