Kent Ashton

Saw this Vari in the Boulder, Co area, $3500 https://boulder.craigslist.org/avo/d/erie-varieze-85-complete-with/7183127477.html

Here's some of the cleanest baffle work you will see. H/T Henry Herbert posting at https://www.facebook.com/NorthwestCozy More pics on his FB page. I would avoid the dams where possible (pic 4,5). It's a lot less work to let the baffles flop and they can be fitted for a good seal. If the dams and the baffle material are not perfectly fitted, or a dam straddles a baffle (done that!) they can leak air. Engines settle over time and move around under power. Might affect the seal. Still, nice job. Very precise.

Just my opinion but ethanol free Mogas still can have 150 nasty chemicals http://www.idph.state.il.us/cancer/factsheets/gasoline.htm A 50/50 mixture with 100LL might take twice as long to eat up your tanks. Feel better now? 🙂 I don’t see much problem with lead— I use auto plugs and run very lean

If you are looking to buy a Cozy, Marc Zeitlin has posted his list of ones for sale on the Cozybuilders email group. There are always projects coming up, too. The projects are usually cheap but after they're flying the price goes up. https://groups.google.com/g/cozy_builders/search?q=sale list or https://groups.google.com/g/cozy_builders/search?q=for sale Also my "sales I've seen thread" here. I stopped updating it but it will give you an idea of prices.

In theory, it's nice to have a license and serial number but there are plenty of people building Open-ezs with neither. There are no official licenses to be had except very rarely on the unused plans market and I doubt you could get the license transferred to you anyway. I would suggest building an EZ (Open-ez). The only reason I can see to build a Vari is if your top priority is to fly a little airplane on a small engine at great fuel economy. Fuel is not most people's biggest expense. It is insurance and hangar fees.

Tales of the Macabre, Aviation Edition: A friend of mine took his Piper to a shop for avionics upgrades and then to a shop next door for an annual. The mechanic shop said "you have low compression on one cylinder (55psi). It will have to be replaced. And you need major brake work." My friend was a little upset. Just a year earlier another shop that I trust had done a very thorough annual on his airplane (unfamiliar to them) and the compressions had been good. I suppose the brakes were also good when they left that shop. Last year's shop fixed some apparently deferred items and charged him about $6000 . Now the current shop wants to install a new cylinder based on one compression test. Mike Busch has written about this. See "Risky Business" here https://resources.savvyaviation.com/resources/mikes-articles/ Busch has said before that mere low compression is not cause to immediately replace a cylinder. Check for metal in the oi filter, borescope the valves, and monitor it for some more hours; sometimes the ring gaps have lined up or there is some other minor problem that can resolve itself. But my friend let them do it. Lycoming recommends break-in oil anytime a cylinder is replaced. See Part II, ¶D here https://www.lycon.com/uploads/4/4/8/8/44889763/si_1014m_lycoming_recommended_oils.pdf This shop told him "we don't use break-in oil, don't even keep it in stock". Yeah, I know. Not giving you a warm fuzzy feeling, right? I knew a place nearby where he can buy the break-in oil so maybe he can convince the shop to change to the proper oil. We'll see what the final bill amounts to. This makes me glad I do not have to deal with mechanics and especially mechanics that do not understand the difference between an "annual" and a "condition inspection". I have replaced cylinders on my airplane. At that time, I was not aware of all the cautions Busch writes about but I knew not to turn the prop.

Reading this accident today: Experienced pilots, long flight, low on fuel, voltage regulator dead, battery dead or dying, tried to land at night with a fiance holding a flashlight at the end of the runway. 2 dead. An aviation classic. http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2020/08/fuel-exhaustion-cessna-150h-n7152s.html

I don't think my friend overseas will mind me posting some pics. He has a cooling problem so I asked him to send me some pics. Pic 1 is the humongous metal scoop he added to help cooling. Scary and shouldn't be necessary. It might be something that goes through the prop someday. Pic 2, Cowl mounted so the blue baffle material inside the upper cowl dam. Plenum pressure will push the baffle inward and vent pressure. Also a rather large gap at the side. I neglected this once on my Cozy and the engine ran noticeably hotter. Pic 3, gaps at the top of the forward right cylinder. Pic 4, gaps in the top forward baffle and it appears the side baffle may not be tall enough to press against the dam. Pic 5, gaps at the side and at the top baffle. Also not a good seal (no baffle) where the metal meets the cowl at the exhaust pipes. This is a hard place to seal. So he is losing significant air through all these gaps. Pic 6, an ugly swedge I would not trust. He did not build this airplane. The builder also used rather stiff baffle material which does not conform well. Best to put a light in the cowls and night and look for things like this.

Pic grabbed from a FB page. It looks like he has used 5.5" (66") or so of water differential to test his tanks (arrows). Way more than necessary. It can separate the ribs from the top or bottom. 66" water differential is 2.38 PSI. Puffer recommended about 21-24". 21" is .76 psi. It is about the amount of pressure you can blow in with your breath.

Trying to think of a good analogy. It is sort of like having plans for a dog house and saying "I want to put this dog house plan into CAD before I build it." The engine mount, engine, accessories and cowls might be good drawn up into CAD. An instrument panel would be good in CAD. But the rest is just building the dog house. 🙂 If you were going to build a new airplane with different lines, lofting, bulkhead positioning I'd say go for it but putting that stuff in CAD will just stretch out the build. Props would be good in CAD. I can post some blade station X,Y coordinates for a two-blade prop that works very well with 180 HP. You might like to try that.

F22 is at fuselage station 22". F28 at fuselage station 28". Most of the dimensions can be derived with a little plans-study and math. For example, F28 is labeled in your photo and the extreme left bulkhead is F22, also labeled. The 19.8 dimension on the left is the dimension for F22 and it is 103 inches to the firewall. The intervals you have question-marked are 10 X 10" increments with 3" additional to reach the firewall. Have fun. 🙂

The open-ez is your 3D model! :-)

I will say flatly that this project is dead and if someone can show otherwise, chime in. The problem is that when a person starts to put these drawings into CAD, the draftsman sees things that need to be upgraded like heavier gear and engine mounts, longer nose, electric nose lift, widen the back seat(?), rollover structure (?), add a stick and throttle in the back seat(?), downdraft or armpit cooling(?). The original drawings are also missing some dimensions that help redrafting so dimensions have to be pulled off the paper plans. After a while it gets to be a big project. Now the draftsman realizes he really doesn't have any copyright permission so if he finished the re-drawing, he might not be able to sell them, or if he offers them up to the public, maybe he'll be liable for something; that is unlikely but some people sweat this stuff. So if you want to build an EZ, download the Open-ez drawings, and the build manual and go to work. CAD drawings do not add anything and millimeter accuracy does not matter when the dimensions are estimated off the originals and you're cutting foam with a hotwire. (BTW, the original plans are surprisingly accurate) Most of the mods you might want to make are pretty easy to do during the build process. Just do it! 🙂

I'd be interested to know what is "too heavy" and why you think your dream is a folly. Probably most modern EZs are lots heavier than Rutan envisioned. It does not seem to be much of a limitation except the main gear mounts and engine mounts need beefing up. The one I built was 993 empty. With me (225#), a 200# pax and 30 gallons it was 1598#. It flew just fine on an O-320 and I wouldn't have hesitated to fly it with full fuel if I had the runway and was not going to horse it around. I did beef up the gear/engine mounts. I think Marc will agree that many EZ/Cozy builders do not load their airplanes to the full gross weight and go out and pull 4.4 or 3.8G. 4G is a lot and unless you're going to do aerobatics in your EZ, you may never hit 4G. On the other hand, you might get in some turbulence at hit 5G or pull out of the clouds with spacial disorientation with 8G but probably not with full fuel and your 200# passenger. I can't say how close this comes to a failure point but there appear to be a lot of folks flying them with baggage pods, full fuel and two people even with unimproved landing gear mounts. Marc would have more knowledge of that than me but I was never concerned with the wings or canard coming off. Dick Rutan set a record at 1900# http://v2.ez.org/cp23-p3.htm and Dick and Mike Melville flew their EZs around the world starting at some huge gross weights. A search did not bring it the numbers. I think history supports that the design is stronger than necessary. AFAIK, no EZ that was built right has every come apart. Rutan did some dramatic tests of canard strength and the european builders have done full load tests to satisfy their aviation authorities. BTW, I have never seen my canard flex more than 1/2".

Pictures please!

Lots of folks think a diffuser works on a canard. I saw this one today being discussed on FB (pic 1). The theory is that a diffuser will expand and slow the incoming airflow in an organized way and increased the pressure in the plenum under the engine. I am skeptical. The airflow into a NACA is swirling as it goes over the edges of the NACA inlet. Then it is probably upset by the nose of a less-than-perfect inlet opening. It is turbulent, swirling airflow.. As I recall, a surface intending to redirect an airflow and maintain its attachment to the surface needs to be no more than about a 7 degree slope or the airflow will detach. This is why a NACA floor is so shallow. But that likely assumes a smooth airflow flowing over the slope. The diffuser shown is far steeper than that and trying to diffuse turbulent stream of air. Will it work? It is fun to try these things but I'd recommend setting up a piccolo-tube/manometer arrangement above and below the cylinders and measuring the pressure difference before and after installation of the diffuser. If there is no change, maybe you have wasted your time. Comparing CHTs is problematic. A difference in ambient temperature, or power setting, or lean setting or altitude makes it hard to compare using CHTs. Diffusers sound high-tech but they are a complication and sometimes get in the way of working on things at the firewall. I have tried a simple one (pic 2, alumimun) but danged if I could tell much difference. I think what improves cooling is tight baffles and ramps that _force_ the airflow (air is heavy!) to go directly towards the cylinders, then having exits that let the air out.

I am not sure how I’d remove an epoxy primer. Perhaps a lot of it can remain, be sanded, pinholes killed and the rest of the process continued without a lot of hassle. You’d have to experiment with it. The JetGuys in Covington Tn do a lot of composite airplanes. You might book an hour with Robert Harris’s to get his opinion if he is not far out of your way. https://www.jetguys.co

Maybe but epoxy will be one of the tougher paints to get off and if the seller was so careless, I’d be reluctant to trust him to make it right. I imagine he’ll be tempted to do some filling and sanding on the existing article and hand it to you with another coat of heavy, poorly applied primer. It is prolly not the best technique to put filler over a slick epoxy—even a primer—and pinholes can bedevil if not killed when preparing a finish. Getting a good finish is not a slap-dash process. you might negotiate for a discount and drop the airplane with someone who knows how to do this if you don’t want to do it yourself. My guess is that someone would charge you $5K or more. Airplane paint jobs ain’t cheap. 😞

All the inside looks good--that must have been Ohlmann's work. The outside looks terrible and why it was painted is a mystery but I'd say the paint can be blasted off, the ugly places filled and it could turn out well. The paint is epoxy???!!! Meaning that the builder was going to fly it that way?? Wow. I think I'd look into a getting a soda or CO2 blaster franchisee to come by and remove the paint but be careful that the blast pressure doesn't crush the foam underneath the skin. I think the ugliness is all fixable. The only other big thing I see is that the wheels seem to have more angle than necessary and perhaps should be shimmed or remounted to make the wheel flatter but wait until the after the engine is mounted. If all the ugly seams seem to be well-attached and the right number of plies, you can just remove the paint and refill to make a smooth surface.

I am in a good airport situation now but I get a burr under my saddle when I listen to my friend getting the runaround on the waiting list, public officials lying or ignoring the law, or instituting policies that restrict homebuilding. The public airport near me does not allow homebuilt testing and says "no construction in hangars". There is no reason for it. I do what I can but it is discouraging when aviators just knuckle under. When the FAA held that I could be evicted because I talked to other tenants on the airport ("non-aeronautical behavior") and complained ("a financial burden on the airport sponsor") I came to realize how corrupt the FAA and the airport system they administer is. One more point: Every state law I've studied has a phrase in its aviation code to the effect that "public airports can lease space and improvements, provided in so doing the public is not deprived of its __rightful__,equal, and uniform use thereof." In N.C., it is G.S. §63-53(3) and (4). That law gives us the right under law to use the airport and lease public airport hangars fairly. Waiting list hanky-panky is grounds for a lawsuit under state law. Also, one of my pet peeves is that when you sign a lease to ramp space or a hangar, the lease will often say "the municipality can cancel your lease for any reason." The lease below is from the airport that evicted me using exactly that provision. I did not know it would be employed that way when I signed it but since then I've studied the law quite a bit. If government can cancel-out or deny you your right to lease a hangar "for any reason", you do not have any right. Constitutional law says that a right can be terminated but only for good cause and with the exercise of due process, i.e. some sort of hearing before a neutral arbitrator (if you demand one). Do not agree to this sort of clause. Write in "for good cause shown and after due process". If an airport objects, I can point you to the Constitutional caselaw on rights and due process. Do not waste your time with the FAA. The FAA told me "we cannot adjudicate constitutional questions" and "we cannot adjudicate a state law". They will ignore you. However, if you go to a local district court and present the issue squarely, the court will understand the constitutional issue. Maybe the municipality will relent and settle. However, you have to be very careful not to raise FAA Grant Assurances in a state court because there is a long caselaw trail ("preemption") that says state courts cannot determine national aviation questions--that is the sole perrogative of the FAA--i.e., the FAA preempts the field. But if you stick to state law and present it properly, a local judge can enforce the constitution AND state law. In any complaint where your public airport right is jeopardized, it is best to see if a state law gives you some right (and they all do) and pursue justice in a state court.

I return to my rant on airports and how they are screwed up: In my area of Charlotte, the waiting list for hangars is KIJP 173 names, KJQF 82 names, KRUQ 25 names, KAKH - 40 names and KEQY - ???. Why is KEQY a mystery? The airport manager is likely engaged in hanky-panky with hangar assignments-- keeping a hip-pocket list and assigning open hangars to some favored people. I've have documented this at another airport. I called this airport manager this week and the conversation went like this: Me: "I would like to examine you waiting list." Him: "We don't have one." Me: "Nothing? You have no sort of record of people who want hangars?" Him: "Well, we might have something in our computers." Me: "But you don't have a public list that people can examine?" Him: "No." Me: " But how do you assign a hangar if it becomes available?" Him: "Oh well, we never have any hangars come available." Me: "But if one did become available, how would you determine who gets it." Him: "I would post probably post an ad." Yeah, right. I could have gone on: Where would you post the ad? Would it be a legal public notice? If multiple operators answer the ad, how do you pick one? I didn't need to go any further. He was lying to me. If he did post an ad (ridiculous) he would have first informed his buddy to be the first to respond. I filed a public records request with the City that owns the airport to see any "waiting list" and examine tenant leases. We will see who got hangars and when. Right now, N.C. is cutting expenses and there is no money to build public hangars. I understand that but I told the NC Aviation Director (a decent guy) that the State needs to demand that its public airports make land available for private hangars. In theory, such land is available but these airports (and the FAA) want $250,000 structures with 25-year reversion clauses and all of these airport are trying to save pads for jet hangars. Meanwhile, our little airplanes bake in the sun and rain (and hail, and tornados). Pilots are passive. I have seen it for the past 30 years I've been involved with homebuilts. They don't complain. They don't go to city council meeting with pitchforks. They slink off to grass strips or manage to find a public airport an hour away that has a hangar. EAA and AOPA are half-hearted. If they complain too much they will lose the ear of FAA officials. I say this all this because it is not in the books. If you are building an airplane and have dreams of your own hangar where you can turn on the radio and spend a nice afternoon tinkering, this is the sort of stuff you may encounter. I have read of too many airports that told a homebuilder "We don't allow any work in a hangar". Happy to advise anyone who meets this sort of resistance.

Doooh! I forgot about the heat issue. I would think silver-covered firesleeve would work even better. https://bmrswired.com/Firesleeve_tech_data.html

Saw this nice baffle job on FB by Henry Herbert who posts as Northwest Cozy. https://www.facebook.com/NorthwestCozy Note the fences on the upper cowl (pic 3). Lots of work to make those. I am more inclined to leave top forward baffles floppy. They will still make a good seal. I have used fences in the top of my cowl but only to backup the top side baffles which did not want to flop outboard . My two fences worked but if I am not careful to mount the top cowl properly, the fence can sit on the silicone baffle and give me noticeably-worse cooling. The only thing I would question on Henry's job is that I don't see a lot of sealant in the cracks. Even very nice baffles usually have gaps and crack that need to be sealed. Aluminum-colored RTV from the home stores is my favorite. He complains that these nice baffles did not help his CHTs very much. I would bet his cowl exit opening is too restricted and he just isn't getting the exit flow he needs. Said this before: I think the prop hub restricts flow out of the cowl and the air comes out at the sides of the opening. That might be why he has cooling complaints. The only way to prove it is to do some before-and-after testing with piccolo tubes and a manometer. On my EZ project with downdraft cooling I planned to have all the air exit around the prop hub and through large exhaust-pipe openings. I could barely get to pattern altitude before it overheated. 😞 Installing some big exits fixed it. You can see the mods here. https://www.canardzone.com/forums/topic/18661-kents-long-ez-project/?do=findComment&comment=57587 I think an exit must be larger than an intake to get good flow. The air is heated and expanded through the cylinders. More volume must come out than went in. That's my poli-sci. major theory anyway. 🙂 Personally, I wouldn't bother with fireseal covering on fuel injection lines. If there is a fuel leak, what's the ignition source? The engine is not hot enough. I suspect the fuel would evaporate as fast as it leaked out.

I haven't been there for a few years but the camping was very pleasant. Just pull off the runway and set up your tent. They have a bathroom and we ate in the lodge. I suppose there is take-out or something now. It got frosty though. Take a good sleeping bag. https://parks.ky.gov/falls-rough/parks/resort/rough-river-dam-state-resort-park

An impulse mag will snap or click as the spring winds up and trips the pawl(?) inside. It is possible to time them wrong. See https://vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=159907 It's not good to start on a non-impulse mag because it fires before TDC and can backfire and ruin you starter. Lightspeed recommends toggles because key switches are subject to miswiring. Lightspeed uses on of three kinds of triggers: The Mini-sensor, or the green plastic ring or the Hall Effect mag-hole trigger. http://lightspeed-aero.com/ I can't tell what you have wrong but I suspect it is the mag or timing. However some of the LSE Plasma boxes have had a problem with broken solder joints inside and had to be repaired. I imagine you can call them with your serial number and they can advise.