Jon Matcho
-
Posts
2,929 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
28
Content Type
Profiles
Articles
CSA Articles
CSA Issues
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Jon Matcho
-
-
15 hours ago, Justin said:
Ary Glantz kindly pointed me to some info to correct some of the scaling issues in the drawings.
Justin, Ary is mistaken in that there are NO scaling issues with the drawings as you can see from this explanation: https://www.canardzone.com/forums/topic/20540-important-update-regarding-open-ez-rev-5-templates
-
Nice work! What tools do you use to make all that happen?
16 hours ago, Justin said:I think there is a file size limit on uploading images. I tried some just over 3mb and they failed.
I'll take a look at that to see how to increase without going breaking the bank here.
-
8 hours ago, Voidhawk9 said:
I'd be inclined to build a simple mold that is tough enough for multiple uses, then lay-up and pull 2 parts from it, add internal baffles as needed, then bond the two halves together.
I was thinking the same thing. OR, Brian, just proceed with your approach but only using half container (forget the acetone technique). Done right you can pop the half off and then prep and do the other one. Look into simple fiberglass mold making. You'll then know how to make wheel pants, baggage pods, and cowlings.
-
FWIW, the execution appears to be rather good. The design just needs some help. 🙂
-
On 4/17/2020 at 2:58 PM, BrianHalstrom said:
This is just a couple hour rough draft but something like this...
Your drawing is similar to the Ligeti Stratos, which did fly.
-
If you set those stations up at their proper dimensions and coordinates, you could recreate the kit fuselage.
-
27 minutes ago, Upali said:
Jon, what I meant by current circumstances is the covid-19 situation.
Ah... still, you can probably work around that. It may go more slowly to get someone to look at the project, but I'd think it would be possible if you put the question out there when you're ready. There's a lot of distance available in a hangar.
The closer a project is to finish (or flying) the more essential it is to have an inspection. Projects come up all the time, so patience is the key.
-
On 4/19/2020 at 6:27 AM, Upali said:
I know the best would be to have someone with experience and get their opinion but under current circumstances it may not be possible.
If you can share a bit more you may be able to get more advise... what are the current circumstances?
-
On 3/3/2020 at 5:00 PM, wrc100 said:
Are the Open EZ templates available for downloading?
Does everyone see the Downloads tab at the top of the screen? If not please let me know.
-
On 12/27/2019 at 6:49 PM, vezePilot said:
They have to be free or there is no sense in developing canard flight models for real pilots.
(It breaks a rule that Dr. Dan Raymer agreed is ALWAYS in force about airplanes when I took his graduate-level course at UCLA. You can discuss thrust, drag, weight and lift all day, but what REALLY makes airplanes fly ... is MONEY.)
So charge $50 for your model! Or... maybe the basic model for free and for anyone wanting to get serious, $50 or even $99/$100!
As you point out, there's nothing about airplanes that resembles "free".
-
18 hours ago, A Bruce Hughes said:
About 10 years ago I bought X-plane and a control stick.
I never could get it to download.
I was just too busy finishing the Longeze to mess with it.
That's hardly any fault of X-Plane's.
5 hours ago, vezePilot said:I have a mailing list which includes who are interested in Training in X-Plane. Perhaps I should restrict discussions with them, and not waste my time here.
Buh bye.
@vezePilot wow Curt, just trying to have a conversation on modern-day flight simulators. Sorry if you found any of it offensive, but that was not the intent.
No part of this is me suggesting that X-Plane is not viable. I am only mentioning that MSFS is worth looking at.
-
On 12/28/2019 at 9:37 PM, vezePilot said:
Switching to MSFS may mean giving up the ability to train in canard type aircraft using a desktop simulator.
Yes, but someone will eventually make a canard-type aircraft in MSFS. I was only suggesting to consider jumping on a train that will undoubtedly have a lot of momentum and exposure (and one that I and others are predicting will be better).
On 12/28/2019 at 9:37 PM, vezePilot said:Aircraft flight models will likely require monetization for MSFS, meaning added expense for R/L pilots.
Proprietary nature of MSFS files will probably not allow individual pilots to modify aircraft for their paint, tail number, panel layout, weights, engine and first-flight prep settings.
What makes you think that the MSFS files are proprietary? You're stuck in the "old Microsoft" mindset, where they were indeed "borderline evil". Google and Apple are steadily taking the proprietary throne these days while Microsoft has been remarkably open since 2014.
On 12/28/2019 at 9:37 PM, vezePilot said:My plan is to support pilots in their efforts to do these things, just like I always have. For Free.
I have no problem paying you or anyone a fair amount of money for a good product. Austin Meyer, X-Plane founder, does exactly this many times over and has the toys to prove it.
On 12/28/2019 at 9:37 PM, vezePilot said:No ... discussion of MSFS has no place at a site for Real Life Pilots of full-size, canard airplanes. Unless you are an admitted Gamer primarily ... and therefore less likely to finish and fly your project.
I thoroughly disagree with that as does Lockheed Martin, who took the MSFS engine to build their own professional flight simulation and training product (Prepar3D).
I am not saying there's no value in X-Plane and all that's been done with it for "real" flight simulation -- I will probably run it and appreciate your renewed interest in updating your models! Time will tell and I hope the new MSFS 2020 product is absolutely amazing. In the meantime, I am buying new PC hardware, monitors, and a video card to support the system requirements for BOTH the upcoming X-Plane and MSFS products.
-
On 12/26/2019 at 3:42 PM, vezePilot said:
These flight models for VariEze, Long-EZ and Cozy MKIV will be Optimized for Real Life pilots and affordable PC hardware.
...
My plan is to do that, on the way to 3D/VR, and of course to still offer the flight models for regular PC flying, using a conventional flat display screen.
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://www.polygon.com/2019/9/30/20885197/microsoft-flight-simulator-bing-maps-hands-on-demo
-
Interesting news announced on Raptor's YouTube Community section:
QuoteNo video today as I got rained out. I did get the oil changed but mostly I've been preparing for visitors next week. Justin, Elliott and Marc will be here performing a thorough inspection of the aircraft. As some of you know, Justin and Elliot are the potential test pilots. Marc is extremely experienced with evaluating canard aircraft. He does pre buy inspections on all types of canards. If any deficiencies remain they should be outed next week.
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.
-
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
-
1 hour ago, Marc Zeitlin said:
And your disagreement is based on what research and data?
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."
1 hour ago, Marc Zeitlin said:You may want to read through this paper:
https://depts.washington.edu/amtas/events/amtas_09fall/Flinn.pdf
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.
1 hour ago, Marc Zeitlin said:Nonsense. At least with PP, you get a surface that when sanding, you won't damage the underlying fiber layers, and you don't need to sand as vigorously or as much.
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.
-
5 hours ago, Mike B said:
There is an old video on Youtube with Burt and Mike. That is the only instruction I've had prior to building.
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... 😉
1 hour ago, Jon Matcho said:...a contaminant of some sort...
Waxy substances can be sanded away, and anything oily gets an acetone wipe-down.
-
30 minutes ago, Marc Zeitlin said:
Many experts recommend sanding even if you DO have peel plied surfaces, just as belt and suspenders.
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:
-
12 hours ago, Ambient said:
Can i add front and back wing area for calculations ?
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.
-
10 hours ago, Kent Ashton said:
There is big thread over at HomebuiltAircraft.com.
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/
autoreply (from HBA) said:[The Audi engine] is what dooms it. Name me one single airframe intended to go into production (kit or certified) that succeeded with a non-proven engine. Having seen what it takes to bring an automotive powerplant (also a diesel) in airworthy condition, it's outright ludicrousness...
That was on the first page of that thread from 2016.
10 hours ago, TuscanRider said:If you took the Raptor and fitted a proven aviation engine, i.e. something like Velocity’s set-up, would that be the way to test the rest of the Raptor concept?
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.
Quotewe know Peter wants to use the economical advantages of an Audi engine but, a plane that does not fly is called a “model” and the fuel economy is irrelevant.
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.
QuoteHow challenging is it to swap an aviation engine with an automobile engine or vice versa?
It's very challenging, but very doable and typically happens after people get tired of their auto-conversions and just want to fly.
36 minutes ago, Voidhawk9 said:Changing the engine to something proven would solve a lot of engine issues, but would not solve many other serious problems with the aircraft.
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?
-
9 hours ago, Canardale said:
The McMaster versions have no strength rating. Cozy appear to be AN, which I am guessing are to aircraft standards.
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.
Some CAD surfaces
in Open-EZ
Posted
Justin, that's nice work! How did you acquire and maintain those skills?
Yes, which is why I pointed Ary to that page as soon as I learned of what he was doing. The simple answer would have been this:
Ary just went overboard for no additional value to these steps (although I see nothing wrong with what he did).