raiki
Verified Members-
Posts
189 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Articles
CSA Articles
CSA Issues
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Everything posted by raiki
-
http://www.canardzone.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1706&d=1211433000
-
Here's another type. http://michaeltdrew.com/photo.html
-
Don't lose all hope. There are some Varis with a Long type wing attach mech. Obviously this is a major engineering change that would require engineering input so don't go it alone. I don't remember who or where these are but there are some photos on this forum I think. I think a Vari/Long hybrid will meet your requirements for a purely scratch built aircraft for RAA registration which I figure is your intention.
-
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/asp/casadata/register/data/ACRFTREG.CSV 8x Varis, 20x Longs, 2x Velocities, 3x Cozy IIIs and 3x Cozy IVs registered in Australia right now on the GA register. Add the close to half dozen Varis on the RAA register and they are not that rare given the relatively small size of the Australian GA fleet (disregarding the 250 odd RVs).
-
In the automotive world we have the option of increasing RPM which is why we can 'easily' increase HP. With a few mods getting an auto engine from 200HP@4800RPM to 350HP@6000RPM is possible (although I wouldn't say easily or cheaply). I know this because I have done it. With a direct drive engine you are limited to the RPM of the prop (generally 2700-2800 for anything bigger than an 0-200). If you want to increase the HP of an 0-235 from say 115 to 200 you need to improve volumetric efficiency by a factor of around 60%. Lets say the VE of the 0-235 was around 80%(that's a pretty low figure by auto standards but I'd estimate it's close to aircraft engines of a stock variety), your VE for 200HP would be in the realms of 140%. That is well above the results achieved by the average normally aspirated (na) drag car. If you turbo/supercharged the 0-235 and boosted it to roughly 15psi you would achieve approx 160% VE and possibly 230HP, but the engine wont last long at these boost pressures. At reasonable 'streetable' boost levels of say 9psi, you might get around 190HP. But now you are talking the weight and complexity of turbo/super chargers. Now using the above example it would certainly be possible to push the 0-320 to 200HP using a blower. Maybe without but with a wacky cam/ignition/intake and all the comprimises that will give you. Now compare the weight of the blown 320 vs a 360 na. The na engine will certainly last longer. Max torque occurs at max VE. Torque is proportional to VE, and HP is proportional to torque AND RPM. So increasing VE or RPM gives more HP. This is why autos are easier. In one step you improve VE and RPM so you get a double hit in the HP stakes. In summation in my opinion you have no chance of a reliable, easy to use/maintain 0-235 with 200HP. You will get 200HP out of an 0-320 but it wont be all that happy about it. Oh forgot to add, more HP means more heat but you are not adding more surface area to the air cooled engine to dissipate it. (if you are making 75% more HP you are burning roughly 75% more fuel, assuming rpm remains the same). disclaimer: no real math/engineering done here, just using common armchair principles.
-
Bruce, they should be off by quite a bit. You are comparing the GU canard from the original EZ to the Roncz (as stated by others, but I thought I'd confirm given I drew the templates). As has been stated before the Open-EZ is a clone of the Long-EZ with all the proven latest technology. The top of the list would be the Roncz canard. I doubt you will find one person that would suggest on a new build to use the GU. The GU is usable with VGs and the like and probably worth considering not changing if you already have a GU. I, in no way, support including the GU in the Open-EZ plans. Other absolutes are I also will not support the original rudders. Now I don't mean to be rude, but if you can't pick the GU from the Roncz airfoil (and the benefits of the mod) then I don't think you are at a level where you will add any value to this project. The Roncz is probably THE most known about EZ mod, everyone should know about it. Some may think this is bit rough, but that is my opinion. On saying that, thanks for your efforts in checking my work. I appreciate it, as will the rest of the project. Again, this is all my opinion only. I don't speak for the project as a whole, and I apologise if I have offended.
-
From what I remember the kitplanes article about this plane said he built a drive extension which included thrust bearings (shifting the load to the bell housing mating surface of the block). It was a while ago and I don't have that article anymore, but I'm pretty sure it was done correctly. It also has/had a 500 holley with a mod for manual mixture control. In the end it is a direct drive 360ci (Ford 351 alloy block bored a little) so it's performance must be relatively close to any 360 powered Long which in itself must be pretty impressive.
-
The goal of the project frmo the beginning was to create a LongEZ clone with the "latest approved and tested modifications". This includes the HP rudders, SP canard (Roncz), landing brake etc. This is why I am not so keen on Bruce's verbatim LongEZ plans text. With these additions it is just not possible. This was the decided goal long ago, and along the way people ask to change to the goal. They are finally convinced we should stick to the initial goal, but then someone else comes along and wants to change the goal again. That was why I initially dropped out as it seemed to be going nowhere. If we revert to the original goal and stick to it, I am in and I would be happy to take ownership of chapter 4s drawings. If we are going to go around in circles all over again I am out. Don't take this a threat, as I am sure you can do this without me, it's just it causes me to lose interest. All projects need a well defined goal or they will never be successful.
-
Keith, while I would be a willing participant in the design panel I don't think I am suitably qualified. At this stage I have never built an EZ type aircraft. I have some of the drawings saved, however a lot were done "on the spot" for the chapter and never saved. To recreate them would only take a few minutes. I did it this way as I was expecting there would be some input for a change here or there. In most cases the response was very positive so that didn't exactly go to plan. Regardless I still have the Microsoft Word document that printed this PDF, and all drawings are captured in that. In this format all drawings are raster (actually they might be WMF vectors, I can't remember how I did it) so cannot be re-opened in AutoCAD to be edited but as I said that's not a problem.
-
Bruce, I think you and I and I are on different wavelengths and it is causing some confusion on both our parts. When I referenced duplication of work recently I wasn't talking about the full size templates. What I am talking about is your intention to redo chapter 4. Now if you want to do it then go ahead, no one can stop you but my point is I have already done chapter 4 and the construction method is identical to the LongEZ. I have added some text to clear up some points, added the wires in the screw heads at the firewall (as done by many people) and cleaned up the format. My point is what you are striving for, in this particular chapter, is already done.
-
You can just double click on the picture on Acrobat, copy it and paste it into your document. Easy as that. That's effectively what the OpenEZ plans are, the LongEZ plans with better drawings, readable text, all the CP additions and proven mods. Seems pointless doing this all over again.
-
Found em ... http://www.canardzone.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2092&d=1223534721
-
Do you mean each of the little drawings used in my CH4 PDF? Most of the colour 3D stuff I still have the DWGs for, however most of the B&W stuff was done on the spot and imported (never saved). As this was just a test I didn't keep most files as it only takes a few minutes to recreate them. I am not entirely sure what you mean here, they are already in the plans? Fill me in and I'll see what I still have. Because I lost interest in the OpenEZ I haven't maintained a good "filing system" of all my stuff so it may take a couple of days.
-
If you are going to go the plotter route, the DWG file of these drawings is somewhere in the sticky post. Around page 20 I think but not sure.
-
Elsewhere on the forum are the wing templates I created that are all one piece. Try this (only right wing and aileron templates not done: http://www.canardzone.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2093&d=1223534774 And here's the canard templates: http://www.canardzone.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1706&d=1211433000
-
Yup. http://www.canardzone.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1704&d=1211287960 This was a draft I did up ages ago to test the concept. Came out pretty good, but not really verified and some mods required (particulary the part about the landing brake).
-
Oh goody here we go again, yay. This has been said/asked many times, argued many times, much like the whole OpenEZ project. I point you to Marcs post here (#72): http://www.canardzone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10290&page=5 Particularly this part "He stated that while he/RAF still owns the copyrights, he would not attempt to protect that ownership by legal means." I thank Marc for his post (Dec 08), again going out of his way (at risk) to get the facts to stop the gossip. Being an engineering type (electrical) I like facts and numbers. If this is going to turn into a "but it might" or "they possibly could" or "my uncles cousins sisters boyfriend knows this guy whos been sued before because" and other conjecture then I am out. That's the end of my discussion on the whole subject.
-
I would say the OpenEZ needs to contain information to enable the majority to be built when the suppliers are no longer around. The Girrrls may not be in this business in 20 years. Open an early CP, go to the suppliers list and see who is still available. Obviously some but not the majority. In my view, if the LongEZ plans show how to build it so would the OpenEZ. We have enough resources, assuming the other fellas want to get involved again, to create even better drawings for all parts. Even to the point of having CAD data ready for people to take to machining places for CNC. That being said, I doubt you'll see any more output out of me until we have a "council" type system setup as I discussed in my other post. I already have two questions for the "advisory council". Should we change to Cozy type engine mount pads on the firewall (in place of the Longs extrusions), and also Cozy type main gear bulkheads (again in place of extrusions). This is a against the mandate of the OpenEZ but it is proven canard technology so not way out there.
-
The problem with the OpenEZ project to date is some people did some really great work on drawings and docs, then someone else would do the same work, and someone else would do it all over again. After you spend hours on your PC, then other people reinvent the wheel for no better or worse drawing you really feel like you have wasted your time. Yes, I am talking from personal experience. Heck I even found some clown on Ebay selling drawings for the OpenEZ that I created. To this day I am not sure why people were paying for free stuff. Another issue was "the original crew" so to speak decided on boundaries, being a LongEZ clone with all the latest PROVEN developments included (electric landing brake and Roncz canard for example). Some new people would come along and recommend changing the scope. This would go for a week or two then the original idea was nominated again. After that there would be more new people trying the same thing and that ended in the same result. Now don't get me wrong, everyone can have their own opinion and I am not annoyed at anyone. The only issue was this all took too much time and seemed to be going no-where. That's when I opted out. If it was to be re-opened with a restricted "advisory council" who approved drawings and the like I might be interested in getting involved again. I don't intend to be on this council, and personally because it was Jons idea I think he should lead it but I realise he has a life and is busy. Speaking of Jon, I haven't seen a post from him in quite some time. Does anyone know if he is still alive and kicking? Given the Zone is still here I guess he is still paying the bill for the hosting. Anyone??? Jon??? FYI - I generally prefer AutoCAD and the DWG format as a personal preference.
-
Location is Perth, Western Australia. It's a deceased estate.
-
In the early days there was the Cozy, when the Cozy IV was born the Cozy became the Cozy III to differentiate it. When Uli got the rights to the Cozy III in Europe he called it the Cosy Classic (not sure if that was pre or post IV). Certainly the Cozy III had the side hinged canopy. The first Cozy I ever saw in the flesh was Tony Rothwells III here is Australia around '98 at the SAAA flyin and that was side hinged. (and had to be built exactly to plans back then in Australia (ABAA rules or 101.28), experimental was introduced about that time). Other than the FHC, I am not sure there are any differences between the III and the Classic however I don't have the plans for either so I am not 100% sure.
-
New to the fourm (Melbourne, Australia)
raiki replied to Steven's topic in Introductions, Visits, Sightings & Rides
Steve The Long/Open and the Cozy have basically the same construction if you disregard size. A Cozy builder would be helpful to a Long/Open and vice versa. The only real change I can think of off hand are the NACA scoop and main undercarriage mounts. Oh, and the way the interior is 'contoured', although if I built an Open I would use that method and the main undercarriage. I was fairly heavily involved in rewriting the plans for the OpenEZ but have lost interest. Not wanting to make your decision harder though. Anyhow, I am in Queensland and not building yet so not much help to you. -
The biggest problem with a Vari, as I see it, is that there are certain parts not detailed in the plans that needed to be purchased from the suppliers. Wing attachment fittings come to mind. I think the plates are mostly detailed but the tapered bushes and the part of the plates that mate with them are not. I don't know if anyone is manufacturing them anymore, although I haven't really been looking. Others have changed the wing attach method to something like the Long, but if you are going to that trouble you might as well build a Long. Better supported by builders on this site and others, parts available, CAD drawings available as part of the OpenEZ project. If you feel the need to scale it down a fraction (though I can't think of a good enough reason) then go for your life.
-
Here is a quick drawing I did, in another forum section. It is effectively a Cozy with twin Jabiru 3300s. It's just a quick drawing with no engineering thought at all. http://www.canardzone.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2331&d=1232196898 Personally, I think with reduced scale, Jabirus, fixed gear and some other lightening mods you should easily get to 75% weight of the Defiant. When you consider the Defiant empty weights around 1600lb, Cozy around 1200lb that 75%. And the two Jabiru engines weigh about as much as one lyco 360 in the Cozy. If you can't get your empty weight around 1300lb I'd be very suprised. Again, no real engineering calcs done but you cant be far off beat. Because of the much reduced gross (less fuel and lower empty weigh), you could theoretically reduce structural members to values like the Cozy. http://www.canardzone.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2331&d=1232196898
-
Oh No, He's been playing with AutoCAD again
raiki replied to raiki's topic in Models, Simulators & Concepts
Ummm no, because the canard area is significantly bigger than a standard Cozy. That's one of the things I did think about. Standard Cozy has 15sq.ft of canard area, this baby has 30sq.ft. Prolly not enough, defiant has 50sq.ft but 30sq.ft looks cool. Like I said, no real maths went into it and I certainly didn't accommodate the effect of sweep or the increased reynolds numbers due to increase chord. Add to that the Jabiru has an installed weight (incl. starter, alternator, exhaust, ignition) of about 270lbs. That said I have also used the lighter engine in the rear, so that exacerbates the problem. Could hang the rear engine further out the back but the fuse is long enough as it is.