Jon Matcho

Looks like an Ashton Zipper had either a gear collapse on landing, or just forgot to lower the nose gear?

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/227515 

@Kent Ashton did you hear about this (not that you need to, or are responsible in any way)?  🙂

13 hours ago, Jack F. said:

I looked at Tom's plane last summer when I had some extra time on my hands.

Tire kicking or seriously shopping?  It's good to see you haven't been cured of the canard bug Jack!

11 hours ago, Kent Ashton said:

...but very efficient.

I like that.  I have 220 so I'm good to go.  Thanks, I'll look into this!

1 hour ago, Kent Ashton said:

Jon, I don't know what you have for heat and AC...

Just a propane torpedo heater and no cooling right now because of near-zero insulation.  I was actually thinking of a small wood stove (yeah, I know, but I have a lot of wood).

1 hour ago, Kent Ashton said:

...I have installed a couple of mini-splits.  Very happy with their capability.  There is minimal work to install them and they come precharged with R410 although a vacuum-down is recommended prior to releasing the charge.  Mitsubishi is a good brand.  I installed a chinese brand once and it split a coil

I'll check that out.  How well does it do at heating?

1 hour ago, Cmead said:

BTW I did get a set of plans from Terf.  I can't get them to load up on Windows 8 or newer.  Any suggestions on that one????

Are they still sending CDs?  I'll hook up my CD drive tonight and see what the experience is like.  Knowing how they built it, I'm not surprised it doesn't work.  You should be able to right-click on the drive and then browse the disc instead of running it to get to the files you're looking for.  Once you find the files just copy to your local drive.  I'll check it out as well.

I posted this "two houses ago" but was still a good read with lots of good advice -- thank you!  

Things that are important for a productive workshop:

1. Air conditioning (warm and cold) -- I cannot deal with cold working conditions.
2. Ample space.
3. Close to home.
4. Clean and semi-organized with the essential tools.

I am now in a new house and am committed to staying in it for a good while.  I have all but #1 covered above, well, #4 is always a thing.  I have started to share my new workshop progress in my blog here.  I am insulating the sides and preparing for spray-foaming the ceiling.

On 7/25/2019 at 10:11 PM, Marc Zeitlin said:

Still can't easily do in-line editing in quoted responses - not fond of this forum software...

Try this technique, which is exactly what I did to select and reply to your quote in 1.58 seconds. 😉

I welcome any other Questions, Feedback and Suggestions you may have.

It's been a long while since I reported anything about my progress, which has been essentially suspended.  I am now making a push to get the project into my soon-to-be operational workshop, and make the decisions to move forward.  I actually have to re-read this thread to make sure I'm not forgetting anything.

I was on and off the fence about keeping the plane exactly as it was, but have since decided to NOT refurbish the MT propeller as I could buy at least 2 high-end props for the same price to refurbish.  The MT hub is excessively heavy for this tiny plane, so it's coming off and I'll have to do a new Weight & Balance when ready.  The engine still needs to be rebuilt.

Progress...

That's OK, but you did send me off on a few searches yesterday looking for confirmation. 🙂

This year would have been great timing for its arrival, but oh well.

Burt is also scheduled to speak about the SkiGull on Friday.  If it's truly in OSH there will definitely be a lot of chatter about it.

https://www.eaa.org/eaa/event/SkiGull?id=B2EE8CB8BE2049639BAF415DF76F3586

That's a surprise!!!  I was watching the North/Warbirds webcam yesterday.  Which view are you looking at?  

You can also tune into EAA Radio online.

1 hour ago, Kent Ashton said:

Ya know, we are both guilty of saying "I recall XXX" or "I remember saying someone said XXX".  This is lazy.  We should strive to document what we're saying.

Agreed.  There's just so much time in the day and the pros/cons of foam/fiberglass vs. ribs/carbon are beyond RSD's original question:

6 hours ago, RSD said:

How were the Berkut's wings constructed - fibreglass over foam like a long-EZ or another method?

You and I both answered the question the best we could (original Berkuts had foam-core wings, and later used a rib structure).

However, your link to Wikipedia is still just text without a citation; essentially hearsay anyway.  So... there's more work to do in order to back up our claims, but at this point that's all I've got. 🙂

I recall reading that the first Berkut wings were carbon skins on foam cores, and then they later replaced the foam cores with carbon ribs.  

2 hours ago, Kent Ashton said:

...I read that the wings were very stiff and gave a rough ride in turbulence.

I recall reading the same thing somewhere on the 'net, and recall discussing while flying in Marc Zeitlin's Cozy IV.  Marc pointed out the flex of the wing, and that we were not feeling it much in flight.  If it were carbon, we'd be feeling it.  

Several weeks ago I was invited to an "Open Shop" event nearby.  I was amazed at the shop when I got there, which could fit several more planes than the 2 that were in it.  The builder is working on an RV and was seeking feedback from everyone.  

What's interesting about this shop is that it's on residential property, but the door opens to extended grass end of an airport runway.  I'll have to find out more about this arrangement, but here are some pictures in the meantime...

These doors open towards the runway just a short taxi away...

I'm spent more time looking at the shop than I did the plane...

I noticed these EAA Chapter 1000 worktables, which mine are based as well.  I thought I used too many screws, but these tables beat mine by a few more screws per lineal foot (if I were ever to build new tables, I'd seek the same strength but half the wood).

On 11/15/2018 at 3:27 PM, racerdave said:

Any Dragonflies on here?

There were a few Dragonfly flyers here sometime ago and they may be lurking.  I'm working on a Quickie TriQ-200 and there are some other Quickie flyers here.

After a few trials and tribulations Corbin has soloed in his new Q200.  Congratulations Corbin!

On 7/13/2019 at 9:22 AM, Jon Matcho said:

The thing I realized when watching these videos is that there's no discussion at all from Peter on the constructive criticisms he's receiving in the comments and other places.

I found there's actually some discussion on the latest video update, which is startling in how Peter discounts some of the advice he's receiving for even basic things, such as safety-wiring engine parts, especially the spinning bolts.

Here's one exchange that's particularly interesting, with Peter answering a seemingly harmless question with a telling response.  Here's the question:

Quote

I wonder... are test-pilots happy to test-fly Airbus, Boeing, General Dynamics etc, but hesitant to sign on with small teams?

...and Peter's response:

Quote

Well, there's probably more risk involved with what I'm doing. New air frame, new powerplant. But for reasons I have previously mentioned it is what it is and I don't have the energy to swap the engine out for a Continental or Lycoming at this point to prove the airframe. Likewise I don't have the energy to fit the engine to a proven airframe to test it. If I can't find a test pilot I'll hand off the project to someone with some fresh legs who can do all that.

Wow!  Here are my takeaways from this response:

1. Peter recognizes that he'd have been better off if he had went with the aircraft engine approach.  That would have eliminated a HUGE variable in his current equation.
2. Peter is at the end of his runway, in terms of energy, and I assume time and budget.
3. Peter is not going to test-fly his own creation.
4. Peter is not blindly vested in the Raptor project, and Raptor Aircraft may soon cease to exist if a test pilot cannot be found.

Kudos to Peter for having such self-awareness, and sharing this.  This is far more positive than the other possibility, where Peter or a test pilot would be killed.  It would be fantastic if the aircraft were to be successfully flown and improved -- perhaps all of those CAD and computational models are spot-on accurate -- but I remain skeptical and concerned about the next major milestone, which is for a test pilot to jump in and depart the runway.

Stay safe everyone!

Peter has posted a video update, with him taxi testing a new linkage assembly in his PSRU.  The engine sounds great and the optimism is palpable with high-speed taxi tests coming up as a next milestone.  I truly hope that Peter moves forward with healthy design-build-test-review cycles, learning from mistakes and improving the design, and being smart enough to know whether parts of the design may need to go back to the drawing board.

The thing I realized when watching these videos is that there's no discussion at all from Peter on the constructive criticisms he's receiving in the comments and other places.

Welcome to the forum Randall.  I suspect this one may no longer be available, since it's from 2009.  When items get sold the title is changed to indicate "SOLD", so there's a chance this is still available.

I'm looking to implement a proper classifieds system to avoid this confusion in the future.

3 hours ago, Voidhawk9 said:

...a PSRU...

I forgot about that.  Even without the failures, or imagining that it survived even 100 hours would not be enough for me to trust Version 1.0 of the thing.  The amount of engineering needed just to produce a viable PSRU is substantial, and then to prove its durability you'd have to torture-test several with adjustments to the design after each to gain my trust.  

The latest video released just 2 days ago shows Peter enthusiastically pressing on, expecting a first flight next month.  He'll need every bit of that 5,000-foot runway I expect.

Check out this documentary on another man's dream to create an aircraft which was just a bit too much.

For those interested in the kit being developed by Raptor Aircraft, please see this post.

I feel compelled to raise awareness on the current state of affairs with the Raptor Aircraft kit project.  Personally, this was a dead-in-the-water project from the start for the following reasons:

1. Features overload (pressurized?! de-icing, extremely wide) = heavy
2. Untested auto engine conversion (Audi diesel)
3. An untested platform with too many variables; nothing to compare to

Canard-type aircraft require long runways and are best to be kept light.  The engine choice was meant to compensate for this, but I can't imagine breaking into the market with a new kit (let alone a canard) AND a new engine platform.  The choice would be one or the other.

As the time has come and past where the project was expected to have flown if it were more focused and simplified, many issues are coming to light and receiving critical feedback from the community.  Many feel that the project needs to take multiple steps back, although the designer is seemingly convinced that there are just a few issues to airworthiness.

You can get to the comments from the Raptor site, as well as this thread on the HBA site (navigate to the most recent posts).

Choose wisely, and stay safe!

He's still working on it and he'll be at Oshkosh in 2 weeks planning to talk a bit about it.  Maybe he's saving some information until then.  They did encounter some issues (reworked landing gear wheels for one) which they have corrected and addressed.  

Here's a Facebook post from Burt's wife Tonya back in August 2018:

Quote

SkiGull made a historic flight yesterday. It flew a passenger. I'm the first one to plug in a headset and fly backseat. Dick Rutan, aka The Velvet Arm, pushed up the power and away we went. Easy peasy rotation, take-off and climb. Dick let me take the controls at altitude. We circled over Hayden Lake, always maintaining safe glide cone to airport.

He let me fly with EDS (Electronic Directional Stability system) ON and EDS OFF. What a difference. Its like good kitty and s**tty kitty. Good kitty purrs along; eagerly accepts trim; and optimizes the pilot's experience. S**tty kitty wants to claw the stuffing out of all of the furniture. Actually, SkiGull has satisfactory stability with EDS off, but really excellent handling when on. Brent Regan, designer of the EDS electronics and software, did a phenomenal job that worked perfect on its first flight.

Back seat has a wide field of visibility left & right and lots of leg room for long appendages. My pile of cushions (carefully arranged by Mike Satren) were comfortable; engine noise quiet; and our intercom loud and clear. I was almost asleep as Dick put the airplane through its paces, gathering test data.

We returned to airport after a one-hour flight. You can clearly hear the landing gear thump down, which is good because you can't see them, and you can't feel much added drag. Dick made a smooth, no flaps landing — he didn't even try to scare me. It was such a great flight that I forgot to kiss the ground. I kissed my husband instead. 😊

On 6/20/2019 at 7:22 AM, Kent Ashton said:

A post about long-noses on EZs.  I just want to cross-reference it in this thread  https://www.canardzone.com/forums/topic/32714-hangar-electricity-and-other-rants/?do=findComment&comment=63634

In a nutshell, the best nose shape for an aircraft that flies subsonic is a parabola (raindrop shape).  The best shape for a supersonic aircraft is a pointy nose.  By 'best', I mean the shape the has the least amount of drag.

As mentioned in that post, the builder/flyer, and Marc Zeitlin, while the look of a pointy nose may appeal to some they certainly do not help aerodynamics and can actually destabilize the aircraft.

My nose will be as close to a clean parabola that I can shape.  Achieving that will be "sexy" to me (I know, I don't get out much).

https://flightaware.com/resources/registration/N92EZ