Jon Matcho

9 minutes ago, A Bruce Hughes said:

I have used many from the Cozzzy girls.   I told them how to improve them but they declined.

When I use one, I first grind the bonding surface with a Dremel to rough it up, then notch it so the bonding surface has a shape between round and square or other odd shape.   If that is not done, it will later rotate is you tighten the nut too much or have to loosen it.

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.

11 minutes ago, A Bruce Hughes said:

McMaster has good ones.

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.

On 6/15/2019 at 10:39 PM, Gecko said:

While examining the drawings today I noticed that several of the sheets are missing scale verification references (the X-Y reference opposite the dimensioned X-Y). I don't know if there is an updated file and the link above (I know it's from 2010) is no longer valid. I also see that Rev 5 has dimensional errors.

Also, are the TERF CDs still valid?

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.

On 6/16/2019 at 12:49 PM, Gecko said:

Is the thought (provided the same scaling is used) if Sheet A1 prints accurately then the remaining sheets will be accurate? 

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).

On 6/16/2019 at 3:12 PM, Gecko said:

Thanks, Kent. I had seen [Jon's] post concerning the erroneous dimensions (I've done it while woodworking). I'll copy John's text into the PDF and annotate my drawings A/R. If I build I want to make sure it's correct the first time. I hope you can understand why I'm concerned about the lack of the opposing "witness marks".

[BTW] - Do you know how to remove images from the threads? The usual "delete", "right click", etc., didn't work and made it worse.

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.

On 6/17/2019 at 8:49 AM, sixfivelrp said:

The tick marks aren’t in all four corners. All you need is x, y. I about lost my mind over it. Everything so far has turned out beautifully, much better then expected. I printed the templates on a plotter, they were pretty close,  however some small scale adjustments might be necessary. Make sure to read all the CP’s for the deviations, changes. 

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!

1 hour ago, Kent Ashton said:

I have a pic of a cooler using louvers by Marc Z. that is a better idea but it might be copyrighted so you will have to imagine it. 🙂

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.

On 10/17/2019 at 1:43 PM, Radioflyer said:

I have long wished for a one-stop, canard-centric forum equal to the Van's forum site. That's probably not going to happen, even with Yahoo diminishing, but there already exists two or three alternative forums catering to canardians. These have not been frequented often enough, but now is the opportunity to change that. Let's all act together, convince your canard friends to abandon Yahoo, and populate  platforms, such as this one,  already serving our interests. Don't you think we would all benefit?

The community would definitely benefit!  I am trying, but the "convince your canard friends" part is where everyone can help.

On 10/18/2019 at 11:35 AM, jridge said:

I'm envious of the Van's Forum - one place for everything, not the multiple, segmented sites.....

Some of what is going on at http://www.vansairforce.net/ serves as a model for how the Canard Zone is built.  

On 10/18/2019 at 8:30 PM, Voidhawk9 said:

This site has, IMHO, the best software and ease of use of the options I have looked at. And I've spent time on essentially all of them.

Thanks!  That was the goal -- to land on a platform that can keep pace with modern needs.

19 hours ago, vezePilot said:

I'm having trouble with the Cozy Builders Mail list, so I Unsubscribed last night. Perhaps I can re-subscribe next year when I am back to work on my Cozy. I guess I'm thinking "Control-Alt-Delete" with that 'cuz nothing else has worked. Marc says it must be my Mail settings (Apple.)

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.

9 hours ago, Voidhawk9 said:

😃 Right! I wish I had a heated workshop. Well, I do, it is heated by a nearby star, but that's all!

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")?

On 9/7/2019 at 3:58 AM, RSD said:

Oops sorry should have mentioned that I am looking for inflight adjustable ones

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.

On 8/29/2019 at 1:49 AM, RSD said:

Someone (possibly Marc) mentioned somewhere recently that there were several new canard aircraft designs that people are working towards making commercially available.

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. 

On 8/29/2019 at 8:51 PM, Barry said:

Raptor

http://www.raptor-aircraft.com/contact.html

Update, airworthiness certificate was approved Tuesday.

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.

On 8/22/2019 at 5:21 PM, Barry said:

Update - I heard from Kent and he is fine. Just vacationing from the site.

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

On 8/11/2019 at 8:46 AM, RSD said:

Going the other way - how easy would it be to convert an E-Racer to dual side sticks?

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.

On 8/8/2019 at 8:45 AM, Jon Matcho said:

I have never heard a peep about bad quality control with the Berkut kits.

On 8/8/2019 at 4:06 PM, Marc Zeitlin said:

No two Berkuts kits were identical, and the plans were incomplete, and may or may not have matched the parts you may or may not have been given. Plus you had to generate your own POH. So, yeah. Other than that, no QC issues.

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.

On 8/8/2019 at 4:06 PM, Marc Zeitlin said:

You might want to check with James Redmon about the level of QC.

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.

On 8/8/2019 at 4:38 PM, Voidhawk9 said:

I had a well-known and respected canard builder visit my project once, and he told me I need to be more sloppy and get on with it! 😅 Point taken!

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!" 

7 hours ago, Voidhawk9 said:

This may just be ego or a twisted mind, but:

I'm building it myself, I'm not just assembling a bunch of parts. No disrespect to those building kits, as they are still a major commitment and achievement.

...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.

7 hours ago, Voidhawk9 said:

I'm more than a little perfectionist...

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.

6 hours ago, Jack F. said:

Have you done any blasting with that compressor?

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! 🙂

6 hours ago, RSD said:

Carbon fibre is stiffer so won't flex under pressure and therefore change volume/buoyancy.

Carbon is stiffer, but it does flex.  Everything flexes to an extent, then it breaks. 

6 hours ago, RSD said:

The Long Ez was designed 40 years ago by Burt with presumably the best composite materials and techniques available at the time - surely its time someone revisited it given the advances in composites since then?

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.  

10 minutes ago, Barry said:

I'm just guessing, you're not a composites engineer either.

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.

On 8/3/2019 at 11:18 PM, RSD said:

The carbon fibre aspect doesn't daunt me as much as it would some because we already make some carbon fibre components for my subsea robotics business - mainly wrapping buoyancy foam to protect the foam from dings and compression at depth but we want to make other components as well

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?  

I humbly awake this old thread as I continue my progress in my 3rd workshop from where I started.  Life dealt me a few cards that I didn't play that well, but am settled in to new quarters for a few years now with plans to get things moving.

My progress is mainly around my house and workshop, which are basically the same.  I have collected too much stuff and have been consistently getting rid of it for a while now.  My house was built in the 1950s and the attached workshop was built sometime after that.  The property is a bit wet, the roof old, and the drains sometimes overflow and allow water in places it shouldn't be.  

My old website is no longer online, and I have been recording some workshop-related progress in the Blogs section here:  

Until next time...

11 hours ago, RSD said:

Not being an aerodynamics guy...

Hello RSD, it's excellent you are self-aware in your limitations.

11 hours ago, RSD said:

...I'm wondering should the wings etc stay right at the back or would this change necessitate moving them forwards a little?

No modification should change a design's center-of-gravity or aerodynamics.  

What you're asking is, "Can I modify the Long-EZ design into an entirely new aircraft and fly it?"  Andrew's to-the-point response ("this can't be done") is where you need to be.  The concern is that you and/or someone else will sustain serious injuries, potentially death.

Choose a flight-tested design and lock-in to its geometry and aerodynamics.  Do not mess with the design.  If you do then you are no longer building that model -- you would be building an "RSD Flyer" and are totally on your own.

8 hours ago, RSD said:

Wouldn't for instance the E-Racer have changed this balance?

Yes, they have, and also put in sufficient design considerations, testing, and had a number of test pilots and builder/guinea pigs prove the design change is airworthy.  If that's the design you want to build, then choose that design and build-to-plans.

11 hours ago, RSD said:

I'm wondering whether there might be a sufficient enough weight benefit to build the fuselage out of carbon fibre instead?

10 hours ago, macleodm3 said:

There was a canard kitplane that used some carbon fiber... the Berkut.

This is a very common first question/observation (myself included).  In the decades Rutan aircraft and fiberglass has been around, this question comes up.  Andrew pointed out the Berkut, which was a kit designed and built by someone that built MANY Long-EZs.  The changes were structural, with little (if any) changes to CoG and aerodynamics.  There are many issues to address with doing things in carbon fiber, and you're not really saving that much for a whole bunch more cost and complexity than it's ultimately worth.  That may sound like it's an option, but it should definitely be ruled out for a new builder.

Build a few pieces per plans, and then build those same pieces in carbon fiber and you'll have a hint of what we're talking about.

Best thing you can do is continue to ask questions!  Please feel free and welcome to do so. 🙂

On 8/2/2019 at 9:41 AM, Kent Ashton said:

I post this thread to give folks a handy way to see what has been advertised.  Informed comment and opinions about these airplanes is welcome but...

I truly mean it when I say thank you for your posts and contributions.  This thread is always an interesting read and much appreciated and welcomed by everyone.

I have no issues with your intent, however...

On 8/2/2019 at 9:41 AM, Kent Ashton said:

...stay out of my thread, plz.

Mechanically speaking, this thread works like any other where anyone can post.  There are options to give you control (as a moderator) of this particular discussion:

1. Change the thread title to 'Sales Kent has seen'.  You can absolutely put members on notice when posting off-topic, and we even have an emoji for that:  .  
2. Create a personal Blog here (this is open for anyone to do) titled 'Sales I've seen' and we can redirect future discussions from the last post in this thread to your Blog discussion, and then 'lock' the thread.  
3. A dedicated sub-forum title 'Sales Kent has seen'.  This thread can be moved in its entirety to this sub-forum where you will be the moderator.

I am happy to support any of these options.  In cases of both #2 and #3, you would be the author and moderator of comments -- able to approve or reject comments as you saw fit.  We've discussed #2 and I'd be happy to follow-up on this with you off-line to come up with a solution.  I see the Blog route as the best option, but #3 is fine as well.

On 8/2/2019 at 9:41 AM, Kent Ashton said:

Hey, will you girls...

This is where I, as a moderator here, cannot let posts that go against the forum guidelines stand.  Many of us have daughters and there are actually a few female members on this forum and many supportive significant others.  Whether you realize or not, you are suggesting that there's something wrong with being a girl, or that being a girl means something behaviorally inferior to men.  Ironically, this is the same sort of petty banter that you're trying to prevent.  More importantly, I consider this also touching upon the Civility and Respect portion of the forum's Rules and Guidelines in the same way the other comments you highlighted do. 

On 8/1/2019 at 12:57 PM, pilothicks said:

...Marc has a freedom of speech to act like an ass on a regular basis.

I missed this in my original response.  Name-calling and personal attacks are not welcome on this forum.  Please refrain from doing so.

On 8/2/2019 at 9:41 AM, Kent Ashton said:

...If you want post snark at each other, use Private Messages.

Aye aye!  If you must post snark at each other, do it on the phone, in person, in email, or through the Private Message system.  Keep it off the forum lest we will discourage member participation.

Everyone, please reacquaint yourselves with the forum's Rules and Guidelines.  They are located on the bottom of every page in this forum.

I return you to 'Sales I've seen', by @Kent Ashton

8 hours ago, Marc Zeitlin said:

People are funny.

You funny too.

That and the "absurd" comment are practically name-calling, which is rather unnecessary and distracting from any points you're trying to make.  I read that and thought "WTF Marc?!"