argoldman

Greetings T. You can build a heat tent over your parts. Consider using PVC pipe and a layer of 6 mil plastic on the outside of the framework and one on the inside of the framework (to act as an insulator) then you can use a relatively small electric heater (with fan) (I think that they call them "milking heaters") to raise the temp to the desired, at relatively little cost. You can make the frames as simple or complex as you want to allow a one time or multiple uses. Fairly cheap and if designed properly, easily stoable when not needed. Since you will not be in the area much of the operational time use proper safety precautions.

Joe, If I am not mistaken, those lay-up schedules were revised with respect to the canard-tip wheels. In the prototype, they found that after a time, the canard sagged giving less prop clearance at takeoff and landing attitude (minimal at best). Additionally, hard landings with the increased spring of the diving board type gear caused the same decrease (although almost instantaneously.) Rex's (Taylor) solution was to heat the canard, bend it to the original anhedral and let it cool. The hoop and inboard mounted main gear do not put nearly as much of a load or bending moment on the tips of the canard spar, and probably the additional sparcap layup was not necessary. When a dragonfly broke a canard it was usually the result of a badly botched landing (I did it on my first-- no dual in a dragonfly--thought my years of experience would suffice). there, if I can remember was a considerable amount of conversation about if various parts are made stronger, the failure mode would be at a different part of the aircraft (bulkheads in the case of the D-fly). One point of notice is that these canards did not break at the outside (only 2 layers of carbon as I remember) but broke close to the fuselage where the carbon layups are max. Additionally there was talk that the breaks happened where the canard emerged from the fuselage and were indeed touching the fuselage at that point (design as opposed to the Q birds specified clearance) which served as a "kink" point. Mine failed about 10-12" outboard of this point. (outboard gear, at that point-- changed to hoop in the new canard) That being said, it probably would be prudent to do the extra layers. I personally would endorse the hoop gear. (x-dragonfly N222TH (MK II-h)

What he may be selling is the biaxial fabric which is basically two unidirectional fabrics (without the cross hairs) laid on top of each other and stitched together (lightly) Ounce for ounce this fabric is actually stronger (I believe about 20%) than the standard knitted fabric since all of the strands are straight and don't have to weave in between other stands. If the weight is the same and if the quality of the binder is good ( a big quesiton-- the binder is that chemical which binds the epoxy, or other resin, to the glass, as without it, there is no binding). The fuselage parts of the aerocanard kit are made of this material. ACS and wicks sell what they call bidirectional woven (as opposed to knitted). However if you take a 90degree biderectional and cut it on a 45 degree angle, you have 45 degree fabric. It may be a little easier to handle. the waste that you will have at the beginning and end of the roll will be used for many future layups. The main thing is to get fabric from a reliable manufacturer. Don't cheap out here as using bad glass is tantamount to building a metal plane out of corroded aluminum. Be advised that if glass fabric is moistened with water, the binder becomes compromised, for our uses.

T. You could mount it under the canard as pitot's have been mounted under wings in most certified aircraft and all RVs. You could also mount it on the side of the nose in the fashion of the C310 and many jets. The problem with this mounting, and possibly the mounting that you alluded to in your above paragraph is that there is a weep hole in the bottom of the pitot tube that allows water (melted ice) to escape. If this is not perpendicular(oid) to the ground, water will accumulate in the mechanism defeating its use.

Great idea if you want to have a holy mess, be breathing glass fibers the rest of your life and have your walls coated with grunge. I did that very thing, using a 1/8" spacer between the template and the glassed bulkhead to be so that the guide would ride on the template and cut the bulkhead true. I mounted the router on a router table and additionally mounted a shop-vac hose with about a 1/8" clearance, to evacuate the detritus. Sure did make nice looking parts, except when I slipped and had a few correctable dents. The mess was incredible even with the vacuum. I would never do it again. It was actually 2X the work, and I am still picking the glass spicules out of my Keister. A much better way to do it, I think, and the way that I would do it were I have to do it again, is to draw the glass distribution on the rough cut oversize foam. Glass appropriately, extending about 1" beyond your lines. After the sandwich is cooked, if your lines are not visible, through the glass, use your paper templates, redraw the lines, and using a band saw with a 1/4" metal cutting blade, cut out your parts. Much neater and faster. Understand that when you use a metal cutting blade for glass, it is forever ruined for metal, but will cut glass wonderfully for a long time. Time your projects so that you don't have to keep changing and buying new blades. I would definitely place peelply on the areas that will receive further glass, or the whole thing, at your pleasure. I then would put a layer of plastic over the sandwich. Then I put a flat board (I used kitchen sink cutouts from a cabinet maker) over the sandwich, weighted it down and let the thing cure. When you get a little confidence, you can actually do both sides at the same glassing session. (make sure you put plastic on the first side (I used 1 mil) before turning it over on your glassing table. (vacuum bag if you like) The weighted board keeps things flat when curing. FWIW, when you actually install the bulkheads, you will find that micrometer accuracy is not required. Welcome to the fold:)

The aerocanard kit fuselage parts are made of bi-axial cloth(knitted), not woven. It is relatively easy to handle and has better strength characteristics for equal weight fabric. The triaxial, however although having the better increased qualities is difficult to handle as it is easy to displace the fibers. It also has a much wavier surface than uni on top since the fibers are coarser. Bagging will probably decrease this, however.

thanks for the warning, Chrissie, I was kinda hoping to use the propane as additional lightweight fuel but decided not to because of the odor. Using Freon, I might be able to air condition my cabin. Happy New Year!! to you and all

What about if the Baro pressure changes also???? I like the sniffer Idea. Hopefully I will be able to borrow one when the time comes.

Lynn, Agreed, Every legal challange the Nat put in Jeff's way was stricken down, even though Nat's budget for legal work was unlimited (his daughter), and Jeffs was limited to self-representation. According to Jeff, this disgust and cost caused him to discontinue his business, a great loss to the community. The company continues with Al at aerocad. If the plans were simply illegal copies of Nat's, ACS would be breathing down the neck of Aerocad!!! As with many disagreements, there usually is much more to them than the facts which we choose to filter in or out.

Same back to Ya-s:)

Boy, wrong on two accounts in one posting. Thanks for keeping me honest. (after all I come from Illinois-- anybody want to buy an aircraft seat???) The wing was indeed a metal twin. The aircraft that I was thinking of and renamed, as well as adding an additional engine to was the Windecker Eagle. My understanding is that Midwest certified the single rotor 50 HP Norton derivative JAR someting or other. They took the 2 rotor and fuel injected it as the 110R and were in the process of trying to get it certified also. Diamond aircraft bought 100% of the stock in the company marketed the engines, under their name, and ultimately closed the company. I am told that hey now produce a 1 rotor variation. I own a midwest 110R which was in my dragonfly. It was rebuilt to the 110R by Midwest, from the 100R, after diamond bought the company. My original engine bore the Norton name plate. After the remanufacture, it bore the Midwest moniker. I spoke to Shaw before his flight of the twin and heard nothing since then about the aircraft. Thanks for the update I still hold to the facts stated about the twin vs single (I was more awake by then)

As a matter of history, a twin e-z was worked on by the developer of the Europa. It utilized 2 midwest rotaries. I think that he stopped the project before finished. Not sure what you meant by saying "I don't think you can work out a twin on a two place (or a four place for that matter) and have the second engine do much for you." Two and four passenger twins are viable. (the two passenger, the wing derringer was the first certified glass aircraft). What centerline thrust does for the pilot, theoretically, is to eliminate the problem of the critical engine and make handling, in the event of engine loss, similar to that of a single. Cessna, in their 337 (sky/mix master, push-me pull-you) and the earlier 336 (non-retract) felt the same way and expected a drastic decrease in engine out accidents/fatalities with that configuration. They were wrong and that plane had the HIGHEST rate. The problem wasn't the arrangement of the engines, but lay in the hands of the pilots who when they had a rear engine loss, (usually on takeoff) didn't recognize it, climbed as if both fans were spinning and stalled at low altitude. Again not the fault of the airplane. The AD notes that followed were, as I remember, a light indicating proper operation of the rear engine and the necessity to throttle the rear engine to full power before advancing the throttle of the front engine for takeoff. Now as to the question of what the second engine does for you. That is a great question but it's answer depends on many factors. If you loose an engine on takeoff, the conventional twin can be a negative as it gives you the opportunity to make the wrong decision. Logically the twin should be able to take off and climb well on one engine, however with an engine failure, the first decision that must be made is "should I get this plane on the ground now. In a single this decision is made for you. In a twin, the answer is "that depends" and here is the first possible fatal error. In a twin there is a speed Vmc under which with full power on one engine and no power on one, the aircraft is uncontrollable and will roll independent of control position. This problem actually increases with the increase of power in the good engine. Above this airspeed, or if above stall, by reducing the power on the good engine sufficiently, controlability is adequate. When an aircraft looses 50% of power it is not the same as reducing power by 50%. The dead engine/prop, etc adds huge drag. With one engine pumping and the other loafing, most twins (non turboed) are quite marginal (especially at or above gross as in taking off for a long flight) With an engine failure, you must clean the plane up right now as if the airspeed decreases (remember we just lost 50% of our thrust) below VMC you are toast. In a short period of time, you must raise the gear, raise the flaps, Identify the dead engine (not as easy as one would imagine as the sweat is pouring down your spine) retard the throttle, check if you are right, feather the prop, and isolate the engine from the aircraft (mixture fuel, electrical, etc) With most non-turbo twins, the climb rate with this scenario, assuming everything is done right will be quite anemic and in some planes (twin Navion) will be negative. So engine failure on takeoff enables you to make a whole bunch of fatal mistakes. That's where training and practice come in. If you do everything right, and are at an airport with a adequate DA, you can climb out and return for a landing with just a laundry bill. Many times an engine failure at takeoff should be treated as a failure in a single engine plane. Now let's talk about single engine failure once straight and level, or without the necessity to climb somewhat rapidly. If you are relatively awake, the VMC problem doesn't exist since you are well above that speed. The same engine isolation techniques must be made, however you have plenty of time to do them in, and if you make a mistake, you just loose a little altitude before recognizing and correcting them. If you are below the single engine service ceiling usually not much more than 3-4Kfeet (again don't overgross) the aircraft will fly like a single, albeit that strong rudder correction toward the good engine (that's why twins have rudder trim) is vital and the necessity to fly good engine wing slightly low for best efficiency is there. Twins are usually equipped with cross-fed fuel options which allow you to feed the good engine off of the tank that the dead engine would have sucked from. You can fly until the tanks are dry merrily going along, although slower. Some problems with older planes are the question which engine turns the generator (remember I said older), the vacuum pump and the gear hydraulics. Go-arounds although possible, understanding the situation are not specifically recommended. So when is the twin better. Well if you plan to do a lot of over the water flying, or flying in relatively low land (desert etc) where there is not a plethora of landing spots or very hostile tarrain twins are a great + If you or GIB or GIS like the ability not to have to put the plane down in possibly hostile circumstances (with the exception of T.O.) they are a plus. If you fly a lot of instrument flights, under the same circumstances, it may save your bacon. Some twins have an increase in usuable compared to a similar single. Some a higher cruise. Modern twins have duplication of most of the necessaries, ie alternator, vacuum, etc. The Macho of grabbing a fistfull of throttles can't be underestimated. The negatives of the twin are as follows. Two of everything expensive and self-destructive. Some say twice the potential for engine failure since you have 2 engines. Higher cost of maintainence. The necessity to constantly train and practice for, safety if you have to use the twins advantages during takeoff. So, it depends on your mission. It is not a case of one or the other. "when I had singles, I wanted twins-- When I had twins, I wanted singles" Happy holidays to all!!!

Greatly saddened to hear

!!!DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMER!!! None of the opinions in this answer should be construed, in any way to indicate my approval or disapproval of the use of latex gloves. Such was not my intent, if it were misinterpreted, or possibly misstated, it were a grevious fault, and through you I am paying for it greviously. I too am appalled by unprotected spex (glass). As you so aptly stated, epoxy on the skin followed by acetone is mainlining. My main concern with this is the effect that these products have on the organs of the body, secondarily to the allergic potential if it exists in the individual. One of the above sources, The American Latex Allergy Association quotes the following: "Latex proteins are water soluble. Manufacturing processes including washing, chlorination and other treatments can reduce the burden of latex protein antigen. Low protein, powder-free gloves have minimal potential for sensitization in those who have not yet become sensitized to latex. " In the immortal words of The Fantstics, "So you see, the sort of rape depends on what you pay! Yes, but if the above is to be trusted, (which is as questionable as any findings in literature), the available empty cartridge spaces of the kelachnikof has been increased from 6 cartridges to practically an infinite number. One of the problems that clinicians have is the fact that many times, practical experience contradicts printed literature. I can't speak about the literature in the engineering field, however in the Medical arts, I have found that many times it is necessary to be an expert the in subject about which you are reading. Literature is based on references and the references based on others. Many times for reasons which I won't go into here, authors cherry pick references to substantiate their preconceived conclusions. Additionally, unless there is a differentiation between exposure to powdered vs non-powdered masked vs non-masked, type of glove, length of wearing etc etc (notice all of the etcs) the conclusion is suspect. We do not all wear size 10 shoes. This is not to say that latex allergies don't exist, but it is to say that the stats of the research that you captioned may not be right. In my admittedly non-scientific polling, I have found few latex allergies in those that I know. Now we are getting into the real skin, irritated or not, of the problem From my reading, although somewhat limited, latex and nitrile both serve as barriers to our bad stuff. The real measure is that of penetration time, that is how long the material has to be on the barrier before some of it gets through. It seems like Nitrile has about 2X the staying power. HOWEVER there is a range, depending on the thickness of the glove and the manufacturing technique. Interestingly enough, the lower end of nitrile is at the same level as the upper level of latex. So it goes back to the quote from the Fantastics mentioned before. In reality, it seems, if you are going to do your layups by hand (IE have your gloved surfaces saturated with epoxy), use cast iron gloves. If you use the glove to protect you from the occasional "oops" then you have the choice of changing latex gloves often or changing nitrile gloves somewhat less often for the same amount of protection... of so it seems. So in conclusion, whatever glove you choose, and for whatever reason, change them frequently cause they all leak:mad: Now we can start a discussion of appropriate breathing apparatus to be used when dealing with the goo!!!!!!!!!!! By the way, I don't think many of us realize the time and effort that Marc puts into his answers, in the above format, to make it easier for us to understand. It is a massive job, Thank you Marc for doing it.

If you noticed, I specifically stated that I did not want to comment on the latex/nonlatex allergy barrier potential but only gave my personal example. This was not an endorsement of latex to be used as a barrier. Yes, it is true that you don't have an allergic reaction until you do, it is also true that all do not have allergic reactions to the same allergen. Were this true, we would all have allergies to breathing the epoxy fumes, we would all have allergies to even wearing latex gloves, we all would have hay fever, we all would be allergic to our own sweat, we all would be allergic to all of the antibiotics and most medications. Etc Etc. Susceptibility to allergies is an individual thing, not a given. Latex allergies depend, to a certain extent on the quality of the rubber used in the gloves. Even with the poor quality gloves (cheap), used by many, the rate of allergy is very small. How many dental patients have had a real allergy to these gloves? How many Prostate exams resulted in an allergic reaction? How many condoms have caused allergic reactions? More telling is the relatively small number of health care workers who wear these things, almost constantly, and have for decades, who have never had a reaction attributable to the latex itself. Latex is still the material of choice for clinical gloves in the general health care community. That said, I do subscribe, in general with your philosophy of wearing the best protection that you can. With the assumption that you may be allergic. Or absolutely if there is a history of allergy to a material. I personally can eat all of the strawberries that I want as well as all of the peanuts. I do not, however recommend this to individuals allergic to those materials. I did find, however that the intense itching that I experienced in the beginning of my glassing career, which I thought might have been an allergy, disappeared completely when I started wearing gloves while I cut the glass off of the roll, and when I Feined or abraded cured epoxy/glass. It was, for me, obviously a mechanical irritation. Happy holidays, Marc, If I don't talk to you before.

The fact that the itching is restricted to your hands is a fair indication (although not conclusive) that your problem is contact (either allergy or other) Without getting into the argument of latex vs others, one thing that comes to mind, especially when you are doing large layups is the fact that you have to cut the glass in preparation. It is vital that you wear gloves of some sort (latex) during this operation. Might not be a bad idea to wear a face mask. Cutting the glass creates a multitude of tiny chards of glass that you can't see, but become embedded in your pores and can itch like crazy. A skin barrier can attempt to fill those pores and reduce the problem but then you have the possible glass contamination by the product. Wear the gloves with cotton liners, replace them when the liners get moist. I personally have been using latex (unpowdered) since 1980. I change them often and have never had a dermatological or systemic allergy problem.

OK-- Not aviation related except that I think y'all will enjoy the below link. If you like History and animation read further, if not get back to building your airplanes!!!!! If you have a minute, go to www.history.com. the marquis that comes up will switch between 4 selections of video starting with "UFO Hunters Click on the #4 button or let it sequence to "Great and telling tales" There are about 10 approx. 1 minute animated videos which I think that you will enjoy. This was my son's yearlong project that he did for the History channel. He just released them a little while ago.

Can't speak to the aerobatic capabilities, however two years ago at RR we were treated to a great aerobatic routine done by either a long or a Veri. (I think) As far as the long or the cozy III, if you plan to do any traveling in it, do the III. One of the problems with these 2 pax planes is lack of baggage space. Although there is some space in the strakes, if there is a GIS (girl on side) get all of the baggage space you can. My prior plane was a dragonfly. Wonderful 2 placer. However, when we traveled, we needed to UPS our baggage. This caution is true whether you do one of the E-Zs or RVs. There is nothing more useless than the altitude above you, the runway in back of you and the baggage space you don't have

Steve, I hope you are right...... That's what we said about our dear departated Meigs field. It depends on the clout available.

Jeff if you google Fein, you will see some TV advertisements which show the use of the various blades. You will find that the Circular HSS one ( full or otherwise) is the one that you will mainly use It will also last practically forever even on glass. There probably are many (long-waste) areas of your finished wing on which you can try the tool without risking the structure. The tool is very easy to use, it does not grab. One word of advise is to let the tool do the work. Don't strong arm it.

Sometimes what we look for is right under our spruce. that's the switch that was talked about. Really simplifies things:)

I wonder if the mandril size is the same as the fein. Most of the blades are a fraction of the cost of the Fein even at discount websites. The sanding attachment, however is more expensive

Just saw an ad for a Fein Knockoff. this one is made by Rockwell and is called the "Sonicrafter". In a kit it is about 1/2 the cost of the fein. Anybody heard of this one????

Great Idea JP Make sure they are the right impedance-- those listed on the site are 75 ohm, don't we operate with 50 ohm impedance.-- or has my mind slipped another cog?

If you want to do it on the cheap, bring one of your com antennas to a male BNC (chassis mount) mounted on your panel. Then bring your antenna wire from your tranciever to a close position on your panel with a loop of wire (doesn't have to be long) with a female BNC on the end of it. Connect the two together for normal operation. Make a jumper cable from our handheld with a female BNC on the free end (make the cable long enough so you don't have to stretch when connected to the above mentioned bnc on the panel. The if you want to use your handheld, disconnect the female from the assembly and connect the female from your handheld. No switch cost very little. She may be ugly, but she sure can cook:cool: