Long EZ templates

Author Topic: Long EZ templates  (Read 28309 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Wayne

  • Guest
Long EZ templates
« on: April 01, 2005, 11:32:26 PM »
I've read the templates for the Long EZ will not be accurate if copied? Will the copy machines today accurately reproduce them?

Thanks for the information.

Offline Dan Patch

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 162
    • View Profile
Long EZ templates
« Reply #1 on: April 02, 2005, 01:17:23 AM »
In my personal opinion, almost all modern copy machines are so accurate that any errors are likely to be much smaller than cumulative construction errors from the hot wire process, sanding, filling, primer, paint, etc.  Prudence, however, suggests that a set of very accurate dots be placed on the master template in orthogonal directions and checked on the copies to verify that the reproduction is really 1.00:1.00 scale in BOTH directions.  There is an excellent example of exactly this approach for the gear leg airfoil published in one of the CSA issues in an article by Klaus Savier (pg. 32, but I don't have the issue number handy, not too useful).  

As you no doubt know, the copiers of 25 years ago had the bad habit of having different reproduction ratio in the width and height directions, and this is something you can't live with.  But, in my experience, this problem is pretty much ancient history.
DeltaPop
VariEze N862DP
(@1970 hrs)

Anonymous

  • Guest
Long EZ templates
« Reply #2 on: April 02, 2005, 11:50:06 AM »
Agreed, it depends on the copier.

I also agree that the errors you introduce in production are greater than the relatively small errors you might have with a copied template.  At the same time, you don't want to erode too far into the margin for error by starting off with grossly off templates.

I would never use a set of copied templates unless I fully trusted that the person giving you the templates had checked them himself against original templates.  This isn't hard to do when making the copy by holding the original and copy flat over an illuminated background to make sure that the lines match all the way around.

Offline Dan Patch

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 162
    • View Profile
Long EZ templates
« Reply #3 on: April 02, 2005, 05:35:36 PM »
I would never use a set of copied templates unless I fully trusted that the person giving you the templates had checked them himself against original templates...

Yes, I agree.  Without proof of accuracy, you couldn't trust any copy.  I basically assumed that the originals would be available so that you could put on registration marks or, just as easily, overlay the original and copy, as suggested.  (Registration marks work even without having the the original in hand, however, IF you know the dimensional distance between the marks FOR SURE, so that you can check the copy for accuracy.)
DeltaPop
VariEze N862DP
(@1970 hrs)

Offline rutanfan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Copying Templates
« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2005, 02:54:50 PM »
I thought the same thing, until I copied my templates. I copied the canard templates at Kinkos and found the Roncz airfoil to be approximately 1/8 longer than the original.

I then took my plans to Service Blue (a professional blueprinting company) and they were exactly the same size.

Offline Todd Copeland

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
templates
« Reply #5 on: April 26, 2005, 05:32:22 PM »
It is interesting to me that no one out there has reproduced good templates for all the critical parts. The Q2/Q1 guys have someone that sells exact templates right on the primary q-website. I don't see how this would be a legal issue as these aren't plans, just accurately reproduced templates. I for one would be very interested in getting a "good" set of templates. Anybody out there with a good original set that has an interest in supporting the builder community and maybe making a few dollars? I am sure there are plenty of original plans out there in which people have lost or ruined the original templates rendering the plans useless to a would be builder...
Todd Copeland

GuestinCT

  • Guest
Long EZ templates
« Reply #6 on: April 28, 2005, 05:25:48 AM »
Todd;

The trick is that you can get the rest of the plans easily by buying the TERF CD-ROM. It's got everything BUT the templates.

So the templates are the critical item.

The problem is that they're SO critical that situations could easily arise in which it becomes difficult if not impossible to complete a legitimate, legal project.

Say you buy a partly complete LongEZ project, complete with license and everything else...EXCEPT for the templates needed to build the remaining bits. You're SOL unless you can find a kind soul who would violate copyright and let you use theirs.

I'm no lawyer, but the whole legality issue seems a bit gray to me. If RAF is out of  business, which they are, then who owns the copyright? RAF was not a one-man shop. Who would sue you for assembling a "pirate" set of plans and building an airplane from them?

It's easy to come by all the information you need to build a safe, airworthy airplane...not just the plans, but the necessary plans changes as well. Plus third-party information from this forum, the CSA newsletter, etc. Plus applicable information from the Cozy builders. The latecomer builders of today arguably have MORE support than those who built from the first edition plans...we have the benefit of 25 years of experience to draw upon. New methods, new materials (better epoxies), refined systems (electric nose lifts and speed brakes), refined aerodynamics (boat tail cowls)...all of these are available to us. The one missing bit is those pesky templates.

I'd love to build a LongEZ. The Cozy is more airplane than I actually need, and I like the idea of the greater efficiency that the LongEZ would provide with its smaller engine. But I'm dead in the water without those templates.

Offline Waiter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 306
    • View Profile
    • http://www.iflyez.com
Long EZ templates
« Reply #7 on: April 28, 2005, 06:38:46 AM »
Its called STEALING. and the people that do it are called THIEVES.

I write software for a living. If people copy my software without paying me for it, they are stealing my software, and I have no source of income.

Waiter
LongEZ-RG   >>    N961EZ
O-320 160hp  >>    MT Constant Speed Prop
F-16 Performance, On a Piper Cub Budget
www.iflyez.com

GuestinCT

  • Guest
Long EZ templates
« Reply #8 on: April 28, 2005, 10:16:03 AM »
Okay, fair enough.

But what if you got out of the software business, had been out of the software business for 20 years, and somebody wanted to copy and use something you wrote 25 years ago?

I mean, sure, the principle still applies, but realistically there's practically no money to be made at that point. Is your livelihood threatened by that copy?

What if that person was more than willing to pay you for the copy, even though it's an obsolete product 25 years old? What if you REFUSED the income? Would it be stealing then?

This whole issue exists only because RAF got out of the business and will no longer provide plans or templates at any price...actually, since RAF is out of business, it's not at all clear to me WHO owns the copyright at this point.

If RAF were still selling plans, then it would obviously be a big deal. But they're not. So anyone who wants to build a LongEZ is basically SOL unless they buy a project...and even then it's a gray area, since the new builder does not have a license from RAF, and cannot get the old one transferred (I note here that Cozy licenses ARE transferrable, for a fee).

One could argue that a project built to award-winning standards, using legal, paid-for plans, suddenly becomes stolen intellectual property the moment the original licensee gives it up! This is clearly nonsense. The plans were sold, the license paid for, and only one airplane is being built from them. Is that stealing?

How many canards an other homebuilts are out there that fall into this category?

If you buy a used book, video or audio recording from your local library, are you stealing from the copyright holder?

If you use a Xerox machine or VCR, are you stealing?

If you buy a computer that still has software on the hard drive, are you stealing? Say the license requires you to buy a new copy of the software, but the computer can't run the latest version. What then?

This is not a black-and-white issue.

Offline Waiter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 306
    • View Profile
    • http://www.iflyez.com
Long EZ templates
« Reply #9 on: April 28, 2005, 10:52:43 AM »
Quote
This is not a black-and-white issue


I disagree!

I teach my children, if it doesn't belong to you, and you take it, thats stealing.

I don't teach them that their actions can be justified if the previous owner is dead, or cannot be found.

NOW, THE ISSUE AT HAND.

I would assume that the copyrights belong to RAF Incorporated.  Perhaps one our legal experts could speculate as to what happens to corporate property when the corporation decides to shut its doors.

ALSO , I've heard that copyright material reverts back to public domain 50 years from the last declaration. I don't know this to be true.

Waiter
LongEZ-RG   >>    N961EZ
O-320 160hp  >>    MT Constant Speed Prop
F-16 Performance, On a Piper Cub Budget
www.iflyez.com

Offline Waiter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 306
    • View Profile
    • http://www.iflyez.com
Long EZ templates
« Reply #10 on: April 28, 2005, 11:34:07 AM »
IDEA:

Call RAF on the phone, and make them an offer.  You would like exclusive rights to reproduce a distribute LongEZ plans and templates.  They get $100 per copy, and a waver of liability

Who knows, might work.

Waiter
LongEZ-RG   >>    N961EZ
O-320 160hp  >>    MT Constant Speed Prop
F-16 Performance, On a Piper Cub Budget
www.iflyez.com

Anonymous

  • Guest
Long EZ templates
« Reply #11 on: April 28, 2005, 01:05:05 PM »
Quote from: "Waiter"

I wouldn't make more than one plane, because I think it is stealing.


Okay, so you're violating the letter, but not the spirit, of the law, correct? You do not hold an original RAF license. Yet you built an airplane from those plans anyway. Technically, it's not a legal set of plans even if they had not been used to build an airplane before you bought them, because you are not the license holder, right? (The license on my TERF CD specifically authorizes "the undersigned"...the person who signed the license...to build one airplane.) From a strict LEGAL standpoint (speaking as a layman, here), your set of plans is no different from an unauthorized copy, because of the lack of license. Ethics are another matter.

Are you stealing? I don't think so, and evidently neither do you. That's pretty gray in my book.

What you did not say is whether an airplane had already been built from those plans, by the guy who sold them to you. If so, then please explain to me exactly how your set of original, used plans is in any way different from a copy (one set, one airplane). If not, exactly how do you KNOW they have not been used to build a plane?

What if I purchased an original set of plans that was missing one or two templates through loss or damage, and that had not been used to build an airplane? Would it then be okay if I obtained a copy of said missing/damaged templates to build a single airplane from those plans?

Is THAT stealing?

It IS copying.

A question you did not answer: Is it theft if I WANT to pay the copyright holder for the right to use the material, but the copyright holder won't accept my money? Legally, I suppose the case could be made...but ethically? You've already demonstrated that not actually holding a license has not stopped you from using the plans to build an airplane. Therefore it's not the license itself that's at issue here, from an ethical standpoint. It's whether the plans are original or not.

If you look at your reply about the software, it seems to be exactly the same situation. In the case of nontransferrable licenses, you say you'd take the software off the machine...yet it's okay to buy that set of plans and use them, even though RAF has explicitly said that the license is non-transferrable? It's clear that you believe you're on solid ethical ground, and frankly I agree with you.

But it seems equally clear to me that you are NOT on solid legal ground, and that in fact your set of plans is illegal and should never have been used. The fact that there are many, many EZ builders out there who have done exactly the same thing doesn't change that.

If this is truly a black and white issue, then anyone who does not hold a bona fide orginal license from RAF is in violation of copyright law and is not authorized to build an airplane. That's what "non transferrable" means, right?

It's frustrating to WANT to do the right thing, but be stymied by circumstance and policy. If I have the opportunity to do what you did, chances are I'll take it and use the same logic you have...which in my opinion is a good, common-sense view, despite what the lawyers might say.

Offline Waiter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 306
    • View Profile
    • http://www.iflyez.com
Long EZ templates
« Reply #12 on: April 28, 2005, 02:33:52 PM »
Quote
Therefore it's not the license itself that's at issue here, from an ethical standpoint. It's whether the plans are original or not.


EXACTLY: (HOWEVER, We need to make sure we agree on the meaning of "license" before I sign up to this)

To further clarify -

I Think you are confusing "Copyright" with "License (Contract)".

Here is the point I'm trying to make:

The License (Contract) that your mentioning is a contract between RAF and the person who signs it. That person said that they would build only one plane. RAF said that they would support the builder in the building of one aircraft.

If I bought one set of plans from RAF, and didn't sign the contract, theres nothing they could do if I decided to go into business,  build and sell LongEZ's. But keep in mind, they do not have a contract with me to provide support. and all of their support material i.e.CPs are also copyrighted.

If I bought one set of plans from RAF, then started making copies, and selling them. Well, this would be a different story.

Quote
If this is truly a black and white issue, then anyone who does not hold a bona fide original license from RAF is in violation of copyright law and is not authorized to build an airplane. That's what "non transferable" means, right?


NO.  I am NOT in violation of copyright, because I am holding an original article to which the copyright is applied, The Plans and Templates.  These are the items that are copyrighted.
 
The NON Transferable indicates that the contract RAF and The original builder had cannot be transfered. In other words, there is no agreement between myself and RAF that I will build only one airframe, and RAF does NOT have a contract with me to provide builder support.

Guess what happens if I crash and my estate attempts to bring suit against RAF. RAFSs defense is, they know nothing about this airframe, as its not one of their licenses.

OK,

One of the reasons I draw the line is because there really is no other place to put it. To temper the thought, The man who's starving, and really has exhausted all efforts to feed himself, if he takes a loaf of bread that he didn't pay for, yes, it is stealing.  But  I think Most of us would take the circumstances into account.

EXHAUST ALL EFFORTS to get a legal copy of the plans. They're out there.  Build one plane.

And again, Call RAF. I'd be interested in making a deal with them to pick up the business.

Waiter
LongEZ-RG   >>    N961EZ
O-320 160hp  >>    MT Constant Speed Prop
F-16 Performance, On a Piper Cub Budget
www.iflyez.com

Offline Todd Copeland

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Long EZ templates
« Reply #13 on: April 28, 2005, 07:42:48 PM »
Ok guys, you got into it pretty well here, but the bottom line is that if you build "something" like a Long ez and have only one modification that was not approved by the RAF then it is no longer a Long ez. I have read that Burt said as much and asked that builders who modify this way name their plane something else. Then, you are using those plans as a "guidline" or something like that to build a one off design and quite frankly I doubt Burt would mind. I believe he wants people to build his designs and do it safely. He simply does not want the liability associated with that. Therefore, it does not seem such a violation to reproduce templates. I don't want to get something without compensation to the designer. If that were an option I would buy it without a thought. But even buying a "legal" set of plans that had a liscence will not let you build a legal Long eze because those original liscenses expire with the original holder. Period. So anyone buying plans or a project is fooling themselves if they are going that route to be "as legal as they can be".
Todd

Offline Waiter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 306
    • View Profile
    • http://www.iflyez.com
Long EZ templates
« Reply #14 on: April 28, 2005, 08:06:01 PM »
Heres a thought.  If I really had my heart set on a LongEZ, but didn't have templates. Buy a set of Cozy plans. Its my understanding that the wings and canard are the same.

GOOD Discussion on the whole issue. I would certainly like to hear from a legal person to get their read on this? Particularly the "License" implications.

Waiter
LongEZ-RG   >>    N961EZ
O-320 160hp  >>    MT Constant Speed Prop
F-16 Performance, On a Piper Cub Budget
www.iflyez.com