Lynn Erickson
-
Posts
654 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Articles
CSA Articles
CSA Issues
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Lynn Erickson
-
-
Here are some pics of my Co-Pilot enjoying the conversation that the pilot is having with other pilots. As you can see the subject of the conversation was airplanes and apparently a bit to long also.Lynn:
Where do you have some pictures of this beautiful airplane you have built since I left Chino almost 17 years ago? Post some pictures so we can drool over them. STeve
-
there aren't any drawings on the canopy. when you build you just buy the canopy already formed and the install it. the canopy goes where it fits over your head, is braced up and you fill in the space between the canopy and the fuselage side with scrap foam. and shape to fit. They all come out a little different. the side view of the front of the fuselage is in the drawing. the nose forward of the F22 has a few dimensions but for the nose it tells you to carve it down until it looks like a nose. every nose is different. when I built the first long ez there was no Terf CD. in fact no CD's period. the drawings have all the dimensions for the bulkheads. the only thing not on the open ez drawings is the full size airfoil hot wire templets.i saw the drawings but with first sight i don't they cover the entire cockpit and canopy , for instance it doen't cover the section ahead of the inst. panel
maybe iam wrong i will take drawings for printing tomorow
thank you all;)
and... how can i built a canopy?
-
Don't really have time for all those numbers and don't remember them all. the aircraft can be set up for a heavy front seat but in a cozy that means that you need a lot of ballast to fly solo. with the seat 10" further back and a front seat max set at 450 lbs. I can also fly it solo at 145lbs without any ballast change. so when i fly to another airport to give a ride to a 305 lbs passenger I do not need to carry the 50 lbs ballast with us like you do in a cozy. it also makes the aircraft sit on all three wheel without falling over backwards when empty. no lifting or power nose strut needed.Need more information??????
The planform of the wings merely determines the CL. I am talking about the CG (which is independent of the CL) Of course to fly, there has to be the proper relationship between CL and CG, however CG is not a flying calculation (it is a flyable calculation)
1. why is your front seat limited to 450? (I assume it was based on your CG calcs to put the CG where it should be)
2. If your seat were in the per plans position what would your allowable front seat loading be? or better yet, what would your actual (or calculated CG have been (IE with everything else being equal, how much did the CG move back with your rearward movement of the seat.
If the proposed rear loading is higher than yours, with the same seat position, the mathematical front loading necessity would be greater than 450.
When talking about CG and CG changes with respect to variations from the norm, it would be so much more helpful to all of us if we would, instead of giving resultants ie allowable front seat loading etc. if we give the raw CG facts, ie the actual CG as measured (or calculated) with an indication of the arm changes due to each modification. ie front seat back at Station xxx, pax seat back at station yyy (we, from the plans know where the original station was)
The W&B of the empty aircraft (weight and CG-- in or out of the envelope) is really the only important thing here. If we start with the specs of Nat's plane, we can easily calculate the ramifications of moving the seats, putting a longer prop extension or a C/S prop, a lighter or heavier engine, Wet bar under the Canard or any other thing we want to do to the aircraft. The calculations will tell us how much we need to put in the front seat, or what the limit is etc.
In 1968 I was flying wood wing Moonys. Their (and the FAA's) idea of W&B was a stapled sheet showing sample loading. No calcs for W&B. We have come a long way since then, lets use the technology in our communications-----please
:::disclaimer:::: Lynn, this monologue was not aimed at you. I know that you know all of this stuff. There are however those on this forum who don't really understand the complexity of W&B and perhaps will make serious mistakes based on a possible misinterpretation of statements.
I don't like accidents or failures ::::end of disclaimer::::
-
In my aircraft which has the same wing plan form as a Cozy the seats have been moved back 10" and the front seat is limited to 450 lbs. so moving it only 4" won't do much.Hey Steve,
Together in the front seat we probably would be over, but not by too much. The beauty of home-building from scratch is you have the opportunity to modify the aircraft, and I intend to! Even if I wasn't over-weight I have a lot of thigh muscle from biking and soccer, and when I sat in my friend's Cozy it was a little too snug. I can't afford a Velocity XL, so unless I want to build an Aerocanard which has a slightly wider fuse, I will need to modify the fuse no matter what. Doing the modifications the way another person suggested could buy some space, but I don't think enough, and staggering the seats isn't a design option I am willing to consider at this juncture.
Another option to help the CG is to turn it into a 2 Seat by moving the forward seats aft a fair amount (3-4 inches?) and get back some of that CG problem you were speaking of : ). I'd prefer a 4 seat aircraft, but the 2 seats in the back are not for adults unless they are really tiny.... Thanks for the advice though!
-Chris
-
You don't need the terf templets to build a cockpit. the open ez plans have all the drawings and dimensions you will need. check these out first.i dont want to pay for 300$ for building the cockpit only that is double the cost of the construction itself! and what if the long ez does not meet my space requirements
? 300 trashed? if anyone want's to help me please sent me an email -
Sorry to see you have to go through this problem.I painted in the Jeffco.
Not sure how long after I cleaned the surface with denatured alcohal I applied the Jeffco, but I am assuming it was contemperaniously with the application. So, likley within 20 minutes or so, but I am not certain. Also, seems it was really hot...and humid....shocking for Houston. I need to review my webpage and see if it refreshes my memory.
Auto fuel, 87 octane was in the tanks. A label on the pump states "up to 10% ethanal." I don't think I have ever had more than about 20 gallons in the tank, but it has set in the tanks for a while.
I had just replaced the hardpoints for the fuel flow since they were originally installed with EZ-84/flox and I found one loose. Also, the flox seemed a bit chalky where it was loose. I thought this was the source of my leak into the cabin floor. Since the hardpoints on both sides were installed the same way, I replaced both of them using Jeffco to ward off fuel contaminant issues. This was done this last week and ws one of the issue that led to my discovery. I am mentioning this again since I had just removed the finger strainers from the tank and they had NO clogging. I am guessing that this may be due to the flakes floating on the surface. This is pure speculation though.
I have not been back out to the hangar but when I return I am gonna open up the rest of the strakes (ugh) and see about genral adheasion. I am curious about the brown on the back of the pieces that have flaked off. I am also speaking with my hangar mate about sand blasting to remove the old Jeffco. He did this with success with the VariEZ he is restoring to remove old filler/epoxy.
NOW, I would love to hear opinions concering what I should use to seal the tank once I clean up the mess. Jeffco may not in any way be the problem. Same for Ethanal. It could be a builder error or a wiered anomoly. I just don't want to do it again, again.
Gary Hunter, the glass guru, piped up on another list and stated that Jeffco went bankrupt last year and its founder is now working for a company in San Antonio. However, Jeffco still seems available, according to the AS&S website. Don't know if the formual was sold off or just reserved stock (it is kinda pricey). Gary mentioned in a tech cousellor report someone posted that Pro-seal has been used in fiberglass tanks as well. I thought this was for AL since all the RV guys seem to use it. I donno.
Insight, comment, opinion or just smart ass remarks are solicited and appreciated. Thanks.
All the best,
Chris
Heres my take on the problem. if the fuel tank structural material will be affected by the fuel that you are using in the tank then any coating that you could put on the tank surface will be a potential problem. if you coat the tank with a material that is designed to seal the tank all it takes is one pin hole or one little chip and the entire structure is in danger of being destroyed.
I have seen this problem with jeffco before. I have seen the same problem with pro seal. I have seen the same problem when ez poxy that was applied on a cured ez poxy surface and the surface was not sanded well enough. I believe it is surface preparation that causes the peeling. it also seems to effect the top more as it is the vapors that do the most damage. every time I have seen a tank that has been coated to fix a leak it has not worked. we always end up going into the tank and fixing the leak the old fashion way.
-
is that Cozy 3 or cozy IV?I have an extra set of Cozy plans and a partially completed Cozy project for sale.
-
I agree with WaiterIt boils down to operational limitations. If you accept the limitations that less power provides, then go for it.
A higher HP aircraft expands the operational capability of the aircraft; more runways available, larger envelop for croswwind operations. heavier lift capability (higher gross weight operations, more fuel, more passangers). Higher altitude capabilities.
Takeoff and climb performance:
I would say that A 1000lb LongEZ with 160 hp will perform a little better than a 650 lb EZ with 115 hp. The 160hp will be able to cruise faster. operate out of more airports, carry more fuel ans passangers, and have a higher resale value.
Your best method (also the least expensive) at gaining performance improvement will be to keep your building and operational weight at the absolute minimum, 100lbs makes a noticable difference in performance.
For any given power setting, (i.e. both aircraft generating 115hp), the heavier plane will burn a little more fuel, but not significant (i.e. .5 gph).
This can be attributed to a couple items, the higher angle of attact means higher drag. AND, the higher hp aircraft is not operating at its optimal rpm or speed, but the lower hp aircraft is, very unfair comparison.
As a result, for an identical power setting, the heavier aircraft will be a little slower, maybe 1 or two kts.
You will NOT save any significant fuel by going to the smaller engine. If you find yuourself in a position that you want to conserve fuel, simply pull the throttle back and redo the mixture.
Waiter
I might add that the build time is the same and the cost of a overhauled 320 is going be a lot less then a new engine no matter what the size.
where is Lyc. going to shave the weight. my guess is it will be the same old O-235 with lighter or no accessories, light weight starter or no starter alternator, no vacuum pump, no mechanical fuel pump. no mags ( electronic ignition ). no big heavy carburator.
Lets hope it is not a lighter crank and less aluminum in the crank cases
If you build a O-235 with
no starter
no mechanical fuel pump
no mags ( EI )
no vacuum pump
no oil filter ( just oil screen )
no exhaust system ( just 6" straight pipes )
start out with a stock O-235 put in an Ellison, the right pistons and a performance cam and roller lifters and what do you have ?
a 125 HP engine that weights 50 lbs. less then the stock Lycoming.
you just beat the factory by 10 lbs.
but you still only have an O-235. go for the IO-320 you won't be sorry.
every time I fly a long with a O-235 it feels like I am back driving my old VW bug again.
-
unless you are going to register it as an transport category aircraft I would not worry about it. just don't install a door between the crew and the passengers and you will be OK. if you do the door will need a cert. also. The far 25 is for transport category aircraft only but does not apply to the crews seats anyway. they don't care about the crew only the passengers.Does anyone know about any requirement for a FAR25.853 burn certificate for upholstery in our planes?
I asked for a quote from a fabric company, and they gave me a quote and told me an additional $50 to the FAA for the certificate.
I want the properties, but not the fee....
My guess is it's not required in our planes.
Inquiring minds want to know......
-
-
sounds just like the first prototype Starship that Burt built before Beech took it and screwed it upIn fact it isn't heavy in a way it weigh a lot, it's heavy because there is a lot of modification:
My mod will be executed in two phase,
Phase one is a proof of concept for the geometrical layout of the aircraft:
The basics is a long EZ, (far inspiration)
-the fuselage will be molded and more worked out in an aerodynamic mater, the aircraft will be ±25% bigger than a long
-the wings will be lowed to have shorter landing gear and have more space in the aft of the aircraft and also get the wheels for the propeller
-winglets will be blended and twisted at the base to create a forward lift effect in the bottom section and re twisted in the mainstream direction as the wingtip vortex effect decreases (to be tested)
-canard will be reshaped, although with the same roncs airfoil, to have an elliptical lift distribution
-a ±300hp engine
-molded carbon wings and canard, glass for the fuselage (except where needed) but this is still to be determined (as all the rest, the theory is one thing, but flight test will be the final judge)
-etc...
Phase two (long term) is to determine the feasibility of an new airfoil, high lift systems and so on
i see you people with big eyes thinking "an other one mad guy thinking he can put a heavy not so efficient high lift system in his aircraft"
actually the twin seater isn't the end of the hole project, it's a proof of concept for something bigger (not talking of a 200 seater but still bigger than a velo for example)...
the point of this is to have a modernized canard to go and tickle Lancair's aircraft in performance (we'll see if it's possible) and maybe this project will get some interest from the rocket racers (never know!)
my goal is to explore, and try to bring new ideas to the pot , and i know people much more experienced than i am will disagree with my project, but i think that our friend Burt didn't stop his projects because of experienced guys from Cessna or Piper... and it's not so EZ any more!
BTW it will be meant to be produced and commercialized (medium term)
I've been working on that since i was 12 so I'm not willing to change my mind in 3 months...
Comments are welcomed!
-
the center line of the center section on the offsets has to line up with the center line of the hinge pin on the torque tube.Hi all,
Question for anyone that has used the Cozy Girrrls MKNC-12A Torque Tube Offsets in their Roncz canard. I'm getting ready to order my canard hardware and I'd sure like to use the offsets to help control air leakage but I don't have Cozy MkIV plans and I don't really want to guess how to set this up.
Can anyone provide me clear instruction on how to use this hardware on my new build Long-EZ Roncz canard??
Thanks!
-
the long ez mount is mounted to a piece of aluminum angle that is bolted to the fuselage side and thur the stringer and main spar. the cozy IV mount is bolted thur the firewall . the mount is wider and the firewall is fastened to the fuselage with reinforcement at those points. on the long there is not much room to do it like the cozy IV and I don't see any reason to do it different. the mount is a lot narrower and there for the loads on the mounting points are higher in some directions. the long ez mount works well and has not been a problem. if you do it like a Cozy IV you will add another thing to the long test flight list of things that you hope will work.Why? Is that just an availability thing? Or are cozy motor mounts different (and presumably better) somehow?
-
the best choice is an fuel injected IO-320. it can cruse all day, leaned back to 5.5 GPH and still get a way faster cruse the any O-235 at full throttle. the O235 is really lacking if you want to carry any weight and take off on a hot day. it is very easy to fly an IO 320 as if it is a smaller engine just throttle back, but the power is there when you need it. the fuel injection makes a big difference in the ability to lean over peak compared to a carburated engine. the cost is only slightly more than a smaller engine but they last longer as they are not flying at full throttle all the time. the build time is the same. if building today the IO-320 is the best choice as it gives you a more versatile aircraft.Those guys with the O 320 are naturally going to recommend it. Those with the O 235 will recomment that. Either one will do the job
The O 235 no matter how you slice it will save you more money by burning less gas.
The O 320 will lift off faster, climb faster and get you there faster no doupt but there will only be about an hours difference in time and will burn more gas in doing so. The difference in fuel burn per hour between engines is what it's going to cost you X 4 times a month.
There is a lot of perfectly good Long EZ's with O 235's still flying 700 miles trips out there.
6gph x 5 hours x $6/gal = $180, one way. If you're flying solo you can get a cruise prop and do even better on the time.
-
the aircraft may need an annual inspection ( if over one year since the last ) done by the original builder or an A&P mechainic . if you change the engine it will be considered a major change. check the operating limitations for that aircraft to see what the procedure is on your aircraft if you make a major change. each aircraft has its own operating limitations, they are all different. I have made a deposit on a dragonfly that has about 100 hours on the airframe but is now disasembled(wings removed) it has a subraru engine on it right now wich i intend to remove and sell. Now my question is can anyone tell me what the prosess is to get it back in the air since i am not the originall builder. Sorry i can't ask a better question but i don't know really what to ask for so any help would be great. OBTW i am planing on installing a lycoming o-235c if that makes any difference. Thanks SAmuel Miller -
You said you over heated the left brake and need to use right brake on take off. sounds like the left brake is dragging all the time. are these matco triples? if so the problem is most likely that the spacers that the calipers slide on are sticking. they may be corroded and / or need lube. this is a common problem with this brake.Folks,
This is not a highly unusual event (taxiing issues) for the Velocity. There is a thread of this on the Velocity forum as well. (I agree with the postings, when the differential braking works, it works exceptionally well). I do "feel" there is a difference with the Velocity. The overall weight of the aircraft, and more importatnly the weight resting on the nose gear).
I will look into:
Ensure Nose Gear is physically installed correctly (worn washers, nut is tightened properly……….)
The new Fixed Gear Nose Replacement Bumber
Brake Pedal System
Safe Flying. Tim
-
build the airplane thats best suits your wants and needs. there is a lot of time and money in these projects , a lot more then just the cost of the plans. you will be involved with it for a long time during the build but also a very long time when it is done. it is not like a model airplane, if you don't like the one you are building this month you can build a different one next month. most people are lucky to finish one airplane so it is more likely to get finished if it is the one that you really want to own and fly when it is done.I just came across some original unused Long Eze plans for next to nothing.
I was considering a Cozy Mk IV.
Question, is a Long Eze any faster to build than a Cozy?
-
put one in and found that it needs to be on high all the time and you don't need a dimmer in a cozy as the panel is not right in front of your face as in the spam cans.Hi there, I have seen a couple of devices on http://www.maxpulsemaxdim.com that seem to be the cat's meow in terms of replacing a couple of parts on aircraft. Instrument panel dimmer and a landing light pulser.
Small devices that go into existing panel but do not have a bunch of external boxes, heat sinks etc.
Does anyone have any experience with these units?
Thanks in advance.
-
good stuff but about 3 time the price of divinycell. I used 3 lbs. density divinycell for the spar. harder to carve then polyurethane but holds it shape much better.While I have no experience building a Composite Aircraft itself,
have built composite fin antenna's for high performance military aircraft.
A neat foam we used was "ROHACELL", which is a high temperature polyimide (sp?) plastic. Polyimide is the same plastic family as Kapton, which is used to make flexible circuit boards.
Can be CNC machined, vacuum bagged, high temperature/pressure autoclaved, etc. We used with Epoxy-Kelvar prepreg materials.
Depending upon the density, had a very high crush strength.
May be a little pricey, as it is made in Germany.
JCP
-
but it could hurt a lot more then you think. when a scoop is sized right there is smooth air flow and little drag. when a scoop is to big for the air flow there will be spill over and backed up airflow which will effect the air flow and pressure that goes into the scoop. it can even reduce the air flow below the required amount.That should be sufficient as an air intake feeding to the intake manifold.
An inch larger would not hurt.
-
I'd say try it and you will like it. the brake steering thing I mean. been in a spam can when the nose wheel steering was stuck at a 5 degrees left. when the plane got slowed down ,after a lot of nose wheel skidding, the right brake could overcome the left nose wheel and the wing hit the ground. save the complicated for something in the plane that needs to be complicated. brake steering works the best in an ez. with our E brake ( nose wheel handle doubles a E brake leaver ) you will stop, right now! Its three times for me, one time the Brock supplied rod end broke. stopped from 100 mph in 100 feet and 6" of glass. one time with another pilot ( his brain fade ) at 50 mph and stopped in 25 feet and 2" of glass. one time at 10 mph, the retract bronze gear broke and only the paint got scraped.If the main gear are close together, like in a LongEZ, then the answer is yes.
But, like I say, its impossible to tip if you use differential braking.
Picture this:
You just landed and you want to make the first turn off, so you stand on the left brake to make a left turn.
As the plane starts to turn to the left, it also starts tipping to the right. The more it tips to the right, the less weight the left tire has on the ground, and the less braking effect the left tire will have. (hence the ability to turn the plane)
At some point, the left tire will start skidding or may even lift off the ground slightly. When the left lifts off the ground, the plane will stop turning left.
Waiter
-
actually ready to fly , used just pulled off a flying aircraft with about 1000 hrs. $ 8500 to $9500. newly rebuilt by a good shop with all accessaries $16500. $2500 might get you a good core engine but usually are closer to $ 5000. I would go for a O-320 just a bit more expensive but way better performance for the money. and way better resale on completed aircraft.Can anyone tell what the price range for a lycoming 235c from worst condition to best. I found one for $2500 wich i think is to cheap for the condition the seller claims says it ready to be installed and flown. Thanks SAmuel Miller
-
I cover my molds with heat shrink model airplane covering as a release tape.I started this way by building a wood mould, but couldn’t get packing tape to wrap around the corners (compound curves) without rippling. Electrical tape probably would have worked nicely because it is stretchy. Just as well, though, because there are a couple of advantages to using a foam core for the insert, which I didn't realize at the time:
Joe Polenek
also cut the depressions with a piece of hot wire bent to the shape of the cut out and mounted to a piece of plywood. hot wire router takes ten minutes to build.
-
for only a bit over the cost of the foam Oregon Aero will build and shape the seats for you. made out of three densities and with lumbar support. they know seats.I thought I'd let everyone know about a source for Confor Foam, (was Temperfoam). The vendors I checked with generally wanted $150-$160 per 1x36x80 inch sheet.
This company has it for $100 per sheet. I just had 3 sheets delivered, and it looks like the real McCoy.:
RCS (Rubberized Cypress Sponge)
301 E. Goetz Ave
Santa Anna, CA 92707
888-373-4289 Toll free
714-546-6464
? 300 trashed?
if anyone want's to help me please sent me an email 
2 Seat Luxury Flight Yacht
in Other Modifications
Posted