Marc Zeitlin

Eric: Drop me an email - you can pop over to Tehachapi sometime and I can give you a ride.

If I'm completely over my Covid, I'll be there (and presenting on Saturday). Bring Harriet - Deanie will be there, if I am.

Just curious - who's plane did you get, and who did your Pre-Buy examination? Are you planning on coming to Columbia (O22) on June 3 - 5? See: http://www.canardswest.org/

Since the oil cooler is always (on Lycomings) mounted to the firewall, spar, cowl, or some other fixed component and not on the engine, how does this mounting scheme change the amount of flex on the flex hoses that connect the cooler to the engine? And why would flex on a flex hose be a problem?

May or may not be legal for night flight (if you just want them for recognition, you can use whatever you want), and you still need to run power out to the wingtips, which is the difficult part - whatever light is out there still needs power.

There are no plans for VE wingtip lighting installation. I've installed wingtip lighting in a couple of VE's that didn't have conduits for wiring - did something similar to what Kent indicated. You have to be VERY careful not to puncture the top and/or bottom skins during the drilling operation, and if there are winglet antennae, you need to be very careful not to destroy the antenna coax. It can be done, but you have to know exactly what you're doing because without a spar near the tip, the wing skins are the only structure and you can damage them easily. With respect to ADS-B, if your transponder is relatively new and working well, then this: https://uavionix.com/products/echo-uat/ with the SkyFYX GPS antenna is the best choice. I've installed a bunch of them in canards. If, however, you have an ancient, tube-type transponder that could fall over dead any second, and you're NOT going to update your whole panel with an EFIS system but need a standalone transponder, this: https://stratusbyappareo.com/products/stratus-transponders/ is the most cost effective solution.

What engine do you have? What propeller do you think you're considering? What problem do you think you're trying to solve?

Extremely optimistic. With no engine, no panel, no electrical system, basically, it's just an airframe. And with the need for refinishing, at least on a large part of it, I'd say closer to 800 - 1200 hours before it flies again. WAY less than building from scratch, certainly, but boy is that nose ugly. You've got 200 hours in just the electrical system/IP, plus another 60 - 80 hours in just the baffling on the engine, not to mention all the other engine installation time. Now, double that for a first time builder that doesn't know what they're doing yet... And to beat a dead horse, I wouldn't go near it, for $5K or $0K, without a qualified Pre-Buy examination.

There's no reason to concern yourself with "pitch", in this case, particularly when what the EFIS displays is the relationship to the horizon, not the AOA. The object in an approach is to be on a 3 degree (approximately) glideslope at a reasonable IAS. For our planes, that IAS is about 85 - 90 KIAS, and with power pulled to idle, nose gear extended, LB retracted, rudders in trail, and no wind, you'll be just about there. What's the pitch angle? Who cares? Just set your EFIS pitch adjustment so that with those conditions, the pip is on the horizon. See my commentary above on why you're not going to be able to create any sort of useful three dimensional map that'll give you any more utility than this simple rule of thumb. The problem is that it's non-linear in all axes...

It's amazing how much prices have risen. An O-235 LE, with a mid time engine, a 437 year old panel with an obsolete EFIS, GU canard and a lot of TLC needed, would have been $20K - $25K not three years ago. But you're right - this will probably go for low to mid 40's.

E-AB aircraft are not for everyone. If you just want to get in a plane and fly, and have someone else worry about maintenance, etc., then a TC'd plane is far more appropriate. Particularly with plans built aircraft, EVERY PLANE IS DIFFERENT, so you need to be willing to spend a lot of time learning about the details and idiosyncrasies of YOUR plane. Also expect (given how much people fly, or don't, per year - maybe 30 - 50 hours for most E-AB owners) to spend an hour on maintenance for every hour in the air. Fly more and the ratio goes down. But it's NOT a car. The AMT handbook is decent, as is AC43.13-1B, upon which the AMT handbook is based. I wouldn't bother with the composites book - just read the COZY plans (or Long-EZ, or Open-EZ - available for free online). It'll have everything you need to know about how these planes are built.

I charge $1,250 for a canard CI. You can get them for less, but you get what you pay for. Others have pointed you to the rules for E-AB aircraft - you (or anyone on the face of the earth, including your grandmother's dog) can do anything you want to the airplane, whether you (or they) built it or not. The ONLY thing you need an A&P (or the Repairmans Certificate holder) for is to sign off the Condition Inspection. Cost of ownership for an equivalent performance aircraft will be a lot lower for an E-AB, since the purchase price and carrying costs will be a lot lower. Or for equivalent $$$, you get far more performance. Barnstomers will usually have more listings than TAP or Controller, but it's good to look everywhere. COZY MKIV's (good ones) are few and far between - there's one on the market now with a bunch of folks chasing it. There are a number of project planes - some I would touch, others I wouldn't go near.

a) I have no idea what you're trying to say with your second sentence - buying a canard aircraft, even now when prices have risen, is hardly more expensive than building one - sometimes still less. What your reference to 21.191 means in the context of buying a flying canard aircraft is unclear - all the rules for experimentals still apply - the only difference between an experimental amateur built aircraft that you bought and one that you built is that you need to hire an A&P (or the person with the Repairmans Certificate) to perform the yearly Condition Inspection). Other than that, you (or anyone else you choose) can do any repairs or modifications to the plane. b) Your statement about "truly do not know what you are buying" is completely incorrect. Knowledgeable examiners can determine the state of a composite aircraft to essentially the same extent as with metal aircraft. On RV's, there are numerous critical structural areas that are closed out, invisible, and unexaminable. No different than the internal structure of a composite aircraft. If you're interested in COZYs, go sit in one and get a flight in one. Then either build one or purchase one - there are numerous project planes available that would give you substantial building experience as well as a quicker path to flight. Turnkey COZY MKIV's are few and far between.

So I think that you and Kent are talking about two different things. Your original question is ambiguous. Are you asking about AOA? Are you asking about longeron angle with respect to the horizon? Something else? The relationship between any of those things and descent speed/angle will be completely dependent upon power settings as well as drag devices being used and IAS. With power at idle, the AOA vs. descent rate will NOT be a linear function, as the AOA is a function of V^2 and on either side of the minimum sink rate speed, the sink rate will be higher. The fact that your Attitude Indicator is demarcated in degrees shows your angle with respect to the horizon, which is NOT AOA. Slow way down to barely above stall speed, and your deck angle will be very high, and your descent rate will be very high. Now push the nose over and go faster than minimum sink speed and get to the same decent rate that you saw just above stall speed - your deck angle will be a LOT lower, but your decent rate will be the same. I'd argue that your question is not useful - the relationship between deck angle and descent rate is not something that means anything. What is it you're trying to determine? If you're trying to determine how to pitch for a constant descent rate in an approach at idle throttle, I've set my zero on the EFIS horizon for 90 KIAS with the throttle at idle - this is a good speed for our planes on an instrument approach, as it allows for easy timing calculations, while giving margin on either side to slow down or speed up as required by ATC or wind, and allows for lowering the descent rate by slowing to best L/D or min sink speed as required.

Unless you get very ridiculous, to an extremely small extent.

And pitch stability, and deep stall margin as well. Area ahead of the CG is generally a bad idea. having flown a customer's LE with a very long nose, I can attest to the loss of stability, particularly at low speeds. It also makes slipping a real adventure.

Nothing surprises me anymore. "Where are your OL's", I ask, when starting a CI. And the owner hands me a dog-eared POH. "Ummm, Nope. That's a POH. The OL's are a 2 - 4 page document that's part of the AC - you HAVE to have one, and have a copy in the airplane, or else you're not legal". No clue. Sigh. So a prop swap MIGHT be a major change, or it might not, depending upon how the OL's are written and what type of prop you're swapping. Going from one fixed pitch prop to another is almost certainly NOT a major change, but installing a C/S or adjustable prop would be. From 14 CFR Part 21.93(a) (which is the rule most commonly referenced in OL's to define what a minor or major change is: A “minor change” is one that has no appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength, reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the airworthiness of the product. All other changes are “major changes” (except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section). So, yeah - very vague and interpretable.

If you're referring to N440DH, you want to stay as far away from that plane as you possibly can. See all the other discussions of that plane on this forum, and elsewhere. Anything built or worked on by Dave Hanson should be avoided like the plague, IMO.

In a perfect world, if you could magically build exactly the same aircraft but mold/VB it, I've estimated that you'd save maybe 70 lb, max. The reason is that out of the 1150 - 1200 lb that a COZY MKIV weighs empty, or the 850 - 1050 lb. that a Long-EZ weighs empty, first you have to remove EVERYTHING that isn't composites, and see what you have left, and THEN see what you've got left that's moldable, since all assembly layups are not (and the plane wasn't designed to be assembled in molds or with features that use molds or VB'ing. Then you've got to remove the composite landing gear bows and nose strut. And once you do that, you realize that maybe you've got 300 lb. of composites, all told, that's modifiable without a redesign of the aircraft (which even this would need, to some extent). You're not going to reduce the weight of any of the fiberglass, so what you've got less is fill (but at 12 lb. / gallon for epoxy, MAYBE you can save 10 - 20 lb. of fill) and layup epoxy. If you assume that you can cut the glass/epoxy ratio from 45/65 (decent contact layups) to 55/45 (decent VB'ing), you can get a 100 lb. layup down to 82 lb. So for 300 lb. of composites, you'd save 3 x 18 = 54 lb. Add the 10 - 20 lb. of fill, and you're in the 60 - 70 lb. range. As Kent says, clearly not worth the time and effort unless you're in business manufacturing them. And don't expect hollow wings to weigh substantially less than solid core wings, even with bagging - they won't. Bill Simpson on the Homebuiltairplanes.com forum has posted regarding the comparative weights, and until you get to very large wings, solid core is at least as good from a weight standpoint.

Is there some reason you're not addressing my questions, which could help to determine what, if any, problem you have?

I turn on the fuel pump and lower the gear at the IAF - want to be completely configured and at 90 KIAS upon getting established. Generally, with no wind, I can maintain the 3 degree glideslope with the engine at idle, gear down, and 90 KIAS. Headwind, might need a bit of power, tailwind, might need both rudders. I don't extend the landing brake until I'm below decision height and know I'm landing, if I then need it. Which navigator did you get?

B&C regulators are adjustable - read the instructions. You can set them to the voltage you want. Generally anything between 14.2V and 14.6V is used, and will work fine with most any auto or aircraft batteries. Do NOT go over 15V. Odyssey batteries will charge just fine at 14.4V - just a tiny bit more slowly. You stated that your electrical system is putting out 13.2V - which is it - 13.2V, or 14.4V?

No battery will be charged to any great extent by an electrical system that only puts out 13.2V. You either have a problem with your alternator or regulator, or you're measuring the voltage when at too low an RPM. What alternator and regulator do you have? Have you read the instructions for setting the voltage on the regulator?

No. If you want a canopy, go to: https://www.airplaneplastics.com/

This Varieze, serial # 160, was started in 1976. It has been previously registered and flown as N289E, but is currently deregistered without an "N" number, registration or airworthiness certificate. A previous owner had reserved N26BG for it, but apparently that number was never used. The current owner, who was planning on refurbishing it, passed away two months ago and his widow would like to see it completed and flown. Pictures of the aircraft both when it was flying and in its current state of disassembly are available here: Overall, this looks to me to have been a fairly well built Varieze - the W&B (obviously long out of date, but still somewhat indicative of quality) showed a weight in the high 600's - most of the VE's I see are in the 720 - 750 range, so this is lighter and I BELIEVE that was with the O-235 on it, although I cannot be sure. The contouring of the wings and canard is very good and the interior is clean, from a layup perspective. Although external examination of wing attach fittings is NOT an indication of what may be going on internally, they look very clean with no corrosion whatsoever on either the wings or main spar attach fittings. On the wing attach fittings on the main spar, there is residue from duct tape adhesive. It looks as though it could be corrosion, but it's not. The plane is outfitted with long-ez main gear mounting rather than the wimpier Varieze gear mounting. Along with the gear, there's a large, removable hellhole access panel that allows for gear removal if required without any damage to the fuselage - this is, in my experience, a great maintenance help. Apparently the transparency in the canopy was damaged and a new oversize canopy (not installed) comes with the plane. It has a manual nose gear retract system, but there is a Wright Nose Gear actuator that was never installed as well. What looks to be a brand new Sterba prop in its box also comes with it. The O-235 engine is disassembled - there is no engine paperwork. I'd make the assumption that you'll need to work on the engine. The aircraft is located in Tehachapi, CA, at KTSP in a hangar. Make an offer to the owner - given the prop, nose gear system, and basic airframe, I'd expect an offer of at least $5K, but we'll see how it goes. If there are any technical questions about the aircraft / project, please contact me directly at: and copy the owner's wife, Denise. If you're interested in purchasing the aircraft, contact Denise at: Thanks.