Spodman

Yes. BLOCKS of foam, hot wire cutter, clouds of poison gas, birdies fall off rafters leaving beakmarks in foam, homebuilders curse birds until conciousness lost. Got insurance? Kids? Wife? Don't know that a thin smear of expanding foam BETWEEN the blocks of foam is going to have that significant an effect. Expanding foam to join foam blocks is included as a builder hint in newsletter #82, but without any comment from Nat on whether he thinks it is a good idea or not. For him to publish it implies he doesn't think it dangerous, even if he doesn't endorse it. I still hear some of these names on the forums, I don't think it killed them. www.cozybuilders.org/newsletters/news_82.pdf I must admit I was fairly keen on the concept and was intending to use expanding foam, or maybe the foam joining stuff my intended Oz supplier uses, when I get to see it.

I haven't built anything yet, but both builders I have visited found the seatback a challenge as a first part, and had some reservations at the result. Is also a tricky bit to re-do as it is a lot of stuff to throw away if not right and the only sheet of foam that size you will get. I'm going to start with F28, then do the seatback. I reckon I could foul up a dozen of them before approaching the cost of throwing away one seatback. Best of luck with your build

He sure is laughing in your photo. Had he been at the beer? Sorry I couldn't be there, but the holiday was nice.

Was at the attached talk by Dave Wheatland, and copped many more stories over a few rums at Bundaberg a while ago: http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/Dave%20Wheatland.htm His story of the crash of the prototype Airvan during stall testing for FAR23 made me think a bit, and the above discussion has reminded me. The scenario was the aircraft was loaded 10% over MTOW, 10% aft of the c.g. limit, then stalled. I don't remember the configuration. It went into a flat (0 airspeed) spin and was not recoverable by any combination of flight controls tried. Dave then remotely released a weight at the rear of the aircraft, which brought it back within c.g. No effect. He then deployed a spin recovery chute which half inflated above the aircraft and did squat. When all seemed lost he bailed out, then looked around for the aircraft before pulling the cord. He found it vertically above him. He said it looked like he was lying on his back in bed looking at a tropical ceiling fan... After some cartoon swimming to get out from under he popped the chute & survived. The aircraft became a smoking hole. Relevance? Your call what you bolt to your aircraft in the name of safety. Extra security provided by such? Debatable. Extra risk by boldly going where no man has gone before? Significant. Likely effect of using your new safety blanket to push the operational envelope? Quite mysterious. Manage your risk, let us know how you get on. Try and survive to tell us what went wrong, if it does. Or, at least hit 'save' on your data logger, like Dave didn't think to...

Inspiration from here? www.scaled.com/projects/ares.html Looks good, slippery and stylish. Makes the Cirrus Jet look Russian...

I think they're on the wrong track with that, try banging some prime Australian URANIUM together. (Thinks: Buggar, should I have said URANUM for better international understanding???)

I've seen the work and it looks gooooood. If I was building more than two of anything I would do it too, or one if there were templates being handed/loaned around, (thinks: Get started Spod before you-know-who buggars orf!) On the other hand, for the exposed leg-holes and top of the instrument panel they just look factory made and I will do it for that result. Or will I end up cutting out the panel an putting in an aluminium one? Decisions, decisions...

There was a police spokesman who is a regular on a radio station reporting on a break in at a pharmacy here a while ago. They took a crate of Viagra. The spokesman said they would be looking for some hardened criminals... I hope you're not going to put the ailerons on the canard:confused:

In my miniscule experience I initially tried the Puffer method, just barrier cream. It worked well on small layups, I just didn't touch the epoxy and was very comfortable. Unless of course somebody else picked up my squeegee with epoxy dripping off their fingers... Just didn't work on the first big layup I helped with, poking UNI into corners only seemed to work with fingers, and it felt like chemicals to me, so on with the double gloves. With the gloves on I just don't seem to be able to keep MY fingers out of the epoxy.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/_Aircraft__HOMEMADE-AIRPLANE_W0QQitemZ110328498614QQadiZ2829QQadnZAircraftQQcmdZViewItemQQptZMotors_Aircraft?hash=item110328498614&_trksid=p4506.c0.m245&_trkparms=72%3A727%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318

Hey Edge! Do you have the 'after' photo when the thing goes through the back of the hanger when it jumps the crappy 2 x 4 imitation chocks?

I think you are looking at the engine air intake, where the P-51/NACA would be in the plans. The aircleaner on the end is a hint... From how I read Wayne's list the cooling intake/plenum is not part of the deal. He is really making me wonder about putting a NACA on a Cozy.

Hee hee hee, you dag!

I'm no help with your problem, but wonder is the cause of the failure was the combined weight of all the VG on the canard? What a collection! I like your step too, looks like a push-in style door I've seen on some military types, and understand it is in the plans. Does it open into the fuselage, or does it have a pocket of it's own? Back to your problem, have you recovered the busted off wheel or any of the hardware. You will need a new strut and some fibreglassing skills. Does your regulator permit you to work on the aircraft?

Dud idea mate... This is similar to the system that existed in Australia before the relatively recent adoption of the FAA Experimental rules, (mostly anyhow). There has not been a huge increase in crashes/fatalities/anvils falling from the sky, just a huge increase in actual flying aircraft. Your mad plan would have the opposite effect to that experienced here, NO effect on flying safety, HUGE decrease in flying. You naughty, naughty man.

Take your favourite web search and insert 'quickie'. A small ez is out there waiting for you. You are after what is now known as the Q1, the others are two seaters and probably not what you are after. The TERF CD and the Quickie builders have most of what you would need to make one. Best of luck with it. erm, correction. Insert 'Rutan quickie' & you may get more relevant results...

Sounds brilliant, how can composite aircraft be popular in Russia if the builder has to admit it is made of 'ugly-plastic'... I don't either, but i don't see why it couldn't go on top of the completed layup. Slap it on with micro, then apply the finishing micro over the top. I was thinking this too, but reading the 'ugly-plastic' post @ the stuff about the Cirrus made me think. I had more-or-less dismissed the Aerostrike product, despite mentioning it, as I had visualised encasing the entire aircraft with the stuff. If I am just providing a path for the charge that doesn't have any aircraft structure in the way with 3-4" strips the Aerostrike seems more possible to me, with fewer issues. Run the strips along the upper fuselage from nose to engine mount, bonded to a strip full span on the canard and the upper surface of the wings. Leave a gap then use the mesh for the winglet antennae like everybody does with copper tape. If you get a strike on the winglet the airframe will perhaps be vaporised, and your descent will be an unhappy one, so regardless of this hopeful mod I would follow the advice of all those below and avoid thunderstorms. If on the other hand the mesh does actually conduct the charge of an unexpected strike I visualise it jumping the gap from the winglet to the wing with local damage and exiting wherever else in the airframe it wants to. If the antenna it hit was connected to a radio it would probably start dripping bits on the passenger's legs. This does not seem now like an unreasonable modification to me now, and would have the added benefit of permitting grounding of the filler cap to the engine, etc.

What sort of speed are you after?

I guess it hasn't been discussed because I don't expect they would do anything. In a metal aircraft the static charge is conducted around the airframe and supposedly discharged by those thingies, and I understand they will work in carbon fibre airframe as well. In an airframe that is not a good conductor the charge can't get to them. I've said it now, but I've probably got it wrong again, and somebody will post so shortly... If you do a web search on 'lightning mesh' you will encounter the concept of lightweight alloy mesh that goes between the fibreglass and the filler, making the airframe conductive. I have read it wass standard on the Columbia, when it existed as such. You would have to put your antennae on the outside but. Still wouldn't fly through a thunderstorm either.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzz

Erm, its called PIFR! Sounds like a fun trip. Didn't read the bit about the dodgy altimeter:rolleyes:

check the archives mate. Won't see it on a Longez coz they haven't delivered any, despite being on the verge of doing so for several years now. Probably a bit heavy too.

...which costs $70. Might be worth discounting at least that for a sale.

It looks like a fake to me, the landing sequence is obviously interfered with, a whole bunch of speed just disappears at one point. I'm a bit confused by the whole background of this. www.killathrill.com/start.action is a dull looking clothing line that 'sponsors' somebody called James Andersson in the Red Bull series, yet he always finishes outside the top 12, or gets disqualified. His results here: www.killathrill.com/start.action I haven't been to a Red Bull race, but I thought there were only the listed pilots participating, it is possible the pilot does not really exist, the whole thing is just one of those very irritating 'viral' advertisements. Which makes Stinky a spammer. Thanks a lot. Did read about a similar instance in real life, British aerobatic pilot had a lower wing attach bolt failure in a Zlin 526a, landing off an inverted circuit. Wing was still attached, but folded up to 45 degrees if he wasn't inverted. http://www.aerobatics.org.uk/repeats/zlin_wing_failure.htm

Didn't actually have a carve-off today, but did compare my Bosche with Drew's Fein. The have about the same power, produce about the same occillations per killicam and make the same noise when you pull the trigger at each extreme of the variable speed. The Bosch standard cutting wheel looks very similar to the Fein HSS, except it has a segment cut out, which I have found useful for plunge cuts. The Bosche wheel will fit the Fein, (we didn't try, only just thought of it, but the packaging of spare blades says it fits), but not vice-versa, (which we did try). For anybody at Drew's plane day today that I vaguely recollected the price I paid, I did get it wrong, it was AUD149 from Bunnings Aerospace. The Bosche segmented cutting wheel is AUD45 from the same place. Haven't seen the diamond wheel yet, but reckon the standard will do the job as good as the Fein HSS.