cncdoc

Hi there, y'all.

I was wondering, with good reason, if anyone has ever digitized the wing templates. I know EZ Ahab has, but he is gone for awhile. Has anyone ever done it?

Thanks

How about it? Anyone have a 3D Cozy DXF or DWG file? There is a 3D IGES format file on a site mentioned on Marc Z's site, but my CAD program chokes on it. Can someone convert it?

Thanks!

That mill looks sweet! 40 taper tooling? I didn't see a HMI, does it use a PC interface? Or, is it not in the picture?

I am always looking for an online auction with a CNC 40 taper mill that has something wrong with it (I fix em) that I can get cheap. Every time I find a really good deal, someone beats me by $20! But the newer ones (name brand, Okuma, Haas, Mazak, Fadal, Mits, Mori-Seiki, etc) used are more than new off-brand machines.

I tried to get that mmacatuator dot com and the site is gone. What's up with that?

I am down the street from "Magnum" about 20 miles. I am building my own gear as well. I have tried several drawings on my "Alibre" CAD program and have had to make changes when I put it to animation. I was going to use a carbon fiber main structure with a trailing arm link. The bottom of the wing is the outer part of the gear and the shape is designed so the airflow assists in the gear lowering, the fail safe position is down and locked. It is taking awhile to design it using different available spring shock designs and actuators. The most difficult part is finding room in the strake for the gear without having to change it's length by mechanical means. I am trying to keep it as simple as possible so there is less points for failure.

When I get something definite, I post the drawings in DXF. Otherwise, maybe I can hook up sometime in Punta Gorda, when I get time off.

LAter! Back to work!

We know that the design is about as light as you can get, so making it lighter won't help.

Putting a big engine on it will help get it off the ground sooner, but doesn't slow it down (yet maintain a reasonable glide angle) unless you install a "Harrier" type duct system which means the thrust from the prop would have to be about 1200 lbs. Not likely.

Increasing the wing area. Good. However, the shape of the wing would have to be changed as well. A high lift low speed wing would be shaped like a Hershey bar. The laminar flow high speed wing wing would be right out.

Yes, it would be ugly.

You could install some major flaps and or wing slots. However, flaps in a tractor type aircraft are placed on the main wing where the CG is and where most of the lift is. Although there is lift on the elevator or "stabilator", in the trailing configuration, there is always going to be enough lift on it as long as the main wing has lift. It takes less airspeed to have an effective elevator than it takes to fly the main wing, even in it's slowest (full flap) configuration.

Not so in a canard.

The canard must have enough lift to carry it's share of the moment forward of CG which changes with passengers, fuel and baggage, with the least amount being minimum fuel and a pilot. This lift should be produced at an airspeed just a little more than the main wing produces the rest of the lift. Too much more and it will never rotate, any less airspeed than the main wing and it would be prone to main wing stall, which means landing in a different configuration than the pointy end first!

This is challenge number 1 for using flaps. The flaps must be on the canard as well as the main wing.

As mentioned, the CG changes with the loading of the airplane and fuel burn. So the ratio of lift between main and canard would have to change as well. When using for take-off, the incorrect ratio could produce some surprises. When landing, the flaps would have to be initialized simultaneously and maintain the proper ratio during deployment, otherwise, there could be some (not good) surprises and disappointments.

This is challenge number 2.

The size and shape of the flaps for the main wing would be easier to figure. The size and shape and method of mechanical deployment would be difficult to engineer for the canard. Too big and the control of the elevator part of the canard would be rendered ineffective. Too small and not enough lift would be provided at low air speed. Much experimentation after much calculation would result in a functional lifting mechanism. (IT's only physics and aerodynamics, it could be done) Of course it would effect the efficiency of the wing which would have to be changed to accomodate a variable wing area, with it's mechanical deployment mechanisms, including a variable ratio adjustment for load and fuel burn CG changes.

It would then fly slower when the flaps were deployed but then, unless you kept the raw data and configuration for normal flight before the flaps, you would have to again test THAT configuration after they were installed to make sure that the retracted flaps would not produce dangerous or unpredictable flight characteristics.

Keep in mind: The flaps on a tractor type aircraft allow for a small percent of lowering of stall speed ( You dont descend and land at stall speed, but at a safe margin above it.) 15 to 25% reduction in stall speed is pretty good for a light airplane with flaps (wing slots too? Not even going there).

If the Varieze landed at 70, it would take a reduction of 50% to get her down at the airspeed you mentioned above.

The canard aircraft was designed as a high speed cruiser. The design requires the canard and main wing to have an acceptable margin wherein the delicate balancing act is performed safely. Altering those margins could be disasterous. On the other hand, if you decided to use more wing area and could keep this balancing act within the acceptable margins (reinventing the wheel, I mean wing) you could possibly have an aircraft, albeit an ugly one, that would fill your needs.

PS. I spent a lot of time investigating flaps. I was determined to do it and I might some day. But it would only lower stall speed by 10%. I think I would soon make another design than pervert the EZ/COZY for slow speed capability and sacrifice it's top end and useful load carrying ability.

S Sorry O out of L luck or a derivation or alteration thereof utilizing some profanity or other.

Don't be so "narrow" minded my fellow (part time) Cracker! I am not planning on using my Cozy as a 4 place, but a large 2 place or one place with luggage. The Cozy Mk IV can be modified but I am leaving the fuselage as is to take advantage of the sleekness.. (think: Drink holders, flight attendants)

If not, the LongEZ does have some advantages when it comes to economy both in cost and performance with a skoesche of extra room for the pilot.

How much is "for cheap"??

I can't say too much about ALL of the materials but I can speak about some of the bigger (in bulk size) things, like foam. Finding the exact material is essential. This takes research and a lot of it. The distributors of DOW foam will not sell to a consumer, only a wholesaler. In FL I had to show my retail merchant certificate to buy bulk foam from the dealer in Tampa. Hexcel with the proper coating is obtainable from other than AS&S and Wicks, but buying in bulk is the only way to get the lower price. If you want MGS epoxy, plan a trip to Ontario Canada or pay out the "wazoo". Or.....find an epoxy with the same properties as MGS that's cheaper. Some things could cost you more time than money, but since time = money you might want to reconsider spending too much time counting pennies.

On the other hand, proprietary fiberglass, foam, epoxy, wood and aircraft engines don't exist. (yet) Some other parts, like the metal parts necessary to finish the control system, may cost more time than money unless you have a machine shop at your disposal. The Cozy Girrrrls might be able to help you out.

Still:p , you can't build a safe airplane with sub-standard parts. Unsafe airplanes kill folks. They also make the rest of us look bad and may some day make the FAA think twice about letting us build and fly. So more is riding on this than mama's pocket book. There are many of us that are taking awhile to finish, don't mess it up for us! We'll run you till your ankles smoke, all the way from our nursing home!

Rick,

 

We probably did talk at one time or another. Florida is a long way from Komo up in Minn,Minn. What are you doing down there now.

Anyhow thanks for the compliments.

 

Rick Glos

You mean besides my marathon Cozy MK 4 project and dodging hurricanes in season? Still fixing CNC equipment. I consulted on some robotics systems for a production solid surface countertop installation as a contractor for a machine manufacturer down the street from KOMO in St Cloud, MN (Park Industries). I am still free lance and resisting the offers to be a cog in the gear as an employee of various companies in need of CNC doctors.

I probably didn't talk to you as you were in sales, but if there was any problem with any of the scales and their installation or parts, I was usually involved in it. I thought I talked to everyone there. I fought the trend to go to Fagor, which I lost.

I can still remember the tone of voice from one of the Heidenhain techs telling me I could troubleshoot the interface box if I only had a 'scope. I said "I got a Tektronix 100mhz dual trace, will that do?" .......yup! Nobody uses the old CRT scopes anymore in field service, even I broke down and bought a Fluke digital. I seldom use it in the proprietary systems I repair. It's mostly board or component replacements for the machines built since 2K. The last time I had an issue I just told the customer to call Auto-Met, they were thrilled afterward (except for the bill).

I worked for Gosiger and Jefco in Dayton OH before moving to FL in 1998. I was putting scales on knee mills when Heidenhain first discovered LEDS.. !! I hope you're enjoying retirement and making progress on your project.

When I worked for KOMO, I did a lot of redesign engineering in the field. I can't help but to think about how I can make something work better. From my AE days at Purdue (30 years ago) I can truly say that it (the desire to make it better) has only slowed me down in finishing the airframe.

I hope that doesn't happen to you!

I am now currently retired.

 

I was Vice President Sales/ North America for Heidenhain Corporation, a German manufacturer of very precise rotary and linear encoders, CNC platforms, and ultra precise gaging.

 

I served on the ASME Standards Committie, B5-54, TC 56 Information technology on machine tools, B5-54 Standards for Machine Tool Accuracy.

These committies wrote the standards on how machine tool performance is defined. I was also the special projects liason between the company and our National Institute of Standards and Technology.

 

Member, American Society of Precision Engineers

Member, ASME.

 

I also consulted on precision measuring systems in the field of Astronomy, both optical and radio platforms, primary and instrument package axis postioning.

Hey! Didn't we talk before? I used to be the senior field tech for KOMO. I used to work on the linear scales all the time! I still talk to the techs every once in awhile. Glad to see someone with your credentials and experience in this "pencil line" accuracy "hobby".

Perhaps Jon can use his magic and make a new thread......

Well, I know everyone is thinking it, so I am writing it.

Yup, it's the farting pilot. Not good. No where to go.

C'mon guys, doesn't anybody hear the banter from the French guys in the movie "The Holy Grail", "I fart in your general direction......."

I didn't think Mssr Rutan stopped selling plans because builders were not following the plans. I believe it was the lack of profit and the abundance of lawsuits, which was probably causing the lack of profit......

From the email posted it appears that the seller of IBIS plans has issues with those who would build not according to his plans. I think I would have issues with someone not following my instructions, especially if they claimed a superior result from all my hard work. Unless my sole reason for selling the plans was fiduciary in nature.

Maybe, the issue is a little deeper, which means that, being in a disapproved country for plans sales, support may be even more difficult to get from said seller. Buying from another owner may not improve the situation.

Do you have ideas? Or do you want ideas???

Google Earth saw gibberish and so did I

Lynn

 

I worked up the W&B on my Long Ez,............... 250lb GIB I was at the rear most Cof G envelope, Tony

I thought I read here a 250 lb GIB? Just checking to see if it was a typo. I played Line backer for a semi pro team once and I weighed in at 235. That would throw any C of G, out of whack:scared:

If focused and with enough power, your "bits" may get sterilized, but you would have to do it on purpose.

I would worry more about connections and antenna wavelength errors which will fry your transponder's "dangly bits":irked:

flat plate metal work cut by a CNC water jet cutter. We'll end up with a 0.1 mm precision. There is almost 250' of cutting to do per IBIS parts set.

Whoa...!

250 feet of flat plate metal work? Let me see.... I didn't know there was that much aluminum in the IBIS parts set. What is the IBIS parts set? Why use the cnc water jet? As opposed to laser? Whose laser? Cinncinati? GE? or Toshulin? What resolution? .1mm? Apples, oranges, grapes and bananas guys! Are we still talking about building a composite airplane here?

Or what?

Thanks Marc,

I was mainly trying to point out the weight and balance issues of the different type of aircraft during take off roll. The tractor with tricycle gear can take advantage of a change in the AOA of the main wing during takeoff run that the canard can't and can use flaps. The thrust angle from the prop also can change to pull up as well as forward in tractor type aircraft although taildraggers actually change from an angled to a parallel thrust during the latter part of take off roll (except in short/soft field take off). The canard wing AOA doesn't change much if at all leaving the drag high until the canard can provide lift sufficient to pull up the aircraft in front of CG or rotates the axis around the main wheels lifting the nose wheel as well.

Since there aren't any (plans) flaps, there isn't much lift from the main wings at slower speeds, so any ground effect in conjuction with the packing effect from a higher AOA would be minimized whereas the tractor type especially low wing with flaps can take advantage of this to take more weight off of the wheels, and this from a slower speed than the canard wing will begin to lift weight from it's wheels (all 3 since the nose wheel will still be in contact with the ground). This is a sizeable advantage during take off roll in soft field.

Also (more "leverage") the elevator has more authority than the canard. It doesn't "stall" as easily as the canard if run to it's limits during ground roll and is more effective at slower than flying speeds.

In soft field and short field, it's all about getting off the ground sooner.

Short field: To get into the air to lessen drag to build up speed to fly/climb/fly over obstacles.

Soft field: To get into the air sooner to lessen drag to build up speed to reach flying speed.

There isn't a "get into the air sooner" option for canards. Yet. Unless the air brake helps to lift at slow speeds.

Does that make more sense?

I live 10 miles from Punta Gorda. I was there a few days after hurricane Charley just about wiped the airport off the map (see pics below). This uncontrolled field has a quite a few corporate planes that visit on a regular basis as well as a fling wing mosquito sprayer mob that reside here. Some of the others are rather crusty old timers who remember when and refuse to use radios or fly into controlled airspace unless absolutely necessary. They take off from the end of the field closest to their "T" hangar and land similarly.

Maybe the observers are grouping crusty old farts onto one big label .

I have radios and no (functional) airplane.

That should alter the ratio shouldn't it?

Hi Guys! (and Gals)

The main drawback IMHO to grass field / soft field operations with a canard design such as the Rutan derived ones, is more of a wing shape issue. The wings are designed for high speed operation with little drag whereas the aircraft design with the wing that gets greater lift at lower speeds does not allow for higher speeds because of the drag associated with that shape. The way to get around the "cake and eat it too" is to change the shape of the wing during flight (flaps, slots, etc.). This works well but doesn't come stock with many (if any) canard designs for amatuer building.

In any case, the drag from the wheels has to be overcome to produce speed (drag from the air and other things) and then speed produces lift at which point the wheels' drag decreases until it isn't a factor, either in the overturning moment or the speed resisting drag of friction.

Herein lies the rub Tractor aircraft has better leverage from the lifting standpoint. The thrust only has to be used to provide flow for one lifting surface to overcome drag. The canard design has to provide sufficient flow for two lifting bodies. The secondary lifting body (canard) is in the same rotational plane as the drag from the landing wheels and once relative wind exceeds the canard's optimal lift angle in either direction, it becomes a weather vane until it is again placed in the "sweet spot" a feat which is almost impossible. The lift from the canard is necessary but has to be matched to the wing. If the main wing lifted before the canard, it would scoot along until it ran out of runway. Too much lift and it would wheelie until something got scraped off

An elevator in conventional aircraft works with gravity during take off and takes advantage of the relative wind in angling the prop (and the main lifting body) lessening the wheel friction drag which increases speed, so, (although the wing faces higher angle of incidence) the thrust stays aligned with the wing angle and the pressure on the upper side of the wing continues to lower (producing more lift)). The canard has to patiently wait intil VR to overcome wheel friction entirely, as the canard has to lift the weight of the aircraft from the center of balance forward and wait until the main lifting body overcomes all of the other drag.

The wheel drag on a grass strip is much greater than a solid surface strip. To attempt to get an idea of the difference, ride a bicycle on the street. Now, ride it on your lawn.

Although the drag on both aircraft lessens as it approaches VR, the tractor type, especially tail-draggers, will lessen the drag of the wheels more efficiently and more quickly than it's canardian cousin.

The issue of prop debris can be lessened by altering the gear to a wider stance and taking off with the belly board down.

I am going to use taller than normal wheels which should cut down drag a little.

My 2 cents worth...

Too bad they:

1. Aren't selling any engines yet.

2. Are only going to sell "certified" engines at "certified" prices.

3. Are in Germany and go to the local "Aero show"

4. haven't got a distribution network set up.

5. Don't have any dates for completion, expected delivery dates etc.

Why is it all the really cool engines (and airplanes) are still in the making?

I think there are more viable options in the 90 to 160 HP engine range than there are in the 180 to 250 HP range.

It seems the barrier is about 200 HP range when the engine weight starts to increase significantly, which disqualifies many engine options for some aircraft, especially canard type.

The big cylinder designs win the "no psru" nod, but get the vibration, high octane fuel necessity frown.

Smaller "auto" engines develope the HP at higher rpm and need a psru to use a prop, but are easier to repair and less expensive.

Decisions, decisions, decisions

MGS is approved epoxy (and preferred by some) and it is a German based company. MGS 285 and 335 can be used.

Kevin

I like the informal "in your face" format of the email list along with the almost immediate responses to the original comments. After a while you get a better sense of who knows what they're talking about and who is an "armchair" builder.

On the other hand..............

I delete a lot of one line congradulatory remarks, test emails, hodge podge and unrelated drivel. Sometimes I just "mark all as read"

The Forum has a more organized structure, like a filing cabinet. There are some threads I will never read. However, some of the threads get hi-jacked into something I like or am interested in and I can't find it. I like humor in posts, but most emails are down to business.

I think there are advantages to both, and disadvantages to both. If I had to suggest an improvement to each it would be:

Email lists: Keep the responses and questions pertinent and to the point. Rambling comments without factual content just wastes everyone's time. Remember that there are hundreds of people who have to sort through the stuff written. Make it worth reading or don't write it.

Forums: Keep the posts lively and informative. Here is a good place for congradulatory remarks and acknowledgements. Do you have an idea? Did you find something to share but you're not quite sure of it's value to the Canard community? This is a good place for it. The search allows others to recall the post they read earlier and can add to it, refresh it and shine new light on it.

I could go on but I think that both methods of communicating ideas, facts, and information have their place. As long as we take into consideration the time spent by others' reading our words, it will be of value to almost everyone.

Rick Maddy indicated that he built the fuselage, then went for the wings.

I wondered why, but it makes sense. If you build the strakes, you may not have room to build the wings!

Never thought about that.

Stand by for some really good tips!