Marc Zeitlin

1 hour ago, Aerospace Eng said:

There is a propeller, but I can't see any markings.  I will dismount it and see what I can find.

That's a Hertzler prop.

4 hours ago, Mike B said:

That casting on the top is the obsolete one. He assured me it was not. I've spoken with Jack about that casting. You do not want it on your plane.

Well, I wouldn't say "obsolete", as Kent says - just sub-optimal. Thousands of canards have the old plain bushing style NG-6, and if installed correctly and adjusted on occasion, they work fine. Tapered roller bearing is better, but expensive. Pays your $$$ and takes your choice.

4 hours ago, Mike B said:

It is bonded to a strut that is NOT wrapped. Because it is not wrapped it is already splintering where the through bolts are drilled. To use the strut I'd have to figure out to remove the obsolete casting, grind off all the JB Weld and start over. I have no knowledge as to the properties of JB Weld.

Agreed - a close-up of the pic you posted shows a raw nose gear strut with no torsional wraps - you can't see any weave; it's shiny; and there's no peel ply texture. This is a clear indication, in my opinion, of the intensely sub-standard and unsafe work that Mr. Hanson continuously cranks out.

That said, the nose gear strut is <$100 from Aerocomposites, and the upper and lower castings, as well as the NG-3/4 are easily salvageable. Heat and a hammer will break them free of the strut, and you can grind out the residue. Or just grind the strut out of the castings, since you're not trying to save the strut.

4 hours ago, Mike B said:

I have no knowledge as to the properties of JB Weld. So, it won't be on my plane. I have spent time messing with it. It does not appear to have the tensile strength of flox and is not as hard.

 Actually, for bonding, JB Weld is probably superior to flox in a laminating epoxy - the bonding strength is higher. No one in the industry uses laminating epoxies for bonding - various Hysols are common bonding agents, and JB Weld is in type of family. So that was the least of the issues with the nose strut assembly - really, the only issue was that the strut wasn't wrapped - if it had been, you could have easily lived with the JB Weld and older style NG-6.

23 hours ago, BrianHalstrom said:

 So what you are saying is to move the fuselage forward (wing backwards) to shift the CG forward to resolve that right?

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. You have a horizontal surface relationship to CG that needs to be maintained (CG forward of Aerodynamic Center) in order to have static longitudinal stability. However it can't be TOO far forward, or else the airplane becomes unable to rotate for takeoff, and TOO stable in pitch to the point that you lose maneuverability.

You also need to have an equivalent vertical surface relationship to the CG in order to have lateral stability. Read up on aircraft stability requirements and calculations. Moving CG forward might address the lateral stability issue, but completely screw up the ability of the aircraft to get off the ground and be maneuverable once it does.

Everything is a balance, but having as much vertical area at or forward of the CG position (about where the pilot is going to be in one of these planes) is going to make the plane want to fly sideways or backwards, or at least be happy to do so if it happens to be perturbed in that direction.

I suggest googling "aircraft design book" and purchasing a number of the ones that come up - Raymer's is good, as is Roskam, just for starters. Also "Perkins and Hage" for "Stability and Control". You cannot design anything other than a standard looking aircraft (think C-172 or Piper Warrior) using "that looks about right" techniques. Particularly with canards and/or tandem wing aircraft.

On 4/17/2020 at 2:37 PM, BrianHalstrom said:

I am planning on adding a rear stabilizer to the design ...

Are you talking about a horizontal stabilizer or a vertical stabilizer?

On 4/17/2020 at 2:37 PM, BrianHalstrom said:

I agree this design will have increase drag from the surface area but I am hoping to make some of that back by utilizing the canard to wing tip connector as a Winglet, not to mention the Winglet itself (I just haven't trimmed it or actually shaped it until I actually run a aerodynamic study).

Vertical surfaces forward of the CG (as any vertical surface attached to the canard will be) are destabilizing in yaw, and would require substantially larger tail vertical surfaces to offset. The vertical (or at least partially vertical) surfaces attached to the wing tips are not far aft of the CG, and will have only a very weak stabilizing effect, particularly due to their small size and cant angle.

While interesting looking, this configuration, even with a vertical tail at the aft end of the fuselage, would have poor directional stability at best, and be directionally unstable at worst.

4 hours ago, Birdbrain said:

Eureka in the USA will CNC cut cores for you, much better than hotwiring. The build does need to be done very accurately.

Eureka uses a CNC hotwire machine - it's still hotwiring. Steve does not machine the foam. Accurate, but hotwire, nonetheless.

I'm at a loss to understand the belief that fabricating ailerons is rocket science - building a set of new ailerons, if required, should take a long weekend - maybe 3 - 4 days, just because there are about 4 serial cure cycles. Two skins, end ribs, and some reinforcing. Use 7/16" steel rod or tubing to put lead weight inside, and ensure good balance. It's just NOT that hard.

8 hours ago, bmckinney10 said:

I need clarification on how to mark the aileron waterline to determine balance... Is the aileron waterline based on leveling the airframe, securing the trailing edges of the aileron and wing together, then marking a level line on the inboard side of the aileron?

The balance pic you show is from page 7 of the aileron addendum. Look at page 5 - there are two templates that show WL's and external skins. You can use these to create an external level "jig" for determining the WL. In any case, if you balance the VE ailerons so that the top skin is closer to level than the bottom skin, you're good. And that's after ALL paint.

19 hours ago, bmckinney10 said:

...but by sight they are definitely tail heavy.  The previous owner repainted the plane, but never flew it.  I found an older post on here suggesting to a drills holes in the ends just behind the embedded leading edge rod and epoxy in lead rods.  That seems logical.  Any other suggestions?

Sand all the paint and excess fill off and repaint it so that it balances correctly. Put the minimum amount of fill, primer and paint on, particularly on the bottom which never sees UV exposure - NEVER paint control surfaces over old paint without removing it. Only then, if the elevator is not in balance, add extra weight, and then only outboard.

4 hours ago, cookedinlh said:

Just for training FlightTest Engineers... needs the most stable mounting point on longitudinal centreline. Seems like the original scoup shape with some laminar flow fairing behind the turret might do it... or perhaps top mounted intakes but that maybe just complicating things more....it’s to become a single pilot a/c with instrumentation in back to allow for 2-3 hr Telemetry mission

So if you need to install something on the centerline of the airplane underneath, then you're going to need to get rid of the NACA scoop entirely and go to armpit scoops under the strakes. Otherwise, you'll melt your engine, as Kent indicated.

10 hours ago, cookedinlh said:

Thanks for that link and photos Kent . . that helps a lot . . the underlying concern in because I plan on putting a belly mounted (~1ft diam sphere IRST infrared Search and Track turret) right behind the AirBrake ...

Extremely bad idea, and almost guaranteed to screw up any cooling air into the engine.

17 hours ago, cookedinlh said:

The issue is engine temperature limits . . I'm limited to about 75% sustained throttle except for t/o roll before it starts to overtemp in cruise . .  it's just not getting enough air.

There are many factors that can lead to high temps (you don't say what your CHT's or oil temps actually ARE, which would be useful for people trying to understand what you think a problem might be). What makes you think that the air intake is the cause of the high temperatures of whatever type you're seeing?

1 hour ago, cookedinlh said:

Anyone know if parts like this are ever up for sale . . should a cowling from a/c A be able to fit a/c B or is that unrealistic . . . do I have to make a new one from scratch? The one I have has been modified beyond repairing it to original flow cross section. It  currently looks like this

What do you think is wrong with what you have?

1 hour ago, Kent Ashton said:

Here is the ad.  No price, no hours on the engine!  I will never understand why they make you beg for this information.

Yep. I think folks do it to keep away the tire-kickers, but I agree it's counterproductive. Last I spoke to Don/Brendan, they were asking $90K. I told them they'd be lucky to get $60K, which obviously is not something owners want to hear. The other thing to note from that ad is that it's ancient - they discuss the plane needing an "annual" (no such thing - it's a Condition Inspection, but old habits die hard) in 11/2017.

9 hours ago, Bugstrider said:

Here is the link to the one I saw and spoke with the owner about.  I figured you would have knowledge of the plane.

That's Don Ponciroli and Brendan Woolrich's plane. Almost never flies, way overpriced, needs work and mods. Could be a good project plane if priced reasonably. I've told Don they're asking way too much - maybe they've dropped the price in the intervening years... I'd be extremely concerned about the engine (corrosion), since it lives right on the coast and even though hangared, is almost never used and not pickled. While I don't do this in my Pre-Buy's (I don't take apart other folks' aircraft), in this case I'd want to pull a jug (LOTS OF WORK) and take a look at the cams and rest of the interior, as well as just bore-scoping the cylinders.

And while this is not the latest version of what I use, it'll give you an idea (for a generic canard aircraft) of what I look for in a CI or PB:

http://cozybuilders.org/docs/Canard_CI-PB_Checklist.pdf

3 hours ago, Bugstrider said:

Will David have the information on the one you mentioned?

No. It's not for sale yet - I'm just projecting that it may be sometime this year. Don't know for sure. Dave will have a more comprehensive list of LE's for sale, but you'd still need a good Pre-Buy examination.

3 hours ago, Bugstrider said:

I ran across a Cozy IV that has been for sale for about 5 years per the owner... What I am asking is, what are some key questions would someone need to ask to get an accurate idea on its condition.

I keep a list of all COZY's for sale (that I know or hear of). Which plane is this? It's doubtful that I'm not familiar with it... See:

https://www.burnsideaerospace.com/pre-buy-examination-information

and page 32 of:

http://cozybuilders.org/Oshkosh_Presentations/2015_Zeitlin-Soup_To_Nuts.pdf

for information on what to look for. But the most important thing is to have someone that knows their ass from a hot rock look at the plane, and just because someone has built and flown one or two of these planes doesn't necessarily mean that they are in that category. I've seen a lot of crap that supposedly knowledgable builders had let slide or just missed.

3 hours ago, Bugstrider said:

  I am still very green regarding getting into the different groups and mailing lists.  Is the mailing lists you mentioned on this forum or located at a different site?  I will start looked for the ones you mentioned.

See:

http://cozybuilders.org/mail_list/

for COZY mailing list information.

On 1/11/2020 at 12:08 PM, Bugstrider said:

Long time lurker, first time post, just wanted to to say hello and introduce myself to the forum...

Any pointers, ideas, suggestions would be appreciated. Also looking for a current master list of Canard Clubs or resources in the US so I can branch out my contacts and resources in my search and journey.

Get in touch with Tim Sullivan, who bases his Long-EZ at Placerville. Great guy. I know of a very nice Long-EZ that might be for sale - the owner hasn't flown it in over a year. Get in touch with David Orr who maintains a list of all Long-EZ's (and other canards) for sale. I maintain a list of COZY's for sale. Join the canard-aviators mailing list, which has over 1500 members and is pretty active. If you're interested in COZY's, join the COZY mailing list, which has over 800 members, 100 flyers, and 300 builders.

14 hours ago, Rainey said:

1986 build and approx 650 TT AF&E, C-90 engine, starter, empty weight 535, one of the mains had been damaged and repaired before he obtained the plane;

And if I understood him correctly, he did not have the original logs for the aircraft.

He also didn't seem to know anything about possible wing spar corrosion issues.

In the next few days, I plan on going over and giving it a walk-around.

So let's review this. A claimed empty weight of 535 lb. is extremely suspect. The lightest VE I know of (granted with an O-200, but that's not going to make a 90 lb. difference) is about 610 - 620 lb. Most are in the high 600's / low 700's. So when someone says that their airplane is in the 0.001th percentile of weight, there should be a LOT of skepticism. 635 lb. I could believe, if the build was really high quality. But I'd be a LOT of $$$ against 535 lb.

Not having logs means that anything anyone says about the plane is meaningless - there's no record to back it up. You don't eve know what you're trying to verify at that point.

For a VE owner to not be aware of the wing spar joggle issue and the wing spar attach corrosion issue means that he's not paying any attention to the notifications put out by RAF. That's not a good sign. Did he at least know that the plane is restricted to +2.5G / -1.5G?

There is certainly nothing wrong with kicking the tires and looking at the plane, but unless YOU are a canard expert and know exactly what to look for, how to do a Pre-Buy examination and what to measure/ask, I would HIGHLY recommend that if you're serious about the plane, you get a canard expert to perform a Pre-Buy examination for you. Knowing who did the last 5 - 10 Condition Inspections and what maintenance was done on it would be extremely useful. Is the plane in CI now? Can it be demo flown? Does the owner have dual jacks so you can check the landing gear attach points? A million other questions...

See:

https://www.burnsideaerospace.com/pre-buy-examination-information

for what a PB exam actually entails.

Given the known corrosion and spar cap issues surrounding VE's, I STRONGLY recommend to my customers that they consider Long-EZ's instead.

My $0.02.

On 12/29/2019 at 6:16 AM, Kent Ashton said:

Today on Barnstormers, pics in the ad:  CANARD PARTS COZY 4 •  • Contact David Hanson, -  located Warren , OH

If you missed my warnings on the COZY and canard-aviators mailing list, be VERY careful with anything that David Hanson has worked on from a structural or aerodynamic standpoint. Caveat Emptor.

1 hour ago, vezePilot said:

And it's terrible. A flight model first developed in version 7 something, and improved over 15 years, has all kinds of problems that need fixing in the latest X-Plane.

Just out of curiosity, why would X-Plane have changed the flight modeling engine in such a way as to break a previously working model? What did they do?

2 hours ago, vezePilot said:

Yeah, it looks nice ... however: They asked me to review this package, and I didn't even reply with a critique after flying it...

Curt is 120% correct here. We were trying to use this model for some simulation wrt the development of a new avionics package, and it was a total POS - didn't act like a real LE in any way, shape or form. We wasted a lot of flying hours finding this out... Gaming model at best - don't even think about using it for training. The new link is here:

https://www.vskylabs.com/vsl-rutan-longez

if anyone wants to see it, for no good reason.

18 hours ago, bmckinney10 said:

I inspected it in October...  Note that it has the wing cuffs, not the vortilons, which was the initial suggested wing improvement from the CP's.

 

Who did the pre-buy examination, and how much does it weigh as-is?

Are you going to switch from cuffs to vortilons?

31 minutes ago, bmckinney10 said:

(a) Can the VE be flown with the canopy lip sticking that that high above the fuselage?
(b) Is there a know procedure to warm up the canopy in that area and lay weights on it to relax it back into position?  I've read this being done for other warped parts of the plane.

a) Yes. Flies fine with WAY worse - just might leak a little air. As long as the hinges are intact and not loose, there's no issue.

b) Not going to work. And these canopies changes shape substantially with temperature changes - when it's cold, they "banana" up, due to the differential CTE's of the fiberglass and acrylic.

4 hours ago, bmckinney10 said:

Thanks Kent.  I was thinking of something like that as a jack.  Just wanted to confirm where the safe lifting points would be.  If the wings are off, I would assume staying on the spar-line would be safe if just inside the wing-attach fitting.

If the wings are on, just outboard of the wing attach fittings (on a VE) is fine - just put the support (with some foam padding) under the spar. If the wings are off, you can put the support under the main spar as long as there's still room to work on the wheels.

19 minutes ago, Ron Springer said:

Where does it say that? I only see a useful load listed but it doesn't state what MGW was used to calculate it.

In the specification document and in the barnstormers ad somewhere. The MGW is set to 1350 lb, which is 240 lb. OVER POH value, and it's STILL a single seater with full fuel at that point (or two tiny people, if you believe that it's OK to fly VE's at 1350 lb).

19 minutes ago, Kent Ashton said:

1.  I haven't used this method but I have seen it work on EZs:  put a couple of sawhorses under the leading edge of the strake (with wide support so the horses don't dent the strake skin), then lower the nose. It will lever the main wheels off the ground.

Holy crap - that would scare the bejeezus out of me - I would assume that you're almost guaranteed to damage the strake skins, which are in no way (on any of these planes) meant to support the weight of the aircraft. Also, since the LE of the strake is fwd of the CG of the aircraft, I don't see how this could possibly lift the main gear off the ground - I must be misunderstanding your description.

Here's what _I_ do when I either want to change tires or (during a CI or Pre-Buy) examine the gear attach fitting:

• Get a sawhorse of appropriate height with a 2x4 laid flat on the top (fasten it securely) and then at least 2" of blue foam on top of that to spread the load
• Lift the wing
• Put the sawhorse under the wing spar, just outboard of the wing attach fittings on a VE or between the outboard bolt holes on other canards (leave space to get the wheel off between the axle and the sawhorse)
• Put the wing down
• Do the same on the other side
• If you have electric nose-lift, you can put the two sawhorses under the wings when the nose is down, extend the nose gear, and the plane will jack itself up off the ground

On a VE, I can lift the wing and put the sawhorse in place by myself - with a heavier plane, I need a helper if there's no electric nose gear. Of course, if you have a hydraulic wing jack, you can jack the plane up UNDER THE SPAR further outboard, and then put the sawhorse in place. You could probably do the same with a jack under the gear leg, as Kent shows, and then put the sawhorse under the wing. If you jack under the gear leg, be absolutely sure not to put any force on the brake calipers.

6 hours ago, Kent Ashton said:

I saw a picture of it when it was white so I would bet some of the weight is paint-on-paint.  Even possibly paint on primer on polyester filler on original paint on primer on filler.  It's such a huge job to strip off an old finish, refill and respray . . .

No doubt - having done exactly that (strip and refinish) to my plane, I feel the pain. Doesn't make it right, though...