Jump to content

Justin

Members
  • Content Count

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by Justin

  1. I have had ECU controlled engines in fuel injected cars since the late 80s. None ever failed in any way. If I get back to Open EZ and build, I would enjoy having no mixture controls in the cockpit. I would prefer the UL390 to any Rotax. It is direct drive, and has only air cooling, and you can see the engine when the cowl is off. The more powerful Rotax engines have a lot of complexity in their installations, and you can barely see the core of the engine with all the clobber on it. It is just my preference to keep it simple, and I do know that Rotax engines are exceptionally good, but I think their best engine is the 912. It has small frontal area and suits sleek ultralights, but not the EZ.
  2. Hi Jon, There are only pictures there. The zipped 3D stuff is 'unavailable'..... Oh... wait.... I see it is there if one is signed in. Good stuff ! Stay safe, Justin
  3. My CAD stuff expired in another thread here, but it is available at:- https://grabcad.com/library/open-ez-experimental-aircraft-1 I might come back to Open EZ, but am too busy right now. Stay safe everyone. Justin
  4. Justin

    CAD Update #2

    I have not uploaded the Dynon Skyview 10". You can get that from the Dynon website. The large display needs a rectangular aperture in the IP frame at FS40. This aperture could be handy for working access to harness. My engine cowl lofting is suited to the UL390i with the 110mm propeller drive extension. The engine STP file can be downloaded from the UL Power website.
  5. Justin

    CAD Update #2

    This is the last CAD file.... just the nosegear with most of the actuator. My gear and worm drive is not accurate in the teeth geometry, but the pitches are correct. 'Just a few pictures to come Nosegear.zip
  6. Justin

    CAD Update #2

    'Main Gear assy is the gear bow, as closely as I can figure out. I would like to measure a real one and adjust this model. I think I know how it is made, and it would be easy to tool up for it. Sleek canopy. zip it a slightly smoother canopy shape I made, and the fuselage surface use in its frame is from my more accurate lofting. The modelling of the inside surfaces of the canopy frame is not at all accurate. Standard fus loft is as near as I can get to what the standard fuselage skin looks like. I think there is evidence that the standard nose makes a downforce just ahead of the canard. More to come. MainGearAssy.zip SleekCanopy.zip standard-fus-loft.zip
  7. Justin

    CAD Update #2

    As Jeff suggested, I will upload everything I have done so far. Here goes. The standard canopy is as close as I can get to the acrylic shape shown in the sketches. The frame part was from an earlier fuselage loft, and at a detail level is not at all accurate. Controls.zip is about where I stopped. I need to get on with something else. This is nowhere near complete. Datums.zip is just that.... some 2D capture of the aircraft datums. Fuselage Assembly.zip. Well this is starting to get accurate. The skin is offset from the foam surfaces by an average of 2 to 3 layers of UD glass. I think the foam is quite accurate. Long-EZ-Mist is mainly the wing and canard surfaces. I think it may be on the foam surface, rather than the outside of the skins, but it is a while since I made these, and I don't remember. More to come. Canopy-standard.zip Controls.zip Datums.zip FuselageAssembly.zip Long-EZ-Misc.zip
  8. Justin

    CAD Update #2

    Sure Jeff, The last one I uploaded was pretty up-to-date, but there is a little more to share. I will make more STP files and Rhino files to upload this evening. Cheers, Justin
  9. Justin

    CAD Update #2

    I am dropping out of Open EZ, at least for now. I have another project that is closer to realisation, and am dedicating more time to that. I am hoping Open EZ can gain some more interest and momentum.
  10. Justin

    CAD Update #2

    Thanks Terry, Here's a bit more eye candy. I have now started on the pitch and roll controls.
  11. Justin

    CAD Update #2

    I have modelled the main gear bow with 0.3 degrees toe-in. I will not finish the lugs that attach in the fuselage until I can find more dimensional information of the bow. My fuselage assembly still includes the F22, F28, and firewall from some imported data I had. I will remodel these. The main gear wheel and axle I have modelled are rough models of a European brand. The engine cowl lofts are suited to the UL390i I think I added a rough main spar in the STP file. It shows through my wing skins in places. This is partly because the spar dimensions are a bit simplified in the plans, but also my wing surfaces are possibly the foam surface. When I get on with the wing modelling I will check this. I need to finish the cockpit floor foam model, and will probably model the controls on the right side soon.
  12. Justin

    CAD Update #2

    Here's a zipped STP file. I have found picture file added at the same time give upload issues. I will put more text with a few screenshots. Long-EZ-assembly-E.zip
  13. Justin

    Update on CAD work

    Sorry this thread uploaded twice. There was some error in the upload on the first attempt.
  14. Hello EZ People, I have been going through some CAD data I imported from somewhere else, checking, and correcting where needed. Now I am busy capturing what I can of the main gear, but I have been working in the fuselage tub too. There has been discussion about digitising the EZ PDF drawings. I think this adds no accuracy, and you can work just as well with the existing PDF data. Modelling in 3D creates parts that fit together correctly. 2D drawings can be generated from these 3D parts, and that is my aim to help with Open EZ. The original Rutan build instructions were quite clever, because the build became self jigging, and got round the inaccuracies in the drawings. I think it can be better today. Here are a few screenshots from recent work. Cheers, Justin MainGearAssy.zip
  15. Hello EZ People, I have been going through some CAD data I imported from somewhere else, checking, and correcting where needed. Now I am busy capturing what I can of the main gear, but I have been working in the fuselage tub too. There has been discussion about digitising the EZ PDF drawings. I think this adds no accuracy, and you can work just as well with the existing PDF data. Modelling in 3D creates parts that fit together correctly. 2D drawings can be generated from these 3D parts, and that is my aim to help with Open EZ. The original Rutan build instructions were quite clever, because the build became self jigging, and got round the inaccuracies in the drawings. I think it can be better today. Here are a few screenshots from recent work. Cheers, Justin MainGearAssy.zip
  16. Excellent information at Nate's ULpower site. Thanks again for that link. I am surprised Rupert at Hercules didn't get back to Nate. I have worked with Rupert on a Spitfire blade. Rupert uses a design program from Sweden, by an interesting chap called Jan Carlsson.
  17. That looks interesting. Thanks for the link.
  18. Eeek ! Thanks, but websites like that repel me almost instantly. It is interesting to look at the build website though. I should try to contact Nate.
  19. I think UL may be pricey your side of The Pond for the same reason that Lycomings are more expensive on our side. I think there is much more general aviation in USA, and you have good sources for new American engines, and parts. I reckon the sheer volumes of engine equipment sold over there means there is more competition, and lower pricing. It's possible I would use a Lycoming if I was over there. Over here, I have not owned a UL myself, but have helped on a few projects with installation and cowl design for ULs. I have found UL Power helpful in this too. It was interesting to read of the issues the EZ builder had over there. I'm sure it does not do UL's reputation any good over there. 'interesting to see that EZ has a 3 bladed propeller. I have not heard of serious issues among the UL owners I know. I will have a good look at the EZ builder's site you linked, when I get home from the office. UL are not the big one for experimentals here. Rotax are. I find them a bit complex, but incredibly compact, and quiet externally. I have flown with a Rotax, and it was a bit buzzy in the cockpit. I prefer the direct drive, and the simplicity of the UL engines. Also, they are not far from where I used to live, in Belgium. I could visit them on regular travels through Belgium (in normal times).
  20. That's interesting, Kent. I am not so light either. I will be having a very minimalist panel with remote NAV, COM, XPDR units controlled from a glass PFD/MFD. I could use their installation position to tune CG position. The cockpit will be further de-cluttered, as the engine requires no mixture or carb heat controls. The aircraft will be a fully de-cluttered VFR machine, so any reduction in instrument/controls weight should not be overlooked.
  21. Hello Kent, I like your ideas. You also suggested earlier, some interesting extra fairing upstream of the engine cowls, and I have been working with that too, and it looks good. I will go for armpit cooling inlets with louvres in appropriate positions in the top cowl. I don't really see the point of electric nose gear lifting. The standard system seems to be perfectly adequate. I would go with the standard manual system. KIS. Keep it lighter. I think the NG30s can be improved with a small modification. They seem have a load path to F22 that is not properly reacted there. Hundreds of flying EZ have proved this is not a problem, but it does look odd to me. I think the nose gear loads are probably not large, and the structure can handle it anyway. I think the nose skin structure also shares the nose gear loads. It is weird that the NG30s don't go high enough to have a seal, but maybe it is unnecessary. I have lengthened the nose , but with the nose leg pivot in the standard position. The underside profile remains standard. Any lengthening of the nose loads the canard more from the weight point of view, so is it wise to also move the battery forward ? The engine I am working with is the UL390i. It is about the same weight as the 0-235, and a bit more powerful,, with slightly lower frontal area. I lengthened the nose only 6" to reduce some aerodynamic down forces I think come from the upper surfaces of the standard nose. Moving the nose leg axis down a little could be beneficial, if it reduces the unstick speed on take-off, but I will work with the standard axis position for now. There is a dimensional conflict with the side foam. If that is 103", and the F22 frame profile goes to the side skin, page 5-1 must be wrong. I am not too bothered by this. The design is tolerant to it, but if the Open EZ project wants to make sense of all the design information, it should be resolved. The 103" dimension should probably be reduced by the thickness of F22, or the aircraft gets stretched by the thickness of F22. Cheers, Justin
  22. I have been modelling the nose gear, and am moving on to the rollover structure. Here is a STP file of my nose gear. The castings are pretty much guesswork. It is clear that the extended nosewheel axle position in the attached sketch is impossible to get to if the section views A7 and A8 are followed. My gear and worm pitches are correct, but the actual tooth and work geometry are guesswork based on the Boston Gear data. There are still some things to add. Note, that the worm drive shaft hole in F22 should be offset to the right, and not on the centreline, as the plans sketch of F22 shows. I expect there is a CP newsletter correction somewhere for this. Now I find some anomalies in the position of the F22 bulkhead. Perhaps it is resolved in corrections in the CP newsletters, but I have not read all of them yet. Page 5-1 shows a side view with 103 inches between the aft side of F22 and the forward side of the firewall (F.S.125), but the forward side of F22 is at F.S.22 . It probably makes no difference to performance how it is built, but the sketches should be more correct. The pilot's seat back position is dimensioned from F22. It is all work in progress. Nosegear.zip Open-EZ r5 A3.tif
  23. Justin

    Smooth Operator

    I think you have not yet downloaded the Open EZ plans. You should do this, and read up on the scaling issues on a few of the drawings. Also go to this site and get the build manual:- http://www.aryjglantz.com/p/documents.html . Ary Glantz is one of the many heroes who have built the real thing from a lot of fairly uncoordinated data. I would not scale anything from bitmap files unless you have some kind of scaling marks. The Long EZ plans have these, and I still think this is a primitive way to go. Some proper dimensions cannot be beaten. At least, if you use the plans that you can download from the Open EZ project, you also have station positions, waterlines, and buttock lines with definite numbers. In my work/play with the Open EZ I have extended the nose. This is not because I think it looks nice. I thought the standard nose looked like it makes a downforce, and this is a bit absurd just ahead of a lifting canard. Someone else in the Long EZ forum posted a CFD pressure map that supports this hunch. I have played a little with the canopy geometry, and if I was building a real Open EZ I would use the UL390i engine. It has the same weight as the O-235, but for us in Europe, is more convenient to use than the old O-235, and with FADEC and fuel injection you can have a little more power, and unclutter the aircraft a little with no mixture or carb heat systems. Otherwise, I can't think how the basic Long EZ design could be improved. Anything else is a new aircraft. The EZ is a very clever, mouldless design. I am unlikely to build a real EZ. I am in my 60s and need a simple kit like a Sonex. However, I like playing with the EZ in CAD, and intend to make one or two for X-Plane.
  24. Justin

    Smooth Operator

    Oooer.... The side view you have there is the Berkut, not Long EZ. You cannot move the mainwheels rearward. It would load the nose gear too much, and you would need excessive speed on the take-off run to lift the nose. I think there isn't much of an issue with prop-ground clearance in the Long EZ. Perhaps this is why the engine axis is above the wing level. As far as I know it is not recommended to fly off grass. The wing height in the Berkut looks pretty similar to that in the Long EZ. I think the Berkut gear leg pintle is in the fuselage, so wing height has little influence. That Berkut picture raises a question. It looks like the engine axis is pitched upwards a tiny amount at the rear. Is that really the case?

The Canard Zone

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information