Vortal

one solution i can see is an all flying canard to make it stall if the wing has stalled and maybe push down the nose to come out of the stall. but then you have other problems like being more prone to stalling the wing before the canard. but at least, in that case you can do something about it

Tony, If you go and see on Marc's unofficial cozy website, in the cad section you will have coordinates of the roncz canard freely accessible... maybe you can use those...

Merry X-mas, and joyeux noël!!!

No problem

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19840013471_1984013471.pdf

I think by changing the format (ie from pdf to wiki) the content will necessarily change content to adapt with the media, adding new modern photos, updated composite building technics and materials, you are substancialy changing the content. also i think it would be a good idea to maybe add comments or mods of experienced builders that have built the aircraft since the last CP and add the changes in the wiki. By the way changes must be highly visible ("was is", date of changes at least eventualy reason for change as a link or a info text buble) and people must be informed real time of the changes as aiman said : Let's get moving

http://www.open-ez-project.org/ is empty

First i don't have the space to build what so ever for now, so i might as well try to understand the project (witch is a VERY large project) Second, doing this research with others enables me to have a better understanding of the project, and to avoid try and mistake method, it enables me to do it right and efficiently the first time, by sharing others experiences and mine with others. Also as SAF was saying, everyone who will start the project won't need to go thru the searching process any more, and start Building the Dam airplane strait away.

I don't agree, and on the contrary, it would be more confusing than anything, the Cozy has the same sequence of chapter as the long-ez. i think by keeping the same sequence people can cross reference the long-ez, the cozy and the open-ez. i do agree that the content must be different, but the sequence must remain identical. i wouldn't be surprised that other canard derivative are also built the same way By the way www.open-ez.org doesn't seem used (I'm not expert on web site)

1) I'm in for the wiki/ development of this (i to have my Terf here) 2) if OpenEZ is not usable, can use Open-Ez (like the Long-Ez format) 3) if you need de drawings i have done go ahead (the instrument panel is in an other tread of the open-ez) 4) I'm not necessarily comfortable with TERF selling the job i have done for free if i did it for free, i want it to stay free, not that someone elsemakes some money on it, some way or an other (maybe Burt himself as he is the father of the concept, maybe not...) 5) i may be the only on thinking this but Terf's purpose is to sell an encyclopedia of RAF's aircraft, not to sell plans of the long-ez, and i think this gets us further away from them. as we have all agreed that it isn't a long EZ that we are building but an open EZ, we shouldn't depend on them. If they want to participate, very good, but we should take the lead for this, and not them. this is how i see it 6) i like what i see these days on this forum!

Ok guys, let's do it, we'll see next, buy talking in the air like that about if it's maybe or maybe not legal or copyrightable in a certain point of personal view won't lead us anywhere let's just do it, rewrite the hole thing redo the templates and the other stuff. who cares if only 15-20 persons will ever use the pack, we aren't here to be the next big thing in this industry, we are just people from different horizons that love this aircraft and want to keep it alive. if people doesn't agree with this, without bringing solutions, there are invited to not post in this project and let us do what we love. Let's get starting! i'm getting a bit like JLKnolla, fed up of all this talking and willing to build my own two or 4 seats canard, but i still have hope (not for very long)

Agree, this is also why people aren't using DOS any more, doesn't mean DOS isn't good, but still... Can we please go ahead with this project? who's taking charge of what? let's be positive here, and bring solutions!

If you read the first page of the first cd of the TERF package : what do you understand in that sentence? i cant see "educational purpose"... And secondhand plans ARE existing 20 (actually 30) years old paper drawings nothing new/updated in there. In any cases, if you guys decide to go forward with this project, i will be glad to be part of it, and help you as much as i can, but for now this project is stalled (temporary) unless we define what are the things to do (new building manual, incorporated CPs updated templates and drawings...). We need a real structure like in those open source project you open source developers are aware of, to-do and advancement status and start getting the job done. that's my vision of the story, people may or may not agree, but the job wont get done if we all argue for ages about any single issue

So finally, where are we with this project? We can redo the templates, but we can't redo the construction manual... So to no infringe TERF's copyright on the manual (i will be surprised if they do anything to rewrite them, or let us do so) what you are going to be using to build your EZ is the terf's manual. But per the license agreement you are not allowed to build per these manuals, as this is for educational purpose only... so basically unless someone is going to start this manual over again (i would also be surprised that this would happen) Open-EZ is dead, and the long-EZ (RAF being dead) is only living on the remaining of the existing 20 years old plans. Berkut is dead also. So 2 seats canard is something of history... Am I wright?

it's a nice aircraft, but a nice variation of the VE and LE and velocity and cozy and berkut and e-racer it's the same layout (canard high on nose, midfuse wing attachement, big strakes...) with different fuselage section, nothing new (i would bet its the same roncz and eppler airfoil profile). but still nice looking... nice job!

To carry on with the original subject : http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/exclusivevids/AOPAExpo2008_ExclusiveVideo_RollsRoyceEngine_199170-1.html

note any more, (certified redundant) electronics are more reliable than mechanical gear. what you do have are gauges the size of a traditional gauge with an efis style presentation, with it's own systemes (exemple here in the middle between the big screens http://www.airliners.net/photo/Bombardier-BD-100-1A10-Challenger/1198754/L/) Second having to identical systems plugged on the same pitots/statics isn't to me redundancy because if one fails, it's highly probable that the second will fail not very long after. i wouldn't go with steam because of lower reliability than solid state electronics (nothing move, nothing wears) but with to different design (i.e. two different model AND makes) and finally (maybe the most important) if you want or need to do IFR, you MUST have a well installed and maintained system, your life will be worth the price you paid for you system : Better be on the ground wishing your in the sky, than being in the sky wishing you are on the ground PS : sorry for plugging the aircraft i'm working on

I don't want to open an new thread so i'll post hear check this : http://www.price-induction.com/ i know you poeple think it's vaporware again, but still worth to check the possible evolution of this product/company... you will find 3d model of the engine and a couple of software to help you design your aircraft perf with this engine onboard

Hi, Chris, Don't forget (you and every other CAD users) that the drawings are drawn by hand and this is a home built aircraft, there is NO WAY you are going to go down to 0.075in in precision (2mm) by hand layuping and knife trimming your foam. so you might do a couple of adjustment in your (perfect) model (unless using CNC for you foam and automatic layup machine for your plies... but if you do what are you doing building an EZ, build a jet by the way don't forget to add thikness in your model to simulate the plies, dimensions on the drawings a the ones for the foam alone...(then again negligible?) Good luck

I do agree with Raiki on the fact that our main "customers" are American people, more over the design of the EZ is all in inches, so by converting, you may induce errors. what you can do is use decimal instead of fractions (16 2/32 vs 16.0625") easier to use specially if you are not familiar with imperial units (all SI country, mine included) and eventually have a conversion table for imperial hardcores... For the sheet format, As A0 doesn't fit in ANSI E and ANSI E doesn't fit in A0, i suggest ANSI D (similar to A1) if we want to keep it standard or a hybrid format(33" x 44") that fits in both A0 and ANSI E and enables us to fit in large parts BTW 1 in = 2.54cm Ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size Voila!

100% Agree, this format is THE standard (along With the older dxf) for 2D drawings (3D models is an other story) Did you compare the berkut vs the original Eppler 1230? (http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/coord/e1230.dat ; http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/afplots/e1230.gif) Because the aft section is were the differences are between the long and the baseline 1230 as raiki was explaining... Concerning the cad formats what i envisioned is to have the same quality (or better) than the few berkut cad drawings i have seen (http://www.berkutengineering.com/pages/support_draw1.html) applied to the Long, kinda fresh updated drawing with the 2008 technics not these late 70's hand drawings (with respect to the RAF guys) Also i was thinking that one day we will have to go thru the CP's to incorporate all the changes to the drawings/build manual. by the way we also need to work on the manual, raiki (was it you?) started it, but we need to go thru thes 140 and so pages (maybe take out all the descriptif drawings and make them CAD and only keep the building sequence schematics in there...) let me know

the airfoil is a modified eppler1230 not the original 1230... and nobody seem to know where it was modified. the more obvious is the la 40% of cord on the lower part of the airfoil, but this doesn't mean that this is it i dream to get those in an electronic format (pdf or so, the original model will be to much asked)

I have no probleme

I don't I'm not willing to give money to some one to do a job we can do (for free), and that i am almost certain that our final job will be a higher quality more accurate in dimensions and information. anyways in both cases, the information will have to be checked... I 100% agree with Raiki, being also a professional CAD user (not autocad, but whatever)

hem... i don't really see the added value of a simple convertion from raster (pdf) to DWG (free software can do that) i would go for the drawing update (ie CAD rebuilt) like a couple of us are doing in a simple widely used format (DWG 2D) this format can be read by all major software (autocad, catia, solidworks, pro-e and others) Then once the job is done, release a package on a dedicated area in this web-site (www.canardzone.com/Open-EZ/ for exemple) havingthe baseline open ez and the options (ventral air brake, the ruder mod from RAF and all others willing to share there mods (long nose....) so that people can pick and choose what they want on there aircraft...