Waiter

There should be several down at Reid Hillview. My hanger there had four LongEZs inside. Waiter

I also have the Infinity Gear www.iflyez.com Waiter

It looks like your OK now, I got the e-mail. When a new user enters a new post or e-mails, they need to be approved by a moderator before the postings or e-mails are sent out. Otherwise, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and a few others would take over this forum with content other than canards. Anyway, why are you interested in the VariViggen, as opposed to a LongEZ? Waiter

As Marc said, PLUS - much, much more. I built in my O2 system during construction. and it gets used extensively. Oh Yah, How many of your buddies spam cans can make it from San Jose CA to Detroit, MI, Non stop, in 8 hours. Waiter

The only time I've had ATC do a double take is when I request FL230. "What kind of Experimental is that"? Waiter

Good Deal; I don't think building a Long takes significantly more time then a Vari. IMHO, To get the maximum return on my investment (time and money) I would build the Long. Waiter

Have you considered the LongEZ (OpenEZ) instead of the VariEZ?? Waiter

Yup, Sounds like you got a handle on it. If this is a plane that is already built, your options aren't quite as good; Move the battery forward 12 inches or more. Use a heavier battery i.e. Oddessy PC925 weighs about 28 lbs but is only slightly larger than a standard 25 amp aircraft battery. If this is a new construction, move everything as far forward as you can, i.e. Brake master cylinders in the nose instead of the firewall. Waiter

The longer nose by itself will do nothing for the W&B. The idea behind the longer nose is to allow you to move weight forward. i.e. the battery. Move the battery as far forward as possible. ALSO, look at heavier batteries. If your going to need to carry lead to make the W&B work, you may as well carry lead that can work for you :-) Although an Oddessy PC 625 will be more than enough to start your engine, a PC 925 weights more (about 10 lbs) and gives you a lot more cranking amps. Waiter

Is that static, or cruise? You can easly simulate the engine weight difference performing a takeoff with reduced power and say 10 gallons of fuel. Then add 30 gallons of fuel (180 lbs) and repeat a takeoff with full power. On my EZ, I see a difference in performance that 150 lbs makes. I also have first hand experience with the differnec between 125hp and 160 hp LongEZs. I don't think you could reduce the weight of the Defiant enough to make a 115 hp engine a workable solution. ALSO; Given the nature of the German FAA, would they allow you to substitute the engine? I come back to the question on why are you doing this? If the reason is to reduced fuel consumption, then simply reduce the throttle. An O-360 putting out 100hp will have almost exactly the same fuel consumption as an O-200 putting out 100 hp. Waiter

I think a Defiant that uses 115hp engines would be horribly underpowered. If you are concerned about fuel burn, simply reduce the throttle setting after takeoff. To get a feel for what a Defiant would be like with these smaller angines, try this: Next time you go fly, when you are on the runway and getting ready to take off, instead of applying full throttle, (2700 rpm or 27 inmp) try this, 2200 rpm or 22 inches MP. This would be approximately 1/2 to 2/3 rated power. Waiter

Excellent; I looked at this gear when I started my search for a retract system. This was right after Steve passed away, so I was SOL. The Drybread gear wasn't available so I bought the Infinity. Waiter

Pitch trim in rain can also be caused by incorrect canard configuration (mounting angle) during the original construction. You may want to look at this also. ************************************************** Regarding Vortex Generators; One word of WARNING that I'm sure you are aware of: These little vortex generators change the airflow charasterictics of the canard. They can do such a good job that they will allow the main wing to stall before the canard stalls. Flight test the aircraft after their installation, wear a parachute. Review the procedures on how to recover from a deep stall. Review the procedures for bailout in the event that you cannot recover from the deep stall. I do not post this warning lightly. NOTE: I went to the EZ.ORG web site and searched "Vortex Generators". It returned several topics. http://www.ez.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=310&highlight=vortex+generators&sid=7b740caeb25f41442d4a57b983cfd7f8 Waiter

LONGERONS those wooden pieces that run the entire length of the fuselage. (IMHO - the original longerons are more than adequate) Yes, My longerons (both top and bottom) are about 1/4 inch taller than the plans (i.e. from memory - instead of 3/4 x 3/4, I used 3/4 x 1). The same larger pieces of wood are used to form the Main Landing gear hard points. I'm glad I did it, but I caution you that this seemingly simple change needs to be taken into account and adjustments made for other assemblies that rely on the dimensions of the longerons. The larger longerons mainly effect the following; Centerspar (CS) - The longerons and gear hard points will form a box that the CS will fit into. When you do the larger longerons, make sure the inside dimensions for the CS opening doesn't change. Main Gear - The main gear hard points formed by the larger longerons will shift things down. Be careful, you don't want to change the geometric relationship between the gear and the CS. Strakes - The top surface of the strake to fuselage attachments will be shifted upward slightly, not critical. Canopy/Turtledeck - Use the plans firewall. The taller longerons shift the canopy UP by about 1/4 inch. If you stick with the plans firewall and cut the firewall plywood to the dimensions in the plans, you should be OK. The taller canopy/turtledeck junture will fair into the firewall plywood. (I know this sounds complicated, but it will make sense when you look at it) ENGINE MOUNT EXTRUSIONS I used larger engine mount extrusions, both top and bottom. LONGER NOSE My nose is longer, AND, a more pleasant shape than the plans nose. Photos of my nose. http://www.iflyez.com/LongEZ_Construction_Photos_Nose.shtml Shift as much weight as far forward as possible. The nose was extended mainly to shift the battery forward. Install the brakes in the nose. Waiter

I'm not aware of any "special" mods that make operations on turf any easier. I don't recall seeing any EZs with Tundra Tires and nicely faired wheel pants, :-) The only thing I can think of would be the size of the main tires. Many EZs have opted to install the smaller diameter tires and wheel pants to reduce aerodynamic drag. I believe these smaller diameter tires would be detrimental to turf operations. The plans 5x5 tires would be preferred over the small Chin tires. Although the EZ can operate off turf, takeoff performance is substantially reduced. If I planed on turf operations on a regular basis, I would strongly consider removing the wheel pants. To anyone considering operating off of turf, I would recommend getting time-in-type on hard surfaces before attempting turf operations. When I say Turf operations with an EZ, I'm talking about; Very hard surface, i.e. hard dry clay. Rain, mud, gravel, sand, etc will make the ground softer and reduce your performance to the point where it will be impossible to take off from the surface. Very smooth surface, i.e. no ruts, gopher holes, etc. Very Short , freshly cut Grass, maybe two inches, maximum. The shorter the better, If the grass is tall i.e. greater than two inches, you will never be able to gain sufficient speed to achieve a takeoff. IMHO - Although its certianly possible, I would discourage regular operations from anything but a hard surface runway. It really isn't a good fit. Waiter

Welcome John, The CPs can be found on several web sites, including mine: http://www.iflyez.com/Placards.shtml Scroll down near the bottom. Thanks to the work of Stet Elliott and Marc Borom. These are the original RAF Canard Pushers that have been scanned into a PDF file and can be word searched. This is a large file (4 meg, almost 1800 pages) so give it plenty of time to load. Look around on this site and you'll find a download for the Open EZ templates. These should help you in replacing your missing pages. One of the biggest advantages of starting today vs 20 years ago, the design is well matured and stable. I doubt you'll runtinto any problems that haven't been addressed before. I look forward to seeing your progress. Waiter

Drew, Welcome. Sounds like your ready to start "The Build". Your prior experience working with composites should move you fairly well up the learning curve. Keep us advised of your progress, and feel free to post any questions, observations, etc. NOTE: sorry about the delay on your first post, The first post of new users requires Moderator approval. I didn't see your first post until this afternoon, then I seen this one also. Waiter

I looked on the EZJetInc web site to see if they listed the thrust they were getting out of their T-58s. I couldn't find anything!. I would WAG around 500lbs. !! Most of the jets I flew had about a 1 to 4 thrust to weight ratio. These were generally in the 12,000 lb gross weight range. 5,000 ft available was a good minimum. Turbos or low bypass fans, not like the high bypass you find today. The early EC135s that I flew had a 1 to 6 ratio at gross weight of 250,000lbs(with water injection). I wouldn't even start the engines unless I knew I had 10,000 ft available. I think the early Water Wagon B-52s were about the same or maybe a little worst 1 to 6 or 1 to 7. needing 12,000ft runway at gross weight. Oh, by the way, 220kts is easily achievable, even with the prop. Just push the nose over a little and watch the airspeed indicator wind in one direction and the altimeter in the other. Waiter Waiter

JetA; IMHO, A turbine/EZ combo pegs the "Cool-O-Meter". SO, The mission statement for the plane would read something like "generate loud noise, and off scale cool factor". Other than the cool factor, the useful utility of the plane just isn't there. Forget long range and economic travel. The factors presented my Richard and Marc are indeed true. With that said, If somebody dropped off a good candidate turbine at my shop, I'd slap that baby in a LongEZ airframe in a heartbeat. Over the years I've been keeping my eyes open for a candidate turbine, here are some of the limitations I came up with during my research: 1) Need a turbine with a minimum of 250 - 350 lbs static thrust. (1/5 - 1/4 aircraft gross weight, minimum). I don't think the "Turbo-charger" turbines are capable of this magnitude of thrust. On the subject of thrust, My MT prop puts out approximately 900 lbs thrust at full power/zero airspeed. This thrust quickly drops off as the airspeed increases. (My EZ will press you into the seat on takeoff roll) Depending on altitude (say, below 10k ft), my 160hp piston engine with MT prop is supplying approximately the same thrust as the turbine would, BUT, at 1/3 the fuel consumption. This is the biggest challenge I've encountered, finding a turbine that meets the thrust requirements, but won't break the bank. 2) Need long runways, i.e. 5,000 ft - 7,000ft (plus) for takeoff. 3) Fuel burn between 20 - 30 gph (even at idle). 4) Speed brakes that can be deployed at any speed. 5) Vne 220 kts - need to be very careful as the airframe could EZ-ly exceed this. (Must perform stringent flutter testing to 1.2 x Vne) 6) Money pit, WAG, $40 - $60 k for the engine and airframe modifications. JetA, I'm with you, I love the smell of JP-4 in the morning. :-) Waiter

I (and many others) built my entire plane using the homemade balanced beam scale thats described in the plans (Practice kit). Hard to believe that an entire airplane waspoured out of those 6 oz paper cups. Waiter

Keep your head down and don't forget to check 6. Waiter

Excellent, And don't drool inside their plane :-) Waiter

Building an EZ from scratch will take many hours (years). If I were doing this again, I would first look for a project that someone lost interest in. Assuming the quality is acceptable, this will provide two advantages; 1) You'll get a jump start with the items that are already built, 2) The purchase price will most likely be equal to or less than what the seller has tied up in parts. These answers are kind of short, but to the point. Each question you asked could be a topic for lengthy discussion. Materials 1) A visit to the "bone-yard" in Tuscon will reveal fiberglass/epoxy components (radomes, antenna covers, etc) from as far back as WWII are still in good condition. Many of the early Rutan birds, VariEZ, LongEZ date back to the early 1980's, are still in good shape. If you properly protect glass/epoxy with primer and paint, your good to go for a long, long time. 2) In Very hot places, I open up a Sectional chart and lay it on the seat. If I know its not going to rain, I leave the canopy open a crack. Close the latches, then rest the canopy on the latch; DON'T do this if you have the plans built canopy stay, Wind may get under it and slam the canopy open. If you have a dark tinted canopy, don't use any of those "shiny reflective" heat covers inside the cockpit. I seen an EZ several years ago that had an optical imperfection in the canopy (looked like it was melted) I asked the owner, he said evidently the reflective heat screen he used inside the cockpit when he parked had focused the sun on a spot of the canopy and softened it. 3, 4) No problem. Once the epoxies are cured, they are solid and secure. NOTE: Post cure all items. (don't post cure the cowling's) An early phenomena known as "creep" was observed in the finish of some planes, especially those built in colder climates. If you looked straight down the spar of the wings, you could see a slight waviness, where years before, it was absolutely straight. The epoxy will take on a set at the highest temperature it is exposed to. If during build and finishing, the highest temperature was 85, then later, the plane is exposed to 120, the epoxy will re-cure at the new higher temperature. Generally, a post cure to 120 or 140 before the finishing totally eliminates this phenomena. 5) Yes, but perform a very close pre-purchase inspection. A couple hundred dollars to reimburse someone to look at the plane is worth it. DO NOT MAKE AN EMOTIONAL PURCHASE DECISION, YOU'LL BE SORRY. 6) Every lightening strike will be different with different results. This is a very, very rare event. There is a recorded incident of lightning strike on an EZ. Minor damage at the exit point. Major damage to the underwear. Design 1) Try AeroCanard, Velocity. 2) There are no "Pros / Cons"; This would be the same as comparing "Pros / Cons" between an 18 Wheeler and our Corvette; Yup, a big negative is, you can't haul 20 tons of stuff in the Corvette. If I have tundra tires on my SuperCub, I can land on the river bank. You can probably land your EZ on the riverbank, but I'll put down a weeks pay that your going to need a truck to get it out. Engine and Prop 1) I have an MT constant speed. Compared to my fixed prop, I loose about 5 kts off the top end speed. I gain significant low end performance, and the ability to cruise at 2300 rpm instead of 2900 rpm. Yes, its worth every penny, and the extra weight (my opinion) 2) You wouldn't, unless the fire is in conjunction with other difficulties. You could easily install a simple heat detection circuit, some builders have. Operation 1) Compared to what. A Cozy is more pitch sensitive than a Cessna 150, its also faster on final. Like comparing an 18 wheeler with a Corvette. None issue. If you are competent in a Cessna or Cherokee, You'll be able to transition into an EZ. Its mission is different, its operational envelope is different. Generally, EZs have no "quirks" or wierd behavior. Know your plane, know the envelope, stay inside the envelope. 2) I perform routine operations on soft fields, Only after I've inspected the fields. In an emergency, put it down where you can. 3) If you have an extremely high rate of descent and no attempt at flaring, you may slam the nose. I think with this scenario, the mains may also suffer damage because of the high rate of descent. I think this would be termed as a crash by the NTSB. 4) Your correct, differential braking. Takes about 5 seconds to get used to it, then you'll wonder why everyone doesn't do it this way!. Waiter

Take a look at this link http://www.ezjetinc.com Waiter

From viewing the photos, it would appear that many of these problems have been solved. The speed brakes in the photo seem to occupy area that is normally in the engine compartment. I would bet that they are mechanically attached somehow to the engine mount extrusions, probably part of the engine mount modifications. Structurally, this would be a good choice. I would talk to the folks that built/own the plane in the photos. As for rudders, they are not connected, you can deploy both simultaneously. These are not real effective speedbrakes, as they are hard to deploy at higher speeds. I also get a significant pitch up when I deploy both simultaneously. Waiter