At the end when you lost arc voltage you could have redone the G code file and ran the torch opposite direction and it would cut to the point it went out and finish the cut. Did not think you could refire torch in the same direction on material that's already been cut, Yours seemed to work but I think in Mach3/Proma THC it will lose arc voltage when there's no material in the cut path re running in the same direction
Still slowly bringing my plasma cutting table back online. The lead screws have a lot of rust, as do some of the slats I had pulled and stored behind the table. It took a couple minutes to trace out each baffle template on the 6061 and 20-25 minutes to cut out each one, so I just knocked 'em out 'ol skool style!
Hi. It's not a kit, but rather an airplane built from plans. Some parts can be bought pre-made, like the gear struts and the engine cowlings, but nearly all the rest is hand built.
I only reduced the height of the lower winglet (vertical stab). Many builders remove the lower winglet altogether and there are a ton of canards out there flying with no lower winglet... a very common mod. The upper winglet is stock size and position. That being said, the rudder is modified with the top and bottom cut level with the ground/wind, versus 90° to the rudder trailing edge (top & bottom rudder lines angled). This too has proven to be stable with a virtually imperceptible affect on flight characteristics in canard aircraft configured so. And yes, the LEZ rudders only deflect outward, and are separate in operation. This allows for deploying both out while on final approach as airbrakes to slow the plane down. Also, the configuration is such in the rudder/brake pedal that you cannot push on the brakes without outward deflection of the rudder: thus, airbrake always before wheel braking to save brake pad wear and minimize brakes getting hot.
Wade, do you have the STL or STEP file for the physics anonymous mount? They aren’t maintaining their blog anymore and have let their fusion share expire. No access to that file now.
Sorry, I know this is way late, but I just saw your comment. I do have a F360 file... if you still need it contact me through my website and I'll send it to you. Cheers.
You can find used plans on places like Barnstormers or search for TERF plans, which are PDFs of the original plans. If you can't find anything let me know. Good luck!
Thanks, and very true! That's really why I wanted to add most of the nice to haves beforehand during the build for accessibility now and to minimize install weight as best possible. For example, my fiberglass oxygen bottle mount is a fraction of the weight of the stock steel ones that came with it. And since I plan on doing a fair bit of flying out West it's one of those things I'll almost certainly need, so better to get it installed now to actually minimize the weight penalty.
I’m curious at to what the final CG and empty weight will be if you know yet? All that engine and stuff in the back usually leads to aft CG that requires additional nose weight to bring it into the envelope. That, combined with all of the other “goodies” puts the empty weight too close to the max gross weight of 1325 lbs to leave any useful load. An old debate with the Longeze I know but where is yours so far?
My bird will be a bit heavy, estimated around 1050 lbs, but that is my choosing to throw all the "goodies" in at the beginning. A lot of builders start with lighter planes but within 3-5 years add in extra stuff, like a cockpit heater, etc. and the weights typically go higher. The original Long-EZ had an O-235 and a short nose. Most these days have an O-320 sized motor and a longer nose (like mine) with the battery farther forward to offset the engine weight. When you say max gross weight of 1325 lbs. I think you're mistaking the Long-EZ for an LSA. It's not. The max gross weight is higher than that. I haven't gotten into all the particulars on that and W&B just yet as at this point I'm just trying to get the plane built in the lightest way possible. Thanks for watching!
The original LEZ pilots manual shows design gross wt. 1,325lbs. Maximum landing weight is the same. Takeoffs up to 1,420lbs are acceptable off smooth surfaces with 6ply tires at 80psi. Inflight limits become 3.8g at this weight. Cautions that off-airport landings above 1,325 become exponentially less survivable as weight increases. Owners Manual pages 30, 39. For all the "Experimental" in the Long-EX community. The fact nobody has increased the main spar cap and shear-web thickness by several plies, or used S2-Glass as Melvilles used, or increased the strength of landing gear legs either, is beyond me. These are simple mods that require no dimension changes to the aerodynamic surfaces on the aircraft. No change to any dimension anywhere, other than spar depth in foam. Or simply using S2-Glass. Or adding 8-10 unidirectional S2-Glass plies to the gear legs. Any one of these would improve structural safety and bring the stress/strain back into spec for fatigue and allow for the original G-limits at higher gross weights.
Good ay to you. Understand this I’d a dated video. Hope you are still out there. Because of health reasons my Grumman Tire will be down most of the winter, in northern Indiana. I bought the same humidity sensors as you. Just wondering how did you connect the probe from the sensor to the desiccant tub.
Hi. The humidity sensors I bought all have a threaded ring to allow mounting the sensor in through a hole. If you don't have the threaded ring, I would just drill a hole, mount a grommet around the hole and press fit the sensor into the hole.
This thing was laid up so long ago it turned yellowish brown. If, if You ever do get this thing airborne it will delaminate. You think just because you have a dream, just because you spent a bunch of $$$ that this machine is safe, it's not safe! It's too old, that base laminate is not ever going to be new again or, safe.
Interesting. Well, I guess I need to start calling all my buddies out there that are flying 20-30 year old fiberglass aircraft and let them know that they are in certain peril. Even though they (and I) followed the layup methods that Burt Rutan prescribed. Or you could provide some actual data to back up your claims, which without any supporting technical info are baseless nonsense. Otherwise, I'll simply put your comment in the "entertaining" category. Thanks for watching.
Has anyone figured out a way for rear seat occupants to also be able to open up the canopy? Thinking of emergency situations. The German Speed Canard. which is a modified Grob 103 sailplane has a good method to accomplish this. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroflug_Speed_Canard en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grob_G103_Twin_Astir We are looking at modifying a Long-Ez to this configuration. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Debbie Iwatate and a number of others ran a Nyla-flow conduit from the back seat to the canopy latch to allow opening it from the back. I just saw an example of that at RR last week. Also, a lot of folks move the emergency SC-1 canopy catch (the flat metal tab) much further aft to allow the back seater to reach it. My canopy is one of the biggest Long-EZ canopies out there (I personally haven't seen any larger) so there's a good bit of room to reach forward to gain access to that. But always good to consider as well!
Great job Wade. Instead of a fastener on the wire, you could bend a small V shape near the oil door to prevent it from sliding all the way out on its own. Ciao, Marco.
I didn't make a mold or roll my own on the cowling. I suspect if I did I would be a lot farther along than I am. I bought from Feather Light, which is now AeroComposites. If you give Greg a call he can hook you up. 707.462.2939
Sure, if you can get the templates into CAD. The small stuff would be fairly EZ, the larger wing, winglet, and strake templates you'd most likely want to plasma cut. It would be a project in itself, but I think it can certainly be done.
@@wade-airdog7730 Did you make it yourself or did you buy it? If you bought it who is the manufacturer? I’d be interested in getting one of those. Thanks.
My throttle handle is an actual right F-15 throttle handle. I either bought it off of ebay or a salvage company. My first attempt was an F-16 throttle handle, bit it overhangs inboard over the armrest too much and just didn't work well. With the F-15 having 2 engines there is a left one as well, but since the Long-EZ throttle handle is situated close to the left sidewall, the flat outboard side at the split of the two throttle handles is perfect for my configuration using the right/inboard handle. I have a buddy in Australia that couldn't find an F-15 throttle handle, so he bought a simulator A-10 Warthog handle, which is very similar, and gutted it and put his own electronics in it.
@@wade-airdog7730 That’s very ingenious! Thanks. I’ve been watching you build your Long EZ and it looks like yours will be a beauty. The attention to detail you have given it was an eye opener for me. I don’t have the time or the patience to build my own so I’m planning to buy a flying one in the next 12 months if I can find one that meets my expectations. As you know, well built ones are hard to find and the workmanship on Long EZs and Berkut are all over the place.
Thanks. Yes, you are correct that the workmanship is all over the place, which is why I would rather take an extra few years and build it from the ground up. At Rough River I was noting how there's not one canard out there that is like any other one, and that they are all very different in so many ways. Good luck in finding one!
Excellent! Do you have a blog or website? I'm just getting back onto the build after being away from it for a little bit. I need to finish this thing up. Cheers!
I think what you are looking for is called an over center lock. They are made by a rotating lever and its associated linkages. This will create a latch mechanism that wants to stay closed and will not open without forceful or multiple movements of the latch to get it open. Check Wicks Aircraft you'll find some thing that works.
I'll check that out on Wicks. Last year at Rough River I found another EZ with very close to the same setup, so I'll take a hard look at that as well. Thanks for watching!
Love your hatch. Use a small bulb or edge seal on that hatch. You have to put something there to seal it up or you will get water in you avionics and possibly a draft in your cabin. You can also use foam tape sticky on one side.
I enjoyed learning the inspiration behind your paint scheme and I totally relate. And on screen, that blue does look excellent, especially as accented with the black. Having the nose gear fairing spring-mounted to the leg is brilliant. Those gear leg fairings look fantastic. And I enjoy every area where you “went crazy and had some fun”! Your belly scoop fiberglass work is outstanding. The detail of having the small, ancillary cooling NACA integrated into the back of the ram air duct is just very cool. Hard to describe why that adds so much interest to the design but it absolutely does. When aerodynamic and pneumatic features are so logically integrated and just look logical and effective, it’s a very satisfying thing to see. I’m luving your work. Your composites skills far exceed my own and I’m finding inspiration in your project 😎🎩♠️💙
Thanks so much for your kind words. These mods are certainly a time bust but I'm fairly confident that they'll make the operational and maintenance aspects, let alone flying it, significantly easier. Thanks so much watching... glad you're enjoying the build. After a brief pause I'm jumping back into it!
I remember back in 1995 when I was working on a Varieze, I proposed a instrument panel cover secured by piano hinges and Mike Melville said it would compromise the structural integrity of the fuselage by increasing torsional stress. I am a Mechanical Engineer and couldn't never understand Mike's logic and now everyone is using these covers in one way or the other.
I have seen covers where the removed top is the only structural piece between the two longerons. Mine has a "picture-frame" foam/glass sub-structure between panel, F22 and longerons with the large opening in the middle for access to the avionics. It adds a little weight but you can seriously pick up the nose of the plane with it. Thanks for watching!
That's what Burt said about folks installing O-320s vs O-235s in these birds. Yeah, I hear the weight and complexity argument all the time and it's always interesting what is deemed acceptable and what isn't by each person making that claim. Each builder's own mods are acceptable, other folks' mods aren't so much. I guess I should be going with the old steam gauges and a carb'd engine as well huh? Shall I dump the electric nose gear and go back to the mechanical version too? I could give you at least a dozen reasons what this adds, starting off with the fact that I am installing an O-320 sized engine and only have one lightweight battery in the nose. This pitch trim mod adds about 1.5 pounds overall, 90% of that being forward of F22. Ah, that weight, known as "ballast" by some, comes in handy since I don't have a second/bigger battery, even with a longer nose (more weight and complexity). As Buly once told me, "you can have dead-weight ballast in the nose, or useful ballast, take your pick." What about those times the springs break and that fool proof design you claim isn't so fool proof anymore? (Examples aplenty in CP newsletters, etc.). Work around it by adding another unnecessary task to tend to while managing the cockpit? So instead of minimizing instances of failure that can add to increased pilot workload during one of the most critical phases of flight, approach and landing, you're concerned about ballast weight in the nose? Or complexity? (How many hours did Vance Atkinson put on this system he designed? Answer: pretty much the life of his Cozy until he retired from flying it.) My configuration for the elevator tubes coming through the sidewall are the Cozy offsets. This eliminates the original-designed gaps to virtually eliminate cold air from coming in (yep, more weight and complexity). With that setup and my instrumentation, I have zero room for the traditional spring pivot arm, let alone any room for the springs and lever. (BTW, I swapped out the high failure rate/heavy vacuum pump on the engine for the complexity and "weight" of magnetometers). What about integration? Again, in my quest to optimize efficiency in cockpit management. What about HOTAS? Too much of a newfangled notion? What if my pitch trim system is a collaboration between Bob at TCW Tech and Chuck at Trio Avionics (it is) to provide auto-trim concurrently for both the EFIS system (more unneeded weight and complexity) and the autopilot (definitely more unneeded weight and complexity). Again, minimizing yet another task in managing the cockpit. So all this may be unimportant to you, but critically important to me. Might I recommend you read some accident reports where pilots being task saturated, overloaded and/or distracted are too often the root causes of too many accidents. So in my opinion, on my aircraft, that's what this adds. But I commend you on being yet another gatekeeper of the 'weight and complexity' mantra, especially given that I have an entire website that spells out pretty much how and why I've undertaken each system install and mod. Moreover, I am certainly thankful that I'm building an Experimental aircraft so I can build it to my requirements and standards vs. the status quo.
Love the video. Very clear and well explained. For the many thousands of people who have cold air induction and a backward facing problem being a pusher this is gold. Well I know at least one person with that config on their plane ;)
Velocity owner with IO-360 and usual fuel divider on the top (hot) side here; yes, hot starts are a real PIA. I ended up going from an Odyssey 680 to 925 simply to provide additional energy to crank (longer) for hot starts. Great design on the induction system. Pushers have many challenges.
Yes, Pushers do have [so] many challenges. Thanks for the feedback! I edited it out of the video to keep it shorter, but I've already spoken to Don at Airflow Performance to get a credit on those elbows I no longer need for stainless steel fuel lines. Also, as per Buly I will be insulating my lines to keep them as cool as possible... curiosity killed the cat. ;)
@@wade-airdog7730 I thought about insulating the spider and the 4 injection lines, but insulating only delays heat accumulation, doesn’t prevent it. Subsequently, the lines will hot soak during flight and taxi in. Would be a good analysis project for a grad student. Perhaps at some point I’ll post my set up on my channel, but been too busy wrapping up painting. Regardless, I hope your heat issues are minimal.
A minor concern. Being an unabashed copycat, I designed my RAM air scoop heavily off of James Redmon's C.R.A.M. design, also discussing it with him at Rough River a few years back. Also another Long-EZ flier at RR a few years ago had the Rod Bower RAM can and somewhat similar to my setup. Neither of them reported any grit or FOD if using the filter during ground ops. Thanks!
I know they said he was surprised at a Birthday bash they did quite a number of years ago in Mojave. It's his fault for being a genius and designing such a venerable bird!! ;)
Added cost, complexity and weight. It comes down to the flying mission that I see with this bird. Although occasionally the GIB (Guy/Gal In Back) may happen to be a pilot, I would say that beyond an occasional ride the term I would use would be "passenger" vs rear pilot nearly 100% of the time. While some people do outfit the back seat with full flight controls and avionics, I know that I will be flying solo on longer trips well over half the time. As often as possible (maybe a third of the time) my non-pilot girlfriend will be in the back seat. And the final 10-15% will be giving short hop rides to primarily friends and family, some who are pilots, the vast majority who are not.
I can do Molex, but I ripped every mini-Molex from JT. Hate those things. So, are you going to have three actuators, or are all the switches running the same one? I think I know the answer, but it was a bit confusing. Ciao, Marco.
Roger that Bro. Yeah, I didn't have anything else as narrow as these on hand so I figured the mini-Molexes would get another shot... but they're on probation! I'm not a fan of them either. Plus these shouldn't ever be critical-to-flight components. Yes, three separate actuators. I updated the video description to hopefully abate any confusion. Cheers!
Yep, it worked great... I've used it a half dozen times so far, never had an issue. All for smaller components. Thanks again for recommending this machining trick!
I used 2-part polyurethane Epifanes boat paint. It looks great from 6-10 feet away, but has issues close up. Very finicky to apply and you have to be very skilled to do it IMO. I would shoot the paint with a spray gun if you can. Single part polyurethanes are much more forgiving to my understanding.
