Jon Matcho

Which is otherwise known as the Appeal to Accomplishment fallacy. Granted, you have much more experience than the vast majority, but that does not invalidate everyone else's opinions, feedback, and gut reactions. It's entirely unnecessary to lead with "nonsense" and implicit disparagement. Why not just give your take as your credentials are just a click away? Having known you for years I continue to be perplexed by your tact. It's based on personal experience, which includes having done a fair share of building from plans, and composite repairs for myself and others on previously flying (and now flying) airplanes. I certainly do not have your experience, but I do have a clue, inkling, or gut feels on these subjects. I am comfortable knowing the pace of work with plans-building, and most important to me is that I know all structures are high quality and light. Completing this project will result in a heavier airframe than prior (and perhaps gross weight when compared to other Long-EZs), and with a non-zero chance that an important defect makes it through (unknown unknowns). I'm not disagreeing with you on the time. Since your estimated hours are in the same magnitude, both routes are "comparable" and should be considered before spending the equivalent of a work-year on anything. Indeed, a noteworthy point, along with the other points you've made (albeit more difficult to absorb with the unnecessary and distracting commentary).

Your response quotes my prior comment for its context: And your reply... Who is "claiming" what? What are these "claims" you speak of? Seems more like genuine thoughts and opinions. I did use the word "comparable", which does not mean "same" or "less". Regardless, it's not "nonsense" at all considering most are builders here. Ah, the Appeal to Authority fallacy. Who's work? How can you possibly estimate for anyone else's progress other than your own? Again, other's replies that favor building new are not at all "nonsense", particularly when considering the "new" route may be the best path to completion based on available time, budget, desire for quality, current skills, and any available help from others. Nice! I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to hear all about it.

Quite an ambitious project to start with, but nothing is impossible. I'm curious where the first Sawzall cut will be, but I'm sure you're going to think on that for a bit. Maybe the roughest area first, but there's no manual for where to begin. Good thing you're a mechanical engineer. I just reread Kent's original reply after looking at your pictures. You may indeed be better off building from scratch with the "partial kit" you have available, "cannibalizing" as many parts from the project-plane you have while building a new plane. This will also teach you the skills and knowledge you need to do the rebuild you're considering doing right now. I just took another look at your pictures. Personally, I would build a new Long-EZ for a few reasons: Comparable effort. Unknown damage. Do you need a new engine mount? Where are ALL of the cracks? Are all bulkheads intact? What looks good, but is now bent and out-of-spec? You already have several parts (new and several used components and fixtures). Opportunity to modernize all systems. It's not an award winner right now. Valuable skills and knowledge to last your entire life.

Interesting! They're apparently not in the newsletters, but note this message at the top of the Q2 Builder Tips section on Newsletter 15 Page 5: I verified that they are in the Appendix file of the Q2/200 Info Package available in the store here. Looking forward, the newsletter downloads are painful to use, and I'd like to migrate to be available here as part of the Canard Zone.

It is meant to be 45 degrees. You'll just need to use more UNI for these situations. Check Chapter 3 for whether the plies should be overlapped or butted.

That would make a lot of sense if it weren't for the point Cameron reminds us of... It's known that Rutan and/or Roncz made adjustments to some of the airfoils that are NOT indicated in the official plots. Rather than create a new airfoil we have references such as "a modified Eppler airfoil". The only way to get to their intended shape is to key off of the plans, which brings me back to my point -- good drawings are critical. Sure, the Defiant plans are available, but were they scanned PERFECTLY and will they be printed the same? The only way to tell is with verification marks/measurements on authentic "analog" drawings. You would need to follow this route BEFORE implementing in CAD otherwise the result would be flawed.

But... unless extra steps were taken you cannot trust 100% that the dimensions are accurate. I need to get my B in gear and get all these plans scanned with proper dimension verification...

Not a TriQ but a Dragonfly. Similar types, but different aircraft.

What's going on here? A fire sale?

(bolding is mine) I made a mistake when I referred to "spar". I meant "rib". Butt joints are like "micro ribs". I was not suggesting a "micro spar", as I was trying to explain here: It's good you're asking around, but ultimately comes down to your decision. Another option is to change your time preference from "need it now" to one that allows for more time and patience. Foam blocks exist in Oregon right now (theoretically), and you'll be surprised what you might find that comes up on barnstormers.com or on the forums somewhere. Post a "wanted" ad in the Marketplace forum here and wait a bit while you work on other areas of your project. Just my thoughts...

Glad to hear that, and welcome to the forum. That package does include the improved LS1 canard profile templates for hot wiring the foam, but to build exactly to plans you'll need to find a replacement for the carbon fiber tube spar. Some have designer their own Rutan-like box spar as a replacement. The plans are more like a time capsule from the time they were originally written as opposed to a modern version. For example, 3D CAD was not really a thing back then, so the plans are all in 2D basically. All items for sale are 100% digital downloads and allow the Canard Zone to keep running. Welcome, and feel free to post your questions. Many others here are more knowledgeable than me on a variety of topics.

Something got lost in the translation there... I know 'canard' is the French word for 'duck'. Anyway, you are welcome to participate here on the forum!

You definitely do not need "at least 55" inch foam. Many kits shipped with 48" foam. It's not a problem to have butt joints. You could actually consider them to be "micro spars ribs". The other problem with getting beyond 48" is that hot wiring can become problematic, where the wire itself no longer maintains a perfectly straight line (or good enough straight line).

If you got all that from your thread on the Q-List mailing list, I don't see that being said. https://q-list.groups.io/g/main/topic/stearns_q200_core_kit/104005253 I'd also be interested in reading the actual FAA accident reports. Done wrong your concern is valid, but it all depends on the bonding agent used. If I understand your dilemma correctly, micro may not be the best bonding agent for extending the chord from wing root to tip. You would just need a bond that is equal to or just slightly stronger than the foam itself, and as close to the mechanical properties of the foam itself. I don't know what that is, but it's out there. Another option would be to buy the foam you're comfortable with, and cut another complete wing set and sell that to cover your costs.

Welcome in from the cold! From what I gather, they'll all want a handful of hours as PIC on the same aircraft model (or very close to it) first. That's what I "gather" -- I don't know as I'm still building and effectively a lurker myself on that topic.