Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


TParker last won the day on August 11 2020

TParker had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About TParker

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Real Name (Public)
  • Location (Public)

Project/Build Information

  • Plane

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks for the heads up! I bought one as soon as I found out about it, got it about a month ago.
  2. I joined. Doesn't look like they have scanned copies of the past CSA newsletters (yet?).
  3. Ah, thanks. I saw it labeled as VariEze and didn't quite understand what I was looking at; should have looked closer. Thanks. I should have been more specific; the way your initial reply was worded made me think that there were fuselage mods that went along with the increased sizing of the EM12 extrusions. The mention of the control stick is interesting, I'll have to look into that. For my purposes, this is pretty much a single seat airplane. I may give someone a ride if they're interested but otherwise the backseat is cargo volume. The electric gear is neat and would be nice to have but my goal is to get the thing flying and the manual system is serviceable. Same thing goes with other mods; I'll do them if they're necessary, make sense, or make the aircraft safer but otherwise they're extra work and I've got plenty ahead of me without looking for more.
  4. Thanks Kent. Are there other mods to the fuselage besides increasing the size of the angles? Can't seem to find it in his gallery. I am familiar with this one. I'll have to evaluate mine. Good idea, and good tip. Thanks! I'll check mine for play. I don't think there's any obvious scoring that would imply relative motion between the spacer and the bearing race but I'll double check.
  5. I've made some small progress: The nose gear retract worm drive had a significant bind in it. This was noticeable through the hand crank when I originally acquired it, but was more evident after it had been cleaned up and turning just the gear. Seemed to be caused by the worm gear shaft not being perfectly straight; the worm gear also had a small chip in it, so maybe it had a (hard?) landing without the gear fully extended. Ended up flipping one of the worm gear bushing blocks around and shimming it with a couple layers of UHMW tape; spins pretty freely now. The nose gear fork faces where they interface with the wheel spacers were as cast and nowhere close to square, so the fork was making very little contact with the spacers. The axle bolt had some signs that the spacers were moving relative to the bolt. So I filed the faces; they're not perfect but they're a lot closer. Didn't have any blue, but a sharpie worked pretty well. Before: After: Most of my effort has been expended on trying to figure out what to do about my engine mount extrusion (EM12) situation. What I've got is non-standard in a couple of ways. Firstly, it has this aluminum bar on the bottom, going from left to right and an extra bolt to mount it. I presume, but don't know for sure, that this is one of the mods that was done when the 360 was installed. In my opinion, it does nothing except add weight, so I removed it. But in doing so, I noticed the biggest issue so far. There is supposed to be, per plans, another horizontal bolt holding the EM12 in, which is part of why I was asking this. This bolt is missing on both left and right sides on the bottom, but is present on the upper pair. Normally, I would just install said bolts, but given that installing them would require drilling into the fuel tanks, I've been trying to avoid that. I've done some analysis, and so far haven't come up with a load case that stresses that missing bolt in a meaningful way. However it's a pretty complicated joint with a variety of materials; and the fact that I don't quite get the way it's intended to function means I may be missing something. On the other hand, my conclusion is supported by the fact that the epoxy and flox surrounding the EM12s shows no signs of cracking; though, with the limited hours in service, it's not a guarantee of future success. The other potential mitigating factor is that, as another mod to support the big engine, the engine mount has had two extra legs welded on to it which bolt onto the main gear carry through bolts; mount shown below. These extra legs add weight and require extra holes in the firewall; I'm not a big fan of either of those things but I like the extra load path and not having to puncture the fuel tanks. If others have reasoned opinions on the best course of action, I'd appreciate hearing them. In the course of all this, I also discovered that three of the 10 vertical bolt holes that are used to mount the EM12s miss the spruce blocks embedded in the spars. So I've got to fix or mitigate that somehow; probably cut the hole open from inside the spar and bond in an additional spruce block. I wasn't the biggest fan of the aluminum firewall because it was pretty beat up. Removing it became necessary anyway in order to do something about the spinning studs that held the angled rudder pulleys; the pulley brackets have to be replaced with steel ones per CP49. What's interesting is that the plans mentions that they may spin and to slot the ends to hold with a screw driver; so this is a known problem and, in my opinion, not a great solution. Four of the six were already slotted, and I had to add another. The combination of the slots and locking nuts resulted in two of the studs being damaged during the removal. The rudder bellcrank brackets also require replacement with steel and their bolts also spun which required making holes in the fuselage. Not a fan of all these buried fasteners with no anti-torque mechanism other than flox and hope (in vain). I'm going to figure out something better so this doesn't happen again. Given that I am missing one of the bellcranks, need new brackets, and that I don't have rear mounted brake master cylinders, I'm looking for other solutions to rudder actuation. The most straightforward is, I think, to use pulleys instead of bellcranks like the Cozy does; if anyone knows of something better please chime in.
  6. Thanks Kent. I've got some issues in this area (EM12 to fuselage) that need attention and I'm trying to figure out how I want to address them. Do you mean the bolts that attach the engine mount to the angle? Or the bolts that attach the angle to the fuselage? I saw that you built yours like the Cozy, what did you do on forward side of the firewall? Particularly interested in how you tied in the lower mounting points. Apologies if details are in your thread and I missed it.
  7. Does anyone have/know of any loads analysis done for the engine mount extrusions (EM12) and their attachment to the fuselage? Or are there any examples/pictures of this joint failing or being damaged due to overloading (like in a hard landing)? I've seen others have increased the vertical web of the EM12s or substituted steel in anticipation of a heavier engine and I was curious if the extrusion was actually the limiting factor or if it was something else like the bolts that attach the EM12s to the rest of the structure, or failure or the composite structure itself. The plans state a max engine weight of 246 lbf and a max vibrating weight allowable of 286 lbf; I presume that number came from some analysis (available?). I'm further curious as to how much the bolts contribute to this system as this implementation seems a bit strange to me; in that: If the bolts are intended to carry tensile loads, using small OD (AN960-416L) washers against relatively soft spruce doesn't seem effective If the bolts are intended to carry shear loads they're likely to split the spruce and the shear handling capability of the fiberglass is also likely low This installation is significantly different from the wing attach, where an aluminum puck is used to transfer loads into the composite Any insight here would be appreciated. TIA.
  8. Thanks for the info! That's pretty interesting. Do you remember what grit you ordered? According to the logs, these cylinders are already bored 0.010" over. So, unfortunately, it's unlikely that they'd remain within Lycoming's minimums. The reference I have (SSP-1176-4) indicates that 0.010" over would be, in itself, out of spec; I'm assuming that the nominal dimension, which isn't listed, is the 4.375" of the cylinder bore in the basic engine specs. The Lycoming parts manual doesn't list oversized pistons or cylinders as acceptable parts, but does have oversized rings. Superior makes oversized versions of pistons, rings, and cylinders. Probably worth trying though and then measuring against the limits.
  9. Whilst I haven't been as productive as hoped for due primarily to work obligations, I've managed to get some things done. Before I got too carried away on the elevators, I tried taping some weight onto them to see how much it would take to bring them into spec. It looks like I can get the elevators to be within spec for weight and angle by adding ~0.1 lbf to the outboard balance on each. So I'll sand the paint off the balance and glass on a bit more lead. The cylinders on the O-235 are significantly corroded above the rings, which while disappointing isn't surprising: The bottom end, however, looks to be in surprisingly good shape. I had a couple of A&Ps look it over, who commented that they've seen much worse in active, flying aircraft. Unfortunately, the case was assembled with some sort of silicone sealant rather than any of the Lycoming approved methods and that sealant has deteriorated, so it needs to be, at a minimum, tore down, resealed, and reassembled. I'm holding off on further engine work while I decide whether to rebuild this one or pursue a 320 of some sort. Built a rolling wing rack to hold the main wings and the canard while they're not on the airplane. I figured out how the brakes are supposed to work, looks like it will be a usable system. It was jammed up, thus the initial confusion, but the attachment between the master and the pedal has a slot in it to allow for rudder deflection prior to brake engagement. I measured the various linkages in the rudder/brake system to see if there was enough adjustment available to allow for max rudder prior to engaging the brakes and it does. This system seems to have a rather significant motion ratio advantage in that ~5 deg of rudder pedal is ~25 deg of rudder surface deflection; but the linkage geometry looks like it matches the plans, so no reason to build something different until I try it. Rebuilt the brake masters and calipers, installed new brake pads, cleaned up the main wheels, inspected and repacked the bearings, and replaced the tires. Pulled the nose gear and retract mechanism out of the aircraft. This was a bit tricky, the pivot bolt was stuck in the bushing (NG7) and wouldn't come out. Friend of mine saved the day with a rivet gun. Unfortunately I did some minor damage to the side of the fuselage trying to pry it out that I'll have to repair. The retract mechanism was pretty gummed up with old grease and gunk: But it cleaned up nicely: Similarly, the nose strut hardware: Cleaned: The nose strut compression spring (from CP25) and the nose wheel itself got the same treatment. So at this point, I need to reassemble all this stuff at the front of the airplane that I've taken apart.
  10. Nope, not yet. If you do, please share. The weights of the surfaces are close to the maximums listed for balanced and painted surfaces. So if they're not balancing that's because the weight is in the wrong spot. I can think of the following possibilities: I've misunderstood how this was supposed to be measured Balance weights are in the wrong position Maybe I can move them if this is the case Balance weights are too small Can't do much with this, as the surfaces are already very close to the allowable weights Elevator brackets have the pivot in the wrong position Elevator has too much paint on trail edge Elevator was built poorly Needs to be replaced
  11. I strung up the elevators to see if they met the balance requirements of CPs 21, 57, 106 and found that they didn't. Both were about 6°. The CPs are a bit inconsistent, with 21 calling for 10°-20° in the text then 10°-25° in the sketch while 57 and 106 call for 12°-20°. Either way, my elevators a long way from meeting this. I haven't checked the orientation of the two balance weights yet to see if they are positioned per the plans. I did notice that the inboard balance weight on both elevators has the elevator hinge hole out of alignment with the rest of the outboard fittings; fixing this would rotate the balance weight such that it's CG would be further ahead of the tube which would be advantageous for the overall balance. However, this adjustment would be minor and I think unlikely to bring the elevator into balance.
  12. I place a lot of importance on aircraft weight and balance, so I went a little nuts weighing everything. The empty weight of this EZ was, according to the builder, 890 lbs when equipped with the 235 and 1013 lbs when equipped with the 360. Both weights included lead ballast required in the nose to balance. My findings: Fuselage as it currently sits, no interior: 315 lbf Right wing: 79 lbf Left wing: 83 lbf Canard, with elevators: 29 lbf Left elevator: 3.4 lbf, less than the 3.6 lbf required by CPs 21, 57, 106 Right elevator: 3.7 lbf, less than the 3.9 lbf required by CPs 21, 57, 106 Close though, CPs mention that a well built example should be "well" below these weights but provides no variance data O-235-L2C, with starter, alternator, mags, 6" prop extension, carb, no oil: 257.8 lbf engine mount: 7.4 lbf Top Cowl: 8 lbf Bottom Cowl: 10 lbf Stainless exhaust: 5 lbf Wood fixed pitch prop (B&T 62x66): 8 lbf Aluminum spinner: 3 lbf What's left of the instrument panel, including engine gauges, vacuum Attitude & DG, and Terra transponder: 11 lbf Which brings the current total to 817 lbs. Notable missing items are battery, radio(s), oil cooler, several control rods, much of an interior, wiring I also spent some time trying to figure out if there was something I was missing regarding the brakes/rudders. This is how it's currently set up: This appears to activate the brake as soon as the rudder is applied. Not sure I like this, if you land with a crosswind correction you'd be landing with the wheel already braked. Two questions regarding interior finishing What's this black anti-skid-ish coating called? Is there a good way to remove it other than sandpaper and elbow grease?
  13. As I fix/modify things it will end up with patches, then once I'm reasonably happy with how it flies I'll think about repainting it. Do most people use rattle can primer for small areas? Cosmetics are the least of my concerns at the moment because it needs powerplant, avionics, and general rehab/updating. Don't know any local EZ people but I have a buddy building a Velocity and a coworker who built a Quickie.
  14. Hi, I bought a Long-EZ project, hopefully didn't err too grievously with my selection. It was previously flying, first flight in 1988. Originally equipped with an O-235-L2C, it later had an O-360-A4A installed. In 1992, the 360 was removed with the stated intent of reinstalling the 235 and it hasn't flown since; it's accumulated some hangar rash, along with various things being stripped for use in other projects or with the intent of upgrading. This is very much a rebuild project, not a reassembly project; I thought it would a good tool to learn a lot about homebuilding aircraft relatively quickly. So far I've mostly been figuring out what exactly I bought, looking closely at everything, and doing background research on the MAN-GRD CP plans changes. I'm sure I'll have lots of questions and can hopefully get suggestions/feedback on how to do this properly.

The Canard Zone

  • Create New...

Important Information