Spodman

Your questions are beyond my technical expertise, but I don't have a lot of faith in the above ideas either. I am not aware of any evidence there is anything deficient in the strength of the airframe or that this is the speed limiting factor. There are plenty of fast aircraft out there all fg. I am not convinced substituting cf for fg will (by itself) create a stronger structure. I do understand the limiting factors are airframe flutter and performance of the canard. These problems may be overcome by re-design. Don't know how to go about it. Remember this is a very efficient cross-country touring aircraft you are considering hot-rodding. On completion you will not have a particularly useful aircraft.

Good point, you've sold me. Cables & torque tubes it is. Erm, is this a problem for anybody???

I am assuming you would be rigging one fork as an oleo. You'll need some sort of hinge link to keep the wheel straight and a much more robust spring. Save even more money and don't make it retractable. I assume you are talking about mains here. Maybe discussions on how to break the laws of your individual countries are best best deleted by those who posted their intentions. In Australia pilots using the www.pprune.com forums have been prosecuted on what they said there (allegedly).

I think what you may save with your experiment you will spend on the pressurised mask & regulator equipment. I asked a RAAF F-18 pilot how they can use their mask unpressurised to FL500 when an ordinary mask is only rated to FL250 and the difference was... Umm, the words got long here, but it added up to PRICE. I would be no more keen to pressurise my lungs than to pressurise a Cozy! An oxygen system with an cannula sounds much more comfortable to wear & use to me.

Hasn't he had it since about, umm, last Tuesday???

If these are for hot-wire templates I understand non-metal templates are easier to use, won't cool the wire as much. There are some that have reported success with metal templates, though, some with a bit of tape around them.

"Possibility for very good stalling characteristics" History shows the possibility has been realised for the proven Rutan-style designs. "Main wing carry-through behind cabin, pusher engine installation simplified. Synergistic use of winglets for directional stability." Yup. "In certain cases a simplified control linkage is possible." May be referring to the elevon arrangements for the Vari. Didn't work really. Controls are conventional. "When wing flaps are not desired (for simplicity as in ultralights, or competition rules as with standard class sailplanes for example) the CLmax of a canard may exceed that of an aft-tail airplane. For unstable aircraft, canard designs may have a CLmax and/or drag advantage. Control authority is larger for unstable canard aircraft at high CL than for unstable aft-tail designs." Erm, advantage??? Disadvantages "Fuel center of gravity lies farther behind aircraft c.g. than in conventional designs. This means that a large c.g. range is produced or that the fuel must be held elsewhere (e.g. strakes near the wing root.)" Yes... that's why the fuel is in the strake, with no great disadvantage to the arrangement. "CLmax problems with flaps or margin on the entire wing: Flaps produce a larger pitching moment about the c.g. on a canard aircraft. This results in the need for both large canard aerodynamic incidence change and high maximum canard lift coefficient. Note that since the value of a S is usually larger for canard designs, Cm0 has a greater impact on L than it does on aft-swept designs." Erm? Wot flaps? "Induced drag / CLmax incompatibility: Canard designs can achieve equal or better CLmax values than conventional designs, and similar values of span efficiency. However, the configurations with high CLmax values have terrible values of e and those with respectable e 's have low maximum lift coefficients." ??? "Directional stability: The distance from the aircraft c.g. to the most aft part of the airplane is usually smaller on canard aircraft. This poses a problem for locating a vertical stabilizer and may result in very large vertical surfaces. (Note, however, that winglets may be used to advantage in this case.)" Yep, like those winglets. "Wing twist distribution is strange and CL dependent: The wing additional load distribution is distorted by the canard wake." Not anything I've heard of before, assume effect is negligible. "Power effects on canard - deep stall: Accidents have been associated with tractor canard configurations for which the propeller slipstream has prevented canard stall before wing stall. The result is a possible deep-stall problem." I can see that could be a problem, theoretically. Never heard of the concept before. Just in case I'll be bolting my engine on the back. "Finally, and perhaps most importantly, canard sizing is much more critical than aft tail sizing. By choosing a canard which is somewhat too big or too small the aircraft performance can be severely affected. It is easy to make a very bad canard design" So by building something with many flying examples, and making yours the same as those flying examples (rather than making the canard a meter longer, or out of cardboard) your safety is maximised. They might also be saying conventional aircraft have far more metal bolted far to the rear of the c of g than they need to, coz it would increase safety!

Hello Tony, Erm, I was! Understand how somebody who is used to dealing in inches & fractions thereof would prefer to do so, and have had not a small amount of fun flinging barbs at those who do. I was brought up on the metric system and was prepared to put up with the inches in my Cozy plans because Nat (& Burt) had met me half way with decimal inches. But that is just my preference. I don't own any measuring device with fractions of inches on it, just metric or the decimal inches one. Splendid drawings. I probably won't ever build a Long but its very interesting to ogle the differences, both between a standard Long and a long Long, and to a Cozy, so I downloaded them with little happy baby-bird noises as soon as I saw them

"Tony Malfa has generously provided a set of CAD drawings for the Long-EZ. The drawings include NG30, F22, F28, Instrument Panel and the front and rear seat bulkheads. The zip file contains six Autocad drawings that can be printed to full scale at most Kinkos. Tony has spent a large amount of time on these drawings and they have been used on his long-nose Long-EZ. Each drawing includes a stock drawing and a corrosponding modified drawing next to it so you can see exactly what has been changed about the original. Tony reports that all measurements are in fractions (Yuk!) to make it a bit easier (??!)to measure and all measurements where made from an original set of plans. Tony can also supply them in decimal inches if required (I should think so too!). You must view these in Autocad to get the full appreciation of the detail involved. You may also use Turbocad and it can be purchased from most office supply stores." Or just the link: Long-EZ CAD You would still need more drawings to make your cheapie-cd off ebay work, but it's a start.

Have toured the factory of the manufacturer in Bundaberg Queensland, and very spiffy it is. Each part is milled out of solid steel or alloy blanks and nothing is stockpiled (other than accessories, mags & carbs etc). Most parts are common to the smaller engines. They have shipped 15 engines (as at July), 2 to North America for the Cozy. They have a mount for the Cozy, the fibreglass cooling thingies and that is about it.

If you feel that old crappy measuring systems build character maybe you should lobby for a more character building monetary system as well? 12 pennies to the shilling, 240 to the pound, just think how your frontal lobes will throb with exertive pleasure buying a mars bar or totalling your cheque book. The Imperial measurements didn't get the US to the moon, dollars did. The USSR had the first artificial satellite, the first man in space, the first woman & I believe the only dog. The first moon orbit, and the first landing on the moon and Venus. All done with millimeters

But you bought the paper version Jon, no new stuff for you!

An interesting little beast. I imagine the mains would look a bit less spindly with some weight on them, I assume the engine isn't in yet. Any idea what sort of structure they are attached to? It looks like it has a pretty narrow track compared to standard. Would there be much effect of having draggy bit extending in front of the ailerons, same as the infinity gear? Is there really anhedral on the canard? In case you were wondering, I don't have any information for you, just questions

I picked the closest, I have the plans but haven't started building, so (sighs) I'm considering building. (sob)

Hello ap3_c There are a couple of III's flying in Australia, based in YPPH (I believe) and YSCB, and one IV at YHOX has just flown. I've had a quick tour of the Jabiru factory in Bundaberg and it was rather impressive. They've shipped about 15 5100s, at least two for Cozys, and they have a mount available. It shares most parts with the much more common 3300. It ends up lighter, narrower and about the same length installed apparantly. Like you I'm years off needing an engine but it would be nice Another factor (which will affect all your canard choices) is the relatively primitive state of airports. There are limited options for that $500 hamburger here. It suits me though.

Now that's an unusual looking beastie! Detail is a bit lacking on the site, but one shot from the rear shows both ailerons (elevons??) deflected downward. There are elevators (more elevons???) on the canard as well, but they are rather close coupled with the wing so maybe it has both. Maybe they work in opposition like a r/c stunt aircraft??? Maybe they work together like flaps???? I wonder where he keeps the fuel?

I'm not convinced it was a bird strike, in fact I'd say it wasn't. If a bird hit the winglet it could cause that damage, but I don't see why it would be transmitted to the ailerons & prop. "...felt as if I was in a paint mixer..." and the spread of the damage is more consistent with aileron flutter, but even then I wouldn't have thought that would put enough stuff through the prop to bust it. I assume he had changed channels on his radio before and didn't dive through VNE

Aerotow is probably the most common launching method for gliders. I'm learning to fly at Bacchus Marsh in Victoria, with up to 3 Pawnee(or something like that) and a Cub towing at once. Anywhere there's a hill or thermals you can have a glide.

Back to the subject of UV, Burt Rutan apparantly setup a very early reject (and unfinished) canard off a Vari as an outdoor table for YEARS, without any real deterioration. The only problems experienced in deterioration is when solvents/fuel dissolve foam they shouldn't be in contact with, and in the alloy bits! I have seen some rivetted rhapsodies, and some other alloy machines I wouldn't keep chickens in. Modern CNC kits you just cleco and rivet have drastically cut the build time and seem quite idiot proof. Sadly though, the idiots keep getting smarter... The cost is not enormously different, I'm building a Cozy because I want 4 seats and the RV10 looks boring.

Looks luverly, but about twice the ASS price for a canopy hinge. The wax a bit about how good it is for cowling attach. I note discussion in other fora about how cr@ppy the result of bolt & nutplate called for in the Cozy is, and this looks a lot better. Less likely to put anything (smaller than the full cowling) through the prop as well. They explain the process well in regard to attaching wingtips to something. I haven't really paid attention yet to the debate on teflon lined hinge pins, this could be an alternative to that also, but don't know the cost comparo.

Burt Rutan's RAF will sell you plans for a RC Viggen for $14, but you'd better be quick. Otherwise, for a bit more you may score a 3-view from Central States Association , the patron saint of Burt's orphan aircraft.

"...it feels like im building a steam engine..." If you were building a Chinese steam engine it would be metric! I don't think United Statesians realise how quaint it seems that they cling to the ancient cr@ppy imperial system.

I think you are missing the point. This team is not really trying to do a Rutan to vertical flight, they are trying to con capital out of 5 millionaires to further their project. SOMETHING that will revolutionise SOMETHING by doing something AMAZING may appeal to the cigar chomping drones with the farcical hair-dos than something practical and achievable. For example, look at the life & times of the Orbital Engine company. When I was a kid there were constant articles about Ralph in the Australian newspapers & motoring magazines. The pitch was always the orbital engine (like a rotary, but different) which would eclipse all other methods of burning petrol. It drove, it floated & it flew, as a prototype. But they never sold a single engine. Eventually they sold something (not the orbital engine) which almost made it into the Ford Ka but now only seems to have application in two stroke motors. But all that is beside the point, coz Ralph was rich, rich, richie rich long before they SOLD ANYTHING. Go, go Kestrel. And if all they have to show for it in 20 years is dirigible propulsion and vast personal fortunes GOOD ON 'EM.

Not sure that the profile from plans canard will do what you want it to, but look at the plans for insight into the hot-wired foam & moldless composite construction technique. The plans canard is designed for efficient cruise at 150+ knots! Something with a bit more chord and maybe even end-plates might do the job.

Do the Aerocad PDF's have the wider back seat option, or is that only in dollars-up-front version?