Retracts w/Baggage Pods

[querk1a1]

I assume that if you install Retracts ( Infinity ) that you loose the option of wing mounted Baggage pods. I haven't bought the info pack from infinity but it looks to me that the pods are mounted to the strake and not the actual Wing. Anyone know, the other option is a center line pod,.....Hmmmm....thats got me thinking..........Anyone else?

 

 

-Jonathan

#1052

[Brian DeFord]

I assume that if you install Retracts ( Infinity ) that you loose the option of wing mounted Baggage pods.

No, the retracts are fully contained in the strake area

I haven't bought the info pack from infinity but it looks to me that the pods are mounted to the strake and not the actual Wing.

I've got Gary Hunter's new pods for the MK-IV (first ones I think) and they mount to the wing. Mounting them to the strake wouldn't work because they require some hard points installed to capture the mounting bolts and you'd be jeopardizing the fuel tank area.

[Len Evansic]

I remember scratching my head about this at Oshkosh, while looking at Gary's pods. My recollection is that they attach at the wing root and strake junction, and that a few of us were wondering aloud if they would interfere with the Infinity retracts. The consensus is that they would clear, but barely. Also that you could mount them outboard slightly more if you needed to.

 

-- Len

[Waiter]

I've got the installation instructions on my web site. Look under DOWNLOADS/BAGGAGE POD

 

 

Waiter

www.iflyez.com

[Brian DeFord]

Gary's instructions have a BL 74 dimension for the centerline of the pods, but also says that the 74 isn't critical so long as both left and right side are the same. So, you could mount them outboard of 74 if it would make you feel better about the clearance. In any case, they are mounted on the wing, not the strake.

[Chairboy]

I gotta ask, at the risk of having the bozo bit set on me early (as this is only my second post), but... has anyone ever set up their baggage pods with an in-cabin emergency release latch? Seems like this could provide (at the risk of complexity) a method for getting rid of a pod that is hanging badly or in danger of catching something on a gear up off-airport landing. And that's just the non-entertainment purposes.

[Todd Sanderson]

I would think that if the pod was hanging badly it would probably not disengage easily either making maybe an even worse problem. Also, from what I have seen, most canards like to flip over on off-airport emergency landings, so I would rather invest my time and money in a nice roll bar like I have seen posted.

[Neverquit]

Also, from what I have seen, most canards like to flip over on off-airport emergency landings

 

Need to correct you on that statement. There is no proof that "most" canards flip over in off-airport/runway conditions. Every emergency landing is different and I know of many pilots that have walked away upright and unscathed . A roll bar is nice if you feel you need one. The head rests and canopy brace are good for flip overs as well.

 

If the person has a dangling baggage pod I would immediately question the integrity of the rest of the plane. I would assume the builder would not have the skill to create a jettison release for the pods. On emergency gear ups I would assume the golf clubs or sleeping bags in the pods would be the least of my worry. If you used them for fuel, that's another story.

[Wayne Hicks]

I'll add my 2 cents:

 

(1) Don't fear baggage pods in a gear up landing with main retracts. My opinion, the pods will rip easily from the plane the second they touch the ground. You wouldn't even feel them departing the plane! My opinion, the mounts, while more than adequate to handle normal loads in flight, cannot sustain the inpact loads. (Why should they??? You weren't supposed to crash in the first place!)

 

(2) I agree with the not-all-flip-over comment for lack of statistical evidence. The only conclusion most agreed to by experts in our community is to leave the nose gear down for an off field landing. This increases the chances of keeping the nose from digging in.

 

(3) Heardrests. The CPs very clearly state that the headrest for the Long-EZ is not strong enough to withstand an inverted impact with forward speed. It was only designed to withstand static loading (meaning no motion) while inverted. In fact RAF highly recommended that LEZ builders retrofit their planes with one of the two rollover structures presented on the RAF site. Now, remembering that the Long-EZ has only a plastic canopy to protect your noggin if the one headrest fails, we in the Cozy world have slightly more protection from two headrests, a turtleback, and a turtleback bulkhead. Nat will say the protection is more substantial. I'd argue that, but I don't have the engineering prowess to prove him wrong, and I'm not going to test it with my plane. I know of two data points, a Cozy III and a Cozy IV that crashed and came to rest inverted. In both cases the canopy stayed on the plane and stayed intact enough to protect the occupants from head trauma.

[Todd Sanderson]

Sorry, I did not mean to cause an arguement. I am only concerned with safety here. Here is an article to back up what I feel: http://www.ez.org/hanson/N220EZ.htm

 

The problem with the nose gear is that it will not handle a hard landing in a rough field and the fiberglass structure will not hold up in a flip over. Furthermore, the EZ series fiberglass airframes will crush and break in hard impacts whereas an aluminum structure will bend somewhat maintaining it's shape protecting the occupants more. I have seen countless Cessna 150s, Mooneys, Cherokees, etc. flipped very hard in plowed corn fields completely intact. If was was to make an off-airpats landing, it would be on a road and I would take my chances with the traffic. With the glass you gain efficiency, but give give a lot up in crash surviveability, so I think a conservative approach is the way to go.

 

Also, I need an instructor with Long/Vari EZ time to give me 5 hours dual in my FFT Speed Canard to satisfy insurance if anybody knows of one in the Indiana/Ohio/Michigan area. I have 200 hours in a Velocity RG.

[Wayne Hicks]

I think most people understand that a smaller, lighter structure like in the typical canard can and will suffer extensive damage compared to the larger, heavier aluminum cert planes. I'm with you there. I think the knock was on saying that canards like to flip over. But now that we all know what you meant.....

[Nathan Gifford]

I think a number of people would argue that a fiberglass aircaft offers better survivability over an aluminum plane. The question that I think a number of canard pilots are asking is whether the landing gear contributes to rollovers on off-field forced landings. That usually ends up as a question of whether retracts or BRS affords better protection.

 

Probably a larger factor is the higher landing speeds of EZ style aircraft. A 150 or 172 is going to touch down at a much slower than a Long, Cozy, Velo, etc. will. That extra speed gives the aircraft more energy to do disagreeable things. The plus side is that these canard aircraft have better glide ratios, are lighter, and probably quite a bit tougher than their aluminum conterparts.

[Neverquit]

Wayne, I think we're speaking different languages but agreeing. I need to add aside from the previous report from David Hanson, there is no proof that any inverted incident with a home made RAF roll bar (or Wayne's ) or head rest/turtleback combination will save the cranium. In addition, Todd's comment that a spam can survival rate is better than a canard's is also false. Aluminum aircraft on hard impact will send a shock wave across the entire plane. Wayne, help, there's a name for it but can't remember. What happens is the impact will create buckles in the plane that never touched the ground. Think of it like an accordion. Composite craft will come apart on impact where the impact is - such as the nose. One great example is a Dave Orr's Long. He hit some powerlines on emergency off field. He tore off the mains and nose grear, slid across the ground till his main wing hit a Joshua tree, spun him sideways then stopped. He and his partner stepped out. I know of another fellow years ago locally that went for a "bathtub ride" when he had to ditch in a gravel pit. He stepped out too. I've see quite a few spam can landings in fiels where the nose gear was also ripped off and the plane flipped. Heck, I just bid on a Cessna Cardinal like that. Funny, it needed a new tail cone too.

 

I'm just saying every incident is different. One thing to remember is those tundra tired beasts go low and slow. The only advantage I can see for spam cans. I always wanted a STOL Cozy.

[Todd Sanderson]

While there is no statistical proof I can come up with other than the many stories I can find on the internet & NTSB you must admit that if you knew you were going to flip an aircraft you would definitely would prefer to flip a C-152 over a long-EZ (both about the same weight.) Also, I would much rather feel the "shockwave" that ripples up my airframe then have it break apart in pieces in which many of them are razor sharp. Don't get me wrong, I owned a Velocity RG Elite and now own a FFT Speed Canard and like the way they fly, but they simply won't take the punishment a certified or experimental metal aircraft of the same weight will. I know I would much rather flip a C-152 than my certified Speed Canard just for the fact that the doors in a C-152 will probably open when I need to get out. A guy with a subaru powered RV recently flipped his plane in a field and it damaged the tail and wings, but the aircraft itself was not compromised in any way. Remember too that fiberglass is not necessarily lighter than aluminum and can be much heavier. The weight savings in a Long EZ vs a RV9 comes from the dinky cockpit with no baggage room - not the advanced construction methods. The speed increases come from the very smooth high performance wing that is much more reliant on clean bug and ice-free air flowing smoothly over it. Put a 1/2" of ice on an RV, C-152, or Cherokee wing and do the same on a EZ and see which one gets you home. With a canard, you will be on your head and usually with a crushed top if there is any energy at all in the flip if it does flip and that is something to aware of and should be avoided if possible. This is why my FFT comes with a survival hammer standard equipment.

Again, not trying to spread bad thoughts around, just trying to open the minds to some different perspectives. Many of you are building the first plane you ever owned and do not have much experience in owning and flying much else. You selected an aircraft that was different, fast (considering the HP installed,) sexy looking, and easy to maintain. While I'm no ace pilot with 10s of thousands of hours, I have owned 23 aircraft and have flown over 50 different models and they all have qualities I like and dislike. I just don't like what I see when I look at the remains of a rather slow EZ flip and I thought the roll bar was a good idea. The great thing about experimentals is that you don't have to build your plane to standards I or anyone else think is proper, so build it the way you want and enjoy.