Lynn Erickson

I would say then follow the plans. what I should have said is what you were told is not correct for LOW-VAC, or any composite parts being made in this century, the plans method, I am sure did not talk about LOW- VAC. the discussion here is about low vac and weight, which is a mod to the plans and many that have used that method do not pore on their micro, they use it more like peanut butter.

how long ago was that video made. now a days we have peanut butter that will spread on the bread without tearing it. micro is light , resin is heavy, buy adding the most micro possible and still being able to apply the stuff on a given surface the lighter the part.

I would say that is cheap for the speed gain you will get. most every thing in aviation cost about $1000 for every 1 Knot increase in speed. everyone knows that if it is chrome it will go faster.

if that is what they told you it is not correct. you do not want to stipple the glass and pull up the resin with the micro in it. you do not want the micro to get into the glass. the micro should be put on as dry as possible (peanut butter) it should not be runny at all ( runny is heavy ). the dry micro is to fill the foam pores with a lightweight compound of the resin so it will stick to the foam but not weigh as much as pure resin. when the micro is mixed correctly there is not any extra resin in it to stipple up into the glass. the glass should be wet out with resin from the top . this keeps the micro in the foam and from coming up into the glass. squeegeeing is to remove any air and get off the excess resin. micro in the glass weakens the layup. it is the same as air in the layup. this is another reason to hard shell before vacuum bagging, the micro in the foam can not be pulled up into the glass layup. vacuum bagging compresses the glass to a smaller volume so it can't hold as much volume of resin but does leave the weave filled with pure resin. On thin layups like 2 or 3 plys it does not really save any weight. what you gain by compressing the fibers is lost buy filling the weave with heavy pure resin instead of a light weight filler. when used on the uni that is used on our canards it will add weight.

it will feel heavier, longer take off, slower roll but pitch sensitivity will be about the same. you can feel even 20 lbs. increase.

the airfoil is the same. the cozy IV wing is 12" longer in span per wing. all added on the inboard section. from the outboard end of the strake to the wing tip is the same. ailerons are the same. if you compare the roncz canard on the cozy IV and the long ez the exposed canard and elevator lengths were the same until NAT made a change to the cozy IV canard by cutting off some length. most who cut off some canard length had to increase the angle of incidence. there are cozy IV's with both length canards out there.

thats a bunch, what did you put in there. the gear should add an extra 75 lbs. and the prop about 35 lbs. where did the extra 100 lbs come from. some in the big tires and brakes. but the are no wheel pants. some in the wheel fairings. go thing is it does not hold as much fuel as it did?

with up draft cooling the cold air is heated by the exhaust pipes before it goes up through the cylinders and it also comes in contact with more of the hot engine case/ oil pan before the cylinders.

if you want to order them and pay for them then go to Infinity. if you want to receive them in ones life time it has not been a good place to go. TMann, you know I have to make sure everyone has both sides to the story. in fact you are still waiting aren't you? how long has it been now ? or did you get a old second hand set just in case?

to answer the question. no there is no hard data. for there to be hard data to prove that, it would have to be true. I believe it is not. I have seen some parts made that way that are heavier. in general there is not much difference in weight but it is more complicated to do, requires more expense, and is a very wasteful process. All the extra materials used for the process end up in a land fill.

I was referring to our canard aircraft and that is a pretty bold statement that you know that they all are most certianly post cured. should I start naming the ones that I know are not. there are plenty of commercially built aircraft parts that are hand layups and are not post cured.

most of the aircraft built are not post cured. I believe Burt stopped recommending it very early in the program.

I like the way he says he will work all the bugs out before he sells any parts, yet he is offering the kit for sale even before it has flown. building his own prop is a waste of effort if he ever plans to finish. where do we sign up for the test pilot seat? New airframe design, retracts, carbon gear box, his own prop and auto engine conversion all done in one test bed, all built by a guy that has no aircraft experience. just because a guy can make pretty carbon parts does not mean it will fly. and the wingco it had one major flaw, it could almost fly

before you can build a spar separate from the wing you will need dimensions and the plans do not have dimensions for the spar directly. you may be able to derive at the dimensions by doing a full size layout. by the time you do all that you could have cut out the wing foam and had it glassed. also the wing templates are not lined up with the butt lines directly so there will be some work to be done there. the templates are also a bit over size to account for the material consumed in the hot wire process. the outboard templates also are thinner then the true airfoil to allow for the extra plys that hold on the winglets. but you already know all this because you have a set of the plans and have studied them. right if you do change the type of foam you will be flying an untested wing that you don't how it will act in the air. but you will be doing flutter analysis on the wing before you fly it. right. there is a plane that was built with a "better foam" and that airplane was falling apart and delaminating and was to cut up into pieces before it killed someone.

stick it with a straight pin, if it is paint it will go through, if it is glass the pin won't go through. if it is because of a fuel leak the fuel will leak out and you will know. looks like paint blister to me . have seen this a lot.

I am not trying to discourage you from building or thinking of a new way to build a plane but,I don't think you totally under stand the complexity of the wing as designed for the long or cozy. the wing skin is not just a few layers of glass and the internals of the wing are not just a foam block shaped like a wing. the wing spar is made up of many layups using the male foam blanks as a core. the wing skin is made up of several layups that include the the skins, the attach reinforcements and layers to hold on the winglets. if you mold the wing skin and then install the reinforcements and the winglets attach layups on the outside of your molded part you will still have to refill about half of the wing to get a finished wing. if you do mold the wing skins and put the extra layups for the winglets on the inside of the wing skin then the wing would need to be made with the winglets as part of the wing, all one piece. however you do it if it is not done to the plans then it is a different wing structure, would need to be engineered for that type of construction and tested to destruction to prove it is safe to fly. there is a big difference between the F1 parts you are building and the aircraft structure. if an F1 part fails you pull over and let the race winner pass. if an aircraft structure fails you will be the one that is doing the passing.

i don't doubt that it can be done with a full crew of experienced people. but the glider wing is engineered to be built that way and the ez wing is not. so i doubt anyone can re-engineer the ez wing, build molds, build a spar and wing skins and assemble it in a few days. assemble it in a few days, Yes and all the other work required did not count because it was done in your free time?

we are not negative. we just have been there and done that. you said and i quote "a lot of what im doing is to save time for myself aswell, i can machine and mould the wings in a couple of days". you and an army of guys maybe. if you had said a couple of months I might believe you have really grasp the magnitude of the project. even if you are the fastest composite guy to ever roll out the prepreg, the composites parts are only ten percent of the project. the cost of the molds will out way the cost of the parts. molded parts are made and assembled with different methods then the way the moldless composite aircraft are built. if you use molded parts then there will be a lot of re- engineering to be done to insure a safe aircraft. just because the part came out of a mold made from a cnc'd plug and all the glass was prepreg and cured in an autoclave doesn't mean it is better and stronger then the hand made part. first it needs to be engineered to be better and then it needs to be tested to prove it is better and only then will people really believe it is a better part. why does it need to be better? ask any Rutan canard pilot if his plane would fly any better if the parts where made in a mold and he will tell you that it can't get any better.

what people don't realize is that the name high gain is just advertising. the antenna you built is a "quote" high gain antenna the guts are the same. its a simple dipole antenna inside the fancy black packaging. I have heard from many that say their home built one works better.

thats the one I had at first and had problem at certain angles replaced it with the homemade foil tape one and the problem went away. the foil tape cost about 1/100 of the fancy one. TMann I thought you where making your own antennas. the transponder one is only 1/16" thick and about 8" long

Yes, one of the things that dave is doing with his berkut is antenna testing for government contractors. It seems that the carbon structure of guided weapons hung under carbon aircraft causes a problem with the guidance signalsif the fuselage is glass then the best place for the antenna is in the nose. you can use a foil tape dipole and save some weight and antenna wire. no antenna sticking out at all. mine is in the nose on the right side just in front of the canard and has always worked. also the radiation just under your butt is not a good idea

is your fuselage carbon? if so you will need it to protrude out the bottom as the radar station is going to see the signal from an angle that is mostly horizontal . any carbon between you and the station in a horizontal plane will block the signal. with carbon wings even a slight bank with a low wing in the antenna line of sight to the station will block the signal.

just to keep it straight . I know there are more registered but I said there are more cozy's then velo's being built. as it takes a lot longer to build a cozy then a velo I believe that ratio of registered will change. it also seems that people are also crashing velos at a higher rate.

thats just like the velocity gear. the gear can be made from scratch. I did mine in a similar way but with carbon. it can be done but it did take an extra 1000 man hours to do the complete system. would I do it again. No, it adds a lot of complexity for very little gain.

if people where willing to spend the extra dollars to get a kit Berkut instead of building the long ez from raw materials don't you think there would be more Berkuts then long ez's being built. if people where willing to spend the extra dollars on a Velocity kit instead of Cozy IV plans and materials there would be more velocity's then Cozys being built. but that is not the case.