Lynn Erickson

 

 

 

I did not use 'plastic peel ply'. My plastic is too thin and stretchy. I need to get some thicker stuff from the 'Depot'.

 

 

 

Call me frustrated in Massachusetts.

just to make sure you understand the peel ply is not the clear plastic sheet that you get from home depot. peel ply is a Dacron fabric that is used to cover the surface to hold down the edge fibers and to make a bonding surface for future layups.

After which I hope that you are immediately removing your gloves and replacing them with fresh ones, unless you're using thick butyl gloves.

I think what Marc is saying is you should never intentionally get epoxy on the gloves, they are there only just in case you do, to prevent direct contact with your skin. after you get some experience with doing layups you will find that you can do the whole thing with out even a drop on your gloves.

Hi guys,

 

Just about to start chapt 5 and I had a question about the AN6-80A bolts. They appear in the Wicks Aircraft chap 5s pdf but surprisingly enough the actual part is not available at WA nor at AS&S.

Is there any actual equivalent bolt that we shall use instead? I phoned AS&S and they confirmed me that the reference -80A is not available. I am a little confused!

If you can help, that would be greatly appreciated

 

Tony, Chap 5

Long EZ #2152

The last set of bolts we replaced we got from Caterpiller they stock long grade 8 bolts. I think it was the 8" x 3/8" 24 thread that we used

"lowering the canard 2" does not seem to have any effect in the way they fly. but it would make it hard to fit in an electric nose lift. the E racer uses hydraulics for the nose gear so it does not interfere with the canard."

 

Lynn, nice pickup on the nose lift! I hadn't thought of that.

 

Usually the canard is set in such a position such that the wake flows either over the top surface of the wing or the lower surface all of the time, through most of the pitch range. If the flow is switching from top to bottom, then you get undesirable changes in flow over the main wing. This could cause problems in stall, control surface response etc.

I havent decided on the move yet, it will depend on the outcome of a thorough analysis.

 

Cheers,

 

Rowan

there is an Eracer that was built with the canard in normal long ez position and it flys the same as the ones with the lowered canard. the top speed was the same to the tenth of a knot and the stall is the same also. remember the main wing never gets to stall on a canard aircraft. there are no control surfaces behind the canard, the ailerons are mostly outboard of the canard

does it make something better for forward visibility?

the Eracer front seat is 10" further back then it is in the long or cozy so the look over the nose is different. i suppose if the Eracer had it 2" higher then the visibility might not be as good but then you could see under it better

Wayne,

 

 

 

The canard move is all about moving the canard location down 2"- not changing the geometry of the surface, as much as i would like to (10 deg sweep would look cool), because again, too much analysis- see prior post re design.

Moving the canard down allows for reshaping of the top deck and removing the one ugly feature ofthe long- the 'boxiness' of the fuselage around the canard in the transition to the nose. Some pl deal with this really well, others seem to build to plans. I think I have two approaches which could deal withhte problem, lowering the canard is one.

 

Thanks again for the input- keep firing away folks,I do appreciate it.

 

Cheers,

 

Rowan

lowering the canard 2" does not seem to have any effect in the way they fly. but it would make it hard to fit in an electric nose lift. the E racer uses hydraulics for the nose gear so it does not interfere with the canard.

Guys,

Thanks for the feedbacK. As an Aero engineer, I live on numbers and analysis! Thats why i want the weights of the stuff listed above. I appreciate that estimated weights and actual weights will change- thats why I was hoping there would be a few people willing to share component weights to do an analysis and set some typical bounds. While I havent cut or built anything for the plane just yet, its a good time to do the check calcs for all these mods. Better to highlight a potential problem now and implement a design fix rather than later when it requires major surgery! Call it 12+years of experience in the industry (design, composites, windtunnels, flight test and certification)- ALWAYS GET CETIFICATION AND WEIGH AND BALANCE SORTED EARLY IN THE PROJECT!!!

I am not moving canard positions etc at this time. I would like to lower the canard by its thickness, and maybe stretch the fuse, but then I would have to re-calculate everything. If I am going to that much effort, I may as well design from a clean sheet of paper :-) (which is a future project). So aerodynamic centres are staying put. (the vertical canard posn is till up for grabs).

I will be widening the fuse at the pilots bulkhead (2"? have read a lot on what everyone else is doing)as I'm quite broad at the shoulders, 6'1ish and in that weird weight measurement, around 210lbs. I have checked bending moments and its right onthe edge of dont worry about it and reduce manoeuvre g factor, vs add a ply and abit.

 

 

Re Mods: It is in many ways a good time to build, now that everyone else out there has pretty much done it all! Although it is also a trap- If I incorporate all the good mods in the build, how can I measure improvement?!!!!

I will post a list of proposed mods at a later date for the group to peruse and provide feedback on.

 

Cheers,

Rowan

If you leave the wings and canard as per the plans and build a wider /bigger fuselage then you will not be the first. it has been done. an Eracer is a long ez with a wider fuselage and the canard moved down 2". some use the IO 360 angle valve engines and there is even one with a SIO 540. there are wider cozy IVs, wider long ezs and the limo ez. the berkut is a long ez with a 12" stretch. so as long as you don't get to crazy with the overall weight or move things to totally different position it will fly.

Use the standard "stick and ball" antenna for the transponder---it is cheap. I don't think I would put it under my butt. How about up in the nose in front of the rudder pedals? That is where mine is----and it is totally internal to the airplane----and has a rather short run from the transponder to the antenna.

The cheapest way and one of the best is to just use the coax wire and strip the cover. pull the center conductor out the side of the shield. only need 3.2" of seperated wire length. install a clip on radio shack torroid on the wire before the stripped section of wire. mount the center wire vertically up and the shield vertically down. mount in the nose on the inside of fuselage side. makes one of the best dipole antennas and cost almost nothing.

I’m kind of lost here, let’s go by part.

1. I always was skeptical about auto conversions, but when I knew about the success of the 13B on Cozies and Velocities I opened my mind to it, but after some research found out that they are not feasible on VariEzies, too large and to heavy.

Then I found the Corvair option claiming to be the less expensive alternative for O200 or O235 users, Arnold Holmes (member) mentioned it in this forum, I went into Flycorvair.com and read a lot of nice thing about it… I know, none of them on canards.

I have no doubt about Continental or Lycoming; I know they were born to fly.

I just didn’t wanna miss any safe less expensive alternative if there is one.

The guys on 13Bs got one for larger planes.

2. It’s true, most VEs flying use O200, O235, some O320 and very few Rotax with one fatality caused by the engine that I know of.

I obviously need to educate myself some more, because I don’t get it. If Burt Rutan, the genius that today is designing spaceships, said no more than 240lbs vibrating mass on a VE. What’s going on? What’s the real weight and power limit?

Here we are talking about airframe strength to hold the engine, weight and balance, Gs

Somebody here mentioned an O240 that weights the same than an O200 and delivers 140hp, that could be nice.

Maybe I should focus on getting my airframe ready and save money for a good engine.

The main thing I have against alternate engines is the they are so many experiments all rolled into one aircraft. every part that has to be adapted to the application is an experiment in itself. when they say they had to modify the crank, add a thrust bearing, put on a different carb, added a balancer these are all experiments that may or may not work as planed. even if they do work, for how long? when they claim that it has flown 200 hours without a problem, it is still an experiment and what will happen on hour 201? as for the mass of the engine that Burt designed the varieze to have, that has been an experiment that went the other way. so successful is the design that people that have experimented with bigger engines have proven the design to be able to handle the load safely. if you are looking for dependability with the least maintenance( best proven TBO ) go Lycoming second choice is continental

Lynn

What you are saying is not entirely true, William Wynne have already experimented for 20 years and got books and videos on how to do everything and if this is not enough, he can do it for you. As far as I’ve read, once that engine is converted there is not much left of the old car engine, they harden the crankshaft and update and harden the camshaft, not to mention that is a 180hp engine used at only 120hp, quite a bit of over strength, The size is 190 (not 140) and a few lbs lighter than the Continental O-200.

I’m still not decided, got a lot of info to confirm yet, like if it fits in the same cowl, I wouldn’t modify the cowl for nothing, that would be like building a different unnamed plane, like Nat Puffer say “do it our way or don’t call it Cozy”. I recognize the effort and skills that guy put on his LE to power it with a 13B but I think is no longer a LE.

If you haven’t done it yet, take a look at www.flycorvair.com

Regarding the O-235 I think it exceeds recommended vibrating mass by Burt Rutan.

Yes it has been done on a few plane and some have had some success with the corvair. so if he does have a video that will tell you how to do everything then it should be no big deal to use a corvair. just bolt it on and go. thats why there are some many varieze pilots that are upgrading their O-200 to a O-235 or even O-320s and not corvairs. look around and see which engines are doing all the flying and which one are doing all the experimenting. they claim that they have put 200 hours on one top of the line corvair engine. that may sound impressive at first glance but I doubt they did that with out touching it during the 200 hours. and how many years did it take to get that 200 hours. and the cost of the engine that puts out 120 HP will be in the $15000 range before you are done. these engines may look good on paper but in the end you will spend more time and money then you would if you use a proven engine. I say this because I have seen this happen so many times I have lost count. and if you are worried about what Burt recommended to builders 30 years ago about the vibrating mass thing, that went out the window about 25 years ago when the first O-290 was installed on a varieze and was a complete success. now there are more O-320 powered variezes then there are corvair powered ones. that should tell you something.

I’m Rebuilding a VariEze.

Beside the repairs needed, one of my commitments is to check how well and by plans this one was built.

I already read the full set of plans, but I still need to read all the CP newsletters.

For what you say, it seems that the fire wall mounts were installed by LE plans. I wonder why.

I think that the O-200 is the best option for a VE, but at the same time I having second thoughts about the Corvair engine (they’ve been experimenting and developing it for 20 years), so if it’s proven that this one is as safe and reliable as a Continental O-200, it will be worth the money saving and I might change my mind and use the O-200 mount to modify it for Corvair or sell it.

[ATTACH]3000[/ATTACH]

do you want to fly or experiment with an engine. not the best type of plane for engine experimentation. why go from a 200 Cu in engine to a 140 cu in engine. you will not be happy. ask your self why are there not very many vari ezes flying with a corvair.

the very best engine for a vari eze is the O-235. 120 Hp make it a great plane.

The repaired tube now looks exactly like the other one.

[ATTACH]2996[/ATTACH]

Here is the mount clean of rust.

[ATTACH]2997[/ATTACH]

 

Now I found out about another issue, the fire wall mounts.

Measuring the distance between the outside of the angles that should be 15”3/4 by plans.

But on the upper ones I got 16”3/4

And on the lower ones I got 15”7/16

This means that to install the O-200 mount right there it needs to be forced in, and that is how it was mounted.

Is this a big issue, or no problem???

Thanks a lot.

Luis

Are you building a vari or long ez the mounts are different the long ez is 1" wider at the top mount. if you force it in the engine pad spacing will not be correct. and good work on the straightening.

I have one question.

How does it possible this guy fitted propeller stright to the engine, without any reduction gear. I think forces from trust will destroy bearings in engine. Am I right?

While flying along side of Gary Spencer's V8 long ez doing 200 Knots, Gary decided to to give it a little more throttle and all I saw was him pull away from me at an alarming rate. all I saw was his thrust, from my point of view it looked like the engine was running just fine and making plenty of thrust. Note, If you find yourself in this position flying with Gary "Do Not" get behind and below him unless you want to experience his thrust first hand.

I've read the archives and searched here but can't find an answer - where does the "kink" start, and how far into the wing from the trailing edge does it go?

 

I'm trying to mount my right aileron, and it sure looks to me like the trailing edge kink starts 5 inches outboard of the inboard aileron cut line, and continues towards the spar far enough that my inboard aileron hinge won't be perfectly straight unless I do some grinding on the inboard end.

 

What I've read in the archives leads me to believe that the kink starts AT the aileron, but mine is 5 inches further outboard...

 

Also, I found the following in newsletter #52, which basically says that the COZY should NOT have a kink...that it was designed out...I guess (hope) it was designed back in at some point...!

 

Subject: NEWSLETTER #52: THE COZY MARK IV MAIN WING

 

 

We are occasionally asked whether Long EZ or 3-place Cozy wings can be used on

the Mark IV, and we explain that they cannot. Although the Mark IV wings use

the same airfoils (modified Eppler), and are dimensionally the same outboard

of the strakes, there are some significant differences. First of all, the spar

caps have been made 20% thicker, for added strength. We also eliminated the

kink in the trailing edge, since this kink was not necessary to fit the

cowling (it was on the Long EZ). We also extended the wing root inboard 4" for

several reasons. The extra spacing between attach points obviously makes the

wing attach system stronger. It also allows those of us with shorter arms to

reach the inboard attach bolts more easily from inside the cockpit, and it

also makes the cowlings a more reasonable size. We considered that the

benefits of these changes far out-weighed any benefit of keeping the wings the

same as on the Long EZ.

If you have the kink it starts at BL 67.5 on the mark 4 this is at the foam joint of the inboard block of foam. are the ailerons cut in the correct place?

I have a Marvel-Schebler #10-48941 carburetor on my Continental 0-200.

 

When staring the engine, if I move the throttle full-forward, gas pours out of the Carb.

 

I am also having some problems with my mixture, so I have opted to rebuild the Carb before I start any taxi testing.

 

I have surfed the web looking for a place to re-build the Carb, but all I have found are places willing to replace it for $950.00 Ouch !

 

I agree will everyone that says, it’s one of the key components you don’t want to skimp on, and if push comes to shove I will pay the bounty for the replacement Carb; however I can’t help but wonder if there is a place out there that will rebuild my existing Carb for a more modest price.

 

Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

 

Tony Utset

Miami, Fla.

VariEZe N297TV

the rebuild parts kit cost $450 so they are charging $500 for there labor. that seems fair. it takes time to do and some special tools to do it complete. when they do a yellow tag overhaul they replace all the seals and the pump shaft seal takes some special removal and pressing tools. you will get one that has all the ad's met and the latest up dated one piece venturi. they check every one on a flow bench so when you get it you know it will work the first time. do you really want a cheep rebuild?

Hi guys

I don’t know what happened with this thread, I couldn’t find it any more so I came to a different area “General construction”

I hope the ones that were advising me about what to do with this Varieze 0-200 mount with a bent tube can see this post.

The mount was mounted so I don’t think any other tube was affected; I took it off to take better pics and have it ready for the repair.

Another question is: Is this material so fragile that can not be bent back to the right position? It looks very flexible.

I was thinking after bending it back; have it inspected with Magnaflux if it’s not more expensive than changing the tube.

Here are the pictures

 

Forward view – Upper right bent tube – Upper left good tube

[ATTACH]2965[/ATTACH][ATTACH]2966[/ATTACH][ATTACH]2967[/ATTACH]

looks like a smooth bend. I would mount it to the plane or a piece of plywood and try to bend it back. what do you have to lose it will not work that way. it will take a bit of pressure and if you get it back into position it will be ok if it does not kink. bending that back will not effect the strength if the tube is still round.

Maybe someone else has done this I dont know. I bought a couple of small carpenter squares and drilled holes in them. If I needed to sqare up a block and cut a nice straite square line I would put the foam block on my nice flat table and just put the square on the table and line it up with the mark on the foam. Insert composite cleacos (Hicks drywall screws) and cut away with my hot wire I only had to usually put 3 screws in it to hold it tight enough for the hot wire. I am all done hotwiring I will miss it till I build the next project. STeve build on

did the same thing but used nails and they just push in the foam to hold the square

Does anyone have wheelpants on their AeroCanard 15/6;00x6 wheels? I was told by Sam James of Holy Cowls to split a 5.00x5 wp and add the necessary spacer in the middle. Sounds like a lot of work to me. He has 6.00x6 WP but says they are just enormous.

why are you using that big a wheel. most use the 5.00x5 wheel and tire.

We just painted the fuselage and wings on my SX AeroCanard. We will paint the top and canard this week, hopefully. Is anyone else close to finishing an SX? I have an IO-360 A1A mounted. The cowl doesn't fit that engine very well and I had to make some bumps on it. I think a C1C engine would fit better. It would have the fuel servo toward the firewall. Also on the A1A the intake tubes hang down a lot and I had to have bumps for them. Now I have to prepare my LongEz to sell so I can afford to buy some radios and an EFIS etc. I have a Herzler prop.

the C1C is the same dimension as the A1A except the fuel servo is on the other end of the oil pan. same casting. you would need the same bump in the cowling

Thanks for the reply - I have a prospect really close to home in Tennessee and it sounds like it could be exactly what I'm looking for!

 

I saw a couple sand spiders in Iraq in 06', it's a rough looking creature, haven't seen any here yet. I hear they have cobras here on the airfield in Jalalabad - haven't seen one.

 

Question: A few years ago I attended a high altitude training school (HAATS) in Eagle, Colorado, and on the way out I landed at Leadville, Co., the highest airport in the U.S. - has anyone taken a LongEZ out there? I assume so, it appears you can take an EZ just about anywhere!

 

Take care,

 

Jason

with a big engine and the right prop maybe. on a cold day. with a O-235 I doubt it.

Some advice/views would be welcome on the following:

 

I have just completed two years (circa 1500 hours) getting this abandoned project back up to scratch. Numerous mods have been done and lots of remedial work has been completed… now the finishing.

 

I have used a primer /filler as a rough guide coat and have rubbed about 90% back off again. After filling with Super Fill (it’s so easy to work with but expensive!) I’m now applying UV Smooth Prime, mainly because I can apply it with a roller. The original primer/filler was applied by spraying in my back yard, it provided a nice overspray finish on all my house windows and my wife’s car! Hence the roller.

 

Now the final coat, has anyone used a water based single pack finishing coat that can be either applied by spraying or roller, if you have, or know of someone that has done this, what was the finish like and how durable was the finished surface? I’ve read a lot of claims that it’s possible but never been able to verify the claims of durability.

 

MikeD (U.K.)

I have seen some that was applied with a roller and a brush. they are used on boats. just a note on the UV smooth prime. it is now recommended by the manufacture that it be seal coated with a 2 part epoxy primer before the top coat as there are many who did not and there top coat would peel off with very little effort

http://www.polyfiber.com/uvsmooth/

Thanks Greg. Your post kinda reminded me of the Mastercard commercials;

 

Bunchs of fiberglass and foam, resin and shipping...........................9,000.

Matco wheels and 3 pucks, Gear bow............................................1,750.

Canopy, Turtleback, Elec noselift....................................................3,500.

Your labor at 5.00/hr for 1000 hours.............................................5,000.

 

Begging somebody to buy your half completed Cozy for say,.......10,500. OTD

..................................................and settling for............................2,500.

 

 

Hanging on tough and finishing, and FLYing your Cozy..................PRICELESS!

You have a typo, that should be 10,000 hours at 50 cents an hour

??? was there a time where it wasn't?

Yes when it had the not even dependable infinity retracts. which are gone now, in favor of the stock gear bow. we got rid of the old gear and that over sized infinity stick grip.

Well I don't think we can expect the approach to building wing tanks as it was done 30 years ago to be as reliable given the fuel additives used today. John Slade experienced first hand that the MGS epoxy does not hold up (see this post.) However through some research he did uncover the methodology/materials used in building the storage tanks that hold this fuel.

 

Chris Barber has already shared his experience with Jeffco, I'm fairly certain that it isn't the solution that I want.

 

John is flying his vinyl ester tanks now and has done most of the pioeer research in this area.

 

I'm using the recommended epoxy for the internal area of my tanks and any effected areas and still plan on going the extra step of using some deck cloth and VE Resin for the fila seal.

 

........ but I digress ......... any opinions on extending the shelf life of the EZ-Poxy ........ or should I just build faster.

at the speed you are building I don't see a problem. the resin last forever and really does not go bad. the catalyst does get darker with time but seems to work the same. I just made some parts with ten year old catalyst and the stuff worked fine. even when you make parts with new light colored catalyst ,the cured parts will turn dark with time. if you are planning on using VE on top of the EZ Poxy now would be a good time to make some test sample and soak them in a half full jar of the fuel. I believe the fumes from the fuel additives ( alcohols) do more harm the the liquid fuel

I just published a short rreport on my web site regarding th eperformance after the retrofit.

 

http://www.iflyez.com/LongEZRetrofitReport.shtml

 

I want to thank LimoEZ for the photos he took at the pancake breakfast at Port Clinton.

 

Waiter

I would like to see the chart of the speeds in the cruse altitudes, like 11,000 to 12,000 feet. if you got 10 kts at 2500 ft and 2 kts at 18,000 ft the speed increase at 12,000 ft should be about 5 kts. that would be inline with what John Graves and Steve Drybread were getting with the Drybread retracts. soon the Chino Aero canard will fly again without the retracts and we should see the same difference in speed with the fixed gear. only about 5 kts slower but will never have to wonder if the mains are going to be there every time we want to land.