AVI

Tony's shop is in Vegas. You link the post about selling his project ... On a later post or maybe on CA he mentions changing his mind about selling the Berkut project, that he had only considered selling in order to fund the biz. (So maybe funding magically generated itself?) Somewhere along the line he writes of acquiring a second Berkut project, and that he's now building Berkuts. Then the ad for the fuselage on his website ... Now, the disclaimer here is that the accumulation and interpretation of all this intel is like putting two and two together to get five.

He wouldn't be writing about Tony's fuselage, would he? http://www.canardgear.com/fuselage.html 500 hours sounds like good spin ...

What ever happened to the Russian Velocity Intruder or canard of similar name? It was a huge Berkut clone styled along the lines of a MIG29 with RG. Did it ever get finished? Did it ever fly?

Well, aren't they all plastic?

How about this?

So can anybody post what the published CG range of the Berkut is? If it's not the same as that of the LongEZ, out of curiosity, what is it?

Some inspiration for you: http://community.thefoundry.co.uk/discussion/topic.aspx?f=9&t=40122&page=0

That's what I thought. Good idea, but it's more accurate to have the drawings scanned. However, for sheets that size, scanning is probably cost prohibitive, but PDF would be great for quick referencing on the monitor. Photos can work, but be super cautious about parallax and scaling directly from the pix.One of the problems with the drawings is that although there are lots of good dimensions, there is often a lack of reference to stations, water lines, and butt lines ... "some research required." If you use the actual sheet drawings for dimensions into CAD, you might find that you'll acquire a working knowledge of the aircraft faster and also become familiar with the inconsistencies and minor errors found in the plans. You may even discover that "counting all those tiny little boxes" ain't all that bad. Let me know when you get around to lofting the fuselage ....

Photos? You have images or a digitized version of the drawings?

The landing light plans for the LongEZ were copies of the VeriEZ drawings. The Berkut drawings do show details for a landing light, also mounted on the belly.

The firewall is at FS125. The tip of the nose is at approximately FS-26. It's common knowledge that the Berkut fuselage design was basically that of the LongEZ stretched 12 inches. I'm confused. Which "tech package" did you receive? You mentioned receiving a "tech package" in your initial post and confirmed in a subsequent post that you've got the JG drawings, but I'm now not so sure. Page One of the JG drawings consists of a 1:10 scale three-view overlayed with a grid displaying the fuselage stations, butt lines and water lines. If you do not have the JG drawings, they're well worth the price. The cost is close to a grand for a complete set of Berkut drawings consisting of 100 sheets. However, unlike the LongEZ plans, these are not construction plans in the same sense, so there is "some research required" if your goal is to build a Berkut clone. The full set of Berkut drawings is available from John Griffiths john.griffiths1@verizon.net Tell him that Alex, near Toronto, Ontario gave you the contact info. It's a heavy package, so shipping to Oz might be a tad expensive. If you don't have these drawings, you can still build a Berkut clone by modifying the LongEZ drawings. Either way, you're going to be designing your own aircraft. As previously mentioned, "Some research required." BTW, which three-view drawing do you have? What's the source and size? Can you post an image? I'd caution you about attempting to build from plans created by simply enlarging a tiny three-view drawing commonly found on the internet. IMHO it would be more logical to create drawings based on the LongEZ plans which you implied are in your possession. And lastly, which CAD program?

When you're ready for the exact measurements/full size drawings of the metal parts mentioned, I'm positive you'll find a member such as myself who's only too happy to oblige with a scan or exact dimensions. It's not an understatement to say that there's more than enough work in the research/creating CAD drawings stage to keep you fully occupied for months. If you have not already visited this website, here's a builder who's a bit further ahead of where you are at the present moment, 787. He's another OpenEZier ... http://www.aryjglantz.com/p/blog-page.html?m=0

It would appear that a few prospective builders have lost sight of the fact that the LongEZ is a plans built aircraft and that it is not a kit with every conceivable nut an bolt packaged in the shipping crate. What complicates the situation is that plans are no longer available from RAF, thus builders are forced into the role of not only researcher, but "designer" to a lesser extent. During the plans preparation stage, there is a definite learning curve, or what has been described by Jon as "paying your dues." The OpenEZ plans, IMHO, should contain the disclaimer, "Some research and verification required."

Sounds good, Gal. The Mike James 3D CAD was apparently for a model airplane. I've checked out the site, and visually compared the loft/contour lines with photographs of the real thing. For what it's worth, it's a model, and far from accurate, in spite of the fact that he states he based his drawings on the factory ones. What I'm saying is that his drawings may be sufficient for an RC model, but perhaps lacking if scaled up full size. I don't doubt he used the JG drawings. It only goes to show that developing an accurate fuselage from the JG drawings is not a simple task. If you've got the JG set of drawings, you already have more than what he had to work with. It would appear that he only had Sheet One, the 3-View drawing. Why spend the hi bucks to get a Berkut laser scanned? With a bit of detective work and a whole lot of research, it's possible to arrive at an accurate fuselage outline and loft. You're going to be designing the airplane anyway, so aren't you more than likely going to end up with your own personal minor adjustments and changes? Besides, the molded Berkut shell, from what I'm told, was far from perfect. Google "Draftsight" - it's a free 2D CAD from the French aviation company Dassault - it's pretty good. 3D? Well, I'm starting to use Rhino, but I'm finding there's a steep learning curve. However, from what little I've learned, it makes 2D, well, primitive. Good luck. Keep us posted.

CutieDarkFae, perhaps you may not realize it quite yet, but in attempting to convert/modify your LongEZ drawings to Berkut standard, you may indeed be attempting to design your own airplane. Building a Berkut from the JG drawings ( I am not by any means attempting to discourage you from doing so) will undoubtedly require a considerable amount of research and planning. It has already been done. Yes. Jon mentioned the BerkEZ. However, don't underestimate the amount of time, work, and research involved. Just doing an accurate rendition of the Berkut fuselage in 2D CAD will be enough of a challenge even if you have a kit fuselage available for reference. Building a BerkEZ, I would venture to say, would involve much more than a rudimentary 12 inch stretch of the LongEZ fuselage. Good luck on the project. As mentioned above, it will be fun to follow, so please continue to update us. I too am curious to learn the details of your 3 Step plan.

Seems like you are planning to modify a LongEZ. What do you have in mind? As detailed as the JG drawings are, they lack much vital information, but the package is great overall value. However, be aware that the drawings contain a few inconsistencies and errors. If you find a source for the videos, please let us know.

Jon, whatever happened to the OpenEZ Twin?

Very nice. I see you extended the canopy forward as well. So you retained the basic LongEZ fuselage construction of sides/bottom underneath the veneer?

Did you stretch the fuselage any or just the nose? How did you fabricate the lofted fuselage? Any photos, HatSwitch?

Let me say up front that for me, the information presented in the 100 sheet set of drawings is well worth the price of admission. John has done a remarkable job, considering the drawings involve manual drafting, not CAD. Speaking of CAD, the errors in his drawings become more obvious when translated into CAD. A purchaser of the Griffiths' plan set is not going to be able to nonchalantly lay them on the worktable and instantly clone a Berkut, but there's a lot of information contained within the drawings that quite frankly, is not going to be found anywhere else. Of course, the natural thing to do is to cross-reference the Griffiths' drawings with the Rutan LongEZ drawings, also completed before CAD became mainstream. However, even though the LongEZ plans are also manual drafting, the level of accurate is amazingly high. Don't let the pencil lines, cartoons, and hand lettering fool you. They're good. One great feature of the Rutan plans is that every drawing is referenced with Fuselage Stations, Butt Lines, and Water Lines, not so, unfortunately, the Berkut drawings. There's much detective work involved with the Griffiths' drawings. So, overall, should you rush out, plunk down a grand, and buy a set of Berkut drawings? That would depend entirely on what your expectations are. Could you build a BerkEZ without these drawings? More than likely, but they would surely help. Could you build a Berkut by relying solely on these drawings? Probably not, but they would certainly help. Either way, it's best to start with a good ol' set of LongEZ drawings.

What? Test flight with no parachute?

Tony is correct - as long (no pun intended) as the template drawings are dimensioned, what difference does it make whether they are quarter scale, half scale, zillionth scale, (provided they are legible) or full scale? You might find the following interesting. Let me quote: "FULL SIZE Drawings - I received a question as to why all the drawings for ribs, etc. are not full-size to allow for tracing to the part. The answer is because so many of the ribs, etc., are so long that they won't fit any convenient paper size and that (sic) paper that long can shrink and thus effect (sic) the size of the part. If you use the following hints you will find that converting the scaled-down drawings will be a very small percentage of the work required to build your aircraft: Do not draw the part full size to transfer to the material; transfer the dimensions directly to the wood or metal. (ball point pen on wood; BIC Banana on metal). Have a wife or friend read the dimensions from the drawing or grid while you use a scale to plot them on the material. This is much faster than looking back and forth and eliminates errors. Buy a Stanley metal tape, rule no. B61-112Y. This is a 12 foot retractable tape- rule with graduations in tenths of inches, not 1/16ths. That tool alone will save you many hours of conversions." Variviggen News No. 1. May 1974 Rutan Aircraft Factory/P.O. Box 111 Valley Center, KS. 67147 Also: "Be sure you are using the decimal 12" rule and tape measure, fractions are for carpenters!" Page 3. Variviggen News No. 2. Oct 74 Rutan Aircraft Factory Burt and Carolyn Rutan Building #13, Mojave Airport P.O. Box 656, Mojave, Ca. 93501 FYI, that was written almost 32 years ago.

Anybody interested in collaboration to produce and market plans for an "OpenEZ" along the lines of a rounded-fuselage LimoEZ/Berkut with all the latest modifications including retracts? We could call it whatever we wanted to without making reference to Burt Rutan, releasing him from all liability. The collaboration would involve researching the many modifications that have been done to the original LongEZ design in order to develop a new design with improved building methods. I can do the drawings. As previously stated, this would be a derivative design that would, according to what's been posted on this thread, circumvent/avoid copyright infringement. It would make a more modern plans-built design available to a new generation of LongEZ enthusiasts.