Marc Zeitlin

There are a number of ways to skin that cat. MY plane has a cam-lock: https://www.mcmaster.com/products/key-locks/circular-keyway-cam-locks-12/ that just rotates and blocks the bolt through standard latch part C3 (see page 18-10 of the plans) from moving aft when the lock is rotated up. I don't have a picture, but you can imagine something that is out of the way normally, but blocks the latch handle from moving aft when rotated into the "lock" position. In any case, when I'm locking the canopy, I open the latches, lower the canopy so that the three latches engage the screws, but I do NOT (and can't, actually) push the canopy down hard enough so that CS-13 and the screw head pop through the 9/16" hole in C9. This way, the canopy CANNOT lock from the inside, and all I need to do is rotate the external lock 180 degrees and then pull the canopy up. The safety catch DOES engage, but that's accessible once the canopy is raised an inch or two. As I said, there are many ways of accomplishing this - this was just the simplest way I could think of. You just have to make damn sure that there's no way to push the canopy down hard enough to get the screw head and CS-13 to pop through the 9/16" hole. My foam seal on the canopy is stiff enough to ensure that can't happen.

Duct tape sucks - do NOT put it anywhere on a plane if it's going to be there for more than 15 minutes, especially if the plane's going to be in the sun. Use heavy duty masking tape or electrical tape with acrylic adhesive. You'll be very sorry if you use duct tape - you'll spend an infinite amount of time with some sort of solvent trying to get the adhesive off of your paint. Not a fan. I've worked on multiple planes with that system and it's extremely finicky (sometimes trying to open the canopy in flight, which is obviously sub-optimal) and does NOT have an over-center latch. Nor, in fact, anything that ensures that it cannot vibrate open. No thanks. You don't need any latch just for moving the plane on a trailer. Worry about the canopy after you've got the plane home.

Yep. Many of them WAY too long. Having worked on your plane for the current owner, I'd say that your nose is ~12" longer than stock, give or take. And I would not expect that increase to be particularly noticeable in the stability regime. But some of the much longer ones, such as on N506DB, or the now destroyed Lance Hooley highly modified jet Long-EZ, are just ridiculous, and do substantially affect handling qualities, as measured on the Cooper-Harper scale.

Due to the fact that the longer one makes the nose, the lower the pitch and yaw stability of the airplane, one should only lengthen the nose by the absolute minimum amount required to fit the battery needed for W&B reasons. 15" is a substantial increase, although I've seen up to 30". A 30" extension definitely negatively affects the Dutch Roll and slipping capability of the plane - I've flown extended nose aircraft, and the differences can be noticeable. I'd suggest 8" - 12", with 15" as an absolute maximum, if any The longer nose also affects the position of the nose bumper, and increases the potential for fuselage side damage in the event of a nose gear up landing, due to the longer moment arm for impact forces. Do make the nose door large so that you can get both hands inside to work at the same time, and for Cthulhu's sake, make the fuselage top removable like the COZY MKIV for maintenance and accessibility.

In post #2: And further down, Fritz said: Those posts are what I was referring to. These are "claims" that the rebuild will take as long or longer than starting from scratch. And that's what I was disputing. Most of the time, I'd agree with you on this, but this is not an appeal to authority - it's an appeal to experience. I have approximately 18,000 - 20,000 hours working on over 100 different canard aircraft, 7K - 8K on my own planes, and the rest on other folks' aircraft. I'd suggest that that's substantially more time and experience than pretty much anyone else here (and more than the vast majority of the canard community - there might be 5 - 10 other folks with equivalent experience). Does that experience guarantee that I'm right? No - of course not. But it does mean that I PROBABLY know more about what's involved with pretty much everything on the plane, including major repairs, than almost anyone else. I can do so because in my experience in working with many other people on their aircraft and reviewing their builds, I know approximately what the mean and standard deviation of builder capabilities is. The 500 - 1000 hour estimate was a 1 - 2 sigma estimate. Some folks might be faster and some might be slower, but the majority will be in that range. Again, could I be wrong? Of course. But that's how I'd bet. On what experience do you lean for your estimates of how long builds/repairs will take? You're right that "nonsense" might have been too strong a word. However, "incorrect" wouldn't have been. Building a new Long-EZ is a 2500 - 4000 hour job (for those that actually put the time and effort into building, rather than just talking about building), while the repairs here are guaranteed to be far less than that (see the estimate above), unless talking and noodling is all that Kaylee is going to do, which is not what it sounds like. Only about 10% - 20% of new builds ever get completed. Repairs to this plane have a far higher probability of completion than that, hence my recommendation.

The 104" aft limit was superseded in the CP #37 Page 4 - changed to 103". LPC #116 - change 104" to 103" on page 30 of the POH. It was a mandatory change. I'm always amazed and surprised by how many LE builders/pilots/flyers are unaware of this...

Not so minor nit - the aft CG limit for Long-EZs is 103", NOT 101.5". For COZY MKIVs and IIIs, it's 102".

One increases the length of the nose for two reasons - first, aesthetics (which is obviously NOT a functional reason) and secondly, to provide space to move the battery further forward if one has an O-320 and the empty CG is too far aft. There is no other reason. You have this backwards. The empty CG of the plane is generally between 109" and 112". ANY weight in the front seat moves the loaded CG forward, but a lighter pilot moves it forward less than a heavier pilot. A 160 lb. pilot in a Long-EZ will NEVER have a forward CG issue and will never get anywhere near the forward CG limit. With an O-235, you MAY need some additional nose weight to stay forward of the 103" aft CG limit, and with an O-320 you will almost certainly need a lead-acid battery in the nose in order to stay forward of 103". While you may not be averse to hand propping (which is a function of battery capacity, not alternator size), unless you're building an airplane that will only ever be day VFR, even a 20A pad alternator is marginal at best. I have the B&C 462-H pad mounted alternator, and that is 35A - 60A. It's OK for a primary alternator (it's my second alternator), but will only put out current when above 1100 RPM. If one is going to install a single alternator, there's no downside to a 40A or 60A belt driven alternator. Weight's about the same as the 462. When you ask these types of questions, the first thing to think about is: "What problem am I trying to solve"?

With all due respect to the folks claiming that you can build a plane from scratch in the same or less time than it would take to rebuild this one, that's nonsense. Other than Kent, none of the folks responding have built a Long-EZ, much less repaired a severely damaged one, nor do they work on these planes for a living, repairing multiple aircraft damaged as much as this one. Depending upon the exact level of damage, which is a bit hard to discern from your pictures but basically seems to be restricted to the lower wingtips, the nose, and I ASSUME the landing gear attachment area, you've got maybe 500 - 1000 hours of work total in front of you. Building a new plane is 3X - 5X that. Putting on new lower winglets is two weekends. Repairing the nose structure is a couple of months. Repairing the landing gear mounting structure is another couple of months. Replacing the IP, electrical system, etc. is a few more months. Give the whole process a year and a half, if you can work on it a reasonable amount every week. There are certainly airplanes I've inspected where the damage (or just crappy build quality) indicated that a chainsaw was the correct remediation and building new would be faster and higher quality than a repair. This plane is most certainly NOT one of those.

Not ensuring wet layups inside the tank Not ensuring wet 2-ply BID tapes at all corners Not peel plying all edges inside the tank Not using the "T-hat" methodology to increase top bonding area Mostly, though, not ensuring wet enough flox and/or adequate flox squeeze out during installation of the strake top Most strakes never leak, and leaks are always fixable, one way or the other.

So I asked Gary Hunter about the HTR-212 epoxy, because given the unbelievable stats shown above, I was extremely skeptical. Here was his reply (it's long): ------------------------- Yeah a typical after market supplier that buys drums of product from the big producers, like 3M, repackages it into quarts gallons, etc and quadruples the price. Typically, they don’t have the resources to generate their own Safety Data Sheets, so they plagerize their suppliers data sheets. These SDSs are way out of date and probably not legal anymore. Part A ingredients are spot on for a tough, chemical and high heat resistant resin. A blend of generic Bis-A epoxy, and a multifunction Novolac epoxy for the chemical and heat resistance. Then some polysulfide epoxy for toughness. Part B MSDS sheets are somewhat inaccurate in identifying the actual chemical name of the components. According to the CAS #’s the first and main ingredient is accurately described as Isophorone diamine (a cycloaliphatic diamine good for heat and chemical resistance). The second is vaguely identified as an Amine, but more accurately should be calked an “aliphatic amine” specifically triethylenetetramine (my favorite hardener I use religiously). The 3rd and 4th ingredients are incorrectly identified as a modified aliphatic amines. The 3rd is actually not an amine at all, but rather something called nonyl phenol (an accelerator), and the 4fh is actually an aromatic amine called meta xylene diamine. ( also good for chemical (fuel) and heat resistance). But, this formulation will not develop any of those potential chemical and particularly heat resistance properties without a post cure. They do not mention a Tg value typically measured by DSC (differential scanning calorimeter) or a thermomechanical rheometer. But rather they reference a heat distortion temperature, or heat deflection temperature. Which is obtained from a mechanical 3 point flexural test immersed in an oil bath that is slowly heated. A fixed load is applied and when the specimen deflects 0.1 inches the temperature is recorded. This ASTM test was originally developed for thermoplastics like polystyrene, polyethylene, polypropylene and nylon. It was later applied to thermoset systems like polyesters, epoxies and urethanes. It was developed before the DSC and Rheometers became more common. It provides useful data as to maximum use temperature (not a Tg) for the material. On a pure or neat resin specimen, the HDT is about 10C higher than the Tg. However, some proprietors use a fiberglass or carbon fiber reinforced specimen to run this test. After all, it is a resin system intended to make a fiber reinforced composite. As such, with a fixed load based on geometry, it can result in misleadingly high values. This is how they claim such high numbers without a post cure. If you read the reviews, one user states it does need a post cure to get the high heat resistance. This resin system is about 2-3x the typical viscosity of most laminating systems. As such, best results are obtained with a vacuum bag and a heated curing cycle. Otherwise, the fiber to resin ratio will tend to run low. It’s a well designed formulation, but rather viscous and needs a post cure. ------------------------- The Mako 305, at least, is not claiming insane #'s, although the Tg is still VERY high for a RT cure, and I'll bet a lot of $$$ requires a post cure to reach. So, unless you're working in a heated space and are planning on vacuum bagging and post curing, those HTR HDT/strength/stiffness #'s are total BS in the context of comparing with other epoxies. Use one of the approved epoxies, like 4000 people before you have done, and move along. MGS is good; Pro-Set is good; Aeropoxy is good; West Extra Slow is good; EZPoxy is good. Viscosity matters - lower is better for wet-out and weight. EZPoxy is the best for fuel resistance.

Hit the water at 200 kts, pointing almost straight down, so that the aircraft disintegrates, and only small parts will be floating.

Per my response on the COBA mailing list, there is zero risk from a few days of UV or sun exposure, even if uncovered. UV/sun does not penetrate tarps.

Not really, no - you just have to search the archives of all the mailing lists. Neither of them are very vocal, although Klaus is becoming moreso. Check the archives of the COBA/CSA newsletters - that might be the best place for both of them.

The way to lower the weight of a Long-EZ is to build it light per the plans. But weight (in the range we're talking about - saving 50 lb. or so) is going to have an immeasurably small effect on the fuel economy - flying at aft CG is far more effective (but light is always good, in every way). UL engines are NOT more efficient (lower BSFC) than Lycoming engines with EFII systems - not by a long shot, and there is no more efficient SI engine than a Lycoming with an SDS EFII system. While there are folks who've used C/S props on canard pushers, the ONLY reason to do so is to reduce takeoff rolls at short airports. They do not increase efficiency in cruise - no one who's used one has ever reported that, and in fact, they've reported the opposite - lower speeds in cruise at the same fuel burn. If you want to increase efficiency, you: Read everything that Gary Hertzler and Klaus Savier have ever written about the drag reduction efforts on their Variezes and Long-EZ and copy them to the extent possible - Gary gets ~60 SM/gal. in his VE, at about 120 KIAS (a bit to a fair amount above the Carson speed). Klaus is not dissimilar in his VE, and maybe 40 NM/gal in his Long-EZ. These drag reduction efforts are a CRAPLOAD of work and changes to the plane, and even if incorporated in the original build, will add a lot of time to it. Install an SDS EFII system on your Lycoming engine (and design the fuel system to support it). You then tune the crap of it to maximally reduce fuel flow in cruise. You fly at 40% - 50% power, somewhere between best L/D speed (75 KIAS - 85 KIAS, depending) and Carson speed (100 KIAS - 110 KIAS), at the highest altitude at which you can develop 40% - 50% power. After you do all this, you'll save some fuel on long trips and have bragging rights to efficiency, but not much else. These are already pretty freaking efficient planes.