tonyslongez

Lynn

 

That could very well be. I think that aside from the shrinkage a bit of TLAR creeped into the plug making portion of the cowls probably due to time constraints, couple that with shrinkage and you have a mess. I do believe that all the parts are post cured in an oven. I'm sure the molds where too.

If the cowls where symmetrical to begin with I can handle a little shrinkage but they weren't. I can't speculate as to the resin make-up of the molds. I don't know. I mean some of the areas seem to go way beyond shrinkage. I have number 17 I can't imagine that much shrinking took place to get them that far out of whack.

 

Tony

is it possible the 'discrepancy' is due to the engine not being symetrical left/right? (i.e. placement of the cylinders).

Well! maybe but I don't see any other cowlings that aren't symmetrical. So no I don't think that was it, if it was, that seems a bit silly to me. It's off in places that have nothing to do with the engine. Funny thing is I have a set of LongEz cowls that had the same problem. Also I have a set of 540 cowls that don't have those discrepencys (way more symmetrical). The 360 cowls didn't realy line up the way they where supposed to at all. so I don't think it was done that way on purpose. Besides they look alot better symmetrical. I talked with a few LongEz guys who did the same thing I did. The whole thing was just out of whack. It was kinda like someone held a heat gun to the left side and it just kinda wilted. The bottom was worse than the top. I got them just about perfect now

 

Tony

NIco

 

Thanks. I'm glad you like it. I think we have to remeber that the plug for the Berkut was made with as best precision that was capable by hand at the time of conception. To be real precise you would need CNC. Now I think what Steve James (aka EZ AHAB) is doing at Eureka CNC is getting alot closer to that type of precision. To cut a fuselage on three axis you would need one hell of a big router even then you will find very slight inconsistencys

but that's what tolerances are for. Unless your going to kit, That would be serious work and money to put into a one off airplane. I don't think Dave R. had the time or the money for that.

 

Tony

Thanks Jack

 

I enjoy posting what I'm doing. I just don't always have the time.

1. Mak's drawing does not include a fixed point for attaching the hinge to the canopy. Am I missing someything here?

T

 

No, The attach point to the canopy frame was cast into the hinge. If you look at the renderings in the post for canopy's and doors section of the forum you can see that Mak redered that portion as well.

 

 

2. How does the nose you drafted (ez.org downloads) compare to the Berkut? In your drawing it appears to extend out to FS -24 compared to the plans FS -7.

Well, now that I have the Berkut and LongEz side by side. The nose for the longEz is about 4"in longer than the Berkut nose. I'm going to mold the Berkut nose and attach it to the longEz. Dale and I are going to cut the nose off of the longEz this weekend. I'll post the pics for you.

I'm going to try to make it a simple retrofit, without to much filling.

did you also check the fuselage for left/right symmetry?

Airnico

 

No I haven't checked the entire fuselage yet. The nose is a little off that I can see right now. We'll make more templates and check the fuse for symmetry later. Overall I think it's pretty good.

 

do you think the berkut is perfectly symmetrical?

No not "perfectly" symmetrical. But pretty good. I'm happy with it except being slightly off at the nose. I can fix that.

 

 

Mak

 

The electrician comes this morning to hook up the HAAS. I'm going to get started on those hinges, You did a great job on them. I'll check out homebuiltairplanes.

 

Tony

6) Here is the right side of the cowl now, much better

 

Well I thought that I had pics of the plug for the cowls but I don't.

I do however have pics of the final cowls pulled from the molds that we made.

 

These are 4 plys of 3k 2x2 twill vacuum bagged with MGS 285 post cured at 140deg for 11 hours super light and stiff

 

Tony

In the last few months Dale and I worked on the cowls for the Berkut. Now just to be clear the cowls are pretty good for the 360 but they aren't perfect. So I set out to accomplish a few things. First, I wanted to make the cowls symmetrical. In order to do this, we had to pile on the body filler and basically make a plug. Second I wanted Dale to teach me how to make a mold. So here is what we accomplished.

 

1) This is the right side of the cowling. You can clearly see the template shape

 

2) When you hold the template level there is clearly a discrepancy not bad but needs to be fixed

 

3) Here is alot of body filler about an inch thick in some places but definately getting better

 

4) Rear right side template

 

5) Left side template about a quarter to half of an inch low in this area very symmetrical now.

Drew that's really funny:ROTFLMAO: I won't mind the new friends as long they have money. The Line is already growing. First order of business are the canopy hinges that Mac790 rendered. I'll make about 10 sets if anybody wants a set let me know.

 

Tony

Here is the newest member of my shop.

Drew.

 

I really miss posting. I feel bad that I don't have more time to give daily updates. But I tell ya what. As soon as I can, I'll post the construction of the molded canard.

 

Tony

I've been building a little here and there.

managed to use most of the blue foam remnants left over from hotwiring the wing cores. I used blue foam in place of urethane foam in a number of areas, most notably the nose, canopy, strake leading edges, lower winglets, and roll-over headrests.

wayne I applaude your thriftyness with the use of the blue foam. I think if a builder where to follow the plans and use the blue foam for which it was intended they may find that alot of the flashing becomes scraps. Be careful though, blue foam I don't think is fuel proof. The other foams that you replaced with blue foam are.

 

Tony

Just to let Ya'll know Dick Rutan has completed his Berlut kit here are the Pics

I would like to tell everyone about a rare opportunity I had a few weeks ago to visit Eureka CNC. I was so imppressed by the attention to detail that goes into every step of the hot wire proccess. Furthermore, I would suggest that if anyone is interested in building a Long Ez or Cozy or any other canard aircraft get your wing cores form Eureka you will not be disappointed. Steve, the owner, has wing cutting down to a science. It would be impossible for a novice or even a veteran of foam cutting to cut a set of wings out with that kind of precision. What I really liked about the whole process was the absolute use of every inch of foam, nothing is wasted. Obviously, alot of thought goes into the layout of parts. Another nice thing about Eureka cores is when you buy a set of wings or a canard, your not paying for a bunch of foam stock that will ultimately end up in the trash. In other words, when you buy foam from say, A/Spruce or Wicks you get these giant blocks of foam that you are going to pay shipping for. When your done cutting your wings your going to find that alot of that foam is scrap. With the Eureka cores you only pay for the foam that you need to make your parts. You save on shipping, you save on time, and the quality is second to none. Don't cut your wings out by hand, get the Eureka cores. Your wings and canard will build easier, faster, and lighter. I highly recommend this product to all of our builders.

 

I'm not only a Berkut builder I'm also a client.

 

Tony Malfa

I would like to tell everyone about a rare opportunity I had a few weeks ago to visit Eureka CNC. I was so imppressed by the attention to detail that goes into every step of the hot wire proccess. Furthermore, I would suggest that if anyone is interested in building a Long Ez or Cozy or any other canard aircraft get your wing cores form Eureka you will not be disappointed. Steve, the owner, has wing cutting down to a science. It would be impossible for a novice or even a veteran of foam cutting to cut a set of wings out with that kind of precision. What I really liked about the whole process was the absolute use of every inch of foam, nothing is wasted. Obviously, alot of thought goes into the layout of parts. Another nice thing about Eureka cores is when you buy a set of wings or a canard, your not paying for a bunch of foam stock that will ultimately end up in the trash. In other words, when you buy foam from say, A/Spruce or Wicks you get these giant blocks of foam that you are going to pay shipping for. When your done cutting your wings your going to find that alot of that foam is scrap. With the Eureka cores you only pay for the foam that you need to make your parts. You save on shipping, you save on time, and the quality is second to none. Don't cut your wings out by hand, get the Eureka cores. Your wings and canard will build easier, faster, and lighter. I highly recommend this product to all of our builders.

 

I'm not only a Berkut builder I'm also a client.

 

Tony Malfa

Bob Setzer are you out there????

 

Could you private message me please I need to speak with you. If I may.

Hey John Matcho

 

over 15,000 views for this thread.Is that a record? Do I get an award, or trophy, or something?

Until now, there hasn't been any reason - it looked like you were doing a reasonable job.

More than reasonable job I would say.

 

 

 

Of course not. I've only built two aircraft that have flown safely for hundreds of hours, am an aeronautical engineer working for Scaled, and have an A&P certificate. What do I know about composite aircraft, compared to a machinist (which I've also been in the dim, dark past) building his first airplane? You'll have to forgive me for my regrettable lack of humility.

 

Walt Sally had an A&P and IA cert look at the quality work he performed. He thru that around like it was gosspel so I bought the airplane thinking that being a aircraft mechanic meant something like, you know what the hell your doing. WRONG WROOONG. I have noooo faith in your A&P Cert. AS far as being an aeronautical engineer. Doesn't mean you know how to build an airplane. Building airplanes comes from doing not crunching numbers.

 

You did not state what layup it was that you were working on, nor did you state that you were using mold release. You said "I waxed up some mylar...",

That is correct and you didn't ask before you sent a rather irresponsible posting. I'm trying to sell this canard and in no way have I jepardized it's integrity with my technique as I said before every part that has been made for this airplane has used that release It's called chemwax. So yes I called it wax. I haven't any problems with micro sticky to any of theother parts that wherre vauum bagged using the same exact release. I just don't see the problem.

 

Mold release, depending on the type and it's compatibility with the epoxy being used, is probably OK - wax is not. And your description of vac. bagging is incomplete at best - generally (not always, but generally), peel ply is applied to the mold surface so as to give the finished composite surface some texture to mitigate the need for sanding after release and ensure that the mold release doesn't touch the surface of the glass, but the surface of the peel ply.

I wasn't trying to describe vacuum bagging. There are several ways to vacuum bag something you have your way I have mine. I'm being taught by some of the best in the business. I take their advice before anyone else. and yes the release that I'm using is compatible with MGS.

 

You should learn to accept constructive criticism better, without becoming both defensive and aggressive at the same time, and if you don't like hearing what I have to say (or what Lynn, or anyone else has to say), feel free to put me (or them) on your "ignore" list, or whatever it's called in a web forum.

 

I can accept constructive criticism if that is what your giving me. Initially that was not your first statement on your post.

 

I'm not sure exactly which layups you're referring to here, but _I_ wouldn't purchase this canard from you now that you've covered it with wax, and I'd recommend that no-one else purchases it, either.

 

That's not constructive Marc thats being assumset you didn't even try to clarify where we where before you posted that. That's what got me defensive. If you had asked me more questions and clarified the wax/release and found that what I did was still wrong in some way not just different then maybe this would've gone alot better. I know you are smart guy but your delivery sux.

 

Tony

Lynn

 

All I can say at this point is. There is more than one way to skin a cat. you use your methodology and I'll use mine. I'll put my layups against anyones anyday. I just don't have the time to teach an old dog new tricks.

 

Tony

they are used to release a part from the mold.

Yes they are,hence the mold release. Just like the mold release on the back of the mylar.

 

first off we are not using molds, hence the name Mold-less composite construction.

Does the mold release know that?

 

putting on a release agent that has the potential to be left behind on the surface that can result in a delam at a latter date is just not smart.

Now this one is interesting, I'm curious here. you realize that this is the final layup we are talking about. I don't do this between each layup... How can there be a delam? the release agent doesn't delam a vacuum bagged part why would it delam a non vacuum bagged part?

 

lets see if I have this right , if we buy a product and put it on the surface

to solve a problem that is not a problem in the first place, then do we need to buy the product that is used to remove the product that we did not need in the first place to solve the problem that did not exist? sounds like a government project, take the time to spend the money on something that they never needed in the first place.

 

There is nooooo problem. It's not a problem that I'm tackling it's just another way of removing excess epoxy from the layup. I've done nothing wrong using this technique. it works great the final product is strong light and requires less micro for the finish what's wrong with that?

 

I don't understand why Zeitlin charmed in here in the first place he's barely posted anything about what I'm doing. He certainly hasn't been instrumental in the recovery of this project. I doubt he would've known the first thing about how to fix this airplane. Or the technigues that the people I trust are teaching me. Marc do me a favor go play in the cozy forum where you belong.

You're just causing trouble here.

 

Tony

Marc and Lynn. this is for you

 

http://www.tmi-slc.com/products/main.asp?c=7&p=65

 

learn something.

I agree with Mark. what happen to the good old method of put on glass and resin and squeege it out the excess resin and you are done

Gee I don't know maybe the mylar and plastic is just a little better way of removing more resin and making the layup lighter. I'm not arguing old techniques that's what they are OLD.

 

it does allow the excess resin to be move around under the plastic but the excess resin still needs to be removed from the top of the layup or it does no good to use the plastic.

 

I disagree have you used that technique? and have you vacuum bagged before? if so you may notice that the vacumm bagged part looks indentical to the part used with mylar or plastic how do you account for that. All your doing is removing air and compressing the layup. You can get more resin out with the vacuum bagging or using plastic or mylar. I like the mylar becasue it doesn't stretch you just have to put mold release on the back of it so the epoxy won't grab it. The same mold release that is used when you vacuum bag something into a mold. it doesn't know, it's just mold release. think of the mylar as the mold with mold release on it. Sgueechy out the excess resin, let it cure, walaaa a perfectly smooth light weight part. What's the problem???????????????????????

 

it does leave a smooth shinny surface but that is not what you want

So sand it.!!! Every part on this Berkut has been vacuum bagged every part has a smooth shinny finish

 

it may look good to the novice builder but not someone who knows good glassing techniques.

Well I'll have to call Dave R. and let him know that you guys think that shinny parts are for the novice builders.

 

the surface should be rough as in sanding or peeled plied surface so filler or paint will stick.

Did I at any point recommend that you should shoot paint or fill anything over a non sanded area?

 

Some of the new glassing techniques I see used may be "very not recommended" techniques and may cause a dangerous layup.

Oh!! and what New technigues are those? and have you see any of those dangerous technigues exercised here?

 

at best they all are adding another experiment into your experimental project. so next time you are at 15,000 feet in you project give some thought to the way you modified the plans glassing technique.

(yeah if your 80yrs old)Are you kidding me? They ALL? so if I just vacuum bagged the canard is that an epxeriment too? I don't feel that following the layup sequence to the T and sgueeching excess epoxy out with mylar with mold release on the back of it to make the layup as strong as possible is hardly modifying the Plans glassing technique.

 

as for Wax or silicone , don't do it. don't get it anywhere near the plane until its the paint job that you are using it on.

that's good advice. It's a good thing that I didn't use either one.

 

 

when I do a pre buy inspection for someone I ask the question of type of techniques used. and if wax or silicone is in the answer the inspection is done.

You mean if someone hasn't used a technique for doing layups that you are familiar with. You guys are going to have to get into the 21st century here. the bucket and brush is no longer going to be an acceptable technigue for layups.

 

Tony

Mark

I'm not sure exactly which layups you're referring to here

,

 

So rather than ask what layups we are talking about. You decide in all of your infinite wisdom to shoot off a post like this?

 

but _I_ wouldn't purchase this canard from you now that you've covered it with wax, and I'd recommend that no-one else purchases it, either.

I really wish you wouldn't make recommendations about buying the canard if your not damn sure about the materials and systems used in it's construction

 

Putting wax in contact with the wet epoxy is very not recommended. You're begging for adhesion problems (or potential ones) down the road.

 

there are numerous approved mold release agents (PVA, etc.)

I'm glad you made that destinction. There is a product that I'm using called chemwax mold release agent. Most if not all mold releases are a type of WAX

 

 

You wax the mylar with mold release wax 4 applications. First application is applied it drys you buff it and then apply the second and so on and so on. I never ever ever used wax paper or wax cups. I didn't use wax between the layups I didn't mix wax into the epoxy.

 

I want everyone to know that there is nothing wrong with this canard it is built with the same techniques used in the production of this aircraft. Mold wax release works on any surface not just mold surfaces. I didn't make up this technique I'm following basic molding practices by people who have been doing it for 30yrs or more in the AVIATION industry. I have experts that I converse with constantly to make sure I'm doing this correctly. I trust them with my life and I know this is done the correct way.

 

 

If I were you,

Your not.

I'd sand off that last layer of glass and re-do it.

You would do that and waste alot of time and propably ruin a perfectly good canard.

 

And for next time,

Please ask first then shoot.

 

just use 4-mil poly sheeting. Doesn't stick to the epoxy at all, does what you want, and peels right off.

It doesn't do what I want otherwise I would've used it.

 

Tony

You wax it? I'm surprised epoxy sticks to it in the first place

Drew Yeah you have to wax the crap out of it. Epoxy will grab it and you'll have a tough time peeling it off.

 

 

why use mylar? Is that a plans step? Why not squeegee excess without it or at best, use 3 or 4 mil plastic then cover with peel ply? Mylar seems pricey but hey, you're building a pricey plane anyway.

Neverquit

I use mylar because it doesn't stretch. You can use plastic but it stretches, so as you stretch the plastic over the glass trying to sgueechy out excess resin the plastic will tend to shrink back to it's original state which can and I've done this introduce air into the layup if your not vacuum bagging.

Pricey! Yeah no kidding it seems no matter how good a deal I get on something I'm still rocketing toward 70k. OUCH!!!!!

 

Tony