Large Flyer

[aerialsasquatch]

Hey everyone!

I'm a leggy, broad of shoulder 6'9", 280-300 pound student pilot an am starting down the rabbit hole of experimentals/home-builds as an alternative to spending $200k+ on a relatively outfitted plane where I fit.

For reference, I am doing my training lessons in a C182Q, which is surprisingly comfortable, but I am wholly unable to fit/operate within a C172.

My instructor mentioned EZ Longs when discussing experimentals / my goals, as I would like to have ability to fly regularly for both work and pleasure generally within a range of NC - Central Florida, with occasional flights further abound.

Obviously, as I think everyone probably is, the EZ Long seems incredibly attractive for a multitude of reasons, and given the relative diversity in home builds, I'd really like to learn more about potential differences that may accommodate someone my size. I am new to this exploration, so am just looking for resources, as well as any specific modifications (or even specific crafts) that folks here might know of that may reach that goal.

I've seen mention of modified panels to give more knee room above the rudder slots, moving the rudders further forward, as well as larger canopies to accommodate more head room, but my primary concern from my viewing of different folks sitting in-cockpit is the shoulder space, specifically at the top of the fuselage where the canopy rests.

Happy to be here and absorb as much knowledge as I can, excited to hang around and learn a thing or two!

[zolotiyeruki]

I've heard of a few builders building the fuselage a couple inches wider, while leaving everything else (wingspan, etc) the same.  There's a bunch of extra work involved, since you have to figure out how the center section spar, upper longerons, aluminum extrusions, and engine mount interface with each other, but it's been done.

[aerialsasquatch]

@zolotiyeruki thanks for the input! It seems like an advanced bit of change to be making from the ground up, especially for someone wet behind the ears like me. It seems like the original design was theoretically accounting for someone up to 6'8" with some minor modifications. The more I've looked into it, the more I think my primary problems will actually be knee room and CG due to weight, as I'm 6'9", largely leg.

I think, barring building my own, which is a goal but a long-tailed one for now, buying and modifying seems like my best option (if it's viable at all).

Top of mind right now for leg fitment is:
- Can I change the instrument panel to give as much clearance in the knee department as possible, which seems relatively straight forward, just might need to cut a new template and change / reorient any avionics that are already there.
- Move rudder pedals to something that makes sense for my position once in the seat
- Worst case scenario is cannibalize some pax seat space if needed (but I feel relatively confident the above two will solve for me, I've seen posts of 6'5" and 6"6 leggy folks having it pretty easy)

The weight provides it's own set of problems and I'll have to read more posts here, and do some other diligence to really start to understand it.

I'll be looking more into:
- CG and a 300lb pilot
- a 300lb pilot and gross weight.

Seems like with the more popular 0-320 it's generally recommended to have a longer nose and some forward ballast (or move your hydraulics and batteries as far forward as possible), I'm curious how extra weight in the pilot seat affects that recommendation. Then off course the limitations it starts to push against with gross weight, though if it accounts for 250 for both passengers in the original documentation (PilotOperatingHandbook.PDF (iflyez.com)) if i can leech 50 pounds from the passenger allotment that makes me a bit more sure.

Oddly enough, the handbook actually specifically calls out that it was designed to accommodate pilots up to 6'8", which makes me wonder which of the founders knew someone that tall they had in mind, us giants are almost always overlooked!

Now to find someone nearby to see if any of this is even worth the research effort!

[aerialsasquatch]

Following the recommended station measurements in the handbook (obviously there will be differences between crafts, but just using it as a thought exercise for now) and assuming 0-235 just for the example, it looks like with no ballast and "worst case scenario" pilot weight wise (accounting for clothes, shoes, very important heavy things in my pockets), a 315 pound pilot, with full fuel (52 gallons) and full oil, will fall just outside of the acceptable range forward.

 

But since it's outside of the range aft, any extra weight aft will solve for that pretty quickly, for example a heavier engine (0-320), a passenger, or simply putting some ballast in for solo flight.

Seems like I might have the opposite problem than most, in that they are trying to ballast forward, whereas my CG measurement (assuming exactly to plan) biases toward needing adjustment aft.

I realize I'm preaching to the choir here, but I'm adding this type of information for future reference for wet-behind-the-ears like myself coming in and searching, just in case there are any other giants interested in these things.

For reference, here's a "fully loaded" example, including passenger and baggage estimates.

Which stays within CG limits, though close to the forward limit, and rests between gross take-off recommendation and the max take-off recommendation when the runway is long enough.

Next up is searching if others have examples of how a 320 affects max weight considerations and it's affect on CG. My assumption is since it's a heavier, more powerful engine, very aft, it would only help the situation I would find myself in, both in CG as well as weight limits.

[aerialsasquatch]

@Kent Ashton I'm curious for your input here - in the DM you shared about your concerns, you mentioned the canards being able to rotate with a heavier pilot. Do these CG numbers match what you were thinking, or are there other variables I need to be considering?

Definitely not out to dismiss your feedback, I've got a terrible habit of not dropping the bit out of my mouth until the point has hit me over the head several times...

[Marc Zeitlin]

The rear CG limit long ago changed to 103", not 104", and if you can find a 750 lb. Long-EZ, I'll be asking you to start searching for unicorns. The lightest Long-EZ I've seen in 13 years of doing about 130 Condition Inspections and Pre-Buy exams was about 840 lb. And that was ONE plane. Count on most of them being 900 - 1000 lb., especially the O-320 versions.

Your problem, at 6' 8" and 280 lb, isn't going to be only CG - it's going to be having to liquify yourself to pour yourself into the plane and then being over MGW (at least the book MGW) with 1/2 fuel and just you in the plane. With an O-320, it's not unreasonable to raise the MGW if you test to what you raise it to, but then you're substantially stressing the landing gear.

You state:

Quote

a 315 pound pilot, with full fuel (52 gallons) and full oil, will fall just outside of the acceptable range forward.

and then:

Quote

But since it's outside of the range aft, any extra weight aft will solve for that pretty quickly, for example a heavier engine (0-320), a passenger, or simply putting some ballast in for solo flight.

which is confusing - 96.8" is not aft of 97", it's forward of it. And as you burn fuel, the CG will move forward, so with bingo fuel, you'll be way forward of the forward limit. And you'll be flying solo far more often than with a passenger, so counting on weight in the back seat or full fuel to drag you into CG range is not reasonable.

You need to look at the worst case situation, not the "well, I can make this work if I stand on my head and sacrifice a goat".

I hate to burst a bubble, but at your size, a standard Long-EZ is going to be difficult. Not impossible, but difficult, for many reasons, some of which you've started investigating.

[aerialsasquatch]

Thanks for the response Marc!

 

Quote

which is confusing - 96.8" is not aft of 97", it's forward of it

That's a mistake on my part, the phrase should've been "But since it's outside of the range forward, any extra weight aft will solve for that pretty quickly".

I'm mostly just relieved that's the worst mistake - I was nervous my software self was going to get something completely backwards in front of you engineer types.

 

Quote

You need to look at the worst case situation, not the "well, I can make this work if I stand on my head and sacrifice a goat".

I completely agree - I was trying to start there, but I'm pretty wet behind the ears so will definitely not think of all the worse case scenarios at first, which is why I'm exposing the thinking to y'all much more knowledgable folks for critique.

 

Quote

I hate to burst a bubble, but at your size, a standard Long-EZ is going to be difficult. Not impossible, but difficult, for many reasons, some of which you've started investigating.

I can take a good bubble bursting, at the end of the day if the physics and difficulty just don't line up, it won't fly, and that's no good.

I've seen some talk around the Limo EZ, and that seems like a possibility as far as the "can you actually sit in the thing," but that particular fellow hasn't been active in over a decade.

Unfortunately the problems are many, I think:
- Actual, physical fitment (depending on seat placement and panel structure, can be less or more of a problem)
- CG being wildly biased forward, to the point of almost being outside of the envelope in most configurations, without significant ballast aft
- MGW in general, exacerbated by any add-weight solutions to the above CG problem

It's also been brought to my attention that even if it "technically flies," the weight on the canards would make my runway requirements will be pretty long, eliminating some local ports I'd definitely be wanting to access.

It seems like without major change-of-plans, which is a pretty intimidating undertaking as someone who hasn't built before, the only real path would be convert to a 1 seater sitting further aft, and accept I'll never pack more than a backpack and full fuel.

I'll keep dreaming for now, and start looking at alternatives in the meantime. Bearhawks and RV8s have both been recommended, and seem like pretty great planes. Maybe one of those (as in, the 2 I know that exist) Limo EZs will pop up, or I'll get the courage to spring for one and do a 1 seater conversion, otherwise I might be in search of larger cockpit waters.

In any case, reading this forum, and going through this exercise, has been super helpful for my knowledge! My instructor was impressed at my weight and balance acumen yesterday as a "new to aviation" after I had started going deep on LongEZ feasibility. I'm really appreciative of all the knowledge everyone has shared, and continues to share!

Edited June 16, 2023 by aerialsasquatch

[zolotiyeruki]

It may be worth joining a few email groups (they're posted somewhere in this forum), as well as the various related Facebook groups--there's a fair amount of traffic on those media, more than on this forum.

[John Meinecke]

Hi,

A quick question about large pilots. The VariEZ POH lists front seat pilot weight limits as 210lbs and 128lbs. I am 6'3" 275 (yes more of an inside linebacker type). As long as I stay under the GToW (1050) and Forward CG limits (95") with full and bingo fuel a VariEZ should fly reasonably? Or am I asking too much? Based off the listed cockpit dimensions I should fit, will need to get in one and check. I just wanted to know if am wasting my time considering a VariEZ over should be looking at investing in a LongEZ or Velocity ...

Thanks John.

[Marc Zeitlin]

12 hours ago, John Meinecke said:

A quick question about large pilots. The VariEZ POH lists front seat pilot weight limits as 210lbs and 128lbs.

Those are not weight limitations - they're weight samples for the W&B calculations. And it's a "Varieze", not a "VariEZ".

12 hours ago, John Meinecke said:

I am 6'3" 275 (yes more of an inside linebacker type). As long as I stay under the GToW (1050) and Forward CG limits (95") with full and bingo fuel a VariEZ should fly reasonably?

If you are within the weight and CG limitations for the plane, it will fly. At or near forward CG, you won't be thrilled with the takeoff, cruise or landing performance - you'll be slower in cruise and have to takeoff and land faster and on longer runways. But the limits are what they are because performance is acceptable within those limits.

12 hours ago, John Meinecke said:

Based off the listed cockpit dimensions I should fit, will need to get in one and check.

"Fit" in a small, tandem canard is very dependent upon body shape. While I know of people who are 6' 1" and 260 who have flown VEs, they pretty much have to pour themselves into (and out of) the plane. A test fit is mandatory, because at 5' 6" and 145 lb., I feel marginally claustrophobic in a VE. If you're all legs, or all torso, or all shoulders, it will make a large difference in fitment.

12 hours ago, John Meinecke said:

I just wanted to know if am wasting my time considering a VariEZ over should be looking at investing in a LongEZ or Velocity ...

Aside from all the "fit" issues to be resolved, I'd argue that however nice a lightweight VE is from the standpoint of efficient flight, the wing attach fitting corrosion issue is enough of a reason to consider a different aircraft unless the lifetime provenance of the aircraft can be traced precisely.

[John Meinecke]

Hello Marc,

Thank you for your kind reply. i appreciate the information and help.

john.

[Ratdog]

Ive been looking for a Varieze or a long eze for about 3 years. I finally found an "90% complete Long eze project " with 90 % to go .   The thing you also need to ask yourself is do you want to fly or do you want to spend most of your time tinkering with all the problems you will get with a homebuilt.   I guarantee even if you get a well vetted example you are going to be spending most of your time fixing or updating things not flying.   Thats why you can pick one up 1/4 to 1/3 of what the owner put into it. 

Edited September 24, 2023 by Ratdog