longezdave

Don't forget that CP #37 made a change (LPC #116) from 103.5 to 103! Dave

While we are discussing placement of exhausts, I think it is pertinent to point out Mike Mellville's speed increase by moving his exhausts near the hub. Somebody help my memory out here, but I believe he theorized the performance increase was due to less exhaust heat in the part of the prop that does more work. When the exhaust is closer to the tips, the heat causes a lowering of the density of the air in an area that is working hard and the prop then doesn't produce as much thrust. Kinda like when a prop on a boat (extreme example) comes out of the water. Putting the exhaust outside of the prop arc would be the best, but then you have the problems that moving the exhaust out that far would cause.

LOL It could be a little nose heavy!

I too flew my Long with primarily auto fuel for the first 470 hours. I never had problems at all even after shutting down on a hot summer ramp and restarting later (no vapor lock). I then found a cracked cylinder and overhauled using 9.7:1 pistons. Naturally it has been 100LL ever since. Worst case for me is to go back down on compression and back to auto fuel if the need arrises.

I've landed my Long on grass three times. Each time I tell myself - that's the last time! Each time it's memorable and not in a good way. Even when the grass is short, it takes a lot more ground run to get up to speed. When you lift off, you feel the drag of the grass very noticeably go away.

How about a fuel flow rate test?

Wouldn't shutting down and starting the computer back up do the DNS flush? You've probably already done that though..... Maybe try entering their IP directly, so that DNS is not an issue. Enter http://216.23.190.130 in your browser and see what happens.

DOH!! Thank you.

I've wondered the same thing. I'm just happy to have the forum available so I don't want to sound ungrateful. Is it possible to add an option to click on that would show posts in the last 24 hours or so?

Thanks for doing the data collection Rick. I should have told you that I have an O-235-L2C in my Long (not an O-235-C1 as listed). It is the 18th Long EZ on the list (line 22). I hope it isn't picking up too much weight during the current re-build/painting.

I'm NOT saying that it is likely and I'm not totally convinced that one design is better than the other, but..... What if a fuel cap is left off AND a check valve fails at the same time? I would think that the kind of check valves used in the above mentioned systems would have a very low pressure differential to initiate flow (typical break out pressure of less than 1 PSI). If this is true, I would also think that it would not take much of a contaminant to keep the valve from seating and therefore leaking when it needs to prevent backflow.

This is true and the separate tanks provide redundancy on the tank vents too.

Maybe we are talking about two different cloths/instances. What I am referring to is the cloth that Burt tested and reported to us on in CP 36 P3. The testing showed that the imposter's average initial failure point was at only 69% of the normal expected load. The ultimate failure was at an average of 81% of the expected load capability. I can't speak about the Dragonfly, but the Long EZ's fiberglass structural parts are roughly good for about 12Gs. Even if the structure was built with the cloth with the lower physical properties that I quoted above (using excellent workmanship), I don't think that you would normally see structural failures. I just think that we have a better chance at getting the correct cloth if we go with the "approved suppliers". At today's prices, the UNI and BID for a Long EZ costs under $2,000. You might save a little on cloth by going elsewhere, but I just think it's better not to try to save money here. Just my opinion.

Are those "smoking deals" from Spruce or Wicks? I wouldn't know how to be sure it was the correct cloth if it was from someone else. There was some cloth that was sold (many years ago) by a vendor that was supposed to be the correct cloth. Burt did tests on the imposter and showed that its' physical properties were inadequate. The spooky thing was that they marketed it by the same part number - 7715.

I would go with the suggestion you were given. That's what I did. I have a spare com antenna in one winglet and the coax is just sitting there ready for a connector if I ever need it. I havn't seen any results of testing a set-up where there are two antennas in a single winglet. Theory suggests that the performance would be down because of the close proximity of the other antenna. The spare antenna would naturally be tuned to the same frequency as the transmitting antenna and therefore would absorb some of the energy leaving a shadow at best.

I do too!

I haven't seen the previous debate(s). I'm a new guy here. If you are bagging then that's a horse of a different color. If Drew is bagging everything then I missed that. My comment was directed at standard hand lay-up construction. With standard hand lay-up (not bagged), consider an ideal lay-up done by a master with optimum epoxy/glass ratio. The peel-ply is wet out with epoxy and therefore there is epoxy between the ideal lay-up and the peel-ply. When the peel-ply is removed, the rough surface that allows us to later bond to it without sanding it is the (what i'm going to call) excess epoxy that I am claiming causes the slight additional weight to an other-wise ideal lay-up. Burt says in the education section of the plans that it is OK to even sand through the first ply (less than 2" diameter) in preparation for the finishing process. Not that I'm recommending sanding through a ply, I'm just saying that if it's OK for Burt, it's OK with me.

Not a big deal here, but I'd like to offer my opinion. If you actually use peel-ply on everything (maybe you are just exagerating) you will end up with an aircraft that is slightly heavier than necessary. The peel-ply makes a nice surface, but it does so by adding (structurally) unnecessary epoxy on top of your glass. I chose to just allow the rough areas and then sand as necessary. Just my two cents.

The more you get around projects and completed aircraft the more you will learn and the more you will be able to come up with the questions to ask. I suggest that you visit my plane/project when you can and go see Curt Smith, Steve Morse, Crissi (Cozy Girrrls), Lowel Grisham and any others in your area that I am forgetting. I didn't keep track of my building hours. I didn't have anyone close by when I was building and therefore am mostly self taught and it took me much longer than it needed to. I can only guess and say that it probably took me around 3000-4000 hours till first flight. I didn't finish the "finishing" or paint it before first flight. I'm in the process of doing that plus many other small things now and the hours are adding up once again. I'm not very good at the finishing process and think it is taking me much longer than necessary. As you've heard many times before, it's all worth it when you take that first flight.

This is mostly a copy and paste of another post I made. For me, as a right handed pilot, it's not that bad writing stuff when needed. Unless the turbulence is really bad, you just take your hand off the stick (you've already got it trimmed up - right?) and make minor adjustments with the rudders for the short time it takes to do the writing. I can't remember the turbulence being bad enough for this not to work. You may occasionally have to give the stick a jab while still having the pen in your hand a time or two, but for me it is mostly a non-issue that the stick is on the same side as my writing hand. I would NEVER seriously consider re-design to move the stick over to the left. It would be so much trouble for solving a non-issue.

Unless the turbulence is really bad, you just take your hand off the stick (you've already got it trimmed up - right?) and make minor adjustments with the rudders for the short time it takes to do the writing. I can't remember the turbulence being bad enough for this not to work. You may occasionally have to give the stick a jab while still having the pen in your hand a time or two, but for me it is mostly a non-issue that the stick is on the same side as my writing hand. I would NEVER seriously consider re-design to move the stick over to the left. It would be so much trouble for solving a non-issue. You are just about 65 miles south of me. You should consider coming up for a visit.

Agreeing with you here Craig. This is a post from the [c-a] list - FYI - We had the North American distributor for MGS epoxy at the Cozy dinner this past Saturday at Oshkosh. We all grilled him with a bunch of questions. I'd like to pass on his answer to my question - "Is there really a shelf life/expiration date on the epoxy?" His answer was basically - "No". As long as the resin/hardener has been properly sealed the stuff will be just fine. I thought this would be useful to all the MGS users out there. I know Gary Hunter has pretty much said the same thing but it is reassuring to hear it direct from the MGS distributor - who also happens to be working on his seventh homebuilt!

I'm David Adams an Electrical Engineer from central Illinois. I built my Long EZ with first flight in 1995. Currently doing finishing work for paint.

If you have fully cured glass and then use another epoxy system over it, that is not a chemical bond. It is a mechanical bond and that is why there is no problem switching to a different epoxy system. You just don't want to mix different epoxy systems before they are cured.

It's been too long ago and I can't look it up right now, but I think this shows it - http://www.wicksaircraft.com/links/Wicks_Links/LECH-4.pdf