Voidhawk9

Definitely a 'gotcha!' of modern avionics. Don't be tempted to cut your margins fine just because of the confidence technology gives! And still, nothing beats the Mk1 eyeball...

I'm using the Hexcel plans glass, having failed to find a suitable local alternative. Just the other day, I got a sample of a BID that I could potentially obtain in NZ, it's similar weight and weave, but it's a looser weave, so would probably result in a  heavier layup with epoxy filling the gaps. Weight is the enemy!

There is a composites shop in NZ that uses our BID, I believe they obtain it through a Hexcel supplier whom I have talked to - 600m minimum order. I might try my luck buying a partial roll from them, they were kind enough to donate a small amount of glass and foam when I was learning about composites and deciding if wanted to build an entire aircraft out of the stuff.

Occasionally a builder abandons their project and sells off their parts and materials at a discount. I have saved $100s buying some glass this way recently. But mostly I've ordered through Aircraft Spruce directly.

This however doesn't come in triangle stock so we are making up a jig to use with the thicknesser to mill down the triangle stock from square. More to come.

Same issue here in NZ - I just took a square section and ran it through the bandsaw set at 45. Worked a treat, even though I had formed said section into a curve to match the curved side of the Cozy.

I am watching the Raptor with interest. Also Synergy, and a few others. But until they fly and there's solid performance data, who knows. Could be the next big thing. Then again they might never fly at all. I'm hoping of course for the former, while busily building my proven design in my garage.

OK, maybe you could do that... you'd also need to design the structure to have the main gear there, lots of follow-on effects. Worth it to fit a slightly longer prop? Nah.

You would need to accelerate to a speed at which the canard could lift almost the entire aircraft weight before it could rotate. Impractical.

E-mailed you.

Hi Jon,

Thanks the resin is quite common in Australia, it's used for Aviation and Motorsport. I Believe a couple of other builders may be using this as well.

Cheers,

Sam

Yes, at least one experienced EZ builder here in NZ is using it.

PMed you.

. Speaking of Berk mods, I am reading the LEZ plans and according to them, retractable main landing gear is simply not worth the increased complexity and cost. Obviously RAF wanted builders to keep it simple and stick to the plans, but I wonder how retracts break down for a Berk-EZ and whether there is a noticeable increase in performance.

Well, the Long was originally designed with an O-235 engine. At the speeds generally seen, retracts would make some difference in speed (not the only benefit), whether worthwhile enough is up to the builder. I don't think anyone is building to mount O-235s anymore though, and the faster you go, the more potential benefit. The early Cozy was very similar in this regard. There was also some 'issues' between the retracts provider and plans provider which may have led to more advice to avoid them, but many of the grounds stated are not really valid for most people.

For me, I'm going fast and far, and the wider stance and oleos of the Infinity retracts also is of use on 'lesser' runways; big long stretchs of concrete are more rare here!

Wow, that is quite a number of mods you have planned. They sound good, but they must add some extra work. Do you feel that this extends the time required to finish your not-quite-an-Aerocanard?

 

I haven't really thought about Cozy/Aerocanard mods, but I do think some of the Berk-EZ mods are pretty cool. Especially that spit canopy.

They do add extra time and work, and I'm not recommending anyone follow suit unless they themselves have researched thoroughly! I'm drawing up quite a few parts in CAD (just 2D drawings) to ensure things fit, will be precise, and if needed, reproducible. So far so good, but I'm so early on in the project - once it's flying we'll know if it was all worthwhile!

The split canopies look cool indeed. If one opens in flight you'll probably lose it and your prop, though. I'm going to install a forward hinging canopy, which has been demonstrated safe if it opens in flight.

...are you going for retractable landing gear, and is this one of your mods?

Yes. I have a number of planned modifications, after which I can't really call it an Aerocanard anymore.

I suggest buying a practice kit like this. You can get familiar with the basic materials and techniques, learn a good deal, and decide if working with composites is right for you (assuming you haven't used the materials before).

I did this, and had a blast! Almost done with Chapter 5 (Aerocanard modified) now, and still enjoying it very much!

No, all winglets have camber. The lift vector is tilted forward due to the way the air circulates at the tip, thus creating thrust.

Welcome to building! My story is not too much different from yours.

Today is 'plane day' for me. I need to get away from the PC and out to the workshop! Time to get these fuselage sides glassed.

The prior posts were almost 8 years ago..!

The last photo looks like a 'fresh' Aerocanard?

Looks good! Working on the fuselage sides on my Cozy / Aerocanard right now... though it's been slow due to moving, so I certainly get that!

Thanks for the pessimistic views according to which we would be still in the biplanes era, The 2nd video referrers to http://www.aerostruk.com/faqs/  is a one man band and his partner.  Advice and input from outside the box thinkers appreciated.

Make sure you take it for its first test flight yourself. Would hate to see anyone else get killed.

We are not trying to annoy you. If you can't determine the layup schedule required for your own design, the whole process is in a lot of trouble. What works for a different airplane is not what is suited to any other.

If you cannot take advice, you or someone who trusts you will get hurt or killed.

Hi Jeff.

I've been building since 2016, using modified Aerocanard plans. Hopefully your fixes are minor (seems probable, though I'm not really OpenEZ familiar).

By studying the plans and body lines, I established that the winglet chord is supposed to be parallel to the aircraft centerline.

That's a nice nugget of information, as is the alignment jig!

An intake plug will work to increase temperatures too. Tin cans use simple inlet block-off plates in very cold weather to reduce cooling.

I've never flown in cold enough climates to have one installed, though!

OMG, a reader!   

...

  I am going to make some reducing plugs that will fit on the intakes and close them down about 30%.  

Silent readers are out there, too!

If you can throttle the outlets you might achieve the same result with a bit less drag, if the inlet edges are rounded (so that excess air flows smoothly around the inlets).

Ha, but the point I think you're also aware of is to let the part fully cure before removing the peel ply. 

 

Looks good.  If I were paranoid without anyone to consult I might add two more uni plies on both sides, but filling with flox (and using more peel ply) will be fine as Ken, and now Marc, suggest.

Yes indeed, I have learned quite a bit since starting chapter 4, despite having done quite a few 'practice' parts for other uses prior to building my first flightworthy parts. Most of those parts were made with West which cures much more quickly and at lower temps than the epoxy I am using now, so there's some gotchas there.

Yes, we were confused, these are the extra plies on the sides of the fwd face of F22, not the horizontal plies right across the top, so no real problem.

I'll just add this to my list of oaf stories when I get by site going. Alongside how difficult it is to sand micro filler that's actually microsphere blend (ie mixed with colloidal silica).