gianmarko

:-) the headset is a quiet technologies "halo" http://www.quiettechnologies.com/ costs around 350 bucks, weights 1 ounce, isolates from noise very well, and is perfect for long flights, really feel like you have nothing on. very popular in the RV community ciao

Hi Robert polka dots are fuchsia, not red :-) co-owner/copilot is my wife and she chose the color. picture of her below. notice the matching top :-) i am running a 3 blade variable pitch prop Patriot, by ivoprop (www.ivoprop.com) they are cheap, light, simple, reliable. been using them since ages and love them. not sure they are suitable to fast canards. but you can call them and ask, they are always very helpful. i highly recommend the dynon. works really good and saved my a$$ already, when i accidentally entered a fog bank last november. my future LE will have 2 dynon. is your LE the one for sale? why you sell it?? looks awesome! ciao gm

Robert, for the moment i dont fly a canard. i have a LE stored somewhere in south italy, 50% built. i am hopefully going to get an airworthy LE sometime this year. my current airplane is at the bottom of this post :-) i hear you about the checklist. i in fact have one, but is a very small one, just 6 items. fuel is one multiple item, because it includes televel check, visual check (i can see the level of the tank through a transparent hose) and fuel pressure, even though the fuel pressure is monitored by the EIS. at any rate, i rarely take off with less that a tank full to the brim. my tank holds around 20 gallons, for over 4 hours of flight. the landing checklist is a sticker on the dash, prop pitch, fuel pump, flaps. i can load check lists on the EFIS. the airplane is an italian built microlight. not as fast as a LE but does a honest 100kts burning 3.5GPH. engine is a 912ULS. on the left side of the dash there was a trutrak pictorial pilot, at the mo i am fitting a 2 channel dynon AP.

sorry for the misunderstanding, i was not referring to you about the A&P i do check lists, but the ones i found on many popular a/c's have grown to unreasonable levels of detail and paranoia. check if i have money with me? i am sure if i kept reading i would have found an item "go take a leak" :-D recently i went with a friend for a flight with a katana. despite the fact that the airplane has just been used by someone else, he spent 20 solid minutes painstakingly executing a huge checklist. last thing he did was to grab the prop, put a foot on the nosewheel and start pumping. now, i am pretty sure this >might< have a purpose in case of a/c's with hydraulic nosewheel, to see if the thing leaks oil. but the katana has a steel bar as nosewheel. so i suspect that checklist was copied and pasted from some other airplane, and nobody ever tried to use HIS brain to amend it to fit the specific a/c. on a separate note, why the katana, which is rotax powered, has a RPM counter which indicates prop rpm? i suspect the manufacturer consider pilots so dumb that he was afraid someone would try to take off at 2700rpm... we are here talking about simple 2 or 4 seaters which are vastly simpler than your average car. how many of those dozens of items are going to affect your take-off? i suspect very few. do you run a checklist before driving to work in the morning? no? why not? check lists were mainly introduced during WW2, with a good reason. aircrafts were complex, with many systems, all manually operated, which required a lot of pilot intervention. your average cessna, given there is enough fuel, will take off and fly regardless of anything else. so i ask again everyone: do you run a pre-ride before going to work? do you know the consequences of having a front right tire (which you cant see entering the car from the left door) almost flat if you have to drive a few miles on a motorway? thats why car manufacturer started introducing tire pressure sensor in cars. i wonder why lawyers instead dont start weeding out motorists who omit to run checklists and prerides... ;-)

i am starting to have a different view on some of the aviation "totems" ;-) preflight check being one of those. do you "preride" your car every morning before going to work? and i bet in many cases it was parked in the street, where anyone can sabotage your brakes or unbolt a wheel. i bet i could paint a cross on the right side of your car and you wouldnt notice it until someone told you :-D. i do a walkaround before flying, but mostly to check if there is any new hole in the a/c fabric; our hangar is small anc crowded so we had many cases of hangar rash. but for the rest, they have invented self-locking nuts long time ago, and they work. the critical one are even wired. every now and then i open the cowls and give a look at the oily bits, but rarely touch anything. i have 2 friends who inflicted themselves an off-field landing and a fried engine due to excessive tampering with things. the rotax usually doesnt require a oil top up between changes so i check the level only before long trips. take, as example, the pitot cover. everybody uses it, and i bet there are a lot more occurrences of people taking off with the pitot cover on, than pilots taking off with a bee in it. so whats safer, to regularly use the pitot cover, and for sure end up taking off without air data, or give it up and eventually have no air data once in a lifetime? i use the pitot cover and already did 3 attempted takeoffs with it on... preflight checks and those huge checklists are just things that peole take for granted and never question their validity. a long preflight check is good if you are flying an airplane you dont know, that was maybe 4 weeks parked outside, but for your own airplane, which you even have built yourself? my small airplane checklist has 6 items, i could go down to 5. doors, belts, trim, flap, fuel, free controls. i could get rid of trim, my airplane can be flown at any trim setting. last time i flew an old, poorly instrumented PA28 i was handed over a checklist the size of a dictionary. first item was "check money to buy fuel", i got so disgusted i threw it in the back and never touched it again :-D for the criminal liability, we luckily have no such thing where i mostly fly, italy. if you crash, well too bad. and having done a preflight or not is no factor if someone is willing to go to court. at any rate, there should be more pilots and less lawyers in aviation.

sorry my friend. you have been badly misinformed, and it is suprising to hear such OWT coming from a A&P the rotax 912 has indeed been certified and can be purchased with or without FAR certification, being the difference the price and a few minor details. the 912 has never been on a snowmobile. is an engine designed on purpose for airplanes, and those who say it is a snowmobile engine are talking from the proverbial orifice. for sure, betweeen an adapted rotary and a rotax, id choose the latter any time, without hesitation.

i have been following the avionized-automotive scene since 30 years now. with few exceptions, like the VW engine, it has been a history of failures. yes, a skilled mechanic can without doubt modify a car engine and fit it to an airplane, and manage to keep it running more or less safely. but it will cost a lot of time, pain and worries. i own a small two seater, rotax 912 powered. i got it built from kit for me by a good friend. i bought the kit, i bought the engine, i paid the guy, i have now a reliable airplane. i go to the airfield, tank up, start up, warm up and take off. no time spent checking if all bolts are secured, if a leak has developed, or redesigning that bracket that has cracked, that hose that develops a kink, to reroute cables that rub somewhere and so on. i know that this engine, given air, fuel and spark, will run reliably forever, requiring a oil change every 100hrs and nothing else. in the unlikely case that something would break, spares and rotax workshops are everywhere. i fly over water or mountains without much worries. would i do the same if my engine was a back-yard job started from a scrapyard engine? i dont think so. moreover, i think a long-ez is not the airplane you want to use for testing a prototype. because your rotary adaptation will be a unique, untested prototype. use a C152 or something you can crash land with a chances of surviving. if you want to fly, bolt a lyco to your firewall. if you want to tinker, then it desnt have to be an airframe the thing to which you bolt your prototype. a car trailer would be a much wiser choice. modern engines are very specialized devices developed for a specific use. in the case of aircraft engines the following engineering principle certainly applies: light, cheap, reliable. pick any two.

thats perfects. thanks a lot

looks like the right thread for this question :-) what is the lenght of the CS spar? i am getting a used LE and i wanna check if it will fit inside my garage. i dont have the plans here, if memory serves me well, is close to 10ft long or better, wide thanks

in the meanwhile, thank also to the info i got here, i came to the conclusion than O-320 will be the poweplant in the LE i am going to acquire. thanks to all for the help, will keep you posted on progress

912 is an engine designed on purpose and even exist in certified version. it has never been used on snowmobiles. or beetles. in fact, the 912 has demonstrated high reliability, even higher than lycosaurii. and they are robust and user friendlly. no CHT or oil temp management, just use it like your car. of course, they must be fitted and integrated properly to the airframe. a 912 will routinely reach TBO and beyond with just regular oil changes.

i dont like metal props, you might wonder why, but i love composites :-) i have a ivoprop on my current little airplane and very happy with performance, weight and cost. i heard they dont perform well in fast ships, but id try one just for the sake of it. thanks for all the info folks. ill keep you posted on progress. the airplane has been acquired by a friend together with other 5 or 6, he is removing the IO-360 and fitting a O-320, then if we agree on price i will acquire it. O-320 should solve CG problems at least to some extent. airplane will be weighted and balanced, and test flown by a competent pilot. then will need to find a way to either fly or ship it here. we will see. seems like a dream i am finally getting old of the airplane of my dreams

thanks for the answers. very sorry to hear about the loss of Glenn Saunders. here on this side of the big lake we use a lot of rotax engines and with great success, i must say. 914's are very popular on gyrocopters, where are subjected to some hammering, and seem to work fine and reliably. interesting comments on the CS issue. actually, the long i am considering has a CS prop fitted, and i agree on weight and complexity comment. however here in europe rwy lenght can be an issue, so a variable pitch prop, not necessarily a CS one, would help. i remember from my building time that metal props were a no-no. how is the current situation? i guess composite is the way to go.

re the re-establishment of CG with heavier engine using ballast and such. wont that change the resonnance frequencies of the airplane in the pitch axis? to be honest the only experience i have in this matter is airplane models, and ballast will always negatively impact this type of characteristics. just a rhetorical question, my canard flight experience is very small and plenty people seem to be happily flying 320 or 360 powered ez'es. even though i clearly remember RAF discouraging this practice. but going back to my original question: i know the advantages of more power versus less power :-) however several considerations like AVGAS availability in europe, expecially in italy, its cost, up to 12 bucks a gallon or even more, the cost of spares and labour when it comes to lycosaurii, and my love for lightness were at the origin of my question. the performance of a 115hp long-ez would be perfectly adequate for my needs, and a 914 is turbocharged, with all the relative advantages. i think the lack of power would be a problem only on take off and already at 4 or 5000 feet the turbo would be an advantage thats why i was asking if anyone has ever installed a 912 or 914 in a vari-eze or long-ez. really a constant speed prop would hurt performances? why is that? at any rate, seems that the current owner is replacing the IO-360 with a O-320... thanks for all the replies folks, much appreciated.

is it possible to reestablish a correct CG with a IO360 with hydraulic constant speed prop and without using a lot of ballast? i remember Rutan recommending not to up the engine, which was adequate, and around which the airframe was designed...