Marc Zeitlin

So the guy that's had multiple (like, 10's to 100's) of spammers infiltrate and piss all over this forum, due to NOT requiring real information or manual addition of members, is telling the guy that's been running the COZY mailing list for 28 years that you COULD trick me into allowing a spammer on my list, even though it's never happened ONCE in the 28 years of the list's existence? I just want to understand correctly - is this what you're attempting to say? The facts seem to show otherwise - at least, that it's not "easy".

Now if you would only require people to provide their real name and address in order to join and post, that would decrease spam to zero, as it is on the COZY list.

At rear CG and lightweight, yes. At forward CG and/or MGW, nope. Still no single answer, because there are a lot of variables. Define them all, and then you get a single answer.

This is Richard Kenny's plane on Long Island (KWHV), and has been on Barnstormers for a long time now. Not sure why it's not selling at the Barnstormers listed price, which is not an unreasonable one. The wing damage occurred in 2015, but I do NOT know who effected the repairs. That would be one thing that I would investigate closely were I asked to do a Pre-Buy on the plane. Obviously needs a new CI as well. I can put folks in touch with people that know the plane well.

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: and then: 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.

Where has it been parked? Covered? Engine pickled? All depends on the environment and how much care was taken when it was parked. And what they're asking for a price, and how much of a project you want.

Which is why, when I do a Pre-Buy on an aircraft (as I did yesterday on a nice Long-EZ) I use the logs as a reference point to start, but interview the builder (if possible) about work done and why the logs look like they do, and examine the plane very carefully for repair work. If one knows what one is looking for, one can find it. Particularly BAD repair work.

Not specifically N220EZ related, (because however much I tend to wrestle with pigs, and I do, regularly, I've done enough of it on this thread) but to answer your questions, if one completely rebuilt (or did a major rebuild) of a plane underneath a particular dataplate, that is legal, and it happens all the time, particularly with classic aircraft - there might be a part or two that are original, but almost all of the rest get fabricated from new, and the airplane is still considered the original airplane. This is the "Ship of Theseus" paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus Now, if one took an already existing airplane that had been registered (whether de-registered or not - it's still already an airplane, and not a bunch of parts) and swapped it under a different dataplate, that is NOT legal, although it will be, in most cases, be extremely difficult to prove that that's what happened. With respect to logbook entries - while E-AB aircraft are NOT subject to the requirements of 14 CFR Part 43 with respect to maintenance (or anything else, for that matter), as Part 43.1 clearly states, E-AB aircraft most certainly ARE subject to 14 CFR Part 91, and part 91.417 is very clear that maintenance records MUST be kept. However, it only requires that some records be kept for one year, and others essentially for the life of the plane. Repairs and alterations are only required to be kept for one year. So logbooks may or may not indicate everything that happened to the plane, depending upon the whims (and ethics) of the builder or owner.

Using the word "reservations" about aircraft that Mr. Hanson has touched is being extremely kind to Mr. Hanson. I have said this many times before, both on this forum and in others - Mr. Hanson's work is (in my opinion) extremely substandard both from a structural and systems standpoint. My interactions with customers of his, or owners of planes on which he's worked lead me to believe that his documentation and ethics are also extremely substandard. Here's a list of issues on a SQ2000 which Mr. Hanson built and sold, without disclosing the issues: Loose center firewall belcrank Wing TE thickness & separation Friction in elevator Heavy wings (120 lb each) Cut center spar near bolt holes - almost 1/2 missing Rudder cable rub on push rod Terrible workmanship Baffling wrong direction Door fit - don’t Winglet TE separation NG-6 not captured Bolts / nuts wrong and wrong length Brake Master Cylinders cantilevered Canard glassed in Fuel vent inside cabin Very heavy - 1460 lb Logs thin (and almost certainly misleading on purpose) I've highlighted the obvious safety issues. This was not a fixable plane. A Varieze Mr. Hanson worked on that I examined had obvious bad repairs of the landing gear mounting system, but was billed as being in great shape. I know of another VE which is not the plane it claims to be, as I was informed that Mr. Hanson merely took the dataplate off of a wrecked VE and moved it to another project plane. A respected canard repair station became involved in a long, drawn out legal issue many years ago regarding this plane and their refusal to continue working on it after they discovered what had been done. I have a list of 8 other canardians who've had experiences with Mr. Hanson and/or his work who will attest to the nature of his work and business practices. Search for my previous messages here and elsewhere. I really don't need to write the same thing over and over again.

I've seen another for $95K - was told that he was offered $90K, but decided not to sell. I'm skeptical, to say the least, although there might be some fool out there who doesn't know enough not to pay that much for a Long-EZ. I've heard of show quality (like, OSH award winning show quality, not Marysville, CA Fly-In award winning) going for $75K, but even that's a stretch, and only for the very top of the line. This plane is interesting - it's old, the interior is beat, the IP is old, the red on the winglets is contraindicated, the contouring (to the extent I can tell from the reflections on the winglets) is passable, but no more, the cowling needs repairs, the nose is way too long and (IMO) ugly, there's silver tape covering what are probably pod mounting inserts, and lastly, it's unregistered (at least to the extent that the FAA database is way out of date by 3 - 6 months). Could be worth $45K, depending upon actual engine condition. Oh, and BTW, of course it's illegal to "lease" or rent E-AB aircraft. I have no idea what it would even mean to "lease" an E-AB aircraft for a $95K price - for what time period? Not a meaningful question, in any case. Other than that, sure - $95K - sign me up.

That's unacceptable - contact @Jon Matcho directly - he should be able to help. Newsletters (in an absurd format) are available here: https://www.quickheads.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=13&Itemid=110 PS - as an aside, I'm trying to get a vehicle so I can come pick up the tank :-).

It's been a damn long time, but given the molded shape and configuration of the Q2/200, I'd bet a lot of $$$ that it was 3/8" Divinycell H45, 3 lb/ft^3. That's a fairly standard foam for Rutan derivative canard fuselages.

Generally, a well designed set of wheel pants will pick up 10 - 12 KTAS over unfaired wheels tires, depending upon the tire size. 15 KTAS is optimistic.

Being a pilot and engineer (both of which I am, as well) means nothing if he's not familiar with Rutan Derivative composite aircraft. The chances are good that even if he knows nothing about these planes other than being able to evaluate the engine installation, the plane will be OK, but out of the 50 Pre-Buy examinations I've done, 9 or 10 did not result in a purchase. So, having an 80% success rate is not something I'm ever interested in, in a safety critical environment. So my comment about the cost stands - if it needs 20K € to fix issues, it looks a lot less like a great deal. Is your friend a composite aircraft mechanic? If so, that might help. And if he's built experimental planes (not certificated ones), that could also help. But there's nothing like having an expert in the particular type you're looking at. Does your friend know where the universal joints are near the ailerons? Does he know that there ARE universal joints near the ailerons? Does he know how much play is acceptable in the roll system? Does he know where the aileron hard stops are? Does he know when the landing brake is adjusted correctly? Or what the weight/CG should be? I could list about 360 of these questions, because that's about how many lines there are in my Pre-Buy checklist. I wish I could tell you it was simple, and/or point you to a knowledgeable person. But I can't do either. So, you're likely to be right, that it's a nice plane and a good price. But...

How do you know it's a "nice" Long-EZ, and that whatever the condition is, the price is "really good"? I've inspected planes that looked decent, but I wouldn't fly them if they were given to me for free. Unless you get a Pre-Buy examination performed by a qualified examiner (and that's hard enough to find in the USA, much less Italy - I get that that's an issue) I wouldn't purchase ANY airplane, TC'd or not, and especially not a plans built aircraft.

Canadian pilots who want/need an HP rating will go to an instructor or a school that has an HP aircraft in which to train, and will get an HP rating (after they build up the 200 hour minimum time requirement, per CAR 421.40(2)(c) ). Once one has that, one will be legal to fly a COZY MKIV. One will also want transition training into a canard aircraft, and there are a few places in the US (and maybe Canada - I don't know) where that can be obtained. Or, you can just do it the old fashioned way and NOT get transition training - your insurance may or may not cover you until you have 10 hours time in type, but some folks don't care about insurance - many people didn't get transition training and most had no issues. But I strongly recommend transition training.

Since a Varieze is a Airplane, Single Engine Land aircraft, the only category or class for which time logged between 9/1/2004 and 8/31/2005 would be useful for an endorsement would be for ASEL. And assumedly, if you already have a Pilot's certificate and logbook endorsements that states ASEL, this doesn't get you anything. No idea why those dates are in there - probably some transition period for a change in the rules at the time. If you have an ASEL certificate in the USA, you're legal to fly a VE, LE, COZY, Berkut, E-Racer, whatever. If the plane has >200HP, you'll need a High Power endorsement. In the USA, you never need a Complex endorsement, since none of these planes have flaps.

Your question is extremely unclear. The COZY III (and COZY MKIV) are both "high performance" category aircraft (in Canada - NOT in the USA) NOT because of their Vne (which is 192 KIAS) or their Vso (which is approximately 60 - 65 KIAS) but because of their wing loading, per CAR 549.103(b)(2), which indicates that any aircraft without flaps and a wing loading > 13.3 lb/ft^2. Since the MGW of a COZY III, per the POH, is 1500 lb and the wing area is about 100 sq-ft, the wing loading is ~15, which is more than 13.3. Same with the COZY MKIV - MGW of 2050 lb and wing area just over 100 sq-ft, so a wing loading of around 20 lb/ft^2.

I've explained myself on the Dave Hanson issue many times - a search of this forum or the COZY/canard-aviators mailing lists archives (if you are a member and have access) will bring up the multitudinous reasons (and paint colors is the least of them) that any plane that Dave has touched should be viewed with extreme suspicion. Structural and system issues galore. I have names of 8 canardians (some of whom work on canard for a living, and others who've owned or inspected canard Hanson's worked on) who have direct experience with Hanson's work who express the same opinion. I would go so far to say that EVEN if all Hanson did was paint the plane, walk away, as the paint jobs are also substantially substandard. There will be another Long-EZ that you will not have to worry about, assuming you get a qualified Pre-Buy examination.

As always, I will warn against any airplane that Dave Hanson has touched unless ALL structural and systems work can be verified by a competent canard expert (not just some guy that built one or two).

"Fast" is a meaningless term - MGS "fast" is nowhere near as fast as either the West 205 or 206. Every epoxy combination is unique, so they have to be approved individually. Hence the approval of 209, but not 205/206, and yet the MGS and Pro-Set "fast"s are acceptable - they're still slow enough and not susceptible to exotherm unless it's very warm/hot. I use 205/206 when I'm making thin, small parts and want fast cures, and when I'm NOT building weight critical parts or structural parts. Since they can kick fast, they can be difficult to squeegee well to reduce weight, particularly when it's warm.

Both West 205 and 206 hardeners are too fast and will exotherm on thicker layups, and also have pot lives that are way too short for large layups like spars and wing skins. This has been explained and discussed infinitely many (slight hyperbole) times.

Old tires are what scared you? Seems like misplaced priorities to me...

Agree completely on the test program and W&B (actual, not math) - just no reason to get the FAA involved. Condition Inspection (not "conditional" - it's not conditional on anything, and it's not an "annual", although the CI is required annually) or not, a PB examination is ALWAYS indicated.

If the plane is currently registered as claimed, that implies that the AWC is in effect. So it's an airplane, as far as the FAA is concerned, and all that's needed is a valid registration transfer and a BOS. No DAR/FSDO inspection or flight approval is needed - an IP change is NOT a major change for an E-AB aircraft, per 14 CFR Part 21.93(a): https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/21.93 in my opinion. You can certainly be conservative if you want and do whatever THIS aircraft's OL's say you need to do in the case of a major change (maybe contact FSDO, maybe invalidate the AWC, maybe just log some stuff), but I wouldn't. Logbook information is required per 14 CFR Part 91.417, but if it doesn't exist, that isn't going to hold anything up in any way - it just makes the plane less valuable, because you have no freaking idea what it is.