Jon Matcho

So charge $50 for your model! Or... maybe the basic model for free and for anyone wanting to get serious, $50 or even $99/$100! As you point out, there's nothing about airplanes that resembles "free".

That's hardly any fault of X-Plane's. @vezePilot wow Curt, just trying to have a conversation on modern-day flight simulators. Sorry if you found any of it offensive, but that was not the intent. No part of this is me suggesting that X-Plane is not viable. I am only mentioning that MSFS is worth looking at.

Yes, but someone will eventually make a canard-type aircraft in MSFS. I was only suggesting to consider jumping on a train that will undoubtedly have a lot of momentum and exposure (and one that I and others are predicting will be better). What makes you think that the MSFS files are proprietary? You're stuck in the "old Microsoft" mindset, where they were indeed "borderline evil". Google and Apple are steadily taking the proprietary throne these days while Microsoft has been remarkably open since 2014. I have no problem paying you or anyone a fair amount of money for a good product. Austin Meyer, X-Plane founder, does exactly this many times over and has the toys to prove it. I thoroughly disagree with that as does Lockheed Martin, who took the MSFS engine to build their own professional flight simulation and training product (Prepar3D). I am not saying there's no value in X-Plane and all that's been done with it for "real" flight simulation -- I will probably run it and appreciate your renewed interest in updating your models! Time will tell and I hope the new MSFS 2020 product is absolutely amazing. In the meantime, I am buying new PC hardware, monitors, and a video card to support the system requirements for BOTH the upcoming X-Plane and MSFS products.

X-Plane itself needs a machine that is in the gaming class. Such PCs can be considered affordable, but are well above what most expect to pay. There's also the display. To truly appreciate a simulator, I personally need a much more immersive environment than a typical flat display screen. My current/old PC no longer runs X-Plane effectively on my 3440x1440 monitor and that's not even good enough for my liking. Ideally I want a larger curved monitor with 2 additional side views that complete my experience. I've thought about 3D/VR, which will come, but am not thrilled about full VR compared to augmented reality. As a result, minimally I am looking to spend a fair amount of money to build a new desktop PC with higher refresh rate monitors. My point is that while it's commendable to have efficient models, the nature of flight simulation is that traditional PCs and displays no longer cut it. Personally, I am about to leave X-Plane and move to Microsoft's upcoming rework of their flight simulator. They have moved from table-based aerodynamics to surface physics (and then some), which was X-Plane's key feature. You may want to consider building a model for what will be a MUCH larger audience likely willing to pay you for your models. https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/xbox/forum/all/microsoft-flight-simulator-2020-video-preview/459f1230-035e-478f-b92b-4b0e11036c05 https://www.polygon.com/2019/9/30/20885197/microsoft-flight-simulator-bing-maps-hands-on-demo

Interesting news announced on Raptor's YouTube Community section: The results will be telling. I am not holding my breath.

Here's a complimentary article from Kitplanes about a recent presentation by Burt Rutan, Dick Rutan, and Mike Melvill. https://www.kitplanes.com/long-ezs-and-more/

Here are the Dragonfly newsletters: http://www.quickheads.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2392&Itemid=511 In addition to this forum, you have the Dragonfly mailing list: https://dragonflylist.groups.io/g/main

A few things, such as: Knowledge and formal education relating to the strengths of materials. Paying attention to composite construction since I was in my teens. 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." 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. Good point -- I agree, except the need to throw out "nonsense" as you're missing my point: Peel ply using Dacron and you will not need to sand to have a perfectly strong bond. Alternatively, go nuts, put on your mask and sand away on the entire surface for an extra 0.1 in-lbs of strength. That's not at all required in my opinion and nothing I would do or recommend FWIW. I do typically sand the areas after ripping the peel ply, just to smooth any rough transitions.

Yes! Almost comical to watch, but all you really need. The complete "official" instructions are in Chapter 3 - Education in the VariEze, Long-EZ, Cozy, AeroCanard, Defiant written plans.

I feel like I've left an opening for critique... 😉 Waxy substances can be sanded away, and anything oily gets an acetone wipe-down.

I have heard this as well, but disagree and consider it a waste of time. Might as well not even use peel ply at all in this case. The only time I'll sand after peel ply is if there's excess cured epoxy that needs to go before the next layer, or a contaminant of some sort (peanut butter, pizza, oil, etc).

Here's a link to the 11:40 mark of the scariest high-speed taxi test yet:

Sure, that and many more variables are at play. Your question is too broad and not what we get into in this forum. Take a look at the other posts in the simulators/models section, as well as the other forum sections to better understand our collective focus and knowledge.

I can't even bear to follow it anymore as it's become a littered mess. Parts make for an interesting read though: https://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/threads/24721/ That was on the first page of that thread from 2016. That would have been the only way in my opinion. Peter made a major mistake when he started by combining two major design and development efforts into a single effort: airframe and engine. In this business, you are either an engine manufacturer or a kit manufacturer. The only chance this aircraft would have had would be to use one of the larger 300hp 6-cylinder engines from Lycoming or Continental from the start. Alternatively, he could have decided to be an engine manufacturer, made the project all about the engine, and mounted one on a Velocity model as a test bed. What economical advantages? MPG on the road does not translate to annualized economy in an aircraft. Imagine actually owning that one-off custom engine and having nobody willing to work on it? You'd be left to your own devices, somehow convincing a local auto mechanic to work on it. Custom parts? They're terribly complicated and expensive to fabricate. I would anticipate the overall cost of ownership would actually be greater than with an aircraft engine. It's very challenging, but very doable and typically happens after people get tired of their auto-conversions and just want to fly. A good reminder that there are many variables that have changed relative to a Cozy or Velocity airframe that require a substantial amount of time and effort to prove. @TuscanRider I'm hesitant to ask, but why are you asking?

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.