151
Hangar Flying / Annual Inspection Check List
« on: October 11, 2006, 04:53:56 PM »
Any chance you can post before and after pix? That is a pretty dramatic change. Coool!
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.
152
Hangar Flying / Exhaust pipes inside the cowl
« on: October 10, 2006, 04:42:38 PM »
If you go to my website
http://home.earthlink.net/~swensonaw/
You can see the install of a 4 in/4out. Notice that this is for DOWNDRAFT cooling----and how much simpler the install is.
http://home.earthlink.net/~swensonaw/
You can see the install of a 4 in/4out. Notice that this is for DOWNDRAFT cooling----and how much simpler the install is.
153
Hangar Flying / Annual Inspection Check List
« on: October 10, 2006, 04:39:45 PM »
What were the temps before? Those are very good. I assume that is updraft cooling measured at the bayonette.
154
Hangar Flying / Canard Genesis
« on: September 19, 2006, 09:07:32 PM »
Yeah---I know about the exemption---just did not really want to bring it up since the exemption is not really the essence of what he was trying to do (just rent canard airplanes like you would a cessna).
But---good comments---'cause its true!
But---good comments---'cause its true!
155
Hangar Flying / dual controls
« on: September 18, 2006, 06:59:36 PM »
Throttle: If you have a push pull throttle, it should be no big deal to connect a rod to the front throttle that comes back to a rear throttle. I would pretty much make the rear throttle "frictionless". Take a look at plans like Decathelons and the like to see how they are set up.
Rudderwise: Either email Tom Staggs or find his website. He has done it.
With that being said, I think it is very hard to land a Longez from the back. Up and away---no big deal----but in that case, you really would not need the throttle nor the pedals. The throttle would be more important (up and away only).
Rudderwise: Either email Tom Staggs or find his website. He has done it.
With that being said, I think it is very hard to land a Longez from the back. Up and away---no big deal----but in that case, you really would not need the throttle nor the pedals. The throttle would be more important (up and away only).
156
Hangar Flying / Canard Genesis
« on: September 15, 2006, 06:33:50 PM »
Glass wise, I am installing a Bluemountain EFIS (the smaller one---but gen 4). And I have a Dynon engine monitor. Dynon and BM don't need to be "certified" to put in your aircraft. I share your thoughts about being IFR and having stuff crap out on you. My BM has an independent battery backup and I have a separate solid state T/B indicator as well as a separate electric attitude indicator.
If you go to the bluemountain site, you can see the owners CozyIII which has a jet in it.
Experimental airplanes can't be rented. The only way you will fly one is to get a ride with someone, build one, or buy one.
I used to work over at VX-30 (F-14 Military IPT lead/Projects IPT lead---sort of in your neck of the woods.
If you go to the bluemountain site, you can see the owners CozyIII which has a jet in it.
Experimental airplanes can't be rented. The only way you will fly one is to get a ride with someone, build one, or buy one.
I used to work over at VX-30 (F-14 Military IPT lead/Projects IPT lead---sort of in your neck of the woods.
157
Hangar Flying / Canard Genesis
« on: September 14, 2006, 05:53:39 PM »
Sounds like you got most of your answers. Either EAA or AOPA (or both) have a package to send you about all the stuff you need to buy an airplane (need to be a member).
Make sure you define your mission----and make sure it fits your budget. I have been flying canard aircraft since 1999 (when I entered Navy TPS). I started out in a very basic, no-gyro, VFR Longez. My wife and I only needed the two seats---and it was great on the fuel. Later with more cash---and tired of being socked in at airports---I converted the plane to IFR. The limitations that come with the plane should have a statement to the effect that says you can't fly IFR unless so equiped. The FARs delineate the required IFR equipment.
Later on, I put swapped the Lyc O235 for a O320. I had the old kind of airworthiness cert that would have basically required me to go get reinspected by the FAA. So I went to the FSDO to surrender my old cert for the new kind. The new wording lets you conduct major modifications and then delineates the test period, radius, logbook entry, etc.
Then I had a need for more seats as my family grew by one. Since I like the canard aircraft, I sold my Longez and bought a Cozy IV. The good news for me is that my wife and daughter fly with me everywhere.
Still doing modification.
Experimental aviation is kind of a way of life. Even if you don't build, you will be getting your hands dirty quite often---and it is quite fun.
Make sure you define your mission----and make sure it fits your budget. I have been flying canard aircraft since 1999 (when I entered Navy TPS). I started out in a very basic, no-gyro, VFR Longez. My wife and I only needed the two seats---and it was great on the fuel. Later with more cash---and tired of being socked in at airports---I converted the plane to IFR. The limitations that come with the plane should have a statement to the effect that says you can't fly IFR unless so equiped. The FARs delineate the required IFR equipment.
Later on, I put swapped the Lyc O235 for a O320. I had the old kind of airworthiness cert that would have basically required me to go get reinspected by the FAA. So I went to the FSDO to surrender my old cert for the new kind. The new wording lets you conduct major modifications and then delineates the test period, radius, logbook entry, etc.
Then I had a need for more seats as my family grew by one. Since I like the canard aircraft, I sold my Longez and bought a Cozy IV. The good news for me is that my wife and daughter fly with me everywhere.
Still doing modification.
Experimental aviation is kind of a way of life. Even if you don't build, you will be getting your hands dirty quite often---and it is quite fun.
158
Hangar Flying / 0-235 vs 0-360 for Long Eze.
« on: September 01, 2006, 10:24:07 PM »
When I swapped engines, I brought my old mount to Dave Ronneburg. He welded on extra "arms" on the upper biscuits.
I also replaced the upper extrusions with ones with a longer vertical web. There are pix of these on my website.
I also replaced the upper extrusions with ones with a longer vertical web. There are pix of these on my website.
159
Hangar Flying / 0-235 vs 0-360 for Long Eze.
« on: September 01, 2006, 03:21:15 PM »
My 0235 Longez (maybe a little heavy and engine a little tired) was kind of slow to climb (but right there with the certified types with the same engine), did not go very high (but right there with the cert types), did not go all that fast (but FASTER than the cert types)...and...used a lot of runway to take off.
Putting the O320 in made it climb about 2000 ft/min or so depending on how it was loaded (and using 120mph as a climb speed), never did find out how high it flew (but would have need oxygen to find out----13K and still climbing like no tomorrow), was exceptionally fast, and used far less runway (cert aircraft may still have me beat in this area----but you gotta give somewhere.
Putting the O320 in made it climb about 2000 ft/min or so depending on how it was loaded (and using 120mph as a climb speed), never did find out how high it flew (but would have need oxygen to find out----13K and still climbing like no tomorrow), was exceptionally fast, and used far less runway (cert aircraft may still have me beat in this area----but you gotta give somewhere.
160
Hangar Flying / 0-320 performance
« on: August 19, 2006, 10:13:49 PM »
Lycoming sells a small book for that engine called the "Operator's Manual". Table of contents include
description
specifications
operating instruction
periodic inspections
maint procedures
troubleshooting
installation and storage
tables
Includes the power curve charts and everything you need
description
specifications
operating instruction
periodic inspections
maint procedures
troubleshooting
installation and storage
tables
Includes the power curve charts and everything you need
161
Hangar Flying / So you want to buy a partial built Long Ez.....
« on: August 19, 2006, 10:07:06 PM »
I am sure there are many sales that go just fine----it is just the bad ones that get the scrutiny.
Even when you buy a gem (which I believe that I did), be prepared to do some work----I have done quite a lot lately. If you buy an experimental, you will need to work on it.
The bad sales include a varieze that had a major problem "covered up". The owner sold the plane saying there were no problems. Unfortunately, the buyer did not bring a Varieze guy with him to look at the plane---otherwise he would have caught it.
There are several others out there where people are advertising performance values that can't be met as well as grossly overstating the condition of the aircraft.
There is nothing wrong about asking any price you want for your plane. There is nothing wrong with selling an aircraft in any type of condition that you can think of (you just need to let the buyer aware of what he is getting). Telling a buyer that the plane has no fuel problems (when it does), or telling him it weighs 650lbs when it weighs 750 is dishonest. Covering up problems is not good.
Even when you buy a gem (which I believe that I did), be prepared to do some work----I have done quite a lot lately. If you buy an experimental, you will need to work on it.
The bad sales include a varieze that had a major problem "covered up". The owner sold the plane saying there were no problems. Unfortunately, the buyer did not bring a Varieze guy with him to look at the plane---otherwise he would have caught it.
There are several others out there where people are advertising performance values that can't be met as well as grossly overstating the condition of the aircraft.
There is nothing wrong about asking any price you want for your plane. There is nothing wrong with selling an aircraft in any type of condition that you can think of (you just need to let the buyer aware of what he is getting). Telling a buyer that the plane has no fuel problems (when it does), or telling him it weighs 650lbs when it weighs 750 is dishonest. Covering up problems is not good.
162
Hangar Flying / TERF CD Help
« on: August 18, 2006, 05:31:57 PM »
You don't really need to install. All the CPs are listed by number---just double click on the pdf file of the CP you are looking for. For me, I like paper. I printed them all up, put them in binders, and made an excel spreadsheet of all the articles so I could quickly find them again.
The plans are also easier to look at if you just print them out.
The plans are also easier to look at if you just print them out.
163
Hangar Flying / 2000 Ways To Point A Finger
« on: August 08, 2006, 05:11:03 PM »
My understanding is that Allan also got stuck with paying for the old harness that went bad before he took possession----unless he did the credit card thing and canceled payment
One of the things that I did not really like (which I don't think Allan mentioned in his writeup) was that the conditional inspections were all signed off by the owner who did not hold the repairman cert. Also, there was not a lot of logging any kind of maint actions---which to me is a red flag. Now it is possible that all this stuff was logged on scrap pieces of paper somewhere-----but it was not in an orderly location like a logbook. If all the above is true (I did not see the logs myself---but did talk to Allan at length about it), the airplane was unairworthy----an most likely had been flown illegally------which in my opinion requires a return of the money. In the end, it is probably not cost effective to try to get the 2 grand back (unless you got lawyer friends that don't mind working for free).-----And for the owner---it was probably not cost effective to keep the money---sounds like he may have won the battle but lost the war.
One of the things that I did not really like (which I don't think Allan mentioned in his writeup) was that the conditional inspections were all signed off by the owner who did not hold the repairman cert. Also, there was not a lot of logging any kind of maint actions---which to me is a red flag. Now it is possible that all this stuff was logged on scrap pieces of paper somewhere-----but it was not in an orderly location like a logbook. If all the above is true (I did not see the logs myself---but did talk to Allan at length about it), the airplane was unairworthy----an most likely had been flown illegally------which in my opinion requires a return of the money. In the end, it is probably not cost effective to try to get the 2 grand back (unless you got lawyer friends that don't mind working for free).-----And for the owner---it was probably not cost effective to keep the money---sounds like he may have won the battle but lost the war.
164
Hangar Flying / New buyer/looker am I
« on: August 08, 2006, 04:54:17 PM »
That is 51% or more to apply and recieve the repairmans cert for that particular airplane. That cert will allow you to do your own condition inspections. Without it, you can still do all your own maint---but you need to get an A&P to sign off the conditional inspection ("annual").
Check your insurance company to find out how much dual you need prior to solo. You can either get someone else to testfly your aircraft and then check you out in it. Or, you can get time in someone else's aircraft and then test fly your own.
If you are finishing off an airplane that does not have an airworthiness cert, it would be best to get an advisor to help get you through it.
Check your insurance company to find out how much dual you need prior to solo. You can either get someone else to testfly your aircraft and then check you out in it. Or, you can get time in someone else's aircraft and then test fly your own.
If you are finishing off an airplane that does not have an airworthiness cert, it would be best to get an advisor to help get you through it.
165
Hangar Flying / 2000 Ways To Point A Finger
« on: August 05, 2006, 08:14:09 PM »
<snip> 2. False Statements.
"Burt said he wouldn't fast taxi this plane"
In his prior post, seller mentions an encounter with hail en-route to Oshkosh. Mike Melville apparently took a look at the eroded leading edge of the canard, made some repair suggestions. No mention anywhere of Rutan's involvement. Nice choice of a high impact name though. <snip>
Nope---Allen is not making this up-----it is quoted right here (and you could not get it from a better source):
http://www.ez.org/firstflight.htm
Also---not related to the A&P in question----I have heard there is another A&P (in Southern CA) that was busted for pencil whipping (signing off that he did work on aircraft (like annuals) without doing any of the work----but collecting the money as though he had. So yes---there are people out there who will take those kind of risks. For most of us, this is very hard to imagine.
Using the wrong stuff in aircraft----happens all the time. For example, people have used non aircraft bolts where required not knowing that there is a huge difference between the two.
"Burt said he wouldn't fast taxi this plane"
In his prior post, seller mentions an encounter with hail en-route to Oshkosh. Mike Melville apparently took a look at the eroded leading edge of the canard, made some repair suggestions. No mention anywhere of Rutan's involvement. Nice choice of a high impact name though. <snip>
Nope---Allen is not making this up-----it is quoted right here (and you could not get it from a better source):
http://www.ez.org/firstflight.htm
Also---not related to the A&P in question----I have heard there is another A&P (in Southern CA) that was busted for pencil whipping (signing off that he did work on aircraft (like annuals) without doing any of the work----but collecting the money as though he had. So yes---there are people out there who will take those kind of risks. For most of us, this is very hard to imagine.
Using the wrong stuff in aircraft----happens all the time. For example, people have used non aircraft bolts where required not knowing that there is a huge difference between the two.