Drew Swenson

In terms of hard to move around with respect to the weight of the nose----for the 4 place aircraft---it depends upon how you have the plane set up. For my Cozy when rigged for flying with a passenger sitting next to me, the nose is rather light. When rigged for solo flight, the nose is rather heavy and really needs the electric gear.

They work awsome compared to the rear mount. There are many different ways to do this. The basic concept is best illustrated in the proper section at berkut13.com.

If you reference your miles per gallon to TAS, you should get a pretty good indication. Referencing to IAS gives you nothing unless you hold all mpg measurements to the same altitude. Referencing to groundspeed tells you nothing due to effects of wind----unless you fly a circular course---then for the most part the wind would be subtracted out.

Like a Defiant? http://www.utility-aircraft.com/gallery/rutan%20defi/delivery%20Defiant.htm

http://www.velocityaircraft.com/Newsletter%20Files/seperator.html

If you blow it into the exhaust pipe as per my first post, it gets burned up in the exhaust. If you can throw all your oil out the breather, you have other issues. Oil out the breather is nasty (carries the byproducts of combustion).

TMANN, don't know what you are talking about. I am looking at the TERF CD right now for the Longez Plans---they are clear and easy to read. Most of it is typed (but not searchable). The hand printed stuff appears mostly on the drawings but are very easy to read. Only the photographs leave something to be desired----when compared with the original plans. Maybe you could point me to a particular page so that I could see what you are talking about.

I would not return oil back to the engine. You could as an experiment, run the return line to some sort of catch container. Take a look at it after it fills up, and then determine if you really want to return it to the engine. I had the same oil air sep on my Longez. I sold it and used the mechanism as described in the articles that I pointed out.

CP 56 page 5 shows the technique used by Mike Melville. Better yet is a better description by Dick Kreidel in CSA 58 page 13---this is what I used on my Longez. Basically AV-7 airpump valve screwed onto a pipe nipple that was welded at a certain angle into the exhaust pipe. Breather hose went straight to the valve which prevented the exhaust from pressurizing the crankcase. Totally cleaned up the belly. Better to blow it out the back into the exhaust than to try to return it to the crankcase.

Phil is correct---nose builds up like a cozy---couple of layers of bid. And you also need to attach the hardware---which does not exactly assemble like a christmas bike. Not hard at all----but you do need the directions. And if you don't know how to mix flox or lay up fiberglass, you will need the intro chapter to learn how to do this. The good news is that you will be a master in no time. Hopefully you got the plans with the sale of the aircraft----and if not, ask someone to get you the TERF CDs for XMAS. Don't feel too bad---my first repair on my Longez was the day I bought the aircraft----stripped half the teeth off of the wormgear in the nose gear assembly. The good news is that I had studied the plans for a year or so---and knew exactly what I had done when I did it----and knew generally how to fix it. Printed out the plans for that chapter, ordered the right part from Brock---then got right to it. Now you might say that if I was so familiar---then how did I strip the gear. Without going into the nitty gritty details and getting real deep into my excuse matrix, I will just say that it was the difference between book knowledge and practical knowledge. You can tell some people not to touch the stove---and the rest of us have to check it out ourselves-----stove was hot by the way.

Sounds pretty weird. Are you sure that your airspeed indicator is correct? Check to see what speed the board auto retracts---needs to close at 95 kts. Landing brake springs need to be adjusted so that you have a 40lb pull on the trailing edge of the brake to close it. If it pulls closed with less than 40 lbs, you need to tighten in up. If more than 40 lbs, you need to loosen it. Seems strange that it is easy to operate on the ground---sort of eliminates any binding problems---unless you have stuff that can shift in there while airborne (is the opening in the side of your armrest such to get your coat or seat cusion caught in the device?

Evidently, aerobatics is a religion. My major point on aerobatics is that if your goal is to fly aerobatics----go buy an aerobatic airplane----one that was intentionally designed to do this. My comments have nothing to do with whether the airframe will take it or not----it just does a crappy job compared to aerobatic designed airplanes. It has nothing to do with the pilot involved. I just don't want some guy to go out there and think he is buying a cheap Extra 300. As it as been pointed out, even an airliner will do fairly nice roll----but don't think that we will see it in a aerobatic competition soon. To be clear, there are two arguments that are getting mixed up. One has to do about how much and to what extent you can fly an EZ (full blown aerobatics, gentlemen aerobatics, g-loads) and the other has to do with how well it actually does it. Like I said before, the second case has nothing to do with the pilot and how much training he has----the plane either has it or not----or somewhere in between. You could certainly call into judgement as to who has the capablitity as to assess the merits of the aircraft----as that person would have to actually have flown a variety of aerobatic aircraft. That is a fair statement. I would like to hear the merits from a Extra 300 (or like pilot) who has experience in a Cozy or Longez. By the way, many (most? all?) aerobatic airplanes make crappy cross country airplanes. In another sort of related topic----if you want to operate out of grass strips---don't buy an EZ. There are plenty of aircraft designed for grass strips. Do people operate EZs out of grass strips? Yes---but sure not designed for it.

Having flown and owned both the Longez and the Cozy MKIV, the Cozy is much more nimble---especially noticible in roll. Sorry---never time the roll---so can only give you a qualitative assessment. Chandelles and just basic maneuvering the airplane around is pretty fun. The plane pretty much sucks rolling it over on its back---only did it once in my Longeze and said---sure was not meant for that! You need to figure out your mission first, then pick out your plane. To me, you have many things going against you for this design -fit issues -performance issues You may do much better in a much more acrobatic RV that also has more room inside. The EZs are a real cool looking airplane----but don't just buy on looks when you have a mission mismatch. Even being your size----and wanting a good cross country machine----you may have a good fit in an EZ. But right now, I am not seeing it.

I was a non-builder Longez owner----and now a non-builder Cozy owner. I have read and cateloged all the CPs and Cozy Newsletters. I have read and cateloged the CSA newsletters ever since I became a member. I have also extensively studied both the Longez and Cozy plans. I have been the sole maintainer----and have done extensive modifications and repairs to both airplanes---with the most extensive modification involving switching to downdraft cooling on my Longez with all the modifications involved with also hanging a larger engine. My point is that I think that it is irresponsible to do anything less (being intimately familiar with all the documentation) as a non-builder. Congratulations to the non-builders (including me) for skipping many hard years of work---but what makes you think that you can skip knowing about your aircraft? Who do you think is going to inspect and know everything that needs to be known about your aircraft? Your local A&P?----Guess again. Your A&P will give you a nice sign off on your engine---and will do an ok look at your airframe----but seriously----what does he know in this regard? Unless you are living next to a canard guru who knows what he is doing, YOU are the expert. And if you are not comfortable with that aspect, you should not be owning one of these machines. The 100 ways document is a good intro paper---but does not replace actually reading the CPs (Rutan) or Cozy newsletters. How do you even know what to be scared of if you don't even read the documentation? And there is stuff to be scared of if you don't heed the warnings.

Allen---don't need to go to med school----I watch ER----Good enough training for me. My Tomcat days are behind me----and no more Toms to fly. Enjoying life out here at Lakehurst working a multitude of projects----the biggest one (or at least most visible) being the electric cat going into the USS Ford (prototype being installed on the runway at Lakehurst).

For Chris---you just stated my thoughts more elegantly than I. I am also an aero engineer---and I am astounded by the amount of people that want to accomplish aero-engineering changes without the proper knowledge. I have no issue with someone who knows what they are doing. And I have no control over over what an individual wants to do---however, I will try to talk sense into them. When you enter into the world of experimental aircraft----and follow the plans to build an aircraft----most likely (not always) you will end up a pretty good aircraft mechanic/builder for that type of aircraft. In no way does this qualify you as an aircraft designer----but somehow a lot of people think that. To do this, the first step is to get trained as an aero eng from a competent university. If we don't try to talk someone out of doing a modification that he has no business doing, We may end up paying the price in higher insurance rates. That is why you see a lot of people saying that if you deviate from the plans "enough"---call the plane something else. Hey, I watch ER too---that is all I need to know to be able to remove my own kidney.

One thing we try to do is to keep people from making modifications----especially when they don't know what they are doing. The first danger sign that I see is a new guy trying to fix a problem that does not exist-----or they want to include something just to include something. You will make a safe aircraft if you follow the plans. Your A&P inspector will not be able to give you any advise as to what the effect is of moving your canard back a couple of inches, giving it some sweep, adding lightning protection, putting landing gear in the middle of the naca scoop, etc.

if you look up "fiberglass molds" or "fiberglass moulds", you will find a lot of videos on the subject

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longez The Longez has considerably more room---and uses some of the strakes for baggage. The Varieze strake only hold fuel. The Varieze wing connection is its weak point. If properly built and maintained, it is ok. That is the crucial part that you would have a hard time getting hold of. The Longez, Cozy, Eracer, Berkut+ other wing connection is pretty much bullet proof (very robust).

The search tool on this site works really well. Keep in mind that there have been quite a few newbies out there who have actually said that they don't want to take the time to search through the posts (because they would rather someone else take the time to answer). The first place I go is the CPs and Cozy newletters and Central States newsletters (but I don't have all the CSA newletters---I have everything else). I actually take the time to catalog all the articles within an excel spreadsheet----which I use a lot. Then I check the websites and use the search tool. Then I go ask questions.

I am at BLM (about 30 miles away)----I might be able to fit you into my hangar if interested.

I agree with the effect----or I should say that the wind (speed) MAY prevent the rudders from deploying all the way. However, I always thought that the springs were there to make sure that you can get full depression on the brakes without ripping your rudders off. Note: Cozys and Berkuts have springs----Longez's don't (unless modified to follow Cozy-like design).

You would have to go reread your first and then your second post to understand----the answer is----you started it within the thread that you started

I think that many newbies assume that the risk for the automotive engine in the airplane is the same. You can talk about gear reduction all you want---but I don't newbies quite get it through their head that they are driving the auto-engine to rpms that their car rarely goes to. I am NOT slamming auto-engines----but you don't get auto-engine reliability in an auto when you convert an auto-engine for aircraft use. Did I say those rpms are smoking?

Front seat is very roomy. Backseat is not. The front is pretty wide at the shoulders (Cozy MKIV actually comes closer to the shoulders) and you can easily put your elbows into the strakes for a really wide feeling. In the back, you can't really put your elbows in the strakes----and it narrows down quite a bit. I have had some tall people in the back---about 6'4" or so---not going to say that they were exactly comfortable---but they had fun. Backseat comfort is really more a function of how you actually build the backseat---which is not part of the plans. In the plans, the backseat is just a hole in the back with a cusion. Putting in a thigh support and a back support can really make things more comfortable. I can't overemphasize the point that small modifications add an extreme amount of time to the build. When you follow directions, you can build pretty fast. When you don't, you have to spend a lot of time figuring out what the next step is---and how that change just rippled thru the plans. The basic plane either fits your needs or not. If the backseat is not big enough, I would look at another airplane like an RV. I thought you had stated before that you did not want a long build time----you are most surely guaranteeing one.