Strider

Here is a download link for a Long-EZ in X-Plane version 9. This has been tested in v9.21 and should work well in v9.22 and the v9.30 betas. I'll update it again if required when v9.30 goes final-release. Lyc. O-320 150 HP carbureted; Empty wt. 825 Lbs. Custom artwork for EFIS, GPS, EIS, radios and simple autopilot. Takeoff Vr is 71 KIAS; Full-aft-stick speed is 58 KIAS with a rapid pitch buck; Top speed is 212 MPH true (185 KTAS) at 9,500 MSL drawing 9.2 GPH RoP and 385 F CHT. For best results set Stick response to fully non-linear in Settings/Joystick & Equipment/Centering in X-Plane. Please read the included text file. http://www.vigilanceaero.com/LongEZ_320_921.zip http://www.vigilanceaero.com/Long-EZ_921_air.jpg http://www.vigilanceaero.com/Long-EZ_921_pnl.jpg Updated O-200 VariEze and IO-360 Cozy MkIV are in process. Interestingly, the VEZ and the Cozy do not have the rapid pitch buck of the Long, but demonstrate slow, gentle pitch buck. Hmmm ... Sorry for the long delay.

X-Plane will show you how that plane will fly, Raiki. Using PlaneMaker to enter your design into X-Plane is easier than using AutoCAD in the first place. Download my canard designs for X-Plane (VEZ, LEZ, Defiant, Cozy) for tips and methods of refinement. Search the www.x-plane.org Download Manager for my designs under the user name "vezePilot" there.

The main problem with X-Plane is that it is a moving target. No matter how accurate a designer makes a plane in one version of the sim, with the very next version the physics may change and ruin all efforts at optimization. My canards for X-Plane have not been optimized in the new version 9.x and they need to be. Flight modeling has changed so much in this new version, there are several problems. It is almost impossible to get a prop strike in a real Cozy, so obviously the model is wrong in some critical respect. Sorry it is taking so long to release updated canards for X-Plane. I have been working this summer at getting back to building my own Cozy project, in addition to maintaining our VariEze.

Although I would like to develop the handling and performance of canards in X-Plane, No they are currently not at the level of fidelity that would adhere to FAA requirements. The Cozy in X-Plane has Trim indicators, but unfortunately I have it currently designed for the use of Hat Switches on your stick in order to adjust the trims. I'll need to add the Panel Mounted trim controls, in addition to the trim setting indicators. I have not yet completed updating the canard designs for X-Plane version 9. Sorry about the delay.

I'd take photos of my install, but it wouldn't do you any good. The VariEze and Long-EZ are too different. Klaus says in his manual to mount the processor box on the cool side of the firewall, and even then be sure there is an air space between the box and the surface it's mounted against. This seems to mean, Yes--put it on rubber mounts. My install is on the hot side of the firewall, and I must use the Hall Effect sensor on the accessory case. There isn't any room to mount the box behind the passenger's head in a VariEze. Also, I have no oil filter, no oil cooler, no fuel pumps, no flywheel and no starter. The LSE ignitions need a flywheel to use the crank sensor. If you don't get pictures from someone, refer to the manual. Route the high voltage BNC wires (400 volts) near the high voltage plug wires if you have to. Route the low voltage sensor wires and ignition power wires separately from the high voltage wires.

I hope to use it real soon. Rick did a great job putting it together, and that's part of my motivation to get to it ASAP. THanks for being patient. If it looks like I won't get to it in the next few weeks, I'll post here and let you know. Curt

There should be a text file entitled "Long-EZ_book.txt" in the folder containing all of the other components of the Long-EZ for X-Plane. In this text file, there are instructions for changing the setting using the X-Plane companion program "PlaneMaker." PlaneMaker is easy to use for designing airplanes for X-Plane. The instructions are as follows: Instructions for Lycoming O-320 150 HP engine and Culver 60-67 Prop: (for 182 KTAS (206 mph true) at 2,825 RPM and 9.2 gph) Open in PlaneMaker Standard Menu > Engine Specs Description TAB Top Center of page, "max power" CHANGE 115 => 150 Location TAB Second Row from Bottom, Left side; "design spd, acf prop" CHANGE 180 => 200 close Engines page Standard Menu > Weight & Balance WEIGHTS section "empty weight" CHANGE 775.5 => 825.5 close Weight & Balance page File Menu SAVE File Menu QUIT Prop change is simply increased pitch, from original 60-63 (180 mph) to 60-67 (200 mph); (60 is the diameter in inches, and 63 or 67 are inches through the air in one revolution at optimum prop design speed. This is how prop pitch is expressed for real propellers- inches in 1 rev at Vopt.) Weight change is due to heavier engine, and ballast required in nose to keep CG in proper range. Hope this helps, post here again if it doesn't. Curt Boyll VariEze N111JK Boulder, CO

I would recommend staying with X-Plane v8.64 for a while longer. The DVDs for version 9 are available, it's true, and you can download and run the updates from www.x-plane.com. BUT, this is still a BETA application. There are lots of bugs and problems still. X-Plane version 9.x (b13, at this pt) is available for public use because Laminar Research is a VERY SMALL company, and they get a bunch of enthusiasts to do their Beta testing for them. It is still very early in the process. From my experience with X-Plane (10 years now) I would wait until at least version 9.20. This is particularly true for people who think that flying a computer flight simulator has relevance to their flying what they believe is the very same plane in "Real Life"tmCircleR. (people like me.) If you intend to use the computer for any sort of transition or proficiency or familiarization, you must wait until I've had a chance to run the flight models through the standard requirements that the FAA uses for Approvals of X-Plane in flight schools, and this isn't worth doing until the program is stable. Improper or incorrect simulator training is worse than none at all, trust me. However, I have just spent about three hours test flying and making adjustments to my canards for X-Plane in version 9b13. They are basically flyable, but I don't know yet if they're accurate. I'll get these uploaded to my Web site and post their availability. This includes VariEze, Long-EZ, and 3 different Cozy's (Well, two Cozy's and a CharlieGolf RG Full Retract with Blue Mountains, and ... etc). X-Plane has proven very useful for my flying. I've been flying a VariEze that I did not build for more than three years now. Just this year alone, I have flown to Colorado Springs 3 times, to Sedona, AZ, Kremmling and Grand Junction, CO, Oshkosh, WI, Elizabethtown, KY and Las Vegas, NV. All of these flights in the real airplane were like a Deja Vu, because I had flown the flights in X-Plane. Sorry for the delay, but you may notice that X-Plane is affordable and the only canard-type computer flight models worth using, are free.

Actually, my canards are already designed like this in X-Plane. It's just not down as low as 12,000. Even my VariEze's for X-Plane have oxygen, and it's On by default. But it's set for about 17,000 feet, and it doesn't run out. So I've put it in mainly just to keep X-Plane canardians out of Class A. But you can also turn it off. In which case, yessiree, right at about 12,000 X-Plane's screen will start going dark. This is a normal feature of X-Plane, and it requires that you have the blackout from g-force and hypoxia enabled in the Rendering dialog screen.

I've been pretty busy lately, and haven't flown for about two weeks. So I need to go up again soon. Last time I was up, I did rolls for the first time! I need to go up again Solo and do some more. Otherwise, when would you be able to get up to Longmont Airport? I usually like to fly in the mornings, and if it's cooler like today anytime from 9:00 to noon would work. Afternoon flying is often rather bumpy. BTW, did you get an email through Canard Forums that I sent?

Well there aren't any official canard groups in the Denver area, and I don't know of any EAA Chapters that are particularly supportive of weirdos who fly backwards, plastic airplanes ... but we're considering at least starting an "inclusive" annual canard get-together of some kind. It seems now that Rick Maddy may not continue his famous annual Colorado Cozy Barbecue. Did your search turn up Rob with his VariEze based at Metro, our VariEze based on Longmont Airport, or Bob or Ion with their Long-EZ's at Longmont, or Lee and Don with their Long-EZ's up in Greeley? There are also Burrall and a coupla others down at Meadowlake near Colorado Springs. If you would like to go for a ride, I'd be happy to oblige. Here is a picture of our plane, while we were on our way back from Oshkosh this year: http://www.vigilanceaero.com/Mankato_MN07.jpg Talk to you soon, Curt and Gail VariEze N111JK and Cozy plans# 872 Boulder, CO

Those are excellent photos, drawings and descriptions Waiter. The way that J. Kendrick built the access door in our N111JK is VERY much heftier. It forms a tunnel or short tube inside the nose and perpendicular to the outer skin surface, about TWO INCHES deep, and with glass/foam/glass walls of the tunnel more than a half-inch thick. This tunnel is about 4 inches in diameter. This method reinforces the skin surface of the upper nose about ten times more than is necessary, and yeah I guess it was/is kind of an overkill way of doing it. If you have access panels/doors, over-doing their structure is not a bad thing.

The fellow who built our VariEze installed a very well reinforced inspection/access door in the nose of this plane. It is round, large enough to access not only the battery but also to install rudder pedal extenders, and there is no chance that it jeopardizes the structural integrity of the nose. This is because it is a very thick and deep flange which is covered by a round aluminum plate, .065 thick, and with four screws into Tinnerman nutplates. If you still need specifics/photos of this please email me at curt<at>vigilanceaero.com.

A new Long-EZ for X-Plane is now available. This flight model demonstrates all of the correct numbers according to the Owner's Manual: Speeds, RPM's, Fuel Flows, and correct glide ratio engine out prop windmilling. An image: http://www.vigilanceaero.com/LEZ_poster.jpg And the download: http://www.vigilanceaero.com/Long-EZ_840.zip Includes Dynon, GPS-196, Becker, Grand Rapids, TruTrac, and O2 system for VFR day and night. Per-plans empty weight of 775 lbs, and Lyc. O-235-L2C with instructions for converting to 150 HP O-320.

Here is a 2 minute video (Quicktime, 32 MB) of a canard RC model that I designed in X-Plane, and built and flew back in 1998. It was the first test prototype of my own SuperTandem design: http://www.vigilanceaero.com/SuperTandem1stFlight.mov RC model plans sales are actually an active industry, huh? ... hmmmm ...

The Boomerang for X-Plane 8.40 is available at www.x-plane.ORG. Sorry for the inconvenience of having to login there for downloads, but they've been having troubles with bots and so forth. Here is an image of the flight model: http://www.vigilanceaero.com/Boomerang.jpg A new Long-EZ is next. Oh, regarding multiple monitors for X-Plane Jon, I've found that the 3-head Matrox Parhelia works great. A three-head is cool, 'cuz you can have the instrument panel in the middle, and side views to the left and right. For X-Plane v8.x, the larger Parhelia would be best ... more VRAM for the much more realistic terrain and objects. Another solution is multiple computers, and X-Plane itself allows managing the ethernet IP connections.

Updated flight models are available for X-Plane, currently including new Cozy Mk IV's, a new O-200 powered VariEze with Dynon, and a Defiant. I'm working on a new Long-EZ, and Burt's Boomerang. Here is a link to the VariEze: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?autocom=dlmanager&do=viewfile&fid=6897 X-Plane.ORG now requires a registered Login for downloads, due to spamming and bots causing trouble. Sorry for the inconvenience. The other planes are available there at the .ORG also, with a search. These flight models demonstrate increased accuracy over earlier efforts, and I'm using the specs for development of a design of my own. It seems to me that there is continued, perhaps resurgent, interest in canard homebuilts. And there is interest in how to get more out of the Cozy MK IV ... more cabin space, more speed, etc. But the design is limited in how much it can be stretched. This design is intended to address these issues, as it has a larger cabin at the start, is designed for higher indicated speeds, and can accommodate engines from the O-320 all the way up to TNIO-360's, or even TNIO-540's. The example powered by two O-320's provides performance slightly better than a standard Cozy, but with slightly higher fuel-flows (the price of the larger cabin). Cost to build a SuperTandem starts at about the same as a Cozy Mk IV. Offers handling at least as good as Rutan. Again, this is being developed using numbers in X-Plane which provide accurate results in the VariEze, Long-EZ, Cozy, Defiant, Boomerang, Proteus, White Knight, and SpaceShipOne. http://www.vigilanceaero.com/SuperTandemConcept.jpg This flight model for X-Plane will be made available soon.

Besides, I don't need Spodman's abuse. I got people standing in line to abuse me.

Does anyone here know if Mr. Ray Parker of Cincinnati, OH has flown his new VariEze yet? (A "Last Of The First" as he described it.) I am having trouble getting in touch with him since our meeting at Oshkosh. Bound to be moved to the Models/Sims area, this post is in regards to my promise to him to get an updated VariEze for X-Plane v8 to him before his first flight. I have been lazy and distracted. I wish him the best and a safe first flight, and I wanted to help with this as much as possible. Being unable to get a ride in a Cozy, in order to practice the approach and landing phase under experienced guidance, I am convinced that X-Plane made a crucial difference despite my woeful lack of hours and experience, and helped me bring the plane back unscathed that first time. Anyone?

I agree that CH Products equipment is very worthwhile. I have used their sticks, pedal units, and a yoke unit for many years. AFAIK, CH Products is the only company which produces control units for both computer uses and for real aircraft cockpits. My statement about being the only designer "who has produced designs for X-Plane on an FAA-approved flight training system" is missing the word "canard." Fidelity Flight Sims of Pittsburgh obviously produces X-Plane designs which are FAA-approved. But not canards. They remain as bigoted against canards as they are about Apple Macintosh computers. Also, the info that I have is that canards in MS FlightSim use the look-up tables for the C-172. Enough said. In gaining FAA Approval and certification, the FAA doesn't care about perfectly accurate dimensioning, totally correct polar curves for airfoils, nor the exact specs for engine and propeller equipment. All other flight training systems are "lookup-table" driven, so therefore it is ONLY the results that matter. This means that, yes, canard designs in X-Plane which provide accurate speeds, control rates, climb rates, glide ratios, etc. have been "fudged" in the interest of producing accurate results. Correct results are produced (in X-Plane) by testing, testing, testing ... and according to the criteria described in the FAA document AC 120-45A. As X-Plane becomes "more accurate", perhaps I will not have to invest so much time testing to FAA standards, but it isn't there yet. This is the perspective that I gained working on an FAA certified FTD Level 2 running X-Plane at Windsong Aviation, Jeffco Airport, Denver. Beyond this, a very major issue is incorrect training in simulation. Training on an incorrect or inaccurate aircraft replication is WORSE than no training at all. This is also a factor in the delay of updates of my designs. Mr. Al Wick describes his work in both risk reduction and warning system automation in homebuilt aircraft, and I believe he has produced major accomplishments. Unfortunately, and for whatever reasons such as added cost etc, his choices of additions to his aircraft have not been widely accepted by others. And he cannot and will not replace the human pilot, who has the ultimate responsibility to fly the airplane. I'm sure he recognizes that if we make the aircraft perfectly reliable at all times, we will still have difficulty improving the human. IMHO, the combination of winter time and X-Plane addresses this issue, at least in part.

no problem- just ask Jon or Marc Zeitlin .. i make similar errors as well. I guess I referred to SAE as an "human-oriented" system because it is the descendant of measuring standards developed by and for the common man over many centuries. The metric system seems made to fit the world in to neat little boxes, and the world doesn't fit like this any more than people fit into neat little boxes. Another un-PC attitude I have is that if a person needs the "ease of use" of the metric system in order to handle math, perhaps they shouldn't try doing math. A comfortable, low-cost form of outlaw-ism for me. Or is it?

I'm working on the updated canards for X-Plane version 8.20 (latest) by improving the VariEze first, and then I'll transfer the required changes to the LongEZ, Cozy, Proteus, ARES, etc. This is proving to be more involved than I had hoped. The differences in the virtual-wind-tunnel physics between v7 and v8 are drastic. Also, I don't receive feedback on these designs. Apparently there are very few pilots who fly both the real aircraft and the X-Plane replications. This is unfortunate for me, as I have not personally flown a LongEZ and have never even been for a ride in a Cozy. I hope that no one is offended, but I personally believe it is unfortunate for pilots as well. The military uses flight simulators, the airlines use flight simulators, medivac firms use flight simulators, corporate flight departments use simulators ... but homebuilders don't. And we have all seen what a terrible year 2005 has been for canard aviators involved in Class A mishaps. Our planes are low-cost: we build them ourselves using the lowest cost tools and materials. The X-Plane sim is a low-cost solution, and I am the only designer who has produced designs for X-Plane on an FAA-approved flight training system. I now have over 75 hours in the 22 year old VariEze N111JK. Local EZ drivers all told me that my first attempt to land the plane would involve more than one go-around. They were wrong- my first approach and landing were more than satisfactory, because I had flown the plane and landed it more than 100 times in X-Plane. I practice in X-Plane regularly, particularly for long flights like Denver to Phoenix, Denver to Oshkosh, etc. Currently the delay in my X-Plane work is due to my helping my wife Gail prepare for her first solo in our plane. She has flown our VariEze and a LongEZ from the back seats, she recently completed her BFR in a Cessna, and she has been practicing high-speed taxiing, flying the canard, takeoffs, and approaches in X-Plane. She will probably solo in our plane this Sunday (Saturday's forecast is windy). Our Advisor and I are convinced she's good to go. This has been a stressful time for me, and I'll continue to be freaked out until she lands after her solo. So now you know why I haven't been around here lately.

uhh .. Todd has done a nice LongEZ, but the Cozy is mine. Curt Boyll Flying VariEze N111JK and building Cozy Mk IV N272CZ (res.)

As impolite and un-PC as it seems, I have a standard reply to the question of when the U.S. will convert to metric: "When a French crew comes back alive from a trip to the Moon." When is the rest of the world going to realize that metric is a lost cause, and adopt a human-oriented system: SAE?

I'm working on such a project, but offering plans/kits is still a few years away. After 10 years of development, including successful flights of an RC scale model, it is beyond any canard type flown so far. I believe the combination of airfoils is one generation later and more adaptable than Burt's Proteus design. This 4 - 6 seat canard type was originally designed for the Williams/Rolls FJ-22, but since that low-cost engine program was a failure, options must be considered. Many pilots flew my SuperTandem 4-seat single turbofan canard in the FAA Approved full-motion FTD-2 at Windsong Aviation, Jeffco CO including the flight school manager. Even in 2002, I had already adapted the design for the PW610. Wider speed range, better handling slow or fast, longer CG range, structure designed from the start for pressurization, and overall more adaptability than anything based on the VariEze. Burt, Nat, and Dr. Dan Raymer have all seen a brochure of this design. The SuperTandem earned much praise for its handling and performance in the full-motion sim at Windsong. We intend to further our education by completing our Cozy Mk IV, and then start building a full-size SuperTandem M4 prototype. The general layout has been flown in simulation software as a jet, as a pusher piston/prop, pusher turboprop (Allison 450), as a tractor piston/prop, and as a tractor turboprop. Most recently I have had further discussions of what will continue Burt's EZ legacy, and in an aircraft as great and useful as a LongEZ or a Cozy. The important points here are affordability, easy construction, and low operating costs. So there is no choice but to start with a piston/prop pusher version with a four seat capacity, powered by a turbo-normalized XP-360 with a C/S prop. Once the aerodynamics are proven in a full-size prototype, further study of what builders can afford and the limits of what can be considered a homebuilt will continue. In the near term, we will soon start building a large-scale structural model, concurrently with our Cozy construction, which will allow us to adapt Rutan-type sandwich construction with glass and carbon to our own loads and geometry requirements. This will also serve as a systems design prototype. How much homebuilt can you afford? The simulated 8-seat UltraTandem canard is powered by two PW610's and handles great from 60 KIAS to over 300 KIAS. Each engine is about $350,000, the pressurized, full-RG airframe will cost about $35,000 to construct yourself, and the panel might range from $30,000 to well over $100,000. This doesn't really sound like a homebuilt at all. Examples of design development stages and derivatives are available for the Laminar Research X-Plane simulator.