Edge 513

Are those flimsyy factory seats included? You know, the ones that fold forward? ...the ones that killed Paul. That fuselage folded up like an accordion and flung Paul with that stupid 3 point car seatbelt... ...oh yea, that ride is worth30k. :mad: :mad:

With a RV being built/completed every other day. [That is a fact] They are THE bird to go with for most people, IMHO. They are very easy to build and all holes are pre-drilled so you just assemble it. If you could build an erector set assembly as a kid...you can build an RV. Some of them are great performers and can be pretty fast. 4 seats wanted, they have 'em. 'Course if you want the pretty molded shapes that come from a composite structure, metal kit planes aren't the answer. These land fast and therein is probably the only thing that fellow hanger-rats have trashed me on. Nothing beats the lines of a nice composite airplane, and the benefit is it's slippery in the air and a great trip-maker due to speed. Only you know what you want to fly, but for vanity's sake, and that's pretty shallow, 10 people crowd around a Longeze or Cozy when it arrives, compared to the 2 looking at the RV on the ramp. If that does something for you. I like futuristic stuff so it did for me. I also very much like the learjet nose and don't care for a prop in the nose, it's just not "jetlike"..so having the spinner in the back allows that awesome jetlike nose that I have ogled for so long. Good luck, and a big welcome!

Start by addressing the need for a slow "stall speed" and keeping the plane slow. Does the Tera-f-ugly meet LSA? Hmmm, what about the new Sampson Switchblade Terry got involved in. Is it an LSA?

Duplicate post.

I dont think you are hearing these guys posts, or just ignoring them. They are building and understand the process. Building a rag frame longeze just because you have learned how to operate CAD isn't going anywhere. You don't even know if the framework is structurally adequate...and will probably never create it physically. What are you doing?

Hey Steve, at least you are BUILDING something, and trying things out. That's a good thing. Beats the heck out of all the theorizing that wont produce anything but paper.

When theres something written worth responding to, people tend to respond. Lately there's been just a bunch of theorizing and farting around. What more can be said, the posts have kinda run their course. You could be like dust and start answering your own questions.

Did the BRS work here? It WAS suppoosed to WORK. How come the plane was a total loss? There is NO EXCUSE for that plane not being intact and floating like a cork on the water as it had a BRS fitted to it. Oh, wait a minute, you mean having a plane parachute wont guarantee anything? In fact, pop that thing, get it fouled in your prop and try and glide your bird anywhere. I bet that BRS on that NOAA Eze was a goose egg Goverment insurance requirement that satisfied paperwork only and nobody felt would work if deployed.

With the light green MGS epoxy the glass layup is pretty transparent. ..and if somebody had used the older darker epoxy on the tub, they could always cut that area out and do a window in a lighter colored epoxy such as proset or Aeropoxy etc. I really liked the Atkinson units and was going to put them in later, until reports of the balls getting stuck in them at a certain level started appearing, and that lead to questions of the plastic getting "sticky" from fuel additives and mogas etc. Who knows what future fuel will consist of? Leaving them out, but leaving the old fiberglass ply window seems the logical default position.

With the light green MGS epoxy the glass layup is pretty transparent.

Has anybody seen this??? Well, it's Butt-Ugly so maybe nobody should see it. A face only a mother could love. Looks kinda like a Ibis with a hairlip.

...and that, bingo, is the only reason I will have the Glass ones in my plane. Just the fiberglass window only, no balls and lights, nothing PVC or whatever those are made of that future fuel will possibly eat up and degrade. BTW, was that a Shadin totalizer you had, and is that out of your panel now that you are Dynon EMS equipped? I think it was in when we went to RR, but The Dynon handles it, and I would imagine you would go with that. I could be wrong.

You know, I just have to say the mirror thing is the second FUNKY aspect of the Eze planes that really felt prehistoric to me. Something about holding up a dentist mirror on a wand over ones shoulder to check the fuel levels just didnt make it for me. I will be signing up for the capacitance senders and the fuel info, etc on my EFIS, if you dont mind. Oh, the second Funky...reading in a newsletter about Nat's suggesting to wear heated hunting socks and a heated vest and seven layers of thermals under your clothes to keep warm in winter whilst flying along. Nahh..Nada for me and mine. Of course, as always, YMMV.

While I agree with Lynn, you may feel as others do that they provide a "backup". Dont install them until you have your strakes on the airplane and can line them up with the interior bottom of the fuel strake. You can make the depression and angle it and all that then...or by then decide to not do them at all. Options, options. =)

If you read my post it says you cant just call up a website or a vendor. You buy a midtime 540 and have an A+P rebuild it. You have to work to find the right engine and build some relationships. You have to WORK for the cost savings...you just cant go out and call somebody up at a business. This is just like your control linkage here you are asking about. You are wanting others ideas and to provide drawings of their ideas to you, simply for asking. Huh?

I'll go on record as saying build what you REALLY are excited about. This is a LONNNNNNNG sustained effort and only about 10% actually end up with a flying airplane because of it. If you are not COMPLETELY JAZZED about your plane and dont see it as a PLANE, instead of a "project", I dont think you are going to finish it. You will become one of the myriad builders with a "project" stuck in the garage that just gets on the significant others nerves until you sell it for less than the cost of the materials you have into it. Side by side seating is VERY condusive to your significant others enjoyment of flying. If you have nobody to put back there, or dont plan on that, or dont value really sharing the flight experience, or dont plan on more than a 2 hour trip, then build a LongEze. LongEze's are VERY cool looking...even cooler looking than a Cozy. BUT, BUT, BUT if you have somebody that likes to fly with you, they are going to probably like it a lot less, sitting in the back feeling left out. There just that aspect to it. At all the flyin's that is what backseaters will tell you. They wish they could be up front, have the view from up front, chat easier and share the flight responsibilities and actually FLY the plane from the vantage point of the pilot to relieve the PIC during the flight. Many GIB's have said to me..."What are YOU building". Me; "A CozyIV", Them; " Oh, thats what I wish we had", or " I hope we can sell ours, and build/buy one of those next". But finally, BUILD WHAT EXCITES YOU..and can keep your juices flowing for 4 or 6 or ? years while you go through all the ups and downs of emotions, while juggling life and building. Hopefully you will be one of the guys that actually flies his plane, instead of looking at parts partly assembled in the garage. That's what I hope for me, anyway. I visualize nightly what its going to be like pushing that throttle forward and the sensation of rocketing down the runway, rotating, and climbing out, in MY airplane...it keeps me going. I would hands down have built a snarky looking LongEze [with a long nose =)], 'cept for the seating, so I made some changes to my Cozy that made it EXCITING TO ME...and thats why I love MY plane. To me its NOT a project...its a PLANE. I cant emphasis that enough. These past few years I have touched elbows with and read many guys posts, and watched their conversations, posts and websites dwindle and stop progress-and it's for MANY reasons, not the least of which is just LIFE vs. building and the long timeline. You have to somehow SEE that if you stay with it, you will end up having something to FLY in the end. That concept gets lost for many. Turning infatuation of starting a build into a multi-year thing is your ticket to FLYING IT. Youve got to find a way to sustain your determination. Building what EXCITES you is a first step to that, the rest is just vision meeting reality. Sounds simple enough, 'till you try it. Cheers, and good luck.

I think looking at price as the deciding factor in powerplants vs a plane of your size is a funky amateur way to design an airplane. For the gross weight you are planning for you wil have a DOG if you pursue your engine plans and limp reasoning. Why screw up something that might have a chance of being good just because you dont properly power it? Trying to take off with that kind of GVW on a hot day will end you up in the weeds at the end of the runway, picking your teeth out of the "dashboard". Your prices are off on 540's. My IO540 with 9.5:1 pistons and 285hp will be right at 22k for a "to new limits" IO540... and Chris E's cost him <15k for an 260hp 0540 that had 1000hours or thereabouts on it. Jacks Eracer is at 29k approx for a completely rebuilt IO540 with 10:1 pistons in it and about 320hp. So getting a proper powerplant for you project is a matter of acquiring and doing the engine right. Not just going to a vendor and plunking down money for something off the shelf. Thats the easy way/expensive way/uncreative way. Good luck and I hope you see the light regarding your gross weight vs. your engine requirements. You could have a cool new plane if you gave it the right engine. Cheers.

Also walk through all the homebuilt airplane camping areas. Many camp next to their planes. Sorry to hear of your trying times Richard, best to you in the future.

They both are VERY good I have heard. Most of us just started building using the plans. I wish I had the video's...would have been very helpful. Not sure why you like the Aerocanard better. Maybe the wider rear passenger compartment? If so, you can always build a CozyIV and just build your turtleback jig wider in back. I am partial to the narrower firewall of the CozyIV. The thing about both planes back seats is the narrow HIP room...which makes it more suitable for the female passenger/GIB. I have ridden in a stock CozyIV in the backseat with another big guy for about 45mins to an hour and you have to cock ones hips sideways if you are a bigguy to fit'em in. The thing that made it agreeable was knowing how far we were getting in that timeframe. These planes really get you there FASSSST! Personally I doubted then if the wider turtleback "top" area would really have improved the experience any...so I used the stock CozyIV Featherlight turtleback and it looks/flows great on the plane. Anyway, Al at Aerocad is a good guy and if you go with his stuff, it will be a good path. My .02

Well I think Waiters plane is plain cool lookin' even if it is just about as fast as before. Good on ya John!!! Classy and Snarky to the max!

No bias here. Not building a Long. I'm building a derivative of the CozyIV. I dont think anybody here is biased. They even have said to go visit the Q'builders/owners forums...pretty even tempered advice. Ask around, do your homework about the Q. If its what you want, just go buy one for 9-10 grand...and forget building one. They are cheap enough that you cant possibly pay yourself even 60 cents an hour to build it plus buy the needed materials. WHY the heck would anybody BUILD one at that rate? Course this is only what I came up with a few years back, YMMV.

Funny how it is human nature to selectively hear what we WANT, and use it to justify what we want. Maybe ColinB will engineer out the gremlins of this design. He must, if he plans to sell any quantity of them in the future. I think those that really check out the Quickee opt for a better airplane and move along to find other airframes. The flight landing characteristics persuaded me NOT to buy one several years ago when I was looking at it. Maybe there are other things driving ColinB's graspings. Deciding on building a Quickee in CF with molds and prepreg and the expense/timeline hardly seems rational for what you end up with. My .02

Waiters declared his independence.....from terra-firma.

I think that is what I said. Innuendo?...about her being a "toy", or what...I am kinda dense?

I still say am hopeful to see it fly. It's your call as to whether you want to answer questions or not. I dont think working on 350 EZ's qualifies you to say something works until it WORKS throughout all flight testing. What it DOES qualify you to do, along with some engineering, is to have a hopeful outcome with a better degree of potential success. In all fairness to TMann's questions; you post a radical EZ derivative jet photograph with some mocked up landing gear and unsupported rear vert stabilizers, also infer that you are building 4 of these aircraft....say nothing about your engineering and background...of which the photo doesn't appear to support and then huff out of Dodge, after a few posts. What can I say? Oh, I know what I cay say. I can say that I too have been questioned by a few builders about the modifications I have done on my Cozy, and when it is all said and done, the one guy who wanted "documentation", and justification before he did the same to his project, well, I just said, sorry dude, not going to happen, this is MY airplane, do what you want or dont want to yours... have a nice day. He rolled up his tent and stopped talking to me. BOO HOO. I actually think he hasnt started building anything yet. So if people dont see it the way you do, what the heck. I do still think that proving the airframe would be preferable before starting the other airframes, but who the heck am I to say...YMMV