Date   

Terra comm needed at OSH

Ryszard Zadow
 

Anyone at OSH have one of the single Terra Comm radios, the push button type? One of the RAFE LongEZs has one and a digit is stuck. It’s one of the aircraft flying on Burt Rutan day and it needs a working comm. we really only need to borrow it for that one flight.

Thanks
Ryszard


Re: Nuts, washers and lock washers for Tyco circuit breakers

David A Froble
 

On 7/22/2019 8:31 PM, Bruce Hughes ezcopilot@fairpoint.net [canard-aviators] wrote:


Thanks, John.

The trouble with local suppliers
(we have Tacoma Screw on the
way to the airport) is that they
have washers that are too thick
and no nuts anywhere close to
the size and thread.
\

Bruce,

Can you be rather specific about what you need? You'll need to figure out SAE vs metric. Quantities are important.

I'm not making any promises, but, I do have access to things such as you wrote about. I'll try to get you some quotes.

It's possible I may have some stuff in stock, and could send you samples to try.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486


Re: Nuts, washers and lock washers for Tyco circuit breakers

Bruce Hughes
 

Thanks, John.

The trouble with local suppliers
(we have Tacoma Screw on the
way to the airport) is that they
have washers that are too thick
and no nuts anywhere close to
the size and thread.

Same with ACE, Lowes, H. D..

I tried those already.

----- Original Message -----
From: 'John Lambert' varieze@... [canard-aviators]
To: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 20:25:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: [c-a] Nuts, washers and lock washers for Tyco circuit breakers







I was a Manufacturers Rep for P&B circuit breakers and contactors over 20 years age.

P&B was sold to Siemens, and then acquired by Tyco. The company production was in part moved to Mexico and later possibly to China. My memory does not serve me well with regard to China, I did not view the Tyco acquisition to be good for the product line or the employees as it was my opinion that Tyco was a raider that stripped companies of their assets to plunder what they could for their executive compensation and the stock holders. To hell with the employees that built the company.

 

You may have a rather difficult time finding the hardware separate from the breakers from the usual sources.

 

My suggestion is to go to a large well stocked hardware store with the CB in hand to find hardware that fits, Try Lowes & Home Depot both in the Hardware, and electrical sections for an easy starter. Also a well stocked NAPA store for suggestions of stores that are easy to find.

 

John Lambert

 

 

From: canard-aviators@... [mailto:canard-aviators@...]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 6:57 PM
To: undefined
Subject: [c-a] Nuts, washers and lock washers for Tyco circuit breakers

 

 

Group:

 

I have 3 types of C.B.   Two of them use the same

sizes of washers, and nuts, which is .464" on the

outside of the male threads of the C.B.

Those are ASSC W31X and W58X series.

 

The push-pull type C.B. is W23X series.

The male threads are .370, I think, for W23X.  

Over the years, I have accumulated a W23X

C.B. that is not in use and is slightly smaller

than the .370.   BIG help that was.

 

I need a good source of spares..   I now have

3 C.B. with nuts somewhere in the bottom of

the Longeze.   I ran out of washers long ago.

I do have a few nuts for W58X and lock washers

that are close but not correct.

 

I spent 3 hours on the phone and the company

chat lines (TE Connectivity and Mouser) trying

to get 6 part numbers.   TE could give me 2 of

the 6 part numbers that I need.

 

Finally ordered 4 somethings that may fit.

 

Tyco C.B. are made by Potter Brumfield, I think.

Tomorrow I will call them but not for 3 hours.

 

ASSC sell C.B. but they were no help; I tried

them 2 weeks ago.

 

Thank you for any comments.

 

Bruce Hughes







Re: Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

Bruce Hughes
 

Group:Years ago I realized that I would have
to do something about the C.G. beforeit could fly. It did fly 6 years ago. It has a "Santa Monica" long nose. 16"My solution was a minimum amount ofballast, starting with 4 lb in the verytip of the inside. That is FS -15.I have a pretty large battery far forward..I think the largest help was to remove the alternator, with fan belt, 2 brackets,bolt ( I think that was a AN6 ), washers(lots of them), and nut. That was aLOT of weight at FS 137 or 138 if I measured correctly. The entire messmust have weighed 25 pounds.I now have a B & C BC410-H.It is attached on the "vacuum pad"Which got rid of a thick aluminumplate. It weighs 5.72 pounds ANDhas a moment less than the heavymass I had before. My guess is 110 instead of the 138.The BAD news: I found that thesmaller alternator will not fit in theavailable space. I had to rebuild the firewall. Very time wasting butI now have less ballast.Switching from the RAF nose retractionsystem to a Wilhelmson system allowedremoval of most of the little ballastthat I had.Changing from a 3 blade to a 2 bladewould be a good help, too. Costlythough.Bruce Hughes

----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Spreuer kspreuer@gmail.com [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com>
To: Canard Aviators <canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:51:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not







I would at least get a data point at 102.0. I still believe it will be better.Keith
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:16 AM 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@earthlink.net [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com> wrote:





Hi Mike, Thanks for your comments. Regarding my snug ballast. It is completely captured by the battery box, as you can see in the photos I posted in a previous email and again here. I went to cast shapes to avoid what had happened to me years ago when I was just cramming Scuba weights in the space in front of the battery. One of the weights slid out through the space under the battery tray and ended up under my feet at the rudder pedal in flight. A bit disturbing, but since I have been using shaped castings, I have not, and will never again, experience a perambulatory ballast weight. I can’t imagine that I will ever see an IAS of 160kts in Arizona. The airport elevations here are at the normal cruising altitude for folks back on the east coast where the airports are rarely more than 300 ft above sea level. I frequently fly into airports here with runway elevations above 5000 ft. In AZ I carry an oxygen tank. I may try an incremental weight increase in the nose, but for now, I am going to fly with the W&B as it is. Thanks for all the help. Marc B From:canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 2:22 AM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@earthlink.net [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not


Hi Marc,

Frankly, you could go with the +12.1 lb. given those figures and only at 2250rpm if 145kts is your 'chosen a/s'.

That you have 'down trim' to spare is good so you could easily go to IAS of 160kt that I initially took to be your target 'chosen airspeed'. (BTW It is IAS and density altitude that it is best to measure against) ('Others' will go on about calibrated and rectified a/s but here IAS is good enough for us.)

As you have down trim to spare I wouldn't say that you needed to try less 'plus ballast' but if you wish its nice to experiment, safely.

What I would suggest from your figures is that you go for slightly more increments, say, + another 3lbs.

Also although you say that the new ballast is snug and cannot fall out, I would suggest to mechanically secure it positively. An ally strap and a couple of self tapper screws?
The first UK made VE to fly in the UK (not mine or I piloting) had its ballast move such that it jammed the elevator train. Purely by luck it was still doing nose high fast taxi runs so all ended ok - could have been very different the next day!

Thus you are pretty well there! But if you wish to continue experimenting then, provided you are not running out of elevator in the landing configuration (which you have checked at 60kts), you could go for a 160kt 'chosen IAS' by adding , say +3lb or a frac. more., and a few more revs, 2350 to 2400 will do no harm - may well even run smoother. - No need to dig into your nice 12.1 lead block ;^)

If I've missed anything please feel free to ask and I'll respond whatever to help...

- Sounds all good - no going back now, at last you're beginning to enjoy the Eze experience!!

Best with it,

Mike T


On Sunday, 21 July 2019, 23:48:23 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@earthlink.net [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Hi Mike, I went out early this morning to beat the heat and try my new W&B. Ambient was 87F with low humidity. Temperature was scheduled to climb to 105. Normal for Tucson. This is real heat. Not a heat index. It’s always damn hot here. Here are the flight details. I added the 12.1 weight to the nose area (FS 3.0) giving me a total ballast of 35.5 lbs and flew as follows: Rotated at 60 kts.. No noticeable change in TO roll. Altitude 6500 ft MSL OAT 70FFlying lean of peakTach 2250IAS 140-145 kts.. That was unusually high for meTAS from a/s indicator (with temp and altitude correction) 160-165 ktsI had down trim to spare. No stick pressure necessary.Elevator appeared to be in the neutral position.Checked stall speed, full throttle. Plane would not stall. Continued to climb at 60kts without stalling.I didn’t want to kick up the rpms because of the OAT and possible engine overheating. I was very pleased, although, at first, a bit anxious. I can try another weight less than 12.1 by removing the 10.7 lb weight in the port pocket in front of the battery and filling the pocket with lead shot.The total ballast with the 12.1 addition is now 35.5. Removing the 10.7 lb weight will give me a base of 24.8 lbs. I can add weight with sacks of recovered lead shot. Should I give it a try? I was advised by a friend to check the incidence on my canard. That is not an issue here. I had to modify the canard about 18 years ago. It was too thick. I modified it by carefully following an aluminum template and rechecked the incidence. Everything in that regard is copesetic.. Thanks for your continued interest. You guys are great. Marc B (not as smart as Marc Z) . From:canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2019 2:38 AM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@earthlink.net [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

Hi Marc,

I assume from your spread sheet that you are the 187lb guy and we are discounting the heavy fellow.

Yes, you are with it. What you describe indicates to me that in trimming via nose down stick pressure that you do need to increase your ballast. (Down force produced by extra ballast is cheaper, drag wise, than extra down trim force with its associated drag.)

You could go for the 12.1 lb. but time is on your side, I would try, say, +6 or +8lb first. If you can't get the stick free trim condition then carry on to the +12.1lb etc. What you don't want is to run out of pitch authority in the landing configuration also if you have a problem landing in rain the more forward CoG will not help that. That's why I would advise an incremental approach.

You will feel so much more comfortable at your chosen a/s rather than have to 'fly it' all the time - and it will run more efficiently.
(Vance made a good point, if you have the space you could put in a larger capacity battery instead of some of the ballast. I recently swapped my 14Ahr m/c battery for a 21Ahr removing about 2lb of steel plate)


A point of interest that may or may not be relevant. Re. the lower weight pilot on the spread sheet.
When my daughter was flying G-EMMY all she wanted was 'hours' complaining that the a/s meant she flew longer stages.
I put the ballast such that either of us could safely fly without having to move the ballast.
This had the effect of maintaining my higher cruise a/s at neutral trim while she, at her lower front seat weight (w second set of pedals), flew at a considerably lower a/s but also, interestingly, at around neutral pitch trim. (She eventually gave me a GIB flight and I found myself leaning forward! - she was running leaned-out at 1900/2000 rpm! )
She now flies her 'light twins' long-haul for BA. And I have the Eze to myself. ;^)

Best with it Marc, - incrementally,

Mike TOn Saturday, 20 July 2019, 01:23:20 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@earthlink.net [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Hi Mike, I was all set to remove some nose ballast, but your post has caused me some doubt. I generally cruise at around 165 kts TAS, and I run out of nose down trim and have to push on the stick.. Does that mean that I need a little more nose ballast? I have cast a 12.1 lb nose insert that will give me a CG of around 101 (see spreadsheet). Would you suggest that I test fly that configuration to see, if my nose trim is reduced? I like your explanation of how balance affects efficiency. Marc PSIt is unlikely that a 230 lb pilot would fit in the cockpit of my LongEZ. A 230 lb pilot presents a forward CG (but still in the first flight box) issue with low fuel. From:canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 1:52 PM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@earthlink.net [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not Hi Marcus,

You are very right to reassess your W&B after a few (15) years.

However, you are now at a stage with your Long that you ought to be refining its performance.

I recently wrote on another point "".... Add(remove) ballast as necessary to achieve your minimum trim drag at the speed you choose to fly."

It is not simply to push your CoG back as far as safely possible. I worked all my carer in aerospace, a large part of that was in 'stability and control'.. This included FBW systems that allowed reduce stability margins brought about by flying with rearward CoGs to attain more efficient flight.. (mil and civil). Mainly for tailed aircraft this is the case but for a canard aircraft things are slightly different. - the canard gives positive lift whereas a tailplane pushed down. So, by moving the CoG of a plane back if it is 'tailed' this reduces the down-thrust required from the tailplane , increasing efficiency (but reducing natural stability margins). But for a canard moving the CoG further back, incrementally, means less lift is needed from the canard - good to start with but if that means that the canard elevator is now required to produce 'down trim' to the extent of adding drag that is where the rearward CoG efficiency gain idea starts to fail.

But Forget All that, there is a much easier way. Following the quote above.....

i.e What airspeed do you wish to fly with your required load? - Say, 160kts
Then run a test with your nominally safe ballast at a reasonable CoG.. Run at your chosen airspeed (160kt) and note the amount of trim you need to maintain 'stick free' straight and level flight.
If the trim is significantly 'down' and/or you need to augment the trim for level flight with more 'nose down stick' then this indicates that you need more nose ballast. If it is 'up' then you can reduce the nose ballast. (But keep within the given CoG limits)

After an iteration or two you will be flying with slight elevator trailing edge, TE, floating above the in-line position for minimum canard drag. Thus for that flight condition you have your main-plane and canard balanced for minimum trim drag.

For the Long and VE I have found that the faster the chosen airspeed the more down trim, stick nose down force, is needed to maintain level flight, so expect to increase ballast for increased 'chosen airspeed'.

Running you spread sheet as you go will keep you inside safe limits.
I hope this is of some help. OMV.

Best with it,

Mike Tooze
O-235 VE, Last winner of EuroCAFE, in our 38th yr.On Thursday, 18 July 2019, 19:04:22 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@earthlink.net [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Hi Canardians, After flying for 15 years on my last weight and balance determination, I enlisted the help of George Snyder and his certified, digital scales for a re-weigh. I am considering adding additional nose ballast, either 10 or 25 pounds.. I would like some advice on whether I should choose 0, 10, or 25 pounds of nose ballast. The nose already has 23.4 pounds of ballast installed.I am attaching an Excel spreadsheet with the comparisons showing the effect on the CG for various scenarios of loading. I have indicated the position for the CG for each of the loadings, and color coded each as follows: Green (in the first flight box), Yellow (in the CG box, but aft of the first flight box)Pink (in the CG box, but near the aft limit)Red (dangerously aft of the CG box) Question. Do I want to favor the nose ballast that places the CG in the first flight box.? The CG box is shown at the bottom of the spreadsheet. You can play with the weights by just changing them. Thanks in advance for your input. Marc BoromLongEZ N966EZRyan FieldTucson, AZ Virus-free. www.avg.com


Re: Nuts, washers and lock washers for Tyco circuit breakers

John Lambert
 

I was a Manufacturers Rep for P&B circuit breakers and contactors over 20 years age.

P&B was sold to Siemens, and then acquired by Tyco. The company production was in part moved to Mexico and later possibly to China. My memory does not serve me well with regard to China, I did not view the Tyco acquisition to be good for the product line or the employees as it was my opinion that Tyco was a raider that stripped companies of their assets to plunder what they could for their executive compensation and the stock holders. To hell with the employees that built the company.

 

You may have a rather difficult time finding the hardware separate from the breakers from the usual sources.

 

My suggestion is to go to a large well stocked hardware store with the CB in hand to find hardware that fits, Try Lowes & Home Depot both in the Hardware, and electrical sections for an easy starter. Also a well stocked NAPA store for suggestions of stores that are easy to find.

 

John Lambert

 

 

From: canard-aviators@... [mailto:canard-aviators@...]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 6:57 PM
To: undefined
Subject: [c-a] Nuts, washers and lock washers for Tyco circuit breakers

 

 

Group:

 

I have 3 types of C.B.   Two of them use the same

sizes of washers, and nuts, which is .464" on the

outside of the male threads of the C.B.

Those are ASSC W31X and W58X series.

 

The push-pull type C.B. is W23X series.

The male threads are .370, I think, for W23X.  

Over the years, I have accumulated a W23X

C.B. that is not in use and is slightly smaller

than the .370.   BIG help that was.

 

I need a good source of spares.   I now have

3 C.B. with nuts somewhere in the bottom of

the Longeze.   I ran out of washers long ago.

I do have a few nuts for W58X and lock washers

that are close but not correct.

 

I spent 3 hours on the phone and the company

chat lines (TE Connectivity and Mouser) trying

to get 6 part numbers.   TE could give me 2 of

the 6 part numbers that I need.

 

Finally ordered 4 somethings that may fit.

 

Tyco C.B. are made by Potter Brumfield, I think.

Tomorrow I will call them but not for 3 hours.

 

ASSC sell C.B. but they were no help; I tried

them 2 weeks ago.

 

Thank you for any comments.

 

Bruce Hughes


Nuts, washers and lock washers for Tyco circuit breakers

Bruce Hughes
 

Group:

I have 3 types of C.B.   Two of them use the same
sizes of washers, and nuts, which is .464" on the
outside of the male threads of the C.B.
Those are ASSC W31X and W58X series.

The push-pull type C.B. is W23X series.
The male threads are .370, I think, for W23X.  
Over the years, I have accumulated a W23X
C.B. that is not in use and is slightly smaller
than the .370.   BIG help that was.

I need a good source of spares.   I now have
3 C.B. with nuts somewhere in the bottom of
the Longeze.   I ran out of washers long ago.
I do have a few nuts for W58X and lock washers
that are close but not correct.

I spent 3 hours on the phone and the company
chat lines (TE Connectivity and Mouser) trying
to get 6 part numbers.   TE could give me 2 of
the 6 part numbers that I need.

Finally ordered 4 somethings that may fit.

Tyco C.B. are made by Potter Brumfield, I think.
Tomorrow I will call them but not for 3 hours.

ASSC sell C.B. but they were no help; I tried
them 2 weeks ago.

Thank you for any comments.

Bruce Hughes


Re: Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

Keith Spreuer
 

I would at least get a data point at 102.0. I still believe it will be better.
Keith

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:16 AM 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:
 

Hi Mike,

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

Regarding my snug ballast.  It is completely captured by the battery box, as you can see in the photos I posted in a previous email and again here.  I went to cast shapes to avoid what had happened to me years ago when I was just cramming Scuba weights in the space in front of the battery.  One of the weights slid out through the space under the battery tray and ended up under my feet at the rudder pedal in flight.  A bit disturbing, but since I have been using shaped castings, I have not, and will never again, experience a perambulatory ballast weight.

 

I can’t imagine that I will ever see an IAS of 160kts in Arizona.  The airport elevations here are at the normal cruising altitude for folks back on the east coast where the airports are rarely more than 300 ft above sea level.  I frequently fly into airports here with runway elevations above 5000 ft.  In AZ I carry an oxygen tank. 

 

I may try an incremental weight increase in the nose, but for now, I am going to fly with the W&B as it is.

 

Thanks for all the help.

 

Marc B

 

From: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 2:22 AM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...>
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

 




Hi Marc,

Frankly, you could go with the +12.1 lb. given those figures and only at 2250rpm if 145kts is your 'chosen a/s'.

That you have 'down trim' to spare is good so you could easily go to IAS of 160kt that I initially took to be your target 'chosen airspeed'. (BTW It is IAS and density altitude that it is best to measure against) ('Others' will go on about calibrated and rectified a/s but here IAS is good enough for us.)

As you have down trim to spare I wouldn't say that you needed to try less 'plus ballast' but if you wish its nice to experiment, safely.

What I would suggest from your figures is that you go for slightly more increments, say, + another 3lbs.

Also although you say that the new ballast is snug and cannot fall out, I would suggest to mechanically secure it positively. An ally strap and a couple of self tapper screws?
The first UK made VE to fly in the UK (not mine or I piloting) had its ballast move such that it jammed the elevator train. Purely by luck it was still doing nose high fast taxi runs so all ended ok - could have been very different the next day!

Thus you are pretty well there! But if you wish to continue experimenting then, provided you are not running out of elevator in the landing configuration (which you have checked at 60kts), you could go for a 160kt 'chosen IAS' by adding , say +3lb or a frac. more., and a few more revs, 2350 to 2400 will do no harm - may well even run smoother. - No need to dig into your nice 12.1 lead block ;^)

If I've missed anything please feel free to ask and I'll respond whatever to help..

- Sounds all good - no going back now, at last you're beginning to enjoy the Eze experience!!

Best with it,

Mike T


On Sunday, 21 July 2019, 23:48:23 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 

 

 

Hi Mike,

 

I went out early this morning to beat the heat and try my new W&B.  Ambient was 87F with low humidity.

Temperature was scheduled to climb to 105. 

Normal for Tucson.  This is real heat.  Not a heat index.  It’s always damn hot here.

 

Here are the flight details. 

 

I added the 12.1 weight to the nose area (FS 3.0) giving me a total ballast of 35.5 lbs and flew as follows:

 

Rotated at 60 kts..

No noticeable change in TO roll. 

Altitude 6500 ft MSL

OAT 70F

Flying lean of peak

Tach 2250

IAS 140-145 kts..  That was unusually high for me

TAS from a/s indicator (with temp and altitude correction) 160-165 kts

I had down trim to spare.  No stick pressure necessary.

Elevator appeared to be in the neutral position.

Checked stall speed, full throttle.  Plane would not stall.  Continued to climb at 60kts without stalling.

I didn’t want to kick up the rpms because of the OAT and possible engine overheating.

 

I was very pleased, although, at first, a bit anxious.

 

I can try another weight less than 12.1 by removing the 10.7 lb weight in the port pocket in front of the battery and filling the pocket with lead shot.

The total ballast with the 12.1 addition is now 35.5. 

Removing the 10.7 lb weight will give me a base of 24.8 lbs.  I can add weight with sacks of recovered lead shot. 

Should I give it a try?

 

I was advised by a friend to check the incidence on my canard.  That is not an issue here.  I had to modify the canard about 18 years ago.  It was too thick.  I modified it by carefully following an aluminum template and rechecked the incidence.  Everything in that regard is copesetic..

 

Thanks for your continued interest.  You guys are great.

 

Marc  B

(not as smart as Marc Z)

 

.

 

From: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2019 2:38 AM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...>
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

 



Hi Marc,

I assume from your spread sheet that you are the 187lb guy and we are discounting the heavy fellow.

Yes, you are with it. What you describe indicates to me that in trimming via nose down stick pressure that you do need to increase your ballast. (Down force produced by extra ballast is cheaper, drag wise, than extra down trim force with its associated drag.)

You could go for the 12.1 lb. but time is on your side, I would try, say, +6 or +8lb first. If you can't get the stick free trim condition then carry on to the +12.1lb etc. What you don't want is to run out of pitch authority in the landing configuration also if you have a problem landing in rain the more forward CoG will not help that. That's why I would advise an incremental approach.

You will feel so much more comfortable at your chosen a/s rather than have to 'fly it' all the time - and it will run more efficiently.
(Vance made a good point, if you have the space you could put in a larger capacity battery instead of some of the ballast. I recently swapped my 14Ahr m/c battery for a 21Ahr removing about 2lb of steel plate)


A point of interest that may or may not be relevant. Re. the lower weight pilot on the spread sheet.
When my daughter was flying G-EMMY all she wanted was 'hours' complaining that the a/s meant she flew longer stages.
I put the ballast such that either of us could safely fly without having to move the ballast.
This had the effect of maintaining my higher cruise a/s at neutral trim while she, at her lower front seat weight (w second set of pedals), flew at a considerably lower a/s but also, interestingly, at around neutral pitch trim. (She eventually gave me a GIB flight and I found myself leaning forward! - she was running leaned-out at 1900/2000 rpm! )
She now flies her 'light twins' long-haul for BA. And I have the Eze to myself. ;^)

Best with it Marc, - incrementally,

Mike T

On Saturday, 20 July 2019, 01:23:20 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 

 

 

Hi Mike,

 

I was all set to remove some nose ballast, but your post has caused me some doubt.  I generally cruise at around 165 kts TAS, and I run out of nose down trim and have to push on the stick..  Does that mean that I need a little more nose ballast?

 

I have cast a 12.1 lb nose insert that will give me a CG of around 101 (see spreadsheet).  Would you suggest that I test fly that configuration to see, if my nose trim is reduced?  I like your explanation of how balance affects efficiency.

 

Marc

 

PS

It is unlikely that a 230 lb pilot would fit in the cockpit of my LongEZ.  A 230 lb pilot presents a forward CG (but still in the first flight box) issue with low fuel.

 

From: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 1:52 PM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...>
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

 

 

Hi Marcus,

You are very right to reassess your W&B after a few (15) years.

However, you are now at a stage with your Long that you ought to be refining its performance.

I recently wrote on another point "".... Add(remove) ballast as necessary to achieve your minimum trim drag at the speed you choose to fly."

It is not simply to push your CoG back as far as safely possible. I worked all my carer in aerospace, a large part of that was in 'stability and control'.. This included FBW systems that allowed reduce stability margins brought about by flying with rearward CoGs to attain more efficient flight.. (mil and civil). Mainly for tailed aircraft this is the case but for a canard aircraft things are slightly different. - the canard gives positive lift whereas a tailplane pushed down. So, by moving the CoG of a plane back if it is 'tailed' this reduces the down-thrust required from the tailplane , increasing efficiency (but reducing natural stability margins). But for a canard moving the CoG further back, incrementally, means less lift is needed from the canard - good to start with but if that means that the canard elevator is now required to produce 'down trim' to the extent of adding drag that is where the rearward CoG efficiency gain idea starts to fail.

But Forget All that, there is a much easier way. Following the quote above.....

i.e What airspeed do you wish to fly with your required load? - Say, 160kts
Then run a test with your nominally safe ballast at a reasonable CoG.. Run at your chosen airspeed (160kt) and note the amount of trim you need to maintain 'stick free' straight and level flight.
If the trim is significantly 'down' and/or you need to augment the trim for level flight with more 'nose down stick' then this indicates that you need more nose ballast. If it is 'up' then you can reduce the nose ballast. (But keep within the given CoG limits)

After an iteration or two you will be flying with slight elevator trailing edge, TE, floating above the in-line position for minimum canard drag. Thus for that flight condition you have your main-plane and canard balanced for minimum trim drag.

For the Long and VE I have found that the faster the chosen airspeed the more down trim, stick nose down force, is needed to maintain level flight, so expect to increase ballast for increased 'chosen airspeed'.

Running you spread sheet as you go will keep you inside safe limits.
I hope this is of some help. OMV.

Best with it,

Mike Tooze
O-235 VE, Last winner of EuroCAFE, in our 38th yr.

On Thursday, 18 July 2019, 19:04:22 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 

 

 

Hi Canardians,

 

After flying for 15 years on my last weight and balance determination, I enlisted the help of George Snyder and his certified, digital scales for a re-weigh.  I am considering adding additional nose ballast, either 10 or 25 pounds..  I would like some advice on whether I should choose 0, 10, or 25 pounds of nose ballast.  The nose already has 23.4 pounds of ballast installed.

I am attaching an Excel spreadsheet with the comparisons showing the effect on the CG for various scenarios of loading.  I have indicated the position for the CG for each of the loadings, and color coded each as follows:

 

Green (in the first flight box),

Yellow (in the CG box, but aft of the first flight box)

Pink (in the CG box, but near the aft limit)

Red (dangerously aft of the CG box)

 

Question.  Do I want to favor the nose ballast that places the CG in the first flight box.?

 

The CG box is shown at the bottom of the spreadsheet. You can play with the weights by just changing them.

 

Thanks in advance for your input.

 

Marc Borom

LongEZ  N966EZ

Ryan Field

Tucson, AZ

 

Virus-free. www.avg.com

 

 

 



 





RAFE Forum TODAY 2:30

Ryszard Zadow
 

Rutan Aircraft Flying Experience Forum is at 2:30 at the aircraft workshop... where Chrissi, Randy and Rick are buildings longez wings!!

Lots of cool stuff going on and some special announcements and recognitions.

See ya’ll there!
Ryszard Zadow
Pres. RAFE
www.RutanAFE.org
832 428 5864


Re: Camping update at OSH

Tom Smith <TRCSmith@...>
 

Jerry

Don't forget, it's not about homebuilts anymore it's the corporate dollar that runs OSH. They just put up with us.


Tom Smith  A&P/IA
Long-EZ N12TS
Cell-707-592-0869
KVCB
KJ6PZN


-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Knapinski dknapinski@... [canard-aviators] To: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Sun, Jul 21, 2019 5:46 pm
Subject: RE: [c-a] Camping update at OSH



Jerry:
That is for reserved hard-surface parking at the Basler FBO.
Dick
 
From: canard-aviators@... <canard-aviators@...>
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2019 7:11 PM
To: Canard Aviators <canard-aviators@...>
Subject: [c-a] Camping update at OSH
 
 
Just got this text update:

“GA camping and parking is full unless you have reserved parking.”

Wait....
There’s reserved camping spots for GA camping/parking at Oshkosh??? (WTF!?!!)

Ok.....So I’m feeling like I belong on the short bus right now; so when did we start having reserved parking at Oshkosh? Miss-read on my part or is this just a typo? I’ve been camping under the wing for 25 years, and feel like I’ve been missing something...

Jerry Eaton




Re: Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

Bob Holliston
 

Years ago at the EZ races Dave Lind (the guy who flew to ALL 50 states and had the most perfect Long EZ I've ever seen) told me that out on course he was (way) running out of pitch down trim with the stock pitch system. He said that he added 10 pounds of ballast to the nose and it got WORSE. I didn't see how this could be but that's what he said...….. or maybe I just remember it wrong. I showed him my leaf spring/actuator system and I think that's what he did. He had the fastest plane in the 320 superstock class and could average over 200 knots at any of the five courses. 


On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:16 AM 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:
 

Hi Mike,

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

Regarding my snug ballast.  It is completely captured by the battery box, as you can see in the photos I posted in a previous email and again here.  I went to cast shapes to avoid what had happened to me years ago when I was just cramming Scuba weights in the space in front of the battery.  One of the weights slid out through the space under the battery tray and ended up under my feet at the rudder pedal in flight.  A bit disturbing, but since I have been using shaped castings, I have not, and will never again, experience a perambulatory ballast weight.

 

I can’t imagine that I will ever see an IAS of 160kts in Arizona.  The airport elevations here are at the normal cruising altitude for folks back on the east coast where the airports are rarely more than 300 ft above sea level.  I frequently fly into airports here with runway elevations above 5000 ft.  In AZ I carry an oxygen tank. 

 

I may try an incremental weight increase in the nose, but for now, I am going to fly with the W&B as it is.

 

Thanks for all the help.

 

Marc B

 

From: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 2:22 AM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...>
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

 




Hi Marc,

Frankly, you could go with the +12.1 lb. given those figures and only at 2250rpm if 145kts is your 'chosen a/s'.

That you have 'down trim' to spare is good so you could easily go to IAS of 160kt that I initially took to be your target 'chosen airspeed'. (BTW It is IAS and density altitude that it is best to measure against) ('Others' will go on about calibrated and rectified a/s but here IAS is good enough for us.)

As you have down trim to spare I wouldn't say that you needed to try less 'plus ballast' but if you wish its nice to experiment, safely.

What I would suggest from your figures is that you go for slightly more increments, say, + another 3lbs.

Also although you say that the new ballast is snug and cannot fall out, I would suggest to mechanically secure it positively. An ally strap and a couple of self tapper screws?
The first UK made VE to fly in the UK (not mine or I piloting) had its ballast move such that it jammed the elevator train. Purely by luck it was still doing nose high fast taxi runs so all ended ok - could have been very different the next day!

Thus you are pretty well there! But if you wish to continue experimenting then, provided you are not running out of elevator in the landing configuration (which you have checked at 60kts), you could go for a 160kt 'chosen IAS' by adding , say +3lb or a frac. more., and a few more revs, 2350 to 2400 will do no harm - may well even run smoother. - No need to dig into your nice 12.1 lead block ;^)

If I've missed anything please feel free to ask and I'll respond whatever to help..

- Sounds all good - no going back now, at last you're beginning to enjoy the Eze experience!!

Best with it,

Mike T


On Sunday, 21 July 2019, 23:48:23 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 

 

 

Hi Mike,

 

I went out early this morning to beat the heat and try my new W&B.  Ambient was 87F with low humidity.

Temperature was scheduled to climb to 105. 

Normal for Tucson.  This is real heat.  Not a heat index.  It’s always damn hot here.

 

Here are the flight details. 

 

I added the 12.1 weight to the nose area (FS 3.0) giving me a total ballast of 35.5 lbs and flew as follows:

 

Rotated at 60 kts..

No noticeable change in TO roll. 

Altitude 6500 ft MSL

OAT 70F

Flying lean of peak

Tach 2250

IAS 140-145 kts..  That was unusually high for me

TAS from a/s indicator (with temp and altitude correction) 160-165 kts

I had down trim to spare.  No stick pressure necessary.

Elevator appeared to be in the neutral position.

Checked stall speed, full throttle.  Plane would not stall.  Continued to climb at 60kts without stalling.

I didn’t want to kick up the rpms because of the OAT and possible engine overheating.

 

I was very pleased, although, at first, a bit anxious.

 

I can try another weight less than 12.1 by removing the 10.7 lb weight in the port pocket in front of the battery and filling the pocket with lead shot.

The total ballast with the 12.1 addition is now 35.5. 

Removing the 10.7 lb weight will give me a base of 24.8 lbs.  I can add weight with sacks of recovered lead shot. 

Should I give it a try?

 

I was advised by a friend to check the incidence on my canard.  That is not an issue here.  I had to modify the canard about 18 years ago.  It was too thick.  I modified it by carefully following an aluminum template and rechecked the incidence.  Everything in that regard is copesetic..

 

Thanks for your continued interest.  You guys are great.

 

Marc  B

(not as smart as Marc Z)

 

.

 

From: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2019 2:38 AM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...>
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

 



Hi Marc,

I assume from your spread sheet that you are the 187lb guy and we are discounting the heavy fellow.

Yes, you are with it. What you describe indicates to me that in trimming via nose down stick pressure that you do need to increase your ballast. (Down force produced by extra ballast is cheaper, drag wise, than extra down trim force with its associated drag.)

You could go for the 12.1 lb. but time is on your side, I would try, say, +6 or +8lb first. If you can't get the stick free trim condition then carry on to the +12.1lb etc. What you don't want is to run out of pitch authority in the landing configuration also if you have a problem landing in rain the more forward CoG will not help that. That's why I would advise an incremental approach.

You will feel so much more comfortable at your chosen a/s rather than have to 'fly it' all the time - and it will run more efficiently.
(Vance made a good point, if you have the space you could put in a larger capacity battery instead of some of the ballast. I recently swapped my 14Ahr m/c battery for a 21Ahr removing about 2lb of steel plate)


A point of interest that may or may not be relevant. Re. the lower weight pilot on the spread sheet.
When my daughter was flying G-EMMY all she wanted was 'hours' complaining that the a/s meant she flew longer stages.
I put the ballast such that either of us could safely fly without having to move the ballast.
This had the effect of maintaining my higher cruise a/s at neutral trim while she, at her lower front seat weight (w second set of pedals), flew at a considerably lower a/s but also, interestingly, at around neutral pitch trim. (She eventually gave me a GIB flight and I found myself leaning forward! - she was running leaned-out at 1900/2000 rpm! )
She now flies her 'light twins' long-haul for BA. And I have the Eze to myself. ;^)

Best with it Marc, - incrementally,

Mike T

On Saturday, 20 July 2019, 01:23:20 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 

 

 

Hi Mike,

 

I was all set to remove some nose ballast, but your post has caused me some doubt.  I generally cruise at around 165 kts TAS, and I run out of nose down trim and have to push on the stick..  Does that mean that I need a little more nose ballast?

 

I have cast a 12.1 lb nose insert that will give me a CG of around 101 (see spreadsheet).  Would you suggest that I test fly that configuration to see, if my nose trim is reduced?  I like your explanation of how balance affects efficiency.

 

Marc

 

PS

It is unlikely that a 230 lb pilot would fit in the cockpit of my LongEZ.  A 230 lb pilot presents a forward CG (but still in the first flight box) issue with low fuel.

 

From: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 1:52 PM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...>
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

 

 

Hi Marcus,

You are very right to reassess your W&B after a few (15) years.

However, you are now at a stage with your Long that you ought to be refining its performance.

I recently wrote on another point "".... Add(remove) ballast as necessary to achieve your minimum trim drag at the speed you choose to fly."

It is not simply to push your CoG back as far as safely possible. I worked all my carer in aerospace, a large part of that was in 'stability and control'.. This included FBW systems that allowed reduce stability margins brought about by flying with rearward CoGs to attain more efficient flight.. (mil and civil). Mainly for tailed aircraft this is the case but for a canard aircraft things are slightly different. - the canard gives positive lift whereas a tailplane pushed down. So, by moving the CoG of a plane back if it is 'tailed' this reduces the down-thrust required from the tailplane , increasing efficiency (but reducing natural stability margins). But for a canard moving the CoG further back, incrementally, means less lift is needed from the canard - good to start with but if that means that the canard elevator is now required to produce 'down trim' to the extent of adding drag that is where the rearward CoG efficiency gain idea starts to fail.

But Forget All that, there is a much easier way. Following the quote above.....

i.e What airspeed do you wish to fly with your required load? - Say, 160kts
Then run a test with your nominally safe ballast at a reasonable CoG.. Run at your chosen airspeed (160kt) and note the amount of trim you need to maintain 'stick free' straight and level flight.
If the trim is significantly 'down' and/or you need to augment the trim for level flight with more 'nose down stick' then this indicates that you need more nose ballast. If it is 'up' then you can reduce the nose ballast. (But keep within the given CoG limits)

After an iteration or two you will be flying with slight elevator trailing edge, TE, floating above the in-line position for minimum canard drag. Thus for that flight condition you have your main-plane and canard balanced for minimum trim drag.

For the Long and VE I have found that the faster the chosen airspeed the more down trim, stick nose down force, is needed to maintain level flight, so expect to increase ballast for increased 'chosen airspeed'.

Running you spread sheet as you go will keep you inside safe limits.
I hope this is of some help. OMV.

Best with it,

Mike Tooze
O-235 VE, Last winner of EuroCAFE, in our 38th yr.

On Thursday, 18 July 2019, 19:04:22 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 

 

 

Hi Canardians,

 

After flying for 15 years on my last weight and balance determination, I enlisted the help of George Snyder and his certified, digital scales for a re-weigh.  I am considering adding additional nose ballast, either 10 or 25 pounds..  I would like some advice on whether I should choose 0, 10, or 25 pounds of nose ballast.  The nose already has 23.4 pounds of ballast installed.

I am attaching an Excel spreadsheet with the comparisons showing the effect on the CG for various scenarios of loading.  I have indicated the position for the CG for each of the loadings, and color coded each as follows:

 

Green (in the first flight box),

Yellow (in the CG box, but aft of the first flight box)

Pink (in the CG box, but near the aft limit)

Red (dangerously aft of the CG box)

 

Question.  Do I want to favor the nose ballast that places the CG in the first flight box.?

 

The CG box is shown at the bottom of the spreadsheet. You can play with the weights by just changing them.

 

Thanks in advance for your input.

 

Marc Borom

LongEZ  N966EZ

Ryan Field

Tucson, AZ

 

Virus-free. www.avg.com

 

 

 



 






--


Re: Coupling Radio antennae reply to Don Jones

Marc
 

Jose,

 

I don’t really remember where the cable broke.  The cable was still in the passage tube in the wing and attached to the control bracket in the cowling area. I think it broke free of the rudder at the bracket connection and got pulled into the passage tube when I was making my landing approach.  I easily extracted the cable from the wing, but I had a lot of trouble inserting the replacement cable.  I think the nylon tube was scarred by the event.  I had to buy a 20 ft. length of 10 gauge copper wire to use to clean out the tube in order to pass the replacement cable.

 

Don’t want to do this again.

 

Marc B

 

From: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2019 8:08 PM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators]
Subject: Re: [c-a] Coupling Radio antennae reply to Don Jones

 




Hi Marcus,

when you lost your rudder, where did the rudder cable break?  Presumably 3/32" cable? I ask because I heard a story about the rudder cable causing further injury to the pilot's leg in a crash as it was pulled through the cabin when the wings sheared off. 

--Jose

 

On Sun, Jul 21, 2019, at 6:02 PM, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] wrote:

 

 

Don,

 

I lost the upper third of the winglet and the rudder was ripped off (see attached picutres).  I kept a cool head and was able to control the plane fairly easily using only the ailerons.  If the Piper had been 18 inches lower, I would have lost my head compoletely..

 

After having totally rebuilt this plane in only five days at Oshkosh in 1988, it was a bit ridiculous how long it took to get this repair done.  I was a little bummed out.

 

Marc

 

Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 11:25 AM

Subject: Re: [c-a] Coupling Radio antennae

 

 

 

Marc, how much of the winglet was taken off and how difficult was it to control the plane. If this story was put out on the forum, I somehow missed it. Glad things turned out ok for you.

 

Don Jones

Berkut FG

 

On Friday, June 28, 2019, 1:18:35 PM EDT, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 

 

 

Since I had my mid-air, in which I lost my left winglet and associated radio antenna, I want to avoid the possible loss of radio contact, if this ever (very unlikely) happens again.  It was fortunate that my radio was connected through my right winglet, so I maintained radio contact with the tower.

 

I have now rebuilt my left winglet and associated radio antenna.  It works.  Is it possible to connect both antennae to the radio through a splitter (or combiner??) so that, if one antenna goes bad, or is knocked off by an errant airplane, radio contact is maintained?

 

Anxious to know.

 

Marc Borom

N966EZ

Ryan Field

Tucson, AZ

 

alt

Virus-free. www.avg.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

  • 20171007_103526.jpg
  • 20171007_103541.jpg
  • 20171007_113443.jpg
  • 20171007_113507.jpg
  • 20171007_113609.jpg
  • 20171007_113757.jpg
  • 20171007_113833.jpg
  • 20171007_113954.jpg
  • 20171007_123732.jpg

 

-- 

  

 

 





Re: Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

Marc
 

Hi Mike,



Thanks for your comments.



Regarding my snug ballast. It is completely captured by the battery box, as you can see in the photos I posted in a previous email and again here. I went to cast shapes to avoid what had happened to me years ago when I was just cramming Scuba weights in the space in front of the battery. One of the weights slid out through the space under the battery tray and ended up under my feet at the rudder pedal in flight. A bit disturbing, but since I have been using shaped castings, I have not, and will never again, experience a perambulatory ballast weight.



I can’t imagine that I will ever see an IAS of 160kts in Arizona. The airport elevations here are at the normal cruising altitude for folks back on the east coast where the airports are rarely more than 300 ft above sea level. I frequently fly into airports here with runway elevations above 5000 ft. In AZ I carry an oxygen tank.



I may try an incremental weight increase in the nose, but for now, I am going to fly with the W&B as it is.



Thanks for all the help.



Marc B



From: canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 2:22 AM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@earthlink.net [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not








Hi Marc,

Frankly, you could go with the +12.1 lb. given those figures and only at 2250rpm if 145kts is your 'chosen a/s'.

That you have 'down trim' to spare is good so you could easily go to IAS of 160kt that I initially took to be your target 'chosen airspeed'. (BTW It is IAS and density altitude that it is best to measure against) ('Others' will go on about calibrated and rectified a/s but here IAS is good enough for us.)

As you have down trim to spare I wouldn't say that you needed to try less 'plus ballast' but if you wish its nice to experiment, safely.

What I would suggest from your figures is that you go for slightly more increments, say, + another 3lbs.

Also although you say that the new ballast is snug and cannot fall out, I would suggest to mechanically secure it positively. An ally strap and a couple of self tapper screws?
The first UK made VE to fly in the UK (not mine or I piloting) had its ballast move such that it jammed the elevator train. Purely by luck it was still doing nose high fast taxi runs so all ended ok - could have been very different the next day!

Thus you are pretty well there! But if you wish to continue experimenting then, provided you are not running out of elevator in the landing configuration (which you have checked at 60kts), you could go for a 160kt 'chosen IAS' by adding , say +3lb or a frac. more., and a few more revs, 2350 to 2400 will do no harm - may well even run smoother. - No need to dig into your nice 12.1 lead block ;^)

If I've missed anything please feel free to ask and I'll respond whatever to help.

- Sounds all good - no going back now, at last you're beginning to enjoy the Eze experience!!

Best with it,

Mike T




On Sunday, 21 July 2019, 23:48:23 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@earthlink.net <mailto:borommarc@earthlink.net> [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com <mailto:canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com> > wrote:







Hi Mike,



I went out early this morning to beat the heat and try my new W&B. Ambient was 87F with low humidity.

Temperature was scheduled to climb to 105.

Normal for Tucson. This is real heat. Not a heat index. It’s always damn hot here.



Here are the flight details.



I added the 12.1 weight to the nose area (FS 3.0) giving me a total ballast of 35.5 lbs and flew as follows:



Rotated at 60 kts..

No noticeable change in TO roll.

Altitude 6500 ft MSL

OAT 70F

Flying lean of peak

Tach 2250

IAS 140-145 kts.. That was unusually high for me

TAS from a/s indicator (with temp and altitude correction) 160-165 kts

I had down trim to spare. No stick pressure necessary.

Elevator appeared to be in the neutral position.

Checked stall speed, full throttle. Plane would not stall. Continued to climb at 60kts without stalling.

I didn’t want to kick up the rpms because of the OAT and possible engine overheating.



I was very pleased, although, at first, a bit anxious.



I can try another weight less than 12.1 by removing the 10.7 lb weight in the port pocket in front of the battery and filling the pocket with lead shot.

The total ballast with the 12.1 addition is now 35.5.

Removing the 10.7 lb weight will give me a base of 24.8 lbs. I can add weight with sacks of recovered lead shot.

Should I give it a try?



I was advised by a friend to check the incidence on my canard. That is not an issue here. I had to modify the canard about 18 years ago. It was too thick. I modified it by carefully following an aluminum template and rechecked the incidence. Everything in that regard is copesetic..



Thanks for your continued interest. You guys are great.



Marc B

(not as smart as Marc Z)



.



From: canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com <mailto:canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2019 2:38 AM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@earthlink.net <mailto:borommarc@earthlink.net> [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com <mailto:canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not







Hi Marc,

I assume from your spread sheet that you are the 187lb guy and we are discounting the heavy fellow.

Yes, you are with it. What you describe indicates to me that in trimming via nose down stick pressure that you do need to increase your ballast. (Down force produced by extra ballast is cheaper, drag wise, than extra down trim force with its associated drag.)

You could go for the 12.1 lb. but time is on your side, I would try, say, +6 or +8lb first. If you can't get the stick free trim condition then carry on to the +12.1lb etc. What you don't want is to run out of pitch authority in the landing configuration also if you have a problem landing in rain the more forward CoG will not help that. That's why I would advise an incremental approach.

You will feel so much more comfortable at your chosen a/s rather than have to 'fly it' all the time - and it will run more efficiently.
(Vance made a good point, if you have the space you could put in a larger capacity battery instead of some of the ballast. I recently swapped my 14Ahr m/c battery for a 21Ahr removing about 2lb of steel plate)


A point of interest that may or may not be relevant. Re. the lower weight pilot on the spread sheet.
When my daughter was flying G-EMMY all she wanted was 'hours' complaining that the a/s meant she flew longer stages.
I put the ballast such that either of us could safely fly without having to move the ballast.
This had the effect of maintaining my higher cruise a/s at neutral trim while she, at her lower front seat weight (w second set of pedals), flew at a considerably lower a/s but also, interestingly, at around neutral pitch trim. (She eventually gave me a GIB flight and I found myself leaning forward! - she was running leaned-out at 1900/2000 rpm! )
She now flies her 'light twins' long-haul for BA. And I have the Eze to myself. ;^)

Best with it Marc, - incrementally,

Mike T

On Saturday, 20 July 2019, 01:23:20 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@earthlink.net <mailto:borommarc@earthlink.net> [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com <mailto:canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com> > wrote:







Hi Mike,



I was all set to remove some nose ballast, but your post has caused me some doubt. I generally cruise at around 165 kts TAS, and I run out of nose down trim and have to push on the stick.. Does that mean that I need a little more nose ballast?



I have cast a 12.1 lb nose insert that will give me a CG of around 101 (see spreadsheet). Would you suggest that I test fly that configuration to see, if my nose trim is reduced? I like your explanation of how balance affects efficiency.



Marc



PS

It is unlikely that a 230 lb pilot would fit in the cockpit of my LongEZ. A 230 lb pilot presents a forward CG (but still in the first flight box) issue with low fuel.



From: canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com <mailto:canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 1:52 PM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@earthlink.net <mailto:borommarc@earthlink.net> [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com <mailto:canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not





Hi Marcus,

You are very right to reassess your W&B after a few (15) years.

However, you are now at a stage with your Long that you ought to be refining its performance.

I recently wrote on another point "".... Add(remove) ballast as necessary to achieve your minimum trim drag at the speed you choose to fly."

It is not simply to push your CoG back as far as safely possible. I worked all my carer in aerospace, a large part of that was in 'stability and control'.. This included FBW systems that allowed reduce stability margins brought about by flying with rearward CoGs to attain more efficient flight. (mil and civil). Mainly for tailed aircraft this is the case but for a canard aircraft things are slightly different. - the canard gives positive lift whereas a tailplane pushed down. So, by moving the CoG of a plane back if it is 'tailed' this reduces the down-thrust required from the tailplane , increasing efficiency (but reducing natural stability margins). But for a canard moving the CoG further back, incrementally, means less lift is needed from the canard - good to start with but if that means that the canard elevator is now required to produce 'down trim' to the extent of adding drag that is where the rearward CoG efficiency gain idea starts to fail.

But Forget All that, there is a much easier way. Following the quote above....

i.e What airspeed do you wish to fly with your required load? - Say, 160kts
Then run a test with your nominally safe ballast at a reasonable CoG.. Run at your chosen airspeed (160kt) and note the amount of trim you need to maintain 'stick free' straight and level flight.
If the trim is significantly 'down' and/or you need to augment the trim for level flight with more 'nose down stick' then this indicates that you need more nose ballast. If it is 'up' then you can reduce the nose ballast. (But keep within the given CoG limits)

After an iteration or two you will be flying with slight elevator trailing edge, TE, floating above the in-line position for minimum canard drag. Thus for that flight condition you have your main-plane and canard balanced for minimum trim drag.

For the Long and VE I have found that the faster the chosen airspeed the more down trim, stick nose down force, is needed to maintain level flight, so expect to increase ballast for increased 'chosen airspeed'.

Running you spread sheet as you go will keep you inside safe limits.
I hope this is of some help. OMV.

Best with it,

Mike Tooze
O-235 VE, Last winner of EuroCAFE, in our 38th yr.

On Thursday, 18 July 2019, 19:04:22 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@earthlink.net <mailto:borommarc@earthlink.net> [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com <mailto:canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com> > wrote:







Hi Canardians,



After flying for 15 years on my last weight and balance determination, I enlisted the help of George Snyder and his certified, digital scales for a re-weigh. I am considering adding additional nose ballast, either 10 or 25 pounds.. I would like some advice on whether I should choose 0, 10, or 25 pounds of nose ballast. The nose already has 23.4 pounds of ballast installed.

I am attaching an Excel spreadsheet with the comparisons showing the effect on the CG for various scenarios of loading. I have indicated the position for the CG for each of the loadings, and color coded each as follows:



Green (in the first flight box),

Yellow (in the CG box, but aft of the first flight box)

Pink (in the CG box, but near the aft limit)

Red (dangerously aft of the CG box)



Question. Do I want to favor the nose ballast that places the CG in the first flight box.?



The CG box is shown at the bottom of the spreadsheet. You can play with the weights by just changing them.



Thanks in advance for your input.



Marc Borom

LongEZ N966EZ

Ryan Field

Tucson, AZ




<http://www..avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>

Virus-free. <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avg.com






















---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


Re: Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

Marc
 

Hi Keith,

 

You are right, I should have reported the CG for that particular flight. 

CG was 101.1. 

Just slightly aft of the first flight green box.

 

Marc

 

From: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2019 5:30 PM
To: Canard Aviators
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

 




What CG was that?

 

On Sun, Jul 21, 2019, 3:48 PM 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@earthlink..net [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 

Hi Mike,

 

I went out early this morning to beat the heat and try my new W&B.  Ambient was 87F with low humidity.

Temperature was scheduled to climb to 105. 

Normal for Tucson.  This is real heat.  Not a heat index.  It’s always damn hot here.

 

Here are the flight details. 

 

I added the 12.1 weight to the nose area (FS 3.0) giving me a total ballast of 35.5 lbs and flew as follows:

 

Rotated at 60 kts.

No noticeable change in TO roll. 

Altitude 6500 ft MSL

OAT 70F

Flying lean of peak

Tach 2250

IAS 140-145 kts..  That was unusually high for me

TAS from a/s indicator (with temp and altitude correction) 160-165 kts

I had down trim to spare.  No stick pressure necessary.

Elevator appeared to be in the neutral position.

Checked stall speed, full throttle.  Plane would not stall.  Continued to climb at 60kts without stalling.

I didn’t want to kick up the rpms because of the OAT and possible engine overheating.

 

I was very pleased, although, at first, a bit anxious.

 

I can try another weight less than 12.1 by removing the 10.7 lb weight in the port pocket in front of the battery and filling the pocket with lead shot.

The total ballast with the 12.1 addition is now 35.5. 

Removing the 10.7 lb weight will give me a base of 24.8 lbs.  I can add weight with sacks of recovered lead shot. 

Should I give it a try?

 

I was advised by a friend to check the incidence on my canard.  That is not an issue here.  I had to modify the canard about 18 years ago.  It was too thick.  I modified it by carefully following an aluminum template and rechecked the incidence.  Everything in that regard is copesetic.

 

Thanks for your continued interest.  You guys are great.

 

Marc  B

(not as smart as Marc Z)

 

.

 

From: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2019 2:38 AM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...>
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

 



Hi Marc,

I assume from your spread sheet that you are the 187lb guy and we are discounting the heavy fellow..

Yes, you are with it. What you describe indicates to me that in trimming via nose down stick pressure that you do need to increase your ballast. (Down force produced by extra ballast is cheaper, drag wise, than extra down trim force with its associated drag.)

You could go for the 12.1 lb. but time is on your side, I would try, say, +6 or +8lb first. If you can't get the stick free trim condition then carry on to the +12.1lb etc. What you don't want is to run out of pitch authority in the landing configuration also if you have a problem landing in rain the more forward CoG will not help that. That's why I would advise an incremental approach.

You will feel so much more comfortable at your chosen a/s rather than have to 'fly it' all the time - and it will run more efficiently.
(Vance made a good point, if you have the space you could put in a larger capacity battery instead of some of the ballast. I recently swapped my 14Ahr m/c battery for a 21Ahr removing about 2lb of steel plate)


A point of interest that may or may not be relevant. Re. the lower weight pilot on the spread sheet.
When my daughter was flying G-EMMY all she wanted was 'hours' complaining that the a/s meant she flew longer stages.
I put the ballast such that either of us could safely fly without having to move the ballast.
This had the effect of maintaining my higher cruise a/s at neutral trim while she, at her lower front seat weight (w second set of pedals), flew at a considerably lower a/s but also, interestingly, at around neutral pitch trim. (She eventually gave me a GIB flight and I found myself leaning forward! - she was running leaned-out at 1900/2000 rpm! )
She now flies her 'light twins' long-haul for BA. And I have the Eze to myself. ;^)

Best with it Marc, - incrementally,

Mike T

On Saturday, 20 July 2019, 01:23:20 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 

 

 

Hi Mike,

 

I was all set to remove some nose ballast, but your post has caused me some doubt.  I generally cruise at around 165 kts TAS, and I run out of nose down trim and have to push on the stick.  Does that mean that I need a little more nose ballast?

 

I have cast a 12.1 lb nose insert that will give me a CG of around 101 (see spreadsheet).  Would you suggest that I test fly that configuration to see, if my nose trim is reduced?  I like your explanation of how balance affects efficiency.

 

Marc

 

PS

It is unlikely that a 230 lb pilot would fit in the cockpit of my LongEZ.  A 230 lb pilot presents a forward CG (but still in the first flight box) issue with low fuel.

 

From: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 1:52 PM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...>
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

 

 

Hi Marcus,

You are very right to reassess your W&B after a few (15) years.

However, you are now at a stage with your Long that you ought to be refining its performance.

I recently wrote on another point "".... Add(remove) ballast as necessary to achieve your minimum trim drag at the speed you choose to fly."

It is not simply to push your CoG back as far as safely possible. I worked all my carer in aerospace, a large part of that was in 'stability and control'. This included FBW systems that allowed reduce stability margins brought about by flying with rearward CoGs to attain more efficient flight. (mil and civil). Mainly for tailed aircraft this is the case but for a canard aircraft things are slightly different. - the canard gives positive lift whereas a tailplane pushed down. So, by moving the CoG of a plane back if it is 'tailed' this reduces the down-thrust required from the tailplane , increasing efficiency (but reducing natural stability margins). But for a canard moving the CoG further back, incrementally, means less lift is needed from the canard - good to start with but if that means that the canard elevator is now required to produce 'down trim' to the extent of adding drag that is where the rearward CoG efficiency gain idea starts to fail.

But Forget All that, there is a much easier way. Following the quote above....

i.e What airspeed do you wish to fly with your required load? - Say, 160kts
Then run a test with your nominally safe ballast at a reasonable CoG.. Run at your chosen airspeed (160kt) and note the amount of trim you need to maintain 'stick free' straight and level flight.
If the trim is significantly 'down' and/or you need to augment the trim for level flight with more 'nose down stick' then this indicates that you need more nose ballast. If it is 'up' then you can reduce the nose ballast. (But keep within the given CoG limits)

After an iteration or two you will be flying with slight elevator trailing edge, TE, floating above the in-line position for minimum canard drag. Thus for that flight condition you have your main-plane and canard balanced for minimum trim drag.

For the Long and VE I have found that the faster the chosen airspeed the more down trim, stick nose down force, is needed to maintain level flight, so expect to increase ballast for increased 'chosen airspeed'.

Running you spread sheet as you go will keep you inside safe limits.
I hope this is of some help. OMV.

Best with it,

Mike Tooze
O-235 VE, Last winner of EuroCAFE, in our 38th yr..

On Thursday, 18 July 2019, 19:04:22 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 

 

 

Hi Canardians,

 

After flying for 15 years on my last weight and balance determination, I enlisted the help of George Snyder and his certified, digital scales for a re-weigh.  I am considering adding additional nose ballast, either 10 or 25 pounds..  I would like some advice on whether I should choose 0, 10, or 25 pounds of nose ballast.  The nose already has 23.4 pounds of ballast installed.

I am attaching an Excel spreadsheet with the comparisons showing the effect on the CG for various scenarios of loading.  I have indicated the position for the CG for each of the loadings, and color coded each as follows:

 

Green (in the first flight box),

Yellow (in the CG box, but aft of the first flight box)

Pink (in the CG box, but near the aft limit)

Red (dangerously aft of the CG box)

 

Question.  Do I want to favor the nose ballast that places the CG in the first flight box.?

 

The CG box is shown at the bottom of the spreadsheet. You can play with the weights by just changing them.

 

Thanks in advance for your input.

 

Marc Borom

LongEZ  N966EZ

Ryan Field

Tucson, AZ

 

Virus-free. www.avg.com

 

 

 







Re: Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

Mike Tooze
 

Hi Marc,

Frankly, you could go with the +12.1 lb. given those figures and only at 2250rpm if 145kts is your 'chosen a/s'.

That you have 'down trim' to spare is good so you could easily go to IAS of 160kt that I initially took to be your target 'chosen airspeed'. (BTW It is IAS and density altitude that it is best to measure against) ('Others' will go on about calibrated and rectified a/s but here IAS is good enough for us.)

As you have down trim to spare I wouldn't say that you needed to try less 'plus ballast' but if you wish its nice to experiment, safely.

What I would suggest from your figures is that you go for slightly more increments, say, + another 3lbs.

Also although you say that the new ballast is snug and cannot fall out, I would suggest to mechanically secure it positively. An ally strap and a couple of self tapper screws?
The first UK made VE to fly in the UK (not mine or I piloting) had its ballast move such that it jammed the elevator train. Purely by luck it was still doing nose high fast taxi runs so all ended ok - could have been very different the next day!

Thus you are pretty well there! But if you wish to continue experimenting then, provided you are not running out of elevator in the landing configuration (which you have checked at 60kts), you could go for a 160kt 'chosen IAS' by adding , say +3lb or a frac. more., and a few more revs, 2350 to 2400 will do no harm - may well even run smoother. - No need to dig into your nice 12.1 lead block ;^)

If I've missed anything please feel free to ask and I'll respond whatever to help.

- Sounds all good - no going back now, at last you're beginning to enjoy the Eze experience!!

Best with it,

Mike T

On Sunday, 21 July 2019, 23:48:23 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@earthlink.net [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

#yiv6239298616 #yiv6239298616 -- #yiv6239298616 .yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title{clear:both;font-size:smaller;min-height:15px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;width:75px;}#yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo{background-position:center;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:white;border:1px solid black;min-height:62px;width:62px;}#yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616photo-title a, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616photo-title a:active, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616photo-title a:hover, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616photo-title a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616attach-table div.yiv6239298616attach-row {clear:both;}#yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616attach-table div.yiv6239298616attach-row div {float:left;}#yiv6239298616 p {clear:both;padding:15px 0 3px 0;overflow:hidden;}#yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ygrp-file {width:30px;}#yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616attach-table div.yiv6239298616attach-row div div a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616attach-table div.yiv6239298616attach-row div div span {font-weight:normal;}#yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ygrp-file-title {font-weight:bold;}#yiv6239298616 #yiv6239298616 #yiv6239298616 #yiv6239298616 -- _filtered #yiv6239298616 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv6239298616 {font-family:Wingdings;panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} _filtered #yiv6239298616 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv6239298616 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv6239298616 {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv6239298616 {}#yiv6239298616 #yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616MsoNormal, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616MsoNormal, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 a:link, #yiv6239298616 span.yiv6239298616MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6239298616 a:visited, #yiv6239298616 span.yiv6239298616MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616msonormal0, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616msonormal0, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616msonormal0 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;text-align:center;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ad, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ad, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ad {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ad1, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ad1, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ad1 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ad2, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ad2, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ad2 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616msonormal0, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616msonormal0, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616msonormal0 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ad, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ad, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ad {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ad1, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ad1, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ad1 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ad2, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ad2, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ad2 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title1, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title1, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title1 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616msonormal, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616msonormal, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616msonormal {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616msochpdefault, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616msochpdefault, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616msochpdefault {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ad3, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ad3, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ad3 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title2, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title2, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title2 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616msonormal1, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616msonormal1, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616msonormal1 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616msonormal2, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616msonormal2, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616msonormal2 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616msonormal01, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616msonormal01, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616msonormal01 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616msonormal02, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616msonormal02, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616msonormal02 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title3, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title3, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title3 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title4, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title4, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title4 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616msochpdefault1, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616msochpdefault1, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616msochpdefault1 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 span.yiv6239298616msohyperlink {}#yiv6239298616 span.yiv6239298616msohyperlinkfollowed {}#yiv6239298616 span.yiv6239298616msohyperlink1 {}#yiv6239298616 span.yiv6239298616msohyperlinkfollowed1 {}#yiv6239298616 span.yiv6239298616emailstyle211 {}#yiv6239298616 span.yiv6239298616emailstyle44 {}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ad3, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ad3, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ad3 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616msonormal3, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616msonormal3, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616msonormal3 {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616msonormal4, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616msonormal4, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616msonormal4 {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 span.yiv6239298616msohyperlink2 {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6239298616 span.yiv6239298616msohyperlinkfollowed2 {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616msonormal03, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616msonormal03, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616msonormal03 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616msonormal04, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616msonormal04, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616msonormal04 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title5, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title5, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title5 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;text-align:center;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title6, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title6, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title6 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;text-align:center;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ad4, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ad4, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ad4 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ad5, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ad5, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ad5 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ad11, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ad11, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ad11 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ad12, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ad12, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ad12 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ad21, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ad21, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ad21 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ad22, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ad22, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ad22 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title11, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title11, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title11 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;text-align:center;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title12, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title12, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title12 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;text-align:center;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616msonormal5, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616msonormal5, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616msonormal5 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616msochpdefault2, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616msochpdefault2, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616msochpdefault2 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616msochpdefault3, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616msochpdefault3, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616msochpdefault3 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ad31, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ad31, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ad31 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ad32, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ad32, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ad32 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title21, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title21, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title21 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;text-align:center;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title22, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title22, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title22 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;text-align:center;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616msonormal11, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616msonormal11, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616msonormal11 {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616msonormal12, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616msonormal12, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616msonormal12 {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616msonormal21, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616msonormal21, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616msonormal21 {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616msonormal22, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616msonormal22, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616msonormal22 {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 span.yiv6239298616msohyperlink11 {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6239298616 span.yiv6239298616msohyperlinkfollowed11 {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616msonormal011, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616msonormal011, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616msonormal011 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616msonormal012, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616msonormal012, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616msonormal012 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616msonormal021, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616msonormal021, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616msonormal021 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616msonormal022, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616msonormal022, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616msonormal022 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title31, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title31, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title31 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;text-align:center;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title32, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title32, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title32 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;text-align:center;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title41, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title41, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title41 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;text-align:center;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title42, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title42, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616ygrp-photo-title42 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;text-align:center;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 span.yiv6239298616emailstyle2111 {color:windowtext;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616msochpdefault11, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616msochpdefault11, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616msochpdefault11 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 p.yiv6239298616msochpdefault12, #yiv6239298616 li.yiv6239298616msochpdefault12, #yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616msochpdefault12 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv6239298616 span.yiv6239298616emailstyle441 {color:windowtext;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;}#yiv6239298616 span.yiv6239298616EmailStyle89 {font-family:New serif;color:windowtext;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;}#yiv6239298616 .yiv6239298616MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv6239298616 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv6239298616 div.yiv6239298616WordSection1 {}#yiv6239298616 _filtered #yiv6239298616 {} _filtered #yiv6239298616 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6239298616 {} _filtered #yiv6239298616 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv6239298616 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv6239298616 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv6239298616 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv6239298616 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv6239298616 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv6239298616 {font-family:Wingdings;}#yiv6239298616 ol {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv6239298616 ul {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv6239298616


Hi Mike,

 

I went out early this morning to beat the heat and try my new W&B.  Ambient was 87F with low humidity.

Temperature was scheduled to climb to 105. 

Normal for Tucson.  This is real heat.  Not a heat index.  It’s always damn hot here.

 

Here are the flight details. 

 

I added the 12.1 weight to the nose area (FS 3.0) giving me a total ballast of 35.5 lbs and flew as follows:

 

Rotated at 60 kts..

No noticeable change in TO roll. 

Altitude 6500 ft MSL

OAT 70F

Flying lean of peak

Tach 2250

IAS 140-145 kts..  That was unusually high for me

TAS from a/s indicator (with temp and altitude correction) 160-165 kts

I had down trim to spare.  No stick pressure necessary.

Elevator appeared to be in the neutral position.

Checked stall speed, full throttle.  Plane would not stall.  Continued to climb at 60kts without stalling.

I didn’t want to kick up the rpms because of the OAT and possible engine overheating.

 

I was very pleased, although, at first, a bit anxious.

 

I can try another weight less than 12.1 by removing the 10.7 lb weight in the port pocket in front of the battery and filling the pocket with lead shot.

The total ballast with the 12.1 addition is now 35.5. 

Removing the 10.7 lb weight will give me a base of 24.8 lbs.  I can add weight with sacks of recovered lead shot. 

Should I give it a try?

 

I was advised by a friend to check the incidence on my canard.  That is not an issue here.  I had to modify the canard about 18 years ago.  It was too thick.  I modified it by carefully following an aluminum template and rechecked the incidence.  Everything in that regard is copesetic.

 

Thanks for your continued interest.  You guys are great.

 

Marc  B

(not as smart as Marc Z)

 

.

 

From: canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2019 2:38 AM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@earthlink.net [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

 






Hi Marc,

I assume from your spread sheet that you are the 187lb guy and we are discounting the heavy fellow.

Yes, you are with it. What you describe indicates to me that in trimming via nose down stick pressure that you do need to increase your ballast. (Down force produced by extra ballast is cheaper, drag wise, than extra down trim force with its associated drag.)

You could go for the 12.1 lb. but time is on your side, I would try, say, +6 or +8lb first. If you can't get the stick free trim condition then carry on to the +12.1lb etc. What you don't want is to run out of pitch authority in the landing configuration also if you have a problem landing in rain the more forward CoG will not help that. That's why I would advise an incremental approach.

You will feel so much more comfortable at your chosen a/s rather than have to 'fly it' all the time - and it will run more efficiently.
(Vance made a good point, if you have the space you could put in a larger capacity battery instead of some of the ballast. I recently swapped my 14Ahr m/c battery for a 21Ahr removing about 2lb of steel plate)


A point of interest that may or may not be relevant. Re. the lower weight pilot on the spread sheet.
When my daughter was flying G-EMMY all she wanted was 'hours' complaining that the a/s meant she flew longer stages.
I put the ballast such that either of us could safely fly without having to move the ballast.
This had the effect of maintaining my higher cruise a/s at neutral trim while she, at her lower front seat weight (w second set of pedals), flew at a considerably lower a/s but also, interestingly, at around neutral pitch trim. (She eventually gave me a GIB flight and I found myself leaning forward! - she was running leaned-out at 1900/2000 rpm! )
She now flies her 'light twins' long-haul for BA. And I have the Eze to myself. ;^)

Best with it Marc, - incrementally,

Mike T

On Saturday, 20 July 2019, 01:23:20 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@earthlink.net [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

 

 

Hi Mike,

 

I was all set to remove some nose ballast, but your post has caused me some doubt.  I generally cruise at around 165 kts TAS, and I run out of nose down trim and have to push on the stick..  Does that mean that I need a little more nose ballast?

 

I have cast a 12.1 lb nose insert that will give me a CG of around 101 (see spreadsheet).  Would you suggest that I test fly that configuration to see, if my nose trim is reduced?  I like your explanation of how balance affects efficiency.

 

Marc

 

PS

It is unlikely that a 230 lb pilot would fit in the cockpit of my LongEZ.  A 230 lb pilot presents a forward CG (but still in the first flight box) issue with low fuel.

 

From: canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 1:52 PM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@earthlink.net [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

 





Hi Marcus,

You are very right to reassess your W&B after a few (15) years.

However, you are now at a stage with your Long that you ought to be refining its performance.

I recently wrote on another point "".... Add(remove) ballast as necessary to achieve your minimum trim drag at the speed you choose to fly."

It is not simply to push your CoG back as far as safely possible. I worked all my carer in aerospace, a large part of that was in 'stability and control'. This included FBW systems that allowed reduce stability margins brought about by flying with rearward CoGs to attain more efficient flight. (mil and civil). Mainly for tailed aircraft this is the case but for a canard aircraft things are slightly different. - the canard gives positive lift whereas a tailplane pushed down. So, by moving the CoG of a plane back if it is 'tailed' this reduces the down-thrust required from the tailplane , increasing efficiency (but reducing natural stability margins). But for a canard moving the CoG further back, incrementally, means less lift is needed from the canard - good to start with but if that means that the canard elevator is now required to produce 'down trim' to the extent of adding drag that is where the rearward CoG efficiency gain idea starts to fail.

But Forget All that, there is a much easier way. Following the quote above....

i.e What airspeed do you wish to fly with your required load? - Say, 160kts
Then run a test with your nominally safe ballast at a reasonable CoG.. Run at your chosen airspeed (160kt) and note the amount of trim you need to maintain 'stick free' straight and level flight.
If the trim is significantly 'down' and/or you need to augment the trim for level flight with more 'nose down stick' then this indicates that you need more nose ballast. If it is 'up' then you can reduce the nose ballast. (But keep within the given CoG limits)

After an iteration or two you will be flying with slight elevator trailing edge, TE, floating above the in-line position for minimum canard drag. Thus for that flight condition you have your main-plane and canard balanced for minimum trim drag.

For the Long and VE I have found that the faster the chosen airspeed the more down trim, stick nose down force, is needed to maintain level flight, so expect to increase ballast for increased 'chosen airspeed'.

Running you spread sheet as you go will keep you inside safe limits.
I hope this is of some help. OMV.

Best with it,

Mike Tooze
O-235 VE, Last winner of EuroCAFE, in our 38th yr.

On Thursday, 18 July 2019, 19:04:22 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@earthlink.net [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

 

 

Hi Canardians,

 

After flying for 15 years on my last weight and balance determination, I enlisted the help of George Snyder and his certified, digital scales for a re-weigh.  I am considering adding additional nose ballast, either 10 or 25 pounds..  I would like some advice on whether I should choose 0, 10, or 25 pounds of nose ballast.  The nose already has 23.4 pounds of ballast installed.

I am attaching an Excel spreadsheet with the comparisons showing the effect on the CG for various scenarios of loading.  I have indicated the position for the CG for each of the loadings, and color coded each as follows:

 

Green (in the first flight box),

Yellow (in the CG box, but aft of the first flight box)

Pink (in the CG box, but near the aft limit)

Red (dangerously aft of the CG box)

 

Question.  Do I want to favor the nose ballast that places the CG in the first flight box.?

 

The CG box is shown at the bottom of the spreadsheet. You can play with the weights by just changing them.

 

Thanks in advance for your input.

 

Marc Borom

LongEZ  N966EZ

Ryan Field

Tucson, AZ

 

|

|
Virus-free. www.avg.com
|


Re: Coupling Radio antennae reply to Don Jones

aviationeyes
 

Hi Marcus,
when you lost your rudder, where did the rudder cable break?  Presumably 3/32" cable? I ask because I heard a story about the rudder cable causing further injury to the pilot's leg in a crash as it was pulled through the cabin when the wings sheared off. 
--Jose

On Sun, Jul 21, 2019, at 6:02 PM, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] wrote:
 


Don,

 

I lost the upper third of the winglet and the rudder was ripped off (see attached picutres).  I kept a cool head and was able to control the plane fairly easily using only the ailerons.  If the Piper had been 18 inches lower, I would have lost my head compoletely..

 

After having totally rebuilt this plane in only five days at Oshkosh in 1988, it was a bit ridiculous how long it took to get this repair done.  I was a little bummed out.

 

Marc

 

From: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 11:25 AM
To: canard-aviators@yahoogroups..com
Subject: Re: [c-a] Coupling Radio antennae

 



Marc, how much of the winglet was taken off and how difficult was it to control the plane. If this story was put out on the forum, I somehow missed it. Glad things turned out ok for you.

 

Don Jones

Berkut FG

 

On Friday, June 28, 2019, 1:18:35 PM EDT, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 

 

 

Since I had my mid-air, in which I lost my left winglet and associated radio antenna, I want to avoid the possible loss of radio contact, if this ever (very unlikely) happens again.  It was fortunate that my radio was connected through my right winglet, so I maintained radio contact with the tower.

 

I have now rebuilt my left winglet and associated radio antenna.  It works.  Is it possible to connect both antennae to the radio through a splitter (or combiner??) so that, if one antenna goes bad, or is knocked off by an errant airplane, radio contact is maintained?

 

Anxious to know.

 

Marc Borom

N966EZ

Ryan Field

Tucson, AZ

 

alt

Virus-free. www.avg.com







Attachments:
  • 20171007_103526.jpg
  • 20171007_103541.jpg
  • 20171007_113443.jpg
  • 20171007_113507.jpg
  • 20171007_113609.jpg
  • 20171007_113757.jpg
  • 20171007_113833.jpg
  • 20171007_113954.jpg
  • 20171007_123732.jpg

-- 
  
  skyeyecorp@...



Re: Camping update at OSH

Gerald Eaton
 

Hi Dick,
Thank you for the response;
“hard surface....”

That makes perfect sense....😊

I figured I was missing something obvious....
I never concerned myself with Basler (except for buying gas) since I always had to pursue GAC, so that didn’t occur to me. In fact, I didn’t even know you could reserve those spots.

Every year EAA has some small changes, and/or I learn of a ‘trick’ about getting in, finding a spot, or where to stay off-site, so I thought I might have missed a nice ‘nugget’.

And I ‘yearn’ for the day when (because I finish mine, or buy another) I can bring a Cozy, gain a slot in HBC.....

Someday.

Jerry


On Jul 21, 2019, at 20:26, Dick Knapinski dknapinski@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 

Jerry:

That is for reserved hard-surface parking at the Basler FBO.

Dick

 

From: canard-aviators@... <canard-aviators@...>
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2019 7:11 PM
To: Canard Aviators <canard-aviators@...>
Subject: [c-a] Camping update at OSH

 

 

Just got this text update:

“GA camping and parking is full unless you have reserved parking.”

Wait....
There’s reserved camping spots for GA camping/parking at Oshkosh??? (WTF!?!!)

Ok.....So I’m feeling like I belong on the short bus right now; so when did we start having reserved parking at Oshkosh? Miss-read on my part or is this just a typo? I’ve been camping under the wing for 25 years, and feel like I’ve been missing something...

Jerry Eaton


Re: Coupling Radio antennae reply to Don Jones

David A Froble
 

People who have been reading CA for a while, and have memory retention at least as good as a gnat, know about both of Marc's mishaps.

It was good to know that he could control the aircraft with part of a winglet missing. The Oshkosh rebuild is a really great tale. Good people involved.

As for the incident with the Piper, all I'll say is:

ADS-B! ADS-B!! ADS-B!!!

You'll make your own luck.

On 7/21/2019 8:53 PM, Bob Holliston bob.holliston@gmail.com [canard-aviators] wrote:


Holy shit!

On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 4:02 PM 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@earthlink.net
<mailto:borommarc@earthlink.net> [canard-aviators]
<canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:

__


Don,____

__ __

I lost the upper third of the winglet and the rudder was ripped off
(see attached picutres). I kept a cool head and was able to control
the plane fairly easily using only the ailerons. If the Piper had
been 18 inches lower, I would have lost my head compoletely.. ____

__ __

After having totally rebuilt this plane in only five days at Oshkosh
in 1988, it was a bit ridiculous how long it took to get this repair
done. I was a little bummed out.____

__ __

Marc ____

__ __

*From:* canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com>
*Sent:* Friday, June 28, 2019 11:25 AM
*To:* canard-aviators@yahoogroups..com
*Subject:* Re: [c-a] Coupling Radio antennae____

__ __




____

Marc, how much of the winglet was taken off and how difficult was it
to control the plane. If this story was put out on the forum, I
somehow missed it. Glad things turned out ok for you.____

__ __

Don Jones____

Berkut FG____

__ __

On Friday, June 28, 2019, 1:18:35 PM EDT, 'Marcus Borom'
borommarc@earthlink.net <mailto:borommarc@earthlink.net>
[canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com>> wrote: ____

__ __

__ __

____

Since I had my mid-air, in which I lost my left winglet and
associated radio antenna, I want to avoid the possible loss of radio
contact, if this ever (very unlikely) happens again. It was
fortunate that my radio was connected through my right winglet, so I
maintained radio contact with the tower.____

____

I have now rebuilt my left winglet and associated radio antenna. It
works. Is it possible to connect both antennae to the radio through
a splitter (or combiner??) so that, if one antenna goes bad, or is
knocked off by an errant airplane, radio contact is maintained?____

____

Anxious to know.____

____

Marc Borom____

N966EZ____

Ryan Field____

Tucson, AZ____

__ __

alt
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>____



Virus-free. www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
____




____

____



--

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486


Re: Coupling Radio antennae reply to Don Jones

Bob Holliston
 

Holy shit!


On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 4:02 PM 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:
 

Don,

 

I lost the upper third of the winglet and the rudder was ripped off (see attached picutres).  I kept a cool head and was able to control the plane fairly easily using only the ailerons.  If the Piper had been 18 inches lower, I would have lost my head compoletely..

 

After having totally rebuilt this plane in only five days at Oshkosh in 1988, it was a bit ridiculous how long it took to get this repair done.  I was a little bummed out.

 

Marc

 

From: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 11:25 AM
To: canard-aviators@yahoogroups..com
Subject: Re: [c-a] Coupling Radio antennae

 




Marc, how much of the winglet was taken off and how difficult was it to control the plane. If this story was put out on the forum, I somehow missed it. Glad things turned out ok for you.

 

Don Jones

Berkut FG

 

On Friday, June 28, 2019, 1:18:35 PM EDT, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 

 

 

Since I had my mid-air, in which I lost my left winglet and associated radio antenna, I want to avoid the possible loss of radio contact, if this ever (very unlikely) happens again.  It was fortunate that my radio was connected through my right winglet, so I maintained radio contact with the tower.

 

I have now rebuilt my left winglet and associated radio antenna.  It works.  Is it possible to connect both antennae to the radio through a splitter (or combiner??) so that, if one antenna goes bad, or is knocked off by an errant airplane, radio contact is maintained?

 

Anxious to know.

 

Marc Borom

N966EZ

Ryan Field

Tucson, AZ

 

alt

Virus-free. www.avg.com






--


Re: Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

Keith Spreuer
 

What CG was that?


On Sun, Jul 21, 2019, 3:48 PM 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:
 

Hi Mike,

 

I went out early this morning to beat the heat and try my new W&B.  Ambient was 87F with low humidity.

Temperature was scheduled to climb to 105. 

Normal for Tucson.  This is real heat.  Not a heat index.  It’s always damn hot here.

 

Here are the flight details. 

 

I added the 12.1 weight to the nose area (FS 3.0) giving me a total ballast of 35.5 lbs and flew as follows:

 

Rotated at 60 kts.

No noticeable change in TO roll. 

Altitude 6500 ft MSL

OAT 70F

Flying lean of peak

Tach 2250

IAS 140-145 kts..  That was unusually high for me

TAS from a/s indicator (with temp and altitude correction) 160-165 kts

I had down trim to spare.  No stick pressure necessary.

Elevator appeared to be in the neutral position.

Checked stall speed, full throttle.  Plane would not stall.  Continued to climb at 60kts without stalling.

I didn’t want to kick up the rpms because of the OAT and possible engine overheating.

 

I was very pleased, although, at first, a bit anxious.

 

I can try another weight less than 12.1 by removing the 10.7 lb weight in the port pocket in front of the battery and filling the pocket with lead shot.

The total ballast with the 12.1 addition is now 35.5. 

Removing the 10.7 lb weight will give me a base of 24.8 lbs.  I can add weight with sacks of recovered lead shot. 

Should I give it a try?

 

I was advised by a friend to check the incidence on my canard.  That is not an issue here.  I had to modify the canard about 18 years ago.  It was too thick.  I modified it by carefully following an aluminum template and rechecked the incidence.  Everything in that regard is copesetic.

 

Thanks for your continued interest.  You guys are great.

 

Marc  B

(not as smart as Marc Z)

 

.

 

From: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2019 2:38 AM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...>
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

 




Hi Marc,

I assume from your spread sheet that you are the 187lb guy and we are discounting the heavy fellow.

Yes, you are with it. What you describe indicates to me that in trimming via nose down stick pressure that you do need to increase your ballast. (Down force produced by extra ballast is cheaper, drag wise, than extra down trim force with its associated drag.)

You could go for the 12.1 lb. but time is on your side, I would try, say, +6 or +8lb first. If you can't get the stick free trim condition then carry on to the +12.1lb etc. What you don't want is to run out of pitch authority in the landing configuration also if you have a problem landing in rain the more forward CoG will not help that. That's why I would advise an incremental approach.

You will feel so much more comfortable at your chosen a/s rather than have to 'fly it' all the time - and it will run more efficiently.
(Vance made a good point, if you have the space you could put in a larger capacity battery instead of some of the ballast. I recently swapped my 14Ahr m/c battery for a 21Ahr removing about 2lb of steel plate)


A point of interest that may or may not be relevant. Re. the lower weight pilot on the spread sheet.
When my daughter was flying G-EMMY all she wanted was 'hours' complaining that the a/s meant she flew longer stages.
I put the ballast such that either of us could safely fly without having to move the ballast.
This had the effect of maintaining my higher cruise a/s at neutral trim while she, at her lower front seat weight (w second set of pedals), flew at a considerably lower a/s but also, interestingly, at around neutral pitch trim. (She eventually gave me a GIB flight and I found myself leaning forward! - she was running leaned-out at 1900/2000 rpm! )
She now flies her 'light twins' long-haul for BA. And I have the Eze to myself. ;^)

Best with it Marc, - incrementally,

Mike T

On Saturday, 20 July 2019, 01:23:20 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 

 

 

Hi Mike,

 

I was all set to remove some nose ballast, but your post has caused me some doubt.  I generally cruise at around 165 kts TAS, and I run out of nose down trim and have to push on the stick.  Does that mean that I need a little more nose ballast?

 

I have cast a 12.1 lb nose insert that will give me a CG of around 101 (see spreadsheet).  Would you suggest that I test fly that configuration to see, if my nose trim is reduced?  I like your explanation of how balance affects efficiency.

 

Marc

 

PS

It is unlikely that a 230 lb pilot would fit in the cockpit of my LongEZ.  A 230 lb pilot presents a forward CG (but still in the first flight box) issue with low fuel.

 

From: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 1:52 PM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...>
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

 



Hi Marcus,

You are very right to reassess your W&B after a few (15) years.

However, you are now at a stage with your Long that you ought to be refining its performance.

I recently wrote on another point "".... Add(remove) ballast as necessary to achieve your minimum trim drag at the speed you choose to fly."

It is not simply to push your CoG back as far as safely possible. I worked all my carer in aerospace, a large part of that was in 'stability and control'. This included FBW systems that allowed reduce stability margins brought about by flying with rearward CoGs to attain more efficient flight. (mil and civil). Mainly for tailed aircraft this is the case but for a canard aircraft things are slightly different. - the canard gives positive lift whereas a tailplane pushed down. So, by moving the CoG of a plane back if it is 'tailed' this reduces the down-thrust required from the tailplane , increasing efficiency (but reducing natural stability margins). But for a canard moving the CoG further back, incrementally, means less lift is needed from the canard - good to start with but if that means that the canard elevator is now required to produce 'down trim' to the extent of adding drag that is where the rearward CoG efficiency gain idea starts to fail.

But Forget All that, there is a much easier way. Following the quote above....

i.e What airspeed do you wish to fly with your required load? - Say, 160kts
Then run a test with your nominally safe ballast at a reasonable CoG.. Run at your chosen airspeed (160kt) and note the amount of trim you need to maintain 'stick free' straight and level flight.
If the trim is significantly 'down' and/or you need to augment the trim for level flight with more 'nose down stick' then this indicates that you need more nose ballast. If it is 'up' then you can reduce the nose ballast. (But keep within the given CoG limits)

After an iteration or two you will be flying with slight elevator trailing edge, TE, floating above the in-line position for minimum canard drag. Thus for that flight condition you have your main-plane and canard balanced for minimum trim drag.

For the Long and VE I have found that the faster the chosen airspeed the more down trim, stick nose down force, is needed to maintain level flight, so expect to increase ballast for increased 'chosen airspeed'.

Running you spread sheet as you go will keep you inside safe limits.
I hope this is of some help. OMV.

Best with it,

Mike Tooze
O-235 VE, Last winner of EuroCAFE, in our 38th yr.

On Thursday, 18 July 2019, 19:04:22 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 

 

 

Hi Canardians,

 

After flying for 15 years on my last weight and balance determination, I enlisted the help of George Snyder and his certified, digital scales for a re-weigh.  I am considering adding additional nose ballast, either 10 or 25 pounds..  I would like some advice on whether I should choose 0, 10, or 25 pounds of nose ballast.  The nose already has 23.4 pounds of ballast installed.

I am attaching an Excel spreadsheet with the comparisons showing the effect on the CG for various scenarios of loading.  I have indicated the position for the CG for each of the loadings, and color coded each as follows:

 

Green (in the first flight box),

Yellow (in the CG box, but aft of the first flight box)

Pink (in the CG box, but near the aft limit)

Red (dangerously aft of the CG box)

 

Question.  Do I want to favor the nose ballast that places the CG in the first flight box.?

 

The CG box is shown at the bottom of the spreadsheet. You can play with the weights by just changing them.

 

Thanks in advance for your input.

 

Marc Borom

LongEZ  N966EZ

Ryan Field

Tucson, AZ

 

Virus-free. www.avg.com

 



 





Re: Camping update at OSH

Dick Knapinski
 

Jerry:

That is for reserved hard-surface parking at the Basler FBO.

Dick

 

From: canard-aviators@... <canard-aviators@...>
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2019 7:11 PM
To: Canard Aviators <canard-aviators@...>
Subject: [c-a] Camping update at OSH

 

 

Just got this text update:

“GA camping and parking is full unless you have reserved parking.”

Wait....
There’s reserved camping spots for GA camping/parking at Oshkosh??? (WTF!?!!)

Ok.....So I’m feeling like I belong on the short bus right now; so when did we start having reserved parking at Oshkosh? Miss-read on my part or is this just a typo? I’ve been camping under the wing for 25 years, and feel like I’ve been missing something...

Jerry Eaton

4801 - 4820 of 109970