Jon Matcho

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!"

...or just pride of ownership as the absolute builder of the plane. The Cozy Girrrls take this to an extreme, where they refuse to let anyone visiting their project do as much as pick up a piece of sandpaper. Personally speaking, if someone wants to help me build the plane in my shop, come on over! 🙂 Many are kit-centric, and as you mention there's nothing wrong with that at all. I was myself and would be today if something like the Berkut in Cozy III/IV dimensions was available today for a price that I could afford. I have never heard a peep about bad quality control with the Berkut kits. Plans or kits, us types take much longer to complete builds and the quest for perfection needs to be kept in check IMO. I think "good" and finished is quite close to "perfect", unless you're aiming to win Plans-built Grand Champion at EAA AirVenture.

While finishing up some detail work for another door on someone else's plane, the topic of this thread came to mind as I noticed the quality of the kit parts. In a previous door I built from the same manufacturer, the two door shells came bonded, filled, sanded and primed. It looked great and I could immediately appreciate the anticipated time savings compared to what it would take to build the same part from plans alone. That is until I got into the details of the kit's plans, which come in two monstrous-sized three-ring binders. I soon found that I had to spend several hours sanding away much of the primer to get the fiberglass so I could mount and tape the plexiglass into place. That work was no different than plans-built work, although I did not have to fabricate the door's latches, pushrods, acquire the right-sized bits -- it was all in the plans catalog which just had to be ordered from the manufacturer. The screws, snap rings and other common items had custom codes, which were either done so the manufacturer could better organize their inventory, or to prevent me from sourcing these parts for half the price. For the next door I asked to receive the door without being finished and primed, since I had to undo much of that work anyway. To my surprise the door shells came in two separate halves, which apparently was the manufacturer's new standard. OK, no problem, I'll just bond them together and go. However, as I got into this I couldn't help but make more comparisons to a plans-built approach, and question the time savings I was experiencing. I'm sure some, but it wasn't life-changing at all. Back to what pushed me to make this post... as I was doing the mechanical work I noticed how dry some areas were in the pre-built shells I received. There was not enough epoxy in these areas to consider these perfect parts, but I deem them good enough as the overall structure is sound. Everything will be sealed up with a painted-on epoxy layer, primer and paint, but what the heck?! I expected unquestionable high-quality parts coming from the manufacturer and their molds. See the picture... I am pointing to one area in particular, but there are a handful of others. Also note that one of the pushrods on the latch mechanism is silver and the other gold. The gold pushrod is anodized, which I'd rather not have (I choose alodine treatments instead). They're different because I had to manufacture the silver pushrod myself, because when thrown the pushrod was not long enough to properly secure the door to the airframe. I asked the manufacturer to make me one that was just a bit longer, but they said they could not and instead referred me to an organization they use for sourcing these parts. Calling that company I learned they help former inmates onto a road of recovery, and that getting them to do anything custom -- even just extending this part by 0.5" -- would not be possible. So I had to make that myself, as if I was doing a plans-built. So here's a list of a few reasons I find a plans-built approach to be better than a kit approach, at least for me: Pay as you go. Get started for $1,000 instead of $25,000 or $50,000 or $100,000. You're never over-exposed financially and can match the pace of your build with your budget. If you get into a situation where you need to let your project go, you haven't turned a $150,000 pile of parts into a $25,000 deal. Save money. I mentioned I could have sourced some parts myself for 50% less than what the manufacturer offered them to me for. There are several other techniques available to save money. Kit-like options are still available when plans-building. You actually get the best of both worlds. I do not have a machine shop for complex metal work, nor do I wish to right now. I am happy to buy complex parts elsewhere, such as complex metal and other items from the Cozy Girrrls and other vendors to save time and get high-quality parts. If they go out of business I can still have these items fabricated by myself or a machine shop. Abandoned projects are comparable to kits. Finding a good quality project that someone else has strictly followed to plans happens more than not. Builders typically decide that this is not for them after building the fuselage base, or even after having a fully rolling fuselage with wings. These come up from time to time for a fraction of the cost it would take to build yourself. I control quality. I shared the above experience, and have heard many others involving heavy parts, sloppy work, and whatnot. I don't care to risk dealing with this scenario again. Perhaps it's the complexity of composite manufacturing compared to the simple cutting and forming of metals, but I suspect there are issues and stories everywhere. I'm sure some vendors have great reputations, but it's all dependent on the crew working at the time your kit parts are fabricated. I'd like to hear your thoughts, pro or con, and whether I missed any other good reasons why you appreciate the plans over the kit approach.

No, but it can definitely handle it. I bought it from the previous homeowner. When I saw I had a reply from you I expected to find a fire hazard-related comment about the bare 1/4" plywood on the walls. In defense of that, many wood/workshops have some sort of bare wood on the wall to support attaching various mounts and hangers as needed. Still, what are your thoughts?

It is truly hard to write about some projects without being critical. Here's a Long-EZ "project" (a once-flying Long-EZ that was then converted into a UAV) that looks a bit rough around the edges starting at US$ 7,500. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Long-EZ-Project/323866177853 With all the hub-bub about commenting on these For Sale items, I defer to say anything more than I already have. But I cannot. My take is that this plane is not worth the hassle and I wouldn't take it if given for free (well, there are a handful of items I'd take). That's just me, and without much basis at all, or knowing the builder, or the history, and whatnot. There are better deals out there for acquiring something resembling a "quick build Long-EZ kit". Sorry eBay seller barberd6rfe.

I opened a can of worms! 🙂 Carbon is stiffer, but it does flex. Everything flexes to an extent, then it breaks. You're not the first person in the 40 years since the Long-EZ was developed to ask, "Has anyone thought to use carbon fiber?" It certainly can be used here and there for various things, but it is far more involved than even those here are stating. As a new builder, your best bet to finish is to stick to proven plans, line by line. Most new/one-off designs produce abandoned projects that nobody would consider taking over.

RSD, not discounting Barry's entirely valid points, you do have some useful composite experience which many don't have (building a bird house once upon a time is good enough). You need to get through the "designer phase" many tend to go through -- you're not better than Burt Rutan and the others that have thoroughly been down these roads, at least yet. That's a type of "moldless composite construction" which is how these planes are built. You'll learn several other techniques and practices, and gain an understanding of how forces are transferred through the different types of fiberglass (unidirectional "uni" and bidirectional "bid"). Chapters 1, 2, and 3 of the VariEze, Long-EZ, Cozy, and maybe even the E-Racer plans (not in front of me right now) take you through these basics. I wonder why you need to bother with carbon fibre for subsea robotics as opposed to just using a comparable fiberglass weave?