Vortal

Ok. Moving forward with Ch 4. Lets review what is already available and decide what to incorporate into the first draft. I like Adrian's format. Ok if we start with that as the basis of Ch? then add to it from other drawings and documentation.

 

They was a copyright issue of copying one for one what the building manual is (a conversation in this area)

Lets use the wiki and format it as a wiki should be formated, it might help for structuring the document and attached drawings

my 2cents

The format is .dwg for the drawings. The drawings and documentation will need to be put into PDF format.

 

2D should be in PDF, and eventually DWG for edition

3D should be in something else like IGS, DWG is a good 2D format, but not all software out of autocad can deal with 3D DWGs...

Who will work on ch4??

 

I did the instrument panel in PDF already, tel me if it's ok

we might want to define a drawing standard also so that drawings are packaged similarly

Again, if you look at the wiki it was planed like that

a "baseline" that is only updated with CP mods and eventually updated materials,

and a "modification" section so people are free to add them or not based on information such as if it is tested, cost, weight increase/decrease, how many aircraft flies with this mod etc.. we are just going thru this again and again and again, without moving forward

thats the reason why i am now in standby in this project

Mark

the best example is that website made for the development of open-ez has never been updated/completed by anybody

http://www.opencanard.com.php5-4.websitetestlink.com/index.php/Main_Page

FYI : DWG 2D, Step 3D

The half-cones you see in the intake of the jet serve a very specific purpose which I am quite certain your inlets do not need. On sonic and super-sonic aircraft the cone serves to form the shock wave ahead of the intake such that the air can be slowed into the turbine to sub sonic speeds. On some aircraft, notably the SR-71, the cone is movable. You can read about

To add on, the cones on the Dassault Mirage 2000 (aircraft on the top photo) are called Mice (a mouse) and are retractable, in subsonic regime, its as aft as it can get to maximize the surface of the inlet. when it goes supersonic, the mouse comes out so that the Mach cone (shock-wave) generated by the nose of the mouse matches the lip of the inlet (a bit like the SR71 on Krwalsh's link). When the Mach number increases, the mach cone angle reduces, so the mouse goes out even more to match that angle, and also to reduce the surface of the inlet (you also lose 4400lbs of thrust in that process out of 21400lbs total)

see this for the boundary layer suppressor:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Greece---Air/Dassault-Mirage-2000BG/1512069/L/&sid=63c0f0d8ca07a97ff6cc83d790e1e014

Some other aircraft similar (Dassault Super Étendard) had no mice.

Basicaly, you will lose surface if you ad a mouse to your inlet, making the inlet bigger for the same surface, thus making more drag... but i agree it looks good

changing the gear length will not change the angle of incidence only the angle of attack while on the ground. this will have no effect on stall. to change the incidence of the wing or canard you would have to change the angle relative to the fuselage

you don't decrease you stall speed, you decrease your margin to stall speed, instead of rotating at 1.2x stall speed, you rotate at 1.1 (fake values, for example) once you rotated, it's the same deal as before, same stall speed, same everything, and by doing that you do increase your angle of attack on the ground compared to a standard landing gear arrangement

i was confusing attack and incidence... in french, angle of attaque and angle of incidence is the same thing, the angle of incidence in english is the wedging of the wing (calage) in french...

From the stagger EZ website :

"The aircraft will “sit” at a +1.5 degree angle on the ground which should allow for a “shorter” takeoff roll as the EZ is being pushed down the runway by 190 HP"

http://www.wrightaircraft.com/Stagger_EZ/body_stagger_ez.htm

Just shorten the main gear, or make the nose gear longer to increase your angle of incidence, you'l have more lift at the same speed (increase of angle of attack) the stagger-EZ is like that

no need to play with aero or CG

the only thing that will happen is you'll reduce your magin to the stall speed that's it

be carefull of any prop strike...

(my $ 0.022 CAD...

Shocking

Just to let you know, innodyn is no more (see this : http://www.innodyn.com/)

or, just raise the capital and buy the company.

Ok so no it isn't possible (i'm not that rich! i wouldn't build an EZ if i was!)

Before looking for someone to build the parts, we need to know the spec of those parts, the ones missing from the berkut's building manual, and that was my original question : can we get this information?

Would it be utopic to think that we can get the specs (layup schedule) of the molded parts? with this info and a mold, one could make those molded parts, and a companie could build those mold a sell the parts to the poeple interested in an open-berkut...

Nice catch

wasn't it 500?

a grand for drawings you cant even build enything of it is a bit overkill...

i do want a copy, but i don't want them that badly!

the website was still up thow for support, but know its not there anymore...

for the companie, it is old news for sure!

still would be interrested in a set of plans and stuff to build the thing, at least having some of the improvements for long-ez mods (carbon wing and canard, io540 installation and more...) and understand the mods and the engineering behind also

Found the video

http://www.genaero.com/video/Berkut_Autoflight.wmv

Geneva aerospace seams to be a subsidiary of L3

More vids here:

http://www.genaero.com/news/vid.htm

http://www.berkutengineering.com/pages/support_draw1.html

 

 

Just to let you know (if you didn't) Berkut engineering.com is no more

peace on them!

yeah and also, i agree with proteus, incorporate the berkut mod to the open ez project, or at least make it available (i would be interested)!

Lemans said:

I think I'm missing something….. Is this “open-EZ” or “long-EZ” dead?

nop, just sleeping

you can build an open-ez with all the info provided here, so people just don't bother adding value to the project...

and also i suppose people are more interested in keeping there jobs than update a document pile

мы вы продавали к миру отверстия?

We sell to the world do you have openings?

(google tranlate)

molds produced:

mold surface -epoxy gelcoat (approx 0.06" thickness)

mold body - approx 12-15 layers of glass, more than 0.6" thickness (cloth like your Triax in Velocity wings, but Bi directional. This glass have very low cost for me and good quality )

mold box strengthening - sandwiches from BID & styrofoam (spaces inside box cells foam filled)

Thanks for the answer, but i was talking about the model on witch you make the mold, the model you were explaining to Neverquit

i like this methodology but i don't know what is done in the field, some plaster, others wood...? what is yours?

Beautiful smooth lines but why the bolt on vertical stabilizers? Obviously I'm looking at the mold, right? Then why not mold the wings and fuselage as separate parts?

it's not the mold, it's the parts mold will be made from, and he needs to attach the winglet to the wing to check interface design,

what i want to now is from what material/construction that shape the mold will be made on is made out off?

i suppose it's wood structure, but the actual shape?

mainly because it's unproven concept and i don't want to go thru the hassle with skeptics...

also i don't talk about a concept that is far from ready, even more from production... you'll have the surprise one day in Oshkosh or some other air meetings. too many interesting concept have landed on this forum and finally died before production. if this one dies, nobody will complain or even notice

if it works, you will all be surprised!

do you have a homepage vortal?

Nop

i don't want to provide to much informations on what i'm doing, because i need to do some testing to see if my concepts are flyable.

but yeah, it's also a molded glass/carbon aircraft 4 seater (could be 2 seater also, but i am designing as if its was the only one, and the GIB wants to be on the side and not behind...

if it works well it could evolve into something bigger...

Wow, these guys are taking homebuilt to another whole...place! Clearly we are in a new race with the Soviets

 

I fear there may soon be a technology gap here. The US cannot fall behind in homebuilt Cozy-Berkut-EZ-ETC-Z-technology. I recommend we initiate a joint Canard Zone/Canard Aviation project to develop next generation Kit based Canard with molded carbon fiber airframe, blended everything, 300HP/8 gph, 250 KT, retractable LG, Gull Wing Door/Canopy, a real nose gear, short field capable, with a build time of 1500 hours max from kit.

 

Insert your desired features here....

i'm working on that right now, but i'm not as advanced as they are! i do have a day job (even in this layoff period)

Working on this mod for a long time, you need to consider :

-canard arn't like horizontal tail on conventional aircraft, they participate to the total lift of the aircraft, so you can't reduce them just because this is what they do on conventionnal aircraft, concidere your canard as a wing. if you reduce the size of it, you reduce the amount of lift it produce, unbalancing the aircraft. A small canard like the one you designed is good as a control aircraft more than a lifting canard. In a control canard (EF2000, rafale, and other fighters) are stable without the canard, canard ads only controllability. On EZs, the canards are lifting canards, meaning that the plane can't fly without them. And these lifting canards are more like a wing than an horizontal tail surface.

-to add a sweep canard, you must be careful to consider the total surface of the canard as well as the flow around a swept wing which reduce the efficiency of the airfoil compared to strait wings (at low Mach numbers) (because of the taper and the aspect ratio, the surface needed, and the structure to hold all this in place). More over you must select an airfoil that can cover the range of deflection required during operation without stalling (at high speed, it can be serious)

-talking structure, you must carefully position your hinge point, to make the canard movable without helping actuators, and stable enough to avoid flutter and too much effectiveness and sensitivity. also your hinges must withstand the loads applicable on the canard (ratio of lift compared to the wing times the weight of the aircraft time the G loading times a security factors) and on the interface point with the fuselage.

-Using a flying canard, you loose you stall proof feature, the canard can stall after the wing (depending on the position of the canard at wing stall and the CG position) even more you are much more prone to deep stall, so you need a way to come out from that quite easily.

that's to my knowledge, but I'm sure there is more to this...

By the way, on the wiki for the open EZ ( http://www.opencanard.com.php5-4.websitetestlink.com/index.php/Main_Page ) there is a mod section with the type of mod, le procedure to build and test the mod and how many of those mods are flying.

But as for the rest of the wiki, it needs to be filled (HINT HINT, YOU GUYS!!!)

I seem to recall the mention of an all flying canard on a Varieze that resulted in a fatality on the first flight.

Any NTSB Records? (didn'T find it on the NTSB Website)