Kent Ashton

Been doing this thread so long that airplanes are coming up for the second time. This one on Facebook today N1361S, a 1997 build by Larry Sligar (plans #74) which I first talked about here http://forum.canardaviation.com/showpost.php?p=71237&postcount=70 It was nicely built but a hangar queen for a good many years. A couple of guys bought it from the widow and the engine threw a rod after they flew it a while--lesson there about engines that sit. I suppose all that is in the past now but it'd be interesting to inspect the engine logs. Ballistic parachute!

Seen on FB. Google the poster to get more info. It's in Wisconsin. No price yet.

Geez, after buying a $200 Vividia borescope to look at my valves (see Aug 24 in this thread), I was just reading about this one (pic) for $29. The previous problem with these cheapies was that they were not flexible enough to stick them in the plug hole and bend them back to look at valves. A Vans owner says this one can do it. It could probably be glued to a piece of bendable wire and inserted into the cylinder. Why do this? Regular Lycomings have notoriously-poor valve stem lubrication. https://web.archive.org/web/20050217090118/http://www.prime-mover.org:80/engines/Marvel/tbo3.html So the valve stems wear and the rocker arm pushes the valve head off center. Heat does not transfer evenly around the valve head to the valve seat, the valve head gets heat-stressed and a piece breaks off, or the head breaks off. What you don't want to see is a half-moon discoloration (pic). There is a really bad case in this video https://youtu.be/x6OyfoV1Z2I

Yep and if you switch to West's plastic filler it will be even easier. The only real data point I have for that opinion is that strakes filled with micro glass balloons seem to be more resistant to dents and dings from the car-keys-in-the-back-pocket. I use micro balloons there and also on the wing and canard leading edges.

Everytime I rush things, it is a mistake. Get the surface filled, leveled with the aluminum bar and all the sanding scratches sanded out and defects filled or removed. Then spray the thin rattle-can primer and sand it all off; it will reveal additional scratches and defects. When those are fixed you are ready to fill pinholes (yes, they are still lurking there) with the "Cory Bird" method of straight epoxy wipes. Wet-sand that smooth and you're about ready for a primer-surfacer.

Yes, sanding is no fun. Getting the mixture right is a factor. An epoxy-rich mixture spreads easy but is harder to sand. A micro- (or West filler)-rich mixture is hard to spread but easier to sand. When I have prominent low spots and defects on a glassed wing, will spot-fill and sand those first. I buy a big box of West filler from boat supply dealers--an airplane will use most of it. For the first full coat I usually start with a straight epoxy wipe followed by a stiff mixture and not-so-stiff for the next coats. I try to get the mixture on the surface pretty quickly with the squeegee, then use a 6" dry-wall mud spreader that I heat up with a couple of passes with a propane torch. The warm metal helps to move and level the mixture. When the sanding has got things pretty flat, I use a stiff aluminum bar about 18-20" long, mark it up with a wide Sharpie and rub it perpendicular to the chord. The bar will leave Sharpie and oxide smudges on the high spots which you can lightly sand. When it looks good to prime, spray a light rattle-can guidecoat of sandable primer and sand it all off to see the defects you missed. They are lurking there! 😞

I think an older, flying O-235 EZ can be had for $25-$28K so you are being generous. 🙂 Just the non-flying condition alone knocks thousands off the price. Did you discuss his project? http://www.n44tj.me Edit: Just read on FB that he is asking $25K for the airplane, $15K for the project "due to age, health". Wait for the estate sale.

What was his price? Did it have an Airworthiness Certificate? If it didn't have an AC yet, then it really doesn't mean anything to deregister it. A new owner could apply for an AC with your own N-number and get it flying. The only hurdle would be to show that the major portion was built by amateurs--not a high hurdle with an EZ. Even if it had an AC, if the new owner can establish the former N-number, he can ask for the AC to be reissued under a new N-number. It might require a short FSDO inspection but that shouldn't be a problem. Oh yeah, and rebuild the engine.

Bob Nuckolls (Aeroelectric.com) says PVC is not particularly unsafe-- lot of airplanes have used PVC--but Tefzel (Teflon) and/or PTFE is better. The latter uses tinned strands, the cover has a higher melting point, is thinner and more resistant to cuts and tie-wrap pinching, and can be had in a lot of color combinations. Do you have his book? A must-have for builders. http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/pub/pub.html See also: https://www.canardzone.com/forums/topic/18661-kents-long-ez-project/?do=findComment&comment=61303

Yeah, that might work well. Here is a URL. http://lantor.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/20160196_LANT_DATASHEET_COREMAT_XI_web.pdf I see that it comes in some pretty thin sheets (1.4mm +)

This EZ today. N97WP, William Prince build. Nice looking. I think I would have sprung for an O-320 before repainting it but IIWII. "Many other extras". 🙂

A buddy of mine is rebuilding a Cozy and came up with a good idea for mounting avionics trays using sheets of BID. I think I would rather use thin BID-foam-BID sandwiches versus the single layers but I like the idea. It's quick to make and install. If you ever want to change avionics, they'd be quick to cut away and build new supports. I have generally used aluminum angles to make tray supports but it's fiddly. Yes, we have discussed the PVC wiring.

There were not many kits and they don't come up very often, There was a flying one advertised recently for over $150,000.

All Very interesting, Keith. So it looks like you could have a two-seater if you removed the tank. What is your ultimate goal for this aircraft? To just build a one-off? Sell plans? Fly around the world?

Can you do this?: On downwind, or just anywhere around the airport, pull the throttle to idle and land around the 500' mark at a normal 65 KIAS or so without touching the power. I can usually do that 8 out of 10 times. It's not easy to do in a canard. I did it once for real when my idle mixture was not adjusted correctly. If you want to practice that, here are some things to think about. - You must know the pitch picture to hold best glide speed of about 80 KIAS. In these airplanes, a second's inattention to pitch will get you 95-100 KIAS which is difficult to get rid of. You must be able to hold 80 KIAS while maneuvering the airplane. -You need to be comfortable with a full rudder slip and know how much you can widen a base to lose unwanted altitude or speed or feel comfortable with a tight base low to the ground. -You must fly aggressively, Often I have had new pilots fly the airplane into a bad simulated landing because they did not take aggressive action to slip, widen a base, or cut off a base to achieve a touchdown at reasonable speed near the numbers. It was like they just flew their normal pattern and hoped it would work. Not good enough. - As you aim for the 500' point, you must always remember that in a real engine-out situation, you should normally be aiming 1/3 down the landing zone. -You must know the winds and allow for them in the pattern. Winds make a huge difference. One technique is to imagine how far the wind would blow you in the time it takes to fly a pattern and start with your touchdown aimpoint that distance upwind. As you get closer your imagined TD point moves back towards the real TD point but especially as you roll out on final flying into the wind, you must account for the amount of headwind tending to land you short. - You must be ready to say "This ain't going to work" and abandon an approach for a better alternative. A few years ago I helped investigate an accident nearby where Velocity pilots flew their airplane from downwind into a lone grove of trees that killed one of them. (pic) They should have recognized early that getting to the runway "ain't gonna work". Possibly they could have crashed in the open field and lived. At my airport, I have some references I like to use for testing my proficiency. There is a taxiway 2200' down; it's tough to make that one. There is a fence off to the side 2900' down. If I can't stop by that one, I go home depressed. 🙂 It is said "Get to the ground in control and don't hit anything heavier than your airplane. You will usually survive the accident." "In control" also means "at reasonable speed". Anyone can fly a Cozy into a 110 KIAS touchdown. That ain't gonna work. I would be interested in how many active canard fliers practice this.