Wanted - Long EZ and Q2 plans [Archive]

Rick Pellicciotti

August 21st 03, 02:17 PM

"karel adams" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rick Pellicciotti" > schreef in bericht
> news:3f43dbef$1@ham...
> > "Jay" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Since at least the Long EZ plans are no longer offered for sale,
> > > somebody should just scan those suckers and post 'em on the web.
> > >
> > >
> > > "1engineer" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > Looking for Long EZ, Berkut or Q2 plans so that I may build an RC
> model,
> > > > 1/4 - 1/3 scale. Do not need the entire plan set as I intend to
> go foam
> > > > wing core and fiberglass hull.
> > > >
> > > > Please direct all responses back to
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > Here ya go:
> >
> > http://www.terf.com/RAFCDROM.htm
>
> Looks nice, however have you noticed:
> Note: The actual templates included with the original plans provided by
> RAF are not included on The Rutan Aircraft Factory CD-ROM Encyclopedia
> due to reproduction and other limitations. These documents are for
> educational & entertainment purposes.
>
> So it would seem the CDROM includes a lot of info but NOT the plans he
> is after...
> Must say I found it rather pricey, too...
> KA
>
The only full size templates that are in the Long-ez plans are the wing rib
outlines and the firewall. Everything else, fuselage bulkheads for example,
are shown in the plans on dimensioned drawings. Plotting your own wing rib
profiles should not be outside the abilities of a modeler contemplating
building a scale airplane from scratch.

The CDs are expensive but it is a good source of information especially for
someone who has bought a airplane that is already built. If you want a set
of Long-EZ plans, they are around. Call Valerie Harris at The EZ Hangar.
901-475-3686. She always has some available.

Rick

Jay

August 21st 03, 05:25 PM

Okay, now I get you. I meant to say that somebody should post the
plans for a "Long EZ like" plane- The Extended E-ZEE. It just happens
to also be a tandem seat canard of composite construction much like a
lot of other copies of that ubiquitous airplane. Information needs to
be free. [beware, troll ahead] We have to get away from business
models that depend on the enforcement of unenforceable laws, if forces
business people into bed with law-makers (politicians).

(RobertR237) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Jay) writes:
>
> >
> >Since at least the Long EZ plans are no longer offered for sale,
> >somebody should just scan those suckers and post 'em on the web.
> >
> >
>
> NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT
>
> Rather they are still for sale or not, they are still someone's property and
> you have no right to make the public. If you want a set, pay for them.
>
>
> Bob Reed
> www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
> KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....
>
> "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
> pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
> (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

RobertR237

August 21st 03, 10:56 PM

In article <1d31b.163488$Oz4.43832@rwcrnsc54>, "Frederick Wilson"
> writes:

>
>So why are the plans no longer avilable? When I first started to desire to
>build, I was looking at the EZ airplanes.
>
>I figured I'd be better off sticking with wood and fabric.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Fred
>

More than likely they were withdrawn out of a fear over liability or the owners
just couldn't justify the time and expense of supporting them.

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Jay

August 22nd 03, 05:37 AM

If I take someones car, I'm denying him use of that property, but if I
take a picture of it, than he's had no loss.

There are other ways to make money with plans other than hoping that
nobody in the world ever draw something similar or copy it. You can
sell support, by the hour, or per call, or manufacture key componants
needed to complete the kit, or simply be first to market.

Most people in the world have no concept of intellectual property.
The value of something is simply what you have to pay to get it, and
if there is a less expensive way to buy something, they'll do that. I
wish it wasn't true, and I wish I didn't have to have locks on my
doors, but thats world we live in. Best bet is to accept this and
work accordingly. As an engineer, most of my work product is simply
designs or ideas, and I realize my value is that the ideas can be made
into physical objects that people trade for money. My company pays me
good money to do that design for them, but they give me nothing if
they use it more than once. I understand thats the deal, and it works
out okay.

(RobertR237) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Jay) writes:
>
> >
> >Okay, now I get you. I meant to say that somebody should post the
> >plans for a "Long EZ like" plane- The Extended E-ZEE. It just happens
> >to also be a tandem seat canard of composite construction much like a
> >lot of other copies of that ubiquitous airplane. Information needs to
> >be free. [beware, troll ahead] We have to get away from business
> >models that depend on the enforcement of unenforceable laws, if forces
> >business people into bed with law-makers (politicians).
> >
> >
>
> BULL ****! TOTAL BULL ****!
>
> Law or no law, you should have no rights to intellectual property any more than
> you have a right to take a pesons car. Making a copy of the planes and calling
> it something else is no less theft than stealing his car. Those plans are NOT
> information, they are the results of somebodys work and as such deserve
> protection and compensation. Would you work for free? I doubt it but even if
> you do, would you accept being forced to do so?
>
>
> Bob Reed
> www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
> KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....
>
> "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
> pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
> (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Corrie

August 22nd 03, 09:23 AM

> >So why are the plans no longer avilable?

> More than likely they were withdrawn out of a fear over liability or the owners just couldn't justify the time and expense of supporting them.

Whatever the reason, Bob is right. Intellectual property law serves
the public good. That's the reason the Constitution gives Federal
government control of copyright and patents - to encourage the
"useful arts and sciences." If Burt wants to put the EZ plans in the
public domain, he's free to do so. No one else.

For all the jawing about "information should be free" - and there is
in fact a TON of taxpayer-funded (nothing's free) aeronautical
information available for the downloading from NASA and the dot-gov
sites, including AC 43 and the AIM/FAR - there doesn't seem to be a
single "open source" airplane design. The closest are arguably the
Pietenpol Air Camper, Evans VP-1, and Bowers FlyBaby, but the plans
aren't *free.* Very reasonably priced, but *not* free.

Frederick Wilson

August 22nd 03, 12:57 PM

Excuse me for being stupid, but why keeps a person from selling a set of
plans they bought and built with?

Fred

"Corrie" > wrote in message
om...
> > >So why are the plans no longer avilable?
>
> > More than likely they were withdrawn out of a fear over liability or the
owners just couldn't justify the time and expense of supporting them.
>
> Whatever the reason, Bob is right. Intellectual property law serves
> the public good. That's the reason the Constitution gives Federal
> government control of copyright and patents - to encourage the
> "useful arts and sciences." If Burt wants to put the EZ plans in the
> public domain, he's free to do so. No one else.
>
> For all the jawing about "information should be free" - and there is
> in fact a TON of taxpayer-funded (nothing's free) aeronautical
> information available for the downloading from NASA and the dot-gov
> sites, including AC 43 and the AIM/FAR - there doesn't seem to be a
> single "open source" airplane design. The closest are arguably the
> Pietenpol Air Camper, Evans VP-1, and Bowers FlyBaby, but the plans
> aren't *free.* Very reasonably priced, but *not* free.

Snoopy

August 22nd 03, 02:24 PM

As an engineer, I am very disappointed that you as another engineer doesn't
appreciate the intellectual property concept more than others. As an
employee you don't own anything. Your employer is reimbursing you for your
ideas, both good and bad. How many of your ideas or designs were completely
useless to your company? did you give back your 'good money' for those
designs?? I did not think so. Your employer is taking a risk on you that you
will be productive and come up with something that is of tangible value to
them. That's how they manage to pay you when your just being creative to no
profit. Now, just when you design something they can market - you also run
out the back door and sell copies of the prints to others, or even post them
on the internet for public information, how do you think this will be
acknowledged by your employer. Or even if one of your competitors 'copies'
the design - but because of having a larger facility they can mfg it
cheaper, hence sell it cheaper. Whose do you think the public will buy? How
long will you be getting your 'good pay' as long as this is happening?

Lets not even get into the legal liabilities aspect of a 'bootleg' copied
plans built aircraft. heaven forbid, a fatal accident occurs, who do you
think is going to get sued? even if they have 100% proof the plans were
illegally copied, illegally sold/distributed, probably even modified by the
builder or new 'designer', (do you think the family of the deceast cares
about the industry? they just want money from anyone they can link to the
accident) the lawsuits would still make a few lawyers rich at the cost of
the everyone in this sport/hobby/industry.

Sorry, for rambling. I don't post often, but I just had to say this.

Jeff 'Snoopy' T

"Jay" > wrote in message
om...
> If I take someones car, I'm denying him use of that property, but if I
> take a picture of it, than he's had no loss.
>
> There are other ways to make money with plans other than hoping that
> nobody in the world ever draw something similar or copy it. You can
> sell support, by the hour, or per call, or manufacture key componants
> needed to complete the kit, or simply be first to market.
>
> Most people in the world have no concept of intellectual property.
> The value of something is simply what you have to pay to get it, and
> if there is a less expensive way to buy something, they'll do that. I
> wish it wasn't true, and I wish I didn't have to have locks on my
> doors, but thats world we live in. Best bet is to accept this and
> work accordingly. As an engineer, most of my work product is simply
> designs or ideas, and I realize my value is that the ideas can be made
> into physical objects that people trade for money. My company pays me
> good money to do that design for them, but they give me nothing if
> they use it more than once. I understand thats the deal, and it works
> out okay.
>
>
>
>
> (RobertR237) wrote in message
>...
> > In article >,
> > (Jay) writes:
> >
> > >
> > >Okay, now I get you. I meant to say that somebody should post the
> > >plans for a "Long EZ like" plane- The Extended E-ZEE. It just happens
> > >to also be a tandem seat canard of composite construction much like a
> > >lot of other copies of that ubiquitous airplane. Information needs to
> > >be free. [beware, troll ahead] We have to get away from business
> > >models that depend on the enforcement of unenforceable laws, if forces
> > >business people into bed with law-makers (politicians).
> > >
> > >
> >
> > BULL ****! TOTAL BULL ****!
> >
> > Law or no law, you should have no rights to intellectual property any
more than
> > you have a right to take a pesons car. Making a copy of the planes and
calling
> > it something else is no less theft than stealing his car. Those plans
are NOT
> > information, they are the results of somebodys work and as such deserve
> > protection and compensation. Would you work for free? I doubt it but
even if
> > you do, would you accept being forced to do so?
> >
> >
> > Bob Reed
> > www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
> > KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....
> >
> > "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
> > pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
> > (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Ron Wanttaja

August 22nd 03, 03:39 PM

On 22 Aug 2003 01:23:42 -0700, (Corrie) wrote:

>For all the jawing about "information should be free" - and there is
>in fact a TON of taxpayer-funded (nothing's free) aeronautical
>information available for the downloading from NASA and the dot-gov
>sites, including AC 43 and the AIM/FAR - there doesn't seem to be a
>single "open source" airplane design. The closest are arguably the
>Pietenpol Air Camper, Evans VP-1, and Bowers FlyBaby, but the plans
>aren't *free.* Very reasonably priced, but *not* free.

One of the biggest ironies I see in homebuilding are people who are willing
to spend $10,000 or more to build a plane like a Pietenpol, but want to
start by ripping-off the plans vendor for the $50-$100 for the building
instructions.

I have my hopes that some day the Fly Baby will end up public domain.
Still, it does lend itself to some problems. People insist on badly
thought-out modifications, and you'd probably end up with plans sets being
passed around where folks have proudly incorporated their own changes but
unsuspecting builders might think are original. Obviously, an awkward
situation.

One thought was, if the plans went public domain, that they could be
distributed by an official source via web site or CD-ROM. A couple of the
guys on the Fly Baby Yahoo list have experimented with digitizing the
plans. One has run an OCR of the complete plans, but the drawings are
still problematical. Many are full-scale templates, but of course, by the
time the drawings are scanned, converted to JPEGs or GIFs, saved in a
document, and printed from a random computer, the scales have shifted just
enough to make the templates erroneous. Although, after 40 years of
photocopying, the templates are a bit off, anyway....

One niggling problem of the all-electronic approach is that there are still
folks out there who don't mess with computers. They'll want hard-copy
plans, so you're still stuck with dragging a master copy to Kinkos every
once in a while.

Ron Wanttaja

Russell Kent

August 22nd 03, 04:28 PM

Jay wrote:

> If I take someones car, I'm denying him use of that property, but if I
> take a picture of it, than he's had no loss.

That is not necessarily correct. You may be denying him/her the opportunity to sell you a photo of the car.
It's that lost sale that he/she loses.

> Most people in the world have no concept of intellectual property.

Ignorance is no excuse.

> The value of something is simply what you have to pay to get it, and
> if there is a less expensive way to buy something, they'll do that.

If they want to pay someone else to design an airplane for them, and that designer charges less, there's no
issue. (Actually, there's no issue if they charge more, either.) The problem is when the designer's work
product, namely the design, is used without compensating the designer. That's IP theft. If the designer sells a
builder one set of plans with a contract stipulating that only one aircraft can be built using those plans, and
then the builder builds more than one (or gives the plans to another who does so), then the original contract has
been violated and the designer's IP has been stolen.

> I wish it wasn't true, and I wish I didn't have to have locks on my doors, but thats world we live in. Best
> bet is to accept this and work accordingly.

By that logic, you should realize that laws against burglary aren't going to prevent all burglaries, and
therefore you should just accept that sometimes people's stuff gets taken from them and that the burglary
statutes are a waste of time and police shouldn't waste time chasing burglars.

> As an engineer, most of my work product is simply designs or ideas, and I realize my value is that the ideas
> can be made into physical objects that people trade for money. My company pays me good money to do that design
> for them, but they give me nothing if they use it more than once. I understand thats the deal, and it works
> out okay.

Not everyone works your way. The value of your work product isn't that it "can be made into physical objects
that people trade for money." (Although that may be why your employer pays for your work product.)

Think about a movie theater. Assume you paid $7 for a ticket. Did it cost $7 to manufacture that ticket? No
freakin' way. So what did you buy? Ans: the right to view (one time) the intellectual property of the movie
maker in that theater at a particular time. Should you be able to copy what you viewed and show it to yourself
(or others) over and over again? No. The IP owner didn't agree to that in the "contract" that covers the ticket
you paid $7 for.

Russell Kent

RobertR237

August 22nd 03, 04:34 PM

In article <_yn1b.223504$Ho3.28382@sccrnsc03>, "Frederick Wilson"
> writes:

>
>Excuse me for being stupid, but why keeps a person from selling a set of
>plans they bought and built with?
>
>Fred
>

Probably the arrangement made at the time of purchase. You buy the plans with
an agreement to use them once and once only. Depending on the purchase
contract, if you never use them you might be able to transfer them.

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

RobertR237

August 22nd 03, 04:34 PM

In article >,
(Jay) writes:

>
>If I take someones car, I'm denying him use of that property, but if I
>take a picture of it, than he's had no loss.
>

You were not talking about taking a picture of the complete aircraft, you were
talking about the plans and their use. They are property, no less than the car
is and you have NO legal or moral right to them. If you take them and copy
them it is a loss and no matter how you try to deny it, it is a fact.

>There are other ways to make money with plans other than hoping that
>nobody in the world ever draw something similar or copy it. You can
>sell support, by the hour, or per call, or manufacture key componants
>needed to complete the kit, or simply be first to market.
>

Drawing something similar is one thing but copying it is another. The plans
are a result of mental and some physical effort to produce. It is no different
that someone building a structure or any other physical object. Once built,
the structure is not free for use by all who wish. It belongs to the owner and
should be used or not used at his discretion. If he wishes to sell support it
is his business but if not, it should not be your choice to take the use
anyway.

I have heard this same stupid argument regarding the software that I have
created over the years and it is a total bull**** concept. If I expend the
effort and hours to create a new and useful program, what damn right do you
have to take it and do as you please with it. If you want a similar program
then get off your lazy fat ass and create it yourself. Don't steal mine and
don't copy mine. The same goes for stealing or copying an aircraft design.

>Most people in the world have no concept of intellectual property.

Clearly you rank among those.

>The value of something is simply what you have to pay to get it, and
>if there is a less expensive way to buy something, they'll do that.

Buy it, you have not been discussing buying you have been trying to justify
stealing it by copying it.

> I wish it wasn't true, and I wish I didn't have to have locks on my
>doors, but thats world we live in. Best bet is to accept this and
>work accordingly. As an engineer, most of my work product is simply
>designs or ideas, and I realize my value is that the ideas can be made
>into physical objects that people trade for money. My company pays me
>good money to do that design for them, but they give me nothing if
>they use it more than once. I understand thats the deal, and it works
>out okay.
>

You have a contract with your company that gives them the legal and moral
rights to your intelectual property. They pay you for your ideas and you
gladly accept that payment. You find that arrangement to be OK since you are
selling your ideas to a company and are getting paid rather they use them or
not.

You on the otherhand would deny that same payment to others who sell their
intellectual property the same way you do, just to individual buyers. You are
guaranteed a customer by the contract with your company and are isolated from
most problems with your ideas and designs by that same company. The maker of
the plans, which you don't think you should have to pay for, had to do the
design without a guaranteed market, market those plans, and accept the
potiential problems associated with them. They get nothing until someone pays
for their work by buying the plans. You would have them do so for free?

If you are not willing to pay for the plans then either don't build the plane
or show us how commited you are to your concept and design your own and give
the plans away for free. If you design your own, make it your design and not a
copy of someone elses with a few cosmetic changes. Start from scratch and
design it with proven design concepts without stealing from other peoples
actual plans.

>
>

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Russell Kent

August 22nd 03, 05:12 PM

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

> One niggling problem of the all-electronic approach is that there are still
> folks out there who don't mess with computers. They'll want hard-copy
> plans, so you're still stuck with dragging a master copy to Kinkos every
> once in a while.

Nah, mail 'em a CD and a letter telling them to go to Kinko's with the "shiny
plastic disc." :-)

Russell Kent

Jay

August 22nd 03, 05:20 PM

> That's the deal because you're an *employee*. They own your designs.
> If you were an independent contractor, you could *license* the design
> and get paid for each copy. (Assuming that you were successful in
> negotiating that deal.)

But most experienced people know that negotiating a deal that's
difficult to verify or enforce is a recipie for disaster (AKA giving
lawyers lots of money). I had some first hand experience with that
when we, a small company, brought some ideas to a large company to see
if they would be interested in licencing the technology. In order to
get in the door in the first place we had to agree to sign their NDA
which is common place. So a year later they come out with a product
that has this feature we were showing them. Their response was "Prove
we weren't already working on it in our own R&D." We realized that
would be pretty tough to do considering their legal departments budget
was larger than our yearly gross, so we learned from that experience
and moved on.

> What you don't realize is that the designs - the ideas themselves -
> have intrinsic value. The VP-1 plans on my shelf have value above and
> beyond the cost of the paper and ink even if I never build a plane
> from those plans.

Thats true in theory with perfect enforcement of property rights, but
in the real world, its the ideas that give a manufacturer an advantage
to make something sooner, or better than the others that counts. In
some countries if you're big enough you can sue for protection in that
market, but everywhere else, its open season on the idea.

I think the Japanese have it figured out, they never try to license
any ideas, they just adopt other peoples, make incremental
improvements and sell goods. You want to get the technology, you're
going to have to try to reverse engineer it. Sure they get US
patents, but there are lots or ways to circumvent the disclosure
requirement without breaking the letter of the law.

Keith Olivier

August 22nd 03, 07:03 PM

Something nobody has mentioned is that you can still buy a perfectly legal
set of Eracer plans (2 seater side by side version of the Long) from Shirl
Dickey for $150 or $250 http://www.eracer.org/eracer.html (can't find the
letter from him anymore. Just send him an email.)

Not many were built and they were more complex due to the retract gear, but
there is no reason why someone wanting to build a canard couldn't simplify
it a bit with a classic "Long" undercarriage. There were 2 versions, the
original with converted V8 and another with a conventional aircraft engine.
It used more modern materials than the original Long, with a lot of PVC foam
and S-glass in the structure.
Shirl Dickey Enterprises
P.O. Box 828
Aguila, AZ 85320
(520)685-3148
email:

regards
Keith
"karel adams" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
>
>
> That's a bunch of worthwhile info, Rick! Thanks!
> KA
>
>

Richard Lamb

August 22nd 03, 07:06 PM

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
> On 22 Aug 2003 01:23:42 -0700, (Corrie) wrote:
>
> >For all the jawing about "information should be free" - and there is
> >in fact a TON of taxpayer-funded (nothing's free) aeronautical
> >information available for the downloading from NASA and the dot-gov
> >sites, including AC 43 and the AIM/FAR - there doesn't seem to be a
> >single "open source" airplane design. The closest are arguably the
> >Pietenpol Air Camper, Evans VP-1, and Bowers FlyBaby, but the plans
> >aren't *free.* Very reasonably priced, but *not* free.
>
> One of the biggest ironies I see in homebuilding are people who are willing
> to spend $10,000 or more to build a plane like a Pietenpol, but want to
> start by ripping-off the plans vendor for the $50-$100 for the building
> instructions.
>
> I have my hopes that some day the Fly Baby will end up public domain.
> Still, it does lend itself to some problems. People insist on badly
> thought-out modifications, and you'd probably end up with plans sets being
> passed around where folks have proudly incorporated their own changes but
> unsuspecting builders might think are original. Obviously, an awkward
> situation.
>
> One thought was, if the plans went public domain, that they could be
> distributed by an official source via web site or CD-ROM. A couple of the
> guys on the Fly Baby Yahoo list have experimented with digitizing the
> plans. One has run an OCR of the complete plans, but the drawings are
> still problematical. Many are full-scale templates, but of course, by the
> time the drawings are scanned, converted to JPEGs or GIFs, saved in a
> document, and printed from a random computer, the scales have shifted just
> enough to make the templates erroneous. Although, after 40 years of
> photocopying, the templates are a bit off, anyway....
>
> One niggling problem of the all-electronic approach is that there are still
> folks out there who don't mess with computers. They'll want hard-copy
> plans, so you're still stuck with dragging a master copy to Kinkos every
> once in a while.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Man, been there, done that.

The plans for my parasol are printed in 8-1/2 x 11 booklet format
(about 110 pages). The text was done in MS Word, the drawings done
with Design CAD.

Origionally, every time Kinkos printed books, the formatting would fall
apart. Pictures moved around, text wandered off, etc.

I finally put the whole thing into a single PDF file and just take the
CD to Kinkies. Life is good.

The new plans for the new plane are going together in 11x17 format.
But I plan to use the same technique for printing.

At one time I thought about selling plans on CD, but backed away
because there are already so many bogus copies floating around.

Richard

Whatever

August 22nd 03, 08:11 PM

In article >, wrote:

>So the designer/owner could sue the original plans purchaser
>if the original plans purchaser built two planes. The second
>purchaser didn't make any such agreement and can't be sued
>unless the plans/design are protected by intellectual
>property laws in some other way (patent being the obvious
>one). The intellectual property laws not only work to
>protect intellectual property (for the constitutional
>"limited times"), they work to make sure it is possible to
>copy those things that are not protected in compliance with
>law. The right to copy unprotected work ensures that we can
>enjoy the fruits of progress and is as strong as the
>prohibition on copying protected work.
>
>Typically, contracts are used to protect otherwise
>unprotectable work.
>
>If the design is not protected against copying by IP laws,
>the contract would have to specify not only that the
>original purchaser can't build two, but that he can't sell
>the plans. Does it include stuff like that? Anyone have
>any actual language in e-format they can post?
>Todd Pattist

OK. I have a set of drawings for the Dyke Delta JD2. I did
not buy these plans, they were handed to me after the
purchaser died. Since I have no contract with the designer,
are you saying that I am free to copy and sell as many
prints as I feel like?

Scott McQ

Rick Pellicciotti

August 22nd 03, 08:51 PM

"Keith Olivier" > wrote in message
...
> Something nobody has mentioned is that you can still buy a perfectly legal
> set of Eracer plans (2 seater side by side version of the Long) from Shirl
> Dickey for $150 or $250 http://www.eracer.org/eracer.html (can't find the
> letter from him anymore. Just send him an email.)
>
> Not many were built and they were more complex due to the retract gear,
but
> there is no reason why someone wanting to build a canard couldn't simplify
> it a bit with a classic "Long" undercarriage. There were 2 versions, the
> original with converted V8 and another with a conventional aircraft
engine.
> It used more modern materials than the original Long, with a lot of PVC
foam
> and S-glass in the structure.
> Shirl Dickey Enterprises
> P.O. Box 828
> Aguila, AZ 85320
> (520)685-3148
> email:
>
> regards
> Keith
> "karel adams" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> ...
> >
> >
> > That's a bunch of worthwhile info, Rick! Thanks!
> > KA
> >
I have a set of E-Racer plans and I have flown the prototype with Shirl. It
is an awesome airplane. I would not attempt to build an E-Racer without
having a copy of the Long-EZ plans around though. There are a lot of little
details and how-to's on the Long-EZ plans that are directly applicable to
the E-Racer.

Rick

Corrie

August 22nd 03, 08:59 PM

Ron Wanttaja > wrote in message >...

> On 22 Aug 2003 01:23:42 -0700, (Corrie) wrote:
> One of the biggest ironies I see in homebuilding are people who are willing
> to spend $10,000 or more to build a plane like a Pietenpol, but want to
> start by ripping-off the plans vendor for the $50-$100 for the building
> instructions.

An excellent point.

> I have my hopes that some day the Fly Baby will end up public domain.
> Still, it does lend itself to some problems. People insist on badly
> thought-out modifications, and you'd probably end up with plans sets being
> passed around where folks have proudly incorporated their own changes but
> unsuspecting builders might think are original. Obviously, an awkward
> situation.

Unless the family continues to re-register them (as I believe the
Pietenpols have done) Bower's plans will pass into the public domain
under US copyright law in April 2073. We'll all have flown west by
then, I suspect.

> One thought was, if the plans went public domain, that they could be
> distributed by an official source via web site or CD-ROM. A couple of the
> guys on the Fly Baby Yahoo list have experimented with digitizing the
> plans. One has run an OCR of the complete plans, but the drawings are
> still problematical. Many are full-scale templates, but of course, by the
> time the drawings are scanned, converted to JPEGs or GIFs, saved in a
> document, and printed from a random computer, the scales have shifted just
> enough to make the templates erroneous. Although, after 40 years of
> photocopying, the templates are a bit off, anyway....
>
> One niggling problem of the all-electronic approach is that there are still
> folks out there who don't mess with computers. They'll want hard-copy
> plans, so you're still stuck with dragging a master copy to Kinkos every
> once in a while.

If you're going to actually build the thing, you have to have a hard
copy at some point. Of course, maybe by 2073 we'll be able to just
call up the plans on our replicators and select "Fabricate" from the
File menu...

That'd take a lot of the fun out of it.

Rich S.

August 22nd 03, 09:02 PM

"Whatever" > wrote in message
...
>
> OK. I have a set of drawings for the Dyke Delta JD2. I did
> not buy these plans, they were handed to me after the
> purchaser died. Since I have no contract with the designer,
> are you saying that I am free to copy and sell as many
> prints as I feel like?
>
> Scott McQ

In this case, a little known safeguard, the "XP" catch takes effect. Unless
you register those plans with Micr. . . er. . . the designer within 30 days,
they will send a bit packet to Redmond, WA and will become unusable. All
data will be lost.

Rich S.

RobertR237

August 22nd 03, 09:04 PM

In article >, Richard Lamb >
writes:

>>
>> Excuse me for being stupid, but why keeps a person from selling a set of
>> plans they bought and built with?
>>
>> Fred
>>
>
>Honesty?
>
>

Gee, that seems to be a very outdated concept in today's society.

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

RobertR237

August 22nd 03, 09:04 PM

In article >, "Keith Olivier"
> writes:

>
>Something nobody has mentioned is that you can still buy a perfectly legal
>set of Eracer plans (2 seater side by side version of the Long) from Shirl
>Dickey for $150 or $250 http://www.eracer.org/eracer.html (can't find the
>letter from him anymore. Just send him an email.)
>
>Not many were built and they were more complex due to the retract gear, but
>there is no reason why someone wanting to build a canard couldn't simplify
>it a bit with a classic "Long" undercarriage. There were 2 versions, the
>original with converted V8 and another with a conventional aircraft engine.
>It used more modern materials than the original Long, with a lot of PVC foam
>and S-glass in the structure.
>Shirl Dickey Enterprises
>P.O. Box 828
>Aguila, AZ 85320
>(520)685-3148
>email:
>
>regards
>Keith

I think the point is that some people don't want to pay anything for the plans.
As Ron mentioned, they will pay thousands to build their plane but refuse to
pay a few hundred for the plans.

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

RobertR237

August 22nd 03, 09:04 PM

In article >, Todd Pattist
> writes:

>
>>> Excuse me for being stupid, but why keeps a person from selling a set of
>>> plans they bought and built with?
>
>>The plans and/or the signed contract restrict you to building *one* copy
>>from the plans. To do otherwise violates the agreement between the plans
>>purchaser and the designer/owner/...
>
>
>So the designer/owner could sue the original plans purchaser
>if the original plans purchaser built two planes. The second
>purchaser didn't make any such agreement and can't be sued
>unless the plans/design are protected by intellectual
>property laws in some other way (patent being the obvious
>one). The intellectual property laws not only work to
>protect intellectual property (for the constitutional
>"limited times"), they work to make sure it is possible to
>copy those things that are not protected in compliance with
>law. The right to copy unprotected work ensures that we can
>enjoy the fruits of progress and is as strong as the
>prohibition on copying protected work.
>
>Typically, contracts are used to protect otherwise
>unprotectable work.
>
>If the design is not protected against copying by IP laws,
>the contract would have to specify not only that the
>original purchaser can't build two, but that he can't sell
>the plans. Does it include stuff like that? Anyone have
>any actual language in e-format they can post?
>Todd Pattist

You might try reading the full details of most software contracts to get an
idea.

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Jay

August 22nd 03, 09:11 PM

The folks that don't want to mess with computers or the hassel of
getting large format prints can pay someone for that service. The
real value is the support you get from the original designer. Being
able to call up a human being and say "Hey Ron, that bracket is way to
weak to support that load, what am I missing." The plan author can
verify ownership before he spends his time answering questions.

I'd venture to agree that the reason that the Long EZ plans are no
longer available was the free support cost too much and unlimited
liability provided once again by our lawyers and gullable public.

Ron Wanttaja > wrote in message >...
> On 22 Aug 2003 01:23:42 -0700, (Corrie) wrote:
>
> >For all the jawing about "information should be free" - and there is
> >in fact a TON of taxpayer-funded (nothing's free) aeronautical
> >information available for the downloading from NASA and the dot-gov
> >sites, including AC 43 and the AIM/FAR - there doesn't seem to be a
> >single "open source" airplane design. The closest are arguably the
> >Pietenpol Air Camper, Evans VP-1, and Bowers FlyBaby, but the plans
> >aren't *free.* Very reasonably priced, but *not* free.
>
> One of the biggest ironies I see in homebuilding are people who are willing
> to spend $10,000 or more to build a plane like a Pietenpol, but want to
> start by ripping-off the plans vendor for the $50-$100 for the building
> instructions.
>
> I have my hopes that some day the Fly Baby will end up public domain.
> Still, it does lend itself to some problems. People insist on badly
> thought-out modifications, and you'd probably end up with plans sets being
> passed around where folks have proudly incorporated their own changes but
> unsuspecting builders might think are original. Obviously, an awkward
> situation.
>
> One thought was, if the plans went public domain, that they could be
> distributed by an official source via web site or CD-ROM. A couple of the
> guys on the Fly Baby Yahoo list have experimented with digitizing the
> plans. One has run an OCR of the complete plans, but the drawings are
> still problematical. Many are full-scale templates, but of course, by the
> time the drawings are scanned, converted to JPEGs or GIFs, saved in a
> document, and printed from a random computer, the scales have shifted just
> enough to make the templates erroneous. Although, after 40 years of
> photocopying, the templates are a bit off, anyway....
>
> One niggling problem of the all-electronic approach is that there are still
> folks out there who don't mess with computers. They'll want hard-copy
> plans, so you're still stuck with dragging a master copy to Kinkos every
> once in a while.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

RobertR237

August 22nd 03, 09:12 PM

In article >,
(Corrie) writes:

>
>Unless the family continues to re-register them (as I believe the
>Pietenpols have done) Bower's plans will pass into the public domain
>under US copyright law in April 2073. We'll all have flown west by
>then, I suspect.
>
>

I can't wait and will start building promptly of the first of May, 2073.

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Ron Natalie

August 22nd 03, 09:25 PM

"Whatever" > wrote in message ...

> >If the design is not protected against copying by IP laws,
> >the contract would have to specify not only that the
> >original purchaser can't build two, but that he can't sell
> >the plans. Does it include stuff like that? Anyone have
> >any actual language in e-format they can post?
> >Todd Pattist
>
> OK. I have a set of drawings for the Dyke Delta JD2. I did
> not buy these plans, they were handed to me after the
> purchaser died. Since I have no contract with the designer,
> are you saying that I am free to copy and sell as many
> prints as I feel like?

It's not a contractural issue. Can you say COPYRIGHT? I knew
you could. Copyright forbids you from copying the plans without
permission of the owner. Copyright also prevents you from making
derivative works (that is, building an airplane from those plans) without
such permission as well. Lots of case law on this with regard to architectural
plans.

Keith Olivier

August 22nd 03, 09:27 PM

Rick

What you mention should be on the CD from Dick Rutan. I have a set of
"Long" plans, but no serial number and no templates. Effective as an
"assembly manual" though.

Have you guy's heard that Muhlbauer has a certified 3 blade constant speed
prop for "Longs" ? Apparently they ran the prop on a Swiss Long to achieve
the certification. It shortens both the takeoff and rollout dramatically,
which must be a pretty big factor in a mountainous country like Switzerland.
Meanwhile it's been around the world twice !! You can read about the plane,
the pilot and his round the world trip here:
http://www.experimental.ch/SwissMade/HG_Schmid/MillenniumFlight/default.htm

Keith

"Rick Pellicciotti" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3f46709c$1@ham...
> > >
> I have a set of E-Racer plans and I have flown the prototype with Shirl.
It
> is an awesome airplane. I would not attempt to build an E-Racer without
> having a copy of the Long-EZ plans around though. There are a lot of
little
> details and how-to's on the Long-EZ plans that are directly applicable to
> the E-Racer.
>
> Rick
>
>

Corrie

August 22nd 03, 09:46 PM

"Frederick Wilson" > wrote in message news:<_yn1b.223504$Ho3.28382@sccrnsc03>...
> Excuse me for being stupid, but why keeps a person from selling a set of
> plans they bought and built with?
>
> Fred

Risk of bad karma.

RobertR237

August 23rd 03, 12:35 AM

In article >, writes:

>>
>>>OK. I have a set of drawings for the Dyke Delta JD2. I did
>>>not buy these plans, they were handed to me after the
>>>purchaser died. Since I have no contract with the designer,
>>>are you saying that I am free to copy and sell as many
>>>prints as I feel like?
>>>
>>>Scott McQ
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I have a book that I bought second hand, do I have the right to publish the
>>book because I didn't buy it from the original publisher? NO, you don't
>own
>>the rights to publish the boook or the plans, contract or no contract.
>>
>>PS: I talked with John Dyke at Oshkosh a couple of weeks back and I suspect
>he
>>would take a real dim view of your efforts as well.
>
>Legally he could refer to the Delta plans and build his own airplane that
>looks
>exactly like a Delta in every way down to the last rivet, then write his own
>plans about how to build an airplane just like his, so long as he didn't use
>anything from the Delta plans. It wouldn't be an ethical thing to do, but it
>would be legal.
>
>Copyright doesn't protect an idea, it protects the expression of that idea
>set
>down in tangible form. It's a thin, blurry line.
>
>

When you finish that knock off plane you have just crossed the thin blurry line
since it is now in tangible form. Then again, that was not the question. The
question was would he be free to copy and sell the plans. The answer remains
NO.

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Mark Hickey

August 23rd 03, 05:10 AM

(Jay) wrote:

>I think the Japanese have it figured out, they never try to license
>any ideas, they just adopt other peoples, make incremental
>improvements and sell goods. You want to get the technology, you're
>going to have to try to reverse engineer it. Sure they get US
>patents, but there are lots or ways to circumvent the disclosure
>requirement without breaking the letter of the law.

I think your world is more like the Chinese software model. When I
lived there in the early 90's, it became VERY obvious that there was
virtually NO software industry in China. The software they did have
was hopelessly clunky and dated.

Why? Because anyone stupid enough to spend time developing it knew
they's sell about one copy of it before it ended up on every computer
in China. So why bother? They lived in your "perfect world", and the
end result was really, really bad software. Almost no one in a
country of over a billion people made their living writing software.

Mark Hickey

Rick Pellicciotti

August 25th 03, 02:33 PM

Yes, that was my point. The CD's are invaluble while building any canard
pusher whether it is a Long or not. Interesting reading about the varible
pitch prop. The reason more of them have not been used on these planes is
the weight. You really cannot afford the extra weight of a normal constant
speed prop that far aft. Of course if you built the plane knowing you were
going to use a heavier prop you could compensate for it with battery
location and other changes.

Rick
"Keith Olivier" > wrote in message
...
> Rick
>
> What you mention should be on the CD from Dick Rutan. I have a set of
> "Long" plans, but no serial number and no templates. Effective as an
> "assembly manual" though.
>
> Have you guy's heard that Muhlbauer has a certified 3 blade constant speed
> prop for "Longs" ? Apparently they ran the prop on a Swiss Long to
achieve
> the certification. It shortens both the takeoff and rollout dramatically,
> which must be a pretty big factor in a mountainous country like
Switzerland.
> Meanwhile it's been around the world twice !! You can read about the
plane,
> the pilot and his round the world trip here:
>
http://www.experimental.ch/SwissMade/HG_Schmid/MillenniumFlight/default.htm
>
> Keith
>
> "Rick Pellicciotti" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:3f46709c$1@ham...
> > > >
> > I have a set of E-Racer plans and I have flown the prototype with Shirl.
> It
> > is an awesome airplane. I would not attempt to build an E-Racer without
> > having a copy of the Long-EZ plans around though. There are a lot of
> little
> > details and how-to's on the Long-EZ plans that are directly applicable
to
> > the E-Racer.
> >
> > Rick
> >
> >
>
>

Robert Bonomi

August 25th 03, 04:39 PM

In article >, > wrote:
>In article >, RobertR237 says...
>>
>>In article >, (Whatever)
>>writes:
>>
>>>
>>>OK. I have a set of drawings for the Dyke Delta JD2. I did
>>>not buy these plans, they were handed to me after the
>>>purchaser died. Since I have no contract with the designer,
>>>are you saying that I am free to copy and sell as many
>>>prints as I feel like?
>>>
>>>Scott McQ
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I have a book that I bought second hand, do I have the right to publish the
>>book because I didn't buy it from the original publisher? NO, you don't own
>>the rights to publish the boook or the plans, contract or no contract.
>>
>>PS: I talked with John Dyke at Oshkosh a couple of weeks back and I suspect he
>>would take a real dim view of your efforts as well.
>
>Legally he could refer to the Delta plans and build his own airplane that looks
>exactly like a Delta in every way down to the last rivet, then write his own
>plans about how to build an airplane just like his, so long as he didn't use
>anything from the Delta plans. It wouldn't be an ethical thing to do, but it
>would be legal.

*LEGALLY*, if he did what you describe, it would be considered a "derivative
work", and, as such, _would_ require permission from the original copyright
holder.

On the other hand, if it was done _without_ any use of Dyke's plans -- i.e.,
an "independent development" of the same idea, then there would -not- be a
copyright issue. *HOWEVER*, if it can be shown that the 'independent developer'
had *any* access to the original work, there _is_ a "presumption" that the
work _is_ derived from that original. The 'defendant' has to _prove_ that he
"did not use" any 'derived' information. With all the 'usual' difficulties in
'proving a negative'.

>
>Copyright doesn't protect an idea, it protects the expression of that idea set
>down in tangible form. It's a thin, blurry line.

Yup. And the swamp gets _especially_ deep when the concept of 'derivative work'
gets involved.

RobertR237

August 25th 03, 11:27 PM

In article >,
(Jay) writes:

>
>We're going through this right now with CDs. There was a time when
>people din't have the means to make CD (or records for that matter).
>The record company served a usefull purpose- making vinale records,
>but now less and less people need that service- so they're going to
>the law books to try to extend the life of the buggy whip
>manufacturers.
>
>

Its not the CD manufacturers who are raising hell, its the publishers and the
recording artists who are being screwed by the illegal copies of CD's. Its one
thing for me to make a copy of my CD for personal use and protecting the
original from damage, its quite another to copy it to give to all my friends or
share the contents with a million other people on the internet for free. That
is denying the rightful proceeds to the creators of the work.

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

RobertR237

August 25th 03, 11:27 PM

In article >, Todd Pattist
> writes:

>
>And "unethical" is certainly debatable. We have a large set
>of intellectual property laws that protect "writings" like
>the plans (via copyright) and devices, like the aircraft
>(via design patents and utility patents, etc.). In order to
>use those laws, you need to meet certain criteria. To get a
>patent, you need to show that your invention is sufficiently
>different from what's already out there that it's worthy. If
>the design cannot meet that criteria, or the designer
>decides not to make the public disclosure required to obtain
>a patent, and no other IP law applies, then the law protects
>those who want to copy.
>
>Copying of improvements advances civilization and is
>praiseworthy. Patent laws are not there to prevent copying.
>They are there to encourage improvements that advance
>civilization by granting a limited monopoly in exchange for
>disclosure of the improvement to the public and
>authorization to use the improvement after the limited
>period of protection.
>Todd Pattist
>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
>___
>Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
>Share what you learn.
>
>

Said the thief as he held the gun to the bankers head.

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

RobertR237

August 26th 03, 03:34 PM

In article >, Todd Pattist
> writes:

>
>>That you don't have a clue about what you are saying.
>
>If you can't explain your point and can't provide any
>support for it, you're not going to convince anyone.
>Computer software is not subject to design patent
>protection. Aircraft designs are. Software is not normally
>provided to customers in human readable format (it's source
>code). Aircraft building plans are human readable. Software
>is freely transferrable to another user for reuse. You
>allege that aircraft plans have contract language that
>forbids this.
>

Wrong on all points.

>I ask again why you think computer software shrink-wrap
>licenses are similar to the contract language you say is
>found on most aircraft plans.
>Todd Pattist
>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
>___
>Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
>Share what you learn.
>
>

Go back and read the post that I responded to you lame brain idiot. I don't
have time to try to teach you what you clearly don't want to learn.

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)