argoldman

Not only can it be stored but you can fill it enroute if you deplane a passenger. (also may come in handy for CG shifting on long flights)[forward shift of liquid weight for those of you not awake yet]

I believe those parts are available from Chrissi and Randi.

Exactly the point of previous posts....Chocolate chip please:cool: Heaviness may be desirable on the elevator since canards are pitch sensitive, but the ailerons????-- especially as airspeed increases---( But then again some people like the way a C210 or C310 feels.) All systems, except direct connection will have some drag and slop. the different systems will have more or less drag and slop depending on their design and the tolerance of the parts used. Why did Velo go away from the torque tube design used by all of the previous ez flock? Push-pull cables are great for throttle and transmission on boats where they must traverse many feet (depending on the size of the craft) sometimes going in circuitous paths from start to finish. They are also good on our throttles, mixtures, and prop controls.I am going to use them on my auto-locking mechanism of my canopy ( a subject for a future post). For control surfaces, however, maybe not so good. Hydraulics might be an idea, what about servo motors or linear actuators? what about computer control of these (we can call it a Canard Bus-- Or do we want to keep it simple on our birds. Perhaps a simple pull-pull cable system would be better, been used on tail feathers and ailerons forever. I, like Jeff Russell, considered using PP cables for my ailerons from the firewall bell cranks to the aileron torque tubes. Like him, I decided not to. Speaking of PP, I have to take my dog, Grover. for a walk now:rolleyes:

Greetings Brett, Just out of curiosity, if the marine push-pulls work fine, what is the stimulus for the lighter lower friction variety??? Certainly the weight difference can't be significant. Thanks in advance

Looks good on paper. (electrons) I think that Velocity uses short push-pull cables from firewall to aileron bell cranks. Jeff Russell tried the same thing with the Aerocanard. He didn't continue that either because he sold the company or found the resistance to be too great. The only thing I would be concerned about is the resistance, to movement, that that length of cable would cause-- as well as the added weight. In this application, all you need is a pulling action, not a pushing action since the rudders only deploy outward. They are returned by a relatively weak spring in the winglet as well as air loads. (there is an other relatively light spring at the rudder pedals to keep some tension on the cables. Are you purposing to use a howitzer to kill an ant??

Look at the Gemini engine. Diesel, two pistons in each cylinder, fuel injected between the two pistons, they approach eachother, compress the mixture and poof you get the power. This engine has a crank where the typical valves are, one for each side, and they are geared to the prop flange. They have not flown but appeantly have a lot of dyno time and will soon be testing. They have a 100hp model (shown at OSH-- Looks great) and will, in the future have 200 to more HP. http://ppdgemini.com/_PDF/Gemini_100_Spec_Sheet_1-10-09_B&W.pdf

What about moving the gear holding gussets at the firewall to the forward face of what amounts to the rear gear bulkhead and welding the nut (or preferably riveting a anchor nut) to the aft face of those gussets. You will then be able remove the gear retaining bolts through the forward gear bulkhead replacement and you won't have to penetrate the firewall. I'm sure that 1/2"ers can be found. I don't like the idea of welding a nut here, as the hardness of nuts (from what I understand) is specifically designed to deform slightly when torqued. I would hate to see this hardness(?) modified by the heat of the welding process. If you really are convinced that welding is the way to go, why not make the gusset thicker and tap it?? In all cases other than the self-locking anchor nut you will need some sort of safety wiring to prevent or identify rotation of the bolt. (might not be a bad idea even with the self-locking persuasion.) Just some ideas

I'm going up Thursday. Chris, I would suggest, if possible that you get there Thursday earlier. There is a Cozy bar-b-q at Mark Beduhn's hanger on the field at 4:00 P.M..

Cirrus, Cessna corvalis (renamed lancair) and of course don't forget Airbus.

Happened sooner than I thought. Nothing here is in scale I did it in Word and converted it. Don't have access to nor training in CAD. (tail between my canards) If you want to use the same torque tubes for ailerons and elevators in a standard tail plane you have to connect the tubes so they glide together and have bearings which allow linear movement as well as twisting. You can use this same planning for that. If a canard, make it simple and foolproof and copy the way Burt did it. Elegant in it's simplicity. uneven torqu.pdf

Chris, I will try to get a drawing together, if I don't post it in a couple of days, bug me constantly either through my e-mail or through a PM. The technique that I specified can also be used with cables. you might have to make a couple of idlers to accomplish the same result. Rich

Another suggestion might be to use Temperfoam for your seat cusheons. Much more comfortable on long trips not to mention the safety factor. One problem with it is that when you get into the plane and it is cold, it feels like you are sitting on concrete until it gets warmed up by your "natural glow", or the results of your high carbohydrate snack. (open the vents)

Not really a big prob. The fact that the two tubes are not at the same waterline is immaterial. There are only two main factors (I assume that you are talking about the aileron torque tubes, although the elevator push/pull tubes are similar--only pushing and pulling. In the typical installation, the tubes are brought through the firewall and then connected together with one a bellcrank which also connects to the motion changer and then to the aileron bellcrank. All that is necessary is to remember that the length of all bellcranks that connect the two sides, (and if the geometry on one side is changed at the firewall- the cranks to the motion changer on that side) be the same length and to put a push-pull tube between theses. The orientation of the bellcranks on the tubes should be such that when the control is in nutral position, these cranks (one on each tube) must be parallel to each other and the push/pull tube between the two tubes be routed parallel to a line between the two tubes(perpendicular to the torque tubes). The length of these bell cranks is immaterial as long as they are identical. What you want is, at nutral aileron position, a rectangle made up by the line between the two torque tubes, the interconnecting push pull tube and the two bell cranks, rather than a rhomboid. (it will become a rhomboid as the controls are moved from nutral.) The equal length and orientation is critical to prevent unequal movement or the two control surfaces. Finding a location where you can put the bellcranks is another situation, however, but not insurmountable. Good luck

One thing that I would consider, since you have, what appears to be a relatively wide fuselage and wide arm rests, make the rests a little (as much as possible) thinner so that upholstery (whether it be the plane, or yours:p ) can fit in better and be more comfortable. As one 'matures' the added width will be appreciated. Give youself as much hip room as possible. Less necessary as you go forward as your legs have to fit under the instrument panel.

The construction videos are quite good with the following caveats: (I think that the disks are just diskafication of the videos.) They follow the construction of the kit aerocanard but they would also be of benefit since they give an overall view of what you are doing and are of great help assembling the parts if you decide to do the plans version. Now for the bad part. The video's appear rather schizophrenic. They were filmed by Jeff Russell (original owner of aerocad and builder of the molds in which these parts are made). When he was filming, it appeared as if he was building 3 different aircraft at the same time and the sequence shown is really no sequence at all. He goes from plane to plane and if he has his camera available, that is what comes next, even though there is a rough table of contents. Filming is done with large fans on, rain beating down on the hanger roof, etc. There's even a scene with the attack of his killer kitten (you will recognize it when you see it.) that being said, get the videos are a great help. If you are going to use pre-fab parts, they are a must. As a matter of fact, if you know glass well, you could probably build most of the aircraft without referring to the plans. (don't do it). Also realize that what takes Jeff 10 minutes to do on the video may take you 2 or more weeks. One thing that the videos do do is go give you confidence that the aircraft really can be built. Unless you have a neighbor who is building one, and you can go there for a "shot in the arm" every once in a while, just view some of the disks and be reinvigorated. Each disk starts out with one of the planes that was under construction doing it's first flight. The major prefab parts that you can get from aerocad are: A: Prefabricated tub, top and cowl B: prefabricated strakes c: misc fairings, pants etc. All of the other parts (weldments, controls etc) are available from the Cozy Girrrls (a great resource-- get to know them) and various other places. Use this forum as well as getting on Marc Zeitlin's--- Hell, get on em all. After reading for a while you will get some idea of how to separate the wheat from the chaff. (including what I write) Also available are wings, canard, spar from various sources including aerocad. These parts, in the video's will magically appear, if you make them yourself they will appear after much labor. All in all, worth the hundred or so that they cost, if you are going to build either kit or scratch or amalgmation. Additionally, if you are getting serious about building, and you are not familiar with building with glass, viewing the videos may help you make a go or no-go decision. My rating 3 out of 5 canards :rolleyes:

Apparently, Al has expanded. and has a new website. There is a link to the aerocanard pages which is DOA at this point. It links to www.aerocanard.com. which is the old aerocanard site.

You can get them at: http://www.aerocanard.com

Lynn, it's great that the sanding doesn't seem to have an effect on the way your plane flies. My guess is that if one left out some of the suggested lay-ups your plane would not fly much differently. (my further guess is that this has been done in many flying glass craft, of course when there is a in-flight failure, the first thing that is mentioned is the non-standard layup schedule) That's not the point. The point is the question of whether sandblasting increases or decreases the bond strength. If it increases the strength, it is of little consequence (other than ease(?). If it decreases the strength, that may be a different story. Does anybody have the ability to make up coupons of each and test them. I seem to remember, back in the days of yore, when Burt was trying to prove that his glass (rather than the Burlington, similar weave, he made coupons and tested them to destruction. Lynn, your plane may fly great, but is it flying on the verge of destruction or well within the structural strength specifications? Please don't interpret this statement to imply in any way that I think that your plane isn't as strong or stronger than most, but the fact that your plane is not effected by sanding/not sanding/ etc may mislead some on this list. I am all for modifications, as those who have seen my project and my previous dragonfly project can attest to. However when it comes to changes of structural matters, which differ from those specified in the plans, I am personally somewhat leery until some mechanical testing and/ or engineering work has been done. How about some tests. Virtually every aircraft that has met it's untimely end, has taken off with it's pilot fairly sure that he/she would come down safely. And indeed it did function/fly well, sometimes for multiple hundreds or thousands of hours ,until the problem (possibly built-in) reared its head. I don't need a PHD thesis relating the benefits of a specific procedure, but I do need something more than "It works for me"

To the best of any body's knowledge, has anybody looked at the sandblasted surface with a binocular microscope or any high magnification glass? I wold imagine, also that the type of medium, itself would have some effect. In my microscopic mind's eye, I see millions of tiny stress concentrators (crack starters), each on a grain of sand or whaterver, where we might not want them.

One question that I have always had about sandblasting, and that is, --- is there any residue of the blasting medium remaining embedded in the epoxy substrate??? This would be important, less so in the finishing application since an ultra-strong bond is not critical, after all if the bond is not good, the worse that can happen is a flake or so chips off. If, however a structural bond is weaker because of media inclusions, the result may be more catastrophic. Has anybody looked into Dry-ice blasting. That stuff evaporates (actually the word is sublimate). I know that it is used for paint stripping, but will it etch composite?

Ya girrrls, but how do you get wires and tubes through those click bonds. Do they have hollow ones??? :p

Vortex generators have a good effect on many aircraft. With the Canards, it is important to have them on both the wing and the canard. Mark Beduhn has them on his.

Great Idea T. you don't need the messy silicone as when the tube shrinks it will seal the threads. If you want to seal the top, while it is still hot, with moistened fingers, fold it over, pinch it and when it cools (the wet fingers prevent it from burning you) you are good to go.

Lynn, I would second your emotion about the dragonfly vs the Q200. I also agree with your understanding of the canardtip gear. Burt designed the quickie (single place) to be fast, easy and use an 18 hp engine (I think ONAN) using the diving-board-like canard to absorb the landing forces. (cheap and easy) When Gary LeGare redesigned it to a 2 place, it became a real hot-rod, especially with the O200 engine (and the new canard. (it was originally designed for a VW with, I believe a GU canard). Bob Walters (an ex-top gun and AE, while furloughed from an airline) took the basic concept of the Quickie and expanded it to a 2 place with manners, called the dragonfly. My understanding is that this was done without knowledge of the quickie company who was, with Gary, attempting the same thing. (Walters was finished first and brought it to OSH the next year, or thereabouts) The Dragonfly has much more wing and canard area and the geometry is different. This made it a really delightful aircraft to fly. It was originally designed with the outboard gear (the canard is flexible and strong enough to withstand this and it made sense) There are still those who built the d-fly with this gear and love it. It does have several problems which are the main reasons that most of the currently constructed ones have inboard gear of the tail-dragger variety. A few have gone to tri-gear. The canard outboard mounted gear is very sensitive to any pebble (a hyperbole) that one gear hits before the other as the arm is quite large and ground handling is a little squirrly. Additionally since the wheel base (between the wheels) is about 20' taxiing on smaller taxiways is a challenge. It is also quite springy and relative intolerant to hard "arrivals" Landings, because of this long lateral moment become more tricky. The result is that early on, inboard gear was developed, originally mounted in sockets embedded into the canard (called the MK II). these gear legs were formed fiberglass They suffered some weaknesses where they were bent to get around the wheels and provide a pad for the axle.-- Come to think of it, I don't remember anybody in the early days protecting them from IR-- perhaps that's why they broke). Anyway shortly after that, the hoop gear was developed (MK II-H), a gear similar to the e-zs. Some made this out of steel also. The inboard gear (combined with removing the anhedral of the canard) took an iffy plane and made it a delight to fly, and land (as long as you landed it like a canard, and not like a skyhawk. In the tailwheel configuration (with actually few of the typical tailwheel problems of other planes), the wing starts to fly when the airspeed gets to a certain point, (from what I remember about 60K). you have no control of this since the elevators are on the canard. The tail wheel just pops up at that airspeed. It does not continue to rise as it will go into a negative angle of attack, so you don't nose over on takeoff. When you arrive at canard flying airspeed, a little back pressure and the plane just levitates. Landing is much like any other canard, come in close to the ground, flair only into takeoff attitude. With the tailwheel configuration, when you feel the first main gear touch the ground, do full forward stick-- no it won't nose over, but the up elevator will nail the canard to the ground so you can slow down and when you reach the magic airspeed, the tail will gently lower. Judicious braking is the word of the day as you can nose over with heavy feet. It does give plenty of warning so you can get off of the clampers. Then came the nosewheel configuration where the gear was angled differently and the nosewheel put on. I personally don't think that that was much of an improvement since the tailwheel was so easy to fly. So a little dragonfly History.. Colin, If you are going to go this route, get on the dragonfly list. A bunch of good people, willing to help if needed.

One thing you might try, or at leaset consider is the Lamb tire (or it's replacement. It is smaller than the 500X5, and if memory serves me correctly it will fit on the same wheel. (at least I think as I was able to mount 500X5s on the wheel that originally had a lamb tire on it.