Marc Zeitlin

Who is that? If you don't plan on putting people with legs in the back seat, that's certainly doable, although it will affect downstream fabrication of strakes and access holes to the baggage area inside the strakes. If you're going to be flying regularly with a relatively forward CG, you could also leave the canard at the ORIGINAL span and move your CG RANGE forward by about 1", to 96.5" - 101", rather than the current, shorter span canard's 97.5" - 102". Depending upon YOUR weight, however, that MIGHT require substantial ballast when solo. Yes. See: http://cozybuilders.org/mail_list/ and send the requested info.

yep.

In no particular order: Cost (Garmin is more) Upgradeability (Garmin has more flexibility and better integration of components, as long as they're all Garmin) Customizability (Dynon for the clear win here wrt UI) Support (Dynon generally wins here) If you're interested in future IFR, you WILL want a 2-axis autopilot (and if you're not, you certainly don't need the GPS175). With IFR, you'll also want a backup ADAHRS (either Garmin or Dynon can have dual ADAHRS's). But with only one screen, if the screen craps out, you'll need another screen, so rather than a 2nd ADAHRS for the single EFIS, you might consider a G5 which has a built in ADAHRS (and backup battery, if you buy one). If you use a G5 as a backup for the G3X, it can automatically take over driving the Autopilot. If you use a G5 as a backup for the Dynon, obviously it is completely standalone and cannot pickup A/P control. But you also have no common mode failures, since they're built by different MFGs. Lots to consider.

Gary has a Lycoming O-235 on his VE. Probably the most efficient one out there, but it's not a Continental. Since the VE was originally designed for a Volkswagen engine, it'll fly with an A-75, if its lightweight and if you don't mind degraded performance, particularly in climb. Since very few VEs are lightweight, I certainly wouldn't recommend it.

No it wasn't. The owner was the builder. The PREVIOUS aircraft with that "N" number was owned/registered to the KAM. Look at the deregistration info.

I need to apologize - I was conflating COZY MKIV F-22's with Long-EZ F-22's. The width of the F-22 along the side of the fuselage is buried in the fuselage side foam, per the image on page 6-1 of the Long-EZ Plans. So there's no need to scab anything on there - it's all buried inside the fuselage sides. Sorry about that.

Either will work. Just ensure that you remove all of the paint and any fill on the inside skin, and sand the surface appropriately for a bond prior to attachment. Just make sure that you have the right number of total plies in the right place, including the F-22 layups and the corner tapes, whichever you do. That SEEMS to be the aft side of the CNL bushing as shown on page 12-2 of the plans. But it's supposed to be trimmed to be flush - you'll need to figure out what's going on there.

Assuming you can verify that what's there has the appropriate layups (and foam) for both sides of the F-22 bulkhead and the doubler, it looks like the only real issue is the lack of sides against the fuselage. If this is the case, I'd just lay up foam pieces per the plans for the F-22 sides and scab them onto the fuselage sides and the top and bottom of F-22, using the plans # of layups for the joint. I don't know what you're envisioning wrt adding a new bulkhead "on top" of the existing one, but the answer would be "no", in any case. And what in Cthulhu's name is the aluminum piece sticking out of the aft side of the F-22 bulkhead where the canard bolts attach? That bushing is supposed to be flush with both the fwd and aft face of F-22... Lastly, we don't "glue" anything in these planes (unless it's something non structural that we're connecting with superglue). We use epoxy for both laminating and bonding - we don't use "glue". Use the word "glue" in a composites shop and you'll get laughed out of the building.

Did you read 14 CFR Part 91.205? It states very clearly what's required. There is, of course, more than enough room in a Long-EZ panel to equip one for legal instrument flight - it's been done a zillion times. A couple of G5's and an IFR navigator (or Narco NAV-122, or the equivalent) more than meets the requirements. With a transponder, ADS-B and a radio, of course. Now, if you want to do it with steam gauges, it's harder, but that's also been done many times. Don't know why you think it's not possible, as there are existence proofs of it.

So a few comments. Mr. Johnson bought the project about 2 - 2.5 years ago for no more than $7K (because that's what the previous owner said in public that he'd sell it for), so the $10K seems a bit high - a 50% premium for doing nothing doesn't sound reasonable to me. Secondly, making informed judgements about build quality from pics on the interwebs is hard, even with great closeups. As I've said numerous times, I've seen crap that looked great in pics, and great work that looked like crap in pics. Don't know why that is, but it is. In this case, the pics look good and there's nothing obviously wrong - the shipping protection looks good and it was cared for in the move. What would one see in person? Impossible to say. And in no extant universe is this thing "almost 50%" complete - maybe 20%, if that. No one really understands how much work is involved in building a plans-built aircraft... After the structure is complete (spar, strakes, LG, wings, etc.) THEN you're about 1/2 done.

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

So first of all, you show a picture of the Instrument Panel center section being missing, not the F-22 bulkhead. As much as can be seen in the pictures of the F-22 (which is almost nothing) it looks as though you have a Wright Nose Gear System, which extends aft of F-22 through a hole in the center section. But that's unclear without an actual picture of F-22, not the IP. Both center sections are structural, although there have not been any failures of F-22's that can be attributed to the hole created for the Wright Nose Gear System "WNGS". What DOES seem to be missing from the F-22 is the vertical portion of it that extends from the floor to the cross-piece. That is structural as well, as it stiffens the fuselage sides. Given that modification, I'd be examining the whole plane with a fine tooth comb to try to determine just what else the builder did differently from what the plans call for. Either repair the IP and F-22 as described by Kent (or by total replacement) and _IF_ the center of F-22 has been removed, replace as much as you can while avoiding the WNGS. Read through the plans a few times so that you can refer to the airplane parts correctly.

Except in very particular circumstances, you don't get training in a one seater - you get trained in a two (or more) seater. If you're asking how, once you have your pilot's certificate, how you get TRANSITION training into a one seater, you take lessons in a two seater that's as similar as possible, and you get a lot of ground talking to.

The links regarding epoxy and fuel resistance on the internet are generally referring to auto fuel, which has Cthulhu knows what in it, that also varies with the time of year. Mostly, alcohol, which will attack some epoxies. If you don't know what epoxy was used for the fuel tank, just make sure that you post cure the tanks to get the best chemical resistance you can. Assuming you don't use automotive fuel (either 100LL or the 94/100 octane no lead replacements that are coming), you should be fine. Fuel tanks have been fabricated with all the various laminating epoxies that have been used to build canards. In only a very few cases (and never linked directly to the epoxy used) have there been issues.

Do you have a pointer to the "research" that indicates that AeroPoxy is problematic in fuel tanks?

What's the "right" epoxy? Do you have the build logs? Can you see inside the tank, and see the color of the epoxy? If you don't put alcohol containing gas in the tank, it pretty much doesn't matter which epoxy was used, as long as you post-cure the tanks.

Yes. Upper spar caps are always thicker than those on the bottom for non-aerobatic aircraft, since the bottom cap is in tension (no buckling) and the top is in compression (and will have buckling limitations, rather than just strength limitations). Caps would only be the same if the negative "G" limit was the same as the positive "G" limit.

A VFR Long-EZ for $125K? Someone may buy it, I suppose, but to me, that's nuts. No matter how "nice". The good thing for Nate is that he only needs to find ONE person willing to pay the price. And anyone considering rear hinged canopies, such as those on this plane and Berkuts, may want to talk to Mehran Salamati about his recent front canopy departure on the Berkut he was flying. The front seater didn't latch ONE SIDE of the canopy. It departed, bashed up the rear canopy and cowl and destroyed the propeller. Thankfully this happened about 1/2 way through the takeoff roll, so there were no injuries. Had it happened at 200 ft., taking off from Van Nuys, well, this would be a different story. While side hinged canopies can come open in flight, in every case, the plane has been controllable and the canopy has not come off the plane. My $0.02.

Hahaha. It's cute that you think that Burt had "plans" for any plane that didn't become an RAF product... There were no "plans" for SS1, for Cthulhu's sake.

Well, hell - then just use DB - 6.022*10^23.

I hereby assign you the serial # DB-6.7 to your Long-EZ build. If TC insists on integers, the right technique is to truncate (NOT round) the number assigned. So you'd use DB-6.

So what happened to the latest "anti-spam" protection? Doesn't seem to be working...

Actually, you DIDN'T answer that question. The answer to the question you originally THOUGHT he asked is "your wife's" or "your husband's" or "your significant others' " as the case may be.😀

Not sure what you're getting at here. Certainly, you don't need anything to OWN a COZY MKIV, but that doesn't get you very far in the plane. To fly the plane, you'll at least need a student pilot's certificate and probably a signoff from an instructor (who won't give you one unless he's teaching you in the plane, and I don't know of ANYONE that's done primary instruction in a COZY MKIV because it's not a good idea to do primary instruction in a higher performance aircraft), and to take other folks in it, a PP certificate. I ASSUMED that that's what was being asked, since that's a major use model of the plane. I thought the question was "do I need either a Complex or High Performance endorsement to fly a COZY MKIV (which you do in Canada, but not in the USA) and the answer to that question is no. What did YOU think the question was?

You need a Private Pilot's license.