Marc Zeitlin

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...

2 hours ago, Kent Ashton said:

This Vari today N76LN  https://flightaware.com/resources/registration/N76LN      High-time engine (1436 hrs) even though the seller seems to say it could go to 2400.  The airplane has been through several owners.

I will give the owner props for being completely up-front about the condition of this plane. Many owners don't do that, and many don't know what the issues are with their planes. So good on Jeff for being an honest guy.

That said, the single biggest issue I see with this plane (other than that it's been worked on by Dave Hanson, which is always a red flag although not necessarily disqualifying depending upon what he did to it other than the obvious signature mediocre paint job) is that it weighs 867 lb. Even with an O-235, it's a single seater, and that only if you're willing to fly 200 lb. over POH MGW. This is the heaviest VE I've ever heard of - the dataplate said that it weighed 720 lb. when it was certificated in 1982, so somehow it's gained almost 150 lb. over the years.

On 11/17/2019 at 8:00 PM, 2High2Fast said:

Why? Can you recommend someone?

Sorry - I missed this posting. Obviously OBE (but I'd be very interested to know why the deal fell through), but yes - I can recommend someone. For anyone in the Socal area, I do Pre-Buys (take a look at the link in my signature to Burnside Aerospace), and I also have traveled around the country to do PB's for folks that want me to do them. Burrall Sanders is in Colorado and is good as well - he knows canards.

1 hour ago, sixfivelrp said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but micro slurry foam to glass interfaces only, and not glass to glass. 

You are correct. Micro ONLY on foam, not GtG.

12 minutes ago, Jon Matcho said:

1. Page 3-14 of the Long-EZ plans, Cozy plans, etc. (bolding is mine):  "Peel ply any area that will later be structurally attached to another fiberglass layup.  Once the dacron is peeled off, the surface is ready for another layup, without sanding."

And they're correct - what I explicitly said was: "Many experts recommend sanding even if you DO have peel plied surfaces, just as belt and suspenders." I didn't say it was necessary - I said some folks recommend it, and it can't hurt. You said it was a waste of time, but that's not at all obvious.

13 minutes ago, Jon Matcho said:

That was a worthwhile presentation, thanks, but note that it reported results on Nylon and Polyester peel ply, but not what we should be using which is Dacron.  Yes, Dacron is a polyester, but is manufactured to be more durable than plain old polyester fabrics you'd wear to the disco.

The fact that the peel ply you buy from aircraft vendors is a bit thicker than what's used for clothing doesn't change the surface quality of the material. And there are some very thin polyester/Dacron materials available. The reason to get quality polyester/Dacron is not because it's thicker, but because it's guaranteed not to have unwanted sizing or coatings on it that may contaminate the layups. Since the presentation discussed the surface energy of polyester peel ply, it's directly applicable to what we do.

Now, as I said above - is the increase in surface energy NECESSARY? Don't know, and since there are a zillion airplanes out there flying with unbelievably crappy workmanship from a surface preparation standpoint, the answer is probably not. But if you want to know the BEST way to prepare the surface (necessary or not), it will include peel ply, sanding, and cleaning, all within a very short time period right before the next layups are applied. Peel ply alone is certainly acceptable, and so is sanding alone. But both together are a bit better.

5 hours ago, Jon Matcho said:

I have heard this as well, but disagree and consider it a waste of time.

And your disagreement is based on what research and data?

You may want to read through this paper:

https://depts.washington.edu/amtas/events/amtas_09fall/Flinn.pdf

Page 16 clearly shows higher surface energies with both Nylon and Polyester Peel Plies after sanding than "As Tooled". Is that NECESSARY? Don't know, but it does seem clear that sanding improves the surface energy created by removing the PP.

5 hours ago, Jon Matcho said:

Might as well not even use peel ply at all in this case.

Nonsense. At least with PP, you get a surface that when sanding, you won't damage the underlying fiber layers, and you don't need to sand as vigorously or as much. Still saves time and effort and gives a much smoother surface. And when you sand, you get better bonding, per the paper above.

43 minutes ago, A Bruce Hughes said:

When the epoxy has hardened, you immediately rip off the pealply...The FIRST thing that you do when you arrive at the work area on the next day  is to rip off any pelply  on surfaces.

This is incorrect. Peel Ply should be left on a surface until just prior to the next layup, if there's going to be one. If not, then it doesn't matter when the peel ply is removed.

The act of pulling the peel ply off the surface breaks the epoxy bonds and ensures a high energy surface which greatly assists in adhesion of the next layer of epoxy. If you pull the peel ply off more than 2 - 24 hours prior to the next layup, the bonds will oxidize and you won't get the advantage of the peel plied surface - you'll just have to sand everything as you would if you didn't have peel ply. Many experts recommend sanding even if you DO have peel plied surfaces, just as belt and suspenders.

3 hours ago, Ron Springer said:

Is there a write-up somewhere on the procedure to build a gear leg attachment like this?

Not of which I'm aware. I've got a customer who wants pants installed in the next couple of months sometime - I'll try to remember to take notes and create a write-up.

5 hours ago, Kent Ashton said:

any ways to do it but for the inside mount, I use a steel bracket--maybe .040 4130--with two nutplates (pic 2, bracket is reversed from the first pic) which gives a three-point mount (nut, bracket, bracket).

I have something very similar to what Kent describes on my plane, but I don't use that method anymore. I find that something like the image below is far more robust - having a large flange attached to the gear leg itself, with fore/aft halves of the pants and one outboard connection using the Vans axle nut gives a much stiffer connection with no loosening over time.

This is now what I install on customers' planes when they ask for wheel pants installations.

13 hours ago, Dave Harvey said:

What are non builders paying A&Ps for a Long EZ CI?

I charge (this year) $1100 for a CI on a simple (non-retract mains) canard aircraft - that covers the first 11 hours of work. Owner assistance is welcome. Generally takes 1 - 2 days. I know other A&P's that charge $150 (who aren't their brother-in-law). I tell people that I can't spit at their plane for $150, and if all they want is a signature in a logbook, go for it. I actually inspect (it's right there in the title - CI) their aircraft. I do about 30 CI's/year, and my customers are happy with my work. Although I suppose if someone's willing to get a $150 CI, they're probably happy with it as well.

8 hours ago, 2High2Fast said:

I'm buying this, pending the details. I'll do all the reading I can (have done quite a bit, already), and use the search function, but forgive the newbie questions I may inflict on the group!

excited to joint the canard community!

Just out of curiosity, who did your Pre-Buy examination?

2 hours ago, Jon Matcho said:

I noticed that too, but was unable to find that information on the Click Bonds website either, and I am already using them.  I do the same things as Bruce mentioned.  I wouldn’t have much concern about using the McMaster items, but your point and concern is entirely valid.

Most of the clickbond specs (in a catalog) are available at The Flight Shop (https://www.theflightshop.com/Download/TheFlightShopCatalogrev12.pdf). For non structural mounting (tie-wraps, etc.) I wouldn't have a problem with the McM parts. But for anything that's safety related (mounting A/P servos, control system components, etc.) I wouldn't go near them with a 10 ft. pole.

12 hours ago, Barry said:

Sorry, the oil cooler hose/tubing. It doesn't look like the typical stuff I'm used to seeing.

That's AN-8 Aeroquip 466 (or the equivalent) hose with integral silicone firesleeve.

9 hours ago, Barry said:

What type of tubing do you have? It looks like a hard wall of some kind, almost like copper.

What "tubing" are you talking about? The hoses from the oil cooler? The aileron pushrods? I don't know to what you're referring.

7 hours ago, Kent Ashton said:

The problem is that you can build your landing brake flush with the belly but over time, the pull of the retract springs can make the forward edges lift up.

Not just the pull of the springs, but warping of the glass. I fixed mine when it warped by cutting slices in the top surface glass, supporting the left and right edges and weighting the middle so that the LB would take a slight curve - higher at the sides. Then I glassed 2 BID over the slices to lock in the shape. That was about 9 years ago, I think, and it's kept shape perfectly since - when it's pulled up, the sides hit about 1/8" early and then the center pulls up, keeping the whole thing flat.

4 hours ago, Kent Ashton said:

I have a pic of a cooler using louvers by Marc Z. that is a better idea but it might be copyrighted so you will have to imagine it. 🙂

Hah. Here's what I have - no imagination necessary. 99% uncovered when open, 90% sealed when closed. I rarely use it, since I don't live in a cold place. But since it exhausts down below the strake, I do get a pitch trim change when I shut off the airflow to the cooler. THAT was strange.

14 hours ago, Radioflyer said:

Has anybody used the Desser Tires AWBS 500x5, 6 ply re-treads?

Desser Monster 10-ply retreads. 350 - 375 landings on a COZY MKIV.

2 hours ago, 2High2Fast said:

Empty weight is almost 1100#.  Anyone have an experienced guess on how much could be lost going to a simple glass panel? 

10 - 15 lb. max. If the empty weight of a Long-EZ is 1100 lb., it's a single seater, and replacing the panel isn't fixing that.

58 minutes ago, longezdave83 said:

Marc is correct.  I just presented a basic response.  The above that I presented is at a CG of 102.8, GW of about 1255#, Roncz canard and roughly 190 MPH indicated.  I verified all the above, except I only have screenshots near 190 MPH indicated.

Now we're getting somewhere.

At almost the aft CG limit of 103", somewhat under design MGW and an IAS substantially higher than the design cruise speed of the airplane (remember, the Long-EZ was designed for an O-235 engine of 115 HP, so has a design cruise speed in the 120 - 125 KIAS range (call it 140 mph IAS), it's not at all surprising that the elevator would be reflexed up a bit. That's 50 mph over the design IAS, give or take - the elevator trim position will need to be higher than trail.

There are O-540 powered Long-EZ's and Berkuts that will run out of up elevator at max power, and will still be climbing even with the elevator deflected full TE up (at well over 200 KIAS).

On 10/13/2019 at 5:47 PM, Mike Stevens said:

What are the fliers finding for elevator defection at their max cruise speed?

In order to answer this question in a useful manner, you have to discuss GW, CG location, which airfoil (GU or Roncz) and IAS. Without that, any comment will be meaningless.