niceez

Kent, 

Everything you mention is external.  This is hardly qualifies as building your own prop.  But, if your happy with higher fuel burns and less efficiency than I say, Great! 

BTW, We (at Owl Eagle) have a 3 blade Catto Prop that is in good shape for sale.  It is for the 160HP LEZ.  Anyone interest please call 208-292-5897.

Jon,

Where are we on the Defiant plans?

Dale

niceez@gmail.com

208-292-5897

Jon,

They look good enough to build from. It is not a necessity for the drawing to build from to be "right-on",,,, What is important is that any written numbers (angles or dimensions) are correct. This is why you only need half sheets if the other side is a mirror image.

Waiter,

And when it's all done I want to know the weight of the airplane and it's performance. The retracts are less drag as long as the gear doors seal perfectly.

Wayne's 360 hauls ass for sure (been in it). I feel a LEZ with a IO-320 and DD cooling the rids 50% of the cooling drag will also be good with perhaps slightly better economy. Will check this future when a certain person shows up with his

IO-360 LEZ.

I think the real question is - is the LEZ your putting these heavier engines in built well. All to many are epoxy rich and weaker then they should be.

Dale

Get a hugh jump start on building a Long-EZ! The parts alone are more then $20K

The LEZ for sale is "N86DC" that was disassembled by the last owner to make a bunch of upgrades but previously had 784 hours on it and 92 hours on a 160HP O-320E2D. The firewall is completely removed, no radio's or instruments of any value. Electrical and control system completely removed. The plane was registered with this O-320. It has the added to reinforcement to the engine mount and the mount is powdercoated red. Cleveland brakes w/thick disc's. Also, Klaus wheel pants on and Shin tires. Whelen 3 light/strobes and power packs. Very light weight carbon fiber cowls and sports the GU canard. There are very few parts to buy to put it all back to gether (fuel valve, tubing and firewall) less then $1,000.

Will sell plane and engine separately - LEZ and all parts $14K less firewall. OR Engine with Catto 2 blade prop, 8" Saber extension W/crush plate and bolts, 4 in 4 exhaust w/ heat muff, one LSE plasma E.I. $15K, OR Both for $27K.

The airplane is built very symmetrical, and would be a great spring board for the someone who wants to get a jump start on building but still be able to truly understand the airplane.

Since we refurbish and make upgrades for LEZ's we can help if there is work you would like to have done (reinstall the firewall and extrusions) or put it completely back into flying condition with an instrument panel of your design!

Don't let this one get away.

Serious inquiries only please respond to niceez@gmail.com. or the phone # below.

Waiter,

Not quite... Wayne is almost correct in his assumption ... Originally I did use a fork end that was a hand machined piece of art however I decided to use round 1/2" 2024-T6 aluminum. The newer method used a AN111-3 whichn works great. The cable goes around the AN 111 and is continues along the shaft to teminate on the shaft (not shown in the drawing you have). The rudder lever is able to use the same attaching screws into the same two holes in the rudder by dremeling a small amount of glass and foam just large enough for the 1/2" rod to fit into it, then drill and tap the holes in the aluminum rod. You have to understand I had a flying LEZ and didn't want to do have a lot of painting.

After more thinking it appear that using angle 4130 steel might have a good side advantage with something similar to what Mike made up. The connection to the cable is the disadvantage to Mikes idea. Using the thimble takes up far to much room and would not allow enough travel to occur. This is where I had to figure a way to get maximum travel in a same area

The other part was the spring system RAF used to take care of using the brakes when th rudder hit it's stop. I chose to spend a little more and have machined parts made and an internal spring and use it as the disconnect for the wings instead of putting a spring attached to the rudder pedal to snag on things.

The big difference is in the feel. I have had the opportunity to fly EZ's using the stock system, RAF design, and my own and the we made is easier to push in-flight. IMO, it makes it more harmonized with the rest of the controls.

If I were to make kits again I would spend a little time and modify Mike's levers and use my attachment method. I will do it to N777DJ to make sure no bugs exsist.

Waiter,

I uploaded one page of the plans (pdf) but don't see it in the email. Must be doing something wrong.

Waiter,

I guess my plans are actually installation instructions and the parts I sold for $175 but have found a way to get the machining done cheaper.

Since I had to come home an finish a drawing and some calculations for new airbox,,, well actually just the diffuser part, I'll see if I can locate the pdf for the IRL's. See, in both systems you needed a mechanism to allow the master cylinders to be compressed after reaching full rudder travel. I limited mine to the plans dimensions 4.25" and Mike allow his to increase to 6". After some math I found out there was not any real gain past 4.5".

So the first step is to hollow out an area in the winglet to gain access to the conduit. It requires you to remove the rudder. I'll incude one drawing only because it's all I have time for right now:o

Jon & All,

Before RAF put out plans I made my own version of the Internal Rudder bellhorns and sold plans.

Burt told me he like the idea better then Mike's..

I see great idea's on both sides of the designing table and maybe we could combine the two to make a better system. The big differece is that in my plans the original rudder cable and conduit never has to be changed in the location.

Just a thought,

Dale

Dick,

I finally found you! Last I heard was you were going through a disconnect with he wife and no more info ...

I'm very sorry to hear of your dad's passing. I hope all is well with you. Would like to stay in touch. Putting a 320 into LEZ 777DJ now amoung other updates and should be flying around June 07. I'm still over in Lewiston, ID.

Can be reached on my cell 509-780-7320 (local from Lewiston - a Clarkston, WA #)

Dale Martin

Jack,

Delusions of adequacy again!

LOL

-Dale

Jon,

I don't think your an idiot at all. Just lack experience. The first plane (a LEZ) I helped build at least 45% of it. Before it was finished I earned my Private Pilot certificate. The second LEZ I built (100% my work and 15 % help ) and turned out much better then the first and only because of the added knowledge. If your building it box stock then you are totally correct. But even though the design is still great, many things are becoming archaic. Which means you need to able to understand the "why" behind the the decision making process. Anyone can arrive at an answer - the question is; is it the right answer. We are blessed in this arena to be able to make the plane just the way we want it and trust me when I tell you that unless two people are trying to build them alike, they won't be. Never seen two alike yet. A good example is Mike Melvill's and Dick Rutan's LEZ. Built at the same time and both different with of what the builder thought he wanted for himself.

Someone ask our opinion - And I assume they will weigh the responses and decide for themselves. I was reading what I thought was a bunch of responses to justify NOT getting a certificate first and having done it both way's, I'll choose getting the ticket first. After all - I have the experience from both ways

We can only make decisions based on what we understand and know. But again building exactly to the plans will get you an airplane with or without a certificate.

Best of Luck and Blue Skies,

HI All,

This one I would like to chime in on this one since I am a professional builder and still refurbish and assist builders/pilots in building and buying canard airplanes.

For the guys who just like to build - fine But it is like the blind leading the blind. Building an airplane the wrong way is to assume that following the plans to an end page will produce what you really want. I would consider this a waste of time, effort and money... all your choice of course.

The problems lie when it comes to choosing whether it is electrical systems, avionics, electronic ignition and any time a choice of options or alternatives comes into play. Wouldn't it be more difficult to make the "correct decision" if you had no understanding of "why" something needs to be a certain way. You actually would be clueless about considering it.

The school of thought about getting your pilot license now (correct term is Pilot Certificate) and having to keep it current is pure B.S. Once you have a Certificate, you always have it and your current medical certificate is what keeps it alive. Of course if you had earned your wings you would already know this. (And that is kind-of my point).

Let me pose the question – How do you know you can even pass the medical exam? In my other career I speak a great deal about health and I am always surprised at the answers I get when I ask the question, “Are you pretty healthy.” Look – In the real world healthy means – Takes no medications and is not seeing a doctor for anything other then a semi annual exam nor is there any reason to seek a doctor. So if your taking those pills for whatever – you might be in for a surprise. Let’s not forget about hearing and vision. Back to the pilot certificate and comments that were made. allow your self to become non current. Once you understand how to fly, getting back into it is easy and a simple 10 hour process at the most.

All I am saying is that if you start off by at least knowing full well that you can fly then the excitement for building is kept at an all time high. Building an airplane is not easy and has to become a labor of love. The information you learn will make you a better person and you will come away wondering where the sheep skin is at because of the amount of time, mental effort, and real education you get from airplane construction. One more thing, building and maintaining an airplane are totally different. You local A&P mechanic is just that, a mechanic to repair an airplane unless of course he has happen to start from scratch and build his own airplane which is the best kind of A & P. Most A& P’s are worthless to you. Now I did not say A & P’s were worthless – just worthless to you so lets please keep this clear.

The real trick to building an airplane is to get it straight and figure out how much “fru-fru” extra stuff you don’t need. Remember your trying to defy gravity.

About the spouse issue. She needs to be on your side or you stand a good chance of divorce. I have witnessed this many times. You say no-way Hose. Consider that you have worked three long years on you project and she say's it's me or the plane

You now how attached the women get to a child after carring it just 9 months. That's right fellas' your attitude is going to change after putting all the time money and effort into "your baby."

Perhaps your wife will become more tolerant of your building idea if she see's you suceed at earning our wings. Secondly, arrange for a trip to Rough River. Although I have never been myself know the people who attend and she will be surrounded by fine examples of builders, builders wives, and canard airplanes. She will be able to talk to other wives who - Used to feel the same way but now love the fact that they can go visit people here and there.

Sorry for the long post, but the reasoning I was reading in all those who responded was lacking experience. The exact reason you need to have the certificate first - to gain experience.

Again, don't do things like run out and buy the newest and badest equipment now because it may become obsolete by the time your airplane is finished. what will remain the same is the electrical system. BTW, if you haven't bought Bob Nuckolls book - The Aero Electric Connection - you need to and you'll be darn glads you did. Here is the web address;

http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AECcatalog.html

Any question

I have cosidered it - - but I did not see a way to advance the timing like the electronic ignitions do. I would not want to give that up. Mark Cherry he inventor just lives just 3 hours (driving) north of here. I think he also needs to adjust the price down some what. The have been used but not enough information yet to be totally proven.

It does pull and will banana at altitude. One reason I want a split canopy.

-Dale

Two things -

First you can fly inverted in a LEZ. It requires 130 KIAS to do 1 negative G...

I am surprized that many of you did not know this.

Obviously it won't be for long since the lack of fuel causes the engine to quit pronto.

Second, many aerobatic manuvers are safe and fun to do in a well built and proven LEZ. I cannot speak for the other canard designs limitation in this area as I have flown other canard designs but never flight tested to the point of fully opening the envelope.

I have preformed many loops, barrel rolls, hesitation rolls, Split S's, Cuban 8's, and even something that resembles a hammer head (but it isn't) and flying on a knife edge. High g turns are fun as well as pitch-up's after skimming along the runway.

Of course anyone planning these type of manuvers needs training to do them safely. Please don't take this lightly. I had two very good but very dead friends who "thought they could."

Tom Staggs used to do airshows all over the counrty in his LEZ and there is a host of others as well.

-Dale

Looks Good John,

I hope it works well and lasts a long time. I guess time will tell. I personally would like to know a year after you have been flying how well it works. I have some reservation about fuel filters after the pumps. I know auto's do it that way but they also have a sock filter in the tank just ahead of the inlet for the pump. I also realize you have screens in each tank but I am here to tell you "much stuff" will get by those screens. Would have also like to have seen a gascolator at the lowest point. Guess I'm old fashion but we just do things different in aviation. I'll get over it though if you have great success:)

-Dale

Frank,

Now use this time to keep learning. Ask yourself which material is expanding faster. Valves, seats guides, or heads. Once you do a little research you will never forget it...... Well hopefully. It can be gleaned from Lycomings website and most likely Continental has a similar site. I have read some in one fellows books from www.sacskyranch.com....... and most of all you can gain the required knowledge from engine rebuild manuals and just talking to people who really know what their talking about.

One thing you will find different about aircraft engine valves is the clearances. Your problem can become worse if the seat and valve are not matched properly and without the proper tools you could cause the valve to crack or break. It might not show up for 200 hours but I guess you'll have to ask yourself if having a "tick-tick-tick" behind the firewall is worth it. While the idea your friend has is rudimentary at best, I would think at the cost of have to buy new engine parts verses fixing up what is there would win out. Of course they're ramifications if not done properly. If you let the engine mechanic understand from the get go money is a big concern right now he will usually be understanding enough to break it down for you so you know where your at $$$ wise before things add up a lot.

I would recommend removal of the cylinder and have an engine mechanic or engine shop check the valves and put them in good working order. Your engine will most likely run the best it ever has if you bite the bullet and have this done now rather then take a chance and find out if it what you are doing was good enough or only temporary. Just ask yourself when you have time for an in-flight emergency and go from there.

If I were in the aircraft engine mechanic business I don't think my customer would be to happy using - the method you just stated - then reassemble the engine all the while charging him $45 to $55 an hour.

The valve has to set squarely on the valve seat so there is no side loading to the valve. What your proposing is to just open up the clearance all the way around even where it is not needed.... See I already know what is going to happen next. I am hoping this will cause you to re-think your plan of attack.

Hopefully others with experience will chime in.

Lastly, many will tell you must change the piston rings if you remove the cylinders and that is utter horse-sh*t. You will realign them the proper way during assembly and they rotate during there life cycle anyway.

Just be careful with everything especially the rods dropping against the case cylinder bores.

-Dale

Since you ask let us prove a point.... Either your above average or you the

normal A&P..... (This will come back to manuals you watch)

Explain to this designer all the ramifications of using a non

certified electronic ignition system on a 4 opposed normally aspirated

certified aircraft engine as it pertains to trouble shooting.

First thing we discover is there is no manual discussing steps to trouble

shoot. There is no "Plug-in" code reader to indicate which part of the

system has failed.

So now then.... I have a what feels like a "miss" in the normal smooth

operation of my engine.

So Troubleshoot!

Want to know what he normal everyday A&P will say the problem is?

Yes of course, its that blank-ity blank nonstandard ignition system. And even if it was he most likely couldn't prove it.

If your above the cut and really like engines and if you accept things of

this nature a challenge, your our kind of guy. But if your working for

yourself and it is a matter of income to make a living then why in the hell

mess with something that will produce very little income for the time spent and set you behind on someone else's certified airplane.

Let's remember, the A&P certificate comes with limitations and regulations. One of which is not to alter a certified engine without taking the time to follow the red tape involved and required by the FAA. This also goes for experimental aircraft using certified engines.

You know full well of Lycoming's point of view if you tell them "I'm working on O-320 with a modified -fill in the blank here- system an want to know///," --That's about as far as you will get and they will cut you off and explain that any modification not authorized by Lycoming makes the engine un-airworthy and should not be used in any airplane until it has been torn down and inspected to bring it into compliance using only certified parts..

It is the question, "what happens when I do this," that you can't answer...... Unless your an experimenter like I think you are. In which case your a cut above and I am wasting my time trying to make a point.

You should hear some of the horror stories I have heard when the so called everyday A&P is asked to assist so homebuilders. You would think we just molested his dog! The normal everyday A&P has a large responsibility to the certified fleet. And every bit of it has to be documented and to work on such it requires manuals of the named system. So where are your manuals for the E.I. system? So what regulation are you breaking working on an aircraft system without the appropriate manuals..... No need to answer, I know you know.

What fails me in the so called "condition inspect" for the troops that require this of an A&P because they didn't build their airplane. Where are the required manuals for the condition inspection? Before you can inspect something you would need to know that it exists wouldn't you? So tell me the tolerance is allowed on the phenolic bearings of the control system in a experimental Long-EZ before they need replacing. If that can't be answered you see my point. You can be the best A&P in the world but without manuals to go by we are all lost. Many things about my own engine any A&P could work on but then there are those few items that they will never have a clue about unless they are privileged to the - manuals of course.

I hope your not insulted as this wasn't the intention. Merely to point out that experimental aircraft for the most part are "one-off's" and are a night-mare to the average A&P. Sometimes this also includes modifications to the engine as well.

Regards,

- Dale

Frank,

I read your post here after already responding to the C-A thread.

I feel you have given a bad rap to another useful tool we have available and quite frankly, I am taken back by your post to C-A members

I think it says something about the people on this (Canard Community Forum) forum who will not just jump in and tell us all how things work from there very limited experience. I was further dismayed at Scott Derrick's comments about this forum as well. And I'll tell you where I'm coming from. Some of us are professionals in two or more area's. One is usually the money maker and others are hobbies or strong interests that we have. There is nothing more frustrating for me then to give someone the answer (hopefully the correct one) and my time for them to "poo-poo" it away. It makes me feel like, "why in the hell should I waste my time." I could have spent 5 or 10 minutes more with my children.

To the point...... I explained in a post directly to you that were most likely having valve problems or specifically - one valve problem - not ignition problems. I see no report on the problem being fixed written in the Canard Community Forum.

A&P educations are fine for working on certified engine's with absolutely no deviation because once it has been altered things start to change quickly where the normal everyday A&P will not be able to figure it out. Someone in your neck of the woods, namely, Ken Miller, would be an excellent source of information. He is local and could have the hands-on approach.

Something else that sticks in my craw is Scott's comment about buyers verses builders. You darn right it is much harder to deal with the buyer/pilots then builder/pilots..... The builder has learned something the buyer will never learn unless of course he has built something similar. I parted company with a buyer/pilot just because every time there was something to be done on his airplane in was an involved discussion because he wanted it explained a certain way. After doing over $4,000 of free work to his "piss-poorly" built canard airplane he still had the never to insult my intelligence over and over. He bought another canard airplane and continued on with his "Know-It-All" attitude and many months I asked him to leave. He continues to demonstrate and operate his new airplane in a hap hazard way - but you couldn't tell him that.

There are those of us that know because we have "been there & done that," and others who want act as if they do know what there talking about. Sorry if offends some of the folks out there but, then quit bitching about high insurance premiums. So, next time you want some free advice fly out to my airport and we will talk eye to eye and fix the problem otherwise I'll just assume your not really serious. Just remember I had to pay to learn what I know, it wasn't free.

People who operate like my ex hanger-mate will eventually "buy-the-farm" and I rather not be associated with those who could care less of how they hurt the others around them. I have great respect for the intelligence of many people on the canard type forums and hope I will always have the courtesy to respond to those that offer help and not insult someones intelligence or act as if there time is not valuable.

The bone has been picked....... Lets move on.....

Dale

LEZ

Lewiston, ID

Big J,

I think I would want to know more about the valve and it's possible failure modes.

John & Jim,

This ability to suck air is what scares me with part of the plan. It is to complicated. Why not then just a 1 or 2 gallon sump. Just make a place that you can transfer fuel with dual pumps pumping fuel to the engine (Rail). The sump is merely a big place in the fuel line. Wish I was there to spend a day using some string and a milk jug to demonstrate failure modes.

I know Vance put his sump under the rear seat and it seems to work fine in his Lycoming powered Cozy. Some people will argue about "oh that would mean fuel in the passenger area...." Not a valid point since the strakes are bonded to the fuselage and on my LEZ its the exterior wall in the baggage area.

Dual return lines on your installation could make sense too (Tee'd so they will take the path of least resistance. One thing I don't know is if you could return fuel to the sump. Would really make things very simple and easy too. After the fuel pumps if you ran the lines to a "Tee" so only one line was going to the rail you would only require one fuel valve (On / Off) if you think you want one. I think they are needed on airplanes but that is my own opinion. There is also nothing wrong with puting filters in between a tank and a small sump with just gravity feed. The failure mode of a single sump fed by two tanks with two separate pumps to the rail is as simple as I can get with very little failure modes. Takeoff and Landing would require both pumps running in case of a pump failure.

My own take on a sump is not a place to store extra fuel, rather just a place to transfer it, so it doesn't need to be very big. A fuel valve in between the tank and sump would also be a way of purging contaminated fuel and the smaller the sump the better.

This is the most simple and safest system I can think of and my .02 cents worth.. I have traced yours out and it seems a little scarey for me and I don't scare easily. To make a place where the fuel pump will never suck air is the most important to me. And of course there is more then one way to do it.

Single on / off valves could be installed between the tanks and the sump for maintenance but I would leave them on most of the time.

Don't know how this will square with your idea's but I hope it helps. Trace it out and let us know what you think

A good idea will come to you since you seem like a pretty smart guy.

John,

Your original thoughts were:

>>Current situation.

Cozy IV with plans fuel system, weatherhead valve in the seatback and 3/8 lines. No returns plumbed and no fuel level sensors fitted.

Problem

I'm installing a fuel injected Mazda 13B rotary which requires 40 + PSI fuel pressure and returns. I'd like two independant fuel supplies to the rail with a filter and pump on each. So, how do I handle switching the returns<<

It appears you have come close....

Everyone has a different Idea and all that really matters is that you are aware what needs to be done in case of an emergency and that is for you to decide. The hardest thing to remember is that most of these airplanes will remain one owner - one pilot airplanes, and it really doesn't matter where you put your valves, pumps, return lines, or anything else. There will always be a "better way" according to someone else. Some of us have systems design background and others do just as good experimenting. It is obvious Burt is not a systems guy. None the less, the airplane (EZ design) built stock will do just fine. An older professor once told me, if your going to err.... do it on the side of simplicity. Airplanes built this way always have been a good formula due to the necessity of reduced weight (mass) in order to defy gravity.

My idea, which I never posted is to use a central sump (only 4 gals and have two lines exiting the sump leading to independent filters then separate electric fuel pumps which in turn lead to the rail. (I would only have one pump if the engine comes with an engine operated pump). I fall short here having never worked on a Rotary engined vehicle.

This method takes into account that YOU and ONLY YOU must refuel your airplane. (Eliminating the wrong fuel) In your case where you are porbably going to use Mogas this does not work as easily.

Off track here a little;

I will say that everyone should try a little test. Add 1 ounce of water to each fuel tank and then give it two minutes roll to the lowest point and see if you can recover the entire ounce of water. If you can't, find the lowest point in your system and install a drain. I did this during the construction stage of building my fuel strakes and it works very well every time.

Every system has a compromise. I think the system you decided on will be safe enough since your the designor and the operator all in one. Besides, we need someone to prove your system works:D

Keep goin' John

Wow!

I have been flying my LEZ some 16 years now and have only twice had water enter the system. (Caps are Shaw Aero mil-spec type) And then I would be willing to bet it because I was flying through rain and it entered through the vent. A side note; I usually only have 10 gallons or less in the tanks as they sit in the hanger.

I find this very curious however very understandable for the midwest and east coast locations.

Maybe consideration should also be given to fuel filters that allow fuel to pass and dis-allow water to pass through?

I have also thought that if are traveling at the cruise speeds that we do, that the pressure from the vent inflow should account for some forced flow thus fuel pressure.

-Dale

Not dynamic of course - (Thought the fee would indicate that) -

I have a pretty nice balancer that uses a prop extension to mount the propeller with bearings to center a shaft (less the .001 tolerance) on some steel straight edges.

Its accuracy is phenomenal. My conclusion is, your propeller needs to be balanced before the combination of both engine and prop.

- Dale