Lynn Erickson

I would like to see you break the flox off of a glass structure without destroying the structure. how much stronger do you need it? never seen the flox come loose, it always stays stuck and takes glass with it. use what you know works or be a test pilot for a new product. thats a no brainer

6061 is a better alloy for corrosion resistance but not as strong as 2024 t3 even in the t6 condition it can be used for many parts, it is a bit cheaper and easier to find just don't substitute it for structural parts like lift tabs or engine mounts

Thanks, Mark for the comments on this subject because these guys a scaring the hell out of me. the design work you did on jacks plane looks good and I believe it will be successful. but jacks plane was the only one built with this mod and was it completely tested under all conditions? what happens if someone does not build it exactly to your plans and some one gets hurt? the guys that are building this mod without your help better have some engineering support from somewhere. this not a place to make a mod by holding up your thumb and thinking if it looks good, it will fly.

the ones we had made were a exact copy of the aluminum ones made out of a chrome moly tube we bought at AS. if you like we could send your sample to the same machine shop we used, Bormar machine. I believe we paid $300 for two plus the chrome moly

I used this type in carbon on my landing gear legs and it tends to build up a crown in the center. the loose fiber type tends to lay down better and the loose tows will fit into the low spots better

It might take a lot more plys to fill the spar trough. I believe the cross fiber can not be removed as with the roving tape

it just new. thats the way it is suppose to be. the hardener gets darker with age after it has been opened.

not really, I have the strakes cut out and they are a great place for your elbow when you are sitting in the plane and flying around the hanger. but when actually flying you will find that your elbow is on the armrest so you can hold onto the stick in a cozy or the throttle in my case. almost every flight I notice that I am not using the cutout and so I try them again only to find it is not comfortable during the flight.

I will assume that you know that when you use the plans hot wire template to cut the cores, that the foam ends up a bit smaller then the template (1/16") so your sanding templates need to be a bit smaller then the plans. if not you will build a fat canard and it will not fit the contour finishing templates. I have seen fat canards where the builder sanded the foam down to the plans template size.

and yes, Tmann, Rotax does have a certified version of the 912 the 912 A and it is in the certified Diamond Katana would a mistral engine be less reliable then a Rotax?, well the FAA has not yet certified it and they keep having failures while trying.

Can't agree more and it is a shame that there will be so many un- experianced builders that will do just that, try out a unproven engine on a ez type aircraft.

In CP 55 page 11 is a picture of Ivan shaw's Twin ez powered by two Norton rotary engines http://www.cozybuilders.org/Canard_Pusher/1988-04_cp-55.pdf

The twin idea is a cool one. the advantage of a properly designed twin is that you have that second engine if one quits and to design that out of the design just does not make since to me. if you have two engines and you need both of them to keep you in the air then you are cutting your odds in half that you will make a successful flight. double the trouble. to build a twin just to have a twin is not a good reason to build a twin. the twin part needs to be there for better reasons.

I really wanted to do this type of aircraft also after seeing the Shaw twin done in great britain. after much thought and engineering i found out the same thing shaw did. the aircraft is to small a platform the support two engines and two people. with an engine out and only 80 hp you will be in the low side of the power required to maintain altitude and if it happens during takeoff the extra engine will do you no good, in fact the extra drag will hurt you. you need a bigger platform as in 150% scale long ez then you can use an engine of a size to maintain flight if there is a engine out. the other problem is the much increased drag of the engines that you don't have in the single engine ez. an 80 hp engine uses a lot of its power just to offset that drag if the engine is increase to 160 hp there is plenty of extra hp to offset the increased drag of the only slightly bigger engine. now if you are thinking I am just another that wants to shoot down your design, well I have a set of drawing for a 125% long ez with three 100 hp engines.

why would you think it would be a long takeoff? the defiant has a engine up front and they are known for there shorter takeoff roll and slower rotation speed. that is the one thing a defiant does do good. not a fast plane but a good lift and hauling aircraft. very cool to fly and you can setup your tent in the back seat.

where did you get that idea. they are used on the engine cowling and mine has 50 of them for the top and bottom. they have been on there for over 5 years and have been on and off over 400 times. I have replaced maybe 2 of them in 5 years because they galled. have had a few feel a bit loose so you just give them a squeeze with a pair of vice grips and they are good to go another 400 times. note, if you use stainless steel screws they can gall if driven in to fast as when using a drill motor but the electric screw driver is a bit slower and does a good job without galling them. in the certified world they are only replace if they loose their retention if you had to replace them every time a bolt was removed there would not be any certified planes flying.

nothing about being 5' 2" tall. I have a copilot that is and in my plane built for 6'2" pilot you need to add back support behind the copilot so they can reach the radios and the stick. by angling them more upright their upper body is moved forward. adding cushion under the seat just causes them to lay back even further then before. it puts their shoulders higher but further from the controls. once you are flying and get to try it you will see what I mean.

then why is the survivability in an ez been so much better then a LSA or a ultalight or C- 150 type

the designer is 6' 2" how would he know what a person 5' 2" needs to fly a long eze. and you will find out why you do not want to be within 1" of the canopy the first time you hit a bump in the sky.

yes there are

for many short pilots they need to add a seat cushion to move them forward so they can reach the stick and the radios. on the original brakes you just adjust the cable connector to make the pedals angle closer to you.

The canopy on the long ez is a single clear plexiglass bubble the cozy turtle deck is the same as the cozy IV it is composite and has windows. it not structural to the plane only to itself. it could be made with as much or as little clear window as you need. the Cozy III has the exact same wing and canard as the long ez. the span is 26.1 Ft. Everything aerodynamic is the same it is just the wider front seat area that was changed. slows it down about 7 kts at top speed. both the long ez and the cozy III can use the Roncz canard. it was an option to build a roncz on both when it came out. many longs and cozy IIIs were built before the roncz design came out and they fly fine, some are better then others in rain , but just not a big deal.

no, the cozy III is wider in the back seat. it has a wide front seat that transitions to a long ez firewall. it has small windows in the back section of the turtledeck and is very hard to see out

one of the problems with load testing is it may damage the wing in a way that you can not see. most of this type of testing is done on a wing that will never fly, tested to failure. lets say you do a load test and the spar does not fail, how do you know that it did not do some unseen damage to the other parts of the structure. what if it crushes the foam beyond repair and it is not detected. what if the attach points are affected in some way that shows up latter on a flight. what if the test causes a crack or delam to start but you don't hear or see it.

thats a lot of stats. but not much about the real cause of the accidents. the pilot, not one of those accidents could happen without the pilot. My theory, it's not the type of plane but the type of pilot that owns and flies that type of plane. there are two types of owners that crash most of the homebuilts. there is the cheap guy, he will build and save a buck at all costs. he selects his aircraft because it will be cheap to build and fly. even his flight training is done on the cheap. and then there is the more money then brains type, he does not care what it costs to build but buys the most expensive equipment money can buy, because if it costs more it must perform better. he has it installed for him by the best mechanics but he has no idea how it was done or how it works. he has paid for the very best flight training and has done it all in the shortest time possible so he can fly his very expensive bird and show it off to as many people as possible.