FredStork

Cloud,
did you not just answer your own question? I don't think Bryce added weight in the tail when he changed to the tail dragger landing gear, I think he left the weight in place as he might have been satisfied with the stall behaviour as you mention. And if he was happy, why modify the CG by moving the battery? His change of landing gear had very little impact on CG as it only moved the wheel forward about 6 inches (the exact distance to be confirmed). This could be comparable to the passenger stretching, or not, his legs. 
I wish you good luck and many safe flights,
Fred

Cloud Dancer,
I think you are misreading me. Why would I judge negaitive the decision of using what ever is at hand to adjust the CG? Ask anyone using a 912 or Sob and you will find that most of them have the battery in the tail. This is perfectly normal and I have no contradictory opinion. But having the CG "pretty rearward" to avoid tipping over is something compleatly different. 
However, if you do put your battery in the tail, make sure it can't not get lose in a crash as it will make a really nasty projectile aiming for your head or spine... 
Pilot and passenger CG is 16 in aft of datum, i.e very close to the aft limit and any luggage way behind. So starting "pretty rearward" is a bad starting point.
Here are the designer notes on CG from the builder manual:
Weight, unless in the wrong place, is obviously unrelated to CG but as you ask.. in the paperwork for my plane there is a "reference empty weight", I don't have it accessible but it is something ridiculous like 400lbs. It must be for the rubber band engine version. My actual (and declared) empty weight is 573 lbs and that appear to be fairly normal compared to others. As I don't need additional weight in the tail I'm using a lithium-ion battery, a great weight saver. 

One “bush option” could be to use 6000 for landing gear (I did that), for the belly and tail plane (I didn’t do that) and 600 for the rest. But 6000 is still lighter than traditional covering so no real harm using it. And I know what you are saying, the 6000 stuff feels bulletproof, I don’t think there is anything on the market than can complete...

No need for Oratex 6000, you can use Oratex 600 it is certified up to 600 kg MTOW - it is cheaper and more than sufficient in terms of strength. 

I"Another question is who designed the Avid gear so that it could be flipped around and mounted both ways? Clearly the designer intended it to fly both ways right?"
We know very well who designed the landing gear but the way you are asking implies that you already have the answer to the second part of your question. One could get the impression you are trying to prove that flying with wrong gear is right...
I don't think there was any intention that it should be used both ways. Seen the thoughts put into the the design of the Avid Flyer there would not be different designs of the main gear for nose and tail dragger models it it was intended to be used that way. A more likely reason is that when half of the gear is identical you can save a lot of effort in both design and construction. You can use on welding jig with 2 different wheel axis positions rather than having 2 compleatly different sets of jigs.
It is not be always by design that the round peg fit into the square hole...

Thanks Bryce,
...but to quote you," it is completely doable" as long as " the brakes on it suck!" and the CG "pretty rearward". It does not really sound like a recipe for success...
 

As I'm not only a non-believer but also a friend of Bryce (it is him and his plane in the video) so I sent him a mail. It will be interesting to get his view on this. He is a good pilot with a lot of experience. It will also be interesting to hear why he later changed the returned nose gear main to a real taildragger main gear:

You can see the difference in geometry.

I have a friend who wanted to change from nose to tail. He moved the main gear to the forward attachments, taxied, light brake and on the nose. The only winner was me as I sold him my old prop...
There is no way you can use the nose wheel main gear for tail dragger configuration unless you fill up the trail with a large stock of spare propellers (don't forget to put the broken ones back in the tail when changing)... The geometry is different and the main gear get way to close to the CG. 

That’s more like it! And fully worth the price.

A radically different approach to brakes..
After multiple attempts to modify the toe brakes, thinking about heel brakes and reading endless posts I locked myself in my workshop and came up with this:
It is 2 valves operated with a common lever. In the middle position they are both open (half open to be exact), push to one end and one close and the other goes to full open, push the lever the other way and it is the other way around. This way the braking power can be directed to either one of the wheels or to both.  The electric switch is flashing an alarm when not in "neutral".
The lever is manipulated with a little handle placed on the throttle quadrant that I have on the left had side of the seat.
And while at it I made a parking brake. A small handle is placed under the seat. 
So nothing on the pedals, I have a motor cycle brake handle with master cylinder on the stick (ergonomically turned 45 degrees to the left as I fly and brake with my right hand). The master cyliner goes directly to the parking brake, followed by a "T" that goes to each of the switch valves and from there to the wheel brake calipers.
And it works. By directing the brake power to both wheels I can brake evenly without problems. When directing the brake power to only on wheel I can turn as sharp as I want, all the way down to around the blocked wheel. With my 92hp, new prop and 22 inch wheels I have some difficulties holding still on full throttle... 
 Sorry about the really low quality of the video...
 
 

Allen, 
It is so easy to get a bad reputation... When I was looking for an alternative to my too old 532 I found (and later bought) the 2 stroke Simonini Victor 2 (92hp). When asking around about the engine no-one actually had first hand experience but they ALL had a friend how had had one but "as it keep breaking down the friend changed back to Rotax", "You better by a Rotax, and 2 strokes you know... why not a 912?" 
Finding it a little strange that so many people had friends with failing engins as very few Simonini engines were sold in France at that time I started to probe the stories a little. It all boiled down to one article in the French ultraligh magazine a few years earlier where someone actually replaced a Rotax 582 with a Simonini Victor 2 and had 2 consecutive (identical) issues, after the first incident Simonini replaced the engine and after the second they gave the money back. What the article didn't tell was that Simnonini recognized the problem as a class issue, fixed the problem and have not had the problem again.
After buying the Simonini Victor 2 engine I started a blog to share my experience and that way I got in contact with other owners around the world. So far the only documented issue (that could be blamed on the engine rather than the owner) remain the article in the French magazine...
I'm with you, I belive in the simplicity of the 2 stroke engings, they are reliable if maintained properly (and that doesn't take a lot of effort), the power/weight ratio is unbeatable. The weight difference beetween a Victor 2 or Rotax 582 and a 4 stroke 912 is equal to over 7 gallons of fuel and with my engine I get 92hp and have the same fuel consumption as with a 912. And I don't have to put a heavy lead battery in the tail (changing to a light weight battery I gained another gallon of fuel...).
Does this make me a "hillbilly"?
  

They don't... but they slightly increase the pilots performance by modifying the flaperon deployment differential and thereby reduce the adverse yaw making it easier to keep the ball in center... It is a noticeable, but not dramatic, improvement. 

I would have done anything, except the inevitable flying over the pond, to have been there... Thank you for sharing the pics from this amazing event. The YouTubes films are starting to come in as well... 

If you bring in large groups of people from areas with precarious sanitary condition you will obviously get an increased occurance of different diseases. Just like you will get an increase of people with only one leg, or a foot missing, when those large groups arrive from war zones. If you had one case in your country before the arrival and there are 3 cases in the arriving group the increase is an alarming 300% - but there is nothing saying that any German will therefore loose a leg or get leprocy. Yes, infectious diseases is a problem in the immigration groups, but mainly for the immigration group itself. Most likely it is better for them to have this problem in Germany, where they can get treatment, than in their home countries - but that is a different topic.
The text, that I don't think you wrote yourself but copied from somewhere, has a very clear agenda. To create fear. It mixes facts with allegations and easy to draw, but not nessecarily correct, conclusions. 
Making the list long makes it scary but adding irrelevant diseases, some not even transmittable from person to person, questions   the over all credibility - and sincerity. You probably already had toxoplasmosis (and are therefore immunized ), you could most likey not catch leprocy even if you try hard as you are just too healthy. Multi drug resistent stems don't come from under- but from over-medicalized areas (Germany itself in this case) and while syphilis and aids can be transmitted I'm sure you know how to protect yourself. And we could go on...
And just in terms of human decency, referring to one of your previous posts, living in a part of the world where 100% of births are paid for by the tax payers (including for tourists and illegal immigrants...) I cannot be upset by 11% of newborns getting a free ride rather being exposed to the risks of unassisted home births...
And don't forget, what we see on our borders is not the problem but the symptom.
Regards,
Fred

Correct, the full name of the legendary post war Citroën 2CV (produced between 1948 to 1990) reads Deux Chevaux for two horses (as in 2 steam horses powers, about 9 hp today). I had a later model in my youth with a much bigger engine, 28hp, and could do 0-60 mph (very close to top VNE) in less than 32 seconds... The popular name for the 2CV was "Deuche" and I was amused to find this sticker on my Avid Flyer when I bought it (unfortunately it didn't survive the rebuild - but I honored the memory by using the 2CV window latches...)
 

Yes. The difference is noticeable while not dramatic. You will still need footwork to fly clean... I found them worth upgrading to.

I just noticed this add on FaceBook... I hope Mark is not applying the same price.... "philosophy"...

 

Awesome! You can live on an adenture like that for a long time (all winter!). Thanks for sharing and don't hesitate to poste more of those great pics!

Have I been living under a rock the last decades? Should we, who fly amateur built experimental aircrafts with non certified engines, now be worried about getting cholera, leprosy and syphilis from asylum seeking immigrants? I mean, I live in France and we get our share of immigration just like Germany... And when I think about it, I'm super exposed as I'm actually a first generation immigrant myself... 
I don't know how to put this in a respectful way... Listing German infection statistics, taken compleatly out of context, and implying that it would by some reason be applicable to the US southern border situation is tinfoil-hat, conspiracy theorist, argumentation.
But you are right about why dengue fever is increasing in southern parts of Europe. It actually is due to illegal immigration - illegal immigration of aedes mosquitoes moving north due to the climate change...

Salut Jerome!
The open windows is probably the best modification I have done to my plane. It is actually very simple, it is just an additional frame (12 mm aluminium tubes) inside of the upper part of the door that uses the same hinges as the door. The easiest way to do the window frames is doing them in 4 parts, one for each corner, and join the 12 mm tubes together by placing 10 mm tubes inside the 12 mm. This allows to cut the tubes once the corners are adjusted in the door frame and get a good fit.  
I reused old door gas springs to keep the windows open. They will stay open as long as you fly clean but when I take photographs and pilot with my knees (i.e. not always that clean) they sometimes dip a little - always enough to get in front of the lens.
The window latches are obviously 2CV window latches (what else for the 2CV of the air?). You can get the fast and cheap from the 2CV Mehari Club in Cassis. 
The windows are also very appreciated by your passengers, people love to take photos but through the lexan is not very good and few passengers dare to open the entire door...  
On hot summer days it is just soooo nice flying the 2CV way with the elbow out the window.

I hope this helps!
Amicalement,
Fred

Hi Paul, you must have got then luxury version... There were no bushings on mine, and no space to put any either. But I had the same thought about dirt so this is what I did (and after a few years it still work well), keeps the grease in and the dirt out:

 

you better use grease than oil so it stays in place...

Is it a friction in the links or do you think it is the push-pull rod that creat the friction, maybe it is bent?

Great photos Randy, it looks fantastic. But you be safe out there... I've just seen some really scary photos of a bushpilot who got surprised by a bear and got badly beaten up before his friend could save him!