Jump to content

--D--

Members
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About --D--

  • Rank
    Member

Personal Information

  • Location (Public)
    TX
  • Occupation
    enginerd

Project/Build Information

  • Plane
    Long-EZ
  • Plane (Other/Details)
    IO-320/360, long nose, strake/side windows
  • Plans Number
    #814
  • Chapter
    ...

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Arrrghh... say it ain't so, Chris!! Thanks for flagging the issue for fellow Jeffco users. The last pic ('pile of bad day on the floor') looks like the Jeffco that peeled off is brown on the back side. Did it take a thin layer of epoxy with it? Best of luck with the repair. Keep us posted! D
  2. Hello Henrik, Mine measures A = 15.0", B = 6.25". D
  3. A proper NACA *should* give you less drag, all other issues aside. However, the "other issues" (like shoving air through a radiator) can't be tossed aside. There's a good reason the P-51 doesn't have a NACA on the belly... Keith Spreuer recently replaced his NACA with a "P-51" male scoop due to inadequate dP across his radiator (Subaru). He posted this to the Cozy list... "My conclusion is that the P-51 style scoop with 3:1 expansion and less than 11 deg expansion rate is key. The P-51 scoop is much more compatible with a radiator installation. This is because the fine fin arrangement of a radiator requires a higher delta P than the wide fin spacing of an air cooled engine. The P-51 scoop does a much better job of delivering that pressure." Pics and graphs and such are here (look under "P-51 Scoop" and get a cup of coffee because it takes an eternity to download anything): http://briefcase.yahoo.com/kspreuer The graph shows twice the dP, 73%+ dT, and he reported no noticeable loss in performance (increase in drag). Plus, his plane looks more like a P-51 now. D
  4. Hello Hans, Looks like the pivot on the medium duty hinges (e.g. - 220T) are only about 1" out from the hinge center. They might have one that will get you out to 2"... but my guess is that it'll make a better boat anchor than a canopy hinge. D
  5. Sure, it does. Root incidence and tip incidence are both given. Washout is 3 degrees. D
  6. Ref Table I in this PDF, Joe: http://tinyurl.com/2x8nho D
  7. If you're talking about the strut, get in touch with the guys (Larry, Michael) at Featherlite. I found this contact info for them on the Forum: 1327 South State St., Airport, Ukiah, CA 95482 Phone 707-462-2939 Fx 462-3424 e-mail: fthrlite@pacific.net Unfortunately they don't have a website, but I rumor has it that they're pretty good about answering emails. D
  8. "Thanks!" from a pondering builder, Rick. Having web resources like this (and Waiter's page, and Wayne's page, and James' page, and Marc's page, and ...) sure makes it easier for the rest of us to avoid the previously discovered sinkholes. Best of luck pulling it all back together. Can't wait to see the "after" pics. D
  9. I looked at the diagram on your blog and also read that you are planning on using helium (blimp) for lift. Why not go with a ducted fan instead of the ball for vectored thrust? Less swept volume, proven design/physics, easier to manufacture/articulate, etc. Just curious. Regardless, it's interesting work! Hope to see videos some day! D
  10. No worries. I think I might face the same problem as the other fellow, though (lack of headroom). Are you selling the hinge/latch hardware, too, or just the glass? I'm curious about the BigEZ canopy mod. Any pics/details on what that entails? Todd's site lists the "Big EZ" as an option but nothing further. Google caught a post from John Slade that said these were blown for "wider" Long EZs. True? I'm wondering whether the BigEZ canopy is the one with the "F-16"-like bulge to the sides/top... or if Todd is blowing the standard Long EZ canopies that way these days. Maybe I should ask Todd and quit bugging you... Thanks for your time, Rick. D
  11. Beautiful panel, Rick... makes me wish I could use one immediately!! How "used" is the split canopy? Was it an original Long canopy from Todd's that you split yourself? Any pics? Thanks! D
  12. --D--

    Long Ez modifications

    NO WORRIES, ALL ... It was a bad read on my part, Jon. My confusion also appears to have bled over onto raiki, too. Sorry about that. The pdf that Mak posted was for the wing (top) AND the centersection spar (bottom).... which he CLEARLY called out in a later post. I simply missed it. So, the graphic and the table don't match for good reason... because they're for two different things (thank goodness!!!!). My apologies for the fire drill... but I'm very pleased to know that I don't have to redo my wings and/or spar! D
  13. --D--

    Long Ez modifications

    Hence the "eye opener" I was referring to, raiki. The spar cap layup schedules posted by Mak from the TERF CD do not match what is in my PAPER copy of the Long EZ plans (1st ed, March 1980), nor does the info reflect what the layup schedules should be after updates per the CP's that I referenced. ... unless you start with the schedule provided by TERF under the assumption that it represents the original/unmodified March 1980 1st ed plans schedule and blindly modify it using CP info. Then you'll end up with spar caps that don't match the plans. Hold on a sec, Mak. I apologize if you felt like I was attacking you or TERF. That wasn't the case, Ok? I understand and appreciate the intent of your original post for Mike. However, when I saw the layup schedules something didn't look right. I went back to my PAPER Long EZ plans (1st ed with the mods per the CP's) and found that your info from TERF and my info from the plans+CP's do not match... hence, my questions and concern AS A FELLOW BUILDER. Nothing more. I do not believe that identifying the source of the discrepancy between the original plans + CP's and what TERF is publishing is "useless" info... and I appreciate you publishing the TERF info. I want to know whether TERF knows something I don't and whether I should update MY layup schedule (plans + CP's) to reflect what you published. I was hoping that in the spirit of this forum (you know... sharing info about our builds) that you would look at the TERF info and see if they identify the source for the revised layup schedules. That's all... See, we're on the same page (... we're just using different plans). Seriously, I consider this a "check" of my plans because your TERF info doesn't match what I'm using... and I want to know what is correct. If you wouldn't mind looking to see if TERF mentions the source for the revised layup schedule I would certainly appreciate it. If you do mind... well... that's Ok, too. D
  14. --D--

    Long Ez modifications

    Wow! That's an eye opener about the TERF CD. There appears to be a rather significant disconnect that I hope the Open-EZ folks are aware of if they're relying on the TERF info during their build. Perhaps the TERF published layup schedule is more than enough... perhaps not. I do wonder where their schedule came from, though? Here's what I know: The original Long EZ plans layup schedules for the spar caps (wings and centersection spar) assume the UNI tape used has a thickness between 0.035" and 0.038". Somewhere along the way, the "standard" UNI tape thickness became around 0.025"... which obviously reduces the total thickness of the spar caps when using the original layup schedule. In response, CP25 (p.6) includes a UNI tape "test" to determine if mods are required. Make a 5-ply layup, cure it, then check the thickness. If it's ~0.18", stick with the plans layup schedule. If it's less (about 0.125" according to the CP), you're using "thin" UNI tape and need to use the revised layup schedule in order to arrive at the required spar cap thickness. The issue was elevated further via a MAN GND plans change (LCP #56) in CP28 (p.9) to drive the point home. I found another "approved" layup schedule published in an "EZE Builders of Fla" newsletter from August of '83. A fellow realized that his UNI ply thickness was only 0.022" and revised the layup schedules further to get the correct thicknesses. The top was increased to an 11 ply layup, the bottom to an 8 ply layup. The schedule was discussed with and approved by Mike Melvill according to the builder. I wonder if the TERF layup schedule is yet another response to changes in UNI tape thickness? However, the ply lengths they published don't square up with the plans ply lengths, either (modified or not) and the graphic depicts the original plans layup schedule. My confidence is certainly shot in the TERF info unless there's more to the story in the text. Does the TERF text provide BL details in addition to the lengths for the spar caps or are you left to guess where each ply starts/stops? Scary... Very interesting info... thanks for posting it! D
  15. --D--

    Long Ez modifications

    The Long EZ spar cap layup schedule you posted does not match the info I have. I recognize the graphic from the plans... but it doesn't match the table nor is it complete without the "rest of the story" from the CP's. Where did these Long EZ spar cap layup schedules come from? D

The Canard Zone

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information