airnico

kevin, may you explain to me what basalt is?

they were so brave to experiment a different seating solution, so why not to try a different aircraft shape? look at the Gloster Meteor F8 Prone Position or at the Berlin B9: with a proned pilot it would be better for visibility reasons and pilot's head position(to look forward) to have the canopy(may be just a window) under the aircraft (forward part), this way you could fly and land it at very high AoA with no visibility problems and you should not keep your head up.

how can we manage the offers? how can I know if someone else makes a higher offer?

there is a guy here in italy who is building a Berkut, I went to see it some months ago and I also had the same question: what is the longeron made of in a berkut? am I blind or there's nothing inside that longeron? it's common with moulded parts to use an internal profile that is removed after curing but is this the case?? can anyone confirm it?

prone position, it's interesting: it would be like to ride a motorbike...... I feel like I have more sensitivity to the bike's behaviour sitting prone than to the car's behaviour sitting reclined. prone sitting gives you also more stability(assuming your legs have something to hold), but I'm skeptical about neck confort: I actually ride my bike for many hours with no neck problems, and we should consider the elmet's weight and wind force. when riding on race tracks you also get some g force and I had never neck problems. I wonder if it would be a good solution, but looking at formula1(cars) that is the highest expression of performance and g force on the ground(in europe) I see that they sit reclined and I cannot think they did not consider a different solution: they have tons of engineers and money to spend to research! but I think the reason for this position could be merely a habit: we have always sit that way since cars exist..... do you have some links to see those aircraft with prone sitting you talked about?

Argoldman, W&B is of course basic pilot stuff, but I think what we're talking about is beyond that: here the canard moment arm has been increased and the shape of strakes is changed, considering also that the strakes have been changed from a flat surface to a lifting profile(even if the flat surface has a little amount of lift too) this lead to a change that is not just trivial..... anyway I don't consider yours as an attack to anybody, eventually as a suggest: thank you for you reply!

I would like to know if this affect CG: if you stretch the fuselage and the strakes 12" forward, the fuel tanks also come 12" forward, does not it give a bigger CG difference between full tanks and low level tanks? this is the reason why I asked about the berkut strakes(stretched or not).

so should you reduce the canard span not to have a great lift(nose up) at high speed?

if they have retracts in the extra 12" behind the rear set I understand that they were stretched in that point so what happened to strakes? were they also stratched? I mean: if you take the centersectionspar 12" aft, you have to stretch the strakes also or you'll have a hole there......

sorry Spodman, I did not understand your question: I'm building an Open-Ez.

just to have an idea of how the finished centersectionspar looks and its dimension, I tried to build a wood model, but have some problems with its left and right ends(rear portion of upper face) where it decrease in thickness(both ends are inclined surfaces going down in the aft portion). plans give the possibility for a measure comparison with sections C-C and D-D but there are no dimensional indications so I suppose that original plans were in real dimension in order to be measured. can you enlight me?

no problem Steve, I'm waiting for you!

hello guys, I have a problem to check the right outside dimension of my centersectionspar: the drawings provided from my terf cd are not to scale, so I do not have any reference mesurement to compare my work with..... this problem appear several times on the way:mad: : for example the metal parts for canard construction are not to scale, F28 has unknown dimensions and so on. how can I solve this problem? is there anybody out there available to provide me with some real sized centersectionspar drawings? thanks to everybody nico

I've tried to contact you Steve but had no answer: I assume you already sold the gear.....

good to know.....thank you for this information, I was going to set both the seats at the same angle than original, but yours is a good suggest: any info about the pilot seat?(sorry may be I'm offtopic)

WOW!!! really an injection of self-esteem: thank you very much for your appreciation Edge. usually people makes fun of me for it here around: they say I'm strange and crazy wasting my money in stupid stuff! I also cannot wait the time to see what that shape does to the air, but I'm a little bit concerned about forward visibility(lowered shoulders): can anyone say to me anything about the standard Long-Ez visibility??

Also by using the Long-EZ as baseline we are just about guaranteed success. I totally agree with this sentence, everything else than a Long-Ez clone is a question mark (???) and something that everyone develop for his own preference like a made to measure suit: it would not be possible to work togheter on something different from an original design and it would have no sense. the baseline of a Long-Ez gives to everybody the chance to get the goal and to everyone else with a lot of time to waste a perfect base to play on with mods and different ideas.

I really like your work on inventor and share your rounded fuselage purpose: seeing your drawing it seems quite easy to realize a rounded shape with the original Long-Ez technic, but are you sure it's really faisible? I started one year ago trying to do what you made virtually, but I did not realize the problems related to bending something in two different directions: it simply did not work for me(may be I have no skills for it) and soon I realized it was not the way (may be my way). It was not possible for me to get the shape I was looking for exactly, it was like I was doing just a rough job(of course it was not straight) so I started again from the beginning and realized a plug for a moulded fuselage. It needs obviously A LOT of work more, after one year I'm about to finish the plug and now I'm pleased with its shape, but after this I'll have to study a new layup process and it will be like starting again from zero! I really would like to see someone else pursuing this way, it would be very interesting to see different solutions for the same problems I went through.....

hi guys, I found that the upper contouring template match well with the lower contouring template at the L.E. but they don't at the T.E.(they don't touch and a bit of space remain between them). I suppose the error is in the lower part, but I'm not sure: anybody has a solution or a suggest?? nico

do you think they can swim inverted??

hi guys, I agree, it makes more sense to have the rotors overhead, I suspect the platform could go upside down in any moment: actually I would be quite scared being on those machines, do you think they're safe?? at least they're cool, but I don't know if I would go for a ride..... anyway I appreciate very much their efforts.

hello guys, terf cd contains the roncz canard plans, but there are no templates(or at least I was not able to find them on my cd), so how can you build a canard from that cd? regards nico

hello CP Tomes, welcome here! let's see things from another point of view: I am a builder and am going to build my canard, you are another builder who already built and flown his canard. I'm simply asking you a suggest about the correct size of the trough that I'm going to realize: just saying to me: the right size are x-y-z, would you violate any law??I think helping a fellow builder would be no crime... I asked someone to lend me his metal/wood templates that he used to cut the foam to compare the accuracy of my work: is it a violation?(I'm no expert of American laws). we are investigating on something that is no more available on the market:the long-EZ canard, who will go mad for this?? nico

hello LongEZ-Dave, thank you for joing us! we are only interested in the spar cap dimensions: we know the roncz lay-up schedule as it is in the terf cd, the only missing data is the spar trough size: until now nobody was able to clarify this point. I can't believe nobody out there has a copy or a scan of the roncz canard templates: ok you cutted them from plans when you built your canard, but may be someone still have the wood or metal shapes used to hot wire the foam cores: I think we could scan them...... is there anybody available to share his templates?I promise he'll get 'em back!! regards nico

hello guys, someone of you can of course give an answer to this question: what the drawings miss is the spar cap trough as everybody already know and as I said before I did not copy the cozy spar cap because I know it's different, BUT what about the long-EZ gu canard spar cap? we have gu canard templates from open-EZ project, don't you think it's well dimensioned to our use? it comes from the same plane, same weight, same g-factor, may be it would work.... can't we copy it in the cad drawings?? any comment/suggest?? nico