Kent Ashton

1 hour ago, PhatRV said:

No joy so far.

I don't know who is building in SoCal but there are dozens of canard owners out there.  There used to be a regular Saturday gathering at Chino.  If you join COBA you can access their list.  https://canardowners.com/

Otherwise, I would contact the EAA chapters nearby and ask around.  Chapter contacts can be found at EAA.org

I just noticed that this thread was started by Wayne Hicks in 2002--22 years ago!--and wondered about him.  AFAIK, he did not finish his project or sell it and it might still be stored in a hangar at Chesapeake Regional in Virginia.  Wayne was the go-to guy for builders needing examples of good workmanship in the early 2000s and I see that his stuff is still posted.  I do not find any likely pilots by that name in the FAA registry.

https://ez.canardaircraft.com/www.ez.org/pages/waynehicks/index.html

Lots of builder links here but I am afraid many of them are dead

http://ljosnes.no/cozy/builder-home-pages/

Found one site with a Google Images search for "velocity aircraft intakes cooling" but using variations on that search and digging into some of the photos will likely discover others.  Canardzone doesn't talk much about Velocitys

https://www.velocity-xl.com/blog/series/11-fairings/

You might find some good info here and the old Reflector archives and photos referenced in that site.

https://velocityowners.com/

There is a Varieze builders manual and most of the plans in this thread.    https://www.canardzone.com/forums/topic/50349-open-vari/    Chapter 6 shows the wing-fitting area.  Without seeing your cracks, it sounds like they might be cosmetic; I have seen similar cracks in pictures.  If they are just cracks in the filler, you can repair them with epoxy + micro or West System with micro or West Microlite filler.  I never worked on a Vari myself but I think the way the wings and centerspar were attached is fairly robust;  I have never heard of Vari wings falling off but the corrosion in the aluminum parts was something Burt was concerned about.

I see a VM-1000 manual here.  https://cdn.imagearchive.com/biplaneforum/data/attach/68/68702-VM1000-Manual-best.pdf

2 hours ago, zolotiyeruki said:

1985 RUTAN LONG EZ • $20,000 • FOR SALE BY OWNER • 1100 Hours, Lycoming 0-235-L2C, 2200 Engine Hours, 105 Hours Since Major Overhaul, Dynafocal Engine Mount, Task Strakes, NACA Cooling Inlet, Original GU Canard Airfoil, Electric Starter, 25AH Battery, Herb Sanders Wheel Pants, Kevlar Cowling and Exhaust System, 6” Prop Extension, Slick Magnetos, One Owner Since New, Complete Logbooks and Records, IFR Panel, Telex 720 Radio, Narco Nav 121/122 with GS/MB, No ADS-B In/Out, Not Flown or Maintained Since 2006, Engine Is Not Airworthy Due To The Potential Of Camshaft, Cylinder Or Other Component Corrosion. The Engine Needs To Be Overhauled. • Contact Mark McHenry , Owner - located Mclean, VA 22102 United States • Telephone: 7038627495 • Posted April 3, 2024

 

I don't think you can find an EZ much cheaper than this.  I has not flown since 2006 (yikes, 18 years!) but what the heck.  Only 105 hours since some sort of overhaul.  Get the logs, figure what was done to the engine. Maybe it will be flyable with minimal work (or no work).  You hope it was hangared.  If so it could be a great buy.

3 hours ago, Marc Zeitlin said:

Bolding mine.

Kent, you know I respect your knowledge about these airplanes, and I know you're interested in safety. But two "probably"s and a "may not", while not technically wrong, is nowhere near enough to hang the safety of an airplane on. Your recommendations for a thorough CI are obviously warranted, as are the rest of your recommendations. But they don't go nearly far enough.

Particularly with VEs and the wing fitting issue, it's critical to understand the provenance of the aircraft - where was it built? How was it stored? Where was it stored? How much did it fly? What protection was put on the metal parts? How much did it fly in rain/moisture? Was it ever tied down outside for any length of time? Who were the intermediate owners after the builder? How did THEY treat and store the aircraft?

While San Diego is in SoCal, it's also right on the Pacific Coast; is humid, wet and foggy. The first picture certainly gives the impression that at least for the last 3 years, it's been stored outside. This would have been a huge "move on to the next airplane" warning sign for me. And if I'm scaring the new owner, well, good.

"Probably" doesn't cut it...

Marc, I don't disagree with what you've said but I was responding to comments that suggest some sort of full load test was needed.  If Justin can establish that the builder Arthur Gallant also built an award-winning Lancair, that would mean a lot.  Yeah, Justin should be aware that open storage in a maritime environment might promote corrosion in the wing fittings, and he should be aware of the Rutan cautions about wing-fitting corrosion.  For me, if the airplane looked well-built and seemed to be stored in a dry environment, I wouldn't sweat it too much (but I have never owned a Varieze). 

On 3/28/2024 at 11:19 AM, Coffman Automatics said:

I would like to know more about the fuel injection system and can't seem to find any info on that. I seem to have a fuel valve just behind the stick. The strake tanks are plumbed together and the Passenger headrest/ firewall tank seems to be the RES tank looks to hold about 4 gallons. is this normal? Damn thing floods the throttle body with fuel that runs out the air cleaner when I try to start it now.

The airworthiness date on the records is 1985.  If it has been flying since then and it flew in 2021, the museum guys are probably right that it won't take much to get it flying again.  In addition to a good condition inspection, I would drain the old fuel and pay attention to the filters and screens.  Use new brake fluid, for sure.   Sport Aviation Jan 1991 has an article about "Arthur Gallant's Grand Champion Kit Built Lancair 320".  If this is the same fellow in the registration, he was probably a careful builder.  https://registry.faa.gov/AircraftInquiry/Search/NNumberResult?nNumberTxt=41EZ

What "fuel Injection" system are you talking about?  Maybe the primer system.  If it sprays fuel into the intake, it will drip out of the carb.  Better if the primer is plumbed to the ports on a couple of cylinders.

If this was a southern Cal. airplane all it's life, and hangared most of the time, you may not need to worry about the wing fittings.

Just reading about a guy who lost his engine at 9500 feet and landed 100 feet short of a runway doing a fair amount of damage to his Cozy.  There were about 70 comments praising him for a job well done (he wasn't injured).  I would say he is lucky but this was not a good outcome. 

While acknowledging that I could be sitting in a field myself next week after the same sort of mishap, we should look at this one further.  He said his intended runway was on the edge of his Foreflight glide range indication so that made it tougher.  Foreflight says "[Glide Advisor] Uses your aircraft’s glide ratio, current GPS altitude, surrounding terrain, and winds aloft to present a ring showing your glide range."  (pic)

IMO gliding a Cozy straight in to a distant airport is fraught with difficulty.  First, we are trying it with the prop stopped or worse, windmilling, so we probably aren't used to the steeper glide.  Next, it is very difficult to maintain an accurate glide speed in our slick airplanes.  I try to maintain a glide speed by holding a precise pitch attitude in the windscreen but 1" higher or lower pitch attitude will make about a 15 knot difference, as I recall.  It is easy to be at 80kts, then with a moment of inattention, I am over 100kts.  Next, a strong tailwind at altitude may be fooling the Glide Advisor into showing you better glide range at altitude than lower down, where the tailwind can be lower.  It would be discouraging to see the glide ring shrink as you get lower.

Next is the challenge of determining your aimpoint-- where you are going to impact the runway/intended landing zone.  We are in the habit of flying the airplane to the numbers, but not only is it hard to judge aimpoint thousands of feet AGL and miles from the intended landing point, flying straight-in to the approach end of the runway leaves no room for error.  Better to approach the airport high until within about 2-3 miles, then establish an aimpoint to touchdown.  Even better to get to a "high key", crossing the landing point at 1000' AGL or so, and flying a downwind, base, final pattern to touchdown.  A circling approach gives lots of room for tightening or widening the glide as required.  I can often do this in idle without touching the power (but not always!)

To make a good engine-idle practice approach, I must estimate the landing winds correctly and remember that a high visual speed and long aimpoint on downwind may disappear with a headwind on final.  It is generally recommended to aim about 1/3rd of the way down the landing zone but this is problematical in a slick airplane that can easily arrive 1/3rd of the way down with 15-20 extra knots.  It's good to use the 1/3rd rule but don't carry it too far.  As you get closer to touchdown, you probably don't want all that runway behind you.  However, with any sort of wind in the pattern, I have to caution myself to mentally move my aimpoint into the wind--for example, to make the airplane appear to overshoot base for a right crosswind or aim, say, half-way down the runway with a strong headwind on final.  Finally, I have to be very careful to maintain a pitch attitude that will maintain a constant glide speed, and therefore I can detect where the glidepath will impact the ground.

The Cozy landing brake is not very effective until in the roundout but an aggressive slip can be useful to wipe off speed or altitude.  I am disgusted if I arrive at my touchdown point with 15-20 extra knots of airspeed.  Energy to be dissipated in the crash is the square of the velocity, they say.  Another thing they say is not to hit anything fixed.  If it was clear I was going to run off the end of the runway, I'd start the nose gear retracting.

I often think about whether to land on a highway.  Maybe, but I fear causing a multi-car wreck with inadequate liability insurance.  I might try an interstate if the traffic was light.  I would have more latitude to stretch a glide or not, to get in between traffic.   Brrrr!  Scares me to contemplate it.  I'd rather land in a nice smooth field and make whatever repairs are necessary.

Anyway, I urge canard fliers to practice power off approaches at every landing.  Analyse your mistakes.  It is no use to practice them from 9500' AGL in idle power but it's worth thinking about the problems of a long straight-in glide.

A while back, I cut the power on takeoff and practiced a return-to-the-runway.  I figure 500 AGL would be quite doable.  300' AGL would be dicey.  Try it for yourself.  It's nice to fly a stall-resistant airplane for this maneuver.

7 hours ago, lscotese said:

I'm rebuilding some cracked baffles. The old baffles had inter cylinder baffles on the bottom (Cozy 3, high pressure side). I'm pretty sure this would just act as a wind break, reducing cooling. Any thoughts?

There are inter cylinder baffles on top. Those I understand and will reinstall. 

IMO, cooling air that doesn't go through the fins is wasted--it adds cooling drag with no effect.  I use intercylinder baffles top and bottom, and wrap the fins between the cylinders so that the air must go through the fins.  I also use various bits of sheet metal to seal the depressions in the case between the fins to stop air from escaping there.  Some pics in this reply   https://www.canardzone.com/forums/topic/18661-kents-long-ez-project/?do=findComment&comment=90258

I typically fly at about 150 KTAS at 7.5-8 gph, usually 12,000 MSL or higher if weather permits.  400-600 miles is quite doable.

Consider also that at 100F the airplane needs longish >4000' hard surface runways.  It is not a great IMC instrument airplane IMO but OK with an autopilot, I suppose.  Mine leaks water in in the rain and I slow down to prevent prop damage to my wood prop.  I would not like to fly it in heavy cumulus as you might encounter in the tropics but I would feel that way about any small airplane.  If I had to land on a dirt strip or a runway less than 2000', I would consider that dicey.  I might not be able to take off again.

There might be other sources but one is https://www.aircraftcovers.com/LEZ (shown below)

$1600 for a nose/canopy/engine cover, though.  Another option is to take your old cover to an awning/upholstery shop and get it copied or cut it up and make patterns for an awning shop. 

3 hours ago, jackalak said:

Just aircraft/engine logs

You only need builder logs (or pics, or notes) when the aircraft is first inspected by the FAA for an Airworthiness Certificate.  You would not need them after that and often, they don't tell you anything substantive.  In fact, you don't need aircraft or engine log books either.  All you'd need is Bill of Sale, renew the A.C. and get a condition inspection from an A&P or the builder with a repairman's certificate.  Also, other little checks of the transponder and ELT.

We discussed this Cozy III a few days ago.  https://www.canardzone.com/forums/topic/64692-assistance-with-purchase-of-my-first-canard-cozy-mkiv-near-denver/#comment-120523

The engine is high time but I have overhauled a couple myself, sending parts out to the overhaulers and reassembling it with the help of an A&P the first time and on my own the second time (the A&P was not very careful).  I don't know much about the Aeromomentums except they will involve a radiator and new engine mount, probably new cowls so I doubt it will save you much $$ or work.  Build log is not needed since it was once licensed.  The POH is OK--Nat's first iteration was called "Cozy", later "Cozy Mk IV".

If you accept the round-dial instruments, I'd say the engine will be the most work to get it going.

There are many canard builders and owners in France.  I have a friend at Vannes.  Several canards on the field.

16 hours ago, NebraskaQuickieBuilder said:

It's the 16 inch width limit with Spruce when some cores need 18 to 20+ for the chord that is the main issue with their supply.

Well, as I said, the Rutan canards cut wing and canard cores from several foam blocks.  A wing is three sections  joined with micro.  Wings and canards are cut lengthwise  down the middle and rejoined later with micro.  I don't see why you couldn't separate your templates into half or so, and cut cores that way, join them together with micro.   Take a look at the Open-Ez builders manual and you'll see what I mean.

I don't know much about the Q200 but it appears a 10" block is spec'd because they want to get two cores out of a block, so maybe you can get by with the 8" blocks from Spruce cutting one core at a time.  The Rutan airplanes cut wing forms out of one piece of foam, then cut the form in half to construct shear web and center spars on the back half, then the front half is micro'd back in place.  Generally, the foam is just a shape over which to add the fiberglass spars and skins.  It may add a little to the strength but if two pieces of foam can be joined with a micro joint, I would think that'd be fine.   I'd  figure out how to use the foam from Spruce or Wicks.  If I had to join two pieces of styrofoam to cut out one shape, I would join them with dabs of pour foam-enough to hold them together for the hotwire, cut the shape, the pull them apart and rejoin them with micro.  I'd be just a good as a single contiguous shape (IMO).

http://quickheads.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2399&Itemid=790

AircraftSpruce sells the 8" X 16" x  ___ blocks for canard builders.  I suspect these would do for a Quickie   https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/cmpages/polystyrene.php

Maybe Wicks also.  You might call OwensCorning as ask where you might find them in Nebraska.  They are sometimes used for boat docks or sliced up for insulation.  If the weight is 2 lb/cu ft, it is the same stuff.

Here is a dealer in (gulp) New Hampshire.  It is likely the same weight as we use.  I think Burt used boat-dock billets.   https://store.eastcoastlumber.net/products/dow-dock-float-billet-10x20x96|102096B.html

4 hours ago, vh2q said:

Mark, the guy that built the plane, was an FAA engineer, DAR, commercial pilot, and a BSEE. If that counts for anything. Is it possible he built the plane a bit sturdier to achieve 2000 max gross? If so, what evidence would we look for? I am really not interested in a one person plane with 3 seats that might lose a wing if it hit an air pocket in a turn. I already own a plane with 750lb useful.

I used to own a Cozy III.  IMO it is not so much the gross weight--most builds are pretty stout--but the front-seat weight.  You are 240.  Designer Nat Puffer was, I'm guessing, maybe 175 lbs and his wife Shirley was maybe 110 lbs.  It was fine for them, but that's one reason why Nat designed the bigger C-IV.  The front-seat weight affects how fast the airplane must go before the canard can lift the nose and rotate the aircraft for takeoff.  It also impacts landing speed.  I was 225 when I flew mine and I flew once with a similar-weight fellow but takeoff speed was noticeably higher and I didn't want to have an off-airport landing in it.  It's like flying a Long-EZ with two people in the front seat.  I had the old GU canard which was affected by moisture, too.  One time I took off with my Dad on a moist, foggy day and almost ran off the end of a 3200' runway before I could rotate.  Scared the heck out of me.

I moved my battery around to try to reduce the load in the nose but it cost me some room in back.  I never tried to carry a third person in the C-III.  I eventually build a Roncz canard for it but I still consider it a marginal airplane for big people.

On 1/26/2024 at 12:17 AM, TParker said:

Nose gear: The retract system couldn't be rigged to have full extension (fuselage longeron level, proper nose wheel caster angle) and full retraction at the same time. Full retraction was also not flush. Ended up relocating the clamp on the gear leg, and modifying the gear strut tunnel. Tunnel wasn't pretty, and still isn't. The wheel well and gear alignment aren't great. If the wheel is a bit cocked in one direction, it will hang up on the wheel well before it fully retracts. Not sure if wind stream and the bit of vibration in flight will make this a non-issue; going to leave it be for now. Need to figure out a new nose pad/bumper; think I'm going to make one out of HDPE or similar to sit right in front of the strut, and maybe on the strut too.

Just thinking that if you move the gear leg clamp up the strut, it will increase the leverage of the nose-gear & weight which then transfers into the NG30s.  People have had them delaminate from the nose once in a while.  Perhaps there is a better way to get more extension by relocation of micro-switches if you have electric gear.  Also make sure the nose strut is perfectly vertical when on the gear.  If not it will castor in one direction and leave you thinking you have a dragging brake.

The nose opening is a big pneumonia hole and the only way I have figured out how to seal it is to build a door or cover on the strut which when retracted, seals against strips built into the nose-gear box.    https://www.canardzone.com/forums/topic/18661-kents-long-ez-project/page/23/#comment-72419

Alternatively, you might build a cover that seals against the bottom of the nose

2 hours ago, vh2q said:

He's a generic A&P out of Denver, works for some outfit that services small jets. That's the only guy I could come up with. I don't think he knows anything about composites.

Confused.  Did you buy this airplane or are you still negotiating?

If you can't hook up with Zeitlin, a generic A&P might tell you something useful about the engine but there are likely a dozen canard builders and owners in Colorado who might tell you more about the airplane.  I would join COBA   https://canardowners.com/   and look COBA's membership for those around you or contact EAA chapters (see EAA.org).  Most owners would be willing to take a look for a hamburger.    There are many good youtubes and websites showing how to remove a cylinder and borescope an engine--it is actually pretty easy but there are some cautions about not turning the crank, etc.  If you own the airplane you might as well learn how to do it.  If not, the owner might not want you taking the engine apart.  I wouldn't.

On 1/11/2024 at 12:55 PM, Gilson said:

I am a student pilot with 80 hours logged,

I gather you have not read all the comments on this site about Variezes.  Use the search and start reading.  You likely don't know enough to form an educated opinion about them or the one you're looking at.  I like the canard airplanes and have owned a Long-ez, Cozy III and Cozy IV.   It can be a multi-year process to rehabilitate a tired old airplane and engine and you could put more money into it than you would ever get back--and that would be time you would not be building any hours.

A friend of mine had a hard time starting his EZ with battery in the nose.  I forgot I had made one of these 4-wire ohmmeter testers so we ended up changing his starter cables out to bigger and heavier cables.  It seems to have solved his problem but I suspect taking some measurements with this sensitive ohm tester from the great Bob Nuckolls might have found some high resistance in the circuit.   He shows that with pretty ordinary resistances in a starter circuit, a 12.5V battery may only deliver 7.46 V at the starter.

http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/grnding.pdf

Sorry that I can't help.  I had a tip-back once.  It broke about 1.5" off one blade of a three-blade.  I cut the other two blades off as evenly as I could and it got me home.  That might be an option.  I am a little surprised that a prop for a higher HP engine would not work well enough to get you home.  Yeah, it would not be optimum but if it will get you airborne it might work.

I have tip-backed twice and almost a few other times.  It is something you have to be aware of.  I am pretty careful now.  Good luck.

The plans engine mount angles in the firewall are a little undersized.  The plans call for 1/8" thickness but they can develop cracks around the holes drilled for engine mount bolts.  Lot of people have used 1/4" angle or steel angles or double up the 1/8".  It involves exposing the mounting bolts for the angles inside the fuselage by uncovering the bolts above the strakes, driving the bolts through the longerons out and installing new angles.

Then the main gear mounts are a weak point but might be OK.  Hard landings & heavy weight loosen the bolts through the sides of the fuselage into the heavy mount angles.

Cowls might need some rework.  Not sure.

I don't know where most O-235 installs position the battery but with heavier engines you will likely need it in the nose with a run of heavy cables.  Maybe the new lithium batteries could be put in back.   Personally I think an O-320 is the ideal power for an EZ. 

Q-1: You might have to use a little more ballast when flying solo but others have moved the seat an inch or two.  I am 5-11 and the only "fit" problem I had was my shoulder hitting the canopy frame. I scalloped-out a place for it, which helped.   It depends also on the thickness of seat cushions.   I imagine there are other 6-4 flyers--can't name any off hand, though.  If you are broad-shouldered, that might be a problem.  I have a 6-4 friend, rather stout and broad-shouldered, who just can't fit in my seats

Q-2: I woudn't bother with a mockup but I'd find a Cozy owner in Oz and go sit in his airplane.

Q-3:  Many links at www.cozybuilders.org but here are a few I had bookmarked

https://cozy1537.blogspot.com/search/label/Chapter 01 Description and Introduction

https://ez.canardaircraft.com/www.ez.org/pages/waynehicks/index.html

https://cozyserenity.weebly.com/

And a good Long-EZ builder site.  Lots of overlap with a Cozy   http://www.aryjglantz.com/p/blog-page.html