Marc Zeitlin

I will give the owner props for being completely up-front about the condition of this plane. Many owners don't do that, and many don't know what the issues are with their planes. So good on Jeff for being an honest guy. That said, the single biggest issue I see with this plane (other than that it's been worked on by Dave Hanson, which is always a red flag although not necessarily disqualifying depending upon what he did to it other than the obvious signature mediocre paint job) is that it weighs 867 lb. Even with an O-235, it's a single seater, and that only if you're willing to fly 200 lb. over POH MGW. This is the heaviest VE I've ever heard of - the dataplate said that it weighed 720 lb. when it was certificated in 1982, so somehow it's gained almost 150 lb. over the years.

Sorry - I missed this posting. Obviously OBE (but I'd be very interested to know why the deal fell through), but yes - I can recommend someone. For anyone in the Socal area, I do Pre-Buys (take a look at the link in my signature to Burnside Aerospace), and I also have traveled around the country to do PB's for folks that want me to do them. Burrall Sanders is in Colorado and is good as well - he knows canards.

You are correct. Micro ONLY on foam, not GtG.

And they're correct - what I explicitly said was: "Many experts recommend sanding even if you DO have peel plied surfaces, just as belt and suspenders." I didn't say it was necessary - I said some folks recommend it, and it can't hurt. You said it was a waste of time, but that's not at all obvious. The fact that the peel ply you buy from aircraft vendors is a bit thicker than what's used for clothing doesn't change the surface quality of the material. And there are some very thin polyester/Dacron materials available. The reason to get quality polyester/Dacron is not because it's thicker, but because it's guaranteed not to have unwanted sizing or coatings on it that may contaminate the layups. Since the presentation discussed the surface energy of polyester peel ply, it's directly applicable to what we do. Now, as I said above - is the increase in surface energy NECESSARY? Don't know, and since there are a zillion airplanes out there flying with unbelievably crappy workmanship from a surface preparation standpoint, the answer is probably not. But if you want to know the BEST way to prepare the surface (necessary or not), it will include peel ply, sanding, and cleaning, all within a very short time period right before the next layups are applied. Peel ply alone is certainly acceptable, and so is sanding alone. But both together are a bit better.

And your disagreement is based on what research and data? You may want to read through this paper: https://depts.washington.edu/amtas/events/amtas_09fall/Flinn.pdf Page 16 clearly shows higher surface energies with both Nylon and Polyester Peel Plies after sanding than "As Tooled". Is that NECESSARY? Don't know, but it does seem clear that sanding improves the surface energy created by removing the PP. Nonsense. At least with PP, you get a surface that when sanding, you won't damage the underlying fiber layers, and you don't need to sand as vigorously or as much. Still saves time and effort and gives a much smoother surface. And when you sand, you get better bonding, per the paper above.

This is incorrect. Peel Ply should be left on a surface until just prior to the next layup, if there's going to be one. If not, then it doesn't matter when the peel ply is removed. The act of pulling the peel ply off the surface breaks the epoxy bonds and ensures a high energy surface which greatly assists in adhesion of the next layer of epoxy. If you pull the peel ply off more than 2 - 24 hours prior to the next layup, the bonds will oxidize and you won't get the advantage of the peel plied surface - you'll just have to sand everything as you would if you didn't have peel ply. Many experts recommend sanding even if you DO have peel plied surfaces, just as belt and suspenders.

Not of which I'm aware. I've got a customer who wants pants installed in the next couple of months sometime - I'll try to remember to take notes and create a write-up.

I have something very similar to what Kent describes on my plane, but I don't use that method anymore. I find that something like the image below is far more robust - having a large flange attached to the gear leg itself, with fore/aft halves of the pants and one outboard connection using the Vans axle nut gives a much stiffer connection with no loosening over time. This is now what I install on customers' planes when they ask for wheel pants installations.

I charge (this year) $1100 for a CI on a simple (non-retract mains) canard aircraft - that covers the first 11 hours of work. Owner assistance is welcome. Generally takes 1 - 2 days. I know other A&P's that charge $150 (who aren't their brother-in-law). I tell people that I can't spit at their plane for $150, and if all they want is a signature in a logbook, go for it. I actually inspect (it's right there in the title - CI) their aircraft. I do about 30 CI's/year, and my customers are happy with my work. Although I suppose if someone's willing to get a $150 CI, they're probably happy with it as well.

Just out of curiosity, who did your Pre-Buy examination?

Most of the clickbond specs (in a catalog) are available at The Flight Shop (https://www.theflightshop.com/Download/TheFlightShopCatalogrev12.pdf). For non structural mounting (tie-wraps, etc.) I wouldn't have a problem with the McM parts. But for anything that's safety related (mounting A/P servos, control system components, etc.) I wouldn't go near them with a 10 ft. pole.

That's AN-8 Aeroquip 466 (or the equivalent) hose with integral silicone firesleeve.

What "tubing" are you talking about? The hoses from the oil cooler? The aileron pushrods? I don't know to what you're referring.

Not just the pull of the springs, but warping of the glass. I fixed mine when it warped by cutting slices in the top surface glass, supporting the left and right edges and weighting the middle so that the LB would take a slight curve - higher at the sides. Then I glassed 2 BID over the slices to lock in the shape. That was about 9 years ago, I think, and it's kept shape perfectly since - when it's pulled up, the sides hit about 1/8" early and then the center pulls up, keeping the whole thing flat.

Hah. Here's what I have - no imagination necessary. 99% uncovered when open, 90% sealed when closed. I rarely use it, since I don't live in a cold place. But since it exhausts down below the strake, I do get a pitch trim change when I shut off the airflow to the cooler. THAT was strange.

Desser Monster 10-ply retreads. 350 - 375 landings on a COZY MKIV.

10 - 15 lb. max. If the empty weight of a Long-EZ is 1100 lb., it's a single seater, and replacing the panel isn't fixing that.

Now we're getting somewhere. At almost the aft CG limit of 103", somewhat under design MGW and an IAS substantially higher than the design cruise speed of the airplane (remember, the Long-EZ was designed for an O-235 engine of 115 HP, so has a design cruise speed in the 120 - 125 KIAS range (call it 140 mph IAS), it's not at all surprising that the elevator would be reflexed up a bit. That's 50 mph over the design IAS, give or take - the elevator trim position will need to be higher than trail. There are O-540 powered Long-EZ's and Berkuts that will run out of up elevator at max power, and will still be climbing even with the elevator deflected full TE up (at well over 200 KIAS).

In order to answer this question in a useful manner, you have to discuss GW, CG location, which airfoil (GU or Roncz) and IAS. Without that, any comment will be meaningless.

I'm obviously partial to canards, and besides being cheaper to build than an RV-10, they're a lot cheaper to operation. But in any case, 380 - 390 is NOT pushing the max front seat weight limit, because there IS no front seat weight limit (ignore the 400 lb. limit Nat stated - it's not based on anything other than him accidentally taking off once with two people in the front seat without taking his ballast out and scaring himself on the takeoff roll). What there _IS_ is a forward CG limit. With 390 lb. in the front seat (call it 400 lb, as you'll probably both be clothed and have other crap with you) in MY plane you'd be at about a CG of 97.8 at landing - about 0.3" aft of the fwd CG limit. If most of your flying would be with 2 folks and 400 lb. in the front, I'd recommend NOT shortening the canard, but leaving the 3" on each side, and moving your CG range forward by 1" - 1.5". With a 200 lb. pilot (again, in MY plane) you'd then need about 40 lb. of ballast in the nose when flying solo to keep the CG forward of the NEW limit of 101", rather than the current limit of 102". The biggest issue will be whether you will fit, side to side. And this can only be answered by finding one and sitting in it.

Uggghhh. Variezes and LE's are very susceptible to main gear mounting issues. Who did your pre-buy? Did they jack the plane off the ground (both wheels at the same time) and check for play in the gear? If there's known noise when the gear is used... If the previous owner KNEW that they had extensive play in the landing gear and misled you about the severity of the problem (and your pre-buy expert didn't catch it), then you've been taken for a ride. Normal and stop when "everything gets broken in"???? You need to: ground the plane Jack BOTH mains off the ground at the same time Grab one main wheel and push forward and backward fairly hard, looking for how much motion you can get at the axle (you'll need VERY stiff/strong sawhorses so that the plane won't move - JUST the gear) Note how much the wheel can move forward and aft from the neutral position As you push forward and aft, watch the landing gear strut where it enters the fuselage side - there should be almost zero motion there. Anything more than 1/16" - 1/8" is a problem - anything more than 1/8" requires immediate repair Do this for the other side as well Get a second person to watch inside the hellhole (if you have a hellhole cover underneath, they can watch through there - if not, they can watch through the rear seatback) - they may need a flashlight and a large inspection mirror to see what's going on. They are looking for relative motion of the gear attach tabs to the aluminum brackets, or of the brackets to the fuselage side, or some other relative motion Once you know where the relative motion is, a fix can be planned I've repaired numerous planes that have had issues with bracket attachment, broken LG tab bushings, wallowed out bracket holes, etc. It's a big job to fix, but it HAS to be fixed. The last thing you need is for your gear to collapse and ruin the prop and engine, not to mention the airframe repairs. Given your pictures, I think you've got a serious gear failure on your hands, but only an in-person examination can say for sure. I will be traveling from Atlanta to Tucumcari on 8/29 - I might be able to arrange a stop in Wichita for an hour or two to take a look if you have jacks to get both of the gear off the ground at the same time. You can contact me directly at my email if you're interested in trying to arrange this.

No two Berkuts kits were identical, and the plans were incomplete, and may or may not have matched the parts you may or may not have been given. Plus you had to generate your own POH. So, yeah. Other than that, no QC issues. You might want to check with James Redmon about the level of QC. Dave Ronnenberg is a GREAT fabricator, and builds great airplanes. But, the above...

There are a number of folks starting down the path of different types and sizes of canard composite kit aircraft. I don't hold my breath that any will be successful from a business standpoint (and one will certainly not be from a technical standpoint), but I wish most of them luck and hope I'm wrong. With respect to your reason for wanting canards to continue - I love my COZY MKIV, and wouldn't trade it for any other aircraft out there (except maybe a Pilatus PC-12, if someone else paid for the fuel and maintenance), but while in theory they're safer due to the stall/spin resistance, a study of the accident rate of canards vs. conventional planes over the 45 odd years that they've been in existence does not show any advantage in either fatal or non-fatal accident rates. There are other airplanes with similar performance and range as well.

So contrary to a previous comment, the Berkut was stretched (from the LE dimensions) 12" between the wing and canard, with 6" being aft of the rear seat to give room for the retracts, and 6" forward of the rear seat to give more leg room in the back. This substantially changed some of the aerodynamics with respect to CG range for the aircraft, which has NEVER been properly characterized regarding the neutral axis and stability or with respect to deep stall susceptibility. Stretching the aircraft turns it into a new airplane and requires more skills than "that looks about right". Is it possible? Sure. Would I recommend it? Nope. The E-Racer kept the canard/wing relationship - there was no stretch. It moved the front seats aft, so that a 2nd person in the front seats wouldn't change the CG enough to require changing ballast. The aerodynamics were not changed (other than the wider fuselage). The short answer is no, because the weight of the fiber in one of these planes is a relatively small percentage of the total weight of the aircraft. The cost of materials, vacuum bagging, etc. is not worth it for the theoretical weight savings. I won't even get into the issues around needing to use molds if you're using carbon. There are a lot of longer answers as to why this is contraindicated in the archives here and in the COZY list as well as the canard-aviators mailing list.

People are funny. That plane MIGHT go for $25K, since it's got a relatively newer panel and a nice paint job. I'd be worried about the absurd nose and extra strakes from a stability standpoint, and the MGL equipment that almost makes a good engine monitor, with the other steam gages in the panel. Holes in the panel, no labels for switches, CB's, manual nose gear, no landing gear strut fairings, but sure - WTF - ask $50K. Be amazed when you get no offers...