Marc Zeitlin

2 hours ago, Kent Ashton said:

Today from David Hanson in Ohio.  Lots of interest in this one on the National Fake News Site

If David Hanson has touched it, stay as far away from it as humanly possible.

33 minutes ago, Jon Matcho said:

Where the parts appear to be very salvageable (as is the case from the pics IMHO), I would clean and sand down to 400 grit, apply a conversion coating, then reinstall.

I have no idea how hard that is to do for VariEze wing fittings.

The problem, as has been discussed many times previously in this and other fora, is that the worst corrosion is always in places that cannot be seen except by a full disassembly of the wing attach fittings from the spars in both the wing and the main spar. I'm sure I've posted this picture before:

but as can easily be seen, one might think that things are reasonably OK when looking at the areas that contain the wing attach hardware (near the hand), but fairly obviously, this is not a safe plane to fly given the extreme corrosion and flaking of the part of the fitting buried in the composite.

So "cleaning up" visible portions of the fittings is putting lipstick on a pig.

If you do not take the whole fitting apart (probably 10 - 30 hours of work for all four areas - main spar and wings), you'll only be guessing at whether the inside of the fittings looks like this.

Hence the disclaimer I put on all VE condition inspection reports that I write:

"Both Wing Attach Fittings (ALL VARIEZES) - Due to the inherent design from RAF, it is not possible to check for internal corrosion of wing attach fittings. I recommend removing wings at alternate CI's and checking externally for corrosion, with the understanding that without ~40 - 100 hours of disassembly/reassembly, a full inspection of the fittings and full confidence in the condition of the fittings is not possible. Plan on wing removal for more extensive examination at the XXXX CI. Obey RAF's +2.5G / -1.5G limits"

3 hours ago, spmg76013 said:

VariEze - bottom of center-section spar wing attach fitting: does this look like inter-granular corrosion to y'all? or surface schmutz? I have not yet sanded it other than hitting it with scotch-brite. Any insight appreciated. the wing attach fitting and the upper spar fittings had none of this.

While it doesn't look like advanced intergranular corrosion, it definitely looks like some sort of corrosion (possibly early stage intergranular) and since there's rust on the steel screws, there's obviously been something going on here. It's not just "schmutz". If there's something like this that's visible on a lower surface AL part, I would be extremely suspect of all of the wing attach fitting parts on this aircraft, and would want to completely disassemble the fittings on both the wing and main spar to investigate.

Now, I will say that trying to evaluate material properties via pics on the web is a losing battle, so I could be completely off base here, but  I  wouldn't fly the plane if this information and pictures were all I had to go on.

52 minutes ago, deesaysy said:

Presently my oil temp is climbing to 200 degrees. Do I need a oil cooler for my 135Hp Franklin engine.

The first place to look for information on engine limits is in the engine's operators manual, not on some random online forum. The MFG's info, available here:

http://www.franklinengines.com/4a.cfm

says that the maximum oil temp is 234F. You don't say what engine you have, but I'm assuming the 4 cylinder Franklin, and I'd be surprised if the oil temp limits were different.

In any case, 200 < 234, so no - you don't need an oil cooler if the temps stay below 220F or so.

On Long-EZ's, everyone uses an oil cooler (and needs them). On Variezes with O-200's, some have coolers, some don't. Don't know what the few folks with O-235's and O-320's on VE's do - I'd assume that like on the Long-EZ's, they'd need a cooler.

46 minutes ago, deesaysy said:

I would really like to convert my variEz to electric. 

Because you want to turn an airplane that has an incredible useful range into one that has no useful range?

46 minutes ago, deesaysy said:

Has Anyone done this?

No. There's been one electric Long-EZ (Chip Yates'), but he was going for (and set) a speed record for electric aircraft (soon to be broken). He had about a 15 minute endurance.

47 minutes ago, deesaysy said:

Does any one know or recommend an aircraft electric engines that produce 60 Hp

60 HP is not nearly enough for a Varieze. Emrax makes some nice motors - I fitted a 45 HP Emrax to a Quickie Q1 for a customer, but he still hasn't flown it three years later. It would have had about a 30 minute endurance.

6 hours ago, Mike75 said:

Are there any manual, guides, videos that show how to mount an O200A on a Varieze.  Internet searches have yielded little.

You mean, like Section IIA of the Varieze Manufacturing Manual (otherwise knows as "the plans")?

1 hour ago, TommkII said:

Bought a Dragonfly in rough shape and the sump on the main tank leaks. When attempting to unscrew it for replacement it just spins. It appears the builder glassed in the female threaded part of the sump and I don't know how to disassemble it without causing damage. Any ideas?

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the D-fly installation, but I'm going to make the assumption that it's approximately the same as the VE, LE, COZY, and all other canards with 1/8" NPT fittings for fuel drains. There's probably a 1/4" thick AL plate buried in the composite sandwich, and it's spinning between the layers of glass and chewing up the foam. Maybe it was too small - maybe the threads have just galled or something. Don't know - don't care. It's got to come out.

You'll need to do some surgery:

1. Drain all the fuel
2. Using a dremel tool and permagrit grinding bits, remove the outer layer of glass around the AL plate, and remove the foam around the plate
3. Sand the surrounding area at least 2 - 3" down to the glass - no paint/fill remaining
4. Pop the plate loose from the internal tank glass layup
5. Sand the internal glass smooth without damaging it or breaking through into the tank
6. Fabricate a new plate - at least 1" square, preferably 2" square
7. Drill and tap it for a 1/8" NPT thread - do NOT tap too deeply - make sure that you can screw in the fuel drain without coming close to bottoming out the threads - this is a guaranteed way to ensure that it'll leak down the road, if it can bottom out
8. Using WET EZ10-87 epoxy/flox, flox the plate into the bottom of the fuselage so that the hole in the plate lines up with the opening in the inner skin - make sure that you don't get flox into the NPT hole
9. Fill the area around the plate with wet flox
10. Layup 2 - 4 plies of BID cloth over the top of the plate, each ply lapping at least 1/2" more onto the surrounding fuselage exterior glass surface (previously sanded) than the previous ply
11. After cure, sand, fill, prime, paint
12. Install a NEW fuel drain with appropriate teflon thread sealant

This will take a few hours for the install, and then a few hours for the finishing.

1 hour ago, Jon Matcho said:

Not yet. I have VariEze plans intended for Open-EZ land. The pics in that link are scaled to 8"x10", and so I anticipate the scans of the plans I have will be higher quality. Still, thanks -- I'll save for comparison.

I have PDF's of the Varieze plans. As well as Defiant, Quickie Q1, AeroCad, Long-EZ, and some others.

2 hours ago, Crspy said:

EZ used for certification of an autonomous system in NZ

Not quite. The Long-EZ shown in that video (and in the video on the main page):

https://www.merlinlabs.com/

is one that I have maintained for about 6 years, first for a private owner and then for Merlin, at which I was contractor/employee #2 starting in 2018 (as of 6 weeks ago, I'm no longer an employee). It's currently located in Mojave, CA (KMHV), as are the other planes shown in the video. While Merlin is working towards CAA certification in NZ, the test flying is being done in the US at this time. Achieving Certification Basis is a big deal.

3 hours ago, Kent Ashton said:

Had a scare recently when the buyer of my EZ removed the old Rocky Mountain engine monitor I had used and installed a new Dynon EIS + sensors and reported the engine and oil temp were running very hot.  Suspicions were leveled at  my homemade CHT bayonets and oil cooler setup.   🙂  It seems now to have been a problem with sensor selection, sensor setup, or just test flying in hot weather.  All is forgiven from my end.

Sorry, Kent, but since you're posting publicly, I'll respond the same. That is not at all my interpretation of what's going on. Since the sensor that is now on the plane is the exact same sensor with the exact same setup as the Dynon EMS was originally installed with, and the sensor was calibrated with a candy thermometer, any statement that the issue with high OT measurements was due to sensor issue is contraindicated by the evidence. Multiple flights with the calibrated sensor verified the high OT's.

Only after the oil lines and cooler were cleaned and reinstalled, the OT's returned to a normal 180F - 190F from the previously noted 240F - 260F. Although no debris or blockage was found in either, those were the ONLY things (other than the flapper door removal in the oil cooler ducting) that changed. The problem was NOT the sensor. It may or may not have been the duct door, the cooler or the lines - maybe there was an air bubble somewhere that prevented flow - I don't know. But what I DO know is that it was NOT a sensor issue.

Now, it's possible that the issue with high OT's was completely coincidental with the installation of the new EMS. It would be a substantial coincidence, since we did not touch the cooler or the oil lines during the EMS install, but anything's possible. In that case, both the RMI and Dynon EMS's would have been reading correctly.

So no apologies needed and no forgiveness required. Zebras, indeed.

9 hours ago, EzFernando said:

I purchased a VariEze fuselage. It was left derelict and the airport auctioned it off. I did not get logbooks for any of it...

Did you purchase a fuselage only? Wings? Canard? Engine? What?

If the fuselage ONLY, then there may be other options from what Kent is stating.

There is, obviously, always the option of misleading the federal government, but that's NEVER a good idea and IS a crime. People do it, though...

2 hours ago, Kent Ashton said:

This Cozy from one of the early MK-IV builders.  No price.  I'll be interested to see what it goes for

It will be. I did a Pre-Buy on it for a prospective buyer in July - they did not purchase it. Although I flew in the plane and it was safe, there was a fairly long list of issues to be addressed, not the least of which involved the state of the engine. At the time, the price was far too high for what it was.

5 hours ago, Ratdog said:

How can you tell if a part has been alodine treated by lookin at it . ?

Usually, they'll be yellowish, but that's no guarantee, and it's no guarantee that it's not if it isn't yellowish.

But since 99% of the VE's out there were built with non-alodined and protected wing attach fittings, it's a pretty good bet that any VE you look at will not have protected fittings.

Based on my experience and the # of corroded wing attach fittings we know about in the population of ~2K - 4K VE's that have flown, I'd estimate that somewhere around 0.1% - 1% of VE's have corroded wing attach fittings that would compromise strength. Total guess, but a mildly educated one.

3 hours ago, Ratdog said:

 if you buy an uncompleted Varieze and you still have good access to these plates is there a recommended fix is to make them more durable ?  is it just corrosion or is the design a little flawed . 

It sounds like a pretty dicey procedure with a lot of potential dead ends.  

The only "fix" for a wing attach fitting corrosion issue is to completely disassemble and remove the metal parts, ensure that the composite spar is sound and wasn't damaged in the process of the original metal fitting installation, and then fabricate new fittings, protect them with alodining and appropriate coatings and then re-install everything with wet hardware. If you don't know what ALL of that means and how to do it, you're not in any position to do the work.

As I've stated numerous times before, I believe that it all could be done in about 40 - 80 hours of work, assuming that the underlying composite spar is in good shape.

As you surmise, there are many things that could bite you - the composite spar could be damaged, you might damage something in the removal of the corroded metal, or you might have trouble getting all the re-fabricated pieces to align and fit together correctly upon re-assembly. Paying someone $4k - $8k to do this work, with no guarantee of success, seems like a risky path to me.

VE's change hands fairly regularly, and they don't fall out of the sky regularly, but there HAVE been at least 4 known instances, in around 2K Variezes, of corroded wing attach fittings. Who knows how many are corroded and haven't been discovered? Nobody. I most certainly would never buy one that had any visible corrosion anywhere on the wing attach fittings.

See the picture below for a corroded fitting example - the visible portion, near the hand, is fairly decent looking - you wouldn't necessarily expect that the non-visible portion has severe interlaminar corrosion that has removed over 1/3 of the thickness of the material and damaged the rest.

4 hours ago, Ratdog said:

Looks like I've bought this project .  I will be transporting it on a 16 ft car trailer to Utah in a few weeks .  Any advice on how to transport it would be welcome .  Sounds like the "only thing wrong " is the  nose wheel is completely  taken apart and need to install a castering nose wheel which I presume comes with it . 

Actually, the first thing wrong that stood out to me when I was asked about the plane by prospective buyers is the 789 lb. empty weight (per the dataplate - heaviest VE I've ever seen), which makes this a single seat aircraft for a light pilot with full fuel. Plus the corrosion on the wing attach fittings; the minimal time on the engine over the years and the ancient panel. I've already warned two people away from this plane, but I hope it works out for you. This is why I recommend Pre-Buy examinations... Just because something is cheap doesn't mean it's a good deal.

4 hours ago, Ratdog said:

Im thinking of buying a specific Varieze project and Im confused about the 51% rule and all the B.S. that seems to swirl around the topic on the internet.  This project is basically an unpainted airframe without an engine or instruments . I would be finishing the painting , instruments , control hookups ,engine mounting , interior etc.  What do I do if I complete it and the FAA inspector says I didn't build enough of it .  How can I register and test fly the aircraft and ultimately certify it. Some say the FAA interprets 51% as amateur built not necessarily built by me but built by another amateur .  Does anyone know the real story .

Many people know the real story.

A) There is no "51% rule". There is a "major portion" rule, which states that the "major portion" of an aircraft must have been built for "education and recreation" in order to meet the requirements for an Experimental Amateur Built Airworthiness Certificate. Doesn't matter if one person or 735 people built it, as long as the "major portion" of the aircraft wasn't built by people getting paid to do so, but were doing it to recreate and learn.

Since a Varieze is a plans built plane, as long as you're not paying someone to build it for you, it WILL qualify for an E-AB AC. Since there are no logs, you can't prove that it wasn't built by someone for $$$, but neither can anyone prove that it was. The chance that an FAA inspector or DAR will refuse an E-AB certificate for a Varieze, if you can talk knowledgeably about the build, is as close to zero as one can get. It's NOT what I'd be worried about.

Finish the plane, take pics and document what you did, explain that you picked it up as an airframe built by other folks in their garages, and smile when they hand you the AC.

And _IF_ you can prove to the FAA that you know enough about the airplane, you may also get the Repairmans Certificate, of which each plane can only have one and goes to the "primary builder", a term for which there is zero definition. Any of the many builders can be called the "primary builder" and get the RC. And if you don't get the RC, then you'll need an A&P for the annual Condition Inspection, but not for anything else.

The EAA has more explanations on their website as well. If, for reasons that elude me, you want to build this Varieze from an existing project, do so - you'll get the AC without an issue.

7 hours ago, zolotiyeruki said:

I actually have read through a number of your presentations, and found them quite enlightening.

Glad you think so.

7 hours ago, zolotiyeruki said:

Could you please point out where I've gone wrong?

I'll give it a shot.

16 hours ago, zolotiyeruki said:

2) wingtip rudder advantages:
--Less interference drag
--Less weight (no tail boom or equivalent structure)
--You get the benefits of both winglet (efficiency) and rudder (control) in a single feature
--Longer moment arm for the rudders.  I didn't realize this one until recently, but the rudder pushes not only sideways, but also aft, so being on the end of the wing improves its effectiveness.

a) There's no reason to believe that the interference drag of a wingtip mounted vertical stabilizer is any less than the interference drag of a fuselage (or boom) mounted vertical stabilizer - in fact, due to the very complex spanwise airflow caused by the swept wing and vortices at the tip, it could be more, less, or the same. Only extensive testing could say.

b) Less weight - well, less than boom mounted vertical stabilizers, maybe, but given the additional structure needed to mount an inward force winglet at the tip of a wing, only maybe. Less than a fuselage mounted vertical stabilizer - doubtful.

c) As I point out in the "Canard Aerodynamics" presentation, the theoretical efficiency gain of the Whitcomb style winglets, upon which the Rutan winglets were based, is never actually achieved because no-one flies these planes high or slow enough to be anywhere near the maximum L/D speed, so the induced drag is a relatively smaller portion of the overall drag, and the reduction in induced drag is tiny, if measurable. And ALL vertical stabilizers (well, almost all, on any plane) will have the rudder integrated with the vertical - it's just a really convenient place to put a rudder.

d) The drag component (aft) of the rudder deflection is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10% of the moment contributed by the lift (inward) component. Drag is not the main component (one common misconception), and adds very little to the rudder effectiveness. So, yeah - it "improves" the effectiveness, but not by much, and isn't the reason for the winglets being on the tip.

Winglets on our planes are on the tip of the wing because with the swept wing, it's the furthest aft they could get so they could be smaller in area; so that to the extent it exists, they could attempt to be Whitcomb winglets to increase efficiency; and because it was structurally simpler (if not necessarily lighter) than inboard boom mounted vertical stabilizers. It's all a compromise, and it's not at all obvious what an optimal solution is - there are a zillion ways to skin a cat.

3 hours ago, zolotiyeruki said:

--Less interference drag
--Less weight (no tail boom or equivalent structure)
--You get the benefits of both winglet (efficiency) and rudder (control) in a single feature
--Longer moment arm for the rudders.  I didn't realize this one until recently, but the rudder pushes not only sideways, but also aft, so being on the end of the wing improves its effectiveness.

Very little of this is correct. You may want to take a look at some of the presentations available at:

http://cozybuilders.org/Oshkosh_Presentations/index.htm

There are a lot of misconceptions about how these canard aircraft work, are built, and fly, both among those that love them and among those that dislike them. I'm in the first category, but I still find myself debunking old wive's tales and other incorrect information on a regular basis.

3 hours ago, Kent Ashton said:

Hertzler's contact is on this page   http://long-ez.com/custom-service.html   I think Dale Martin is taking over Hertzler's business but Gary is still making them, apparently.

Dale Martin is NOT taking over Gary Hertzler's business.

Gary can be contacted at:

‭(480) 229-5195‬

and:

hertzler@yahoo.com

6 hours ago, Bob Martyn said:

Hi Marc:  I want to explore making the Long EZ into an electric version. I need help with the dimensions for the batteries, controllers and a determination of required thrust and propeller design.

Until batteries have substantially higher energy densities, you'll have an endurance of just about an hour. Not long enough to actually go anywhere.

But as Kent points out, you can see my website by clicking on the link in my signature.

8 hours ago, Kent Ashton said:

This Berkut first seen in July reduced again--was $145,000.  Pics in the ad.  Barnstormers

BERKUT 360 • $120,000 • AVAILABLE FOR SALE • 2006 Berkut 360. S/N 46 TT 275; IFR; ADSB; Dynon D-10A; 215hp Performance Aero engine; Lightspeed Ignition; all logs, manuals, plans; current annual and flying; includes a Bruce’s Custom Cover. Recently appraised for 145k. $120,000 Call for details. Possible trade/part trade for two place SxS high wing tailwheel (Bearhawk; Rans S-21, Kitfox, etc) • Contact Frank Chenevert , Owner - located Flowood, MS United States • Telephone: 773-251-5132 • Posted July 23, 2021

A bit more investigation indicated that this plane may have some (not just a few) major issues. Be extremely wary and get a good pre-buy. And the folks that appraised it for $145K are almost certainly the same folks that apparently created some of the major issues that the plane has. Someone with extreme expertise in Berkuts and whom I trust implicitly with respect to the type indicated the above to me verbally.

6 hours ago, Bob Martyn said:

I want to make some modifications on the Long EZ and may need an Engineer to check my work. Does anyone know of someone with experience on a Long EZ who can double check my ideas?

Depending upon what you want to do, me, or a few other folks that I can recommend.

2 hours ago, Bob Martyn said:

I am new to the community and am seeking help with the completion of the build of a Long EZ in the Florida area. Specifically, I am looking for a person or company that can assist me with the build. Someone who has done this before. Any suggestions are much appreciated.  Bobby

If you are considering paying someone to build a substantial portion of the aircraft for you, just realize that doing so (and being honest about it to the FAA) may jeopardize your ability to obtain an Experimental Amateur Built Airworthiness Certificate when you're done. You'd hardly be the only one to have done something like this, but you might (depending upon just how much help you got) have to be willing to lie to the FAA about how much of the airplane was built for $$$, and lying to the federal government is, well, contraindicated.

Before contemplating this, I'd very carefully look into the rules surrounding E-AB aircraft and what is and is not allowed.

Now, if you're looking for VOLUNTEER help, have at it - that's perfectly fine.

2 hours ago, lelievre12 said:

However I don't think you need to stall the main wing to calibrate the AOA.  The calibration if the AOA could be done in the Phase 1 testing like Chris Esselstyn where he started with FWD CG then slowly worked his way back until the aircraft until started to lose stability and stall recovery was less and less prompt. That setpoint would be what is needed.  ie. set the AOA to the comfortable flight limit, no need for the actual full stall. 

And if you know what your CG is when you reach that point in any stall modality, and you're not comfortable going any further aft in CG, then the AOA isn't calibrated to stall, but just to some arbitrary main wing AOA. Which is all fine and good, but since the main wing AOA at low speeds is going to be very different depending upon where your CG is (fwd or aft) and how heavily you've loaded the canard/elevator, it's not in any way giving you the same information that it does in a conventional aircraft, where it's measuring the AOA of the FORWARD wing, which is the critical one for stall behavior.

2 hours ago, lelievre12 said:

Well I don't entirely agree with your statement "stalls can easily be prevented just by keeping CG in the approved range". My SQ2000 has a questionable "approved range" which cannot be relied upon. Further,  Chris's testing suggested that power on stalls were more likely to provoke a deep stall at an aft CG. Or put another way, accelerated stalls are harder and more dangerous to explore in Phase 1 testing than simple power off stalls.  Therefore the AOA indicator can help provide additional input in these more difficult  tests pilot so the power off 'comfort' baseline is not crossed. 

First, with respect to the meaningless information provided by the SQ2K factory with respect to CG range, you address this directly in your first paragraph, where you stated that you slowly work your way back in CG during stall testing until you either reach the aft limit as defined in the POH or else determine that stall behavior is changing in an uncomfortable manner, and you use THAT as your rear CG limit. So you can/will ignore the POH and determine your own rear CG limit, which then become the aft end of "the approved range" for THAT aircraft.

With respect to Chris's testing, with which I'm not totally familiar, the nose bob is definitely more pronounced under power (particularly full power) and the deck angle is VERY steep, so it's an uncomfortable (at least for me) condition. The higher nose bob certainly creates situations where main wing AOA can increase dynamically to too high a level.

As a correction to terminology, though, power on stalls are NOT "accelerated" stalls. An accelerated stall means a stall that occurs at more than 1G, NOT a stall that occurs under power. Accelerated stalls (which I tested in my plane thoroughly) can be done with power on or off, and just require a constant bank angle - I stall tested at 15 degrees, 30 degrees, 45 degrees and 60 degrees of bank.

The same comments as above apply to accelerated stalls - the main wing AOA will change substantially with CG location, so what is barely OK at rear CG will be more than adequate at fwd CG, and the AOA will display something very different. So my comment about "staying in the approved CG range" still applies - if you're forward of YOUR plane's aft CG limit, there's no deep stall danger (all other blah, blah, blah about vortilons, fuel baffles, ballast, etc. still apply).

With respect to power on stalls with larger nose bobs, even if you had an AOA gauge calibrated to some arbitrary AOA of the main wing, a very large bob could put you past that dynamically if you're not being careful, but again, that will have been tested in Phase I in order to set the rear CG limit appropriately (something that the AOA gauge cannot help with, as it's not yet calibrated, and once the testing is done, you no longer need the AOA gauge).

3 hours ago, lelievre12 said:

I fly with an AOA in my spam can and have learned much in my circuit work on how close or far I am from the stall in accelerated turns and various weights.  The real merit of AOA is knowing what is happening in accelerated dynamic flight, not static straight and level.  For example, on a gusty day, its quite alarming what your wing is doing unless you add some speed on short final. And of course the critical base--->final turn is very interesting to watch on AOA if you are cranking her over tight because you turned too late.  In a canard at very flight condition you will expect to get a nose drop every time, however knowing the main wing AOA in each of these conditions won't hurt in such a beast as an SQ. 

I am quite familiar with the usage of AOA gauges in conventional aircraft, and am in full agreement that when it's measuring the AOA of the FORWARD wing, it's an incredibly useful instrument that should be required by 14 CFR part 91.205. And while you are right that the AOA gauge won't HURT in a canard aircraft, it's not giving you any useful information that you don't either already have or do not need, IMO.

6 hours ago, lelievre12 said:

BTW, Chris reports 50KIAS stall speed with rear CG. Will a Cozy really fly that slow? I guess if it is light enough, yes.

If people quote IAS, rather than CAS, the number means absolutely nothing in relation to another aircraft, for what should be fairly obvious reasons. It's a useful # for THAT plane, since it tells you where IT stalls given the airspeed indicator pointing to <something>, but as Kent says, his uncalibrated 55 KIAS might be exactly the same as my 60 KIAS / 65 KCAS (and probably is, at the same GW and CG). If you don't know the airspeed error, IAS is meaningless.

With Chris's empty weight of over 1300 lb., MAYBE at very light weights he might be stalling in the low 60 KCAS region, but 50 and 53 KCAS aren't going to happen. There are very few, if any Long-EZ's that stall that slowly, much less COZY's.

And as we've probably discussed here a few times, and I discuss in my "Canard Aircraft Aerodynamics" presentation available here, from Columbia, 2019:

http://cozybuilders.org/Oshkosh_Presentations/index.htm

an AOA indicator on a Rutan derivative canard airplane is kind of useless. There are a couple of folks that have installed them, one on a Velocity, in particular, but the owner could not explain to me what it was indicating to him or how he had calibrated it. He liked it a lot, though.