Jump to content

AVI

Members
  • Content Count

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

AVI last won the day on January 3 2017

AVI had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

23 Excellent

About AVI

  • Rank
    Member

Personal Information

  • Real Name (Public)
    Iceman
  • Location (Public)
    Banff AB

Project/Build Information

  • Plane
    Other/Custom Canard
  1. N722SE I have a complete set of unused LongEZ plans, including full size templates, in excellent condition. These are copies of an original RAF set, not from internet download. I purchased them a number of years ago before the plans were available online. The plans are no different from original RAF plans except they lack an official RAF serial number. Since RAF stopped support years ago, the serial number is meaningless. LongEZ plans were, and may still be available online, but this will save you the the time and cost of searching, downloading, and printing out full size plans. $400 plus shipping. Let me know if you're interested, and I'll dig them out. I also have a full set of Berkut factory drawings consisting of 100 large sheets which I might consider parting with, but these are expensive - over $1000. I've also got a set of Berkut construction manuals. Building a Berkut from these drawings is possible but will definitely require substantial commitment and research since the original Berkut fuselage was a molded structure. After posting this, I noticed that John has posted a warning about the accuracy of OpenEZ templates, so if you intend to download the OpenEZ drawings, beware.
  2. Why not reduce the seatback rake angle to one that's more comfortable for you? Unless you're extremely tall, there shouldn't be interference with head/canopy clearance, and even if there is, a taller canopy isn't completely out of the question. Andrew is correct in that you really should go climb into a built Long as the experience has got to be substantially different from climbing into your floor-bound, wood crate mock-up.
  3. AVI

    Berkut Kit

    Stumbled onto this builder site out of Japan purely by accident. Outstanding workmanship, lots of interesting photos. Berkut #9 http://hangar51-bow.blogspot.ca/search?updated-min=2016-01-01T00:00:00%2B09:00&updated-max=2017-01-01T00:00:00%2B09:00&max-results=1&view=f
  4. AVI

    Berkut Kit

    The last activity on this thread was six years ago next month. Now, nothing much happens on TheZone these days, but ... 1. Did Tony ever finish his Berkut project? Did it fly? 2. Whatever happened to "Canard Gear" the website offering the retractable gear, molded fuselage, and various Berkut/LongEZ accessories? Is the RG mod available? All we get is a 404. 3. Where's Tony? Hope he's in good health, alive and well in Vegas ...
  5. Aluminum wings? Wow. Are you willing to take on the task of designing a new airplane from scratch? New spar? New winglets? New spar attach? New controls? Maybe new fuselage? Basically, a new airplane? That's what you'd be in for, I believe. Sure, it's possible .... BTW, aluminum spars have been known to corrode as well. Your best bet might be to seek advice on replacing the spar plates. Mark Z offers excellent, professional advice.
  6. AVI

    Berkut Plans

    Ah, to a newcomer to this thread it would appear that the greyhounds are running around in circles chasing the proverbial mechanical rabbit. I've come to the conclusion that it's senseless to debate the issue with line-by-line quotations and rebuttals ad nauseum. It is surprising though, to find Marc Z who's usually the facts and performance figures policeman and a stickler for definitive information, facts and figures, nothing but the facts, Ma'am, spout off about the set of Berkut drawings as being woefully incomplete and inaccurate after admitting to having taken but a cursory glance at the drawings. I'm disappointed. If you'll scroll back a few posts you'll find that I have not recommended that anybody run out, order materials and begin the immediate construction of a Berkut. In fact, you'll red that I actually recommended against it and attempted to dissuade Sohail, who was asking whether there was sufficient information in the drawings for the construction of a fuselage, from attempting to build a Berkut, recommending a LongEZ instead. The discussion was about whether the drawings contained sufficient detail and information, and my humble opinion, after detailed examination of the drawings, was that it was indeed possible but would perhaps involve the expensive and time consuming construction of a plug and molds from which to pull the fuselage shells. We also mentioned the lack of longeron specific drawings, but in reality, there is sufficient detail contained in the drawings for a builder to develop the shape and size of the longerons, if, once again, the builder were inclined to mold them. As for the merits of some of the features of the Berkut, well, the debate regarding rear hinged canopies has been well documented, as are the weaknesses of the Berkut landing gear. There has even been mention of Berkut builders regretting the installation of the larger engines. There's been a lot written about the Berkut. Some great, accurate information, some bordering on gross misinformation. Research? Well, doesn't research also apply to the construction of present day LongEZs? Information, including the plans and templates are readily available but do require a great deal of research. As for no two Berkuts being completely alike, doesn't that also apply to many modern day LongEZs? How many are built strictly to the 1980 plans without a single modification? Probably not a single one. I'm not advocating the revival of the Berkut design - the potential purchase of the company was recently discussed on another forum - I'm not recommending that anybody attempt to build one. I'm simply stating that the John Griffiths' drawings which were not intended to be a build manual, are not rife with inaccuracies and woefully incomplete. I also continue to maintain that there is sufficient information, detailed and accurate information, contained within the drawings and the build manuals for a determined builder to build a Berkut, which in fact is basically a stretched LongEZ with retractable landing gear. Now, whether anybody would choose to build one is a different matter, but that's well within the spirit of experimental aviation.
  7. AVI

    Berkut Plans

    Marc, Your comments about the late Zubair are unfortunately, extremely accurate. Listening to good advice and following it certainly was not his strong suit. RIP Zubair. In reading up on both the Zone here and Canard Aviation, I personally have acquired immense respect for your vast knowledge and willingness to share it, but in regard to the Berkut drawings, let me ask you, have you personally reviewed the JG drawings? In other words, are your comments about the plans being woefully incomplete and inaccurate based on what you have been told by one of the "experts," or are your comments based on personal experience in examining and reviewing the drawings? You see, I've been told the same thing about the drawings being woefully incomplete and rife with errors by James Redmon, but after purchasing the one hundred sheet set from John Griffiths, and reviewing them in detail, I've discovered this is not entirely true. Now, there's always the chance that what I don't know that I don't know I don't may pop up and bite me, but so far, this has been my experience. The drawings were not originally meant to be a build manual in the manner of the Rutan LongEZ plans, so there definitely are certain details not included, especially details of the factory molded parts, but "woefully incomplete"? There are indeed a few minor inaccuracies, mainly due to the fact that the drawings were drafted manually with drawing board and T-square and not present day CAD, but I would certainly not categorize them as being "woefully incomplete ... neither complete nor accurate." The minor errors and inconsistencies are readily corrected when input to CAD. It has been mentioned that the drawings alone are insufficient for a build without the addition of the manuals and the set of videos, but both the manuals and sets of videos are available, perhaps not readily available, but available just the same to a determined researcher. And why, I ask, the availability of molded parts aside, would the construction of a Berkut be so much more difficult than a LongEZ or Cozy that you would so adamantly discourage the construction of one? The wings and canard are basically LongEZ, so why would they be more difficult to build on a Berkut? This leaves the fuselage and RG, but there are LongEZs successfully flying with RG, and both LongEZs and Cozys can be found with highly modified fuselages. It most certainly would require extensive research to put things together, but this has not prevented enthusiasts like Bob Setzer and Tony Malfa of Canard Gear from pursuing their goals. Yes, I readily admit that it would add a great deal of time and not inconsiderable expense to a build a Berkut clone when compared to a "per plans" Cozy or LongEZ, but the fact that the Berkut was based on a LongEZ and wet layup CF/glass construction and not molded with prepreg and autoclaves like the Lancairs would make it a more appealing kit aircraft to reverse engineer, wouldn't it? Now, if you believe that my comments are way off base, and I'm somewhere in La-La Land, please don't hesitate let me know. Just give me a few minutes to put on my flak jacket.
  8. AVI

    Berkut Plans

    Kent, you make some very valid points, but let's take this in perspective. The Berkut fuselage and winglets are glass, with some CF reinforcement in the fuselage. The spars also use CF, but we're mainly concerned with the wing skins. The Bill of Materials for the LongEZ Chapter 19 (wing & ailerons) lists 56 yds of UND and 9 yds of BID. So ballpark estimate ( mileage will vary with determined shoppers ) we're looking at approximately $2,000 - $2.500, maybe more, maybe less, for the cost of CF over the cost of Glass. Incidentally, this is the rough cost of a set of CNC cut foam cores. Nobody said a Berkut clone could be built for less than the cost of a LongEZ. The RG components alone could add, according to estimates on the net, some $5,000 - $10,000 to the cost of the build. ( We're hoping for the lower amount. ) In the grand scheme of homebuilding, the additional cost of CF is relatively insignificant ( I don't state this lightly - we all have budgets ) in comparison with the overall expense of a project. What I'm trying to say without sounding condescending, or giving the impression that money doesn't matter, ( it does to me ) is that cloth material is not the most expensive item on the list. There are far more components which can drive the cost up way beyond the amount spent on CF. I'm sure you're well aware of how costs can spiral. We don't have to be Boeing or General Dynamics to have cost overruns! Seriously now, whether it's doable to properly wet out CF in a garage without the use of prepregs is perhaps more of a concern to me.
  9. AVI

    Berkut Plans

    Bob Setzer has been working on his A-Solution for a few years now ... http://www.canardzone.com/forum/topic/19036-a-solution/?hl=%2Bbob+%2Bsetzer+%2Ba-solution
  10. AVI

    Berkut Plans

    Sohal, seems like you're cross-posting ... here's what I posted to one of your questions yesterday: Posted Yesterday, 03:24 PM Sohail, on 08 Apr 2015 - 12:20 PM, said: Stepping in here for CutieDarkFae. Hope you don't mind. If you're asking whether the JG drawings are complete and detailed enough for you to build a Berkut clone from, the answer would be, "of course after research." Now, having said this, let me further state that the aircraft would not be a "Berkut" because the Berkut kit consisted of numerous molded parts, the fuselage being the largest, and there are no instructions or drawings included in the series for the construction of the respective plugs and molds. The molded longerons are a good example. You're going to have to roll your own. You specifically mentioned the fuselage ... the plans do show the basic fuselage outline, ( 1:10 three-view drawing ) but none of the lofting, and absolutely no details regarding the plug and mold from which the kit fuselages were pulled, so you're not only going to have to design and loft your own fuselage, you're going to have to figure out how to build it. (By then, as they say, you could be well on your way in the construction of a "per plans" LongEZ.) Building a fuselage means either funding the design and construction of a plug and molds, or creating and adapting an alternate one-off method of construction. So, yes, it's possible, "of course after research." If you're asking whether the The John Griffiths drawings are worth the money, they definitely are. If you have more than a casual interest in the Berkut and/or you'd like to build a Berkut, the drawings are the entry fee. In the total cost of building a Berkut, it's a small amount, so for what it's worth, I'd recommend ordering a set. The drawings contain a wealth of information not found anywhere else, and of course, are very well drawn. Disclaimer: I'm not involved in the printing/sales of the drawings in any way, shape of form. I simply bought a set from John Griffiths. Sohal, back again - As I mentioned in CutieDarkFae's thread, the Griffiths' drawings are well worth the money, whether you're building a Berkut or a LongEZ. There's a wealth of information and detail in them. Now, from your post above, it would appear that you're new to canards and have not done the "of course after research" part so it would appear that you would be much better off building a LongEZ with perhaps a stretched nose. Here's why: As complete and detailed as the JG Berkut drawings are, you are in fact going to be designing your own airplane if you attempt to build from his drawings. It's not as difficult as designing an airplane from scratch, it's more like reverse engineering an airplane, but it's still a lot of work, and unless you're prepared to do the tremendous amount of research required - and I'm not talking of weeks of research, nor months of research, but literally years of research - especially for a builder without formal education or the required background, you're much better off building a per plans LongEZ. If a Berkut clone or BerkEZ is the intended goal, then certainly, get the drawings. You'll also need a set of the Berkut build manuals, and a set of the build videos - more research ..."of course after research" If you "don't have any fancy goals other than building a fancy, nice and fast plane whether it's a LongEZ or Berkut" then the LongEZ with a few of the accepted modifications would more than do the job. You'll have a nice, fast airplane, and save years in the build, not to mention thousands of dollars in the long run. If you have more questions, feel free to PM me and I'll give you my email and phone.
  11. Stepping in here for CutieDarkFae. Hope you don't mind. If you're asking whether the JG drawings are complete and detailed enough for you to build a Berkut clone from, the answer would be, "of course after research." Now, having said this, let me further state that the aircraft would not be a "Berkut" because the Berkut kit consisted of numerous molded parts, the fuselage being the largest, and there are no instructions or drawings included in the series for the construction of the respective plugs and molds. The molded longerons are a good example. You're going to have to roll your own. You specifically mentioned the fuselage ... the plans do show the basic fuselage outline, ( 1:10 three-view drawing ) but none of the lofting, and absolutely no details regarding the plug and mold from which the kit fuselages were pulled, so you're not only going to have to design and loft your own fuselage, you're going to have to figure out how to build it. (By then, as they say, you could be well on your way in the construction of a "per plans" LongEZ.) Building a fuselage means either funding the design and construction of a plug and molds, or creating and adapting an alternate one-off method of construction. So, yes, it's possible, "of course after research." If you're asking whether the The John Griffiths drawings are worth the money, they definitely are. If you have more than a casual interest in the Berkut and/or you'd like to build a Berkut, the drawings are the entry fee. In the total cost of building a Berkut, it's a small amount, so for what it's worth, I'd recommend ordering a set. The drawings contain a wealth of information not found anywhere else, and of course, are very well drawn. Disclaimer: I'm not involved in the printing/sales of the drawings in any way, shape of form. I simply bought a set from John Griffiths.
  12. Chinese CH3 Rainbow. Put a canopy on it, and you're ready to go - sure looks like son of Berkut with FG. Wonder whether they snatched LongEZ plans or the John Griffiths Berkut drawings? http://chinesemilitaryreview.blogspot.ca/2011/10/chinese-ch-3-unmanned-combat-aerial.html
  13. ColinB, It's been almost six years .... any progress to report?
  14. AVI

    Berkut Plans

    Try John dot Griffiths at ca dot rr dot com sorry this didnt work either In case you're still looking for Berkut drawings after almost six years ... Try: John.Griffiths1 (AT) verizon.net The drawings are still available.

The Canard Zone

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information