Marc Zeitlin

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.

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. 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). 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.

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.

Get a Hertzler Silver Bullet. Can't go wrong.

Only just about 95% of the Variezes there. You don't need a special engine.

So back in 2015, when this plane was up for sale the first time, I did a Pre-Buy on it for a customer. While the owner stated that the landing gear had been totally repaired from the damage in the noted accident, when we jacked the plane up off the ground (I insist on BOTH wheels off the ground at the same time) I was able to move each of the wheels fore and aft approximately 2", with the motion occurring at the LG mounting points in the fuselage, on both sides. Usually, I get a bit perturbed if I can move the wheel 1/4", so this clearly was NOT an acceptable repair, and this was 8 - 9 years after the accident. I informed the owner of the need to re-repair it. My customer did not purchase the plane - I have no idea what has happened to it in the intervening 6 years, but I'd look damn close at the LG attachment if I was going to do another PB on the plane.

An O-320 with 10:1 pistons, a good EI system and FI can put out 180 HP. Particularly with a good set of exhaust pipes. It's not common, but it's been done.

If for no other reason than that it exists.

I have examined multiple aircraft that Mr. Hanson has "built", "rebuilt" or just worked on. Suffice it to say that if anyone ever comes near a Hanson aircraft, they should run away as fast as humanly possible. I have a list of people who also know Mr. Hanson's work and ethics and feel the same way.

While Ron is correct in all of this, unless you're intimately familiar with canard aircraft and have seen/built/flown them (all three - not just one of the above, and multiple, not just one) you're just not going to be competent to perform an adequate Pre-Buy examination. I wish it were otherwise and that you could just go kick some tires, get a ride, and be fine, but a substantial part of my work is fixing issues with airplanes that didn't get an adequate pre-buy examination, and now the new owner is stuck with expenses they didn't foresee or expect, and may not understand. So, good for my business - crappy for the new owner. You need the right set of tools, the right knowledge, the right questions to ask, and an understanding of all the issues that have occurred on canards and what do do about them - particularly on VE's, with their uninspectable wing attach fittings that have potential corrosion issues. You need to be able to interpret the <possibly extremely thin> logbook entries, if there are any. A good pre-buy involves a substantial amount of disassembly, and takes me about 5 hours at the plane, if not more, even with the owner's assistance. Borescope the cylinders, compression check, operations check, etc. You want to gamble - go to Vegas. You want to buy an airplane, hire someone that knows their ass from a hot rock to examine it for you. Since you're in Socal, well, I know at least one person in the region who knows the difference... :-).

What Kent says is true - many folks have just "gotten in and flown them" and not crashed or died. And they are just higher L/D airplanes - they're not magic. But there are differences, and if you get training, you're less likely to screw up either the plane or yourself. While I've done transition flights for around 20 people (not training, as I'm NOT a CFI), I do have a CFII near me who flies canard aircraft (and is also an F-16 and F-35 test pilot at Edwards AFB) to whom I recommend folks for <n> hours of transition training - usually 10, as that's what most insurance policies require. So, figure if you're anywhere near a decent pilot after getting your ticket, another 2 - 10 hours will get you safe in a canard. Everyone I've sent to my CFII has had extremely positive feedback about the utility of the training.

That was me, on the COZY list :-). Although I got them from Summit Racing - they sell them (as does McM) in both 5/16-18 and 5/16-24, depending on which studs you have. WAY better than the standard nuts, which can be freaking impossible to get at with a wrench, particularly if you have in-cowl exhausts.

Hah! When I was a boy, we'd contour sand with a wet strand of spaghetti, wrapped with hot gravel. You try to tell kids these days, and they won't believe you. In any case, it'll be a cold day in hell before I build myself another airplane, so this contest will have to occur in another lifetime...

Well, yeah, I could wrap a piece of 80 grit around a ball-peen hammer and contour a plane, but it wouldn't be pretty :-). I'm shooting for optimal, not adequate here :-).

Yes, that would work, _IF_ the extrusion is perfectly straight and flat. There are few 2x4's on the planet that are flat/straight enough to use for a sanding block - you'd never get a really good contour. 3" is a bit narrow, although it would take a 3" roll of paper. I used a 1/2" thick piece of plexiglass as large as 3 sheets of 3M wetordry sandpaper, and glued a 2" x 2" AL extrusion to the back to keep it straight. With 3 sheets of paper on it, being about 33' - 36" long, you get really good coverage and straightness/flatness on your contours. 18" is marginal for wing/canard contouring, IMO. The larger the sanding block, the better your contour will be.

Contact me via email.

I can put you in touch with the guy who has the COZY MKIV on the big island (PHMU) if you want to talk to him about shipping, owning, or flying a MKIV.

So there is a COZY III that has "flown as far as Hawaii". That's N22AZ, flown by Damon Meyer, which flew nonstop from Ontario, CA to Portland, ME, a distance of 2258 NM (longer than Santa Barbara to Hilo). I built the rear seat aux. tanks for Damon's plane. He could carry approximately 105 gallons, IIRC, which gave a no wind range of ~3K NM when flying at the Carson speed or a bit higher. He landed with 26 gallons on board, with a tailwind, after 13 hours, at an average GS of about 170 kts. Damon had the tanks built because he was planning a round-the-world flight, but that's been indefinitely postponed. Since a COZY MKIV has larger strake tanks and a larger back seat, I'm sure tanks could be built that could carry more than enough fuel. One COZY MKIV had a bladder tank that could carry almost 100 gallons fabricated to fit in the back seat, but the owner never did his planned round the world flight, either. I'm sure you could have tanks built and installed, and find a ferry pilot, and then it would only cost you about 50% more than having it shipped - at least that was my experience.

None of that is correct. About 1/2 of the Long-EZ's out there are using 320's. There are a few 360's (maybe 5%) and the rest are 235's (with a smattering of 290's and other random stuff thrown in there). Empty weights of the O-235 models tend to be 850 - 900 lb, and the O-360's tend to be 900 - 975. There are 1000 lb. LE's out there - generally with O-360's and loaded with other stuff (including a lot of fill). While I understand that the reference to F-16's is hyperbole, I regularly fly my COZY MKIV (essentially the same performance as an O-320 Long-EZ - maybe a bit less, depending) out of 2000 ft strips at Sea Level, when at 1600 - 1800 lb. GW. If you can get 120 HP from a 912, that should perform reasonably well - about like the 115 HP O-235. I'm not a fan of VS or CS props - there's just no need for the extra weight and complexity on a Long-EZ, just to save 200 ft. on the takeoff roll (and you'll give up speed on the top end). But it'll work. Not nearly as well as the 150/160 HP O-320, but like the O-235, as I said. I've inspected close to 40 or so different Long-EZ's (CI's or Pre-Buys). I've never seen one under 800 lb., much less even close to 700 lb. You're dreaming if you think you can build one that weighs 650 lb. Get it down to 750 - 800 lb. and you'll have done a hell of a job.

www. cozybuilders.org - not .com

I'd expect an E-Racer to go for a bit more than a Long-EZ with the same equipment and same quality. Is this Lynn Erickson's plane? If so, I'm told that it was very high quality. But without knowing the state of the engine, it could be worth anything from $25K to $60K. The panel, while full, is old, but if everything works, there may be no need to do anything to it. If the engine's pristine, relatively low time, and the plane's show quality (doubtful from the two pics, but you never know) it could be worth more. All depends. See: https://www.burnsideaerospace.com/pre-buy-examination-information for info on the services I provide. Phoenix is about a 2 hour flight from KTSP, and I've done numerous PB's in AZ.

If you want static pitch stability, the front lifting surface on ANY aircraft must be at a higher AOA and be more highly loaded than the rear lifting surface. While there may be ways to modify the existing kite hydrofoils to have lower drag (which Is what I assume you're after) this rule cannot be broken and still have static pitch stability. So the simple answer to your question is "No, you can't have the same AOA on the front and rear lifting surfaces and still keep pitch stability".

Just out of curiosity, who's project did you purchase?

So the POH is very clear on the "as designed" limitations of a Varieze. The V/N diagram on page 22 shows an positive "G" limit of 5G, and a negative limit of -2G. Assuming that one built a VE today and used appropriate protection techniques for all the AL wing fittings, those would be the limitations, AT the MGW of 1050 lb. per the diagrams on page 26. Now, given the wing attach fitting corrosion issue, RAF lowered the limits to +2.5G and -1.5G, based on nothing other than "sh*t - we don't know what to do about this, but the wing attach fittings might be substantially weaker than planned". It was intended to be a temporary change while a fix was developed, but no fix was ever developed by RAF. There are a couple of folks that have figured out how to replace the fittings, and have done so, but it's a 40 - 80 hour job, so if you're paying someone to do it, it's a substantial portion of the cost of the airplane. And since there's no way to determine if there's corrosion without taking the fittings apart, well, it's a catch-22. Most planes are fine, but having seen 4 sets of corroded attach fittings that were in flying airplanes, to me, VE's are somewhat problematic and whenever I perform a Condition Inspection on one, I include a very clear note about the wing attach fittings being uninspectable and a complete unknown.

There are a few COZY's flying with C/S props and a few LE's as well, along with a few Berkuts. Generally, I'm not a fan, due to the cost, complexity, maintenance needs, and weight. But they do a bit better on takeoff rolls, and if you're lucky, you don't give up much on the top end (although sometimes you do - depends on the make, model and tailoring to the airframe - some MFG's do a lot better than others). On a Defiant, with TWO props, that's a lot of added weight, but the ability to feather the prop (if the one you get HAS that ability) could be a safety feature in the case of an engine out - the Defiant climb rate, with two O-320's, fixed pitch props and one engine out is not great at anything other than sea level - the single engine service ceiling is not that high. But that's the case for all light twins - they suck, and the second engine is there to extend the glide, and not much else. There aren't many MFG's that make composite pusher C/S props...