Richard Schubert

I used prefabricated circuit board standoffs from MSC. Plated, 1020 steel, and available in various lengths.

I used phenolic as well. You want the washer in full contact with the hardpoint. If you want to come down and see how I have mine installed, drop me a line mephit@att.net

Here is a little calculator you can play with to get an idea of how it works http://www.paragonair.com/public/aircraft/calc_TAS.html

Here's a thrust line that works with a V-8 http://www.airliners.net/photo/Rutan-61-Long-EZ/0891972/L/&sid=e9999c22abdd4395330ecbdb7b20a35b

My understanding was that the epoxy method would fill the pinholes, whereas primer has a tendency to bridge over pinholes, leaving an air pocket that could be broken into during sanding. Maybe newer primers don't have this potential problem?

This item has Sold

It could be for a Rotorway RW-100 engine. Rotorway modified a few of their helicopter engines for airplane use and at least one of them found its way into a varieze. All my things are packed up at the moment but I am sure there is an article with pictures in Alternative engines Vol 1 or 2. (Contact magazine anthology)

Some more information on this topic http://www.homebuilt.org/misc/mangndelevators.pdf Definitely something that needs to be gotten correct. (thanx Marc)

Still for sale. Make me an offer

On the Longeze this is a method for increasing the balance without extra weight. Fabricate a bracket and rotate the weight 90 degrees. This idea came from the CSA newsletter and has been used on a longeze for 2000 + hours. YMMV Not to scale

I have heard of people using stainless steel tea strainers http://www.englishteastore.com/teastrainers.html Take a quick trip to Bed/Bath/Beyond, they have several sizes.

I will be driving down from Pittsburgh on Friday. If you let me know the beverage of preference, I will bring a cooler full. I'll just put it on Bruce's tab

Oops, the numbers above are wrong. The ratio lengths should be measured from the fulcrum point. The Matco recommended ratio is actually 3.5:1 and the ratio for Steve's pedals should be approximately 4:1. The 1.3:1 is correct.

We agree, I just can’t construct an intelligible sentence. The brake pedal is a lever, if the cylinder is mounted at the pedal there is no leverage and the force applied to the brake cylinder is the same as the force applied to the pedal. If the cylinder is mounted halfway between the pivot and the pedal the leverage is 2:1, giving twice the force on the cylinder(and twice the movement at the pedal). Steve's cylinders appear to be mounted a quarter of the way from the pivot to the pedal for a 3:1 leverage. Wayne's cylinders appear to be about three quarters of the way from the pivot to the pedal for a 1.3:1 leverage. Matco suggests 2.5:1 or more. The fact that there is a pivoting arm attached to the cylinder to allow for rudder deployment doesn’t affect this, it is where the cylinder shaft intersects the the brake pedal arm that determines the lever ratio. If the pivot arm is flipped as Tmann suggests it will improve the ratio, but the brake cylinder will be mounted at an angle to the force being applied introducing trigonometric effects. Depending on the angle, this might result in non-linear pedal force feedback, I.E. the further the pedal is pushed, the softer it will become. Now that I look at Wayne's again, it appears that there is a significant angle between the line of action of the brake pedal force at full depression and the line of resistance from the cylinder. This will increase the pressure on the cylinder for the same force on the pedal, acting like a longer lever arm but in a non-linear fashion. If the stroke of the cylinder is short enough, and the radius of the circle it moves along is large enough, the force would not change enough over the pedal range to be noticeable. If all the angles are known the total lever ratio could be figured out exactly. Translation: It might work Wayne is clever

If you compare Steve’s and Wayne’s setups you will see that they are almost exactly the same except that Wayne’s pivots from the top and Steve’s pivots from the bottom, giving the opposite mechanical advantage on Wayne's from what is needed on the cylinder, IMHO.

From the Matco brake master cylinder technical report

Thanks very much to all for the quick replies. Its amazing the trouble a little 3/8" hole can cause. I must have looked at it a hundred times over the past year without noticing it. The E-racer layup schedule for this area is a little different than the cozy or long-eze: Front face of FS-22 - 2 ply BID overall, 6 BID and 6 UNI alternating in the tab area top to bottom Aft side - 2 BID overall, Doubler, 4 BID overall After fuse assembly - 4 BID lapping over the fuse side and the aft face of FS-22 in the tab area My current plan is to sand off the zolatone and the top layer of fiberglass front and back, plug the hole with flox and then duplicate the original layups. (might have to do the other side to keep it even) There is really no room to taper 1" per ply as chapter 3 suggests. This should only move the canard forward about 0.125 in., which I think I can get away with. I will also have to remove the canard bolt bushings and replace them after the repair. The CP issue dealing with load testing the canard reported that the canard was loaded with 3500 lbs of sand before it failed at 12 G's. Thats 1750 lbs at each bolt!

As the photo below shows, someone has drilled through the FS-22 bulkhead in order to run lines through. Is this acceptable, and if not how could it be repaired? (I am leaning toward acceptable )

All items are sold

Don't forget about the Continental IO-360 http://alaskagearlist.com/item/170

Short video of Jack's E-racer leaving Rough River 2007

Unfortunately, there is a primer and clear coat that you still have to spray on. Some have reported problems with the handheld sprayer, see the Slade cozy website. http://www.canardaviation.com/cozy/chap25d.htm

Let me rephrase that: "I for one would be interested in your methodology for analyzing a curved composite beam. :D" I think we need a tongue in cheek smilie. Seriously though, I would like to know a little bit more about how these things are designed. As the Dear Leader says, this is an opportunity for a "teachable moment". I like to think the main reason everyone is here is to learn something. Just because the discussion might be difficult to follow doesn't mean it won't have value. I guess I am just an incurable technical geek. I think it is great that you and Jack have flight tested this modification. Your success is what has inspired others to follow. After all, the wisest man learns from the successes of others.

Marc wrote I for one would be interested in your methodology for analyzing a curved composite beam.

Lightly used Composite Design Mini Panel http://www.compositedesigninc.com/Mini_Power.htm Asking $300.00