Lynn Erickson

Installed forward master cylinders. Going to change the cables to the pully on fire wall as per Lynns photo.

 

 

Those pedals won't work. you have the up- rights on the inboard side and the top piece is to long. need to angle aft and mount much further forward in front of F 22. the top bar is way to long and you don't want the fences on the inboard side. master cylinders go on the outboard. when flying an ez you need to able to put your toes in front of the pedals. the rudder pedals are not used very much during a flight and you need to get your feet in a relaxed position with your toes angled forward by taking your feet off the pedal and moving them through the middle between the pedals. I would stick to the plans dimension. also need sliding connection between pedal and master cylinder and the spring between pedal and cable

And my point was that they do, in fact, work fine. Danny was a bit unconventional, and folks told him the PP cables wouldn't work. Turns out, they do, for hundreds of planes over 2 decades. It's hard to argue with success.

 

Brett

n44vf.com

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

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

Picture was to big I'll try again

Lynn, do you have a photo of that pulley setup? Is it really just as simple as replaceing the bellcrank with a pully (and proper safeting)?

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

Lynn,

 

When the P/P cables were used do you know if the cables went all the way to the rudders or just went to the bell crank.

 

I think a pull cable with a pulley at the fire wall is probably the easy way to go.

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.

Many of us use push pull cables for throttle and mixture control which are at least as long as the push-pull cables proposed here. Those seem to have limited resistance. If I understand correctly, the aileron circuit is more sensitive to resistance and push pull may me a problem there.

 

I'm open to more educated feedback but it would seem that the proposed cables from the pedals to the belcranks would be an acceptable tradeoff.

 

Phil, Long-ez project Milwaukee.

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.

i think because of the way the paper m's are that the jig 5 (the short one) opens up as it gets wet, and some how my box in storage must of got very moist:mad: i put all the wood jigs side by side and that jig is open 1/4" at the top, in short it lets the end foam(next to spar) lift up in comparison to the rest of the wing. easy fix now, not so easy after you skin and then find it.

builder tip, cut the jigs and stack them together, you will see the need to trim just a smidgen off them.

 

ps. if you look in the back ground you will see the other 1/2 tip setting up.

the wing has bin cut at the sheer web (good eye)

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.

It was very consistant from 140 kt and up. I chose to go with the approximate 12 inch diameter to keep the rudder down as close to the wing as possible. The larger the blend the higher the rudder and the taller the winglet would be to maintain the same rudder control. I also think it would look a bit odd a large radius of 12 in , or 24inch diameter, on such a small AC. The blend accomplished very close to what I anticipated, with no adverse handling characteristics. I was also able to eliminate the trailing edge fences I had on prior to the blended winglets. The blended winglets on Dennis Passey's Cozy are very close to the ones I had on my E Racer, a few subtle changes. I think some where down the line someone must have confused a 12 in diameter with a 12 inch radius blend.

 

Jack

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.

Hi folks,

 

A very quick question about 'closing off' aileron ends. As you will know, the ailerons are cut out of the wing, leaving exposed foam on the ends!

 

Now, the question is:

 

Do you recess the foam and fill with flox and filler or do you glass over the exposed ends?

 

Getting a nice neat edge with glassing over is quite difficult, filling with flox and filler adds weight... so what is the preferred method?

 

 

MikeD

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.

Thanks for the replys. I have decided after much research that I will not use the IO-320. Instead I will look at the o-200/o-235 or a 190 CU IN corviar. I have several hundred hours flying "behind" a corvair and find it to be a great powerplant for the 100/125 hp range. Maybe flying "in front" will be as good!

 

I have discovered that the MLG bow that I have is in fact a LEZ bow:) That was a nice find.

 

Some of the items that I am going to work on as follows

 

Re-install MLG (need to find info on the laminate schedule for that)

Come up with engine

repair bottom of each rudder

replace right rudder cable

replace aileron hings on both sides (worn out)

remove what's left of the lower winglets (not rebuilding)

repair various hanger rash areas around airframe (none serious)

Inspect wing attach fittings for corrosion

sand paint off of a few areas where I have paint cracking to inspect laminate

set-up day VFR panel.

 

That should keep me busy for awhile. In all honesty, thats what it will take to fly the aircraft again.

 

If you have any interest in what it looks like now, send me an email and I will send you an invitation to my Kodak site for pictures

 

Arnold Holmes

 

Arnold@propbalance.com

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

I measured the size of my current gas caps and it was 3". These http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/lwsprlfc.php are 70mm, which is just a little under 3". Is it likely that my measurement was off by just a little and these would fit? Are the openings pretty much standard size?

Last question: we don't need vented gas caps because we have the fuel vent at the back of the plane above the passanger seat, right?

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

Fellow builders and pilots,

 

Just aquired a nice varieze airframe that has a little more than 440 hrs of flight time. Originally powered with an O-200, the engine did not come with the plane. Has a few small problems such as the main LG being knocked out but that happened with an amazingly small amount of damage. So I am looking for the latest and greates version of mounting the main gear in the VEZ, any leads would be helpful. I have nearly 20 years working on composite aircraft but have never spent any time with the VEZ and would like to find the best source of information for the questions that come up, hope this is the place.

 

I already own an IO-320 that I majored not long ago and I have found some evidence that a few have installed this powerplant, anyone have more info on that??? I would like to use it because I already own it. I am fully aware of how that may limit my useful load but I am not overly concerned with that.

 

I have more questions but will hold thost for later, thanks for any help you can provide.

 

Arnold Holmes

Lady Lake FL

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.

Rock:

 

 

 

 

I think You are allright with the 84 hardener. You could scuff it up and paint on a couple of layers of 87 hardened stuff but I think you would be adding unnecessary weight. I have had a couple of pieces of glass in a bottle of auto gas for almost 2 years now I can see no change. I took it out about 6 months ago. It acted just like a regular piece of fiberglass. I am using 84 resin on the whole plane. STeve

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?

As long as the inspection goes well I'm picking up an SQ2000 kit this weekend. Full kit with the KLS retracts not the Infinity. I still plan to install a rear seat bench but really its going to be a 2 place with large baggage area. I will try and start a progress thread on this build. One of the best looking canards out there in my opinion.

So why are you selling it already?

Getting to the point quickly. Why a tube frame? How will this be faster?

 

Ok... you’re ready to start your EZ project. (You will still need the TERF plans). You will get the plans for the tube frame (free) and construct the frame yourself. A second option would be to have the plans sent to a welder and have the frame constructed. A third option would be to call a recognized supplier of EZ and Cozy parts and they will construct the frame for you.

 

Once the frame is constructed then you are simply bolting on parts. Everything that goes into an EZ (or Cozy) will bolt on. You can assemble the entire aircraft BEFORE you put it inside the fuselage. You will have direct access to everything… Wiring, instruments, controls, bearings, seats, fuel system, landing gear… you get the picture.

 

You can construct the airframe and its systems and run the engine all before you put it in the fuselage. You will build the wings, canard, CS spar, gear ECT as per plans. The fuselage will be three pre molded parts that may or may not be carbon fiber. I will construct the molds and use them to build the prototypes. After it is proven the molds will become community property some how some where. I am not looking for a profit in this venture just recoup expenses of the molds, which should be pretty low.

 

This is what I am going to attempt virtually right here. I know there are some issues that have to be overcome. #1 is weight. As a first step I will attempt to calculate the weight difference of the basic structure and post it ASAP.

 

Thanks for listening.

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.

You know, I just have to say the mirror thing is the second FUNKY aspect of the Eze planes that really felt prehistoric to me. Something about holding up a dentist mirror on a wand over ones shoulder to check the fuel levels just didnt make it for me. I will be signing up for the capacitance senders and the fuel info, etc on my EFIS, if you dont mind.

Oh, the second Funky...reading in a newsletter about Nat's suggesting to wear heated hunting socks and a heated vest and seven layers of thermals under your clothes to keep warm in winter whilst flying along. Nahh..Nada for me and mine.

Of course, as always, YMMV.

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 labeled

step 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

Lynn ...... we are on the same page here. The plans method is glass-to-glass ONLY. The fuel level is read through the transparancy of the glass.

 

No plastic sight gages required. Use the plans method if you desire some sort of fault tolerant backup.

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

....... as does the plans method. An area of glass-to-glass and use a strip of masking tape when you paint. That never wears out, leaks, etc.

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've just got the gauges (with lights).

 

Could anyone please explain what the next steps should be? I understand I have to carve a depression, but how deep and how long?

Am I going to install the gauges now (in chapter 5) or wait until later?

I'm obviously a bit confused here. I've tried to look in the archives as well as looking on other builders sites, but I can't find any details of this installation.

Thanks...

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.

Lynn,

Certainly a good point! One of the reasons I built the mock-up is to check how much leverage I can get with a side stick. I'm going to check around Oshkosh and see if there are any conventional aircraft that use a side stick. I imagine the Cirrus will be there. Maybe I will be able to talk to those folks and see what the story is! Until I know what kind of control power I need I won't know what leverage I will need to get to a desirable stick force. We'll see I guess, but great point! Thanks!

 

-Chris

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.

Hey Rich,

Thanks for the drawing, I think I understand your point more! I think you and I had similar ideas (Check out Method 1 with the universal joint. If I understand your drawing correctly you are keeping the two sticks "speaking" to eachother by a torque tube off-set from the roll axis? In my concept, I use the universal joint on the tube to transfer the roll torque and the cables to transmit the torque to the elevators. I see now that a tube will be necessary to transfer elevator though. This would reduce the risk of losing positive elevator cable tension during high G maneuvers and deflections. I hope I made my initial ideas clear as well. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

 

-Chris

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.

Lynn,

 

 

One of the other reasons I am designing a higher performance airplane with heavy occupants is that the performance will be better as the weight of the occupants goes down.

 

-Chris

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

For the record, I'm not suggesting DD in theory is more draggy, just saying that the difference between what is calculated vs. what the real world needs may yet result in some changes specific to Waiter's plane. Look at Wayne Blackler's or Bill James' NACA style DD inlets and compare them, spillage drag can be significant, especially for an otherwise very clean plane.

 

Not making any criticism of Waiter's design BTW, just saying that DD cooling is a significant change from the baseline and that inlet area, plenum design, exhaust area, etc., will all contribute to whether it works or not, and if so, how well or not.

 

This is why we call it EXPERIMENTAL aviation. I remain confiddent Waiter will get it all figured out.

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