Jon Matcho

Yes, Rev 5 is it. The update is my "cold season project" in a month or two.

Sorry for the late response everyone -- I must have been on vacation or something when this exchange scrolled past my feed. My new "system" won't let that happen again. The sheets were only meant to have X-Y references from a single common point. The next revision eliminates this confusion, which is still a work in progress. Rev 5 does not have dimensional errors, but does have labeling errors which are detailed in this post. The next revision will correct this as well. Thank you for taking the time to illustrate your concern, nice job! But... the the red marks you noted in A3 are accurate and would otherwise be identical to A1 if you rotated A3 180 degrees. Again, this is being addressed in the next revision. When printing the sheets, you need to verify each. While I would be more confident if I witnessed the printing job, to verify same paper, same printer, same settings, same operator, etc. than if I hadn't, I would still verify each individual sheet. However, I wouldn't get upset over something that was 0.1" off. I would just cut inside or outside the lines when the time came (just make a note for yourself on the paper). Dimensions/captions... I figured woodworkers would recognize the root cause at some point. You've got it, and I do acknowledge the need for having 4 corners of verifiable 90 degree marks. Good to hear, and definitely an important point to read through all the CPs and make whatever updates are specified. Completed, the Open-EZ will have rewritten plans that incorporates all changes form the Canard Pusher newsletters. The Open-EZ templates are available in the Downloads section here.

It's totally fine to reply to old threads. Feel free!

LOL. Since our activities fall under Fair Use copyright law, and I'm sure you'd give credit where credit is due, I say share away! Good to see you Kent! The world is now in harmonic balance once again.

The community would definitely benefit! I am trying, but the "convince your canard friends" part is where everyone can help. Some of what is going on at http://www.vansairforce.net/ serves as a model for how the Canard Zone is built. Thanks! That was the goal -- to land on a platform that can keep pace with modern needs. I'm sure there's a way to solve that, but glad to have you here Curt. Some community members prefer mailing lists for good reasons, but there's no reason why you cannot be members of each right now. That star is beginning to not have the best angle on my workshop right now. I promised myself I would have an insulated and heated shop for this winter. I failed to complete. Spring is coming... and until then I am stealing some inside space.

Easy fix... change your plans and "settle" for fixed gear 🙂

It's always neat to see a new canard effort, or any experimental kit or plans effort for that matter. The Raptor tried to ride social media and did get many non-aviators (or soon-to-be aviators) enthused. Icon Aircraft did that with success, but they were smart enough not to think that they were an engine company too, and among other things. "Oh well" is all that comes to mind these days when I look at it. I sincerely hope that no harm comes to any test pilot that may be brave enough to run that thing up and go for it.

I changed the thread subject title to suggest this might be sold or gone.

...or just ignoring the email notifications, or has them turned off, or he doesn't like you 🙂 I haven't been asked to take it down, which may be a good sign. His last visit was on May 25th and your PM was on May 30th. Did you try his email ("aviator 'at' mindspring 'dot' com")?

Yeah, why "need" this specification? It's your plane so you can setup 100% for you. You can't switch seats with anyone in flight either, so... adjust on the ground and you've saved the unnecessary weight and complexity.

I doubt it was Marc because counting "several" would be a stretch. I've noticed a French project that appeared to be heading in a commercial direction, or was it from England? Maybe it was a fantasy. Beyond that, there's really nothing with any notable money behind it to make it work. Raptor misdirected their investment IMO. That engine is a one-off experiment and I expect parts to be failing left and right from here on out. That airframe should have been built around a proven engine, and only changed once flight characteristics were proven and tested.

I do hope Kent gets back here soon. I miss his updates!

I would say about as involved as modifying a Cozy IV to use a center stick, which reminds me of another related post on this subject.

Hello Open-EZ builders, supporters and fans, I updated the first post in this thread to fix some broken links and for clarity. Pending work is still to incorporate the Roncz canard plans. Please stay tuned for some interesting developments and updates here at the Canard Zone coming in the near future.

And so here is the dichotomy between the "Legend of the Berkut" and historical reality. It is for mainly this reason, in my opinion, that Berkuts sell thoroughly above $100,000 and Long-EZs sell for well under that. After all, seeing a beautiful Berkut on the cover of a magazine from the 1990s got me on this road in the first place. My biggest problem back then was how/when to purchase the A kit and whether I wanted the 360 or 540 model! I had no clue, and even then I suspect I would have purchased Long-EZ plans if they existed. Not bashing Berkuts here, and I take your word for it -- I recall mention of the multiple generations of parts. This underscores my primary point of this post. I recall experiencing my first hands-on wakeup call in this area early on in the build when I made the perfect tabs for the forward longeron supports (on F22 or F28, etc.) only to cut them off and throw them away in a later chapter. As you said, "point taken!"