Dear Andy,

Is it not simpler to just follow the plans and not die? I'm not attempting
to get on your bad side Chrissi but I think here you are seriously starting

Gee Andy, you put things so eloquently. First of all this concept was
proposed to me by someone else, I was then curious about it's validity and
being a "forum of open discussion" I put it out there to simply find out why
or why not it was a good idea from those that know, this is how we learn
rather than "hey I think I will just make mine out of 3 cores and see how it
goes".
The responses I got back ranged from "you are messing with God's work, don't
you think he has already calculated the loading out to a gnat's ass? !!!" to
" well you know Burt; he probably made it so long then decided to add the
extra 10 inches to each side so he just glued them on" so you see Andy...
"experts" come in all flavors too.
What I did get was enough information to confirm my beliefs and learn more
about the design. If dummies like me did not ask enough stupid questions
there would be no material in the archives to look up in the first place,
would there?
...Chrissi

Quit trying to design your own airplane unless you are an aeronautical engineer. Burt designed it and it flies great. I know as I have a Long EZ and it flies fine.....

"Quit trying to design your own airplane unless you are an aeronautical
engineer. "
Brian.... Oh My God! has anyone told Nat Puffer? I hope it is not too late to
get a refund on my plans and materials? Anyone need an extra large lawn
ornament?
...Chrissi

Brian, just because someone asks a question doesn't mean he's trying to
"design" his own airplane. Perhaps he's just trying to learn something
(EDUCATE HIMSELF). Burt designed a great airplane but others have improved
it and made it safer and faster with modifications. I'm sure they asked some
questions before moving forward. I thing it would be worse for all of us
if somebody got hurt because he (or she) didn't ask a question for fear of
being ridiculed. We should all pull together to promote maximum safety and
that should include new guys with perhaps not so great questions. With your
attitude, we would all still be on foot. The Wright Brothers weren't
aeronautical engineers...they were bicycle builders. Curiosity, questions
and experimentation are the fuels of invention. Sincerely, Gary

Hey, Brian, every once in a while this subject comes up. The fact that
the airplane is going to have "EXPERIMENTAL" written across it somewhere
means just that! I bet your Long EZ isn't exactly per plans. I bet it has
some mods that were made by non-Rutan, non-aeronautical engineers.
I know people who have made some great mods to these airplanes, and
they were nowhere near Rutan in stature.
Simon "I Love My Electromechanical Retractable Nosegear" Ramirez

Dear Ken,
Thanks for the clarification.
The original point of 3 cores had nothing to do with structural issues. As it
was explained to me the one layer of shear web and the thin spar caps out at
that point would be of minor weight concerns..we are talking about 10-12"
each side. It was simpler to do, two less joints to screw up, fair in and
possibly misalign. Done to plans the worst case would be misaligned tips that
also had a lot of filler compared to simpler, smoother, straighter and
stiffer tips... I brought it up because it seemed like a good idea and wanted
to know if anyone had experience with this mod.
Before anyone has kittens, ours is 5 cores
...Chrissi

Canardians,
I don't think there will ever be a shortage of negative opinions on any given
idea but I would not want anyone to hold back from contributing a
knowledgeable response on the downside of any idea here.
Sometimes it is too easy to get caught up in "hey this is really cool!" and
miss the not so obvious.
There are some truly brilliant folks on here and I value what they have to
say... for or against an idea.
Someone pointed out to me that to follow another canard in turbulence is like
watching a wet noodle. Making a change that would modify that elasticity
without seeing the bigger picture could be catastrophic.
..Chrissi

Message text written by "brian amendala"

Quit trying to design your own airplane unless you are an aeronautical
engineer. Burt designed it and it flies great. I know as I have a Long EZ
and it flies fine.....
<

Brian,
One question: Did you build your own EZ? If so, did you follow
the instructions verbatim?
If the answer to any of the questions is no, then I think one
should limit their opinions to those that are either not hypocritical, or
are as a result of their own experience.
Chrissi, the Berkut plans run the spar all the way to the tip to
simplify the building process and further stiffen the canard, and they use
carbon spar cap tape. No problems to date. I would go to 1/4" lift tabs
and 3/8 canard bolts, too.


Ken Miller
A&P EAA Tech and Flight Advisor
www.long-ez.com
kenEZmiller@...

"The lead wagon catches the most arrows"
....Custer

Gary and all,
I have written Chrissi a couple of times to encourage her to keep building
(though she sounds like she can handle herself) amongst the criticism. I
agree with Gary. Questions are not dumb...they are an inquirery. We are a
unique family of pilots. We fly something that confuses most pilots. A
canard. That in itself is a radical departure from standard design. But my
point...how many other builders are afraid to ask questions for fear of
being criticized? THAT is dangerous. We are members of the same news
group. We should respect anyone who takes on the enormous job of building
an airplane. Hostility and disrespect have no place on this forum. If you
can't help with respect for an individual, keep it to yourself and your
friend who might agree.
Respectfully,
Dana

Brian,

were Orville and Wilbur Aeronautical Engineers, or do you just
disapprove on modern day inovation without proper certification?

Request you play nice, and try to remember that their probably is no
such thing as the Ultimate Expression of any technology. Certainly
nobody is going to argue that the Long EZ or the Cozy IV are the
ultimate expressions of canard technology.

Bill

You are taking my reply all wrong. All I am trying to say is to build these planes, (any planes), per plans. As lay people we don't have near the knowledge required to build airplanes. The Wrights built a "Marginally" strong plane that was meant to fly only a few feet above the ground. In todays environment with cross country travel a second thought in our Long Ez's, I don't think it would hold up and the occupants would be killed. An aeronatical engineer is required to make sure all the parts are strong enough to avoid collapse.
This is what I was trying to convey, build the plane according to plans. It will get done a lot faster and the builder will be a lot happier because they are flying earlier than if they question little things on the plans.
It amazes me that people buy plans from a designer and then proceed to question the plans, or worse yet try to change them. These people need to know that it is inherently dangerous to change anything that is structural on any plans. If a person does change the plans I have only one question: Why did they purchase the plans in the first place?
I have a motto for all builders:
OURS IS NOT TO REASON WHY, OURS IS JUST TO BUILD AND FLY.
Sorry if I offended anyone...Merry Christmas....Brian

Brian, just because someone asks a question doesn't mean he's trying to
"design" his own airplane. Perhaps he's just trying to learn something
(EDUCATE HIMSELF). Burt designed a great airplane but others have improved
it and made it safer and faster with modifications. I'm sure they asked some
questions before moving forward. I thing it would be worse for all of us
if somebody got hurt because he (or she) didn't ask a question for fear of
being ridiculed. We should all pull together to promote maximum safety and
that should include new guys with perhaps not so great questions. With your
attitude, we would all still be on foot. The Wright Brothers weren't
aeronautical engineers...they were bicycle builders. Curiosity, questions
and experimentation are the fuels of invention. Sincerely, Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: "brian amendala" <solongez@...>
To: <CozyGirrrl@...>; <canard-aviators@...>
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 7:52 PM
Subject: Re: [c-a] Number of canard cores

Quit trying to design your own airplane unless you are an aeronautical
engineer. Burt designed it and it flies great. I know as I have a Long

EZ

and it flies fine.....






To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
canard-aviators-unsubscribe@...



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Brian,

Why did they purchase the plans in the first place?

Every heard the phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants"

I have a motto for all builders:
OURS IS NOT TO REASON WHY, OURS IS JUST TO BUILD AND FLY.

I have a coule of mottos you might consider adopting:
"UNDERSTANDING IS THE KEY TO SURVIVAL"
"OURS IS NOT JUST TO BUILD AND FLY, OURS IS MORE - TO REASON WHY"

I guess it takes all types.
John Slade,
Cozy IV

Brian,

Despite the entreaties against negativity, I cannot emphasize enough how
much I disagree with your statement "OURS IS NOT TO REASON WHY"

Bunk!

Ours IS to reason why, not only to understand the intent of the plans
and to be sure we have not misinterpreted something, but also to make
choices where safety can be improved. Was the first Lomg-eze that Burt
designed the best ever? I don't think so. Have there been no changes
mentioned in the CP? We all know there have. How were these changes
discovered - were they all discovered by Burt and Co.? I don't know
myself, but I highly doubt it.

I am not a Long-ez builder, I am here because this list serves many
different kinds of canards... and many (probably all) have areas that
can be improved. I know there are a couple things that I have learned on
mail-lists such as this that could save my life, that required
*changing* the plans. Be assured those changes were made only after
consultation with many people, and much discussion on the list. If
everyone took your admonishment to heart, we would have no discussion
and would not benefit from the increased safety that can result.

My advice:

QUESTION EVERYTHING. It is the hallmark of learning, understanding and
advancement of the art.

-John Rourke

You are taking my reply all wrong. All I am trying to say is to
build these planes, (any planes), per plans. >

My opinion only, but if you adhere strictly to the Long-EZ plans (in my
case), then you end up with an airplane that was essentially designed in
1980, the year the plans were printed. My plane was finished in 1997, and I
made many modifications that were first proven safe by others in this group
and CSA. So I have an airplane that is essentially a 1997 design. Had
liability not been an issue, I have no doubt that most of my modifications
would have been blessed by RAF.

The 1980 design is a fine airplane. My hangarmate has one. It's certainly
lighter than mine, primarily due to the smaller engine. But all things
considered, I like mine better.

It's true that RAF has modified the plans since 1980 through CP plans
changes. But the liability issue is a significant concern for Burt, and RAF
hasn't the time or inclination to thoroughly test new mods. It's also a
significant concern that, in a liability suit, any changes that RAF approves
implies that the previous design was structurally inadequate. That's reason
enough for RAF to leave the original design alone, even though there are
better ideas out there.

There are a few things that I wouldn't tinker with, like airfoil shapes,
incidence, layup schedules, approved glass and epoxy, and the like. But
there are "structural" modifications that make a certain amount of sense.
Ken Miller recently suggested 1/4" lift tabs and 3/8" canard bolts. There's
no history of these parts failing, but the added weight is minimal, the
additional weight is toward the nose where you want it, the additional
building effort is minimal, and the peace of mind would be a comfort in
heavy turbulence. (In heavy turbulence, I'm 'always' thinking about those
pesky little 1/8" lift tabs!). This is a pretty good idea in my view. I
wish I had done it.

Stet Elliott
flyez@...
Long-EZ N321EF

Message text written by Ken Miller

carbon spar cap tape. No problems to date. I would go to 1/4" lift tabs
and 3/8 canard bolts, too.<

OOPS. I meant 5/16 (dash-5) bolts. The Cozy IV uses the 1/4" tabs
already. I will agree that the 5/16 bolts are still overkill, but I sleep
better at night...


Ken Miller
A&P EAA Tech and Flight Advisor
www.long-ez.com
kenEZmiller@...

"The lead wagon catches the most arrows"
....Custer

At 09:29 10/12/2001 -0700, Stet Elliott wrote:

There are a few things that I wouldn't tinker with, like airfoil shapes,
incidence, layup schedules, approved glass and epoxy, and the like. But
there are "structural" modifications that make a certain amount of sense.
Ken Miller recently suggested 1/4" lift tabs and 3/8" canard bolts. There's
no history of these parts failing, but the added weight is minimal, the
additional weight is toward the nose where you want it, the additional
building effort is minimal, and the peace of mind would be a comfort in
heavy turbulence.

I agree with all of that Stet, and Ken Miller's remarks. The thing that I think about in rough air with 1/4" bolts and 1/8" tabs is wear and tear. Burt said 1/4" bolts were strong enough for the wing attach too but chose 1/2" for wear reasons didn't he?

Graham

Stet Elliott wrote:

Ken Miller recently suggested 1/4" lift tabs and 3/8" canard bolts. There's
no history of these parts failing, but the added weight is minimal, the
additional weight is toward the nose where you want it, the additional
building effort is minimal, and the peace of mind would be a comfort in
heavy turbulence. (In heavy turbulence, I'm 'always' thinking about those
pesky little 1/8" lift tabs!). This is a pretty good idea in my view. I
wish I had done it.

In general I agreed with your post. However, you had to ruin it at the end. If the designer properly calculated the structure for the lift tabs and bolts, and these parts withstood testing, and have never had a failure, then there is one good reason not to 'beef them up'.

The question would become, where do you draw the line? Not too much weight, true, but then there will be another part that you want to 'make stronger' (and heavier), and another, and another, ......

One axiom of aircraft design is that no part should be stronger (and heavier) than it needs to be. Yeah, that may seem a crock of bull when you've had to add ballast in the nose. There's probably a number of things in the front of the airframe that could be a bit heftier, doing something possibly useful, and reducing the amount of ballast. Can't argue with that. But I do dislike the concept of over-engineering an aircraft part.

Dave

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. Fax: 724-529-0596
DFE Ultralights, Inc. E-Mail: davef@...
T-Soft, Inc. 170 Grimplin Road Vanderbilt, PA 15486

Dave,

I had the same question back when I was building my GU canard in the early 80's.
My mentor, Ken Swain, who by profession was mechanical engineer (and C141 driver)
led me through a detailed analysis of the Rutan designed plans canard lift tab
attach system. He convinced me the structure, although it seemed quite anemic to
me, was in fact overkill by quite a lot (cannot remember the numbers - CRS) for
the application. I still look at them and shake my head, check them often, but in
the +2300 hours I've got on 'em they still are just fine.

Chuck
LE N143CL



David Froble wrote:

Dave....I agree. This is what I am talking about in my latest emails. An extra bid here, a thicker tube there, a thicker bolt. I have built 3 airplanes and I know others who do this. You can easily add between 50 and 100 lbs. to an airframe with this mentality. I still say if it was good enough for the designer AND THERE HAVE BEEN NO PROBLEMS THRU THE YEARS, why change it.
Brian

Stet Elliott wrote:

Ken Miller recently suggested 1/4" lift tabs and 3/8" canard bolts.

There's

no history of these parts failing, but the added weight is minimal, the
additional weight is toward the nose where you want it, the additional
building effort is minimal, and the peace of mind would be a comfort in
heavy turbulence. (In heavy turbulence, I'm 'always' thinking about

those

pesky little 1/8" lift tabs!). This is a pretty good idea in my view.

I

wish I had done it.

In general I agreed with your post. However, you had to ruin it at the
end. If the designer properly calculated the structure for the lift
tabs and bolts, and these parts withstood testing, and have never had a
failure, then there is one good reason not to 'beef them up'.

The question would become, where do you draw the line? Not too much
weight, true, but then there will be another part that you want to 'make
stronger' (and heavier), and another, and another, ......

One axiom of aircraft design is that no part should be stronger (and
heavier) than it needs to be. Yeah, that may seem a crock of bull when
you've had to add ballast in the nose. There's probably a number of
things in the front of the airframe that could be a bit heftier, doing
something possibly useful, and reducing the amount of ballast. Can't
argue with that. But I do dislike the concept of over-engineering an
aircraft part.

Dave

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. Fax: 724-529-0596
DFE Ultralights, Inc. E-Mail: davef@...
T-Soft, Inc. 170 Grimplin Road Vanderbilt, PA 15486

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

In a message dated 12/10/01 9:39:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,
grasingleton@... writes:

The thing that I
think about in rough air with 1/4" bolts and 1/8" tabs is wear and tear.
Burt said 1/4" bolts were strong enough for the wing attach too but chose
1/2" for wear reasons didn't he?

He chose 1/2 in bolts because the average joe/jane didn't think 1/4 bolts
were strong enough! I also would fit that category.

Tom R.C. Smith
Long-EZ #1353
N12TS
A&P
Hanger 25
Nuttree Airport
Vacaville, Ca.