Jon Matcho

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.

Those are good tips, but CG Products buys in bulk and re-sells. They're not the manufacturer, so I don't blame them for doing that with each and every stud they sell. Lotta work for little return. Nice, I didn't know they had comparable items (although I should have -- they have everything)! https://www.mcmaster.com/studs

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!