SAF_Zoom

Congratulations N1966Z on the rotary install. I would also like to hear more about your installation and see some pictures.

 

SAF_ZOOM, there is also a rotary powered Long EZ for sale on Barnstormers. There are a few pictures in the ad.

Saw that ... but I think it as a ROSS PSRU and not one from Tracy... from what I gather from my reading... the Ross units are problematic to say the least...

The self-locking nuts are re-usable as well - the section of AC43-13-1B that I pointed you to makes no distinction between nutplates and metal self locking nuts. The re-use torque limits are identical.

Well that is good news... I have several thousands of these at home... all collected after first removal

Nice to ear. Do you have pictures of your installation. I would appreciate for when I get to that stage.

Thx

Completely untrue. Chapter 7 of AC43-13-1B addresses locking nuts, including locking nutplates. Paragraphs 63 and 64, in particular. There's even a table of torques for RE-USED locking nuts (including nutplates).

 

If you were taught that nutplates that are to be riveted or welded to aircraft structure are not to be re-used, then you were taught incorrectly.

 

You want to throw the BOLT away - go right ahead. But there is no need whatsoever to have any doubt about re-using the nutplate.

Forget nut plates... I though of self locking nuts... no needs to discards the bolt though...

I think most everyone here is flying Rutan based Canards.

There may ba a turbine out there but most likely, not on this forum.

 

Although I may argue with Lynn from time to time, I would have to defer to his judgement on this one as it is from a more closely aligned perspective and experience level.

 

I don't do aluminum.

Well I value Lynn's input very much

I'm just a bit strict and always stick to best practice. And this little thing we are discussing here was picked up in college... where we (aircraft maintenace technicians) are taught to... when you take one of these babies off... it goes in the garbage... and a new one goes on...

Re-using them is probably ok... as Lynn's pointed out... he as never suffered a problem... buts then again its the one time you do have a problem that tend to bit you in the ass... these thing have a habit of ending up in places you don't wan't them to...

Where are you certifying airplanes??? Hidden nutplates are constantly re-used. That's why they are riveted in place. This is so you can quickly take off and replace panels, doors, and cowls, etc, for inspections.

I worked for a major aircraft turbine manufacturer. I don't work on small GA planes. But best practices are just that... best practices

where did you get that idea. they are used on the engine cowling and mine has 50 of them for the top and bottom. they have been on there for over 5 years and have been on and off over 400 times. I have replaced maybe 2 of them in 5 years because they galled. have had a few feel a bit loose so you just give them a squeeze with a pair of vice grips and they are good to go another 400 times. note, if you use stainless steel screws they can gall if driven in to fast as when using a drill motor but the electric screw driver is a bit slower and does a good job without galling them. in the certified world they are only replace if they loose their retention if you had to replace them every time a bolt was removed there would not be any certified planes flying.

One can do that... but practice is to get rid of them when they come off... That's what is done on widebodies or engines (turbines). But in these situation cost if not the driving factor... safety is...

I would not want to be the licenced tech (the one that signed off on the repair) that as to explanes to the NTSB that... well I used my visegrip to clamp them down a bit and they looked good... The tool marks I left... well surelly they can't be a cause for fracture/failure...

But Lynn, like you said... you don't clamp down these nuts on a certified bird... so why would you do so one your experimental? Is it less prone to failure ? But I understand how one can save a few $$$ by doing so.

Thx for the infos

Hi guys, if someone as a copy of the plans (PDF format) that he could email me... it would be great. I want to compare them to the LE plan I have.

I don't need the templates.

Or if you have a complete set of original plans for the Cozy III and want to sell them... let me know... for a decent price I would be interested in buying them...

Just one thing... when you remove a bolt fron said nutplate... THEY ARE TO BE SCRAP.. they loose all (well not all but their intended) retention capabilities. In short they are a one shot deal...

Well at least in the certified world...

Jeff, I have a heat box for my epoxy pumps (I have two).

 

I'm trying to raise the temperature of the part during the cure.

I'll have to think a bit on the Idea of fitting my canard into the fridge.

Build a cover (box) with cheap styrophoam... put one or two heat lamp in it (strap to the top)... with a fan...

Just an idea

Cozy Girrrl can you elaborate on the engine mounting difference between the III and IV.

Thanks you very much for the info.

Thx Lynn,

How much room is there in the back of the Cozy III to reinforce the turtleback... can it be made to look similar to that of the Long EZ… Maybe place a longer split canopy like some of the EZs on a Cozy III and modify the turtleback accordingly?

I would appreciate if someone as the chapters of the plan that relates to the fuselage of the Cozy III available in electronic format (PDF) so that I can look them over.. and see if the Cozy III turtle back can be modified and still be structurally sound.

The more I read the info a gather... the more I'm leaning toward a Cozy III with a modified fuselage... not its shape but rather the way it is put to getter/reinforced (see above). And before people start saying the engine is going to fall off, this would be done after careful reengineering of the structure (if at all possible)...

Also, what is the span of the Canard of the Cozy III compared to the one of the LE… and are they both Ronzc…

So the Coxy III is 39-40" at mid shoulder... and the back seat is the same as the LE... right ?

To go back to one of my original questions:

I know the LE fuselage is 24" wide at the instruments panel and the back seat is 16" (or 18"??? I'm at work now)... but what about the Cozy III and IV...

I believe the Cozy IV to be 42" at the instrument panel but what about the rear seat? And is the Cozy III, 42" at the instrument panel and the same in the back seat as the LE?

I would like to be able to decide between the 3.

Point being ......... how did you get there in the first place?

Exceeding the critical angle of attack of the main wing... not dropping below a certain airspeed

.... try more airspeed. I hear that works!

Not a deep stall.... not even a F-4 will get out of it...

What about a single (or maybe a pair) of of vertical "stabs" below the aft cowling that can act as a speed brake (picture the rudder airbrake of the space shuttle... its split down the middle to act as a brake) (basically picture one or two winglets below the cowl)....

This could maybe (and its just an assumption) pitch the nose down... you would get something that looks like the ventral fins mentioned before but installed in a very steep angle... when the airbrake is retracted... it (they) could act as a stator... cleaning up the airflow to the prop... but when the airbrake is deployed it would hopefully pitch the nose down...

Other benefit... no more tipping on the prop as they should be long enough to hit the ground before the prop... they would also prevent the prop from hitting the groung on over rotarion of "stalled landing"...

But I think they would cause lot more problems that they would solve...

I recall reading somewhere that deep stalls are possible (however unlikely) to recover in these aircraft... something about trying to 'throw' the aircraft over using combined rudder and aileron inputs. I could be wrong though.

 

The lesson from all this is: Pay CLOSE attention to your CG limits, stay within them, and fly inside your tested 'flight test' envelope.

Yes this is very true...

But what about a WHAT IF scenario...

Hi Steve,

I’m no aeronautical engineer but my first observation is that this needs to be aft of the main wing… So I don’t think that it would work on a canard with no tail boom…

But what about installing retractable spoiler type devices on the canard to destroy its lift in case of a deep stall? Would that bring the nose down in case of an emergency? I don’t know…. And have no idea how one could fabricate such spoilers...

What do Diamond, Cirrus, and Columbia/Cessna do about this? I understand that the DA20 cannot be certified for IFR because it has no lightning protection.

Cirrus... I know they use what is discussed above... (embeded mesh with a 4 inch metal strip along the fus if I recollect correctly).

EDIT

Needed 10 caracters

Then why don't you ask Mr. Rutan to release the whole shebang into the public domain?

By indicating that he would not enforce his rights.... he did...

Well if the ownwer of an intellectual property indicate that he has NO intention of enforcing is rights AND that he has acted accordingly in the past regarding such intellectual property...

Then by all means proceed...

So let's get to work... they seem to be NO grey areas left.... As Marc indicated Terf as no right to the intellectual property other than to distribute the material. If you rewrite significant it then its not the same material...

Finally with all the builder website out there all picture can be updated (with the builders permission... if they copyrighted their pictures...). But for thing to be made in the best spirit builders should always be ask before you "borrow" their work...