Spodman

http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2007/dec/16-17.pdf

Well done mate. Is that at Oakey? Better stock up on pie floaters & roast crow coz you won't be able to get them there...

Ah! I obviously hadn't grasped the actual concept. I had only seen others use them as conventional fasteners with flat heads, i.e. drill the part and bond on the inside of the head. On the Carbinge website they claim their preferred adhesive makes a better bond to fg than flox. Has anybody tried it with clickbonds?

At 196cm tall nobody has ever called me an elf before...

But none of the pictures show what the crankshaft configuration is. with all 4 cylinders (& con rods) in a single plane there would have to be a master conrod with the other 3 attached to its periphery - meaning it ain't entirely balanced, whatever the blurb says. If they haven't grasped this it might explain why they never seem to sell any motors. It will be a lot easier to get excited by all these potential vapor-wares if they delivered some, you know, have a price list and pikkies of happy customers and excuses for the odd fatality...

Aren't the heads supposed to be fibreglassed over now? I understand the desire to not even drill the holes until you have the brackets in your hand, but I don't think you'll be able to set them once the firewall is installed anyhow, unless I've got it wrong again...

Hi Tim. Were you (or are you) building an Aircar?

The first project I saw the builder had trashed his seatback and was considering those very options when I visited. Don't know what he did, but he had already dismissed the notion of local supply as while he could get the foam, he could only get a whole sheet which cost MUCH more than the amount he needed from ASS. If you find a local supply that isn't too much more than twice the price I'll take a bit. You could always patch what you have and blame it on the neighbor's bunyip... In the light of these two examples downunder I think I'll start on something OTHER than the seatback though.

I understand the metal bit, whatever it is called, is supposed to be stainless steel, as per the templates, rather than Al, as in the materials list. I recall a similar discussion about LED position lights which an FAA drone wouldn't approve. I gather once one inspector has made a ruling you have no hope of getting another to be reasonable. Despite having given away all our freedoms to own machine guns, etc. we have the option here of fending off the FAA-equivilant inspector and running with an accredited person from the SAAA (our EAA) & getting him in along the course of the project (not required, but useful) so such things can be discussed along the way rather than shouted over an aircraft you think is ready to fly. Isn't it similar there???

Well done on making a start. Didn't watch Red Bull myself, it is a bit tantalising to note I could have been there if I'd made the effort... Wouldn't have thought a piece of ply would make much of a weight. Maybe with a couple of house bricks on it. Maybe entice a drop-bear out of the garden to sit on it for you? Andrew used a thick sheet of glass on his. I didn't think humidity was a factor, but are the spots from an excess in VB humidity? The plans say make the confidence piece out of 'green urethane foam'. I think that translates to the brown stuff you have, but I've seen somebody use PVC for theirs without, erm, losing confidence afterwards.

Erm, will make for an interesting checklist foul-up opportunity adding a gear mode.

I got to sit in Khalid Shuwayhat's IV at Cowra NSW last weekend. I didn't fit! Knees hard under inst panel & feet flat on floor under rudder pedals. Couldn't move either. Canopy closes, with head on shoulder. Plenty of bum room, but VH-OUR is 3" wider at the seatback than plans. Not sure all is lost, but I wish I'd thought to ask Khalid to take the cushion out to see how much room was possible. I had already discussed my size with Nat, and one of the things he suggested was a thinner cushion, and Khalid's looked a little thicker in the back than the plans. Wasn't as much room in the back as I expected either. I was all keen to follow up Drew's order to ASS with one of my own, but now think I may do some more figgering first.

All good info. The original design had a GU canard like the Q1, later (and before the Roncz) changed to LS1. The LS1 can be spotted by a fixed trim tab (called a Sparrow Strainer) sitting on the tarmac on the inboard side of the ailerons, with 'no step' obscured by somebody's footprints. The LS1 has the carbon spar, and new ones can still be sourced from a guy in Oz. The GU had the same problems as on the Vari/Long, and could be 'fixed' in the same ways. I was looking at a Q2 myself recently, but despite the lies in the newsletters there is no way I'd fit into one, and no real prospect of lifting myself plus any member of my family plus any fuel. Emerging from my tent at Cowra last week I was confronted by somebody hand-propping a Q200 that was pointing at me with nobody in it, so your pictures made me feel a little nervous:rolleyes:

erm, sounds like you have:cool: Some major sort of redesign required to achieve it, the strut would have to retract through the spar.

Eh? I'd say the mission of a fighter is a bit different to a Cozy. Is the slight angle you speak of the dihedral? No effect (except slight increase) on stall speed.

Some of my more fatuous early questions on this forum received what seemed to me to be fairly abrupt replies of this nature, but when I actually trolled through the archive it was hinted that I should I found my questions (and yours) had been agonised and arguefied & footstamped and soapboxed about (and viewable in the archives of this and other fora) with no resolution different to that proposed in the first Canard Pusher newsletter that dealt with it. Unlike Marc I'm not qualified or competent to change the structure of the aircraft so I'm not going to. Are you? My uninformed opinion is I would fly in a home-bagged/carbon reinforced Cozy, as I don't think such reinforcements would weaken the structure too much, and any weight increases resulting from the weight reduction program would be picked up in the weight & balance check. Your profile is a bit skinny on information, are you not a United Statesian, like I am not either? If so you may be surprised by the cultural differences exhibited by those that are. They will tell you things (good & bad) about their experiences which a more reticent Aussie would never do. They will also call a spade a f#$%ing shovel when appropriate. Cheers. Please don't. (Thinks: Gee, I can edit my post)

...standing by for some lengthy pm's.... (testing edit function)

No, it stops the tea from getting cold... In Australia, if you put the aircraft type code in the flight plan, like COZY, ATC would have no idea if the flight is experimental or certificated, without being familiar with the particular type. If somebody plans JABI for a Jabiru we would have no idea if it has a certificate coz it came from the factory or somebody built the kit themselves. How it works here is the regulator imposes any restrictions required on the operation of a homebuilt. It is common to be restricted from flying over built up areas if no duplicated ignition system is fitted here. ATC aren't the police on this. Use the HXB type codes the US has, you are giving the game away, but it should not make any difference to airspace use.

125 is plenty of horses, but Q's tend to be nose heavy even without bolting cast iron on to the front. Max gross according to the designers is 1100lb, some builders are flying at 1300lb. Most of that for you will be engine. Note my opinions have no first hand basis. I haven't built one or flown one, and would suggest you consult somebody who has.

I'd have thought a Mazda would be far to heavy for a Q, the O-200 is a tight fit for those who can't bear the thought of a Revmaster! There are some people flying behind (and in front of) a Mazda in other types. Have a look at the Fly Rotary list for details. What does the owner/builder say?

I think I saw such an aircraft on Ebay a while ago. The main wing is above and well behind the fuel tanks and it seems unlikely it could get damaged. The canard is right under the header tank and more likely to get damaged. Fuel won't really hurt the fibreglass but would dissolve the foam within. If it is a GU canard there are many that have been cut off and discarded anyhow, in favour of the LS1, both stronger and without the pitch change in moisture. Much information in the Q-list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/ Including a few rebuilds from crashes and conversions. You can't buy a new canard, you have to make it. You can buy the carbon spars, from here in Oz.

Erm, wot aircraft are you building?

Well, one of two anyhow. And we based our rules on yours. Could you make a new set of wings? Or maybe peel the skin off yours for the inspection. Would be better than starting a new project. Can you truck it to the US and register it using US rules? Then either transfer to Canuck rego or keep an N number. One of our local millionaires (bless 'em) has been flying a tarted up PA31 for years with an N number on it.

So Drew, tell me more about the experience. 'Twas talking to Dave on the radio on Sunday morning, (I think, night shift screw my head around a bit). Under my terms of employment I can't discuss what about, but has anything been heard of Dave since? I know he got on the ground OK but have since lost his mobile number & don't know know if he resumed his trip to YBTL.