longez360

Congrulations Perry. Great to see a designer implement a successful powerplant alternative. Gary Spencer must be another who's close with his V8 installation?

Modifications that show up on one's airspeed indicator are very, very rare and perhaps not detectable unless you have quality comparable baseline data. There are few people in the EZ world who are realists when it comes to drag reduction - They conduct accurate flight tests, and achieve and record usable flight test data (Savier, Hertzler). Inlet sizing and location requires flight test atmospheric data acquisition and quantification of the actual requirement. That requirement needs definition as well as quantification (eg. What do you need? worst case requirement? lowest drag? operational environment inputs are? Flight profile is?). Stoichiometry helps in quantification (induction) - How much air do you need to burn fuel? There are reports out there on how to size a duct for air mass flow. Lycoming states the pressure drop requirement for cooling each of their engines. Stewart Warner publishes the data for oil coolers. Anything other than some considered calculations based on said data will give erronous results, or hey, luck might get you there... If in doubt, revert to the fundamental laws of physics. They will always get you there.

How does the clickbond compare structurally to the plans setup, or conversely a bolt into a nutplate mounted on a submerged hardpoint?

EZ's sit at a variety of attitudes with people on board. I simply moved the microswitch to give max extension on the nose gear with people on board. This made some difference. Bottom line: For me it was about takeoff acceleration (and the ability to decelerate an increased MTOW LEZ from the decision point (good brake steup)). I chose an O-360, a Hertzler climb prop (2500+RPM static), W50LT brakes (with good insulation) and have removed a lot of excess weight. That's a massive safety increase for mine. Again, better to get to Vr quick.

Steven, As long as the literature resource is applicable, and from a source of authority on the subject, there's a lot to be said for a good read. Lots to be said about good contacts too; Gary Hunter is one. Even more to be said by having a respected mentor for your build who has done it before and produced a quality bird. Mine was Henry Schultz, the finest quality Long EZ on planet earth (yes, noticeably better than N3X George Nopper's - I've seen both). The best resource without question is the education chapter in the plans. Consider it mandatory, highly educational and bloody good fun. It contains the fundamental requirements to build an airworthy version of these aircraft, from preparation, thru fabrication, thru quality inspection criteria and examples you can build in your kitchen without committing to a start on an airframe. Better to make your mistakes on a test peice. Many don't. Prior to the experimental category, we used to have to have them inspected by the regulatory authority before we could build. Many books out there provide misleading or irrelevant information clouding the intent of the rutan build philosophy.. Stick to Burt's words, "your best workamanship is barely enough". Reminds me of the plastic model bulders out there who will tell you on the basis of what they read in a book, that a real sukhoi 35 is clearly better than a super hornet. A real determination would require data driving an export violation bigger than the net itself. real facts are needed in this game, not what's necessarily published. Be cautious of builders (and flyers) on these forums who substitute materials to save a few bucks without bridge testing for equivalence without understanding the structural impacts. Get the facts from quality sources - there's good structures guys around - Marc Zeitlan hovers around this forum and provides a level head. There's a number of guys and gals out there that are excellent. I avoided Hollman's information following his article 'Canard Aircraft Designs' which seemingly contains numerous inaccurate statements (both technical and otherwise). - extract: "Under no circumstances is the following an assault on Long EZ pilots or Mr. Burt Rutan who, beside myself, is one of the most prolific aircraft designers in the world today"... Prolific? maybe Kelly Johnson or the Wright Bros, not Mr Hollman. I was planning on wearing a cowboy hat and fake lambchops and sitting front row at his OSH forum that year... ;-) Congratulations on the plans purchase. Get stuck into it as soon as you can.

I use 8ply lamb tyres in place of 500x5's because of the statements Burt made at an Oshkosh forum. He asked all those who flew 400x5's tyres on their EZ's to raise their hands, and when we did, he mentioned that the testing on SpaceshipOne surpirsed him as to the capabilities of the tyres. He quantified his statements against 500x5's. In terms of soft/rough field operations, the EZ family are the wrong aircraft for a variety of gear and non-gear related reasons. It's the primary reason why they were built in only limited quantities Down Under. We have a number of EZ's that operate out of grass strips, but we are a relatively dry continent and without walking the strip first, I wouldn't fly into one even here. I'd use 8ply 400x5 chen shins on a Infinity Retract system, whilst keeping a keen eye on quality control, and let the certed ship drivers pay for the expensive 500x5's.

You would 100% recognise it by the strakes if they were still in tact. The only similar one is the beautiful Steinmetz long EZ..

I recall a story of a flight in a Berkut where a passenger noticed a bottle of water bubbling in the backseat, but when passed forward, it stopped. The owner/pilot mentioned that cutting the cowl back to allow for the prop bow wave eliminated what was observed throughout the cabin length. Perhaps it moved the node to a new location outside the cabin. Vibration is a funny thing. With my old Berkut cowls, I had air coming back out the 'wingpit' inlets and a hot engine. Really important to stick to the fundamentals here (such as Bernoulli's theorem, etc). For cooling; 'Let' the air in by using an efficient inlet ie diffuse, creating an effective sealed plenum, and throttling using the outlet as required.

Certainly a time to be extremely cautious on buying expensive aircraft components in terms of future support and spare parts...

Congratulations Michael. Keep up the focused flight test and enjoy your aeroplane.

Joe Person (Seattle, WA) is as good as you will find in terms of inspection and continued airworthiness of a Vari-Eze. You will find him on the canard-aviators list. He is worth touching base with to find a someone local to your area. Joe is also a very experienced professional engineer, two-time Vari-Eze builder/flyer (and half a Long EZ) and a true gentleman. Gary Hertzler is another highly respected builder. Terry Schubert at Central States is another good contact. If you subscribe to this terr(y)ific organisation, you will recieve a list of members across the world. Terry knows most, and may be able to direct you to another contact more local to you.

Well said Drew. That reflects my experience.

I used 2x2 twill 12k tow carbon on some parts. Yes, the crimp is less. I used some non-crimp material with veil as well, but I used very different resin and cure cycle. My suggestion is stick with plans materials for structure unless you are ready to commit to enough testing that would substantiate it's inclusion. Generate allowables, or bridge test to show equivalence. Not sure that's worth the effort.

Colin, the Australian regulatory authority is the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), and their version of the Experimental Category is quite similar to that which the FAA regulates. See http://www.casa.gov.au/ for guidence. Eligibility is via CAR1988. Search for the Experimental catoegory. The restrictive UK system reflects our 101.28 system in many respects. You may be better going that route if you return back to the UK. http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/orders/cao101/10128.pdf See also RAA http://www.raa.asn.au. I won't comment on the SAAA...

Dave, sure, email me offline wayne.blackler@boeing.com. Will be at YMNG at some point this weekend.

That's a good point Michael. I noted my covers are also only plated on the exterior surfaces for the same reason. Engine mounts should be painted IMO. Crack detection is paramount.

Hi Mark, I believe chroming rocker covers would have negligable effect on CHTs - I just recall reading the information at some point over the past 20 years. I recall it was in an article also describing atomisation in induction tubes with vaious coatings, and why one should not chrome (or polish smooth)fuel servo elbows (again for atomisation). It was an article on coatings specifically. I am uncertain if it was supported with qualified data from an authority on the subject, although it was reasonably comprehensive. The painting of the engine black was noted at an Oshkosh forum, listed in a CSA article and I have come across it from time to time. The effect again is unknown as I do not believe data was published with the feedback. I will keep it in the back of my mind and if I come across it, will publish the references. In retrospect, I am uncertain why one might change what lycoming prescribes without conclusive data.

I have chrome on my engine (rocker covers and induction tubes). It's still in good shape after 150hrs or so. Would I do it again, probably not. In terms of the rocker covers, I have also read it does have an impact on increasing cylinder head temps. For heat, paint the engine black. Powdercoating the rocker covers should be explored. For finding oil leaks, perhaps lycoming grey is perhaps the best choice.

Dave, I had 2 of these and sold them to another builder. They really didn't seal as well as I hoped. Consider just adding a good quality eyeball vent to the back of your plans naca vent.

Wow, that's probably a 60lb delta! I did not realise the infinity gear was that heavy. When I first built N360WZ I had a full dual electrical system for a planned flight home from the USA to Australia and it was heavier than I had planned. This posed untenable limitations on flight operations. I had dual electronic ignition systems, and without much thought assumed dual electrical systems would provide redundancy. I was incorrect. When I realised the primary failure mode for the ignition systems would not be mitigated with another battery and alternator, I got rid of the 2nd electrical system (and removed one of the ignition units and added a magneto). Given I was in the weight reduction game, I also changed to a wilhelmson retract system (from an alternate electric retract system), and pulled some other non-essentials. The first flight after this large weight reduction was an ENORMOUS improvement. This was the largest performance gain I have seen in my aircraft with all the modifications I have made, all rolled up in handling characteristics and climb. Now I just need to lose some weight... :-) I often dream of a rock stock 800lb Long EZ with a good O-360. What a weapon it would be to fly! It would be an absolute rocket ship.

It looks absolutely sensational, Waiter. Looking forward to some flight test results.

You are 100% correct Big Steve, it likely wont. Any delta in cooling drag is due to the new design aerodynamically, not 'draft direction' or necessarily thermodynamic cooling philosophy. Having looked at some donwdraft installations, there are cerntainly more lower drag updraft systems flying than downdraft, that's for certain. Most probbaly think it's the other way around. Having studied both directions and their applications, and applying what I believe is as low drag as I could get cowling a 360 on my LEZ whilst meeting the requirements of the Lycoming specification for the O-360 (temps in cruise and climb) I do not believe anyone should see much (if any) delta in performance. There is massive margin in performance reported out there. A friend told me he topped out routinely at 200KTAS in his RV4, and we found out he topped out at approximately 180... "Must be the prop. The other is 20 knots faster" he said. Bull dust. I converted to downdraft cooling from updraft (Berkut to Blackler). My total inlet area (4 cylinders, induction and oil) is 20sq in, down probably 35%. My wetted area was up slightly, and the frontal area down. My cylinder scoops operate in lower pressure. My temperatures however were way down as compared to the old updraft system. I saw a net drag reduction, but not one one might expect, and certainly not earth shattering! I just couldn't stand the alum baffling leaks (finding foam dust in the wingtip light lens covers - yes many of us have a cooling plenum that includes the wing cores), and the theory of balancing 4 cylinders and oil with one plenum where one change impacts another. I chose to dedicate my cooling and address each requirement separately. It worked well. If you want low drag, go look at Klaus's aeroplane N57LG and as for how much he cares for downdraft, check out pictures of his new Savier EZ N360KS. I'll wager he has an updraft NACA for the O-360.

I never added them and have had no issues with the canopy spreading. I have no extra plys &/or no pins/receptacles.My canopy goes all the way back to the firewall in one piece - there is no turtle-deck. This WAS to cover cowl screws (like Joe LaCour's AMAZING Long EZ), but in the end I just added a lip for convenience as it's tough to get to the screws on the lower canopy side of the firewall. I was planning on adding receptacles and pins per Ken Miller's suggestions, but I didn't like drilling in to the longerons. If you do want to add receptacles, use your engine mount extrusions as fastening location IMO rather than longerons.

Wouldn't worry, you'll have a better aeroplane if you leave out urethane foam anyway. Consider PVC of equivalent density.

I recall a gentleman with similar issues in Europe / UK had a fully retractable Long EZ. It was in the CSA newsletter some years ago. I din't see any reason why a system could not be designed and fitted. I really enjoyed the film 'Skyward' - A 2nd stick in the left console with a hand brake would work well.