EZFlap wrote: I'm ahead because I didn't quit. ......

Oh, are you ahead?

Thank you Rob and Keith. Even you, Eric

Since this thread is about reviewing the flap system upgrade, I'd like to suggest/offer something for the benefit of the group. A public review.

The group can have a poll or a vote, across the entire membership, and you guys can pick any one of the more respected, trusted, admired BCP members near the West Coast. Someone whose back country or aviation credibility is above question to the majority of BCP members.

That person can arrange to bring a 180/185, and meet me anywhere here in SoCal. We'll install an EZ Flap unit in their airplane. (To use my "field demonstrator" unit without drilling any holes, it will have to be a 180 or 185 that has the original aluminum thumb button instead of the larger plastic button... those have to be filed a little). Once installed, we'll do two tests. One ground test and one flight test.

That pilot will be asked to offer fair and unbiased opinions on the five aspects of this upgrade that seem to cause the most rancor on BCP:

1) Does the upgrade actually do what the manufacturer said it would do ?
2) Does the upgrade actually result in improved situational awareness, visibility, and safety during flap use on takeoff and landing ?
3) Does the upgrade actually make it easier and safer for the pilot to use higher performance STOL techniques such as "popping", "milking" and "dumping" the flaps at critical moments during demanding STOL operations?
4) Does the upgrade actually make it easier to get better STOL performance out of the airplane ?
5) All things considered, does the upgrade represent a high value per dollar ?

The video of the tests and the pilot's opinion will be posted on this forum. My reputation and credibility, and the reputation of the product in question, as well as the reputations and credibility of my loyal critics, will hang in the balance.

Now in all fairness, I've already done this test with highly qualified people, so I admit to being confident about the outcome (but apparently two Air Force test pilot instructors from Edwards don't have enough redneck credibility for BCP). I did previously try to offer this same test to a very highly esteemed BCP member at Oshkosh (whom I suspect would have truly enjoyed the opportunity to embarrass the crap out of me on BCP), but he declined the offer.

Bigrenna I'd offer for you to do this video review, but we're on other sides of the country. I personally would pick Gump to do this review (since he's got the experience and the street cred around here), but the whole idea is for the group to nominate and pick someone.

I'll be the gladiator. You guys pick the lion.
So long as he promises to be 100% truthful, the bigger and angrier and loudest roaring lion the better

I don't think this is necessarily a "redneck" crowd. I think it's more of an "undersell-and-overperform" crowd.

Why don't you bring the handle out to HSF? Let a few guys with different experience levels and different plane setups try it out? Get a few reviews.

Hmm..
Upon reviewing this thread, a couple of times, I'm pretty sure that Bill (EZ) has very good intentions, and I sincerely hope BCP takes him up on his offer... I for one am very anxious for the results.

Bring it on guys .. let's see this happen! (Oh, and the idea for the HSF is outstanding)

- Joseph

HSF is about going out and flying the circuits, and landing on mountaintops, and drinking beer. Turning it into a discussion and video project about one product, taking everyone's time away from the flying, is probably not right.

I tried that approach at Austin once and it pissed off some of the people there. I walked around asking people to try it, and it did not go over well in several cases. HSF is not a good strategy for me, guaranteed to piss off some, and likely to annoy others.

The product review I'm proposing should be a separate thing where only the people who really want to be part of it should be there.

And Denali, I'm sorry to disagree with you, since you're a really good guy and all... but if this isn't absolutely the redneck end of aviation I don't know what is I'm fortunate enough to have seen one or two of the other corners of the aviation gene pool.

.

-1 on the "redneck" commentary.

As for me, Im saving my money for the EZ gas-pedal.

You start with the existing pedal, but when you are on the highway, you switch to the pedal extension so you dont have to push down so far on the gas. I hear it has saved many lives...

; )

glacier wrote:RE: Redneck. I think not definitively so. The website is hosted in Portland after all.

Data center in the Dalles, actually. Lots of redneckery between here and there

glacier wrote: I think I would need an EZ Trim ........

X2 on the EZ Trim. I don't feel the need for a flap handle extender, but the trim is a stretch when I'm climbing out and need to retrim the nose upward while holding back pressure after setting the flaps back at zero.

I've had the opportunity to check this thing out.
It is a well thought out, well built piece of useful equipment.
The mission and ergonomics are the purpose.
May not be useful to some but may be helpful for many.

For the record I don't have one. I appreciate the ingenuity of someone that helps us achieve a higher quality aviating experience.

Thank you for the kind words Maverick.

I already have some of the parts for the EZ Trim, it was scheduled to be the next project at one point. Spoke to the FAA, spoke to the DER, sketched it out, found where the problems are... have a fair idea about what it would take.

The comment about the difference between the 120/140 and 170 is spot on. This is why I did not bother to certify the extension on the 140/150's. The flap control on those airplanes is easily reachable without having to lean over. When they enlarged the cabin and raised the seats a foot off the floor, that's when the OEM flap control was no longer in the right location.

As for the EZ Gas Pedal, this rather eloquently illustrates the reasoning behind my previous comment about the Duck Dynasty factor that can occasionally be seen here. Today I had the pleasure of hearing technical presentations by the best and the brightest people on the intellectual side of aviation. The Perlan Project, where they have built a specialized 100 foot glider to fly up higher than the U-2 and SR-71 with no engine, only the horsepower in the atmosphere at the poles. A 25 year old engineer at Scaled Composites who has designed an all carbon Part 103 ultralight glider that can fly 500 miles in good weather, and then be put back into a small trailer by one person, reducing the cost of flying by a large margin. The Chief Scientist at NASA Dryden (yes that's what is on his business card), who gave a 2 part presentation... first on his rediscovering a 100 year old Prandtl Theory of aerodynamics, using it to explain how birds fly efficiently across the oceans, and how using these lessons from nature would yield an airplane 60% more efficient than a conventional design... and second on how he is leading the project to release small two foot span R/C gliders into the atmosphere on Mars which will bring back the data that allows a safe landing for future unmanned and eventually manned missions to Mars.

The contrast between... uhhh... never mind. Sorry for the thread drift.

I've wondered all my life why I was such a redneck. Then, this article came out not long ago:

http://www.roadsnacks.net/these-are-the ... -colorado/

Yep...grew up 4th generation in city #2 on the list...explains it all.

Speaking of flap handles, Rans put it under the seat on the S7S. Talk about a dumb location.

EZFlap wrote:Thank you for the kind words Maverick.


As for the EZ Gas Pedal, this rather eloquently illustrates the reasoning behind my previous comment about the Duck Dynasty factor that can occasionally be seen here. Today I had the pleasure of hearing technical presentations by the best and the brightest people on the intellectual side of aviation. The Perlan Project, where they have built a specialized 100 foot glider to fly up higher than the U-2 and SR-71 with no engine, only the horsepower in the atmosphere at the poles. A 25 year old engineer at Scaled Composites who has designed an all carbon Part 103 ultralight glider that can fly 500 miles in good weather, and then be put back into a small trailer by one person, reducing the cost of flying by a large margin. The Chief Scientist at NASA Dryden (yes that's what is on his business card), who gave a 2 part presentation... first on his rediscovering a 100 year old Prandtl Theory of aerodynamics, using it to explain how birds fly efficiently across the oceans, and how using these lessons from nature would yield an airplane 60% more efficient than a conventional design... and second on how he is leading the project to release small two foot span R/C gliders into the atmosphere on Mars which will bring back the data that allows a safe landing for future unmanned and eventually manned missions to Mars.

The contrast between... uhhh... never mind. Sorry for the thread drift.

EZ Flap, first off I've seen your product in person. I am an Engineer. I'm also ex military (non-pilot, engineer type). I have worked in design, prototyping and into full rate production on several products. From what I saw, I don't think anyone could question its quality. I am also a 180/185 guy.

The thing I would caution about though is assumptions. Especially the redneck/backcountry track this thread has taken. Above you've been fairly quick to layout some resumes as a way to back up your stance as contrast to the seemingly unsophisticated element on this board.

Word of caution: many of the guys on this board do have some impressive credentials, they just don't flaunt it on the Internet. At least two have resumes that the Edwards guys would love to have. As a matter of fact, the Air Force/NASA couldn't afford them if they wanted to. Lastly, I personally know lots of guys that can push technical limits in F16's, F18's and F22's. I can count on one hand how many of those guys can fly a 180 without wadding it up, let alone even meet the open pilot clause on my insurance. A couple that can do both, are active members of this board. You can name drop the guys at Edwards/Dryden all you want...just be aware that some of us turned down those jobs. Difference is, we fly 180's and are potential customers...and the Edwards guys are not. I for one don't like to be compared to a reality TV show just because I'm not hook line and sinker onboard with the application of your product on my 185.

fiftynineSC wrote:

From what I saw, I don't think anyone could question its quality. I am also a 180/185 guy.

to back up your stance as contrast to the seemingly unsophisticated element on this board.

Word of caution: many of the guys on this board do have some impressive credentials, they just don't flaunt it on the Internet.

You can name drop the guys at Edwards/Dryden all you want...just be aware that some of us turned down those jobs.

Difference is, we fly 180's and are potential customers...and the Edwards guys are not.

I for one don't like to be compared to a reality TV show just because I'm not hook line and sinker onboard with the application of your product on my 185.

Thank you for your reply,a nd for the comment about quality.

There is an unsophistacted element on this board. It's not the only element thank goodness, but it is one of the elements here. That element has poked and prodded at me, so I poke and prod back. I believe that I treat the other elements differently (as they do me).

I'm aware that there are very impressive credentials on tis forum, 100 times more impressive as mine and most others. So this seems to mean there's plenty of contrast between people ont his board in and of itself, regardless of the contrast I refererred to.

Neither of the test pilot types I referred to were mentioned by name. I wasn't name dropping for its own end, I just wanted to address the concept that people with fairly high credentials and training ought to hold more sway here.

Both of the former test pilot/instructors are in fact customers. One has a '58 182B. The other flies a 185 for the Forest Service.

I took the little bit of effort to make sure that I was not painting everyone on tis forum with the same brush. I thought it was clear anough in the post you are referring to. IIRC, I used the phrase "that occasionally is seen here".

I'll apologize if it appeared that I think 'anyone who's not hook line and sinker onboard is a redneck/idiot/stupid.' That is absolutely not the case at all. The people who are not convinced this product works, and who don't think it is worth having - but are not closed minded and intellectually constipated about it- it is for those people that I have offered a public review so they can hear other qualified points of view.

hotrod180 wrote:

glacier wrote: I think I would need an EZ Trim ........

X2 on the EZ Trim. I don't feel the need for a flap handle extender, but the trim is a stretch when I'm climbing out and need to retrim the nose upward while holding back pressure after setting the flaps back at zero.

BTW I was joking about wanting an EZ Trim.

EZFlap wrote:...I'll apologize if it appeared that I think 'anyone who's not hook line and sinker onboard is a redneck/idiot/stupid.' That is absolutely not the case at all. The people who are not convinced this product works, and who don't think it is worth having - but are not closed minded and intellectually constipated about it- it is for those people that I have offered a public review so they can hear other qualified points of view.

Why is it that anyone who decides that they don't see the need for your "better mousetrap" invention is closed-minded? Or worse yet, intellectually constipated? IMHO to expect or almost even demand (as you do) that everyone embrace your EZ Flap is being somewhat close-minded also. You've apparently sold quite a few of them -- why not just accept that some people think it's great, and others don't, and call it good?

EZFlap wrote:There is an unsophistacted element on this board.

We're out here, lurking in the wings drinking second rate lager and eating day-old donuts, poring over the various literary resources at our disposal through besmudged spectacles for synonyms that best express our ire for the fan boys of the device that has Clyde Cessna performing an uncommanded roll in his grave... We're the long armed apes with such anatomical advantages that even our empathy for the misshapen or inflexible is a forgotten vestigial emotion. We are the... unsophistacted.

For anyone critical of this device, EZ Flap is no dummy. He'll battle you tooth and nail in this thread because there's no such thing as bad PR. It just keeps bubbling to the top and might as well be a banner ad. Like the taste of cilantro, I suspect this is going to appeal to each of us one way or the other, and is a fundamental taste issue. Bill deserves a pat on the back for being an innovator and an entrepreneur. Maybe he's using the profits of the EZFlap to finance his Cessna taildragger conversion project that you ARE interested in. If you don't agree, be happy that we live in a time where there are adaptive options. With my last ironic bump of this thread, I suggest we let it fade into obscurity and prevent EZflap from tasting his toes any more...so he can devote his time to that tail cone engineering.

hotrod180 wrote:
Why is it that anyone who decides that they don't see the need for your "better mousetrap" invention is closed-minded?
to ... demand (as you do) that everyone embrace your EZ Flap is being somewhat close-minded also.
why not just accept that some people think it's great, and others don't, and call it good?

Once again, I never once have said or implied that anyone who doesn't agree with the value of this particular device is closed minded or constipated. I said that I have offered and will continue to offer public testing and review of this device, which is probably only relevant to the people who are not closed minded and constipated. For the record, in my wildest airplane porno wet dreams about this product I never thought that everyone with a manual flap airplane would agree with and/or buy this product. I figured one out of five or ten, over a long period of time, was aiming pretty high. I don't demand that everyone embrace it or agree with it. I hoped that everyone would at least give it a fair shake, and not try to trash talk it until I was buried under a hundred foot pile of sh*t. When my hopes of getting that fair shake... from my fellow pilots no less... were dashed from the very start, I had a choice between running away with my tail between my legs, or fighting back. The forum archives will tell that tale. I absolutely do accept that some people think it's great and others don't. But Chevy didn't stop promoting its product once X percent of the world embraced it and call it good.

Zzz wrote:
our ire for the fan boys of the device that has Clyde Cessna performing an uncommanded roll in his grave...
because there's no such thing as bad PR.
I suggest we let it fade into obscurity and prevent EZflap from tasting his toes any more...

If Clyde Cessna is rolling in his grave, I guarantee it's not because some inventor figured out a simple solution to a problem that was built in to thousands of airplanes that went out carrying the Cessna name.

Yes, you busted me. I have adopted the Gorgeous George School of Marketing method, as a way to build product recognition at little or no financial cost. Saved me hundreds of thousands in advertising, at the cost of a few blood pressure pills (and the "ire" of a peanut gallery that expected to fry an ant under a magnifying glass for fun and were surprised with some heat in return). Unfortunately the only people who know that all these shenanigans are backed up by truly stellar customer service and support are the people who did try the product and either kept or returned it.

Tasting my toes... meaning foot-in-mouth embarrassment? Enlighten and educate me on who's embarrassed:

- 95% of the people who bought this like it.
- The people who immediately (and pompously) announced that it would not work have been proven wrong.
- The people who said nobody would ever buy one have been proven wrong.
- The people who tried to influence others not to try it or even consider it have been proven wrong.
- The people who said it would not be of any benefit ... without even giving it a try... have been proven wrong.
- Most of the people who tried it but chose not to buy it have still agreed it is an improvement.
- When one aircraft type was shown to benefit less from this upgrade than all the others do, I admitted and accepted it and have not tried to sell into that market since that time. I even attempted to recall and refund each of the units that had been sold to that aircraft type.
- Two public offers (and one private) have been made to give critics of this product an open opportunity to show the world that the product doesn't provide the worthwhile benefits that the salesman has claimed. For some reason nobody wanted to take me up on that challenge... why do you suppose that is?
- Two offers have been made to product reviewers with far higher than average qualifications, both of which resulted in those reviewers purchasing the product for their personal or work aircraft. Why do you suppose that is?
- BCP forum members who bought the product have posted positive reviews.

So without demanding that anyone embrace and hero-worship the product or its inventor... somebody please tell me what I did that was so wrong here and why I'm the bad guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYq_FVXdg84 the relevant portion starts at 1:10