rpellicciotti

Richard, I believe that some weight savings could be had by building a gear leg for a lighter weight airplane. A long time ago, we had a Velocity RG and a Long-EZ with Steve's kit in the EZ Jets shop at the same time. At that time, we did some quick measurements of the the gear legs and found them to be about the same. None of us seem to have written notes from the event though so we are going to try and do it again. That same EZ is the one that I have borrowed the overcenter device from (it has never been finished). The gear legs are also available. I can measure them and weigh them. We just need access to some Velocity legs for comparison. It would be easy enough to make a mold off of these gear legs that I have access to but I don't know enough about it to figure out a layup schedule.

Hi Bruce, I do have the "overcenter device" disassembled and measured. I am going to start on the drawings as soon as I get my new instrument panel finished and installed. Regarding the gear legs, I would plan on using Velocity legs. That would be the easiest at least as far as I am concerned. While my airplane is down or the instrument panel upgrade, I am going to take some careful measurements of the landing gear legs. I will post them and perhaps a Velocity owner will do the comparison for us. Rick

Pictures? Location?

When you do the Long EZ wing templates, consider also doing a root template for the E-racer. The Long EZ had a taper on the root end of the wing which creates a chink in the trailing edge. This was done originally so that the Vari-eze cowlings could be used on the Long. Builders of Long-EZs today often eliminate that kink in the trailing edge and build their wings straight. The E-Racer, Berkut also have straight trailing edges. If I were going to build an Open-EZ, I would also like to have the trailing edge straight as I would probably build my own cowlings as well.

Marc, You are right, there are a lot of nice looking, nice flying Longs in the mid 30's to mid 40's. I did see one at EZ Jets the other day that had sold for 60. The question was, what does a really nice one with all the mods, big engine, good avionics suite go for. I think that describes my airplane fairly well. It was appraised by Robert Harris as "one of the 10 best Longs in the country". Although there are still some new ones being built, most of our airplanes are getting a little long in the tooth. Like you said, a lot of them look ratty on the inside and most have panels and avionics from 20 years ago. They all fly great though and I get a real kick out of running off and leaving the O-320 powered, fixed pitch, RV's in our local group. I'm a thirty year avionics and computer guy. I have put a lot of equipment in my airplane that is not necessary but I like doing that stuff. I have accepted the fact that if I ever wanted to sell my airplane, I would probably have to pull a lot of the stuff out of it in order to lower the price to the median value. That's ok though, I'll just put it in the next airplane. Sorry to hear about your problem with the prop. Like a lot of others, I went straight to the hangar and whipped out the torque wrench even though I did mine just a few hours ago. I was composing an email to you with an offer to ship my extension and Silver Bullet when I read that you had sourced one from someone else already. Hope you get your plane home soon.

I'm getting ready to install a dual MFD EFIS from Grand Rapids Avionics in it this winter. It will be really overequipped then but what the heck. I also have a Trutrak Digitrak II autopilot to install. I am still looking for someone that has done the pitch servo installation so that I don't have to reinvent the wheel. Trutrak told me that they had installation drawings and details for the Long when I bought the autopilot but so far, they have not been able to provide anything.

I turned down $70K for mine this weekend. Not sure which one of us was crazy.

Lynn, you are correct. There are two sub threads going on here. When one simply lengthens the nose of a Long-EZ and moves weight forward to balance the bigger engine, you can use the original CG box. When lengthening the cockpit area, there are two ways of doing it. 1) moving the front seat back and canard bulkhead forward which changes the distance between the MAC of the canard and the main wing. 2) moving the front seat bulkhead forward while leaving the canard bulkhead in its relative postion to the main wing. If you choose option 1, you will need a new CG Box. Like you said, if you change the distance between the main wing and the canard, you have a new design and you require a new cg box. Maybe the Berkut drivers can chime in here as they probably have a different CG box from a Long-EZ. How to determing a new CG box after changing the design (or making a new one)? It takes someone a lot smarter than me to figure it out. Hollman's book is pretty good. I can follow it (so most anybody ought to be able to). Maybe some of the aerodynamic experts on board can help us out here.

Bruce, There is negligible change in the CG with the Drybread mod. The hydraulic pump is mounted in the hell hole behind the rear seat. The hydraulic cylinder that actuates the gear (only one, operating both gear legs) is installed longitudinally, in the area where the NACA scoop would be, under the rear seat area and nearly on the CG. Most EZ's that would get this mod will also have larger engines. Extending the nose and installing the battery up front (standard practice for larger engines) will also compensate for the CG change (if any) of the gear mod. The CG does not change with extension or retraction of the gear as it swings "in plane". I don't have in any of my literature what the total system weighs. I only have references to 15 or 16 pounds increase over the fixed gear setup. I guess we could calculate it if someone knows that weight of a fixed gear bow, the fairings and the wheel pants. The fuel decrease is 10 gallons total, 5 per side. I believe that most of the FOD damage comes from the nose wheel and not the mains. In my opinion, having the landing gear in the exact same geometry, location and attach points as the original design is worth the small chance that FOD will be kicked up by the main wheels. If anyone has seen some of my landings, they will understand why I don't want my landing gear bolted to my main wing spar. I have now, on my bench, the over-center device out of another aircraft. I am in the process of measuring it, doing some drawings and so forth. My trip to Florida in January is still on. I will keep you posted. I am attaching a PDF of Steve's original web site. It shows pictures of the landing gear kit and has various information about it. ezrg.pdf

As you have already discovered, there are two sizes for prop flanges. SAE 1 is used for smaller engines like O-200's and SAE 2 is used for larger engines like a O-320 or O-360. The larger flange is stronger and therefor able to handle larger loads imposed by a larger prop needed for higher power. Your O-235 is different. Lycoming offered the O-235 with either prop flange. So, if you were an operator that had been running O-200 powered aircraft (SAE 1) and you wanted to be able to have interchangable props, you could do it. Cessna 150 to 152 transition for example. Other O-235's were built with SAE 2 flanges that were the same as all other Lycoming engines. So, when you go to order a prop for your O-235, the prop maker needs to know which hub your particular engine has since it could be either one. Otherwise, there is really no operational difference.

In the most recent Sport Aviation, there is an excellent article about Long-EZ builders. The article mentions several times that the Long-EZ has been orphaned by the designer and that a lot of builders have given up on their projects because they don't have any support. The article goes on to describe a project that was successful due to the builder receiving local support and encouragement from another builder. I was a little disappointed that the article did not feature more about the excellent community that has formed around this design. This forum, the CSA and others have done a remarkable job in keeping the design alive and actively supporting it. One thing that would be nice for Mr. Rutan to do would be to make an announcement or statement that he is completely through with the design, the Canard Pushers have stopped, the RAF plans sales are over and he is relinquishing any rights to the design. I think this would go a long way towards energizing the Open-EZ project as some who are on the sidelines, worried about licensing, rights and copyrights would be free to join in.

I do my best to buy anything I can from Wicks. They are terrific. Part of my success with them is that I get UPS ground shipments in one working day from there. It can take a long time to get something from ACS. There is a mention of prices higher up in this thread. Typically, Wicks is more expensive. I have had some success with calling Wicks and referring to a specific ACS catalog page and item number. Usually Wicks will try to match the price. Just like paying a higher tip for good service, sometimes it is worth a little to get timely service and correct orders. ACS came under a lot of critisism on customer service a few years ago. They have improved considerably but they have a long way to go to get to Wicks or Sportys' level.

According to the CAFE Foundation, a canard airplane is the world's most efficient airplane: http://cafefoundation.org/v2/pdf2/WMEA.pdf

You are right, if gas venting out of the core was a problem, we would be blowing wings off left and right. This is not an issue in my opinion but at the same time, I would not use a billet that was blown yesterday. It makes sense to use a stable billet that has had some time to settle down. How long? I don't know. Perhaps some of the others can shed some light on it. I went and read a lot on the site that you mentioned. I can think of a couple of other possibilities since you mentioned that this is happening just out of the shop: Improper handling of the materials and core. Grease on hands, oily working surfaces, etc are a NO-NO. Insufficient wetting out of the fabric leaving dry spots or dry areas. Too dense of a core material which leads to the inability of the epoxy to bind with the core. Inadequate surface prep. Cores have to be clean and vacuumed, removing all sanding dust and other contaminants before glassing. One might think that the more dense the core material is the better it would be. The problem is that the only bond between the epoxy and the core comes from the ability of the epoxy to get down in between the beads in the foam and "set its teeth in the material". If the core is too dense, the epoxy cannot get a grip. One of the things I do with my cores is that I roll a Top Flight Woodpecker over the core. I do this after vacuuming the core and before applying the micro. I didn't read it anywhere on that site. Are they vacuum bagging these layups?

I wonder if you are getting point loads on your boards that we don't get on airplane wings? The delaminations could travel or spread from there. In other words if something pointy like an elbow or knee impacts the board, that force can cause a delamination. Then, as the board flexes, the delamination would spread. This is just theory, I have never been on a board. I do know that surfing and flying run in the same families though. My friend, Dave Hirschman, worked his way through college as a professional surfer and he is a pilot. Dave's mom was one of the first women to build a Vari-eze.

As the manufacturer of the airplane (at least here in the US) it is up to you to determine the suitability of a given material and your diligence is commendable. I can tell you that I know of at least 6 or 7 sets of EZ wings that were built from the foam at Wicks in the last 10 years or so. All of them are flying fine. You have to remember that the Long-EZ plans were published 25 years ago or so. Manufacturers come and go. Products come and go. A lot of the things that go into our aircraft are not made specifically for aviation. As near as I can tell, the Pipe Insulation foam from Dow is the closest to the original foam that was used back in the 70's. I know of a couple of airplane that used Flotation Billet foam and they seem to be ok.

Nathan, you are on to the key thing here. If shorter take-off and landing are required, a constant speed prop is the best way to get it. Take off distances will be considerably less and the drag of the prop in flat pitch will allow steep approaches and shorter roll out after touch down. The main thing is that the constant speed props add about 45 pounds to the aft end of the airplane. This is a problem for the Long-EZ and perhaps the Cozy. The subject airplane, Velocity, is designed to accomodate the constant speed prop. For proof that flaps do not lower the landing speed of a typical canard airplane, the above mentioned Starship had virtually the same stall speed with flaps up or down. Why? Because the reserve lift available from the canard is used up compensating for the pitch down force from the flaps on the main wing. There is little lift left over for actually flying at a slower speed (amateur aerodynamic theory here). This is not to say that a airplane with a canard cannot be STOL, look at the Grizzly. I am just agreeing that for the Vari/Long/Cozy/Velocity/Starship configuration of canard aircraft, flaps don't help.

I think I saw a used, Brock, landing light (per plans) in the parts bin at EZ Jet, Inc. the other day when I was there. You could email Valerie and see what she has (if any). http://www.ezjetinc.com

If you can believe their figures, this canard airplane meets the LSA rules: http://www.fabenet.com.br/english/bumerangue.htm It would have to have fixed gear and a "climb" pitch prop.

I thought I was fairly good at ferreting out canards on the internet but I missed this one completely: http://www.fabenet.com.br/english/bumerangue.htm That is, until I found it.

Or, you can buy them directly from the manufacturer: http://www.gs-air.com Giovanni is a great guy and good to deal with. I have installed these lights on 2 S-LSA airplanes and I have a set for the EZrg. I will install them this winter. Nice to have position lights that draw 1 amp total.

If you have an extended nose, you can put the landing light in it with a simple, lexan cover:

When I was listing mods, I forgot to mention that the airplane has no lower winglets. I do not know what effect that has on roll rate, if any. All of the other Longs that I have flown had lower winglets. I am about to begin experimenting with the aileron fences but that is a discussion for another thread.

Yes, all I meant by this comment was that the mod does not have to cost you 16 pounds over your original, un-modded weight. There was an EZ 10 pounds to be had by simply changing batteries which netted a weight increase of only 6 pounds on this particular airplane. In other words, you don't have to pay for all of that increase if you can find some other way to lose some weight out of the airplane. I took a 330CCA battery that weighed 23 pounds out and put in a 630CCA battery that weighed 13 pounds. The mod did add 16 pounds to the airplane. Robert Harris and I both agreed after flying the airplane that the roll rate is better than most any other Long we have flown. I am not an expert on aerodynamics. We have carefully measured the airplane for conformance and the ailerons are stock long-ez sized and normal as near as we can tell. I have a stricly amateur aerodynamic theory about it. I believe it has to do with not having to push the landing gear and wheel pants sideways through the air when rolling. The airplane also has a canard that is 20 inches shorter than stock. I suppose that the shorter span on the canard could contribute to the higher roll rate. I know that E-Racers are reported to have a higher roll rate as well. What do you think about it, Marc?

I think the way to do this would be to document the source of parts, make some drawings and leave it up to the individual builder to source the parts, make the custom parts (or contract it out) and do the install. This is not a EZ mod to do but it is not as big a deal as installing the Infinity gear. Building it into a newly built airplane (such as an Open-EZ) would be a lot more simple to do. The pros and cons of the various retract kits have been hashed over a dozen times. I like the Drybread method for several reasons: Mounts to the existing Long-EZ gear attach points (no design change) gear leg is simple, composite part. No scissors, springs, air/oil shocks. Is a copy of the Velocity design that has a proven track record (100's built and flying. 1000's of cycles) Mechanical connection between the gear means that one gear cannot extend without the other one also extending. Loss of pressure in the system results in the gear extending and mechanically locking down. The one thing that I do not like about it (so far) is that the gear does not have a mechanical up lock. G loads on the gear while retracted are transmitted through the retract mechanism to the hydraulic cylinder and its attach points. The E-Racer/Berkut gear had the same problem. It was solved on the Berkut with a sequenced outer gear door that serves as a mechanical up lock. Something similar could be done with the Drybread gear. As far as the weight difference is concerned, I have documentation with my airplane that shows the installation of the gear and its systems added 16 pounds to the airplane. I changed batteries and gained 10 pounds of that back so the net difference is 6 pounds. Performance wise, it doesn't do much for the airplane's top speed as compared to a plane with well faired in gear legs and wheel pants. 5 or 6 knots maybe. Where it really makes a difference is in climb and roll handling. When the unfaired gear comes up, the climb rate doubles (at 100KIAS). The roll rate is about double of a lot of Long-EZs that I have flown. I have not priced the components from Velocity. That's on the to-do list. Bruce, if you ever run across my friend, George Markey (Ultrabat), down there, tell him I said, "Hello".