RGlos

This looks very similar in principle to the older Brock throttle quadrants. I've had mine for 23 years now with zero defects. I took it apart in late summer this year for the first time. The original white grease was perfectly intact. I slobbered it up when I put it in back then. It works very smooth as well. At this point I would never remove it for the push/pull systems- there is no need.

Here is a current XLS file Canard Weights II.xls

Hey Skip I know your dad. We built our planes about the same time in the eighties. Didn't know that the plane has not been used in the last few years. How is your Dad. Has he retired from the PD yet? Say hello for me. Rick Glos

"I'd like to hit you through the internet, but I can't get up easily and my caine keeps bouncing off of my screen." Be aware, I can defend myself with my walker. If not that, then I'm good for 10 all out seconds before I go into my armadillo manuever. Kidding aside, A fresh overhaulled or low time Franklin sounds like an excellent choice. These engines go a long time (in years ) between overhauls if you just give them a little care. I don't think your going to putting in 200 hours a year The only real worry is tweeking the baffling. When can I come over and see your progress?

It's a question of time. If your aged 20 to 30, then go for the Rotary, Corvair, Chevy V8 or Briggs & Stratten. You will have plenty of time to "experiment" If your 30 to 50 Choose only two of the above. If your 50 or older go with the Lycoming. I have had my Long for 23 years now with a O-235. The Older I get, the less problems I want in both maintaining and flying. I had mine zero timed fours years ago. I will never live long enough to see it's recommended TBO again. I have had no enigine problems at all. The most I have done is clean the plugs, change the oil and replace one Mag. I'm also 45 lbs heavier than when I started. In retrospect, I wish the seats didn't incline so far back, it is no longer that comfortable with the neck. I should have built the instrument panel two inches higher to allow more leg room on the bottom side. It's not so easy for me to get out now. With the bigger belly, the fuel valve could be in better position as well. I'm not like Marc Zeitlin with his Less than 160 lbs. I have seen pictures of him. If he wore a red tie he would look like a thermometer. In short if your older, keep it simple and dependable.

Is there a clear varnish that can be used to refinish our props. I have used the two part spar varnish, polyurethanes and paints, all of which last only a year, two at the most before they start cracking and chipping. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

After all this what is your new empty weight. Congratulations by the way. You sure kept a lot of us informed and entertained. Thanks Rick

In case you missed it the first time around I asked volunteers awhile ago to help compile a canard empty weight spread sheet. I have attached it for convenience. I am #3 on the list. If you have not particpated yet send me your data and I will ad you to the list Rglos721@comcast.net You will note for each plane there is a wide difference (more than can be made up from equipment ad-ons) for each make of plane. You can make a light plane the old way and from what vacuum bagging claims, even lighter. But if you don't have a clue what the difference is betweeen wet and dry layups you could be in for a big surprise when your done. Canard Weights II.xls

The puspose hear was to bring attention to the whole process and not just vacuumn bagging. Don't think your going to come out light without paying attention to the micro, stipling and squeege.. Lynn I purposely did not go into detail. Who said anything about banging the brush againist the glass. The forum showed this tecnique quite nicely, thank you. And the micro was not exactly peanut butter but a tad wetter. No one is against bagging here. Tman, I sure you can pull more epoxy out but then what . How much do you squeege? I was shown that you can draw the squeege over the glass with enough force to create a small ridge. When the ridge was gone you were done. This force can very, it took practice. Fortunately, I and three others who were building at the same time came in at under 860 lbs. Ten years later when I repainted and got rid of the feather fill (nightmare filler) and switched to suprafill and imron, I lost anther 15lbs The micro is wetter than peanut butter as Phil Krily has said. Dry micro may not get down into the voids properly and thus reduce bonding strength. The micro is not to serve as a skin but an interface between the foam and the glass all while keeping it light. Rutan's were quoting less than 800lbs on a Long EZ as a target. I did not make it but I sure tried and paid attention. Then I see Long EZ empty weights of 950 to 1050 (adjusting for engine differences) and I wounder what the hell went wrong. These planes lost a great deal of utility.

I went to one of the original glassing forums at Oshkosh in the mid 80's. The stipling/squegee technique was developed to get the lowest weight possible. 1) Spread the micro on the foam. 2) Stipple the glass into the micro 3) Scrape off the excess with the squeege The amount of epoxy was only enough to fill the glass. After repeated squeegeing, I found the proper blend of micro/epoxy to make the technique consistant. This left the glass with almost a dry look. I would not have learned this easily without the forum. I knew what to look for. It is now 30 years later. How does this knowledge get down to new builders. Vacuum bagging. I guess that replaces number 2 above. But if you don't know know what how much to do #3 or if the micro is too wet in #1 where does that leave you. It leaves you with a 950+ lbs Long EZ or 1300 lb Cozy MK IV. even with the vacuum bagging and you won't know how badly you've done it until you put it on the scales for the first time. I guess what I'm saying is that don't count on Bagging alone to save weight. You must insure that you have amply used the squeege. Idealy, find one of the original builders to pass his knowledge along.

I've parked outside since 1986. Had the same problems you have. Drilled two holes in the nose at the furthest point forward that you can. Drill them so you can fit 1/2" platic water pipe inside. I then glued the water pipe in and trimed to contour the ouside. Small holes will not let the water and debris out. I never had a problem with the wings. Seal all gaps, and especially make sure the hole covers are leak proof. On the canopy right where the longeron meets front and goes over the instrument panel, I sanded a small groove forward and down on the outside. This lets water comming down the canopy frame drain to the outside rather than to the inside and down the instrument panel. See; http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=817

All I can see is a framed up fuse and one wing. No pictures of the inside, engine compartment , wiring, engine cowlings, brakes comntrols etc. Finishing depends on the amount of time you can spend on it. A few hours at night & weekends maybe a year. Less available time means more time to completion. What's the hurry. If the plane was built as well as your uncle says and has this much done, you have a real gift on your hands. Take the time to finish it, whatever time that is.

First runway was 2800x50 ft. Airport was rebuilt and is now 4000x100 ft.

I have often thought about the effects of bigger engines/prop combinations on landing/approach speeds. I have flown a O-235 powered Long EZ for 23 years now. I have two props, a cruise and a climb. The cruise is 62 x 62. When I fly the climb prop, I always have to add a few rpm on landing.. My idle is about 750 rpm. On final I fly at 80 Kts. Near the threshold, I'm down to 70 Kts and touch down usually at 60 kts. Naturally there are times when I land faser than this but in most cases this is typical. With a bigger engine with the same idle rpm and with a bigger pitched prop, I can only imagine a faster landing speed or at least some difficulty slowing down. So the questions is, what combination do you have and what are your performance numbers?

Seeing All these shows with some pretty good metal fabricators, I was thinking if a pair of shaped metal tanks could be fabricated with all internal baffles, ribs, external "t" supports etc. Then the normal strake covers, top & bottom could be glued to the "t" strips etc. The metal tanks would be imbedded so to speak. Then you would have metal all the way to the engine and not have to worry about epoxy softening. Engine seals and gaskets would be anouther issue but by that time the fuel would already have been combusted. Would these seals and gaskets even be an issue at that point? As an example, American Chopper seems to be able to make tanks into a large variety of shapes and sizes and don't seem to leak. Then, could one burn auto fuel with ethanol without worry? Just thinking out loud.