Lynn Erickson

 

 

If you look into it you will find that a good EFIS system with autopilot is in effect a FBW system with mechanical redundancy

...Chrissi

wow, I can't believe I read the whole thing. and Chrissi is right. coupling an auto pilot to the GPS or such is very much FBW. I have made many trips where all I do is sit there and monitor the flight and adjust the trim knobs on the autopilot. I made a flight where the autopilot /GPS was engaged at 100 feet to almost touch down at 50 feet. I could have made the takeoff and landing by using the autopilot trim knob if I wanted to. So I have wires connected to a device that is connected to the flight surfaces. so you could say it is FBW with a stick for back up.

Cheers Lynn. Thanks for the motivation to get this mod done.

 

I decided to feed my induction and oil cooler in a self contained system. I only have the one SW 10599R 9 row. I may need a second unit like yourself. I went with a oblique diffuser to the cooler and mounted it longitudinally. I found this in Aerodynamics of Propulsion by Kuchemann and Weber. The oil outlet is throttled with a butterfly valve on a push-pull line back to the throttle quadrant.

very well done. I have found that most of the 360s need at least a 13 row cooler on a hot day. with a very efficient cooler set up a 9 may be enough. I had a setup similar to yours and it worked in the cool weather but got over 240 in the summer at full throttle. the other problem was it did not cool on the ground during taxi until I removed the discharge plenum and the suction from the prop in the lower cowling would pull air through the cooler. now I have a 9 row on each side mounted behind small armpit scoops and dumping into the lower cowling. need to throttle one down a bit in the winter. have a good test flight

Lynn

Thanks mate. I appreciate that.

 

Will be good to see you back in the air in short order as well. Are you building another beautiful ERacer?

great looking job on the down draft. when I first flew my IO-360 the down draft worked very good from first flight but the oil cooling was not good until adding the second 9 row cooler. good luck on the first flight .

Greetings all!

 

Anyone in the greater Tidewater area building a composite canard? I know that the EAA Chapters would be hip to this knowledge, however, I figure that this can't hurt. Also, I know that there are at least 3 Long-EZ's flying in the area, and probably more that I am unaware of, but is there anyone that I can throw (give) gas money to for a couple laps in the pattern?

 

I just got plans and while I won't be able to start my build for a little while, I'd like to see how well these fly and handle. Since I can't afford a RV-4 or RV-8, this is the next best thing (if nothing else, economically WAY better)

 

Thanks again and I hope to have some sort of report at some point with the local pilots!

 

-Scott

this may be helpful in getting a ride in a canard. don't start out the conversation with your canard is nice but it is the next best thing to an RV . everyone that counts already knows the canards fly way better than RVs.

Moller is a joke technically, and has been for many years. The company is a mechanism for conning investment money out of starry eyed rubes. See all the other threads and information about them scattered all over the web.

 

Terrafugia has the best chance of making a flying car. See:

 

www.terrafugia.com

 

Technically, they know what they're doing. I have grave doubts about their business model, but the thing WILL fly. That's not something that can be said for Moller's vehicles, or many of the other flying cars.

they are going to have to leave off the wheel pants though. I can't be commuting in LA without everyone being able to see I have a set of those chrome wagon wheels on my Ride. what about the sound system? how about wing mounted Subs

I sure hope he pursues banning all Piper aircraft with the same conviction as Experimentals

what is the reason that they put two engines on an airplane?

Not offhand but As far as the stick goes, it'd be just like putting a stick in the back of an EZ. Might need an extra universal joint in the linkage but very easy to do.

 

A second throttle would be more complicated. Perhaps fixed linkage-a 2024 tube- from front to back throttles with a disconnect link in the tube and the main push-pull cable from the front throttle as the Cozy IV uses. You would want some way to overcome a jammed rear throttle or some way to insure the rear throttle is never jammed. Perhaps a removable rear throttle lever when carrying luggage in back.

 

Rudders are just cables. Form some toe-loops in back and fly barefooted.

-Kent

second throttle is simple. you mount the two throttle levers any where you want in the aircraft. run cable from each to the linkage arm on the fuel servo. connect both to the same point. remove the throttle hold friction device from the back throttle lever. when one moves the other moves with it.

If the aircraft was not gaining altitude that would seem to indicate an engine failure correct? Are there other possible issues that would allow the aircraft to not gain altitude? Maybe a really fwd loaded CG out of normal limits? Any thoughts on how a supercharger could cause a loss of power that would not allow the pilot to gain altitude? If he pulled back on the stick hard, could he have gotten into a nose high attitude and stalled? I was under the impression you can't do that unless you have an aft loaded CG behind limits in a Canard due to the canard stalling first etc... Just looking to entertain thoughts/speculation about what could cause no gain in altitude at this critical phase of flight, any insights?

 

I am sorry that we lost another fellow pilot, a passenger, and a person on the ground in an accident, I hope we can learn why...

 

-Chris Z.

air planes don't fly for long with no power. adding a supercharger to that engine would be an after market set up, nothing Lycoming ever did. playing with an experimental engine and test flying over houses is not a good idea. I doubt the aircraft was out of CG. but it is possible as the just added a supercharger to the rear. he was ex military pilot so I would think he was of average weight. canard aircraft when slowed do not stall, the canard stalls first and the aircraft sink rate goes up. does seem strange that an experienced pilot would not aim for a street instead of a house.

Awe Shucks guys =)

Please remember this when I start working on the engine and cowling and you're waiting for your parts

I haven't been that excited about the plane in a last two years until we put the wings on and Randi started fairing the wings into the strakes... dang it looks like an aeroplane. And now we can actually hang the engine on it soon, probably in a week or so just to figure out where the cowling has to fit around it.

Anybody know off the top of their head the OD of a hersheys kiss spinner at the base?

...Chrissi

10 1/8" if you need it exact I can measure it today it fits on a 10" bulkhead

You seem to hold the notion that you can trailer the VE to the airport, attach the wings in a short time period, go fly, and then take the wings off in a short time period and trailer it home. This is NOT what will happen, or what the airplane was designed for. I do not know of anyone with a VE that uses it in this fashion. Putting the wings on and off is non-trivial - not really a one person job, and can take an hour, easily. The wing attach hardware was not designed to be used with this frequency - most VE drivers don't remove the wings even for their Condition Inspection, so the attach hardware isn't used even once/year. I think you're making a large mistake in believing that you will save tiedown/hangar costs by having a VE. The LE fits into the same category - if you HAVE to have easily foldable/removable wings to justify owning a plane, neither of these planes is for you. Look at the Glastar or Europa, for well performing 2-seaters with folding/removable wings.

this is not entirely true the vari ez was designed with trailering in mind and there were some who did this back in the day. Burt did design it to be under the hiway width limit. when Burt first starting selling plans this was talked about at the saturday sales pitch at Mojave. it does take about an hour and a half to get it rigged and ready to fly but it does take some help and three people is best. the aileron and elevator tubes have a slip joint with a clevis pin and cotter pin that is easy to assemble as does the rudder cable. the wing has a male /female joint and tapered bushings and two bolts on each. the canard is held on with two bolts and two alignment pins there was a guy at chino that had all the rigging equipment so he could do it by himself. there was one in Canada that would trailer it to the airport a the start of the summer and leave it at the airport all summer tied down outside and took it home for the winter. the hardware is similar to what some sailplanes use and it done all the time in the glider community. even though it is possible most of the vari owner do not trailer their aircraft. they find having it ready to go at the airport preferable. heres a link for a vari ez trailer for sale. http://www.fri-prod-dev.com/plane/addtnl.html

Wow, that not for the light hearted, I'd have grabbd my teddy bear and had a good long cry, maybe about six months worth then taken up a new hobby, something less painful like base jumping in a small town.

...Chrissi

Chrissi, I am not using auto fuel and I have not done any research on the compatible resins. Has it been determined what resins are good and which ones not to use?

Yes, I have tried blasting against the Jeffco and it was ineffective. The grinding/sanding is much quicker and more manigiable. The aluminum oxide barely made a dent after direct exposure to the blast stream. Now, that being said, I will blast the glass after the grinding off the Jeffco to prep the surface and hopefully get any minor amounts of Jeffco left in the weave before I lay new glass.

 

My new EZPoxy, Bid and Jeffco arrived a couple of days ago....$604.00 later:sad:

 

Monty, THANKS, I needed the laugh and a fix to my Trek addiction.

 

Hailing frequencies open.....

 

All the best,

 

Chris

I don't want to add any more grief to to your situation but why go back to the Jeffco coating. if you are going to do a layup on the entire tank why not just use a wet layup of a structural resin or a geffco laminating resin that is compatible with the fuel that you are planing to use. any time you add a coating over cured resin there is a chance of peeling. in the long ez/ cozy type constrution the inside of the tank is a 2 ply layup that is left a bit wet and that is it. some have added a third ply of very close weave light cloth to help hold the resin in place until cure. some have used cabosil in the resin to thinken it and elininate pin holes.

Ok, it's sort of on W & B...

 

Here I am, having had a wonderful test flight to determine fuel consumption, using a fellow aviator for the navigation & some company. In flight the plane trims at midway and behaves fine.

 

All said & done, I get out my plane and so does the other fellow.

 

At this point my plane is empty in the front and (of course) no nose ballast, navigator walks away and before I can wind the wheel in ... it starts tipping.

 

Do you think I can keep this plane nose down by hand ... not on your nellie, there she tips over backward and lifts me with (I hung on at the pilot side.) (Calculated the C of G empty is about 108.5)

 

Once over, there is no way I can get this plane back down by myself, even hanging on the canard in total (all 200 Lb of my bulk)

 

How does this relate to your experiences?

 

OK, when the other airport buddies came to it was easy, but then so are most things when you have a crowd :-)

 

Regards,

 

Chris Van Hoof

hope that did not hurt your prop or wheel pants. yes that is what happens. the pilot should always stand by the as the passengers get out. the passengers don't ever think this can happen. most don't know about the W&B of a cozy. I have seen this happen to a cozy IV when the co pilot who owns a cozy 3, jumped off the side even with the nose gear half retracted. the spring of the gear launched it over backwards as he jumped off.

Send this to the media.

 

"Two planes crash near Vegas airport in consecutive days, both reporting loss of engine power. What a coincidence

 

Airport manager Randy Walker blames "Experimental Planes" as the cause but the second aircraft was not an experimental.

 

Maybe the manager is trying to cover up something, like selling contaminated fuel."

 

None of this can be proven as true, but the media doesn't need truth. They have a sensational story. Vicious isn't it.

that might be hard to prove on the second one. the wing was riped off but there was no fuel spill. there is no fuel left to test for contaminates. he burned it all up trying to get to the airport. The news report says the experianced pilot thought he ran out of fuel. AS the pilot aren't you suppose to know how much fuel you have. so he knew that he was out of fuel.

I believe this aviation director is keeping his future political options open. Also some of these regional airports have tried to squeeze out all but the exectutive jet and turboprop business, catering to the money.

I'd like to know how many of the quoted 60 plus incursions were made by experimental aircraft? He paints a broad canvas and recalls all sorts of potential doom and gloom then only mentions experimental aircraft.

...Chrissi

wait until there is an LSA accident and the media gets a hold of the drivers license only thing with only 7 hours of pilot training in a newly build LSA. still don't agree with the LSA thing. you need a medical to fly a plane but if you fly this type plane you don't. are they not both planes that could crash into a house and cause a fire and kill people on the ground.

I believe this aviation director is keeping his future political options open. Also some of these regional airports have tried to squeeze out all but the exectutive jet and turboprop business, catering to the money.

I'd like to know how many of the quoted 60 plus incursions were made by experimental aircraft? He paints a broad canvas and recalls all sorts of potential doom and gloom then only mentions experimental aircraft.

...Chrissi

he did slightly mention training aircraft. but he did say that that experimentals were very high risk because it was logical that they would be, he had no stats to back this up. why when I read the accident reports there are always at least 5 to one certified to experimental accidents. if we are 15% of the accidents then who is causing the other 85%. the other stat we don't see is number of accidents by builders vs. buyers of experimentals. The more money then brains owners are not good for our hobby. the other one is the guy that knows that his aircraft type is not the best designed aircraft with a high accident rate and still he has to have one. we have a guy at chino that has bought three Q2s in the last 3 years and crashed all three on take off. he is a retired airline pilot with money to burn and his comment was that he is lucky that he was flying a Q2 because it was one of the safest aircraft ever designed and that is why he survived the crashes. being an airline pilot you would think he would know that you are suppose to fly them not crash them. he's is currently looking for his forth. if he keeps this up he will remove all the Q2s from the world. and the world will be a safer place indeed.

I am questioning whether it truly had 5 hours of logged time. It was certified back in 2002 according to the FAA. I suppose it is possible but it seems more likely that Mr Walker might have been working with bad information when he said it had only 5 hours. If it did have many more than 5 by the time it is revealed it will be old news.

the certificate that was issued in 2002 was a registration certificate this is not an airworthiness certificate, and does not mean that the aircraft was signed off for flight at that time. you are required to register it in advance of applying for the airworthiness certificate.

Yes, that is the fellow I was referring to in my earlier post.

I would like to know why was the aircraft was flown from three airports in only 5 hours of flight. it may be that they had switched the phase one airport of operation during the 5 hours but I doubt it. I have seen the FAA give phase one restrictions to some Lancair owners that did not include there route of flight to the test area and allowed them to land at other airports. this type of test operation can only end up bad.

 

I do not want to see the FAA telling us which airport we can use our experimental aircraft. one way to prevent this is to use some common sense and as the pilot of a low time aircraft not operate in high risk areas as N Las Vegas. Why would you want to take off and fly over houses at 300 feet in an experimental with only 5 hours? seems the pilot did not act responsibly in this case and never gave any consideration to the what if of operating a new plane.

Yes very sad news.

 

I was very disturbed that the Airport director seemed to use the incident to address concerns that were somewhat political in nature. He seemed to be implying that pilots are reckless by nature and started to talk about runway incursions and other concerns that were not related to this disaster.

 

I wonder what the aircraft was doing over populated areas with only 5 hours of flight time. However I think everyone should wait an hear what the NTSB has to say bout this event before rushing to judgment.

You are allowed to be over a populated area during takeoff and landing. if only 5 hours then he should have been taking off to go to his assigned test area. It is the FAA that assigns the test area and designates which airports can be used to complete the phase one testing.

It appears so...and he isn't being vocal about it. Can't blame him after all that was done to get him the emergency strut.

The story behind the story is ... Ted says, after conversing with him a few times, that Yair is a many houred pilot and is flaring the plane like a spam can and dropping the nose onto the pavement from quite high up. [heck I wasn't there so I don't know]...but Yair says he doesnt have a problem with his landings. Ted sent him some CF BID with the strut and suggested that Yair reinforce the strut since Yair explained how he was landing the plane to Ted. It appears Yair did so [see the photo] but somehow didn't get the wheel assembly attached right and lost it in Iceland.

I only mention this because there was exhaustive postings about how fragile the strut must be if Yair broke it twice in 3 weeks of flying. Now there have been 3 incidences with his nose and landing. Poor guy. I think it's just a technique thing. There isn't anything wrong with the strut.

if he is going to land that way he may need to carry a spare or two. or rethink the way he lands the plane. maybe a safety cable like the race cars use to keep the tire with the plane.

My shear web and bottom spar cap are now complete.

 

Question though. I have ordered an antenna kit from RTS. Should I wait for it to arrive, or should I go ahead and glass the bottom and install the NAV antenna on the top of the canard?

 

 

http://flyingbackward.blogspot.com/

Flying Backward

it will work in either position. mine are at about have way up in front of the shear web. they were put in the foam in front of the shear web, that way you do not have to deal with them being under the skin layup. cut a slot in the foam with a hacksaw blade 1/2" deep and slip the foil tape antenna in the slot. a little 5 minute to hold it in and then install the airfoil leading edge

I do not know who this was but it made the AP

 

http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080822/ap_on_re_us/las_vegas_plane_crash

 

Anyone with more info?

Still don't know who it is, very sad tho. but there a lot of experts on what an experimental is

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=8885888&nav=menu102_2

Fellow builders,

 

I’m a Long-Ez builder from Greece and am going to install the canard in my fuselage: as I’m not an engineer I hope someone of you knowledged guys will be available to enlighten me on this topic.

may you explain to me the reason why the new performance canard is installed with more incidence then the GU?

What if the new canard is installed at the same incidence of the GU?

How does a canard incidence variation affect the behaviour of the main wing?

Thanks

Install it the way the Roncz plans says. how do you know what the angle of incidence is? the only line you are given in the plans is a level line to use for building. the canard level line should be level to the longerons. if you install the roncz with less incidence it will fly but the take off will be longer. at lower incidence it will need faster airspeed to get enough lift to take off.

Hey Lynn,

Thanks for the advice and the encouragement to try something different with the plans : ). I am thinking about re-creating the details in CAD so that I can manipulate them and have everything fit together well along the way. My main concern when doing a modification will be to make the aircraft flyable and landable by the second passenger. I have some ideas, but it sounds like the rudder is out for the person in the back. I think I could give them better visibility by raising their seat and modifying the turtledeck to take a higher canopy. This would allow better seating visibility from the back out the front of the aircraft permitting the people in the back to operate the aircraft visually. We'll see what happens I guess, right now I gotta focus on saving to get some plans and such, should be exciting to see how it turns out! I would be interested to hear some more about this scaled up Cozy and its performance...

 

-Chris Z.

raising the rear seat would help some but it is the strakes the get in the way also. we tried to land a long ez from the rear seat and it was very tough even for my old hanger mate who had some 900 hrs. in a long ez and was a stunt pilot. he did manage to do it but said he was not going to do that ever again. he landed into a 8 kts. head wind and once on the ground the pilot up front used the brakes to stop. in the right conditions the rudders are not needed to land. I have made many landings and never had to touch the rudders, only the brakes to stop. what many would be canard pilot don't understand is that the rudders in a canard make the plane react a bit different then the spam cans. while in level cruse flight step on a aileron and the plane will bank, use a rudder and the plane banks. almost the same. to get the rudders to yaw the plane requires rudder and opposite aileron.

Hey Lynn,

Thanks for the advice on the rudder pedals, that will make it much easier I think to modify, I'd still like to try and get creative... MY main concern with not having rudder pedals would be emergency controls. If something were to happen to the pilot, I would at least like to give the person in the back a fighting chance of getting the aircraft on the ground. You are right about Nat re-designing the Long EZ to the Cozy. The point I was simply making was Nat did mor re-design than I would be doing before he called it a new aircraft, and his purpose was to sell the plans : ). Another thought I had was going too a design of the Cozy where the pilot and copilot were still side by side, but the cabin was wider, and you forgoe the rear seats and make it a nice bagage area and move the pilot and copilot back in the aicraft maybe 10-12" or so. This to me seems like a lot more work and uncertainty than modifying the Cozy to a Tandem, but it could be done. That thought put me into thinking about an SQ2000 I think, but I don't believe they sell plans anymore.... If they do, where can I get them, because I'd like to still have side by side if possible, but as has been discussed it would be hard to fly or even dangerous with more then 440 lbs in the front seat in this config... Anywho, Keep the thoughtful discussion going! If not rudder pedals, what would be an alternative in an emergency situation?

 

-Chris Z.

moving the seat and panel back is a lot easier then you think. Think about taking the long ez or cozy IV plans and scaling them up 10%. there is a plane at chino that is a long ez that is scaled up 25%. it has a small side by side seating cockpit and a huge back seat area almost 6' long. the plane is in flight test phase one now and we are finding some very interesting flight characteristics. with a light wing loading it takes off and lands a lot slower but has not been tested over 150 kts at this time.

 

the SQ2000 was a kit with molded fuselage so there are no plans to build it from scratch.