Jon Matcho

The Catbird is nice, and still flying AFAIK. You are correct, no plans. I'd be happy with a Long-EZ but will settle for an Open-EZ 🙂

Welcome to the forum! Just 1 month of endless research?! Just kidding, but anticipate many more. I recently purchased a high-end scanner to redo all of the prior scans, corrected, and final in their same handwritten format. I've put a few sheets through it and am considering scanning the entire Long-EZ instructions as well. It's a lot of tedious work at times, but I am working towards a fall deadline. I'm in the same boat, and CAD will come eventually. The problem is that most CAD interpretations include modifications that have not been flight tested. I am looking for CAD drawings that are faithful to the original Long-EZ plans, Canard Pusher newsletter corrections, and "approved" modifications. In other words, CAD files should not be made public with new modifications (however slight) that would otherwise change aerodynamic characteristics until proven in flight testing. That's not to take anything away from the amazing work done by thoroughly skilled individuals that you can find on this forum, it just needs to be done with an open source approach. Sure, what do you have in mind?

For those that missed it, a spammer got through the registration process this morning. The spam account has been flagged, banned, and all spam content has been deleted (was visible for only ~30 minutes). We're once again back to a zero spam state on the forum. Taking a cue from @Marc Zeitlin I actually added a manual review step to personally review each new registration request since the last spammer flare-up. The spammer in this case filled out all the right information to indicate they were a human, etc. Having rejected several obvious spammers since the last event, this user fit the bill as legitimate (at least based on my standards from this morning). I manually approved the user, got some coffee, and came back to a flood of nonsense posts. The platform provider is experiencing the same issues with their entire client base, which includes many recognizable corporate entities. They're working on improvements for their September release which will help some: https://invisioncommunity.com/news/invision-community/new-spam-prevention-features-r1284/ Looking forward I am going to add additional required fields and a question or two in order to validate genuine interest in canard aircraft building. At this point I am still not going to require phone numbers and physical addresses (although these are optional). I am also considering having a new member's first post requiring approval before allowing that member to become an official member, as is the case for the Canard Zone sponsored email lists on groups.io. To do this, I could use a few volunteers that would be moderators here. Any thoughts and feedback are welcome. Thank you all!

Ha, you definitely need that endorsement! From personal experience, it's not something that should be assumed or implied. 🙂

"What endorsements do I need to buy a Cozy?" I answered that question, but after re-reading the question Lowell asked was likely the one you answered.

You don't even need that, which is how companies are able to buy airplanes (and individuals as well).

My experience is mainly with the Aerocanard SB and FG plans. The SB plans are the same as a Cozy Mark IV. The FG plans have a slightly widened rear seat/firewall bulkhead. Considering the questionable state of the AeroCad business (the owner passed away, the state prior to that, and whether it's actually open for business today), I'd recommend looking elsewhere such as the Cozy Mark IV aircraft. You can make refined to your taste to your heart's content, as well as slightly widen the front seating area if you must. A 2,500' paved runway at MSL would be fine for an experienced canard pilot. My personal plan is to get familiar with the aircraft at an airport with a longer runway before bringing it the more common ~2,500 runways near me.

Hi David, welcome to the forum. I too had set out to build an Aerocanard after having purchased Cozy Mark IV plans. May I ask why you are intending to build an Aerocanard as opposed to a Cozy Mark IV? Jon

There has been a few times since 2003 that spammers managed to get past the automated verification system and make fake posts. When it happens, members report the content, and it's quickly removed and the spam accounts are banned. You clearly have no idea how many accounts are attempting to get created here every day by scammers/bots. Considering the Canard Zone has over 4,500 valid member accounts (sure, some folks are anonymous, do not post, have passed away, etc.), spam prevention has been successful by Internet standards. There is not a single piece of spam or phishing content present on the Canard Zone. If your point is that the COZY mailing list is great and the pinnacle of communication and collaboration technology, we'll just agree to disagree on that point. Yes, that's what I have said to you over the years when you feel compelled to repeatedly bring this topic up. A spammer could absolutely trick you into allowing them to join and subsequently spamming your membership. It's not worth it for spammers when compared to other avenues, and it's not worth the academic argument to me either. Did you ever think that providing one's full name, physical address, and phone number is NOT a feature? Some folks are more private than others and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Two things I don't understand (or at least am amused by): Folks' aversion to giving their full name here (and other places on the Internet), but freely do so on data-mining sites such as Facebook. Marc Zeitlin. I've put this point forward more than once to you -- that you could easily be tricked into allowing a spammer onto your list. Should I put a bounty out to prove you wrong?

We recently had a wave of spammers that slipped through the anti-spammer registration system. Several spam accounts were created, seemingly manually as required to join the forum, and made several off-topic posts. These posts have since been deleted and the accounts banned and flagged as spammers. The registration process has also been made a bit more thorough by requiring another set of human input fields when signing up. Using this moment as an opportunity to enhance forum security in general, signing into the forum now requires using the email address associated with your account (instead of logging in using your display name). This reduces the possibility for a bad actor to "attack" an account to gain access. While this has not happened, it's best to stay a step ahead when it comes to securing member information. Thank you, Jon

I understand exactly what you did. This method of measurement is not accurate. TIFF files are not guaranteed to reproduce original length based on pixels or DPI calculations. For example, if you were to open the same TIFF file in another graphics package you would likely get a different result. It's possible you sized and printed perfectly for yourself, but that's not guaranteed to translate perfectly to anyone else's graphics tool or printer (PDFs are much better for this purpose). If you're also saying the original scans are flawed, then you are mistaken as they were done on a high-end architectural Oce scanner. Here you mention "keystoning" which is technically not possible with the scanner hardware being used (scanning slices of the same width top-to-bottom). Accepting your measurements for purposes of discussion only, you're calling out just 0.07" which is well within the expected error for how and when these templates were hand-drawn. The difference is nothing to worry about, at least in the context of 22" over half the instrument panel bulkhead. To compensate, line up as best you can, then cut on, inside, or outside the lines. This is the same procedure for dealing with other imperfect drawings such as the Cozy Mark IV drawings. PDF files are better at preserving actual dimensions (as well as CAD files, although they're not very portable from one CAD system to another) and should be the files used for printing. The README file is not clear about these issues, but describes how to correct for specific behaviors with individual printers (as you experienced). With all the confusion on this, as well as for other reasons I will rescan the drawings for all plans (Long-EZ, VariEze, Defiant, etc.) using a Contex high-end scanner (mainly to fix the dimension marks). and may generate only PDFs for distribution. I am also considering whether to provide a verified printing service for those who just want the paper templates.

I understand your intent, but this approach is not valid. Modifying the image files in any way will change the dimensions in a way that was never meant to be. The original prints were measured and hand-marked on original plans paper templates. In other words, 16.5" was meant to mean exactly 16.5". The purpose of the measurements is solely for validation of the printed output (given that all printers are slightly different with regard to how they handle dpi, and whether those dots are perfectly square or not). For example, if after printing you measure 16" instead of 16.5", you would then need to adjust the print for your specific printer so that the reprinted measurement could be verified at 16.5". This is why I took the "fixed" files you posted down.

No. Go to the first post. Download the files, and just make the simple edits called out in the first post in this thread. I just checked the files provided by @zolotiyeruki above (not sure how I missed that post until now!) and as soon as I saw the same dimension markings on drawing A2, I realize these files are going to further confuse the matter. I removed the file from the post 2 above this one. Before I consider incorporating into the update I need to know what specifically was done: How did you exactly do this? What reference did you accept as "true"? The paper size? The markings on the paper. I ask because no scaling (at least how I define it) should have been done at all. I repeat, there were no inaccuracies in scaling the images during the scanning process. The errors were only what was printed, ex. change "17" to "16". No changes in aspect, length, width, etc. of the actual image should be done. What, specifically, are you measuring to get "22.26 wide at the bottom and 22.33 wide at the top"? You are comparing the images to what you printed from them, or a different set of prints, or what? I'm just trying to understand.

@Red Rocket Since your post begins with quoting me, but more importantly takes a shot at "everyone" on this forum, you've earned yourself a 1-month ban.

I split out the sidebar on VariEze N220EZ to its own thread so not to take this thread hostage:

That's a big one, priority #1. I am so sorry to hear about the passing of your child. I wish you and your family health and happiness. Family and children are the priorities that need no excuses.

That's all that's stopping you? 🙂 Here are some options... get the family and kids to participate. It will be a forever memory for them. Put them to work, which is in itself a valuable life lesson. Reduce/pause other hobbies to focus on building, reduce/outsource home maintenance and upkeep. Don't watch TV, etc. With that said, it's best to be conservative rather than hasty with buying dreams. I recently sold a spare Q2 kit that I purchased in haste and am in the process of doing what I just wrote above.

The user experience for downloading your purchased files leaves a bit to be desired. Once you complete your digital purchase you can download the file by selecting the 'View Purchase' button OR navigating through the Store > Manage Purchases menu to bring you to this link: https://www.canardzone.com/clients/purchases/ Marc beat me to the newsletters link, which is at the Quickheads website: https://www.quickheads.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=13&Itemid=110 They're "in an absurd format" because the decision, before my time, was to convert them to text only so they would be Internet searchable. It would be nice to have them as PDFs (now that PDFs are searchable) and that is on the list of things to improve. I just went through 3 sets of printed copies to select the most scan-worthy issues. Yes, if you can get the structural carbon tube/spar which is like finding a unicorn these days -- impossible. Instead, you can build a suitable spar using other techniques. I have a file with instructions about this and will upload as soon as I can.

What is the diameter of the Prince prop? Pitch? I don't think that would be a good option for an airboat... don't they have specialized small-diameter props with rather large chords/widths?

It's incredible that the pilot suffered NO injuries AND walked 6 miles to get a cell signal. From the fire district's Facebook page: I would agree.

Understood -- don't use fast hardeners for those sorts of layups. However, using that logic restrictions would be placed on other approved fast hardeners (Pro*Set and MGS for example). I definitely would NOT use the 207 Clear hardener, but based on the mechanicals for 205 Fast and 206 Slow hardeners I wouldn't throw parts away (assuming no exotherms). As I mentioned before, I prefer taking my time with slow (> 30 minute) hardeners, which is why I use only 209 Extra Slow (along with Pro*Set and MGS systems).

For those who have not memorized the Internet references are always appreciated. For the life of me I was not able to find the source post or newsletter article from Nat declaring West 105/209 is OK, but found the slides from Gary Hunter's OSH presentations at www.cozybuilders.org showing 105/209 is "approved".

West is popularly known mainly as a finishing epoxy, perhaps because West offers a variety of easily sandable fillers. Gary Hunter has gone on record, along with Nat Puffer (I recall from a Cozy Newsletter), that West 105 with the 209 Extra Slow hardener is perfectly fine. Looking at the properties, I am unclear as to why the 205 Fast hardener is excluded, but I tend to avoid fast hardeners anyway in favor of the longer working times of slow hardeners. https://www.westsystem.com/products/compare-epoxy-physical-properties/

This item has been marked as SOLD.