RGlos

Yes, Thats the one

Mark hit the nail on the head. Forget the trailer and don't worry about hanger fees. See http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=817 It's been outside since 1986

Sorry Chris I meant the underside of the top cover on the strakes. Again, I suggest that if you have a piece big enough left over, you can test it. Sand it down to roughen up the surface and then apply a wet layer of jeffco impregnated cloth or EZ poxy impregnated cloth and see how it sticks or make two test strips, one of each. I'm with Lynn Erickson on this. Why go back to Jeffco once you have been snake bit. Nothing against Jeffco, I know nothing about it. I might even make a piece up, clean it with the same alcohol, let it dry and apply another coat of jeffco over it. The idea is if the results are repeatable you probably are closer to the root cause. Maybe even make up some small mini tanks with no tops and actually fill them with the same fuel and let them sit for awhile. You can make covers of plexi glass from the hardware store. 6"x6"x3" should do the trick.

How are getting at the underneath portion of these strakes? I've nothing against the Jeffco but why would you need to use it again? Suggestion. Test the EZ poxy on one of the stipped off pieces of glass. Sand it down well, apply the cloth and wet it down with the EZ poxy. Then apply several coats in progression. If will get you prepared for the big job ahead. I used the original SaftyPoxy many years ago. It should be enough.

Send this to the media. "Two planes crash near Vegas airport in consecutive days, both reporting loss of engine power. What a coincidence Airport manager Randy Walker blames "Experimental Planes" as the cause but the second aircraft was not an experimental. Maybe the manager is trying to cover up something, like selling contaminated fuel." None of this can be proven as true, but the media doesn't need truth. They have a sensational story. Vicious isn't it.

Actually it did (second crash) circumstances (lost power) and he (Randy Walker) didn't have anything to say about it. Not exactly a C-172 but close enough. See http://www.lasvegasnow.com/global/story.asp?s=5730644 Not enough Ooooooughs and Ahhhhhh's and no deaths for the reporters........Awe At least the media got the pictures right, they are certainly an aircraft.

The reports by the media are based on sensationalism. The bigger it is, the better the story. Top ranked among these will be that an experimental airplanes crashed into a house. This would be followed by a private airplane crashing into a house. Of even lower priority would be a small plane crashed. None of this would have anything to do with image. We have a pretty good image amoung ourselves but very little to the outside world. We are a very small community without the real resources to improve our image. The vast community does not even know what the EAA is or care. But one sensational report like this just told millions that an "experimental" airplane just killed three people and they didn't report this in a positive manner. How do you fight that. You can quote statistics untill your face turns blue and it won't matter. Now,report something like "an experimental plane and pilot saves three kids spotted on a raft" and you have an instant image build up. Until then we have to settle improving our image one person at a time. Finding blame is not the answer either. Since when does a persons money have a relationship to safety. I built my own plane but if I had the money I might buy a COZY IV or a O-320 for my plane. I might be safer or I might not. It is enough trouble keeping our image as clean as we can and to not do things that would call unwanted attention to ourselves.

More from CNN http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/22/plane.into.house/index.html?iref=topnews

To our Aussie friends. Thanks for the weights & data. shoot me a quick e-mail (See Post #1) & I will send you the up dated comparrison. Rick

Second picture, post number 3. That looks like more than just pealing. It looks like paint after stripper has been applied i.e. chemical reaction. It looks shriveled up and not just flaked off. At this point what do you trust? Good judgement and common sense should be your guide. Take a piece of the cutout area, sand it down and appy epoxy over it to see if it holds. This may test to see if the gas or something in the gas has left something on the epoxy which prevents further adhesion.

Those guys with the O 320 are naturally going to recommend it. Those with the O 235 will recomment that. Either one will do the job The O 235 no matter how you slice it will save you more money by burning less gas. The O 320 will lift off faster, climb faster and get you there faster no doupt but there will only be about an hours difference in time and will burn more gas in doing so. The difference in fuel burn per hour between engines is what it's going to cost you X 4 times a month. There is a lot of perfectly good Long EZ's with O 235's still flying 700 miles trips out there. 6gph x 5 hours x $6/gal = $180, one way. If you're flying solo you can get a cruise prop and do even better on the time.

Jack I'm glad you are OK. I'm also sorry about the plane. I was thinking about flying down from Schaumburg and looking at soon but that won't be possible now. If time and money permit you can start up again if you're up to it. This is one of those planes and a builder that are easily one in a million. Many people have lost the opportunity to see a truly exceptional aircraft.

I agree with AR on this one. This is the exact method I have used in the past. Especially when I installed a new pair of Atkinsons fuel site Gages. The only thing I can advise is to keep the flox mixture on the wet side, even if you have to hold in position with duct tape.

I built my own hand crank nose lift 22 years ago from the plans. I got the springs and the gears from McMaster-Carr. The part numbers are listed in the manual. You may have compressed the spring but I doupt it. There were a couple of rubber o rings on each end of the spring that may have rotted away. I don't understand what you mean by "Mine has sagged" Is the strut bent or is the nose of the plane lower?

Macleodm3 I appreciate your concerns. I had them as well. But when the unit arrived it looked very imjpressive- better than the picture. i would say I saw no difference in quality between this actuator and the EZ Nose lift. I just got back from testing mine. I operated it at 80 kts. It made less noise on my radio than the EZ Nose lift. I could not hear it operate but could feel it. Mine came with limit switches that are internal. All I had to add was a dpdt switch. I made one change in instalation. I drilled and tapped the end for a 10/28 male ball joint. I would have used the existing ones from the original set up but they were female. In the end when it came to final adjustment to close the brake the threaded ball joint was invaluable.

I just finished installing the unit that Jerry recommended. I bought the 4" travel, 150 lbs of force. It extends in 4 seconds. Very nice unit, smooth. I also bought the bracket with the clevis pin. Total price with shipping was $139. The 4" was perfect. I don't see how you could use the 6". The 4" extended the brake exactly like the manual system. Maybe a hair more travel.

See Attached Canard Weights II.xls

This plane is not going to work very well. It is too clean and has way too many slick modern gagets in it. Spill some epoxy on it here and there so we all can feel a little better.

It is almost impossible to relate the differences in flight performance but the others have done a good job at it. I Fly a Long EZ. I will attmp to give you a little different perspective with some real life experience Every other year, I go for my BFR and usually rent one of the schools Warriors. This last time they had no Warrior's available so it was back to a Cesna 172. I havn't flow one of those now for 20 years. My instructor was not a day older than 24 years I'll give you my perception of that BFR. I jammed the throttle forward, kept it straight down the runway, glanced at the airspeed and before we were a few steps along Vr and the next thing I know we are up and away. But as the ground was slippng away I didn't seem to be moving forward very fast. It was taking forever to get to the end of the runway. (I should have gone to the bathroom first) At this rate the practice area was going to be hours away. Once there, the instrutor said "lets do some slow flight". I blurted out " I thought that's what I have been doing for the last hour. (It was actually only 20 minutesor so) (Bathroom) Then we did some agonizingly long turns, some stalls and circles around a point etc.. OK, now it was time to go back to the airport so I picked up my copy of "War & Peace" and read a few chapters. Time to enter the pattern. Finally I thought. The bathroom was now less than an hour away. We reached the key point and I throttled back to 1500 rpm and dialed in some flaps. I read a couple of more chapters, (I had to do something to keep my mind off of the bathroom) turned base and tweeked in some more flaps. We were decending fairly rapidly. At least this spam can did something promptly. Not the flat out extended run of a slippery EZ. Turned final. Two more chapters, ad some throttle. Bathroom, bathroom. Touch down and roll out. Turned off the active and the instrutor asked If I wanted to do a couple of touch & gos. I asked him if he knew what Flomax was. He didn't I told him "Touch & go's and Flowmax were incompatable, check it out on the internet" under Urinairy Flight Protocols After the glorius bathroom break he charged me for 1.3 hours. In any of the EZ's you could have done all that, including the bathroom, and not really have enough time to put it into the log book. On the next BFR no Cessna 172's. Or don't forget to bring a good book.

Don't forget used but in good condition. A mid time Lycoming is going to be lower than any of the prices you have listed. With 1000 to go before rebuild you have a long long long time to enjoy. Consider this. if you got the chance to fly one hour each day, every day for a full year, you would only used 365 of those hours. Most of us started with used engines. There are some exceptions of course but a lot of us are just like you, on a budget of sorts.

I'm not exacly shure how to do this. Is it marked on the pump? What brand of gas were/are you using? Rick

It has got to be a sinking feeling no doupt. Then, once he's realized that he was safe, there has got to be another sinking feeling to go through damage assesment and the time needed to repair (if it can be). My sympathies go out to this fellow. Hope you get airborne again and soon.

I take you used 93 octane autofuel?

I just watched the CNN Video. There was a RV on the taxiway just clearing the runway and a second RV still on the runway. The camera then pans off to the left and you hear the collision. The RV on the taxiway was the one in the collision. This far down with a plane on the runway, it looks like maybe a go around was being attempted. Thats the only thing I could figure.

Ditto Nevertheless, sometimes the posts from yesterday stay up as well. There does not seem to be any consistancy on when the posts roll over.