Aiman

Shazam had no idea.. if I was to have a guess at it from what (little) I know of music, I would say that it sounds like a composition by Yanni.

do you have a link to the video? I can try running it through Shazam (music recognition softare)

A pee tube? Seriously? Time to do more research. Then again, I have a bladder like a camel. edit: Oh man.. why did I google this. http://soaringweb.org/ART/pee.html

I recall reading somewhere that deep stalls are possible (however unlikely) to recover in these aircraft... something about trying to 'throw' the aircraft over using combined rudder and aileron inputs. I could be wrong though. The lesson from all this is: Pay CLOSE attention to your CG limits, stay within them, and fly inside your tested 'flight test' envelope.

Of course: www.opencanard.com

I was one of the folks stuck in Chicago's Union Station for over 22 hours. In the cold (literally). In the dark (figuratively). And fairly discontent. Amtrak REALLY dropped the ball on this one. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ifTg_yfYpAykFLdY6fVBnb3NeMZAD958N4DO0

It's unlikely that I will make the plans available again in their entirety. Trust me, I wasn't even CLOSE to done with them. I may make certain parts of them available (cover page design which was completely my work, the license agreement, and a select few other pages). Actually, I completely disagree. Choosing to release something into the public domain (giving up your rights to it) is completely different than retaining your rights to something and not choosing to enforce them. Again, I want to stress that I think that this should be a full rewrite. For twofold reasons: 1. To respect Burts rights as the author of the original plans, we must make something substantially different. 2. In the VERY remote case that he has a change of heart and decides to start enforcing his rights, we would all be on the hook for violations. In order for this project to have maximum value, we must not be viewed as, or accused of being thieves or copyright violators. That being said: Let's move FORWARD!

1. Marc, I can't thank you enough for getting to the bottom of this for us. It certainly helps to clarify the path which lies ahead. 2. I am utterly stunned about the TERF CD's. There will be some VERY hard questions for the owner of that company from this community. I do not envy him. 3. I without question will trust Marc's word over TERF's, as he has never given me a reason to doubt him. Period. Unless they produce a signed, legally binding contract giving them authorization to redistribute the plans, I have no reason to believe them. 4. Since BURT is the holder of copy/distribution rights, I will honor those, and continue on with this project as a full rewrite. I'm truly sick (Influenza), and exhausted, otherwise I would write more. Still... absolutely stunned. I have no words

Domain name is already set. I need to have a talk with Jon M and the other people heavily involved in the project to see how they want to handle ownership of the domain, etc. I would be glad to donate it to the project somehow, but I guess the site has to be owned by an entity (a person or legal entity, llc, corporation, etc). Other issues that need to be figured out are liability/licensing, etc. How do we move forward with the project, in essence, giving our work to the community, but preventing liability issues...

I have the Wiki set up, but the domain name registration hasn't gone through yet. I am also in the process of setting up the project management portal as well. If you want a preview of the Wiki or Project Management system, please send me a private message, and I will send you the testing URLs. I have not enabled security on it yet, so It's not quite ready for public exposure.

I agree, I feel that the chapters should be kept in the same order, and leave it to the builder to decide if they want to deviate from the plans order. The reason we would want to keep the chapters the same is that any updates or safety/airworthiness advisories will specifically reference chapters in the original Long/Cozy, etc. If someone can provide compelling reason to drastically deviate from the original order, then I'm for it. The website you mentioned appears to be 'parked' at godaddy, which means someone already owns it, and we can't use it.

Not exactly... http://www.dscinet.com/eZ80/OpenEZ/ Thats more what I am concerned about. Been around since 2002, last update copyright 2002-2005.

Bruce, I am in the process of setting up both the wiki and project roadmap (we'll be using a web based, open source project management system called 'dotproject' and of course the MediaWiki). I'm not really sure that I am the right person to lead/direct the project in the interim, but I will gladly take responsibility for getting the first few pieces together: Domain Name & Hosting Website Wiki & Setup Project Planning system anything else that needs to get done. I'm still a bit concerned about the name though. . .

Yeah.. amazing. The use of CAD drawings throughout the plans rewite would be a very easy way to modernize them. EXACTLY! Not necessarily. I personally own a copy of the TERF CD's. I am sure anyone else who is seriously considering a build (or contributing significantly to this project) also has purchased them, or is planning to. I may or may not agree.. I'm not sure if 'best practices' have changed much with working with glass over the years, more experienced builders could probably answer that. Resin systems have changed dramatically, thats for sure. And maybe we can add new methods such as Randi and Chrissy's 'lo-vac' bagging technique to lighten up parts. In addition, there are some things that I would love to see addressed in the new plans. For example, a more robust rollover protection system in case of off-field landings.

Nobody to my knowledge has contacted TERF. The reason we are going to probably have to start over is that it is actually not possible to scrape the text from the PDF's on the TERF CD. In order to have the ability to text scrape, the PDF had to have been created with a modern computer word processing program (MS Word for example) and then "printed to PDF." The TERF CD files are PDF's of a scanned image, and therefore the text must be run through an OCR program to get the text out. When I was using OmniPage Pro 16 to do it, I was getting significantly less than 70% accuracy. Remember, the original plans had a lot of handwritten notes/corrections, splotches on the page, etc. OCR cannot handle that effectively. However! I feel that there is an alternative, that will let many people cooperate on the project together. MediaWiki. It would be possible to put together a chapter based plans rewrite with multimedia elements and have it all available online. It would give us the ability to have version control, complete transparency, and give the ability for a community selected member to 'lead' the project, as it were. So, I guess that I took Marc's concerns to heart, as I'm still a little concerned about stepping on these guys. They have been around a lot longer than us: http://www.dscinet.com/eZ80/OpenEZ/ The copyright on their page shows 2002, updated as recently as 2005. OpenCanard 2, perhaps? (2 for "two place")