Kent Ashton

Definitely stay away from the home store "expanding foam" in a spray can. I have used the "minimally expanding" foam in a spray can. They are all urethanes but I think you get a more even foam with the Aeromarine product above or X-30 from Spruce. https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/cmpages/x30foam.php I imagine those are about the same. I'd buy whatever is cheapest. The more thoroughly you mix the pour foam, it will harden with smaller bubbles but it's a race because it begins to foam-up pretty fast. Actually, if I can use scraps of blue styrofoam or urethane to fill an area, it works better for me. Mix up a little pour foam to stick them together. A pour foam surface requires a lot of filler before glassing and it tends to keep curing a long time after use. I have noticed depressions where it seemed to shrink under the glass. I have read that a spray of water will speed up the cure but I haven't tried that. Might be useful if you are using pour foam to make cowl shapes.

Seen on FB. In Switzerland. Nice, but 123,400 Euros ($133K) worth of nice? Probably not unless you live in Switzerland. Search for Vito Wyprächtiger on FB. He says: "Nice Long Ez project, it is all painted and ready for engine and prop. All parts are here. Cowlings have camloc installed etc. I also have a complete Garmin G3X system including autopilot and all the probes for the engine. It is a wonderfully build bird. It is in Switzerland, shipping is up to the buyer but I’m willing to help and assist to load it into a container. I’m selling it because i have to many projects. The registration is stickers only. Just make me a fair offer and it is all yours." I was in Zurich last year. Wow, expensive city. 😞

A common problem. It is no longer advised to drill that hole through the part for that reason. You should probably replace it. It will come off. Flox does not really bond to aluminum so a sharp blow with a hammer should pop it off. Use the old part to drill the mount holes through the new part. The problem is discussed in the old Canard Pusher newsletters--maybe it was in one of the Cozy III newsletters (they use the same mount) but I don't recall where. The Canard pusher newsletters are here in both PDF and text-search format http://www.cozybuilders.org/Canard_Pusher/ The Cozy III newsletters are here http://www.cozybuilders.org/newsletters/ Also before you remove the landing gear, check for any looseness of the mount extrusions or in the bolts through the side of the fuselage by trying to move the strut back and forth. That's another problem and it would be a good time to find it. Here is one being repaired. It's not a small job but maybe you will only need to replace the one extrustion. http://v2.ez.org/gear_repair.htm Marc has a picture of the big repair here https://www.burnsideaerospace.com/gallery-of-work/se13mgvlysfnywy8samui15g37yxvp

This Quickie project out west, on Craigslist. https://goldcountry.craigslist.org/avo/d/jamestown-quickie-q1-unfinished-kit/7093268741.html BTW, found this using the Google search "site:craigslist.org quickie q1" Sometimes you will find aircraft or other stuff with this format.

Suit yourself but I do not think there was an "obsolete" casting. True, Jack makes a better one with tapered bearings but the old one was very serviceable. I did put a grease fitting on mine so I could inject a bit of grease. It has worked for 740 hours without getting loose. If the strut was not wrapped, I guess that's a problem but I'd have to see a closeup pic. I'd be surprised if it wasn't wrapped. The upper casting is just floxed-on (or JBWelded on 🙂 ) and bolted. JB Weld is a great product. Not the usual flox-substitute of course, but the "steel" version is 5020 PSI bond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-B_Weld I would say it is over-engineering for this use because it takes 300-600 degrees to soften the bond and stronger (I think) than flox but if it was mixed 50/50 and got hard, I would have no hesitation about leaving it there.

It that the JBWeld at the top in this pic? The plans say use flox for bonding the castings to the nose strut to eliminate any looseness but JBWeld should be just as good. If it's a good bond, I would think it'd be OK. Maybe it just needs to be cleaned up with a Dremel and burr.

A true "Picasso on the curb". Listed yesterday. Let's see how long this one lasts. Barnstormers. Q-2-200 • FREE FOR THE TAKING • Need space more than $. Q-2 complete fuselage on gear w/canopy & cowling controls in. Have complete O time Revmaster power and instrument packages will entertain offers on. • Contact John Greenwell , Owner - located Cape Coral, FL United States • Telephone: 239-633-5653 • Posted April 23, 2020

The Cozy tub and canard in Tennesee, first discussed here https://www.canardzone.com/forums/topic/21972-sales-ive-seen/?do=findComment&comment=67535 back on ebay, bidding starts $500 lower at $2K. Good price depending on his reserve. Item 254576820796

I have seen no sign of that but the method for retaining mounting screws for those brackets in the firewall is often a subject of discussion. Sometimes the screw-heads turn when tightening the nuts. Then you're screwed. 🙂 I think I brazed some small pieces of welding wire to the heads. I have seen better ideas but can't think of them now.

Seen on the Cozybuilders' list, in Portugal.

Another Vari today on Barnstormers: N2ZE https://registry.faa.gov/AircraftInquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=N2ZE VARIEZE • $20,000 • FOR SALE BY OWNER • 1983 Varieze, complete with an O-200 by Ly-con engines (only taxi time on rebuild). Asking $20,000. I'm selling this for an older gentleman who wants it sold as soon as possible. Please call him direct for more info. Earl at 915 775-4648. (no text or email) • Contact John Todhunter , Friend of Owner - located Hemet, CA United States • Telephone: 858 945 0079 • Posted April 22, 2020 "Asking" $20K. Could turn into a good buy with a professionally-rebuilt engine. You would have to find out what "rebuild" means. It is a tough time to sell an airplane. I would have added "virus free, non-GMO" 🙂

Lots of panels here https://www.steinair.com/documents-and-support/photo-library/#1463781891907-cd08369a-4010 There are so many choices available these days . . .. I have been thinking of a Garmin G5 or a couple of Uavionics AV-30s to replace my round-dial vacuum attitude and heading instruments. The small sizes would be good for a Vari. https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/570665 https://uavionix.com/products/av-30/

The trouble with the Rutan designs is that you can't learn the things you would learn in a Cessna or Piper: stall behavior, spins, short/soft field takeoffs, flapped approaches, good rudder use. You might be required to demo those skills on a Private Pilot exams. The lack of true dual controls is a problem for instructors. If you never flew anything else but canards, you wouldn't need those skills but they are important to experience and perfect for general flying. The Rutan airplanes are just good, fun airplanes for going places and tinkering with. With a Private completed, you should have no problem flying an EZ or Vari. It is just a matter of learning speed control in the landing pattern.

https://www.canardzone.com/forums/topic/21972-sales-ive-seen/page/23/#comments

The Odessa Vari sold for $11,300.

The seller has posted a lot in the past at various canard sites and groups so you might find some old posts about his project--sorry I couldn't find what username he used. I think he has several handles. The only opinion I have on a Cozy III project is that it is an airplane for smaller people. I used to own one. It is 2 inches narrower than a Cozy IV and a little more limited in fwd CG (i.e., front-seat weight). Get him to send you some info. If a seller wants to sell he has to talk to people.

Ah, a real engineer (Marc)! I defer. Brian, I suggest the way to look at this project is as if you're designing a new Star Wars X-wing fighter. Professor Darrol Stinton takes 600+ pages in "Design of the Aeroplane" to answer the questions you are asking here and even the esteemed Zeitlin is unlikely to make it flyable in two pages of internet chat. Just draw it as you would draw a Star Wars "Box Wing". Add some guns to the verticals. 🙂

What project? Where? What stage? We have seen a lot of them here https://www.canardzone.com/forums/topic/21972-sales-ive-seen/ One of those? Good workmanship is generally self-evident. Look at the builder's log, talk with him about how he goes through the plans. Most builders are pretty careful. Everything on these airplanes can be fixed. Even a centerspar that was mounted crooked can be cut out and remounted. Strakes can be cut off and rebuilt. I doubt you will find anything that bad. Most buyers just start where the last guy left off and get a good airplane. You might get someone to look at the project via a post on the Cozybuilders Google group or post some pics here.

Brian, it seems like you are just adding features just because they are in the design books. For example, leading edge slats and flaperons are put on airplanes to allow them to land slower but they are complex and slats are draggy. Both add weight for the mechanism. The planes that use them are intended to fly slow at high AOA and land in very short airstrips. Is that your mission, to deliver bibles in the Congo? 🙂 A good plane to study is Mike Arnold’s amazing AR-5. https://youtu.be/rxvoDbZpoY8

Some thoughts from a non-engineer: That swoopiness looks very hard to build. You have added surface area and intersections that will increase surface area drag and interference drag, as well as extra structure that adds weight. A normal quickie has a vertical tail set well aft of the aerodynamic center that promotes yaw stability. I am guessing your large verticals could be forward of the aerodynamic center of the aircraft and might be destabilizing in yaw. The verticals are large; probably 3-4 times the size of a Quickie V.S and thus with 3-4 times the drag and weight. The small angled verticals are not as far aft as a normal Quickie vertical stabilizer and because they are set at an angle, they likely wouldn't be as effective in yaw. Nice ideas though. Burt knew what he was doing. I imagine if your features had made the Quickie lighter, faster or more stable, he might have used them. Yeah a flying model would be a good idea 🙂 You might be interested in the Commuter Craft design and crash. It sort of worked, then they changed the design without doing more model testing. Couple of posts here.

Bidding on the dusty Odessa Varieze above is up to $10,500 today (Ebay item 333573375855). Seller does not say he has good title--something worth confirming. Bidding ends Sunday afternoon.

Good luck. Have you ever seen flying model Quickies? I imagine there are some

Can I interest you in a Q-200? Here is one, pictures are in the ad on Barnstormers.com QUICKIE Q-200 TRI-Q PROJECT • $3,500 • PROJECT FOR SALE • I have a fairly complete Tri-Q project for sale. Has fuselage with header tank and split fuselage mod installed, canopy, wing, canard (bottom side glassed, top needs completing, appears all glass to do so is here and pre-cut), fin, cowling, spinner, landing gear (nose and main), wheel pants and fairings, wheels and brakes, tail wheel parts (should you need them) fuel tank, many many pieces and parts which I have not inventoried. Plans are included. Wing rack is not included. Project is located at KDTO (Denton, TX). Asking $3500.00 as is, where is. • Contact Dave Anderson , Owner - located Roanoke, TX United States • Telephone: 8502182427 • 850-218-2427 • Posted March 28, 2020

Just watching these videos of a Sukhoi airliner crash where about half the passengers died. Brutal. I count 10 seconds before the first passenger gets down the slide and observe how many got their bags. Ya know, we will never stop people from delaying to get their bags until everything has to go in the cargo hold. https://youtu.be/nuJfy5vCTbM Here at 2+07 you will see why they crashed: landed too fast, tried to force it to land. https://youtu.be/7NhvqAWJ4TU

Further info on retrieving old FAA records: Federal Records [storage] Centers are branches of the National Archives. The process for sending records to storage and getting them back is rather complex https://www.archives.gov/frc/toolkit and only the Records Manager at the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center (OK city) can get their records back from storage. This page talks about the records system for the benefit of FAA employees https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/records/ The Records Manager for Ok City is on the bottom of the page here https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/records/contact/ It appears to me that the average records technician at Ok city does not understand the storage system. If you encounter problems getting long-expired records, I suggest emailing the Records Manager. I don't know if the FSDO that orginally issued an airworthiness certificate would have copies of long-expired certificates. They eventually send their old records to storage like Ok city, but I suppose it is worth a try. Nothing is easy. 🙂