Show Posts - go ez

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - go ez

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7
31
For Sale/Wanted / Re: ken brock front wheel 4" wanted
« on: December 09, 2011, 02:48:21 PM »
Brock Ez nosewheels are rubbish and the over machined/lightened centre flange cracks.

Get one of these - a real bargain and good quality.

http://www.wicksaircraft.com/catalog/product_detail.php/pid=14909~subid=12155/index.html

Regards
Steve

32
For Sale/Wanted / Re: WANTED : Long EZ engine mount
« on: December 07, 2011, 04:47:05 PM »
Yes the tube stub mounts at the extrusions is the same geometry - the extrusions are at the same angle but have an additional wood wedge inserted to accommodate the slightly  wider angle of the longerons due to the wider fuselage.

The Long Ez mount (whether Cont / Lyc conical or dynofocal) usually has thicker wall stub tubes than was called out in the Cont O-200 engine VE plans.
Regards
Steve

33
Hangar Flying / Re: Vari Eze aileron weights
« on: December 06, 2011, 09:29:34 AM »
Check out CP30 page 6

4.2 Lbs filled & sanded
4.5 Lbs finished

Regards
Steve

34
Hangar Flying / Re: setting the wing angle
« on: November 21, 2011, 06:13:05 PM »
If you have never flown an Ez before, with new systems and a new engine installation too, I would consider getting an exerienced Ez pilot to test fly it for you.

That way the initial runway flights can determine if there is a serious relative wing incidence rigging problem before committing to flight.

Thus you could start with no washers on the spar /wing bolt joints and use the test flights to get it to fly straight inc rudder rigging.

Mike Melville did a good section on rigging in the CP Notes (#60 pages 11 to 13) inc. an initial 'from the rear' sight test for gross incidence relative differences.

http://www.cozybuilders.org/Canard_Pusher/1989-07_cp-60.pdf

Burt also did a section on assessing canard to wing incidence relativities in CP30 page 4

http://www.cozybuilders.org/Canard_Pusher/1981-10_cp-30.pdf



Regards
Steve


35
Hangar Flying / Re: Trailing Edge Fences.......WOW
« on: November 07, 2011, 05:50:18 AM »
Hi
Rather than your Experimental Class, we have a much tighter regulation structure in the UK where mods have to be approved by the LAA Engineering Dept.

However I thought these fences were so good, I wrote & arranged for this Mod to become an LAA approved Std Mod for UK Vari-Eze's so they can be easily fitted to UK Permit to Fly  VEs without further extensive involvement from the LAA Engineering Dept, using the LAA MOD 1 process.

http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/NewMods/Mod_table.html

In UK, it just needs an LAA Inspector's sign off & informing LAA Engineering. 

In USA you have much more freedom but can find everything you need here:

http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/Standard%20Mods/varieze.html

Best wishes with it. Well worth the effort.

Regards
Steve

36
Hangar Flying / Re: Trailing Edge Fences.......WOW
« on: October 24, 2011, 09:50:37 AM »
Thanks - appreciated. Yes I read that - very interesting - be interesting too if there is a deminishing return as the fences get bigger & perhaps increased drag effects inc. criticality for ensuring they are in line with the airflow.

Steve

37
Hangar Flying / Re: Trailing Edge Fences.......WOW
« on: October 24, 2011, 05:44:17 AM »
Burt used pretty large trailing edge wing fences when he was developing the prototype Long Ez N79RA for the heavier MTOW, O-235 engine and lower landing speeds he (or rather more like the builders!) desired.

I recall seeing a picture of it at Oshkosh - still with wing cuffs (which preceded the vortilons)  and the VE wing. Note the (ineffective) rhino rudder up front and no winglet rudders and no lower wing skegs (I can't bring myself to call them lower winglets) !!!!

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/6/3/3/0773336.jpg

Originally Burt wanted to use the VE wing for the LE by using a longer spar. Eventually after about 50 iterations he realised he just couldn't make the VE wing work within the dedired design requirements, so he designed a complete new wing & airfoil section, similar to that of the Defiant. An innovator like Burt is likely to have tried almost everything. Once the Long Ez came out, sadly his development of the VE broadly ceased (other than mainly reactive responses to safety issues).

Due to the work of others like Klaus, the VE wing performance/capability now is very different to that which existed when it was first developed and from the performance data (presumably including wing  cuffs since they were mentioned in the text ) shown in the final 1979 3rd edition of the VE pilot's handbook.

I have standard vortilons and 3 main wing fences per side on my VE (exactly as per both av-mech's photos and Gary Hertzler's) and they are just fantastic. Aircraft is much better and solid at minimum speed, has better aileron response, better control at lower landing speeds and far better visibility on approach at those lower speeds.

Regards
Steve

38
Hangar Flying / Re: Bill and his fins
« on: August 17, 2011, 01:50:08 AM »
I agree with your thinking Bill

The landing brake and wing improvements have made a significant difference to the Eze at reasonable weights compared to the early fast landing speeds, poor visibility on approach and Dutch roll wing rock that plagued the early days.

Clearly the Long is ultimately capable of carrying significantly more weight than the Eze but a well built clean Eze with more fuel capacity seems to be very capable now. I believe the Eze's higher wing loading makes riding in turbulence more comfortable than the Long. It is smaller and hence (as we get older) more manageable on the ground too.

Ref speed mods - the speed benefit of each mod may well be true but you cannot just linearly add each speed benefit. As the aircraft speed builds up, the actual benefit of a drag reducing mod diminishes  such that a mod that (say) on its own gains 5 kts from (say) an original cruise of 140kts  to 145kt, whereas if that mod were applied to a cruise speed of 145 kts (due to other mods)  may gain only 3 kts to 148 kts :)

39
Hangar Flying / Re: Oshkosh 2011, Fuel Samples
« on: August 09, 2011, 06:36:45 AM »
Vari Eze Handbook is very specific about using the fuselage tank on long descents or in the pattern when low on fuel due to the fuel moving forward and uncovering the fuel feed pipe from the main tanks. Long Ez is less affected (but not indefinately immune) as it has fuel sumps that hold back a small amount of fuel. It is immaterial whether the system is gravity or pumped.

40
Hangar Flying / Re: slime fighter
« on: July 19, 2011, 02:29:05 PM »
Not making any judgements but Rutan's philosophy was  ‘always question the product, never defend it'

Scaled's employees were encouraged to test and challenge and any responses had to explain and not defend.

Served him well :)


41
Hangar Flying / Re: Crummy Review
« on: June 01, 2011, 07:51:05 AM »
Thanks Bill for your kind words & generous perspective.

We consider ourselves very lfortunate to have been able to benefit from the decades of development, miriad of ideas, improvements, tips and  suggestions from so many generous and talented individuals over those years. I crashed and totalled my first Eze through pilot error and my survival was fortunate - aided greatly by the strength of the Eze and it gave me the opportunity/motivation to build another.

People like you, Gary H, Terry S and Marc Z have contributed silently both to our a/c, the way we operate it and how we view the priviledge  of flight in our own creation. - efficiently and hopeully now in a safe and conservative manner. 

The CP notes still inspire me - both from an engineering anfd flight operations point of view and I often read it a bit like a novel. The pioneering spirit and cameraderie of those early days shine out from them and not being part of it at the time  is only partly tempered by the benefit we accrue from coming along a bit later,
Mike is a long time CSA member and we have done a few articles on improvements and technical developments to help keep that spirt alive.

Ezes are unique a/c, both as a genre and as  individual a/c & the ability to customise, repair and  adapt them from raw materials means they have an almost infinite longevity - in not requiring support from a kit manufacturer.

Regards
Steve

42
Hangar Flying / Re: Crummy Review
« on: May 31, 2011, 05:37:08 PM »
Hi Bill & all - thank you for your interest & comments
Mike & I were indeed a little disappointed with some of the comments but we took them and Bob's experience and objectivity at face value and we certainly didn't want to appear too precious or biased.
Bob flew in the back with me to a local airfield for about 20 mins, then we did a photo  sortie with a very experienced formation pilot flying the Eze, me in the back, with Bob taking pictures in the photoship which was a lovely Cessna 120. Clearly the 70 kt formation speed was not ideal for the Eze's handling. Some great photos resulted.
Bob then flew the Eze back to base with me in the back for about 25-30 mins and a single landing. An example of how things can be inadvertantly misleading is that we let the a/c run to use the full 1800m available after landing -hence the 1500 yard comment yet at full gross we regularly turn off at about 550m without heavy braking. Due to limited time availability, Bob didn't have a chance to really give her a full test and I think his  brief was to discover why (in Europe at least) the canards are not as popular as initial enthusiasm promised. This may have encouraged 'deficiency searching'.
With the one caveat of no rough (or even grass) airfields, we think the Eze is an absolute gem of an a/c - particularly in the era of high fuel costs and recognising that, as we age, even the Long Ez is heavy to manhandle and lift unaided compared to the Eze. :)

43
Pictures sent direct.
Regards
Steve

44
I'll dig them out & send some.
Regards
Steve

45
Hangar Flying / Re: Varieze Wing Attach
« on: February 15, 2011, 12:46:25 PM »
If the bottom pins are not threaded it makes it more difficult to get the taper pins out.

Or at least an alternative method to that advised by Rutan is required.

His method is : after removing the lock nut, loosen the bolt a few turns , 'tap' its head gently to pop the bottom taper pin out  , then use a wood dowel from below  to pop the top one out.

I know a few don't like this method as it shocks the aluminium plates etc  & have made up a special tool to pull each pin out gently but if you are gentle with the 'tap', I'd trust Bert's construction & methods. :)
Regards
Steve

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7