Lynn Erickson

Can anyone tell me how to load test a canard (dragonfly MKIII)? I had to make a repair to the bottum side of my canard and am not sure how to testing should be done and since i would rather it break on the ground than in the air.......... At 4.4 Gs it comes to a bit over 5000 pounds but since the canard is only supporting a little over 50% of the load does it need to take 5000 pounds? And how should the weight be spread out from root to tip? Thanks SAmuel Miller

to what extent is the repair? where did you get the information used to do the repair? are we talking skin repair or spar repair?

`Hate to reveal my ignorance but, the topic WAS labeled alt engines. Has anyone bolted a Corvair to the back of a LE?

a corvair is 120 cubic inches old tech engine. its puts out about 80 HP at at 2700 RPM. not worth the time and effort to install

That sounds great - I'd like to look at both your projects. I might be leaving for the Bering Sea fairly soon so it might be a couple of months until I have the time...

 

So Steve - what I'm hearing is that AFTER I spend the required time with the instructor in their cessna, I could solo in my own plane and work off the remainder of the time required for the exam that way? If so, that sounds like a better way to go.

 

But how would I get the license in my own plane? Doesn't the examiner have to ride with you?

 

 

I guess I need to do a little more homework here. Thanks alot for the info.

it could be done but it might take a bit more effort then it is worth. you could solo in your own plane but the instructor would have to sign you off for that plane and I doubt he will if he did not ride with you on at least a few flights. at that stage in the lessons he will want to be in a plane that has dual controls. once you get to the flight with an examiner you should know how to fly and the need for dual controls is up to the examiner. Also most insurance companies require about 10 hours of time in type before they will cover you.

Yeah, I agree. The extra weight comes from the bondo, bondo, bondo, micro, paint, and all the extra stuff we put on to make it purdy! Things like starters and stuff to make it all work in IFR, and cushions, and extra's....

Look at the bottom of Voyager in the Smithsonian and it's not even painted on the back two thirds of the wings.

But, peel ply and a heat gun will remove some of those ounces...

If you could add an extra 2 gallons on micro to get a good surface, you would be adding only 10 lbs. to the plane. its not the good finish that adds the weight. its all the extras that you think you need to fly the plane.

Glenn did not have "engine trouble", he had an engine compartment fire most probably caused by having sub-standard fuel line components, which have nothing to do with what type of engine he had.

 

See:

 

http://www.cozybuilders.org/Glenn_Saunders/index.html

 

for info on his accident.

ah but if you look at many of the rotax engine installation you will see those same non aircraft clear plastic fuel lines. if he had a lycoming it is more likely that he would have had aircraft type fuel lines. In many cases the type of engine does change ones mind set as to the type of engine support equipment they use. if it is in an aircraft it should be aircraft quality parts not snowmoble parts

that's good for most but you still have to deal with it for the canard, CS Spar, Wing etc.

 

Kepp all the Ideas in your toolbox.

actually you don't even need to use peel ply at all. when they built the first long ezs they did not use peel ply. and then Burt said to only use it sparingly for bonding surfaces only, not the complete part as it does add more resin to the part and therefore, more weight

If all goes as planned I am going to start building in the spring, so I am considering the first few chapters carefully now. The first step major step is to build are the bulkheads. One method I figured that might work better is to simply layup a fiberglass sandwich that is a little larger than what is required in the plans. Then cut a piece of plywood in the correct size and shape of each bulkhead. Then I would clamp the plywood to the cured fiberglass sandwich sheet and use a router or fromica cutter to trim the fiberglass to the exact shape of the plywood. I figure that the velocity of the cutting blade on a router would result in a nice clean cut at exactly a 90 degree angle. Does anybody see a problem with this method?

Big waste of time. the foam cutting for the bulkheads is 10 minute job and very easy with a straight edge and a blade. after glassing use the same blade to trim the glass and you are done. can be trimmed faster then you can change router blades. if the glass is to hard to knife trim the next day , just warm it up with a hair drier and it will cut very easily. remember to build parts for the plane not tools unless you have no other way. every day building tools is one less day to use for flying

re the re-establishment of CG with heavier engine using ballast and such. wont that change the resonnance frequencies of the airplane in the pitch axis? to be honest the only experience i have in this matter is airplane models, and ballast will always negatively impact this type of characteristics. just a rhetorical question, my canard flight experience is very small and plenty people seem to be happily flying 320 or 360 powered ez'es. even though i clearly remember RAF discouraging this practice.

 

but going back to my original question: i know the advantages of more power versus less power :-) however several considerations like AVGAS availability in europe, expecially in italy, its cost, up to 12 bucks a gallon or even more, the cost of spares and labour when it comes to lycosaurii, and my love for lightness were at the origin of my question. the performance of a 115hp long-ez would be perfectly adequate for my needs, and a 914 is turbocharged, with all the relative advantages. i think the lack of power would be a problem only on take off and already at 4 or 5000 feet the turbo would be an advantage

 

thats why i was asking if anyone has ever installed a 912 or 914 in a vari-eze or long-ez.

 

 

really a constant speed prop would hurt performances? why is that?

 

at any rate, seems that the current owner is replacing the IO-360 with a O-320...

 

thanks for all the replies folks, much appreciated.

has anyone install a rotax ? yes Glenn Saunders of florida had a vari ez with a 914 turbo but he had engine trouble and was killed in the crash in 2005

CS prop is not as good at top speed. they are designed for all round performance. everyone that has tried one can not get the top speed of a fixed pitch

is it possible to reestablish a correct CG with a IO360 with hydraulic constant speed prop and without using a lot of ballast?

 

i remember Rutan recommending not to up the engine, which was adequate, and around which the airframe was designed...

as far as weight and balance goes the type of engine does not matter. the plane has to be balanced somehow, add ballast, heavier pilot, or move some thing in the plane like the battery. take off the CS prop. you don't need it with that big engine. it only hurts the top speed anyway. the 0235 was just adequate thats why you see so many 0-320 on long ezes and both Mike Melville and Dick Rutan have been flying a 360 for many years. i have over 400 hours on my IO 360 and would never go smaller. with the IO 360 I can cruse at 200MPH over the ground at 8500 feet and burn 6.5 GPH. go higher and its down to 5.5 at 11000 feet

i will gove this thread new life :-)

 

 

i have the chance to buy at a very good price a LE with a IO-360 engine. a friend flew it and said it feels very tail heavy, and rather twitchy. he didnt like it a bit, which is a little surprising.

 

i believe in light, sleek aircrafts rather than in heavy, powerful ones.

 

so i was wondering if there is any history of rotax 912 or 914 installed on LE.

 

the original LE, the one i was building, was supposed to be powered by a 100-118hp engine, therefore i reckon a 115hp 914 could be an option, considering the lower weight and lower fuel consumption of this powerplant.

 

i currently own a rotax 100hp powered airplane and i love this little, quiet, economic powerplant.

 

i am under 200lbs, and my wife would be my passenger. id gladly trade 20kts of speed for better range.

all the canards, no matter which engine, will feel that way if you are flying with the CG in the rear of the envelope. the rotax is a bit under powered for a long eze. the difference between a rotax and a IO 360 thats like the difference between a VW and Vette. I'll take the Vette

I pulled my peel-ply off the seatback the other day. Some of the strands on the edge stayed on the surface. I was expecting all of it to come off and the fact that some was left bothered me. I cut my strips from a 48" roll. Is there a way to keep the stray fabric from sticking to the layup? Or do you just sand them off when you sand the area prior to another layup? Maybe not wet out the peel ply all the way to the edge?

 

Thanks for the help...

 

Jim

just sand them off.

G'day mfryer

 

I am building a Roncz canard. You are correct the cutouts are not in the tubes. The plans don't call for the cut outs to be cut into the tube until after the skins are layed up.

 

Jeff

I believe they are talking about the hinge cutouts about 1/4" wide that are cut after the skin is applied. the cutouts in the aluminum tube about 3/4" wide are to install the pivot inserts and need to be done before the tube is installed into the elevator. hinge points need to be aligned with the angle fixtures to locate the hinge point correctly in the elevator. if you did not cut the slots in the aluminum tube and rivet in the inserts and you would remember that job, check the plans again.

I’ve started to test the fuel tanks for potential leaks and have been getting mixed results. The tanks and the associated fuel lines have been sealed off and an altimeter attached then pressurised to 1500 ft. (as per plans). The results have been hard to interpret because of variations in temperature of my workshop (Boyles Law, Charles law… P1V1T1 etc.)

 

My question is:

 

Over what period should the system retain the pressure?

What is an acceptable pressure drop? if any.

Is there any other way of testing (e.g. using water instead of fuel)?

 

I really don’t want to move on to finishing other things and find I have a problem that requires undoing lots of work.

 

MikeD (U.K.)

any pressure loss is a leak. let it set for several days and it should read the same at a given temp. read it at the high and low pressure it should be the same after several days.

I was wondering why did you buy Aerocanard plans instead of Cozy IV plans. When I think of Aerocanard I think of someone who ripped Nat off and is still making money off of his Ideas. I would never give that guy any of my money. NOt trying to cause a fight just curious. STeve build on

Nat was not ripped off. he got every penny that he was owed by the contract he signed. and that is the way the Courts saw it also.

no, not any tandem aircraft or a defiant, but one that has a tractor propeller and a main wing, yet still a canard like a velocity or ez

it does not matter where the power plant is located as long as the weight and balance is correct. does not matter where the power plant is located it is where the prop is located that makes it a pusher or puller

I have an EZ with the O320 in it. I upgraded the engine to 160 HP pistons a while back and what a difference and extra 10HP makes.

I was going to sell the bird because I operate from a grass strip and the hangar rent was/is no joy to deal with. But recently I had to fly the plane a lot and I "remembered" why I love this plane.

 

On to my question:

I'd love to up the engine using the ECI 340X stroker kit which replaces the crank, rods and pistons. According to the guys at ECI this would result in about 15 to 17 more HP (175 to 177) or 185 if I did the full monte (put on the cold air fuel injection).

 

Since there is no appreciable change in weight and balance, what are the possible "gotchas"? I can think of:

 

• More strain on the engine mount and firewall/fuselage interface.
• Too easy to surpass VNE (already kind of a problem)

Just looking for input from the experts.

 

Thanks in advance.

first thing that comes to mind is you will need a different prop to use the extra horse power. question, does the new crank use the smaller 3/8" prop bolts or the 1/2 " ones like the real Lycoming O- 340? will it fit your extension. are your 3/8" prop bolts strong enough for the extra hp. will you need a new extension.

 

fuel injection requires a high pressure high $ electric fuel pump set up with pressure regulator and bypass valve. the stock facet pump fill not work.

 

cooling could change and the oil cooler may not be big enough. the Lycoming O-340 requires a minimum of 9 row cooler .

 

Since you will split the case why not do the Cam. how many hours are on the engine? will it need a new cam anyway? once the cylinders are reinstalled will the push rods need to be replaced to get the proper lifter clearence. will the case surfaces be OK to reassemble or will the case need to be machined and line bored oversize and require different new bearings.

 

they call it an 340X, so that means you will become one of ECI,s test pilots

 

just a few gotchas to think about

As a matter of history, a twin e-z was worked on by the developer of the Europa. It utilized 2 midwest rotaries. I think that he stopped the project before finished.

 

 

 

Happy holidays to all!!!

You think Wrong. it flew at least 250 hours before he remove the engines and was going to convert it back to single. I believe he did but not sure. Mid-west Aero engines Limited applied for a test approval on the Norton 90 HP 100 R Rotary for the same engine in an all metal plane called the Super 2 after Shaw's aircraft had flown.

And then there was another twin IIRC, designed and constructed by the feller that later did the Europa.

 

Or so it seemed at the time ... maybe my memory is totally shot after all

 

Losing a few Lb's may make one live longer ...

That would be Ivan Shaw of South Yorkshire, England. It was a vari ez with I believe Norton Rotarys

last year i worked on a dragon in chino and would like to ask the owner to pay-up (stay back marc)

i will be in oc for 10 days starting on the 24th DEC. and want to drive up to chino airport and look in on Lynn and his Buddy's and it would be fun to get a ride in your bird. if you are in town. if not i could wait till next year:sad:

have a very merry and safe chirsX

If the weather is good we will fly! New Years day is the annual fly in at Chino with Breakfast a FLO's. starts early about 8:00 AM for breakfast

I would not return oil back to the engine. You could as an experiment, run the return line to some sort of catch container. Take a look at it after it fills up, and then determine if you really want to return it to the engine.

 

I had the same oil air sep on my Longez. I sold it and used the mechanism as described in the articles that I pointed out.

Better to blow it back in the engine. if you have a condition that is blowing it out of the engine and back into the engine you get to keep all the oil until the flight ends. if it goes overboard you could run out of oil before you get to the next airport. this is not good. blowing it overboard is also not very Green

I am having a heck of a time deciding on wheels and brakes for my Long-EZ project having no experience with them. So far, I believe I have my choice whittled down to either the MATCO W50LD (dual brake assys) or the Grove 56 or 57 series. The MATCOs are heavier (8.9lbs ea) but apparently the wheels are made to fit the 11x400x5 tires better than standard 5" wheels and the MATCOs are less expensive. The Grove 57 series are only 7.2 lbs each. I imagine both would work very well. The cost is not the determining factor for me and maybe I'm putting too much thought into my selection. Any input would be welcome because there is nothing like experience (which I don't have in this case).

Thanks in advance.

I would go with the groves on a long ez. they are smoother rolling ,less brake drag, easier to work on, the pads can be changed without removing the wheel from the axle, every one that has them loves them. can't say that for the matcos.

My thoughts exactly. This isn't meant to provide structure, just something to mold the leading edges with. You might as well intentionally disolve the foam out after you get the glass on to save weight.

 

 

 

Well, that depends on whether you've built your strakes already or not. If you have, they will have to be adjusted for proper fit and you will have this problem whether you get fiberglass parts or foam parts except that the foam ones will probably be much easier to adjust. If you haven't yet built your strakes, you just build them to match the leading edges.

 

 

 

Yes, I suppose you could probably use it for either the Cozy or LEZ although, I make no claims to have done any testing whatsoever. The Girrrls and I discussed providing parts to make their Cozy IV strake leading edge design available while we were at Osh. It's something we just haven't gotten around to yet and had pretty much forgotten about it until I saw your post today. It's just an idea at this point but I think this is how Randi and Chrissi built their Cozy.

I hot wired them to shape with a hole lengthwise down the piece, like the hole in the wing to be used for wire. glued them on, ture up the shape by sanding and glassed over them and move on. I have seen them done with other foam by cutting a v groove, for the wire, in a block of foam, glue them on and shape and glass. after you build the strakes this will seem simple.

I dont think that putting foam cut cores next to where your gasoline is stored is such a great idea. All the foam used in the manufacturing of the strakes is the fuel proof kind. Putting blue wing foam in the leading edge of the strakes is asking for empty glass shells. My .02 STeve build on

I have blue foam cores in the leading edge. hot wire cut. been there for 5 years now. if you have a fuel leak in the leading edge you have a bigger problem then the foam being dissolved. the pre made leadings are empty glass shells anyway.

Yeah ........ I'm getting the feeling that the negatives outweigh the positives on this one.

yes, I built the plane and after removing the wings a couple of times during construction the wings have not been off for 5 years and have no plans to take them off.

Just thinking out loud here ........ has anyone thought of (or done this) making something like a super nut plate in the wing vs. cutting troughs in the wing to attach the wings to the CS Spar?

 

You would obviously have to cut them for initial alignment and placement but once fitted the area could be sealed permanently.

 

Does this seem too off-the-wall?

if you get a little corrosion on the bolts, you may need to be able to punch them out from the other side. not so easy with a nut plate.