Lynn Erickson

They do work but they feel heavy and are not very sensitive. that may be why the velo feels like it needs bigger ailerons. slow to bank

Picture was to big I'll try again

As you can or can't see I did not use any Brock parts. and there is a pulley in there.

The push pull cables where used on the ailerons. I tried the cables on the ailerons on mine but did not use them. to much slop . Mine does have the plans rudder cable but with a pulley replacing the bellcrank. the bell crank is only needed for the firewall mounted brakes. the pulleys used are metal to help prevent it from melting in case of a fire. the cable is one piece all the way to the connection of the wing cable. the wing cable is one piece as per the plans.

Push pull cables have been used for aileron control on some E racers. the problem with the push pull is that every bend or curve in the cable causes it to have lost motion. for every 90 degrees you will have lost motion for a 1/4". this is ok on a throttle but not good on an aileron. The rudder cables are pull only and need to be very free to move. The the push pull's have to much drag for the rudders. the plans method with the nylaflow tubing has almost no drag at all. if you are not going to put the master cylinders on the fire wall then the bell crank can be replaced with a pulley and one piece of cable from the pedals to the connection of the wings cable. the cable can be the same size as the cable in the wing as it does not have the load of the brakes on the cable.

Steve there are two types of wing templates. the stock long ez and cozy 3 and 4 have a trailing edge that is bent up at the inboard foam block. the Eracer, aero canard and sq 2000 the trailing edge is straight. the angle on the forward edge of the spar mounting surface does have a slight angle change at the outboard block because the spar is tapered at a different angle then the outboard wing taper. just make sure that both wings have the same angle.

how do you test for an increase in speed at 140 kts? how do you know it is faster? top speed is easy but testing at half speed is difficult. also did it change landing speed and dutch roll at low speed. removing the lower winglet does make a difference. does the radius help on dutch roll over the no winglet E racer wing. this wing was also tested on an E racer with a much higher wing loading then the standard cozy IV has. we will have to wait to see it on a cozy IV before we will know the real effect.

The ends have the foam recessed about 1/2" with a micro fillet and glassed so there is a glass to glass edge on all sides. this forms a rib on the ends. you should check the plans for the dimensions and number of plys.

Be interesting to see a 12" radius. what do the engineering numbers say that should do for us. Jack, at what airspeed did you see an 10 knot increase.

If you put in 100 hp it won't be long before you will want more. I would not use less then 125 hp unless you want to do all that work to have limited performance aircraft. If you already have a good O-320 you should use it. any one who has will never go back. I fly with a vari eze that has an O 320 and it can keep up with me. Cruse all day at 190 knots on 6 gal/hr

do not use vented caps unless you want to have the fuel sucked out of the tank and leak all over the strake

If you are planing on using the O 320 in the vari eze you may want to consider using long ez gear bow. they are stronger and can support more weight then the original vari bow. the original attachment design will work fine.

Do you have the sample submerged or some above the liquid. in most cases it is the vapors that do the dissolving and have the most effect. also the vapors have more effect when heated like when the sun is heating the strake. it is also hard to know if the fuel has alcohol in it. the pump gas may or may not. it only says it may contain alcohol. how do you know that the sample you have does?

So why are you selling it already?

I think, you think that the fuselage is what makes it take so long to build one of the composite ez designs. there is no one thing that makes the project take longer that can be constructed in a different manner that will make the time commitment change very much. people do get the feeling that we are working on the fuselage for a long time because it is the item that you start on first, therefor we live with it for the longest period of time. you still have to build all the other components whether you build them first or second has no bearing on the time it takes. anything that is built into the plane that is a change to the plans adds time to the project. what you are suggesting can be done faster will not be fast at all. maybe it can be done in few days less but it won't be months or years less and any time you save will be added back on to the project in engineering time, flight testing and head scratching time, and rework time to fix what the computer said would work, two fold, probably three fold. if there where molded parts for the fuselage available it might save some days, but there is not. in the time it will take to build a plug, molds, and a part for the fuselage you could have built a complete fuselage to the plans. anyone that has built as many aircraft and car projects that I have will tell you the same thing, I'm sure of that. if you want to build the project in a different way just because you want to , thats great, but build it a different way because you think you will save time, trust me it won't. If you are only looking to build one EZ for yourself the fastest way is to put down the computer, get the plans and start building. virtual building and real building use the same amount time but I have always preferred to fly the real thing and I'm sure you do too.

ya, thats a bit like the alarm clock and hammer idea. you set the clock for the time you know you can fly before you will run out of gas. when the alarm clock goes off it releases the latch on the hammer and it swings forward and hits the pilot in the back of the head. the trick is for the pilot to remember why the hammer is hitting him in the head. just remember to label the hammer, the FAA will require it to be labeledstep away from the box of Mickey Mouse band aids and build a real airplane. A square wheel !!!!!, Now there's an idea !!!!!. not sure it will work on a Cozy but maybe on a Long Ez

the original Long ez plans method is an even bigger waste of time. the epoxy will discolor ( darken ) in a short time and you won't see anything. with ez poxy forget it , with Mgs ok for longer but still hard to see

but they do leak, we have seen many over the years that start to leak after time. the bond between the plastic and the epoxy is not that good . have seen several plugged ones also. you get what you pay for. if you buy a modern day engine panel today you will get a fuel gauge as part of the package. why would not use it? your spending $ 80,000 to build a plane with all high tech electronics and glass panel you will want a electronic gauge so you can have the gauges tied into the panel to cross reference the fuel totals with the fuel flow and the warning system.

I would forget about those, they are from a day gone by. I thought about putting them in as a backup to the electronic one, but did not and have never seen the need for them. most of the engine instruments available today are electronic units that include fuel gauges in the package. there are many that are calibrated to the shape of the tank and are very accurate and dependable. the gauge is on the panel and in your face so you can see it all the time. most include a low level warning system. the sight gauges are hard to see from the cockpit and are prone to leak after time. I have seen many that gotten plugged have gotten soft from the fuel and with the future of aviation fuel additives being some what questionable they may too have an effect on the plastic.

the cirrus stick moves about 6" fore and aft, not as much as a yoke but in the same manner. You use your arm to pull it back. you can get a 30# pull this way. the Ez stick is with your wrist and 8# would be alot. in the EZ the highest stick forces you will feel are not from the control surfaces but to over come the trim springs. take off the springs and you can fly with one finger. the Lancair stick forces are a bit high at speed without the trim it is hard to hold with one hand at any thing over 250 MPH. cessna coralis solved the problem by not letting you go that fast.

I notice that the elevator cables are going aft. if you use a conventional elevator it is very hard to use a short throw side mounted joystick, there is not enough leverage or travel to control the surface without the use of servos or aerodynamic assist of some sort. even the big ailerons on a 3200# aircraft will be a challenge with a short side stick. On the canard it is EZ the stick forces are very low. you may have to use a sliding stick for elevator like the Cirrus to get enough travel. This does require a lot more arm movement. just some thoughts.

Goes down? don't you know that diets don't work. you mean when the heavier ones are replaced with lighter ones? remember you can't have enough HP. this type of aircraft with about 300 HP will make a great performer. you can design to the exact HP that you need but engines come in certain HP's. if you need more then a 4 cylinder / 200 hp then you need to design for the bigger 6 cylinder engine 250 /300 HP. 300 HP does not weight any more then a 250 HP. please don't tell me that you are thinking alternative type HP. design a great plane and power it with a great engine made for flying.

Looks like you are off to a good start. I see you know when you can and can't use a computer. even after all the computer work is done even the big boys get out the plywood and make things fit for real. may need more panel space. I don"t see any radios, transponder or intercom. may be in ten years they will have that stuff remote. but don't count on it. there is some remote stuff now but it is very expensive. don't plan on storing anything behind your head such as charts, plates, books, you will not be able to reach them. place important switches in front of the stick or throttle down low as it is much easier to hit the right one if your hand is supported during sever turbulence. for hip room think about angling the sides outboard at the bottom where your hips are. this seating configuration does require a large and high canopy but from this mock you will be able to refine the measurements down to make it just the right size. it will be a balance between the fuselage size and the size of the engine required to make it the right plane for your mission. with the weight and size you have now it looks like it will need 300 Hp to do the job. remember just a little bit bigger here and there will require a very much bigger engine. keep up the good work

your right, one of the hardest things to do is get the inlet right on the first try. if we had a wind tunnel it would be simple but most don't. you need to build it and then if, it cools ok, start decreasing it's size until it effects the cooling and then you know where the size limit is. most that are doing the DD inlets are using imfo from the last guy who said his works. if you build them for max speed then they may be to small for a long climb. most of problems with the inlets are related to spill over or back flow usually cause by too large of an inlet and the air backs up and keeps air from entering. bigger is not always better. the stock NACA inlet on the bottom suffers from this, a lot of spill over on the sides that causes loss of cooling air and drag