Kent Ashton

Good to see those because it shows you fabricate things and have the follow-through to bring them to completion. They only thing I would caution is that the market for airplanes is tiny compared to cars so if you are doing something for fun, that's great but it may not be worth all the effort to develop a new aircraft build process. Check out such projects as the "A-Solution" on this page https://www.canardzone.com/forums/topic/21972-sales-ive-seen/page/19/?tab=comments#comment-64707 Lots of work there but no airplane came out of it (so far). I see the aircraft and pilot numbers getting smaller, too. From what I can tell, there is a lot of interesting, innovative airplane work being done but it is not on talked about much on the internet. I guess people with really valuable knowledge and experience are in their shops building stuff. For example, Robert Harris at EZJets. Nice guy, DAR, knows everything about building composite airplanes but never posts on the net. Another Is Klaus Savier who is an expert on ignitions and aero mods--almost never seen on the internet. There are some smart people on HomebuiltAirplanes.com. I suppose if I was trying to develop a new process, I would visit Mojave and some of the shops. Talk to people at airshows and find out who is developing stuff. Good luck. Now here is a website I just saw today. Some interesting things there https://x-jets.com/burkut_jet.html

molds, molds, molds You mold-talkers should get together and make a set of "traveling EZ molds". For a small fee, a truck shows up at your house, unloads a full set of molds. You pull skins off them and put them back on the truck. I am sure Burt would have done that if he'd thought of it. The man had no imagination. 🙂

A two-post day, Callooh! Callay! Saw this pic on a FB page. Apparently the prop was trashed but what I noticed is that the prop bolts seem to be too long. It is certainly worth a check. You think you are getting the wood torqued but you are really just bottoming the threads. Maybe that's why this prop is delaminating. Is that a bit of aluminum /wood dust coming out? Hmmm. Very suspicious. BTW, as most builders know, it is the friction of the wood clamped against the prop flange that keeps the prop secure. If the prop has to depend on the bolts-in-shear, you could be in for a very bad day.

Had a little gotcha yesterday. "Trim - check" is in my Before-takeoff checklist but if I am flying solo after a previous solo, the trim setting I landed with is fine to take off with so I don't really look at it very hard. Took off yesterday and found I had somehow run the electric trim to the nose-up limit and actuated the limit switch https://www.canardzone.com/forums/topic/18661-kents-long-ez-project/?do=findComment&comment=61724 No big deal but 10 minutes of pushing on the stick is enough for me. I probably should have wired the limit switches so one limit switch does not kill the entire trim system. However, it will prompt me now to actuate the trim before takeoff as a check. That reminds me of a time when I was hand-proping my Cozy III. I would prop the airplane, jump in, strap in, and go. One time the engine quit about half-way down the taxiway. I got out and propped and propped but it would not start; finally had to push it back to the ramp while my EAA buddies made the usual remarks. It turns out that as I was strapping in, my mic cord or lap belt had pulled the fuel control to the straight-up (off) position. After a minute of taxi, it starved the engine. I thought "Whew, I'm glad that didn't happen during takeoff." So nowadays when the checklist says "Fuel - Check" I am careful to recheck the position of the fuel valve even though I "know" it was selected before engine start and got me to the hold-short line. I am flying only about every two weeks now. It always seems a bit strange getting back into the plane after a few weeks off. Things do not seem as automatic. I am behind a half-step. Little things I would notice when I'm current--say, the elevator position taxiing out, or takeoff rpm, or who else is in the pattern--get missed. No, it is not age-related! 🙂

Saw this plaintive post on FB (pic). Been there, sort of. I bought a Cozy III when I was about 210 (and 5'-10.5") and flew it a number of years. Eventually I flew it without seat cushions to get a little more hip room. It was fun but the C-III is not an airplane for big people. With two persons, it's like flying an EZ with two people in the front seat. Contemplate that! 🙂 Just look at the thickness of those seat cushions! They look like booster seats for a child. Whoever owned it last was Puffer-sized, for sure. That, my friends, is an original C-III panel. Lowrance hasn't made avionics for a decade. At 240, he is probably a bit large even for a C-IV. I always point those folks towards a Bearhawk or Murphy Moose.

When Rutan debuted "Moldless Composite Construction" in the 70s, it was a revelation how easy (EZ) it became to build near-perfect airfoils and aero shapes. And it does not take 1000 hours of sanding--maybe a week or two of normal work after the structure is built. I respectfully suggest you're going backward from that. First you have to come up with perfect, finished airfoil skins built around wing spars, control linkages, attach points for ailerons, and attach points for the wings themselves. There's 1000 hours of work right there. Then the skins, spars and the rest must be jigged and held in the correct shape while you inject (expanding?) foam in the voids with some sort of machine you have yet to develop and do it evenly without distorting the structure. A "better way" to make wings is to pull them from molds or used matched-hole metal construction but that ignores the 10,000 hours it takes to make the molds or the $10,000 it takes to buy the hole-punching computer and equipment. There is no free lunch.

The stupid FAA does not make it easy. This site appears to let you search for all the registrations in a state https://www.aircraftone.com/searchindex.asp You can download the entire FAA database here and search within it with a word processor program. https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certification/aircraft_registry/releasable_aircraft_download/ You could do a "Name" search (sorted by N-number) here for "Dragonfly" https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Aircraft_Inquiry.aspx That will return 32 N-numbered Dragonflys. Then you can do an N-number search for each N-number and see the owner information. Or do a Make/Model search for Model "Dragonfly" which will return 323 Dragonfly entries with Manufacturer names, see pic below. If the "Manufacturer" in the 3rd colum is an individual [builder/owner] like Bailey Robert E do an individual Name Inquiry for his name (use the same name format). That will return the N-number for that owner which you can search for all the info. If the 2nd column has highlighted info like NORTH CAROLINA - 1, click on that and it will show you N-number info. If the Manufacturer is a commercial name like AVRO none of this works. Yeah, easy right 😞 Sometimes I see an airplane on craigslist. I do a Wiki search for the Craigslist town and find out what county it in, then I do a State/County search in the registry and see all the aircraft in the county. I can usually find the airplane and the N-number Or you might get lucky with a Google Verbatim search https://www.google.com/webhp?tbs=li:1

Here's another one that makes you just shake your head. Tri-pacer had not flown since 1996. The AI that signed off the the annual did not supervise the owner's inspection. The 68 year old pilot and his passenger on their way to get a Wt & Bal at another airport landed in a cornfield when the engine failed. Inspection found an ancient, leaking fuel line, fuel valve that only opened 25%, debris in the gascolator, and a large insect nest in the engine compartment. Maybe the owner didn't want to disturb the wasps. 🙂 http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2020/07/piper-pa-22-150-tri-pacer-n7208d.html

Here is a sticky on how to find canard owners. Good luck. https://www.canardzone.com/forums/topic/33309-varieze-builderpilot-wanted/?do=findComment&comment=63092

Just reading this Mooney crash right after takeoff. Foggy day, 600 and 3/4 mile viz, older pilot (75). The day before he asked another pilot about instrument departures from RW 29. Next day, he told ATC he would take off from RW 29. He announced taxi to RW 29 and that he was taking-off from RW29, however, he was actually using RW 11. A helpful observer told him "Runway 11" on the freq as he made his initial call to ATC. Pilot said "Thanks for the help" but never contacted ATC and flew into the ground after about 180 degrees of turn. http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2020/07/loss-of-control-in-flight-mooney-m20j.html https://goo.gl/maps/BWCzC58DCtk6WjVq8 I feel for the guy. Been there myself in cases where your mind is quite certain of your present situation but the actual situation is much different. There is a second for the mind to grasp the new understanding and reorient. The flight path indicates he knew he needed to turn around. I imagine he was shuffling papers or fingering instrument departure pages and just did not keep track of the airplane. I has been my habit at strange fields to know the first heading after takeoff and visualize which direction it will take me. Maybe if this pilot had looked out the window and thought "My first heading is 290 and 290 is . . . wait!? Behind me?" BTW, I recommend this guy who does a great job of discussing recent accidents like the Pakistani airliner that did a gear-up touch-and-go recently (then crashed)

Ok, this is getting fun: You are planning to buy an experimental helicopter built from a Rotorway kit by a gent called Limor Nachshon, who called it a "Gyroplane" right? ATC does not look at your registration forms when you make an inbound call. All they know is the aircraft type you filed in your flight plan or what you say when you call in, or what they see out the window. It appears you would file Aircraft Type ZZZZ. When you call in you would use terminology "Experimental Helicopter N162NL" to the tower and "Helicopter N162NL" to other ATC. ATC would also understand "Rotorway N162NL" although strictly speaking, Rotorway was not the manufacturer. Nobody in ATC cares about the model number, the engine, or that the registration says "gyroplane". Change it if you like but it won't matter to anyone but you. https://support.foreflight.com/hc/en-us/articles/204480765-What-model-or-type-designation-should-I-use-for-my-aircraft-when-filing-?mobile_site=true https://www.icao.int/publications/DOC8643/Pages/SpecialDesignators.aspx But to answer your question, if you filed your flight plan as aircraft type "BALL" (balloon), and called in as "Balloon N162NL, you might have them scratching their heads. 🙂

Yes there are minor differences in way the two aircraft (N162NL and N99TE) are identified but the differences are inconsequential. The registration for N162NL is not "incorrect", just different. The FAA does not generally dictate what a builder calls his experimental airplane or how he identifies his [non-certified] engine. Within reason, what the builder puts in the forms is what the FAA clerks enter into the database. It appears to me that N162F was properly registered and certificated and has been flying for 237 hours.

Found an excellent website on Ellisons/Rotecs and rebuilding them. http://www.miravim.org/4RE/ I have never taken mine apart but might try it if I needed to.

Sorry but I’m lost. If It is not your plane why do care? I don’t know what you’re trying to correct, or why, on what airplane. You referred to a complete gyrocopter registration for N162nl but you say it’s a helicopter. Either way, that doesn’t matter. The registration for N162nl is complete and acceptable to the FAA. There is no reason to change it that I can see. There is nothing wrong with “naming the model of the airplane after the engine”. A builder can use anything he wants for a model name. The model number of N162nl is a “162F”. Perfectly acceptable.

Is N162NL your plane? As far as I can tell N162NL is in order. https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=162NL It says "Unknown engine" but the FAA issued an Airworthiness Certificate. If it has Operating Limitations assigned and the proper logbook entries, it looks OK to me. There is no difference in the operation and maintenance of a plans or kit-built airplane (unless it is Light Sport about which am ill-informed). Once they are registered, get their A.C.and their Operating Limitations, they are all about the same although the Operating Limitations can be tailored to the particular airplane, as the DAR/FAA sees fit. It comes down to the fact that anyone can maintain and modify an "Experimental-Amateur Built" airplane (plans- or kit-built) in accordance with the Ops Limits for _that_ airplane AND you can also perform the annual condition inspection if you are an A&P or were issued a Repairman Certificate for that particular airplane. But you have to read the O.Ls carefully. For example my 2002-vintage O.L.s do not say anything about informing the FAA if I wanted to change the engine. I just have to treat it as a major change and make the appropriate tests and logbook entries. I guess the recent O.L.s have added requirements to inform the FAA and fill out a form. BTW, my registration and A.C. do not show what engine I'm using. Thanks for the kind words. 🙂

Need more info on the first question. Is this an actual FAA registration, i.e. an FAA Form 8050-3 and does the aircraft have an Airworthiness Certificate? A pic of the registration or link to the N-number in the FAA Registry would help to understand what you have. Registration information can be corrected if you own the airplane https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certification/aircraft_registry/ An engine change is a major change. Your Ops Limits should say what to do but it is discussed here in Appendix D, Table D-1 https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/1031547 i.e., Letter to the FAA, fill out a form 8130-6, logbook entry, test for 5+ hrs, certify compliance in the logbook. It is usually wise to update your Ops limits to the latest version--they have gotten more liberal over the years. Your insurance company may care about the exact engine too so probably wise to send them a letter.

Not practical. No way to determine the expansion and the foam can be very porous. A long airfoil could have voids. i used some minimal expanding foam around some house windows and they are so tight I can barely open them 😞

I don't know anything about these but they are mostly VW engines. I imagine VW parts would work and there are PLENTY of VW parts houses and VW rebuild books. This site says that engine has reliability problems and had to be rebuilt straight from the factory. https://hugheskr2s.yolasite.com/ There is a link there to the Yahoo VW conversion group. Also not very complementary: http://www.buildagyrocopter.com/vw-engine-maintenance/ A chap named Bob Hoover wrote a lot about VW engines. He is deceased now but his legacy lives on. http://bobhooversblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/hvx-mods.html Another thread https://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/threads/bob-hoovers-hvx-vw-engine-mods.31359/ If you can determine the URL for the old hapi engine website, you might go into the internet archive and find pages https://archive.org/

The Canard Pushers at Marc's site are pretty readable. http://www.cozybuilders.org/Canard_Pusher/

This posted today on the Cozy list (pic). These newsletters are a must-have for EZ owners and builders--filled with hundreds of ideas on building and owning EZs compiled by Terry Schubert over years and years. There is a follow-on organization with a continuation of the newsletter https://canardowners.com/content.aspx?page_id=9&club_id=391558 and https://www.facebook.com/centralstatesassociation but I do not see that they make the old newsletters available. Well worth the bucks if you are new to EZs.

Interesting but I don't know how you would put nutplates on the inside of the double flange to hold screws. Maybe the builder had another idea there. I wouldn't think the double-flange adds very much and could be cut off by sliding a piece of metal in the slot to keep from cutting too deep and cutting the inner flange off with an abrasive disk. Then the nutplates could go on the flange on the right side of the picture.

Do the halves fit together? What does the other half look like? It's an interesting idea but I'd think you'd still need screws to hold them together. I don't think Master Rutan ever spoke on the subject of wheel pant mate-up or at least, his disciples never put down his words. 🙂

Yes but start a new thread. 🙂 Just reading this Mooney accident--engine failure in flight http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2020/06/loss-of-engine-power-total-mooney-m20k.html The Continental engine was overhauled at 2185 hrs, 255 hours later it went south. What is interesting is that the overhauler used silk thread where silk thread is not called for (red area in pic 1). The report says remnants of the thread can be seen around the bolt hole (pic 2). The silk thread did not allow the through-bolts to be torqued properly. In a related problem, I know that Lycoming overhaulers that used RTV where the cylinders mount on the case can cause the cylinder bolt torque to relax and then a cylinder gets loose (or comes off!). Be careful. ------------------------- Then there is this one--a Cirrus--where the pilot appears to have used fuel pump high boost for takeoff--a no no with that engine. It caused the engine to quit, he pulled the parachute below 200' and died. Pictures show the airplane in the middle of big clear field. http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2020/06/loss-of-engine-power-total-cirrus-sr22t.html A while back I did a "return-to-the-field" exercise in the Cozy. It's a little uncomfortable to chop power at low altitude but it was very instructive as to what options I might have for an engine failure on takeoff leg. Below 400', dicey. At 500' agl pretty doable. I am not suggesting this Cirrus fellow should have tried to return to the field. It appears a controlled landing in the field would have let him live. We have to read these accidents and play them over in our minds--reinforce them with some flying practice so when the time ever comes, we can say "I have been here before and ____ is my best option."

There is a very small market for the canards, getting smaller from lower pilot numbers, a troubled economy, and the expense of flying. If you wanted to do it for yourself, for fun, that's one thing but I wouldn't expect to find a lot of people seriously interested in buying kits. Search for "A-Solution" in my "Sales I've seen" thread. Tons of work came to nothing (so far). After all, the airplane IS pretty simple to build from plans. Berkut, a full kit, was not a very successful business. Aerocad is still around but does not do much. I see lots of Velocity kits being sold as projects. Revelaero (recent canard-like kits) seems inactive. Yeah, Vans does great but that's Vans. Generally, millimeter precision is not required. The only asymmetry I noticed building the EZ was in mounting the rudders [crooked] which was my fault and I discussed in this thread. There is a better way to align them than in the plans, IMO. In fact, I think I had one wing a couple inches longer than the other but it didn't make any difference.

Hmm, except for instrument panel overlays, I suggest CNC is a waste of time, however CNC wing cores by Eureka were worth the price but I think Eureka no long sells them. I can trace out a bulkhead and have it glassed on one side in an afternoon. And + or - 1/8" inch is as accurate as you need to be for things like bulkheads and fuselage sides. Burt made it simple to build so CNC is just interposing unnecessary operations. Nevertheless, it's the journey so if it makes you happy, fine. 🙂