Drew Swenson

Ron---if the builder just set a flox pad and set the toe-in, then I would not be going back to correct anything. The camber was set in a way that actually brought the brake disks very close to the gear legs---top of the wheels pointed in by 7 degrees (sitting on the ground). The natural state with no weight should show top of the tires pointed out (some where around 10 degrees with the bottoms pointed in). Just to put things in perspective---when you are setting toe in, you are only shooting for 0.25 degrees by plans. If you just set that, you will be fine. I am not off by a fraction of a degree in camber---I am off by 7 degrees. You don't get that way by accident---you had to work hard to get there. With the wheelpants off, it looked like I had retract gear that had started to retract. It was very clear when the plane was jacked, that the builder intentionally set the camber for zero degrees suspended---but did not understand the impact of spreading gear. Looking at a Velocity builder site where the builder was setting the toe-in---evidently, they shoot for 10 degrees downward camber while suspended. I was shooting for 8 degrees (7 deg + 1 for slop). Thought it was pretty interesting that the two numbers came out about right. Small divergence: My aircraft is a very pretty airplane---and the builder did a good job. The builder incorporated a lot of mods---most of which I don't care for---and some are great: Goods that came with the aircraft -electric nose gear -rose ignition -internal sumps -Nice air vents in the wheelpants -Nice removable nose access door that has tiny springs incorporated. When you undo the screws, the panel sort of pops out and is easy to remove. -electric speedbrake Goods that I have put in the aircraft. -Bluemountain EFIS lite G4 -Dynon engine monitor -Strong electric trim -solid state turn coord -Infinity stick -laydown master cylinders OK--but not for me -no center arm rest and map pockets removed on the other armrests to give more butt room. Since there is no center armrest,the throttle and mixture are push pull cables on the inst panel. I would rather have the room for the flying stuff than for my butt. The wideness of the seat should not really be a problem for anyone. However, the wider canopy and canopy frame would have been a most welcome mod. -No step incorporated to get in the plane. -Unique headrest system that is incorporated in the canopy frame itself. While it is pretty nice, the lack of a normal "passenger headrest triangle" does not lend itself well to a gas strut. My prior Longez (and other Cozys for that matter) had a mod for a gas strut. With the canopy closed or open, the gas strut was completely unloaded---and with the canopy closed, it had a nice downforce to it. Because of the geometry, the gas strut is only unloaded while open----and is exerting strong force while the canopy is closed. Also because of the geometry, the canopy has a tendency to blow closed when the wind is blowing. So the headrest system really "opened up" the cockpit---but had other unintended consequences. Others -tank drains located underneath aircraft (attached to internal sumps). I would rather have the drains in the normal location since that is where water will show up. Now I have to stand the plane up and wait a little while for the water (if any) to seek the new low. -hard brake lines with internal diameter too small which made braking extremely difficult. This was not necessarily a mod---but the builder ignored the correct line to use---or did not understand what inside diameter you were supposed to use. -nose gear was attached to the upper joint with hardware screws (like from ace hardware) instead of the ones called out in the plans. This resulted in the nose gear shearing off during a backfired start with the gear partially retracted---this crushed part of the nose -breather tube inside diameter was way too small. This resulted in the builder blowing a nose seal and losing all his oil----forced landing----and a rebuild on his brand new engine. He put the same size line back on and put in a blow valve in the line. I removed it all and put in the correct size line. -Lot of plastic type clamps within the engine bay---I removed them all---many were brittle and fell apart. -axles were mounted in a reverse camber and an outward toe (now corrected). While the gear legs were wrapped in fiberfrax and heat tape, there were no heat shields (corrected). For the most part, I am not big on mods---unless you have thought thru on the second and third order effects. And--while I consider my aircraft a really good aircraft, I have had to undo a bunch of stuff---and live with others (or live with it until I do something about it---I put off the gear legs for about 3 years---the dangerous stuff, I took care of right away.

Almost done with the fix. With the plane sort of mid loaded---the axle camber was 7 degrees in the wrong direction---and had toe out. I measured all the angles with the plane mid loaded---then jacked it up to measure the deltas with the gear sprung back in to its natural position. What i found is that the camber with the weight off was exactly zero on each side. Hmm---so that is what the original builder did. Once again---another builder trying to out-think the plans... I needed to get 7 degrees of correction---and I have it another degree just in case. In case you are wondering, this is a BIG correction---shims won't work. I got great advice via email from several builders---thank you. Most of the advice centered around how to measure---and reset to the desired values. This information was MOST helpful. For actually resetting the position, here is what I did: -Removed the old flox pad with a dremel. -Overdrilled the existing axle bolt holes until I could move the axle enough to get the angles that I was looking for. -Dry fit the axles with washers as shims to get me sort of close. -Once I was satisfied, painted a coat of epoxy on the gearleg where I was going to mount the axle. -Loaded up a big glob of flox -Bolted the axle (with grey tape release) to the gear leg with the correct number of shims---then adjusted bolt pressure to get the angles that I was looking for. Camber was easy----toe in much harder since we are talking fractions of a degree. -Once dry, removed the bolts. Bolts had to be twisted to break the bond---then pounded out. Not difficult---but I was hoping that the axles would remain attached---but did not. -Redrilled the overdrilled holes--since they were partially filled with flox from the mounting -Used a Q-tip to coat epoxy inside all the holes. Then filled the holes with flox---then let it dry. -Cleaned up all the boogers. Mounted the the axles with clamps, then drilled the proper sized holes with a really long drill bit. -Removed the axles and clamped on new backplates and drilled. The plane is now sitting on the gear. The camber is between zero and 1 degree (in the good direction). I'll be checking on toe-in today. The toe-in is hard to get. If I am off a little, I may use the shims that Spruce sells (I think they are only in 1/4 deg incs though. But if I am off, that is all that I will be off. I am shooting between 0 and .5 toe-in. However, I want both to be the same---so if different, hopefully only a 1/4 deg will be needed. While I was at it, the axles had a custom connection point for the wheel pants. Never liked it---it always broke. Bought new axle nuts that already have an offset for the wheelpant incorprated. I like it---but can't get it on enough to get the cotterpin holes to match. Will be looking at solutions this week---involve machining or grinding off some of the base (which would match the regular axle nut better)---or elongating the holes. Also, the wheelpant fit differently since all the angles changed. Just have to move one bolt location (the one that attaches to the axle nut). Also had to carve up the wheel hole---looks good. Just keep in mind that the wheel massively sits differently in the wheel pant.

You can use rudders (as airbrake or not) over the complete aircraft flight envelope. The actual speedbrake is designed to blow back at a speed just above approach speed. I have electric speedbrakes, so they don't blow back. I only use them near a place I intend to land. If it gets stuck down, you won't last long airborne since you will cook your motor fast (blocks the cooling inlet). On the flight models---I have not been all that satisifed with any of them for canard aircraft. The handling just never really feels like the real thing. I would not judge a particular aircraft based on its flight model.

I believe that a Harrier design incorporates this to keep the hot exhaust off the tires. So why would you think it would be cool to incorporate this into a design? What effect are you trying to achieve? Sticking with the plans is the fastest way to finish---modifications are very time consuming.

I have a couple of cats here at work----as well as a couple of scaled prototype electric cats---and in the process of laying down a full scale electric cat. First electric cat going into the USS Ford. Oh---I have some jet car tracks too---asked to see if I could mount seats on it---they thought I was crazy---maybe so.

D Rutan and M Melville built their Longez's simultaneously with more or less the method that you mentioned. But they literally built side by side. For example, one would build 2 of one kind of bulkhead and the other would build 2 of another. From what I read, the person who did not build the part, got the choice of the two parts (pretty good quality control). Might be kind of difficult to get a lot of people building parts that would match your schedule. It would be pretty good to build with a buddy----2 of the same plane.

Thanks much!

I am about to fix my axle camber---it is about 10 degrees off. The builder installed incorrectly (my guess---he wanted the gear to be straight up and down but did not account that the weight would spread the gear. It is enough of an adjustment to where I cannot use the same holes through the leg. My thought was to slightly overdrill the original holes to make sure that any slimy gunk/dirt was removed. Fill with wet flox. Sand the original flox pad off. Remount and redrill---the holes would more or less go in the same spot--just at a slightly different angle. Thoughts? Also, I need to get both wheels off the ground at the same time to check the toe in while I am remounting the axles. I have electric nose gear---so I can put saw horses either under the spar or the bottom of the fuselage and let the nose do the work. Looking to see if anyone has a good picture of this evolution---don't want to crush anything.

Are you using a foil ant on the bow leg? If so, it will break due to the bow flexing. Need to make sure that you have the proper sized ant---and located in an area that won't flex like the bow leg. The meter will help you troubleshoot.

Follow the directions closely. Gear has to be all the way down---longerons have to be level (use wood under the nose gear to level---but make sure you either reset the scale to zero with the wood on it (or subtract it and the moment out)---make sure it is level left to right. You will probably need some ballast to hold the nose down----make sure you subtract that weight and moment out also. If you have a "standard" EZ, the inst panel will be at a known location---you can determine the pilot seat location from there by measuring. It is not complicated---making a spreadsheet really helps when you want to play around with different configurations (especially for a Cozy). I carry a quick reference graph with me that shows me how much ballast I have to put up front for various pax weights sitting next to me. For the most part, I don't worry about how much fuel and pax in the rear seat since it is pretty near the CG. However, I built my ref chart with the changes in fuel and rear pax weight in mind (the ballast weight is always conservative). Since that last paragraph is kind of complicated---said another way---my quick ref graph has only one input (front seat pax wt). The output is ballast wt---and considers the range of rear seat and fuel wt.

Check for printing N-number : N324VR Aircraft Serial Number : 861 Aircraft Manufacturer : LEWINSKI ROMAN R Model : LE61 Engine Manufacturer : LYCOMING Model : 0-235 SERIES Aircraft Year : Owner Name : HAKIM ABRAHAM J Owner Address : 1605 N 3RD ST MONROE, LA, 71201-4646 Type of Owner : Individual Registration Date : 28-Jun-2007 Airworthiness Certificate Type : Experimental Approved Operations : Amateur Built And for whatever reason, I cannot find the owners name in the pilot certificate database.

You need a stronger forward trim spring---or an additional one. Or you could put on one of the electric pitch trim motors. The problem is that your spring is not strong enough to hold the position it needs to be in with all of that speed.

<snip>Why would the insurance rates increase? In the eyes of the insurer, the Long-EZ is already a retract because of the retractable nose gear. Having RG mains should not change the status... that I can think of. Am I missing something???<snip> Hmmm. Interesting question that I may have to pull the thread on with the insurance broker. For insurance, everything is about risk (just like systems engineering). The risk that a Longez pilot lands nose gear up AND files a claim is low (if he does file a claim, I would put him in the not quite bright category). Nose jobs are easy. Bottom line, the risk to the aircraft is low. The problem is retract mains: -prop is gone 1200-1800 for a fixed pitch prop -damage to engine (I assume that you still get a damaged engine from a prop strike----but maybe not quite as bad as getting stopped by an aluminum prop -damage to bottom is pretty good---fixable---but not nearly as fixable as a scraped nose. Bottom line again--nose gear up in an ez is a non-event. Gear up in a certified airplane is terrible and will require an engine teardown. All gear up in an EZ switches the outcome from a non-event to full blown event (probably not as severe as a "certified event."

First you have to come to terms with why you want main gear retracts. If it is for more speed, you can get quite a lot of speed increases by drag reduction by properly fairing the main gear legs and fitting a good pair of wheel pants. So if you do add the retracts, you get this (over the faired legs and wheelpants) -minimal amount of speed increase -loss of gas -more weight -more complexity (increase risk to you even finishing--more time to build) -inc cost ($5000?) -inc insurance rates -inc risk of scraping up the bottom of the plane in a gear up landing (and possibly trashing the engine). You only scrape up the nose on a conventional EZ. -increase risk of damaging the wingspar in an offroad landing (or running off the end of the runway---unless you keep the gear up). On the conventional EZ, you will just rip the gear off the belly----more damage with the retract. Now if you just want your EZ to look cool and carry a lot more risk for a little speed increase... Note that the Berkut gear does not attach to the spar---which eliminates those kind of risks.

Also try using AOPA's Flight Planner which is "free" if you are a member. It is a great way to plan the flight. Fill out your takeoff and destination points and altitude and it will fill out the rest (you can have several performance profiles). If you don't quite like the route, you can graphically move stuff around. It will print out a map, flight plan, and kneeboard card with everything except the com freqs. I also use airnav.com (free) to get a quick look at how to do a cheap crosscountry flight. You input your airport criteria and aircraft data, and it will figure out several flight profiles to minimize your gas cost. These are a couple of ways to speed up your planning process---and still keep to the old school methods (paper on your knee).

Let me get back to my point which seemed to confuse the issue as to what airplane Denver had. Denver ran out of fuel due to bad headwork. You can say all you want about having fuel in the nonselected tank----but running out of gas on either tank on these machines is BAD headwork/pilot error. He continued bad head work and tried messing with a fuel valve that did not operate properly----and was installed in an unfortunate location (left shoulder). He most likely would have survived by accepting the fate of the engine out and just landing on the water. Someone made mention that having the fuel valve on the seat bulkhead is bad and caused his accident-----My mention on Cozys was that if that was so....then explain the cozy design with the valve on the seat bulkhead. My Longez had a fuel valve handle on the seat bulkhead (right shoulder) and was just fine the way it was.

Just post it again in a reply---for the easy way.

On my Cozy, the handle is recessed in a "protected cup" between the seat cusions----nothing to snag. 99.9999% of the time, I fly in "both"----I have a left/right/both feed---so not really an issue for me. I can see that the seatback valve can be a nuisance for sure. Many people have come to the incorrect conclusion that a seat back mounted valve handle was the cause of Denver's crash. Not sure that everyone knew that most Cozy handles were on a seatback mount---as designed.

Not sure that I would do that----but that is certainly a very valid consideration. You need to put the instruments where you want---without any kind of weird order. You can put a long instrument on the outside, you just have to give it the proper amount of edge room. Or in come cases, it may be advantageous to cut some of the glass in the nose, make a divit in the foam and reglass.

Also watch out for your long instruments on the sides---the nose kind of tapers in.

My valve was also on the firewall with a nice torque tube going all the way back. You could feel the valve clunk into position just like it was right there. The torque tube was unlike the torque rod that the varieze had---which had quite a bit of "give" to it. Mine was also over the right shoulder---and I had no issues with it--easy to change tanks. John Denver had multiple problems: -rudder pedals not yet adjusted---so he had a cushion of some sort behind his back pushing him more forward and away from the valve handle. -valve handle not working quite right (using vice grips instead?) -valve handle on left side instead of right side (you have to let go of the stick). And if you use a bad (sticky) fuel valve---it will give you trouble on both the firewall and between your legs. On my cozy, the fuel valve is in the cockpit----but not all that different in location as to where my handle was in my longez (longez--right side shoulder; cozy--right side hip).

Pfactor caused during rotation on takeoff when the blade sees a different aoa between the ascending and descending blade. I have always wondered why we do not feel it in EZs. Is it because the engine is backwards and the precession effect during rotation is countering the p-factor? What Waiter points out is the slipstream effect caused during full power at no or slow speeds----and has no effect since no corkscrew effect over the rudders. He knew that though---his feet just automatically compensate no matter what plane he is in.

Will the nacelle fuel be separate from the strake fuel? The part I would worry about is the removal of the aft foam piece. If the nacelles were empty and you have a nose high attitude, your strake gas can sift your cg uncomfortably aft---or make your stick feel funny. The great news is that for your anticipated change, you are calculating out the data to see what the fuel will do over different attitudes and conditions----and instead of relying on gut feel (as per my answer)---relying on the data. Smart way to go.

If you want an aluminum one, measure from side to side so that you will know how wide to make it. Cut out the old one with a dremel but leave about 1/2 inch or so on the sides (and on the center piece that goes between your legs. Use the old panel to use as a template to get the rest of the shape on the new aluminum panel. You will need hardpoints to bolt the new panel too. One way to do it is to remove the foam between the remenants of the half inch remaining panel edge and flox in an aluminum strip between the remaining glass (where the foam used to be). A .093 aluminum panel is plenty stiff enough.

Hans, Let me take a different tact specifically about FBW. If you had a joystick with its outputs going to a computer and then feed that thru a 2 axis autopilot (the yaw thing would probably be too hard)---that would probably be a safe and "cool" system to "play" with as long as you kept the mech system in place and had access to the "real" stick----like the cozy stick on the other side----or always flew with a safety pilot in the rear of a Longez----very much like the space shuttle simulator is rigged. I also flew similar systems like this as a student at the Naval Test Pilot School. We contracted services with a company that has a lear jet modified with the real controls on the left and the "computer-electric" controls on the right. The safety pilot could re-dial in the controls to simulate different flight characteristics as well as different stick or yoke configs (such as a non-movable stick like early F-16s). The Air Force has a similarly configured F-16-----variable flight controls in the front, and safety pilot in the rear. I still see no safe way---nor real reason to do this as a full up round aircraft (play thing with safety pilot=yes (and in this config----not really true FBW). But if your looking for some additional things to do in the air, you could probably do that safely.