longez360

I am about to cut new winglet cores. In my case I will be using 1 peice of foam to make the cut. Had I not been able to do that, I would still use 5minute epoxy and temporarily join the cores, strategically locating the 5min/micro mix. Just takes some time and a little thought. Then I would micro & 5 min per previous post. On a part with taper, you will tend to burn in further at the small end where the rate you advance the wire through the foam is so much slower. You don't have to accept that. Nowadays I use the Ronneberg Berkut process of hotwiring oversize (0.080 for mine), and then adding blueprint sized templates (with same nail holes + a few) and sanding back to them with a rectangular alum extrusion with 120grit sandpaper attached with 77 spray adhesive.. This removes any burned in notches and accounts for variations in sweep rate between two individuals cutting etc, and provides dead straight cores. Any notches in your foam does not allow straight fibres. I will also be cutting my extended winglet spar caps with separate hotwire templates like the Roncz plans - if you don't and your partner is not at the same % location on the foil, you will not get a straight spar trough. Just thought I'd add what works for me. When I made my wortmann FX LV 153 gear leg fairings, it got pretty thin at the trailing edge and tended to burn through. This process eliminates those problems.

All the best Drew. Fingers crossed all works out.

The easiest way to do it is to use micro and 5 min epoxy/microballoon mix. You simply add micro to your cores BUT DO NOT put it near the edge. Plan that once it is clamped in place, it STILL doesn't go near the edges. This protects you from sanding foam/micro (which doesn't produce good results), ridges on your glassed part (i.e. fibres that are crimped) and allows a trick. That is, the use of 5minute epoxy (with microballoons) dollops around the edge where you did not use micro. Result: A jigged solid part in 5 minutes that allows you to work on your part while the micro cures. Pour foam is not good stuff from an outgassing perspective. Raise the temp and get bubbles in your layup...

Whatever canard you build, the key is build it accurately. Performance is 100% predicated on that advice. I don't believe the Roncz is harder to build. I found the layup internal to the centresection spar more difficult than anything on the Roncz. The Roncz was the best part I made. The GU is lower drag than the Roncz. Having seen the report online, I would definitley build a Savier airfoil canard (modified roncz with slightly longer leading edge, and small cove lip) if I had templates, or a dihedral Roncz.

Gang, some Long EZ winglet dimensions... Plans winglet locations [bL, FS, WL], (dimensions in inches).. WRP [55.5, 149.5. 17.4] … I am assuming WL17.4 for the top of the aileron, given 0.6deg washin.. Delta in dimension has small consequence so I didn't bother with the calc. Winglet Root chord, Leading edge [157.145, 160.5, 18.4], giving plans dimension A=102.15 …WL 18.4 is probably not appropriate, but again has small consequence. Excuse the decimal places for BL calcs. Winglet Root chord, Trailing edge [157.259, 187.6, 18.4], giving plans dimension B=108.35 … WL 18.4 is good Winglet Tip chord, Trailing edge [x, 196.6, 66.4], giving plans dimension C=118.35 That would be approx -0.241deg toe out :-) for the root chord. With plans tolerances assume 0 deg, hence angle of incidence of root and tip is 0. The tip has the same toe. I.e. Twist = 0 If the winglet chord line was 90 degrees to the root (x = BL157.2), Plans dimension C would equal approx 122.3". Ie. The winglet is canted in slightly as Marc states and is not 90 degrees. The Berkut cant is 4" outboard measured from the relative trailing edge BL positions of root and tip sections. i.e. BL plumb bob from tip trailing edge to root trailing edge. This is a significantly greater value of C when transposed to a Long EZ. I believe the A and B numbers for the Berkut are same, becasue they use the same WRRP, not that which is moved by way of a deepr aileron chord... ;-) These numbers might aid an individual who is blending at a 30.4" WL cut line like mine. :-) I have completed a basic 2D aerodynamic investiagtion of revised airfoils and winglet planform, and am now doing some CFD work. All going well, I should be flying new winglets relatively soon (relative to my 18 month downdraft cooling mod! :-)) They will be 80% built off the aircraft.

81HM was one of the aircraft that really kept me going as a kid building my Long EZ. Still recall the words from Sport Aviation trued 206mph. Still remember that orange lightning strike down the side. Recall the work Herb put into the sport flight cowls etc. Fourth Long EZ to fly was it? Lee Herron's was early as well. Johnny Murphy, Mike Melvill, Dick Rutan, Herb Sanders...?

Everytime I read of someone saving a few bucks by using substitute materials, I get on my high horse. Sorry gang, I gotta get this one off my chest. Of late I have read of a number of people using all kinds of commerically available peel plys, that once removed, the resulting surface is considered structurally prepared surface for adhesive bonding. This is not necessarily the case, and structurally can be as bad is it gets. Are you meeting your peel strength requierment? Are you leaving behind a clean, chemically active surface? What about contaminants? The only effective method of surface preparation is surface abrasion. Issues: 1. Peel ply Fabric density - warp/fill/filament size - effects bond due to varying resin impregation. 2. Contaminants and material transfer - some nylon peel plies contain silicon. Some leave the peel ply material on the surface. Like any materials used in our method of construction they MUST be clean and dry. There are many industry reports on this subject available on the internet. Surface abrasion has its pitfalls also. Peel plies that leave a "beautiful surface" are dangerous. Use on primary structure is not 'at your own risk', it may also be at the risk of those you fly with or over. Beware.

A RAF license was for the build one Long EZ PER PLANS from that one set of plans. That is what RAF supported. Reality is, there are NO strictly PER PLANS Long EZs anywhere except N79RA. NONE. ZERO. My aeroplane is a Blackler Long EZ, not a Rutan Long EZ. I am proud of the lineage, the engineering Burt did, and respect it without reservation but all Long EZs are different. ADVICE: Get a second hand set of plans, build the test peices, get them checked by an experienced and QUALITY builder and If you like the process, go build one. You will not regret it.

There is a quote by the late Douglas Bader in one of the finest movies 'Reach for the Sky', "Rules are made for the obedience of fools and the guidence of wise men"... He had two tin legs and flew spitfires and hurricanes (completely against Kings regulations for RAF airmen)... He was the finest RAF aviator. He was superhuman. There are 2 LSA Vari Ezes flying in Australia today.. and it makes me a happy man.

Tom, you're right :-), it was devloeped by Lee Carlstrom and Dave Lind, with plans in the CSA newsletters, and is available prefab from Rick Girard (i can provide Ricks contact details privately). Super machinist, Rick. Not sure it will work depending on location of windows, but worth laying it out.

From my experience, Arlington is the finest fly-in in the United States. It has maintained the grass roots level of aviation as a backbone, allows intimate involvement with the public as participants (strong for aviation), and is far less commerical than other airshows.

Gap seals on the canard (slotted flap) are repeatedly stated as not acceptable in the canard pusher newsletters. For those who have not read and absorbed that material, please make yourself familiar before building and or operating one of these aircraft. On another slightly separate subject, cove lips : Klaus Savier does have a cove lip (small triangular shaped peice) on the underside of his modified Roncz R1145MS aerofoil. It doesnt cover the gap, but certainly changes the flow to the slotted flap. The aerofoil does have a lower Cd as stated. See: video: Report: http://pagesperso-orange.fr/scherrer/matthieu/aero/papers/Savier_Canard.pdf

Went and checked out Bruce's setup (AKA LCF) on Sunday. All looks just about ready to get underway. Location is ideal. Progress imminent.

I was lucky enough to get a ride in Glen Water's 360 Berkut in England and Jerry Parrish's 540 Berkut in Seattle, and I can tell you Dave Ronneberg got it right from stem to stern. Those two aeroplanes were absolute weapons, and the manufacturing processes Dave developed are truly something to see. He is one heck of an engineer and composite designer/fabricator. Dick's machine with the TIO-390 should really do the business. Looking forward to some performance numbers. Should leave old blue for dead.

To build at minimum weight. 1. Build per plans with mandatory plans changes only. 2. Don't hotwire cores, sand them out with a alum extrusion straight edge. 3. Don't add plies, or overlap beyond requirements. 4. Make your own cowl. To reduce weight 1 & only: If not mandatory, throw the item up in the air, if it comes back down, it's too heavy to go in your aeroplane. Myth: Squeegee resin for weight... Nope, that's to give good fiber-volume-fraction, and for nesting of fibers more than weight reduction...

I agree with Mark 100%. In addition: While one may dream of the 3 knots picked up in cruise with a 235 or 320 powered EZ with blended winglets, consider the aerodynamic efffects (unkown for your aircraft I can assure you) and structural integrity that goes with a change and weigh it up against your life, that of a test pilot, that of a passenger (if you make it that far) and those of people on the ground who didn't get a say... Some videos on flutter or winglet stall would really be a nice addition to this thread. Does anyone recall the Vari-Eze accident where the builder forgot the layups on the outside of his winglets? He was killed as was his daughter. A winglet modification that has not been engineered may result in the same mistake. It may be unintentional. Does anyone recall the effects of removing the lower winglet on a cozy IV? Mark has flight test data for a Morrison E-Racer. Can any of the other people making this mod explain the aerodynamic and structural effects and their justification to me prior to flight test? I'd like to hear them and how they arrived at that justification... It probably needs to be more than it worked on an ERacer. :-)

My 5 cents: I'd stick to the plans. Pour foam continues to expand with elevated temperatures beyond that which it was cured. Over a large area you will get bubbles as the part is cured, and at joints you can expect lumps and bubbles as well. Micro is great. Use some 5 min to tack the parts together and micro everywhere else. Never squeeze out, just use it to within an inch of the surface of the joint.

Bruce, congrats on a sensational job organising the fly-in for us all! I had a blast and I think everyone else did too! We had great success with my Silver Bullet prop test on what must be the world's nicest MkIV - Super machine built and flown by Chris Byrne! He ordered the prop the next day, called the day after and Gary Hertzler had already glued up the blank! It will be the nicset prop you can lay your hands on. Great to see Phil Heffernan (my old Deputy Vice Principal from Melbourne High School and good mate) arrive in his 25y.o. superb Vari Eze formerly VH-HPC and spend the day. That was the highlight for me as I don't get to catch up with Phil that much. Phil hotwired my foam cores for my wings back in about 1988! Great to meet Dave, and everybody else. Great to catch up with Lindsay Danes (who better fly in next time or else!). Lindsay has VH-LDL which is about 23 years old, has a 320 conversion, and probably has more trips across the nullabour than anything but airliners... ;-) Cheers Wayne

G'Day all, My cowl setup is as follows: - There are two 5" x 1.5" NACA inlets either side of the canopy. They feed individual plenums, cylinders 1&3 and cylinders 2&4. - There is a lower 'centreline scoop' which is a 5" x 1" NACA inlet. It feeds the fuel injection servo and and oil cooler. I have it camlocked in place (using skybolt c-locs) giving full access to the hell hole (almost as good mod as downdraft itself!) You can use the cowls for any four cylinder engine installation, and for carb or fuel injection. The total inlet area for everything is 20sq.in. This is a lot less than most, even for O-235 installations. I am cooling a pumped up 9.2:1 IO-360 Lycoming (parallel valve, not the bulky angle valve) well within specs. The only air in the lower cowl is cylinder 'exit air'. from the lower centreline inlet, I go directly to the fuel servo through a K&N RU2710 filter. The bleed air off the side of the centreline scoop travels through to the oil cooler via a duct. The oil cooler has an outlet duct that flows out under the spinner. The idea was to not add air for the oil cooler to the lower cowl when I was trying to downdraft cool! :-) I used to get to 215F even on cold days. I actually have a butterfly valve on the oil cooler outlet to heat it up now, and it never sees more than 195F in climbs on even the hottest summer days here. The top cowl can use any style scoop with a plenum, plenums or baffles. You could use parallel walled submerged scoops, divergenet straight walled scoops or ram scoops - your choice. All seemingly have little effect on drag and provide adequate mass flow rates for cooling from what I have read and flight tested. The lower cowl can be used for a carb or fuel injection. Although much tighter around the engine, the lower cowl has far more room than the old berkut cowls as I used one continuous blister per side rather than a myriad of blisters to cover induction tubes, starter and alternator etc etc. It oil flow exceptionally well.

Following a number of inquiries about my new downdraft cowls, I have decided to make them available. This will save the average builder a significant amount of effort in design & manufacture and deliver proven drag reduction and cooling performance. Pictures: http://www.canardzone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1622&page=2 Material: CFRP or GRP, Araldite K3600/MGSL285 Kit: Upper cowl, Lower cowl, centreline scoop fairing. Not included: baffling/plenums, upper scoops (your choice). I am cooling a 9.2:1 IO-360 within Lycoming specifications. The cowls have been carefully engineered to maximise drag reduction and deliver adequate cooling. The cowls gave significant performance increase on my Long EZ http://www.ez.org/feature/F0411-1/F0411-1.htm Further information and pricing by private message request

If doing it again, it would still be VFR. That drives certain requirements. I'd use independant instruments, specifically Dynon EFIS-D10A, Dynon EMS-D10, Dynon autopilot, and a new Garmin GPS 696, Garmin Comm & XPDR. I would definitely not add backup steam gages. I have a Rocky Mountain encoder as back up today, and I have never used it. You don't need airspeed to land a VFR Long EZ - If you do, you need more practice. If you think you need altitude, then you are going beyond a certificated spec requirement. I's use the same Single battery, dual alternator setup for australia and a single alternator if in the USA. For my next project I think I'll build a biplane (Model 14 or Model 12 pitts coz I miss my old Tiger Moth) and I will use steam gages the whole way. EFIS just doens't fit the plan. Will always be a analog watch guy and not a digital watch guy...

Do any of you know of a way to protect against such a risk ? No. Leave your Long EZ in the hangar that day or select the appropriate aircraft for the task. . .

HI Marc, my definition of flight testing was envelope expansion throughout a defined CG and weight range I planned to fly within. It was certinaly not to the requirements of FAR 23 or to other regulatory authority requirements aside from an FAA 40 test program. I am familiar with the scope of FAA and CASA requirements. It included what testing was deemed fundamental to safety, and that which was acheivable by a homebuilder without an expensive, instrumented, all-encompassing flight test program. It was supported in scope by my flight advisor (ex-Navy Test Pilot school pilot), FAA recommendations for homebuilts, my own experience and the knowledge base behind some commercailly available test literature.. The result in reality is a very limited envelope as I'm certain you elude, and associated risk. It certainly does not account for any environmental scope, and therefore transient accelerations via wind gusts. I simply get a weather brief and stick to Vra as tested when I can. "How good these machines are" is a qualitative term followed by a smile, and was not meant to be a quantification, as I too am an aeronautical engineer. :-) The designer could probably provide engineering support to Mike's aircraft as it probably was more of a 'known' structure against the prototype; same materials used (aside from spar caps), resin & cure specifics (same Mojave environment), and it was built by the same person that was involved in 79RA. 26MS also has s-glass spars. I doubt that is applicable to many other EZs aside from perhaps Dick Rutan's old aircraft. The design allowables would certainly be different for all aircraft as are the aerodynamics etc etc Great chat. Cheers

The Long EZ POH is for a stock O-235 Long EZ, specifically 79RA. When you build a Long EZ, it will be different and the POH needs to be amended for your aircraft. I have a letter from Mike Melvill which discusses operations over 2000lbs being limited to the gear bow on the bass of static load test data, and high gross service history (Koch, Roman, Rodewald, Rutan, Melvill). E.g. Long EZ (N169SH world flight) ramp: Empty (estimated): 1000lbs Fuel (main): 52 galsUS = 312lbs Fuel (slippers): 50USgals = 300lbs Fuel (back seat, estimated): 20galsUS = 180lbs = 1792lbs, no pilot or baggage... I have flight tested out to 1975lbs. VH-WEZ (formerly N360WZ) Empty: 1006lbs Full fuel: 50gals (US) 300lbs Pilot: 260lbs Passenger: 240lbs That's 1806lbs as I flew from the desert Australia back to Mangalore (540nm). OAT was 100F on the ground at Leigh Creek. I averaged 196KTAS, 10500ft and burned 100 litres. Flight Time was 2:45. Around 36 litres/hr.. Turbulence? My backseater hit the canopy a couple of times - woke him up! I slept well that night knowing how good these machines are...

I omitted the NACA vent up front. I took off out of Arlington WA one day and the canopy fogged up in the pattern. Scared the crap out of me. I've made some changes. I use a strake opening and eyeball vent. You need an air exit. If it comes in, it's got to go out. The Canopy NACA is a good idea.