dpaton

Hans, the best way to get them is to search constantly, ask regularly, and be very very patient. I've been looking for a set for about 6 months now. I refuse to pay thr skyrocketing sums for a full plans set, so I'm biding my time until a set of templates appear under my nose. It's a long process, but it seems to be a tried and true one. -dave

I'd bet, based on the other drawings, that it has both. Did I guess right Tony? -dave

Looking good Tony. I'm waiting eagerly for the video of your gear legs snapping up into the fuse at the push of a button -dave

Contact Beagle, aka, the CanardFinder. http://canardfinder.com/ -dave

That's more like what I was thinking of. Props love lots of clean air on the 85% of their length from the tip back in. I'll be looking forward to seeing how your gear does too. How much of a weight penalty are you absorbing with it? 5 years is an inside guess. If I had money on it, it'd be 7-10. By then maybe the ultra-efficient turbofan technology from the 777 and 787 will have trickled down to the GA world and I can build myself a proper EZ-jet. -dave

Tony- Yup, I kinda figured it'd look like that. A muffler hmm? I know the rotaries are really loud beasties with straight pipes, so it's probably a good idea. My only concern is with having the outlet that far out on the prop, and obstructing that much of the useful pro arc. Mike Melvile found a few knots, some climb performance, and lower gph numbers when he moved his exhaust as close in to the spinner as possible. I'm shooting for long range at reasonably quick speeds over long distances, as I'll be building the plane to visit the coasts from here in the midwest. There's a lot to be decided still, like whether to turbo a Conti like Dust and normalize for higher altitudes (18k or less, no IFR for me just yet), to stick with NA and compromise speed for efficiency (Bill Lingenfelter gets ~3.2gpg at 153mph in his retractable O-200 Long-EZ), or to go with an automotive conversion motor. No matter what, that choice is at least 5-7 years out, so I'm not too worried about it. I'm playing with ideas while I wait for life to catch up to my dreams. -dave

Tony- Ahhhh...I think I see now. The big scoop is mainly a fairing, and only a small area of it actually passes air to the engine, replicating (roughly) the domensions of the old male EZ inlet? That's how my 3D brain sees it anyway. Are you going to area-rule the scoop at all? I've been thinking about over-the-shoulder downdraft cooling recently. Some folks like NACA ducting, some like seperated ram-air. The ram-air inlets have an issue though, where they don't join to the fuse cleanly. I was thinking something like the big General Dynamics get fighter inlets, where the top outside corner is swept forward, and the lower inside corner is faired cleanly into the fuse. Look at this picture and think about that little light blue spot in front of the cowl blister. Thoughts? The boards and schematics are all in Altium Designer, which is the genesis of DxP, which was the descendent of Protel. Code is in one of a host of compilers, depending on the processor that's used (PIC, AVR, 8051, Epson, SX, etc). I don't get big bucks, but I do get enough to pay the mortgage and the remodelling bills. One of these days the house will be done. Then I can get some plans and start ruining t-shirts with epoxy again (I did R/C race boats for a while). Someday it'll mean I'll have a plane. For now, it's all in my head and my notebooks. -dave

Hard on the eyeballs is right. I spent most of last month at the office laying out a 10 layer PCB that was abut 7" square, and packed TIGHT. Even on the dual 20" LCDs I had to take a break every hour to help the headaches. I had a similar thought about the airbrake when I saw the gear, but I didn't actually connect it to reality until you mentioned it. Hmm. Won't all that air up against the bulkhead come right into the cabin? Or will it end up in the hell hole? The Thrustmaster throttle is spiffy. I wonder what ever happened to mine... I'm also wondering about the impact of the gear on that biiiig scoop of yours, specifically, gear up vs gear down. You're going to need some pretty big holes in the sides of it, no? And how about the flow disturbance with them up? I'm staring at the pictures, trying to figure out what it'll do, but my mind won't cooperate. -dave

I think my favorite part was the guy who said experimental builders don't like to install/use avionics or instruments. Judging by the sale figures for the KY-97, SL-30 and A200, he must be living under a rock. Where do they find these people? Sheesh. /rant //threadjack -dave

Looks good Tony. I'm incredibly jealous of your throttle. It looks like a simplified version of the uberthrottle JD designed (too many buttons and hats for me...for now). I'm a little curious about the consoles though. I was under the impression that they were structural, and that the only safe way to gain access was with removable side panels, while keeping the horizontal surface intact (forming a T beam with the fuse side). 7075 Fortal...wow. That's some hard stuff. Higher Silicon content IIRC, so it should be pretty easy to machine? The last time I saw any was when back in college when the old shop guru was making a new tooling plate for one of the mills...something like a 4" thick plate of the stuff that he had sent over from France(?). Those pedals sound cool too. Articulated toe brakes perhaps, or just keep with the normal rudder...Rudder...RUDDER...brakes! method? I love the TV counterweight too. I've got you bookmarked now -dave

Marc- That's probably because I only found this forum recently, and I asked about the pressure maps some time ago, when I saw a copy of them (reduced to a single sheet) on the cubicle wall of a guy I used to work with. He'd been forwarded the jpegs by a guy who got them from someone who..well, you get the idea. I completely gave up until this discussion popped up. Thanks for clarifying it for me. As for CSA backissues, I'm working on it, slowly. Since I can't build yet (no plans, no templates, still searching for both) I'm doing all the flights of fancy in the interim. Tony- That looks like an interesting design. I haven't checked the copy of Pazmany's book out of the library in a few years, but I think I might this weekend, if I"m not up to my elbows in plumbing (remodeling my house...forever). It looks like a better solution than the 90 degree bend in the Velo legs, and it'll make the anti-spar-attach folks happy too. Those pivot blocks look pretty solid. I assume they're machined from billet Al? The gear bulkhead might need some beefing up too I think, due to the radically different stress points. I'll be following this very very closely As for 1am ruler reading, I know about it all too well. I spent most of the weekend rebuilding countertops that were originally constructed in a very late night building session. It fit my Navy friend's definition of government work though: Measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, cut with a chainsaw. -dave0

Tony- Yup, the CFD should be fun. The MEs at the office do everything in Solidworks, and that's where I'm playing right now. It's a lot easier to learn than Inventor or the rest of the (IMO, pathetic) AutoCad lineup, and we have in-house tools for CFD, FEA, thermal, EMI, and a few other modeling methods at work. Everything runs on the dual processor workstations under everyone's desks, one per person, no renderfarm. We'll be picking up dual proc dual core (quad proc effective) stuff in February, which should make my EE stuff fly, as well as the ME's stuff, and my after-hours ME adventure. The term I think you're looking for is views or ports. The coolest version I've seen so far is a QuickTime VR movie of the model, with all the pressure mapping applied to the surface, so that it's totally rotable, no more single-view stuff. The thing that started me on the hunt for CAD files for a Long were the two pressure diagrams you posted. I got some good ideas about where to smooth things out and where to put engine cooling stuff from those. I'd love to know who did them originally, but no one seems to want to share if they know. As for your side view, it looks like your gear will mount near the plans location, and pivot up and in, kinda like a 172RG but fore instead of aft? Are you going to be using any kind of suspension, or just relying on the Grove legs to mounce a little? What about the retract mechanism? I'm curious. It looks pretty solid, but my main concern would be about the impact to the fuselage. It would also bring back the male look to the plane, but with P-51 style proportions. I like the look. I'd want to know more about the structure before I form a valid opinion though. Hmm..looks like you have a lot more of the plane modeled than just the nose.... -dave

Completely. <disclaimer> I probably won't release anything but the finished data, or do analyses on request. I had a very nice chat with the company lawyer over lunch yesterday, and it looks like there's no way I could ever escape the liability m(copyright is a nonissue at this point). I'll be using any and all data folks give me license to, and I'll try to contribute my drawings to the project, but the sum total of the data will never come from me. The models, while accurate, will likely be woefully incomplete to build from, and there's no way I can bear the risk. No discussion here, just a statement of fact. Nothing resembling plans will ever come from me. Just data and purdy pictures I think. </disclaimer> I DO think a repository of drawings is a great idea. If everyone tosses in a few pages, we could easily build what the cozy guys have for the Long. I think John's idea about the open-source contribution model is the way to go. A few notes on what I AM doing: The CFD will be first, since it's easier, and will be primarially an effort to reproduce the flow diagrams that are floating around so I can study the effect of some small aerodynamic modifications, primarially fairings and smoothed contours. I'm not putting out a schedule on purpose, as the nature of my job (product development consulting) has a wildly variable workload. The FEA will be a very long and arduous process. Calculating the structural characteristics for the parts of the plane is far from a punch-n-add exercise, especially if I want accurate calculation of torques and forces that aren't on cardinal vectors to the model. If anyone has known material properties for Long-EZ structures they want to contribute, feel free to fill up my PM box. Once I get things sussed properly, I'll probably select projects for the models via poll or something similar. Since this is a side project, I can't just take everything at one. There will probably be months of evenings and weekends at the office tweaking the models to accuracy, and then making the changes to them to model things people want to see. This is decidedly a process, not a short project. There is already an unauthorized Cozy IV in CAD on the Cozybuilders web site, just waiting for someone to modify it. -dave

Pretty cool Tony. I'm working on getting a new set of CFD/FEA models of the Long, and although I have the wings more or less taken care of, the fuse is giving me fits (no plans or templates to measure from...yet). The first set of nose area DWGs helped quite a bit, and I'm salivating over the thought that you might do the rest too. And yes, I do plan on modeling both the stock unit and a few mods, with yours probably the first, since it looks to be documented so nicely. -dave

Very cool. I'm not sure where you can get a cheapie drawings CD from though. The TERF CD is $300. I'm waiting to hear back from my local drafting shop to see if they can print them full size for me. Something for the den wall while I acquire pieces and parts and full templates and plans. -dave

I don't know. The way Greg materializes pets, I'm sure he found a way to pay less than that for a turbine. -dave

FYI, I've experienced some real live flakyness with some of the aircraft in 8.20, all of them are old 7.x designs. It manifests itself as an unrecoverable inverted deep stall. Twitchy is an understatement for when it's flying right. I don't think the propwash bug is fixed for canards yet. Curt, send me a list of your squawks. I'll add them to my own in my next email to Austin. I think righ tnow, if you want to fly the EZs or the Cozy, keep it at 8.17 maximum. 8.20 changed enough in the flight model that it medded things up. As for the $39 comment, I think that was referring to the current discounted price of X-plane when purchased direct from Laminar Research. The CH sticks are a lot more money, and worth every penny. -dave

From what I've read, that's not all that uncommon. The canards we talk about here are excellent gliders. -dave

Curt: Thanks for stopping by Jon: The money spent on a CH control system (stick, pedals, throttle?) is totally worth it. The CH stick blows my $30 Logitech abomination away so completely I haven't taken it out in months, and I don't plan to in the future. I've played with the pedlas and throttle elsewhere, and I hope I can make the additions soon. Personally, I'm all for type-accurate flight sims. I don't think they can do anything but help us, as long as they're accurate. Between the statements from other active pilots and things like Curt's and Austin's adevntures in helicopters, I'm convinced there's merit in using X-Plane as a training aid. Yes, there are issues with it, but the flight model is becoming more solid every release, and that's what we really want to practice isn't it? And if there's one thing I'm sure I'll want, it's the ability to practice somewhat accurately while the weather in the midwest is being less cooperative, as it seems to do a whole lot. My $0.02 -dave

I've heard that there are a bunch of people who fly the models from Curt at Vigilance Aero. I was just curious how many are here. I'm pretty sure he's working on updates to the 8.x modeller, which promises to make them even cooler I think. Just looking for like-minded sim flyers I suppose. -dave

The bellhorn plans, along with the full-span rudder plans, come on the CDs from Terf as well. It's a little more expensive to go that route however. -dave

http://greg.bluemountainavionics.com/aircraft.html Check out the pictures from the Sport Aviation shoot. It's definitely a Classic. -dave

Jon- No puke fests from me. Unless there are inverted snap-rolls or something similarly out-of-bounds for the airframe, I'm a rock. The main reason I'm putting stock in the ride is the cockpit ergonomics and general fit to my lanky frame. It's been a few years since I've sat in either, and I want to make an informed decision with recent data, not memories, which are decidedly fluid in nature. The airtime and maybe a little stick time will help me out quite a bit I think. I suppose this would be the right time to mention I originally wanted to build a Lancair 320 before I got my first EZ ride I'm hooked on canards, that's for sure. -dave

Jon- Yup, that's part of it. My fit in the cockpit matters quite a bit too, since I plan to eventually fly to the coasts from Chicagoland. I think the C-IV/Aerocanard/Long-EZ all have a place in the 'sports car' analogy. True, they're a little different, but built light and slick, and equipped with an O-320 (as I would do if I go that way), the EZ isn't at much of a disadvantage compared to the heavier Cozy or Aero. The one I really wanted was a Berkut, but funding issues and Dave Ronneburg's transition to contract and military projects ended that one pretty quickly a few years back. The utility of SBS has definite advanatages, but my shoulders trump map convenience. Plus, I tend to fly (occasional UL flights that is, when it's warm enough) with a kneeboard holding my chart, so I'm used to a distinct lack of map space. I travel light, so strake baggage and the rear headrest area offer more than enough storage for a week away from home, including chocks and a cover, and with pods it becomes possible for 2 to travel for a week comfortably. Like I keep saying, the ride will be the deciding factor. The rest can be argued effectively from both sides ad infinitum, +/- a week. -dave

Carlos- I am looking at the Cozy-IV, but one of the primary drivers of my jones for the Long-EZ (aside from a 16 year love affair with the shape) is that I get a lot more vertical clearance in the Long than the Cozy-IV. Tandem seating provides for more vertical canopy sides, while the SBS seating in the Cozys and Aerocanards cuts off a lot of the shoulder room my 6'4" frame needs. Given the choice between roomier tandem and airline like SBS, I'll take the former. In terms of pure side to side shoulder room, the Long wins (22" vs 19.5" each for the C-IV). The long also gives me much needed pedal-to-seat spacing (1.5" more than the C-IV, both stock). The bottom line is Burt designed the plane for himself, a guy who is 6'4 and not precisely rail thin. Nat did a great job of making it a 4-seater, but it's for slightly shorter people with narrow frames. The real question for me is how they fly. It's been a while since I was right seat/GIB, so it's all down to the rides. -dave