Lynn Erickson

> Just to say that, with how well the present epoxy finishing works, there is no

> need to, and reason to, use the weight of a gelcoat finish.

 

Tell that to the glider crowd. Most of them use white gel coat.

gel coat is heaver. it weighs more then paint. gel coat is resin with pigment in it. when applied all the weight of the resin and pigment are there on the part that it coated. paint contains solvents that evaporate when it dries, there for you can not compare the weight of it in the can as a liquid. Gel coat will never give you as good looking a finish as paint.

Marc and Lynn. this is for you

 

http://www.tmi-slc.com/products/main.asp?c=7&p=65

 

learn something.

that is what we are trying to do, keep you from learning the hard way.

there are many types of mold release agents and cleaners used in making molded parts. they are used to release a part from the mold. first off we are not using molds, hence the name Mold-less composite construction. putting on a release agent that has the potential to be left behind on the surface that can result in a delam at a latter date is just not smart. why do this when it is not needed in the first place. there are thousands of these aircraft that where built and they did not need to use it to complete their projects.

lets see if I have this right , if we buy a product and put it on the surface

to solve a problem that is not a problem in the first place, then do we need to buy the product that is used to remove the product that we did not need in the first place to solve the problem that did not exist? sounds like a government project, take the time to spend the money on something that they never needed in the first place.

I'm not sure exactly which layups you're referring to here, but _I_ wouldn't purchase this canard from you now that you've covered it with wax, and I'd recommend that no-one else purchases it, either.

 

The plans (LE, COZY) are very specific not to use wax paper and or wax covered cups when mixing epoxy - there are numerous approved mold release agents (PVA, etc.) and wax is not among them.

 

Putting wax in contact with the wet epoxy is very not recommended. You're begging for adhesion problems (or potential ones) down the road.

 

If I were you, I'd sand off that last layer of glass and re-do it.

 

And for next time, just use 4-mil poly sheeting. Doesn't stick to the epoxy at all, does what you want, and peels right off.

I agree with Mark. what happen to the good old method of put on glass and resin and squeege it out the excess resin and you are done. peel ply is a good thing if you want to hold down the edge or if the surface is to be filled or another layer is to be applied. the plastic or mylar thing is not always a good thing, it does allow the excess resin to be move around under the plastic but the excess resin still needs to be removed from the top of the layup or it does no good to use the plastic. it does leave a smooth shinny surface but that is not what you want. it may look good to the novice builder but not someone who knows good glassing techniques. the surface should be rough as in sanding or peeled plied surface so filler or paint will stick. Some of the new glassing techniques I see used may be "very not recommended" techniques and may cause a dangerous layup. at best they all are adding another experiment into your experimental project. so next time you are at 15,000 feet in you project give some thought to the way you modified the plans glassing technique.

as for Wax or silicone , don't do it. don't get it anywhere near the plane until its the paint job that you are using it on.

when I do a pre buy inspection for someone I ask the question of type of techniques used. and if wax or silicone is in the answer the inspection is done.

Guys, as mentioned I am doing rehab on a varieze w/o engine and would like to mount either a rotax 912 w 100hp or a jabiru 3300 w 120hp. Both engines are a good piece lighther than the O-200. The rotax especially should be about 30-40kg lighter and the VE would really benefit from that dieat. The Jabiru should be 20kg lighter and give 120hp's.

So anybody who could help me with some information & experience

 

wolf.

If I was doing a Vari I would go O-320. there are no subs for Cubic inches. it makes a great speed machine and will still cruse at 170 kts buring 5.5 Gal. per hour. the smaller engine are good engines but nothing like a good real aircraft engine. the 0-320 will cost less, last longer and get the same fuel burn in cruse but if you want to go fast you can. the other engines will be working there A----s off and will never get anywhere near the speed and will burn a lot more fuel trying. fire wall back on those engines will set you back 20 G's + and a overhauled O-320 can be had for 16. the plane will have a much better resale with an O-320. A good vari with a O-320 will go in the high 50s. the weight thing is not a problem, it has been done and it works out great. you are adding 10% more weight and getting 50% more HP. ask any vari driver what engine they would like to have if they did it again and most will say the 320.

Dear all, the VE I am rebuilding has the outbord leading edge wingcuffs, I read that reduce roll oscillations. Some have them some don't, could someone enlighten me on their usefullness. The same, the wing has no flow guides, I have seen the flow guides alla Savier, others have the leading edge flow guides like on my long, others have both, again I would like to know more about their effectiveness.

 

wolf.

there is no need to remove the wingcuffs they do exactly the same thing as the vortilons. the ones that changed to vortilons said there is no difference in handling or speed. Some said the cuffs worked better then the vortilons on the higher swept wing of the vari. The vortilon was designed for the long eze and some were installed on later vari ezs because they did not require re-finishing and painting . the trailing edge fences work well on the vari ez to reduce dutch roll at landing speeds allowing a lower landing speed. every vari we have put them on loves them. and yes they do need to be that big to work.

I hit a major milestone today. My 0320 powered Long EZ sipped its first quart of 100LL. The engine has about 1800 hours total but a zero time on the complete top overhaul. I only ran it a couple minutes at a time but noticed that the oil pressure (new oil pump) ran up to 80 psi. Does anyone have the spec on an O320E2D?

 

A trip to the big dance is not possible this year but I do plan on flying my new EZ to Rough River. With a coat of paint and a set of seat cushions we'll be ready to head to the airport.

Congrats, that is a big milestone

The Lycoming oil pressure is 60 to 90 psi during normal operating temps. normally it is adjusted to 65 to 70 psi. keeping it on the lower side helps by having a lower pressure on the crank seal. adjusted to a lower pressure the valve can open faster during cold starts which can cause a spike pressure of over 300 psi which can damage the oil cooler and crank seal. after engine start adjust the RPM to keep the pressure under 90 psi until the engine warms up. the pressure is adjusted by a threaded adjustment screw on some models and by adding or subtracting washers between the spring and spring cover on other models. the washers are standard AN - 4 washers. Lycoming does have 4 different springs available and the adjustment can be made by changing springs but they are not cheep so most use the washers.

I could use some help from the forum if you all have a minute. I am in the market for a really, really good Longez 0-320 (preferably Roncz canard and plain white, no fancy panel needed, reliable airframe and engine) and have budgeted enough to get a nice one by comparing prices of available ones for sale on Barnstormers, Trade-a-Plane, and Controller (it is just that I have called on all and they all have some serious issues for the 0-320s available like crashes, non-standard 28/14 volt electric system, no speed brakes, or years of sitting, no landing lights, etc. and I am budgeting for a good one and not a fix-er-upper).

 

 

 

 

 

If any of know of a really good ship available or coming up (I suppose I can wait a few more months as I have waited so long already and did not want to pick from the 3 I see available on Barnstormers or Controller or Trade-a-Plane as they all have some bad issues after I called the owners/builders and did some research on them) I would really appreciate any help and I am not really interested in the Varieze and am pretty strongly biased toward the 0-320 and Roncz because I go about 240#. I just want a good safe, stable frame from maybe someone who is ready to convert to light sport or move up to

 

mitchsnider@mac.com

These are homebuilts and no two are alike as far as options go, and there are not that many O-320 that were built as O 320's, most were converted from O-235 powered flying aircraft. finding one with all the option you would like could be like finding a needle in a haystack. many people think you can go out and buy and fly as you would a certified aircraft. there may be the rare exception out there but most of them are an on going experimental project that is never finished. they require constant maintenance for which there is no standard manual, no standard spec used to determine the original condition , and no guaranty that it was built to an acceptable condition in the first place. Most of the buyer / flyers that I know bought an aircraft that was close to what they wanted and had a qualified person do the modifications that they required. some have bought aricraft with the intent to do many mods but after they had flown the aircraft found that the mods they originally had in mind were not really a good idea after all.

Good luck in your search.

We did the shear web layup on the canard this weekend, and I think it is our best layup so far. After it was done, though, we got to talking about it and I can't help but wonder why we didn't just bondo the trailing edge to the workbench instead of building the 12' long jig. Seems like little dabs of Bondo and maybe one 2x4 to support one side using the nails would have given us a stronger fixture so that we could apply firmer pressure when pulling the threads straight and squeegying.

 

I also made the permanant attachment of the landing brake. That electric actuator is cool - after looking at the plans for the LB mechanism I can't imagine anyone doing it that way.

 

Next step on the canard is to affix the leading edge. While that's curing I'll flip the fuselage over and do the tabs for the landing gear cover.

I am sure you meant that you could 5 minute epoxy the canard to the table as you know bondo will dissolve the blue foam used for the canard

I could use some help from the forum if you all have a minute. I am in the market for a really, really good Longez 0-320 (preferably Roncz canard and plain white, no fancy panel needed, reliable airframe and engine) and have budgeted enough to get a nice one by comparing prices of available ones for sale on Barnstormers, Trade-a-Plane, and Controller (it is just that I have called on all and they all have some serious issues for the 0-320s available like crashes, non-standard 28/14 volt electric system, no speed brakes, or years of sitting, no landing lights, etc. and I am budgeting for a good one and not a fix-er-upper).

 

I have sat in one a few years ago and really liked it. I owned an old Varga Kachina for a few years that is also tandem low wing metal plane with sticks that I have flown to Oskosh a few times and Sun-n-Fun every year but it drowned in a hurricane a couple of years ago from a 100 year storm that had no winds but an unexpected 4 foot wall of water. But have really always wanted the Longez. Infinity looked they were going to make a kit and I almost had enough cash to get the Berkut kit when they stopped making them years ago. I have even looked at the Sunshine Dart but plans are not yet available.

 

My reality for the moment is that I will not have time to build one from scratch until I retire in about 11 years and would like to enjoy flying one until I can build my own if I can find the 'right' one. I have been a Deputy Sheriff for 27 years and work a second job nights as a College Professor for Kaplan University online, run our Sheriff’s Office Honor Guard Bagpipe Band and am raising a family of teenagers. I have been flying since I was 14 and have almost 600 hours logged. I have subscribed to Kitplanes magazine for the last 20 years. So the best compromise for me is going to be to try and find a well built LongEZ but have always been leery of the gamble you take in how each person built it (the 2000 ways NOT to buy a canard post here for example). I was at Oshkosh and Sun'n'Fun last year and will make a couple of days at Sun'n'Fun this year too. I sat in Nat Puffers Cozy but it is really more airplane than I need and can't really afford a good Berkut unfortunately (but don't need the extra problems dealing with main gear retracts anyway). I always attend the composite workshops at Oskosh/Sun-n-Fun and had to do continuous and extensive maintenance on my old Kachina every month, for which there were no parts available.

 

If any of know of a really good ship available or coming up (I suppose I can wait a few more months as I have waited so long already and did not want to pick from the 3 I see available on Barnstormers or Controller or Trade-a-Plane as they all have some bad issues after I called the owners/builders and did some research on them) I would really appreciate any help and I am not really interested in the Varieze and am pretty strongly biased toward the 0-320 and Roncz because I go about 240#. I just want a good safe, stable frame from maybe someone who is ready to convert to light sport or move up to a Cozy 4 seater and don’t need their Longez any more.

I will be pretty ‘picky’ but thanks for any help any of you can give if you know of a reliable one coming up for sale (with original plans so I can make repairs as needed). After 8 years on the waiting list I am also finally number 1 for a hangar at Marathon Airport and they have about 3 openings a year on the average so my timing is good there to be able to have a place to protect and work on it as needed.

 

Cheers,

Mitch 'Piper’ (I play the bagpipes and was the bagpiper for the ‘Oskosh Band’ at the Theater in the Woods last year)' Snider

 

mitchsnider@mac.com

Try David Orr at canardfinder@att.net He has helped many find the right plane.

Mike- To recent for google;

Norfsworgle: California driven slang for any interesting device or assembly created for the sole purpose of satisfying ones tendencies and proclivities towards excessive creature comfort and convenience and hedonistic pursuits. Such as a fur lined surfboard leash[really]...fur lined 32 oz cup-holder...or fur lined handcuffs...[for opposite ends of the hypothetical spectrum]. BTW, the latter of which, can be found in amazing abundance at any Renaissance faire.

Canard. Aileron. Rudder pedal.

 

Ps, not responsible for any of the above as I have been up all night, and I am a bit offffffffffffffff of my hook.

Are Norfsworgle rudder pedals on the Cozy Grrrils parts lists, if not they should be.

Today I was only able to do one layup for the rollover structure. Here are the pics.

 

Pic 1) This is the micro fill used to replace the foam in the rollover structure. I'll let the micro cure, sand it and then do the layup. This is the right side of the rollover.

 

Pic 2) The micro on the left was cured, so I sanded it and layed up four plys in carbon. Each ply is stepped back a 1/2in" starting 4in above the end of the foam. (OR about 7in" above the top of the longeron) (roughly)

This would be a good place to use peel ply both on the micro and on the stepped back plys. nicer finish and less sanding

help!

 

i choose

saint-gobain 4 axial knitted 1150g/m2 for fuselage skin with 2cm foam

+-45degree 450g/m2 for wing skin

This may be OK for the fuselage but not for the wings. on the wing the uni fibers are aligned from corner to corner. this is a lot steeper span wise angle then 45 degrees.

The nose get glasses to the fuse with a 1 inch overlap. Actually, after glassing the fuse the recess shrinks to about 3/4". Does this seem a bit weak to anyone else?

 

I extened the BID an inch beyond the fuse groove then added a 6 inch swath of UNI with fibers parallel to the fuse. I know, second guessing the plans but my thought is hard landing flex of the nose area may show some mico or paint cracks down the road.

have never seen this happen but I have seen the rear part of the NG 30 broken loose and up against the canard from a hard drop in landing.

G'day all

 

I need a NB nose gear housing. The plans show this is a part to purchase, but I do not know who makes them.

 

If anybody knows where to purchase the NB part please advise. If not, I will be making my own next weekend so I may finish Chapter 6.

 

Does anybody have plans? If not I will draw some up after I have completed mine.....

 

Jeff

Do you mean the nose wheel box? That should be available from Featherlite or Areocanard.

Greetings,

 

My name is Brad and I just moved to the area. I am planning on starting my Quickie project this summer after I get the garage up to par.

 

How far along are you on the EZ?

 

Take care.

 

~Brad

Maybe we can still save you. if you are reading on this forum there still maybe hope. Why a quickie? why not a real Rutan canard? a real airplane. the Q does not make any since. they take just as long to build as an eze. they are way to small to be comfortable. there are not any good reliable engines for them. the resale value sucks. and they are very difficult to fly. and have the highest percentage of owners that have wrecked or scared them selves so bad they wont fly it again and sold it cheap.

I have recently started building a long ez in my garage in Friendswood, Tx.

I have completed the project thru Main Gear being mounted and wheels, brakes and axles are mounted. I have not yet run break lines or master cylinders. I have begun the landing brake and it is built and installed but I want to use a linear actuator rather than the mechanical. I would like also to know if someone can advise me on where to acquire and the size and weight which would be sufficient to operate the break efficiently? While I am at it, does anyone know a foam supplier in the Houston Area?

 

bobmane

The linear actuator I use is 110 lbs. 4" stroke 12 volt motor

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/03/03/germany.plane/index.html#cnnSTCVi

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/03/03/germany.plane/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

Yes, JP,

 

The real question is why did they recall all of them (that they could get) and relegate them to the glass shreader????

 

It almost reminds me of GMs electric car.

Lawyers and liability. and they would be required to supply parts, which are another liability.

Hands down the Starship!

That "ferrin" plane is nice too, and all we have left......

what do you mean ? there is still a Starship flying, comes into Chino all the time. saw it take off last week. see link

www.bobscherer.com/Pages/Starship.htm

I sadly report a Velocity crashed into RV 8. the videos and pics on the links.

 

http://www.local6.com

 

http://www.wftv.com

 

very said.

If my memory serves me correctly Delerin is softer than uhmw. I work at a sugar factory and we use uhmw for bearings in shafts that contact sugar which is very abrasive. It works pretty good. That is what I am using for my bearings. Here is a picture.

 

 

STeve

It is POM or Polyoxymethylene or commonly known as acetal resin or Delrin the Dupont trade name. is is very easy to machine and very stable. it machines very precision and is a good bearing for low speeds. Delrin is much harder and stronger then UHMW. UHMW is a slicker bearing material but is a much softer material. either one will work for our purpose. as does the plans phenolic. the phenolic can be bonded with epoxy resin but the delrin and UHMW can not.

Thanks for the replies. Yes I'm aware that new mags do not include the gear. My hope was that one of our builders had a spare laying around that they did not need. If I can't purchase one this way I will check the salvage yards.

check on Ebay they come up all the time but expect to pay about $80 to $100 , salvage yard will get about $ 150 to $ 200 or you can get one from Lycoming for $ 489

Waited in line for security lately? I can fly at 152 speeds and beat the airlines to some places, like Wichita, Naperville or Omaha.

 

 

 

I neglected to mention than fun and experience are also on the mission criteria list.

 

 

 

I think OEI climb is a requirement for FAR 23, if it's not I'd definitely like to know that before I jump in and go for a ride. OEI Performance is obviously degraded. I suppose homebuilts don't have to meet FAR 23 but I am not a total idiot, and I would design to meet FAR 23 or MIL specs where FAR23 is too vague. Maybe it won't work. I'd like to see your OEI calculations and engine assumptions for this statement. Otherwise you are stating the obvious and wasting my time.

 

 

 

Thanks for this information and your opinion on this. Where do you find information about these not being for 4 cylinder engines?

Now thats different. if you say you want to have fun while flying thats really going to cost you a lot more. just kidding. if you are to use lets say two - 100 HP engines on a for place twin aircraft and one goes out the 100 HP engine is not going to be enough to maintain safe flight. if you use 2- 150 HP engines you may have a safe plane on one engine but now you are fly a 300HP machine and you are not going to go 1000 nm on 60 gallons of av gas.

Ivo will not sell you a prop if they know it is going on a 4 cyl. engine. they have had hub and blade failures do to the high power pulses and vibration of 4 cyl. engines

 

I'd shrug this off by stating that the mission intended here is to go far fast and cheap. Lets say in general I want missions of 1000 nm at 175kts on 60 gals of mogas, that seems reasonable offhand I think. Takeoff performance and landing performance of hopefully well under 2000'. The way I'd intend to use this plane is not for sightseeing. If I want to look out the window to see the trees and lakes I have a 172 that is great for that.

 

I'll take suggestions on engines. There are so many to choose from which I like for so many different reasons. I was leaning toward twin rotax until I saw a used VW 1600 cc engine on ebay sell for $50 a couple days ago. (My wife wouldn't let me buy it still)

 

I have idea to get two small twins and locate them in the fuselage rear near the wingbox - landing gear intersection at the rear of the canopy. Belt drive twin props and run one engine out normally for economy cruise. It'd be like having a 8 cylinders and shutting down four cylinders like they do with indy cars nowadays. I can run redundant belts to props, and have added safety of two engines, and two engines for short takeoff or high performance cruise. Messes a lot up with my engine selection and installed weight though, and most of all has to fit there somehow. Haven't really seen it in action other than the Voyager either. Hey that's a Rutan canard!

 

Anyone have any experience with these props?

 

http://www.ivoprop.com/inflightmediummodel.htm

 

What I've read is pretty negative. Seems like a suspiciously cheap and mechanically frail way to incorporate variable pitch. How long have these things been around? Anyone able to share success stories?

 

ciao

if your mission is far fast and cheep I would say take a commercial airline. if on a 1000 mile mission your design turns out to be more efficient then the airlines it would be a first. far and cheep can be done with many designs but it is the fast part that will cost you dollars in fuel and HP. then add the twin engine to the mix and the efficiency goes down even more. a twin with engines to small to keep the aircraft in the air on only one engine is not really a true twin and not any safer then a single.

As for the VW well they were good to get people to the market or a Stones concert.

the Ivo prop has been a good prop on many aircraft. they are not recommended for 4 cylinder engines. they have a limited amount of pitch change. In My opinion not worth the small performance gain. I have not flown behind one but have flown along side one. and did not see the gain both aircraft got off in less the 2000 ft. top end is good but not as good as a fixed pitch

Pilot visibility is definitely the biggest problem. Back seat forward visibility is also a biggie - there is none, unless you do like the Valkyrie and fly picthed forward, which adds lots of drag.

 

The Aeriks 200 was slightly pitched forward on the ground but still I don't think you could fly it form the back seat and see where you are going. I haven't drawn the canopy in yet but I an not that far into the design. I don't see how it would be that different than a long EZ. Actually there is more room than that at the current sizing. The goal is to (do what the piaggio does) cruise with the three surfaces trimmed for mimimum induced drag.

 

Thanks for the reply. I have no problem being told it can't be done, and you are probably right. However I have never let that stop me before.

I am not saying to stop on the contrary it is a lot of fun to try and figure out these problems. but i have been there and have built full size mock ups to figure out this problem and and it is hard to make it all work unless the size of things is designed around a full size person. this makes the design about 1.5 times the size of a cozy. the long eze canopy is almost vertical where it contacts the top of the fuselage and curves back to the top of the canopy. if you project a line from the top of the canopy to the nose as in the Piaggio the canopy will be the length of the fuselage. if you don't go all the way to the nose with the canopy you will loose forward visibility. It will look like a sailplane canopy. and forward visibilty in sailplanes are not that good but they spend most of the time looking out the side in a bank anyway.