Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/17/2020 in all areas

  1. 2 points
  2. 2 points
    C'mon, Cameron. Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Dad - are we there yet? When are we going to get there? Are we there yet?
  3. 1 point
    Not nearly enough information to make a recommendation. What prop is on the plane now? Do you have wheel pants? If so, what type? What RPM do you see static? What RPM do you see on the takeoff roll, just as you rotate? Is the 2350 RPM you mention what you've seen recommended, or what you actually get? What RPM do you currently see in cruise, and at what DA, throttle and mixture setting? What RPM do you see at WOT, leaned for max power, at what DA? What I like to see in an all-around climb/cruise propeller is the ability to exceed maximum engine RPM (which, for an O-200, is 2750 RPM) by 50 - 100 RPM when at WOT, leaned for max power, at your usual cruise altitudes (call it 8500 ft.). So in this case, you'd want to see 2800 - 2850 RPM (you won't hurt the engine) in those conditions. If you get less RPM than that, you've got more of a cruise prop, and if you get more RPM than that, you've got more of a climb prop. But these #'s will also be dependent on aircraft drag - no wheel pants will decrease cruise speed by ~120 KIAS and RPM by ~100. Also, if the prop is not matched to the airframe well, you can have good static but lousy cruise, or vice-versa. Everything is interrelated - without more information, no recommendation can be made.
  4. 1 point
    Flying works out well with my 34 kg dog. However, I wouldn't want to take him a plane where he had to sit side by side with me up front. He prefers it in back anyway where he can check my six!
  5. 1 point
    First, I use the longest jobber drill I've got - maybe 2 ft, 3/8" dia. Then switch to AL tubing with teeth on the end. Doesn't work great - tends to tear the foam a bit and clog up easily. But I haven't found anything better, yet. No holes through primary structure. The hole I drill is from the area FWD of the LE of the winglet, where the lights will actually attach, aftward to the end of the aileron cove. Since there's no shear web in the outboard wing of a Varieze, the hole only goes through foam. I remove the aileron so that I can also drill from the aileron outboard, and pray to Cthulhu that the holes meet somewhere about 1/2 out.
  6. 1 point
    Ha. Picture's worth (in this case) 75 words. Interestingly, this (remove the section of the wing aft of the dotted red line): is what the TE of my right wing looked like after the prop hit it on its way to Joshua Tree NP 9500 ft. below us in 2006. The prop took off the TE outboard of the aileron, plus a little bit of the TE of the aileron over the last 4 - 6 inches. Plus 2/3 of the lower winglet. Left me with this: souvenir, stuck in what was left of the lower winglet. While I was mostly concentrating on other stuff at that point, I did not notice any substantial difference in the flight characteristics of the airplane on the way to the landing at Desert Center. When Mike Melvill flew me out to pick the plane up a few days later with a new prop and extension, as well as a bunch of AL tape, we taped up the TE of the wing to close out the exposed foam. It's called speed tape, right? He chased me home in the company Duchess, and I never went faster than 120 KIAS. Once again, there was no discernible difference in flight characteristics on the way home. After the flight, we ruminated on why anyone puts the last few inches of wing on the wing if it doesn't make any damn difference to how the airplane flies. But I fixed it back to the plans design anyway, not being an aerodynamicist :-).
  7. 1 point
  8. 1 point
    I don't see what you're describing on this SQ2000 project. http://www.n416.com/17.html (pic) I would guess the flow past the T.E. is already turbulent so it doesn't make much difference about the shape. Couple of ideas: You might bondo a strip to the top or bottom and make a flox T.E. that is a little sharper (then remove the strip). Or make a V-shaped form on your work bench, use it to form a 2-layer BID "V" and flox the V to the T.E. The Eppler T.E. is a little funky anyway the way the upper surface bends down to meet the bottom. Maybe any mod would alter that. Just curious, does your bottom profile employ the reflex at the last 1/3rd of the airfoil?
  9. 1 point
    Hello together, please find in the attachment some foam and glass investigation I did based on bill of material for a Q1 / Q2 project. All numbers in the sheets com up from data sheets I receive from the suppliers in the US or Europe. To your hands....... Best regards Eugen
  10. 1 point
    This answer may not be reliable because I am only familiar with the Long-ez & Cozy. They have a hole in the foam the length of the wing where you can install wires. At the wingtip, the builder embeds a piece of birch plywood under the glass that he can screw the wingtip light to or embeds a nutplace in in the plywood under the glass. Not knowing exactly what you have, I would suggest drilling a small hole in the wingtip, say 3/4"D. Glue a magnet to a long thin stick or fiberglass rod and run it from the wing root out to the wingtip. Probe through the hole you drilled with a steel rod to find the magnet. With the magnet located, tie a fishing line to a steel nut or bit of metal and push it into the wingtip hole until it contacts the magnet. Use that to pull the fishing line back to the wing root and then pull wing-tip wires (2 wires, 20 AWG or so). Then flox in a fitting into the wingtip that you can screw your wingtip light to, with the wires coming out beside the fitting Be careful to keep the flox out of the fitting. I usually wax up a screw and put it in the fitting to keep flox out. Pretty easy really. 🙂
  11. 1 point
    Check out the Open-EZ on this website. It is an achievable dream. Costs nothing to download the plans and builder's manual.
  12. 1 point
    Hi Peter, and welcome. There are a number of builders that have added Berkut-like features to their Long-Ez, such as the split canopy.
  13. 1 point
    Welcome aboard. Note the Berkut isn't sold anymore. Remaining kits are hard to come by and go for quite a bit of money. Jeff
  14. 1 point
    Note the empty weight of 773 lb. That's an INCREDIBLY heavy O-200 VE, particularly since it's got manual nose gear and an ancient (probably original) panel. With 26 gallons of fuel (full fuel) a 181 lb. pilot (no baggage or passenger) will put this plane at the extended MGW of 1110 lb. This is a single seater for a relatively (given the size of US persons these days) small person...
  15. 1 point
    Today's B-stormers. A good test of the "you guys sell these airplanes too cheap[ly[" theory. N70HA, O-235, very tidy. The refurbisher put a lot of effort into it. https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?nNumberTxt=70HA SUPER NICE LONGEZE • $75,000 • AVAILABLE FOR SALE • This aircraft is beautiful. I bought the aircraft from the original builder and proceeded to to do a ten year top to bottom nut and bolt refurbishment on it to create a truly modern up to date beautiful machine. By the time it was finished I was not able to get my medical...verys ad but I truly enjoyed working on it. You can now benefit from the hundreds of hours and many thousands of dollars in new equipment. This is a turn key airplane...everything is done to ensure a truly modern amazing flight experience...please look at the photos with the equipment list and descriptions! • Contact Craig Roberts , Owner - located Aurora, OR United States • Telephone: 503 318 3351 • Posted October 12, 2020
  16. 1 point
    Folks making major aerodynamic changes to canard aircraft scare the crap out of me. Chris Esselstyn had CG issues when first flying his stretched MKIV, and I worked with him extensively to determine an appropriate CG range. Scott Carter's stretched MKIV (very similar to Chris') first few flights were unstable due to his misunderstanding of an appropriate CG range, about which he consulted nobody. I still do not have confidence that he has an appropriate CG range for his airplane. Lynn is absolutely correct that stretching the fuselage does not in any way change the requirement for ballast in a two front seat canard aircraft of this type. If you believe that it does, then you don't understand the aerodynamics behind the situation. And as far as Dennis' (Edge 513 - I can't stand these pseudonyms - if I were the administrator, people would have to use their real names) statement that: "... or the canard shortened to offset the added lifting arm to mitigate it's new, built in, aft CG." That's only one possible solution, and not the optimal one (nor one that anyone who's stretched a LE or COZY has implemented). And it's a misleading statement to say that there's a "new, built in aft CG". The CG RANGE is what's changing, and the actual CG must me adapted to fit the new range. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. The aerodynamics of canard aircraft are more complex and more subtle than conventional aircraft. Modifying aerodynamic qualities should be done by qualified people or at least with the consultation of qualified people. When statements such as "I won't need ballast because I'm stretching the fuselage" are made, that's a clear indication that neither of the above criteria have been met. And those who are not trained in the structural or aerodynamic regimes should try hard to refrain from giving advice or regurgitating bits and pieces of poorly understood discussions.
  17. 1 point
    The weight carrying capability and it's location is not a product of the construction strength of the aircraft,(all right-- for you purests useful load is) but is solely a product of appropriate W&B. Keep yourselves safe and learn how to do these calculations, especially in an EZ type craft. When done with your plane (and before this stage to determine where to place your battery and other heavy objects) do a weighing W&B. This will tell you all you need to know in terms of what and where and how much you can place it in the aircraft (and if you have to loose weight) (subject, of course to flight testing approaching these limits). Remember the W&B stats given in the manual are for one aircraft only, the prototype. These figures may or may not be accurate for yours(although they may be close). Your specific configuration may or may not need ballast. You may or may not be restricted to the stated front seat loading. There are a lot of may or may-nots but they can all be answered by clculation. The next time someone says to you, "Wait a moment," A anardian should hear, "WEIGHT AND MOMENT" Just thought I'd give a balanced view

  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up

The Canard Zone

  • Create New...

Important Information