Lynn Erickson

So I pulled out my old computer with the Ashlar Cobalt and scaled a Piaggio down to size for a 2 seat tandem, and I have to say I think it's pretty sweet. I'm about ready to do a Class I design on this sucker.

 

I have seen a few aircraft lately using belt pulley reduction instead of reduction gear. That has given me an idea for integration of the engines but that's a topic for another forum thread.

 

I have been looking around in these threads a lot and noticed some previous talk about the piaggio 180 Avanti II. The great thing about the design of this airplane is the way it "synergises" design decisions that have benefits and drawbacks to take advantage. I donlt really want to change it at all, just scale it down to where I can take off and get great preformance with a piston engine or two for under a couple hundred horsepower. I like the look.

 

For the record, the design name I came up with is the "Piccolo"

I hope you can make it work. this has been tried so many times you can't count them. not to burst your bubble but it does not work. it all looks good until you try to put people in the cockpit and behind the canopy. the size differences don't work scaled down unless you scale done the people too. you will be sitting under a canopy that you can't see out of. and a nose that is too small to sit in. but it is fun to think about. when you fly in one you realize that it is about as small as this design could be built and fit un-scaled down people.

I agree with you 100%. A nice install is a nice install. I think he was close to figuring out what the gremlin was that was causing him so much grief. You can certainly have those types of problems in any install right? I didn't agree with his decission to yank his install. Look how far he went. He did miss something. I believe he had a wiring problem somewhere if I remember. Like you said maybe Buly didn't know his! maybe wiring isn't his cup of tea. I hope when I'm ready for my engine the rotary will have evolved a little more. If not, a lycoming it is. For me anyway.

 

 

Tony

A guy with his talent does not yank an engine because it maybe causing a radio problem. that is to easy to fix. you yank a radio or an engine because you can no longer trust that it will keep working. you then install a radio or an engine that you can trust.

There's an article on the Feb issue of EAA Sport Aviation titled "An Engine Overhaul Part I" that starts on page 90. This article sparked my interest quite a bit in working with motors and save quite a bit of money at the same time.

 

My only experience in overhauling an engine is rebuilding my VW Baja bug when I was in high school.

 

I know I could follow an overhauling manual but how can I make sure that it's done right and that it will be as good as if it came from the factory (or close to it)? Has anyone done it?

They are not hard to do but there are a lot of model specific things that hard are to know about unless you work on them all the time. the overhaul book is very vague on these things. the cost of the overhaul is mostly the parts and parts prep work. most will not have the tools for this work , such as cylinder boring, magnaflux, cam grinding. on most of the larger engines the valve clearance is adjusted by installing the proper length push rod, and you won't know what size you need until the cylinders are installed and checked with and old push rod. the must replace parts are a large part of the expense. the labor for the assemble is really the cheapest part. most shops are only charging between $ 3000 to $4000 for the labor to assemble the engine and even if you get your own A&P to assist you he will get at least $2500. unless you have help from someone with a lot of aircraft engine experience I would say this is not the place to save money. If this part of the project does not work quite as well as planed, well ....

Greetings all,

 

Anybody out there in cybercanardopolis have a pin out description for the King kma 20 audio panel??

 

Thanks.

there is a whole list of pinouts for many avionics at the aeroelectric

http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data/

http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data/KMA20.pdf

Was said--> For fuel injection where you are running at higher fuel pressures, you need a return as well. It's not the same as a gravity feed system.

 

I reply --> It depends on the type of fuel injection system you're using. For Bendix servos, one type needs to return fuel to the tank. The other type doesn't. My Lyc IO-360 (fuel injected) does NOT need a fuel return line. One is labeled "RSA", the other is just "RS," but I can't ever remember which is which.

The RS is the older system and has the return. The RSA is the improved model and does not need a return

After spending considerable time researching thru CP's and CSA newsletters, I'm still a little confused as to the currently recommended fuel line for a varieze.

I have a replacement fuel valve to install, but would like to get the latest fuel line to replace my "old stuff"

Any "guru's" care to fill us clueless ones in?

 

Thanks

 

Rich

the plans call for 3/8" 3003-0 aluminum versatube for all fuel lines. forward of the firewall. the same can be used aft of the firewall but stainless steel is a better choice. any hoses used should be aircraft type rated for fuel with a fire sleeve. the best choice is the teflon with stainless steel braid like aeroquip 666 it lasts a life time and is the lightest and smallest OD for a given size. they are not cheap but it is only gasoline and your butt both in the same aeroplane

Anyone have a good source for inexpensive standard Varieze tires?

Are the Lambs still available or is there something better out there?

 

Thanks

 

Rich

Aircraft spruce has them. don't know how cheap you want? theyare all of $ 18.00 each and $ 7.00 for the tube. oh don't the

cozy IV guys wish they could run these?

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/lgpages/lambtires_tubes.php

Hence the use of check valves.

My point of fueling is in the turtleback that features a cap and a door.

 

The plane referred to did not have check valves.

thats like the worst place to have the fuel cap. the vari ezs have a cap for the aux tank in that location and it is a pain to use. standing in the back seat to fill the tank, sucks. and on the berkut you would have to reach around the canopy or over the cowling and that would be very difficult. over the cowling is next to impossible if parked nose down. the turtleback can't be reached without standing or climbing on something.

Tony is building aluminum gear

I'm not familiar with the grove gear you speak of.

 

Myself, I'm going the Infinity retracts route.

I believe tony is building the stock berkut gear which is a carbon gear leg with aluminum pieces bonded on each end. one for gear pivot and retract linkage attachment and one on the other for axle attachment. same type construction as the long eze nose gear.

At the risk of being blasphemous, has any one considered an aluminum landing gear such as the Grove Aircraft Aluminum Landing Gear? It would seem that properly executed it could be put on a 0 deg angle at cruise and eliminate any gear creep or brake heat problems.

I know two ezes that are on aluminum and the gear legs were build by grove. they seem to work just fine. Grove can make them custom to fit any aircraft. if i was to do it over I would go aluminum for sure.

I have read many times that the Long-Ez cruises with about a 3 deg nose up attitude. Has anyone thought about increasing the wing and canard incidence by3 deg to compensate? However so slight, this would improve the over the nose visibility and slightly reduce the rotation speed. Any constructive thoughts are welcome. I know,I know, changes cost time and money. This would be my 3rd EZ the first 2 being Vari-eze's

in flight the deck angle measured at the longeron is some what dependent on speed. it is really a non issue as it does not change enough that unless you are thinking about it you don't notice it. don't think conventional airplane here the ezes are not even close to the those angles. as for rotation speed it is not dependent on deck angle of the fuselage. while rolling on the ground it is dependent on the angle of attack of the wing relative to the level ground which is dependent on the gear leg lengths. increasing the angle of attack of the wing on the ground helps takeoff distance very little. if increased to much it just causes more drag and and has the reverse effect. a much bigger factor in take off distance is acceleration, getting to rotation speed. the biggest factor I have noticed is weight.

I dunno about that. DH has been flying a DH-powered Velocity for some time now (I think its almost 2 years now, but don't quote me on that). But one flying plane does not mean they have a reliable and manufacturable engine.

 

Of course, I dunno who Bill Allen is. If that's a customer, nevermind me.

Bill Allen rebuilt a long eze that had been flying for over 20 years and removed the O-200 for the wilksch engine and has done a great job and it is a big step forward for the engine. check out his web site.

http://www.longezediesel.com/

I've been meaning to post this. It's a little late, but will hopefully save someone some $$$$.

 

I ordered my supplies by the chapter kits from Spruce. Somehow I've ended up with an extra unused piece of seatback foam. Here's what to look for while ordering from Spruce and wicks.

 

The Cozy plans state you need 1.5 sheets of H45 3/4 x 24 x 48.

Wicks uses the stated foam size and provides 2 sheet in the kit.

Spruces uses a larger foam size (3/4 x 36 x 48) and still offers 2 sheets.

 

The plans seatback is 28.8 x 42.

 

So with Wicks you'll have some scrap and with Spruce you'll have an entirely extra piece.

 

This is the only place in the plane that this size and type of foam is used so it is an unneeded extra piece. At $60 a sheet, you really don't want more than you need.

 

I've told Spodman I'd sell it to him at a fair price and I think he'll go for. So just be aware if you're ordering from Spruce by the chapter kit. I should probably email them and let them know.

it may seem like an extra piece of foam now. but by the time you are done you will have found something to make out of it. almost every one buys more foam then is supplied for some mod that you have not even dreamed up yet

Problems:

 

1) The blower was shearing off it's shaft on shutdown.

 

2) The "Gemini" diesel, which appears to be a direct decedent of this design, alludes to crankshaft failures on their web page.

 

What I'm saying is that there appears to be issues with each of the long awaited diesel designs. Be it Zoche, DeltaHawk, Wilksch, or DAIR (now Howels and FTI Diesel Tech), each one has been delayed by some undisclosed design problem.

 

Not that designs based upon Automotive Diesel blocks are any better, as they all seem to be chewing up gear boxes.

 

regards

 

JCP

Wilksch must be ahead of the others.

Bill Allen, made first flight in his Wilksch powered long eze on saturday.

Has anyone successfully used the 2.0 lb/cu.ft. buoyancy billet with the smaller cell size and can reassure me that it is OK???

 

Having cut a good portion of my cores using the buoyancy billets, I'm having some serious doubts about the suitability of the material and could use some reassurance (if it is warranted). When I compare the two foams, the product from ACS feels "crunchier" when I crush it, snap it or drive nails into it to attach templates. When I take similar sized slivers of each and bend them, they seem to be the same, but for some reason, the ACS material just feels stiffer when I try to crush it. It's hard to tell how much of that is just perception becuse of the different cell size.

 

Part of me is considering cutting my losses and scrapping it all out and doing the cores over again with the plans-prescribed material from ACS. On the other hand, I'd hate to waste all that time and money if it's not necessary.

 

Any advise would be greatly appreciated.

 

Joe Polenek

Thats what my wings are made of. the smaller cell foam is what most of the long ezes are made of. the larger cell foam was not used until the 90's. I like the smaller cell stuff better, it sands smoother and takes less micro to fill the cells.

Those are the antenna I'm using for com/nav. I just installed 2 in the leading edge of my canard.

 

You might be able to attach to the inside of the fuse in the console area. I'm not sure how well that would work for comm on account of the preferred arraingement is in the vert.

Just a thought.

Com antennas need to be vertical at least one of the dipole elements. nav antennas should be horizontal. the best place for the Com is in the winglet. I have install them finished Long eze's on the back side of the winglet between the rudder and winglet and drill a hole from there to the wing wire conduit for the wire. the best is to use 1/2" wide copper foil tape. 14 gauge solid copper house wire also works very well.

has anyone in here ever given thought to designing a heads up display for experimental aircraft?

 

i have tried several designs and i think i have a good design, but i wanted to poll the masses to see if anyone has anything thoughts on it...

 

i am certainly open to any ideas or suggestions....

 

jeff

 

jeff122670@yahoo.com

I know there was a couple of long eze's that had one installed. several years ago saw one at an airshow. there was someone with an ad and artical in sport aviation a while back. It was a very expensive unit. what are you going to use it for, most of the flying eze's have had the guns removed

Its not that it cant accomodate people who are taller than 5'6" It will. All I'm saying is that It was at about the limit for me without modification. That is just my preference. I I was taller or heavier I think it could have been an uncomfortable fit for me.

Now, Can you fix that. Yes. You can do all sorts of stuff that is why they are experimental. You could move the rudder pedals, which is a little more work....you could take some out of the seat to lower your head. So with some modification it could be set up fine for taller people. As far as width goes......that probably cant be changed. If I recall the standard Eracer cabin width at the widest point is 39 or 40 inches.

The easiest thing to do is to take out some of the bottom of seat and move the lower part of the seat back to a more up right position. the angle on the seat in that plane is to layed back and it makes it hard to hold your head up without using the headrest. this will give you more leg room and head clearance all in one step this is a simple mod and can be done in a day. the standard width is 42.5 at shoulders 1" wider the a Cozy

Had a thought, what is the flying status of this machine? It isn't a homebuilt, it was built in a factory by Scaled. If they claim it doesn't exist it probably means they don't support it, so nobody can maintain it??? If operated as an experimental will there be restrictions on its operation, not being a homebuilt?

there is no such thing as a homebuilt as far as the FAA is concerned. it would be an experimental aircraft and the restrictions would be the same as most unless the FAA gave it more restrictions, which it would state in the airworthiness certificate. all aircraft are build in a factory by the manufacturer. when you build an experimental you are the manufacturer.

I just came back from ACS with my CORRECT hardener. I bought 8qts of 287s. Tim was VERY helpful and appologised repeatedly for the mistake and inconvenience. I will inventory all the parts of my chapter kits 4 and 5 this weekend. I'm going to buy more resin next month. My budget for Jan is SHOT! Its a very good point about buying extra hardware and in various sizes just in case. I have read in several archives about people getting hardware per plans and it ends up not actually fitting correctly. I'll be on the lookout for that as well.

By the time you are done building ( O, I forgot you are never done building an experimental ) you will have enough extra hardware to build two more airplanes but it won't fit on anything you are building.

Is anybody willing to/capable of finding their 'original' full scale Long-EZ drawings/templates and measuring the the two dimensions A and B of the 'G' template as shown in figure below... (For the sake of 'absolute precission' lets say measure from the OUTSIDE of lines at both ends)

 

This would allow somebody... (including owners of the TERF CDs) to scale their page C-3 including all the templates for roncz canard to something more ... eh... usefull..... for educational purposes that is;)

 

[ATTACH]1266[/ATTACH]

 

Regards,

Henrik

If you would like I can send you an copy of the original. for educational purposes that is. just ran some copies for someone and have extra sets.

I went with the Matco brakes for my Long-EZ.

It's not an area where I want to skimp.

There are cases where some folks went cheaper and paid the price.

If I was to put matco on a long I would use the double caliper model they seem to have the least problems but Grove is the hand down winner. seen several sets go on longs and never a problem, they just work

Alot of Cozies use Matcos, mine just arrived, looks like good workmanship. Don't see why it wouldn't work for the Long and extra energy capacity shouldn't be a bad thing.

I have flown and worked on all the types and I would go Grove. they are now the hands down winner. the clevelands are a bit small. the three puck matcos are a pain to work on and have to flexable a caliper and have had lock up problems. they look good out of the box but they need several mods to work good. the flex in the caliper does not let the pads release completely and the have to much drag. several of the wheels have been machined poorly and are not concentric with the brake disc and don't stop smoothly. some wheels need to have the disc bosses trued up. matcos are by far the hardest to mount a tire and tube on without pinching the tube and they are the hardest to remove a tire. they are the worst if you get a flat, they require too many tools. the rubber seals look good but they still leak and throw grease all over the wheels and wings. when using matcos make sure you tighten the bearings the way they say to. there needs to be some preload on the bearings or the inner race will spin and wear out the axle.

Wayne,

out of curiosity (Total noob). How do you calibrate a capacitance probe?

Do you basically add 1 gallon of fuel, record the probe output, add another gallan, record output again..and so on until full. Then input that somewhere to create a best fit curve?

That is the way it is done if you have the type with a programable readout. there are simple types the are not scaleable. on the vision micro system you scale to every 2 gallons.

I was coming over the hill from northern Cal. heading south into chino at 11500 ft. told approach I would be starting a desent into chino. With a tail wind of about 40 kts I was seeing 275 mph on the gps. and then I heard " citation 123Z hold your heading and altitude your are being overtaken by an experimental" and then " Experimental 999LE you may start your desent the citation is no longer a factor".