zies8

Looking for Canard builders in Utah in the intermountain area. Would like to visit your project and dream build. If any would be willing. ............................Mike ........West Valley Utah

If you have not looked at the vistal nav you really should see it. This thing looks like it belongs in a front line fighter jet. http://www.mc.com/vistanav/media/large.cfm

I thought y'all would be interested in the Vista nav 3d avionics. Go to............ http://www.mc.com/vistanav/media/large.cfm

Raki; Thank you for your opinion!!! I am considering seriously the route you suggest. Wayne: I agree that the berkut is a great choice. The fact that a kit costs somewhere in the $60k range is jus too much for me to bite off. Maybe a berkut project that is in the early stages that is incomplete could be an option. One with just the fuselage done without the later parts of the kit purchased. If the Berkut has an increase in the fuselage of 8" that would be perfect. I did not know that the Berkut was 8" wider. Mike

So the modification list for the "Heavy Hauling Ez" would be: 1. Fuselage width increase 4". 2. Long nose to help with W&B. 3. Cozy landing Gear. 4. Cozy wings. 5. O-360 or O-540. with Cozy engine mounts 6. Cozy nose gear. Is the engineering for the "Heavy Ez" doable due to the design parameters that are existing in the two planes and the fact that most of these mods have already been implemented on other aircraft (though not in that particular combination)? Opinions?.............

So commrades; In the end the answer to the original question ............ ........." why can the cozy claim a higher useful load than the Long Ez" is simply because the Cozy and Aerocanard plans have heavyer Shear Web and Spar Cap layups. Therefore my original idea to use Cozy IV wings on a Long Ez would work to create a higher useful load Long Ez. Thank you........ Comments on the idea of using Cozy wings on a Long Ez would be appreciated. ...................................Mike

Mac; Thank you for the graphic. The aerocanard is significantly beefier at the spar! That is very interesting. I am guessing that the added weight of the four place wing spar would only be along the lines of 20 lbs. or so. This structural upgrade would logically be called for if the useful load were to consistantly be at max gross on a Long Ez. The guys like Chris Eiselson and Jack Morrison Both with 540s on their planes must have made some modifications to their planes in consideration of useful load. Either that or they are using their planes as two place planes. I am ....ass-u-me ing .... all of this as I do not know their weight and balance figures. It would be very interesting to know how they developed their specifications as they built. Burt Rutan's original insistance that the 0-260 was the engine for and that modifications that " if you throw it up and it comes down it is too heavy" ( ie; retracts, heaters, auto pilots, etc. etc.) for the Long Ez has certainly evolved. Has all of this come about just because the structure has proven itself or are there some aviation engineers at work out there or what? Mike

Jon; Do I understand correctly? The additional 4" of wing is at the wing attach point and the wing attach geometry is identical. Therefore one could attach Long Ez wings on a Cozy and verca vica? Mike

Hey John; I realize the effort it would take to get a technical response from anyone about the exact design criteria on any of the planes. I am in the very early stages of conceptualizing my aircraft. All I am asking for is general statements as to the differences in design so that I can incorporate them into my plane. I may be stepping over the edge or walking the slippery slope when I say that I as a non engineer would like to modify an aircraft but it seems to have been accomplished by many. I appreciate the forum and their williigness to share. I look forward to meeting some of you guys at Rough River this year. ................Mike:cool: :cool:

Wayne and Raki: I have got to learn to use the "quote" feature. You both have Long Ez and Cozy IV plans. Can you tell me what the difference is between the spar cap and shear web layups between the two? I am trying to determine the design perameters that allow the Cozy to have a higher useful load than the Long Ez. It was mentioned that the landing gear is beefier on the Cozy. Is that true of the structure in the wing also? Mike

Tony: After consulting with the group here that line of logic that I am going to follow is to switch from Long Ezplans to Cozy plans. This reply to your lasst post would then become a question........Are the Cozy landing gear legs beefed up to take on the 1000 lb useful load of the Cozy? We should be able to assume so. ......................Mike

CnC; I agree whole heartedly with your entire post! I have also mentioned that the only way that alternate materials be used is if they are exact spec. materials. The hunt is on.......... :cool:

Alanon; Your insight into the process of testing materials is first hand. Thank you for sharing. This thread began with the question "why do we need to ablolutely rely on Wicks and AS&S?". It evolved into the more concise on a shoestring topic question............."Where can we find alternate economical exact spec. materials?" With that question in mind I am hoping that this thread can develop into something usefull. ............................Mike

Ok; So we have established many philisophical / legal point's. I hope that this thread makes as much practical sense to y'all as it does to me. The revised title of this thread should be ;;;; "Alternate economical sources/distrubutors for exact spec. materials".

Thank you for your intelligent reply to this thread.