Waiter

A couple recommendations 1) The Comm antenna should be as vertical as you can get it. Although a horizontal antenna will work, your signal will be approximately -20db (about 1/10) down from an identical antenna that is vertically polarized. Aviation Comm is vertically polarized, VOR Nav is horizontally polarized. These selections were made to specifically take advantage of the 20db isolation between Vert and Horiz 2) Find a ham operator and see if they will put their VHF VSWR meter on the antenna. (a CB VSWR meter may not work, different frequencies). you need to see about 1.2 to 1.5 across the entire VHF range. (less than 2.0 is acceptable). Waiter

I looked at the serial port dump. The data parsing looks straight forward. If I remember correctly, the challange was that these RMI units can be configured to a users requirements, so there isn't a hard standard that applies to every unit, like the way Dynon or GR impliments it. Anyway, keep me posted on your test results and I'll start digging up my code and see what I can do to impliment the RMI unit. Waiter

SPG_76013: DO NOT APPLY POWER - Take a close look at your photos - Your Rudder cable is laying across the terminals of the capacitor. Waiter

Lynn (Ortel) has had experience with this. See what he thinks! Waiter

When I made the decission to install retracts, I was seriously looking at the Drybread ship set. This was in the same time period that Steve had his tragic accident. Shortly after, I got a line on someone who was interested in selling their Infinity ship set (they changed their mind). So, I drove to Texas and became the proud owner of a Version 1 ship set. JD has been forthcoming with information, parts, and updates that need to be performed, i.e. pin installed to secure components, etc (all this is outlined on my web site) During disassembly I noted the machine work on all components is very clean, no burrs or chaffing. I elected to weld the side braces and guide tubes. This is a lot of work and I'm not sure I would do it again. During the Welding process, I think I gained confidence in the original "glue" method. Regardless, A more correct way to do this would have been to disassemble these components, clean the adhesive, then reassemble and weld. During my installation, I followed Lynns experience (Ortel's plane) with interest. I think the steel guide tube is a good idea. If someone is interested in putting together an order, Put me down for two. If anyone else is interested, Please post here or start a new thread. If there's enough interest, maybe someone (Lynn) could cooridinate an order to their local machine shop. NOTES - There is no need to compress the struts on a Coxy IV. The gear will retract without compressing the struts. This eliminates a failure mode. If you install a fitting on the bottom of the gear (to compress the strut) you will need to replace the o-rings on next teardown, AFTER you clean up the burr on the inside of the strut. I've documented all my findings to date: http://www.iflyez.com/InfinityGear.shtml Waiter

The leading edge kits are a white foam, maybe 3/8 thick, and there are 2 or three layers of BID on the inside. I thing BID is better than UNI for this application. Waiter

If you think you'll install the Infinity gear at some point, I would at least perform a couple modifications to your Centerspar when you build it. You can talk to JD at Infinity, tell him your on the fence about installing the gear, but would at least like to do the Centerspar. I'm sure he would send you the plans that cover this portion of the installation. If I were purchasing a gear set from ANYONE, I would draw up a purchase agreement that includes a firm delivery date. If the complete set isn't delivered by X date, a Full refund of deposit will be made, AND any components delivered will remain with the buyer. Waiter

One additional "ALSO" When your glassing the inside of the tanks, After you performed the plans layups and the glass is still a little wet, glass a small sheet of aluminum 6x6 inch x .062 6061T6, directly under the location where the fuel cap will be. Place two layers of BID over the sheet and a couple inches out past the edge. Make sure the sheet is scratched so the epoxy will stick. This sheet will protect the area directly under the fuel cap from the once in a lifetime when the refueling nozzel gets punched through the bottom of your fuel strake. As for the molds, looks like you could go into the Leading Edge business. Waiter

Nope, No TLE. In the "plans" method, TLE is the forward bulkhead of the fuel tank. The leading edge is then added after the strakes are complete. The Prefab leading edge serves as TLE. The inside of the prefab is glassed, the exterior is not. you glass the exterior of the leading edge at the same time you glass the exterior of the strake. NOTE - In the photo, note the location of the two vent tubes. ALSO - If I were doing this again. I would move the inner bulkhead in toward the fuselage, maybe 2-4 inches. This would increase the fuel capacity by aboy 3 -4 gallons. ALSO, I would move the outer bulkhead OUT, (If you never plan on installing Infinity gear) so its about two inchs inboard of the outer wing bolt access hole. This would add about 1 gallon or 2 of fuel. When you glass the insides of the strakes, make your layups very wet. Waiter

If these are the same one I bought for my LongEZ 15 years ago, they are a premolded leading edge and bulkheads They would most likely add some additional fuel over the plans built leading edges, However, but the biggest selling point for me was I would have perfectly symetrical leading edges. Now the BIG WHat If --- If I was doing this today, I would install the Berkut style strake leading edges. The Berkut leading edges run straight from the wing to the fuselage, there isn't that little joggle (technical term) like the LongEZ. The Berkut alsoo meet the fuselage a little farther forward than the LongEZ leading edges. The Berkut leading edges would hold a little more fuel AND a little more baggage space. OH YAH - take a look at my leading edge installation at: http://www.iflyez.com/LongEZ_Construction_Photos_Strake.shtml Waiter

The plans location is a tried and proven location for the fuel valve. On the other hand, The original plans fuel valve is a piece of junk. Get a good quality fuel valve (aviation junk yard) slap some new o-rings in it, install it at the plans location, and your good to go. I can't think of a situation where locating the fuel valve elsewhere would make for a safer aircraft. Moving the fuel valve to a firewall location would require additional linkage, torque tubes, etc, to operate it, this adds more failure modes. Whats the higher risk; a small qualtity of fuel inside an aluminum tube running along both side of the cabin, or, 50 gallons of fuel just on the other side of that fiberglass bulkhead! Waiter

Sounds like an excellent question for JD. Waiter

"P" factor isn't a factor on a EZ. P factor (on a convential airplane) is caused when propellor airflow is kind of corkscrewing as it passes over the fuselage and hits the rudder at a slight angle. Most aircraft manufactures correct for this by mounting the rudder with a slight angle. Torque is a minor factor, next time you pass by a bunch of EZ's parked on the ramp, take a look at the position of their ailerons. Waiter

Remove the drive power from that actuator. Waiter

Thoughts on Digital Fly-By-Wire. I've given this idea some brain time, just to see what the complexity would be; In order to keep weight and cost down, I'd probably opt for dual redundancy (as opposed to triple redundancy on commercial systems). Any descrepencies between the two redundant systems would then need to be resolved by the pilot, (This is the purpose of the third sysstem in commercial systems) Each system would require the following; 6 closed loop servo systems; 6 Actuators, 6 position sensors, 6 electronic drivers, input device(s), Attitude gyro sensor package, Pitot Static/Ram pressure sensor package, 1 CPU, FBY software. ACTUATORS: 6 actuators, one for each aileron, one for each rudder, one for each elevator. The actuators and electronic drive system need to be able to drive the flight controls to full deflection (one end stop to the other end stop) within one second, at full wind loading, say, 260 kts. The actual forces (ft-lbs) that are required by the actuators will need to be computed along with any linkage geometry. These could be similiar to high torque stepping motors driving an acme screw, that in turn is connected to the flight control surface. FLIGHT CONTROL POSITION SENSORS: 6 Flight Control Position sensors, these tell the CPU the current position of the flight controls. The CPU then decides how much force ( based on attitude/airspeed) needs to be applied to the actuator to move it to the new commanded position. ATTITUDE and PITOT sensors: Aircraft attitude, speed, and altitude need to be known in order to resolve flight control response issues. i.e: Normally, the pilot cannot muster enough strength to move a rudder to its fully deployed position while cruising at 200kts. We may want to mimic this behavior in our FBY system. The CPU and software need to be generated. This would be a very interesting project, Software needs extensive design, review, and testing. EMI Hardning - Don't forget that everything needs to be hardened against EMI , i.e. lightning strike, flying near high power RF transmission towers (TV/Microwave transmitters) ********************************************************************* IMHO - This would be a very interesting and challenging project thats within the capabilities of most modern Embedded CPU microcontroller systems. (No, I don't think it'll run on a PIC, but certianly a modern 80251) If I were going to do this, I would find a Flying LongEZ and use it for the research and developement phase. Once it has about a gazillion trouble free hours on it, then I may think about installing it as a stand alone system in a new LongEZ. Would I do this, no. The weight and complexity are overwhelming compared to the plans flight control system. BUT, It certianly is possible :-) Waiter

As described in the CPs many years ago: I used a severly modified 1/4 Craftsman Ratchet wrench as the UP / DOWN lock for the nose gear handle. This prevents the nose gear from jumping out of over-center. This is a fairly simple modification that uses all the existing handle hardware. Basically, you drill out the center of the 1/4 drive. The gear handle shaft will now go through the ratchet wrench. Remove the original phenolic gear handle bearing that was installed in the instrument panel. Cut the handle off the ratchet wrench. Using a dremel, open up a recess on the pilots side of the instrument panel where the gear handle comes through. The ratchet will fit snugly in this recess and now act as the bearing. The little flipper level for rachet direction should be below the shaft (on the bottom). scratch the exterior of the rachet for flox. Connect the handle, rachet, and drive tubes together to check fit, length, etc. Make sure there is good clearence when you turn the handle. Then drill a small hole through the handle shaft and the 1/4 drive. Press a small roll pin into this hole. This now locks the gear handle to the rachet assembly and the handle will now only turn in the direction that the rachet goes. To reverse direction, you need to move the lever on the rachet. You may need to replace the the original drive shaft tube (from the handle to the "U" joint), as the bolt holes may not line up. When your happy that everything fits, flox the hole that the rachet slides into and put it all together. Put the drive shaft bolt in place and one last clearence check. If everthing is OK, then let the flox cure, and your in business. In the future, to remove the handle, you need to remove the small ring clip from the rachet and the handle and 1/4 drive will slide out backwards. Carefull you don't loose the little ball, spring, and rachet paw. Waiter

Marc; Isn't TMann into you for a few cool ones already? :D Waiter

I don't think Meigs had any grants and was free to do what they wanted. Pretty darn sneaky though, go out there at 3am and run a couple bull doxers across the runway. Waiter

One other aspect when receiving federal funds, The FAA is now a silent co-owner of the airport. If you decide to sell the airport (Reidhillview, San Jose CA) because the property is now worth a gazillion dollars. You can pay back the full amount of the grant, AND when you sell the property, the FAA, as a silient owner in the Percentage of the grant. i.e. if it was a 10/90 % grant, then the FAA will receive 90 percent of the revenue generated by the sale. (90% of the gazillion dollars, sweet) ALSO - NLV is desiginated a GA reliever for MaCarren. In other words, the operating certificate for McCarren says that NLV will receive GA traffic. If NLV were closed, the current operating certificate for McCarren would no longer be valid. A new certificate would need to be generated that would allow X number of GA operations, AND, I guarentee, a significantly reduced number of commercial operations. Waiter

So when they have an engine failure, they'll still have enough power to get them to the seen of the accident! Waiter

Luis; If your heart is set on a VariEZ, I think thats great. You asked me in a private e-mail if you were making the correct choice in building a VariEZ? I indicated to you that you need to also look at a LongEZ, as I had three concerns about the VariEZ: 1) As I indicated, the LongEZ will cost about 10% more to build, in both money and time. For this 10% increase in cost and labor, you'll have a substantially improved aircraft. 2) The LongEZ is fully supported with both materials and technical support. I also mentioned that I was concerned about parts availability for the VariEZ. in particular the wing attach box assembly. This would be tragic if you started investing time and money into this project, then hit this obstical. Of course, its just a special piece of metal and could be built by most competent machine shops, but at what cost. This could be a show stopper, check into it. 3) Depending on what you want in the final product, the LongEZ is larger, offers greater payload, longer range, improved stability and handling, etc. Regardless of what aircraft you decide to build. It sounds like your on the right path of asking questions before to take the plunge. Good luck and welcome to the Canard Comunity. Waiter

Is the FSDO allowing Phase I out of North Las Vegas? That seems unusual to me! Waiter

Never heard of any! BUT, not a bad idea to be aware of the standards and their consiquences. Waiter

It boils down to operational limitations. If you accept the limitations that less power provides, then go for it. A higher HP aircraft expands the operational capability of the aircraft; more runways available, larger envelop for croswwind operations. heavier lift capability (higher gross weight operations, more fuel, more passangers). Higher altitude capabilities. Takeoff and climb performance: I would say that A 1000lb LongEZ with 160 hp will perform a little better than a 650 lb EZ with 115 hp. The 160hp will be able to cruise faster. operate out of more airports, carry more fuel ans passangers, and have a higher resale value. Your best method (also the least expensive) at gaining performance improvement will be to keep your building and operational weight at the absolute minimum, 100lbs makes a noticable difference in performance. For any given power setting, (i.e. both aircraft generating 115hp), the heavier plane will burn a little more fuel, but not significant (i.e. .5 gph). This can be attributed to a couple items, the higher angle of attact means higher drag. AND, the higher hp aircraft is not operating at its optimal rpm or speed, but the lower hp aircraft is, very unfair comparison. As a result, for an identical power setting, the heavier aircraft will be a little slower, maybe 1 or two kts. You will NOT save any significant fuel by going to the smaller engine. If you find yuourself in a position that you want to conserve fuel, simply pull the throttle back and redo the mixture. Waiter

I don't know of any LongEZs that were built with the O-200. Personally, I prefer the O-320 (160hp) Waiter