787Guy

Jon, Whatever became of this ? I know I will need the help of a local conspirator/mentor/tutor/motivator to get an aircraft built. South Florida is a big area - got to be a few canardians down here somewhere. I'm going to give the local EAA Chapter a call - I was a member many moons ago but the chapter back then was kind of a lot of duds (read - RV Weenies). An up to date list of builders and there locations would be helpful. Thanks, Randy

Jon, Go check out their website - anything aeronautical seems like an afterthought. I queried them via email about 10 days ago about an updated pricelist and have yet to hear back from them. Although, I would really love to be wrong about this as they could prove a great help to me during a build..

I think the addition of vortex generators to the canard surface would/should allow for a slower landing speed. But I am not an aero engineer and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express either !

For the Cozy or Aerocanard I really like the round windows. But I don't think Aerocanard is in business any more.

Until recently I had thought the V-Twin would be the ultimate X/C airplane for me. Now I'm thinking a slightly larger version (read internal baggage) of the Cozy IV with a ballistic recovery system would actually be sufficient . Especially after seeing the success of the Cirrus in the recent mid-air in Frederick Maryland - they deployed from 1000' and lived to tell about it. I don't think I could have gotten out and pulled a parachute in the same amount of time.

That was one of my concerns - deploying it outside of the envelope and having it depart the aircraft into the prop. But if the actuator cannot deploy the landing brake above the design speed limit I am better with this idea. I recall reading that the auto function can be defeated by a button push - but why would you want to drive around at 95kts in a go fast airplane?

Very impressive ! Please do keep us posted here.

Well that's all good to know and expands my knowledge of the aircraft. One of the other things that I seemed to like about the manual landing brake is that it would not deploy at speeds above its envelope - or so I understand. Is the electric one like this too ? I know the nose gear electric system is plumbed into the pitot static system.

Berkut with BRS ? Did they have to give up the rear seat for that ?

Long EZ

Would it be permissible to use an under wing L shaped pitot tube instead of having one on the nose ? Seems it would be less likely to get damaged and also easier to heat it without fear of melting the aircraft.

Well Jon I certainly like the various choices for the electric nose gear retraction, some of them actually seem quite idiot proof. But what kind of redundancies does the electric landing brake have ? I have never flown an Ez but have read that the landing approach without the brake is quite flat and requires a longer runway. I think of all the electrical failures I have had over the years ( quite a few actually) and I factor in having to find a longer runway while cranking down the gear with a socket wrench at night and I can imagine that I would've rather had a manual landing brake. But maybe it's not that big of a deal to land without it. I would think the manual version would save a bit of weight though.

Ok thanks, I am embarrassed to say that I don't even know what a knee mill is - I'll have to google that.

Seems to me there should be an "Other" engines topic header. Recently a guy in Tennessee hung a UL Power 6 cylinder engine on a Long EZ. I'm pretty excited to see how this goes for him as this engine weighs about as much as an O-235 and can put out up to 200Hp. Direct drive, electronic ignition and fuel injection - not cheap by any means but then again how much does it cost to put all that modern stuff on to a Lyconasarus ? http://www.ulpower.com/news/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/6cyl-leaflet-lr.pdf

Ok, thanks for that guys. I guess I could take the drawings for the original manual speedbrake to a machine shop and see if they would be up for fabricating the parts.

$150.00/hr would be a pretty popular rate in the gyro community - they typically see circa $200.00/hr ! The LODA is necessary in my case because of the ownership issue - it's my own Gyrocopter. If a student came to me with their own aircraft then - no I would not need the LODA.

And actually to do it right an instructor should get a LODA or Letter of Deviation Authority from his local FSDO if conducting transition training for hire. Hopefully I'll be getting mine approved for Gyroplanes soon.

Actually the true credit for staggered seating firmly goes to our Patron Saint - Mr. Rutan. He first mentioned it quite some years ago IIRC. It's advantages are actually twofold - First, it allows you to make a narrower side by side fuselage without sacrificing comfort or elbow room - so less forward surface area. Secondly, and this is something only an instructor can appreciate - it allows you to watch and monitor the student without their direct knowledge. Being able to see a students face and actually what he/she is looking at as they are doing something is actually quite beneficial. In a regular side-by-side arrangement you can't really do this without being obvious which in turn causes a reaction from the student and or makes the student nervous.

I know I'm probably missing it but is there a sticky or something with a more modern list of suppliers for the more difficult parts for Long Ez and Cozy ? When I try to do a search I get Brock Manufacturing and I know that Ken's been gone for quite awhile now so that's not any good. I see that Cozy Girls make a few bits but what about a main landing gear bow and or a Davenport Shimmy Damper - stuff like that. It appears that AeroCanard is tango uniform as well.

Interesting, too bad they didn't think to incorporate Steve Wright's excellent idea of staggering the seats to give better shoulder room. I have about 1300 hours of CFI work in C-152s and after that I'm a very big fan of tandems or wide cockpits.

Thanks I'll check that out. I think I did run across one website that labeled the "Canard Finder" service as quite a huckster though.

The electric landing brake is an interesting one. In reviewing the drawings I personally would rather have the original manual one due to the weight savings and ingenious simplicity. But I have yet to find a source for all the little metal parts that are needed to operate it. My High School was quite small and could not afford a metal shop just had a wood shop so I can't see myself doing a great deal of metal fabricating. So by default it looks as if I will have to incorporate this mod.

I am currently in the recon phase collecting as much information as possible concerning building a Long Ez. Combing thru a few builders blogs I see myriad of modifications that have been added to the original design. This of course is to be expected for a design of this age but few if any were ever blessed by brother Burt. No doubt on the advice and consent of the RAF legal counsel ! Yet at the same time one can't argue with success. Meaning that even though baggage pods and longer noses have been and are being added we are not seeing these aircraft plummeting out of the sky either. So my question is what is the general consensus amongst experienced Canard builders as to what is a "safe" modification ? The ones that I find interesting are : Longer nose, baggage pods, some kind of a landing light and the lighter more modern UL Power engine.

You are correct sir ! Most excellent canard-porn ! Randy

Jon, The Cavalon is quite nice for sure and yes the gyro is a different beast. It's harder to takeoff than it is to land just the opposite of a fixed wing. BTW, how is your Quickie coming along ? Randy