airwrench

I see how crapped-up the hardnener gets when exposed to air (it crystalizes)

 

-----> Oh, that's right. I keep forgetting about you MGS users. I use EZ-Poxy and have never had a crystallization problem. My pumps are over 20 years old and I haven't had a problem with them either. (The point being there are epoxy systems that don't crystalize.....)

I was amazed as well, been using my pump over six months with ez poxy and never a glitch!! (been through about 9 gallons) Very pleased with the inexpensive and reliable hand pumps, just wish the dispensed a little quicker!

 

As far as reuse of cups go, well, with epoxy 2 or 3 times, never after flox or micro........The real art is to know how much you need, make it and have nothing more than a few tablespoons left!!(not an artist)

I agree 100%. With 360 HP, it does not help a great deal. I have installed an adjustable wastegate on my intake side to try to improve MPG. I'll let everyone know how effective it is after all my testing is complete. This stripping project is a pain in the butt.

 

Jack

MPG numbers are nice when you are not trying to go around the pack. You know, those times when you fall out of altitude and drop in for a little sight seeing, 15+ gph just gets into the pocketbook a little more than comfort allows. I am building a 13B, using a T-4 turbo and the stock injection system. I will probably bump high horsepower for a moment, til the temps tell me to back out of it!!!!!!!!! I thought for a long time about putting a IO540 in my ez but, getting good fuel numbers is hard. My goal is to have good long range and acceptable cruise performance.....hope to hang around 200 kts while still staying in the ballpark on the fuel usage. If I had 360hp in the back, lookout!!!!!!!!!!!!! Enjoy the paintwork:)

anytime you get to toss ballast overboard you gain at every level, and it is always nice to be able to carry a little extra fuel on those long----ain't got time to stop trips!

Yes, that's right. Scaled hired me because they want the safety and comfort of those that can only think inside the box, and Richard, who was instrumental in bringing the Berkut to market, also is a staid, inside-the-boxer.

 

There is the remote possibility that we have a slight clue about this issue, no?

sorry\, never ment it that way, suppose I should have simply used the word "conventional" in regards to thought???

I wonder if you can point me to one aircraft under 12K lb. MGW that uses hydraulic controls for flight surfaces - especially non-redundant ones. Having a redundant pump does not a redundant system make.

 

So you're going to use boosted controls on an aircraft that weighs less than 2000 lb? You are aware, of course, that there are MINIMUM force requirements for control surfaces for controllability reasons, right? Given that canards already have pitch forces than many feel are too light, you'd need negative boost for pitch.

 

Uh huh. Which trim tabs would those be? Pitch? Nope. Yaw? Nope. Roll? Nope. Maybe I've forgotten an axis?

 

Hmmm. So you're going to increase the empty weight of the aircraft by about 10% so that you can reduce reliability, complicate the systems, screw with the handling characteristics, and eliminate trim systems that don't exist? You know, of course, that even aircraft with hydraulically boosted controls have trim systems.....

 

Which autopilot for small GA aircraft works with hydraulic controls?

 

Or are you just trolling with this post to see what reaction you'll get out of the engineers in the group?

Sir, I am very aware that hydraulics take all the "feel" away from flying. I also am well aware of some of the perceived complications associated with hydraulics some people have. Sure, not much pressure is required, and since many have pointed out the drawbacks of hydraulics I cannot go against the grain anymore and will simply show up with the end result. I do realize certains hazards with hydraulics, the same hazards found in defeating gravity and acheiving flight. No, I do not need to overcome twenty some grand of force to move an aileron at speed..........its experimental aircraft, remember?

Controlling pressures are easilly acheivable, making a system completely immune to failure...........sure, when they make a swage that never fails or

a storm that never appears on the horizon.

I anticipated a certain backlash, actually it was mild compared to some of the other comments made on this site. Rather than ride in the seat free of risk, I choose to take the one where an idea might be taken to its inevitable end. (besides, mechanical redundancy can still be incorporated)

Appreciated the grill

I hope you're trolling.

trolling???????Me......very uncharactaristic, but knew how maddening the idea would be to those inside the box

What trim tabs will be done away with?

elevator bungies

May comes and my fuselage is complete!!!!!!!!But......(how do I say this?)

I ordered another backbreaker box of foam and have started to build my second fuselage. This one will incorporate ideas I had after constructing the first one, and naturally will reflect this strange need of speed.

 

I will be ten feet long from F-22 to firewall. 1 1/2 " taller from plans, the F-22 will be one inch taller, and spread the rest out along the line. The width will be 30" at the front seat bulkhead, 2 1/2 inches at the firewall increase, the rest broken down and moved to allow a flowing profile.

 

Reasons?.....Ok, ok......bigger moter aquired, role of aircraft changed somewhat. She is going to be a hydraulically actuated machine from the standpoint of ailerons, rudders, elevators, landing brake, landing gear (3)

Engine driven pressure compensated pump primary, electric driven standby.

(comfortable redundancy) I happen to work every day with equiptment which is hydraulically operated, tons of it, and decided to do the math and came up with a system which will require minimul pressure and do away totally with trim tabs all around.

 

Anticipated weight increase of complete system will be 100lbs........ease of flight free of constant trim changes=priceless. Naturally the autopilot will work marvelously with hydraulics, all will come out in wash if it don't.

All is coming along well. After shaping the fuse I laid a course of bi directional kevlar along the bottom from F-22 to the firewall, it draped about four inches below the bottom longeron. (just in case of a front page landing, thought it would provide some deterant to shattering fiberglass) Next step will be to wrap the rascal in UND, per plans, and move towards the canard.

Contrary to plans, I did lay kevlar in the floor pans. A little extra strength in the traffic areas can't be a bad thing.

 

I plan to use the infinity retracts.....wilhelmson nose gear, a souped up 13 B mazda rotary, an electric adjustable three bladed MT prop. I suppose I will have to begin to reach into my pocket and stop griping about the cost. (which is nothing compared to a factory built )

 

I am 4" wider in the front seat..........two inches wider in the rear, and six and one half in overall length thusfar. I am going the way of the long nose in an effort to accomodate my kwx 56 color radar.......another little toy I thought would come in handy for scoping out summer thunderstorms.

Yes, hanging in the breeze at 250kt plus is what we are looking to approach here. The thin wings will help, maybe a swept (mildly) canard? Or, one which mechanically sweeps forward and back?

Deltahawk's not a turbine, it's a diesel.

 

If you go looking to stuff a turbine in a Long EZ eventually someone will try to sell you on a converted APU (which is what the Innodyn prototype is). Don't do it.

Yes, I know deltahawk is a diesel....turbo/supercharged I do believe. It is supposed to run on a variety of fuels as well, I have followed them for a while and.........like cont./lyco.........they are genuinely expensive:envy:

I'll be happy to consider it when Innodyn delivers their first engine.

 

That would be sometime after the sun goes dark.

 

If you want to talk about a turbine engine that actually exists, we could talk about a 250 C-18. There's a guy that's just put one on a Cozy, with a custom gearbox. Very interesting. Or there's the Deltahawk, which has a good shot at delivering a batch of engines to it's first buyers, and might even be viable long term depending on the market in general.

 

Innodyn is vapor.

I am with you on that one, a lot of smoke from innodyne but not much else.

As far as efficiant turboshaft engines are concerned-------heck, that deep in one might as well turbofan it!! Any way you go there will be considerable $$ to make it happen, but then again one could go with the 20B and throw on a couple turbos and "walla"........a seven hundred horse bomb.

Add a little width, round the fuselage and bingo.

 

Jack

E Racer 113

I Got that

Accepted, and if I made you feel that I was attacking you with my responses, I am also sorry - that was not my intention. I'll be happy to discuss this with you in person at OSH, if you like.

 

Sure. Let's say that you're either taking off or landing at a high density altitude airport, and you're relatively heavy. Your IAS on final may still be 90 - 100 mph, but at 6685 ft. altitude, on a hot day (say, at Durango, CO in the summer, like when I landed there last August with my wife, tons of baggage and full fuel), the density altitude will push 10K ft. That means that as you touch down (or rotate) at 100 mph IAS (which, in the COZY at gross weight and mid CG, is about the speed I needed to begin a climb), your TAS and GS, with no wind, will be about 120 mph. These speeds are realistic for LE's and COZY's - many canard drivers land even faster than this, although I'm not sure why.

 

If you have nosewheel steering coupled to the rudder pedals, then as you attempt to maintain directional control using the rudders, you'll also be adding nosewheel steering inputs. The nose gear needs to be able to handle those loads at those speeds (and all lower speeds). These forces can be substantial as velocities get higher than walking speed. If you set the castoring breakaway so that it will castor at low enough forces so that you don't overload the nose gear and attach points at these speeds, then the question becomes "what is the nosewheel steering doing for you"?

 

Make sense?

wait a second tonyez, I am not the one casting insults or arrogance, I am all on board with you on the ability to command the steering........and for the other guy who wanted to know, yes, I do fly LARGE airplanes.

Why is it astonishing that no one has "addressed" an issue that doesn't need addressing? Infinity has been threatening nosegear steering in their canard for over 10 years, but that's gone nowhere. If there are any canards out there that have installed nosegear steering, no one I've ever talked to has ever seen one. There's a reason for that - it's like trying to exterminate all the giraffes in Alaska - it's really not a big problem that needs addressing.

 

Have you ever flown an aircraft with differential braking, like a L.E., V.E., COZY, Katana, Cirrus, Lancair Columbia or a Grumman Tiger? It's pretty simple. I can spin my airplane in it's own length - try that with nosewheel steering. The ONLY issue with differential braking is taxiing (and the early part of a takeoff run) with a strong crosswind, but there are relatively simple techniques for dealing with both of those.

 

I don't know what airplanes you rent, but if you think that you can do any amount of steering at 90 mph using the nosegear, rather than the rudders, you're fooling yourself. The COZY rudders kick in at about 40 mph, and differential braking (or simultaneous braking, as the case may be) works at ANY speed.

agreed, and 90 was when I wanted command authority to steering,lol, in a canard we are in the air @90........

You might consider making the new nose gear with a castering wheel to start off. Once any issues with the strut, shock, and retract mechanism are ironed out, then retrofit the steering mechanism.

 

Lower risk, certainly.

Nearly astonishing that no one has addressed this issue with diligence until now, perhaps differential braking is a hard habit to break???? Full authority steering at speeds >90mph would be excellent, I am sure that soon it comes to be..........

Airwrench

 

 

 

Well I would think(and I try to be real careful when I do that;) ) if it relinquishes, now your back to just regular castering differential breaking, which does work very well, that is right up untill a break pad fails then your just along for the ride or your spinning in a circle to the left:D the system I have designed is very straight forward mechanical setup the servo "thing" is more of an elaborate setup that does have some promise, if the technology is there to support it in the way of the servo. Which as I said before, the auto pilot servo, or one like it, may be the answere to steering our airplanes electricaly wich would eliminate some of the mechanical linkage.

 

Tony

BEING ABLE TO MANUALLY CONTROL THE OVER RIDE WOULD BE THE TICKET. AS YOU SAID, WHERE IS THE DATA ON SIDE LOADING THE SPINDLY FRONT LANDING GEAR? YOU KNOW, FOR THOSE GUYS WHO PUT A REAL FAT MOTER ON THE BACK, ONE CAN ONLY IMAGINE THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT CAN BE MADE WHEN WEIGHT IS NEEDED UP FRONT!!(OOPS) LOVE TO SEE YOUR DRAWINGS..........AND HAVE QUITE A BIT OF FACINATION IN THE PROSPECTS OF "WHEELING" MY EZ AROUND WITH SOME PRECISION...

maybe! just maybe!

 

we can incorparate cruise control servos to push pull the steering. This way, if there is to much torque on the gear during landing they will reliquish steering control and now the gear becomes castering again, say we have an indicator light in the cockpit that goes on and off as you have control of steering. Just like cruise control in your car if you touch the gas the little cruise control light goes off hit resume and now your bcak on cruise.

Interesting idea that's all that I have on it right now. just throwing that out against the wall to see if it sticks. Maybe someone can run with it.

 

Tony

.........an over-ride feature........yes, could work but, many times we want some steering when quick exit is needed off runway. This system might stay over ridden in this situation???whaddayathink?

Not sure what you mean by that? the whole design is basically a minor retrofit thats how I'm trying to design it:rolleyes: . After all who wants to redo there whole nose section? Not me!

 

 

 

you know I actually went down that path for about a minute. I was looking at more of a servo driven steering maybe from say, an autopilot servo, but weight would be an issue, I believe that can work. As a matter of fact its easy to setup, have like a little tinnerman wheel on the side for steering just like the big boys do. I'll be finished with the nose gear drawing tonight. It'll be a starting point. No way do I believe its perfect I'm sure one of the great minds who see it, is certainly going to be able to find something I overlooked:envy: I'll render the drawing and post it. Owe By the way the shock I'm using is a rear shock off a dirt bike its inside the upper tube. You can see the spring in the drawing but you won't see the shock itself but it is there, if you swith to 3D wire frame you can see it.

 

Tony

and the fruits to be enjoyed will taste like, "Ah Jeez, why did't I think of that"!!!!!! Best of luck, I can sence you are on your way

Well "bad" may be a relative term. I think that having a steerable/castoring nose wheel would be good. We could then avoid the side load issue. that is to say that if your crabbing and forget to put the rudder input in during touchdown at say 10lbs of preasure the nose gear becomes castering. I will be able to adjust that preasure during testing. Think of it as, steering with a shimmy dampner on both sides of the gear leg. If there is to much preasure on the wheel, the dampner simply absorbs your input and the wheel will caster to what ever force is greater upon it. If you press on the peddals at the same time with equal preasure the wheel will remain straight and the dampners will absorb your inputs. Now you are into the braking section of the peddals this way we don't need toe brakes one pedal does everything, it really does work. you'll see in the 3D drawings of it how it's going to work, for me it seemed like the obvious layout for this type aircraft. I certainly welcome everyones input to my ideas. Just be patient with the drawings, not quite done yet,

 

 

 

Welcome back Aubry. I'm sure that between all of us on this site we can come up with a good steerable nosegear that won't require to much modification. I think we can do this without a drag link though we'll see.

 

Tony

I could see this working, but storage in the fuse might be a little more difficult??.............Hey, what the heck, steering capabilities as small as 30 degrees would be nice..........hydraulicly actuated??hummmmmm.....

Magnum, Airwrench

 

Hey guys or gals? I can't see you so I don't want to offend:)

 

I'll try to get those finished this week Ive been going crazy out here in Vegas with T.V. production stuff. I have part of this done in 3D just have to finish the top half. (easier said than done ). Airwrench what Cad are you running? I'll send you my maines too I think you'll like them. Magnum I'll have to do a 3 view drawing for you if you want it in PDF, might take a bit longer but I'll get it to you, Or you can download a Cad viewer on the net for free. Not sure what site is best,but I know it's out there. Jon Matcho is using one he likes that he downloaded maybe we can get him to chime in here. Now just so you guys or gals know I haven't made this nose gear yet though I fully intend on doing so. I want to get my maines done first then I'll do the nose gear. You will have to make some custom parts mainly out of aluminum nothing real exotic and no compound curves, should be pretty easy.

 

Tony

turbo cad, it opens up most everything:thumbsup:

Cybersushi

 

I have a really neat idea that I'm implementing on my long Ez using a GSXR 750 fork for a steerable nosegear. I can send you the cad drawing if you like.

if you need it in PDF format let me know I'll send it to you that way. I think you'll like the idea. As far as mains go? I'm not sure you can get a big enough spring in those tubes to dampen your landing. I think the infinity gear only travel like 4 to 6" or something like that I'm pretty sure its limited in travel. Motorcycle forks tend to have lots of travel I'm not sure of your background but there is quite alot of math involved in figuring K rates and dampning. I don't want to discourage you. Give it try you may come up with a really cool retract. Remember you don't want to be a pogo stick either. The only thing that I can see that really needs to be worked on, is the inner shock tube is very thin walled steal tubing, that would have to be resolved in order to use them as mains. I think

 

Tony

Hey!!!!!!!!Love the idea, it is simmering somewhere amongst all the other innovative ideas which I have been hearing lately, could you send me your drawings?? would love to throw them on my cad and do some testing:)

Definitely going to be there, live around 60 miles away, should be a lot of fun:D

Thanks Bart

 

I have a new design for the retracts they are slightly different than the 210 gear I wanted to use initially in the build. I'm finishing up the structural analysis for the final design of the retracts. Once that is complete, I'll machine the gear trunions, side castings, make the bulkheads and install them on the airplane. Flip the airplane over and do the canopy and strakes it's going to be awesome Glad you liked the site.

 

Tony

I would love to see a photo of your completed work, sounds intersting:o

Yes, the drop test was performed..........on an EZ??NO:envy:

Great feed for the Berkut landing gear, and yes, all parts and components do "evolve" over time, would be nice to have a set in the shop to test on my own..........maybe time to fire up the cad, smile at all the designers, and head out on my own personal quest for landing gear. (and finally get some use out of my shopsmith nine thousand, lol)