Jump to content

Marc Zeitlin

Verified Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Marc Zeitlin

  1. Folks: I am assisting a customer in selling Aerocanard #1, built by Jeff Russell. For more information, see: Any questions, feel free to get in touch.
  2. Geez, what a lot of work for no purpose whatsoever except to satisfy a bureaucracy. In any case, what Kent asked above, and the following comment: I'd just like to point out that AS SHOWN, the wing load distribution will be incorrect, as the moment contribution from the inward forces from the winglets is not included (at least, I don't see any force applied inward to the winglet). This doesn't mean that the test is useless - it all depends on what's being tested, and to what level. But the distribution of forces will not be correct. Jochen Fuglsang had to do the same testing on his COZY III, and he did, in fact, impart the correct winglet forces to the plane to ensure that the moments were correct.
  3. Two things - first, you should ALWAYS get a Pre-Buy examination that YOU pay for when purchasing an airplane. Whomever did the CI on this plane (and since Nate built it and almost certainly has the RC for it, I'd bet a lot of $$$ that he signed it off) was working for Nate, if in fact it wasn't Nate. If you don't see a conflict of interest in using the CI as a Pre-Buy when it was signed off by the guy who's selling the plane (or who works for the guy who is selling the plane), well... And aside from that, as nice a plane as Nate has built here, it's overpriced, although I suppose if someone's willing to pay it, good for Nate (and for the rest of us, as it'll set a high bar for the rest of the planes). The $79K plane is also way overpriced, although it too is a very nice plane. All IMO.
  4. So I have an exceptionally qualified CFII (and you should get an exceptionally qualified canard expert to do a Pre-Buy for you on the LE) in Rosamond, CA that I recommend all my clients to. The first question is, what's the definition of a "signoff"? If they require actual instruction, you can't do "instruction" in a Long-EZ because (unless it's been modified) it doesn't have full dual controls. My CFII does checkouts in his COZY MKIV. If they don't require "instruction", the LE might be adequate, but I/we still recommend doing the training in the COZY, as the right seat is functionally identical to a LE, but the instructor is next to you rather than isolated in the back seat. Safer all around. You know how to contact me if you want to get in touch with him (or me, for the PB).
  5. Other than Perry Mick, who has (at last count, anyway) under 1000 hours on his plane in 25 years or so, please name some other members of the "canard aircraft with Mazda engines who swear by the conversion" camp.
  6. Mr. Quinton Oliviero. Which is a wonderful name, BTW.
  7. I went down and took a look at the plane with Bill O. and the owner. In my opinion, it is NOT safe to fly as is, and needs a LOT of work to make it safe to fly. It's extremely heavy, poorly built and a pig in a poke. I was hoping to be able to tell the current owner otherwise when I went to Chino to take a look (at my time and expense), but I couldn't in good faith say that anyone should fly the thing, even though Bill O. did once. He said (directly to me) that it was almost uncontrollable. The fact that Mr. Hanson signed off a CI on a plane that he himself had built, in my opinion, isn't worth (in the words of John Nance Garner) a bucket of warm piss. There are MANY safety issues with this plane that need addressing - I have a list... For QO, I wouldn't let Mr. Hanson look at any plane I was going to fly in, much less work on it.
  8. Bill has been trying to get the plane down to me for a Condition Inspection for months now, but between his schedule and the weather, we haven't been able to arrange it. It's still in the plan, though, as the weather improves in the spring. If you're truly interested in the plane, you can work with Bill to be here when the CI is done, so you can learn about the plane (and Long-EZ's in general). At this point, you can buy a flying Long-EZ for about 1/2 of what it would cost you to build one. It won't be as nice or exactly what you want, but it'll be flying 3 - 7 years earlier. All depends on what's important to you, what you want, and what your mission is. And you can upgrade/modify it to BE what you want over time, while it's flying.
  9. Can one of you send me her contact info? I may have an interested buyer...
  10. I wish that were true and you would hope that "good workmanship" is self-evident, but that is not the case. I have seen aircraft built by folks that have built multiple canard aircraft that have been average to below average builds and I've seen stuff built by beginners that's phenomenal. I've also seen a lot (wait for it - about half) that are below average builds. Thankfully, even a 5th - 10th percentile quality aircraft will probably be safe, but... There's no way that someone just LOOKING at a few aircraft under construction will have a clue what they're looking at, much less be a judge of what's "good" or even "good enough". I see a LOT of crap out there, and a lot of stuff that looks good from 20 feet away, that when you get close and know what you're looking at, have a lot of issues. The way you ensure a quality project, if you're buying one, is to have it examined by someone with the knowledge to do so, and just because someone has built one before doesn't mean they're qualified. This from someone that does 30 CI's per year, maybe 5 Pre-Buys per year, and has seen over 100 different canards over the past 5 years. Pretty sure that there are fewer than 5 people out there that can say the same, if that.
  11. There are only two reasons that anyone lists aircraft that are worth $35K - $50K for $75K or $117K. And those are that they're hallucinating, or that they've told their spouse that they're going to sell the plane but don't really want to. Because there is zero chance that either one of those planes (or a few of the COZY's that are for sale) will sell for anywhere near their asking price. This MIGHT be a $45K plane, but I'd have to see it to know.
  12. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but the policy you point to above specifically say, in Section II(d): "While sponsors may adopt more restrictive rules for use of hangars, the FAA will generally not consider items to interfere with the aeronautical use of the hangar unless the items:" blah, blah, blah. So the FAA allows sponsors to be MORE restrictive, as long as you're not interfering with aeronautical use, with 5 "unless the items" definitions of interfering, none of which mention maintenance. I'm not arguing that they're not being assholes by prohibiting maintenance - I certainly believe they are - but it's not a slam dunk that you'd win any argument in court, given the statement that the sponsor can adopt MORE restrictive rules. I think an argument can be made that you're interfering with aeronautical use by prohibiting maintenance, but I also believe that an argument can be made that you're allowed to prohibit it. Don't know who wins that argument. Now, section 22 of the sponsor assurances document is stronger - paragraph (f) says: "It will not exercise or grant any right or privilege which operates to prevent any person, firm, or corporation operating aircraft on the airport from performing any services on its own aircraft with its own employees [including, but not limited to maintenance, repair, and fueling] that it may choose to perform." Which seems pretty clear, BUT, paragraph (i) gives them an out, by saying: "The sponsor may prohibit or limit any given type, kind or class of aeronautical use of the airport if such action is necessary for the safe operation of the airport or necessary to serve the civil aviation needs of the public." So all the sponsor has to do is claim (wrongfully, but they can claim it) that the activity will prevent the airport from being safe. Uggghhh.
  13. A few references: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2011/may/19/impossible-turn-practice-makes-possible indicates (without any supporting evidence) BG speed and a 45 degree bank. They don't say whether that's BG in a turn or S&L, but since 1G BG is all anyone ever reports, that's what I'll assume they mean. In my plane at the GW's I was at, BG is somewhere in the 80 - 85 KIAS region. This: http://pilatusowners.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/US-Navy-turnback-study-1982.pdf is an empirical study that tested success with your parameters - just above stall speed, with different bank angles - 30 degrees and 45 degrees seemed to work the best in these test cases. This: http://peter-ftp.co.uk/aviation/misc-euroga/2013-turnback.pdf is a theoretical analysis, but is backed up with empirical results from testing, and recommends a speed of 5% above the stall speed IN THE TURN. So we may be saying similar things here, due to the differences between stall speeds in the 45 degree bank turns and at 1G (a factor of about 1.2). My airplane stalls, in the configurations I was testing, at about 62 KIAS. So with a 45 degree bank, the stall speed would be 74.5 KIAS. Now add on the 5% margin recommended in the last reference, and we're at 78 KIAS - almost exactly the 80 KIAS I noted was the best case for us. There's no way MY plane could do a 65 KIAS indicated turn at 45 degrees of bank - I'd be below my indicated stall speed and there's obviously be no margin on top of the stall speed. If we assume that (as is always the case) between min sink speed and stall, the descent rate increases, then it's better to be somewhat above stall, which the 80 KIAS gives me, per the last reference's recommendations. I think that the canard capability to get right up to stall speed makes this maneuver a lot safer than in a conventional plane, where a 45 degree bank at 5% over stall speed is pretty much begging for a stall/spin accident.
  14. I've practiced this in my plane as well. We did a Vx climbout until at 100 ft., then Vy climbout. At 400 ft. AGL, we chopped the throttle, and then waited 4 seconds (to simulate the "WTF JUST HAPPENED" reaction time of the average human being before the training kicks in). At that point, I started a turnback, set the airspeed to BEST GLIDE (NOT just above stall - BG is about 80 KIAS, with a 62 KIAS stall speed), and as Kent says, about a 45 degree bank (which IS optimal). It's certainly exciting - making 45 degree turns when 200 ft. AGL and offset a few hundred feet from the runway is not usual, to say the least. But in a COZY MKIV, it works. I think Kent could do it at 300 ft AGL because he didn't wait 4 seconds - if you do wait, I don't think you're making it back. I would tend to agree that 500 ft. AGL might be the lowest I'd try it in a real surprise situation, but it would also depend on what's around, CG, GW, etc. I was very surprised, the first time I tried this, at how close to not making it we weren't - it really wasn't a squeaker - we probably touched down a few hundred ft. from the threshold. We tried a few different bank angles and a few different speeds. The best performance was always at best glide (L/D) speed, and with about a 45 degree bank.
  15. OT here, but why do you think that installing HC pistons is a major change? I wouldn't consider them that, as an A&P. Per 21.93, the only part of the definition that this MIGHT apply to is the "operational characteristics", but I'd argue that "OC's" mean the operating envelope of the aircraft, and installing HC pistons does not change the stall speed or Vne, or the max. G load, or..... and so wouldn't be a major change. Now, it might be a good idea to get new OL's, just so that major changes can be made (many VE's have OL's that prohibit major changes without a new AC, so eventually, you might have to do this), but I wouldn't argue that more HP from the same engine is a major change. Obviously, YMMV.
  16. You have apparently cornered the world market on Speed Canards - you must love the strange beasts ­čśÇ. I assume the question of "why are there none flying" is in regard to the SQ2K. There are one or two flying in the US, but a substantial number of the ones that ever flew have crashed, at least two of them fatally. The rest have been deregistered. Most of the few that were started were never finished. There's one at Chino that may fly soon, but it has many issues that need to be addressed first due to, well, let's just say builder deviations in structure. The main problem with the SQ2K is that it's a lousy excuse for an aircraft, IMO. Between the Lancair IV-P and the SQ2K, I have to say that you've chosen a couple of planes with fatal accident records that are far worse than the EAB population as a whole, and even further worse than the GA population as a whole. At least the IV-P gives you something in return for the risk you take... I'm not sure what your definition of a "normal" aircraft is, but while Velocity seems to have achieved adequate cooling with downdraft systems on their aircraft, most LE's, VE's, COZY's, etc. use updraft cooling, as getting sufficient air to enter the engine compartment from on top of the strakes takes a fair bit of engineering, testing and tweaking. Depending upon who you copy, you may get a successful downdraft system, but updraft is far easier to get to be successful. My $0.02.
  17. Marc Zeitlin

    Nose tire

    Nose Tire: Nose Tube:
  18. That's not a vortilon, it's a drooped leading edge. It was an early standard modification to the plane to help with the aerodynamics that was later replaced by the standard three vortilons on each wing that you see on the LE of most VE's and Long-EZ's. It worked, but the vortilons were a lot easier to fabricate and install. I'd suggest reading the plans completely and then reading through all the CP's completely at least three times, then reading all the CSA newsletters, too. That' way, you'll know what you're looking at...
  19. I disagree. It looks to me as though there are multiple spots on the left gear leg that are crushed, down near the axle and up about 2/3 way. Hard to tell from a pic, at least with regard to the top (without closeups), but the bottom - that looks like substantial damage. Also, it looks like something is going on on the bottom of the strut near the TE, but from this pic, it's impossible to tell what. And if the gear leg is damaged from a hard landing, the chances are good that the fuselage attach points are also compromised - you'll need to jack the plane up and push/pull fore/aft on the wheels to check for relative motion at the attach points. Any motion more than 1/16" - 1/8" fore/aft at the axle means some damage at the attach points. Anything more than 1/8" and I begin to recommend repairs.
  20. With any pusher aircraft that has a CAP (Complete Aircraft Parachute), that concern exists. But many pushers (particularly light aircraft) have CAP's, and have been tested. BRS designs their lanyards to be able to withstand getting caught in the prop, but the recommendation is to shut off the engine prior to pulling the chute. What would actually happen in any particular incident? No one has a clue. This customer (and the Berkut customer for whom I also worked with FFC to install a BRS) did a lot of night flight over rough terrain, as well as IFR and night IFR over rough terrain. They felt that in those cases, coming straight down slowly would be safer than any type of flight into terrain, even if the plane was completely under control.
  21. The top of the turtleback was thinned so that the rocket could blast a hole - BRS gives recommendations for what it can get through. The red tube is the attach point for the forward lanyards, and the rear lanyards attach to the top interior engine mounts. Let's hope we never have to find out if it would work, because we obviously never tested it. There was substantial modification to the fuselage sides to take the deceleration loads, which BRS states can get to 9G's.
  22. I did the engineering for that chute install, and Burrall did the install. Interesting that it's for sale just a few years later.
  23. Your point 1) above is exactly incorrect. It's MOST important to cut the cap troughs to the right dimensions and then fill them to the top with fiberglass, however many plies it takes. Since the tape thickness has varied substantially over the years, the overall thickness of the cap is what matters, not how many plies one put down to get there. The ONLY thing that matters is correct trough depth. Point 2) is correct, but apparently Cameron believes that they are not identical. I don't have either OE or LE "M" drawings/templates, so I can't settle this debate.
  24. So I generally chop the power about midfield downwind, so all of my landings are "engine out", with idle thrust only. About 90% of the time I don't have to add power. My MO is to always be high and have a lot of excess energy - it's easy to get rid of with LB, rudders and slips. The accident you reference was a COZY MKIV (N795DB), not a Velocity, and the judgement errors there were many. Poor fuel management, WAY too wide on downwind, and trying to stretch the glide when a perfectly good field was right there - I think that it was way more than "possibly". Along with engineless landings, folks need to practice engine loss on takeoff - that's an eye opener, as was discussed on the mailing list 8 - 9 months ago.
  • Create New...

Important Information