aerialsasquatch

Thanks for the response Marc! That's a mistake on my part, the phrase should've been "But since it's outside of the range forward, any extra weight aft will solve for that pretty quickly". I'm mostly just relieved that's the worst mistake - I was nervous my software self was going to get something completely backwards in front of you engineer types. I completely agree - I was trying to start there, but I'm pretty wet behind the ears so will definitely not think of all the worse case scenarios at first, which is why I'm exposing the thinking to y'all much more knowledgable folks for critique. I can take a good bubble bursting, at the end of the day if the physics and difficulty just don't line up, it won't fly, and that's no good. I've seen some talk around the Limo EZ, and that seems like a possibility as far as the "can you actually sit in the thing," but that particular fellow hasn't been active in over a decade. Unfortunately the problems are many, I think: - Actual, physical fitment (depending on seat placement and panel structure, can be less or more of a problem) - CG being wildly biased forward, to the point of almost being outside of the envelope in most configurations, without significant ballast aft - MGW in general, exacerbated by any add-weight solutions to the above CG problem It's also been brought to my attention that even if it "technically flies," the weight on the canards would make my runway requirements will be pretty long, eliminating some local ports I'd definitely be wanting to access. It seems like without major change-of-plans, which is a pretty intimidating undertaking as someone who hasn't built before, the only real path would be convert to a 1 seater sitting further aft, and accept I'll never pack more than a backpack and full fuel. I'll keep dreaming for now, and start looking at alternatives in the meantime. Bearhawks and RV8s have both been recommended, and seem like pretty great planes. Maybe one of those (as in, the 2 I know that exist) Limo EZs will pop up, or I'll get the courage to spring for one and do a 1 seater conversion, otherwise I might be in search of larger cockpit waters. In any case, reading this forum, and going through this exercise, has been super helpful for my knowledge! My instructor was impressed at my weight and balance acumen yesterday as a "new to aviation" after I had started going deep on LongEZ feasibility. I'm really appreciative of all the knowledge everyone has shared, and continues to share!

@Kent Ashton I'm curious for your input here - in the DM you shared about your concerns, you mentioned the canards being able to rotate with a heavier pilot. Do these CG numbers match what you were thinking, or are there other variables I need to be considering? Definitely not out to dismiss your feedback, I've got a terrible habit of not dropping the bit out of my mouth until the point has hit me over the head several times...

Following the recommended station measurements in the handbook (obviously there will be differences between crafts, but just using it as a thought exercise for now) and assuming 0-235 just for the example, it looks like with no ballast and "worst case scenario" pilot weight wise (accounting for clothes, shoes, very important heavy things in my pockets), a 315 pound pilot, with full fuel (52 gallons) and full oil, will fall just outside of the acceptable range forward. But since it's outside of the range aft, any extra weight aft will solve for that pretty quickly, for example a heavier engine (0-320), a passenger, or simply putting some ballast in for solo flight. Seems like I might have the opposite problem than most, in that they are trying to ballast forward, whereas my CG measurement (assuming exactly to plan) biases toward needing adjustment aft. I realize I'm preaching to the choir here, but I'm adding this type of information for future reference for wet-behind-the-ears like myself coming in and searching, just in case there are any other giants interested in these things. For reference, here's a "fully loaded" example, including passenger and baggage estimates. Which stays within CG limits, though close to the forward limit, and rests between gross take-off recommendation and the max take-off recommendation when the runway is long enough. Next up is searching if others have examples of how a 320 affects max weight considerations and it's affect on CG. My assumption is since it's a heavier, more powerful engine, very aft, it would only help the situation I would find myself in, both in CG as well as weight limits.

@zolotiyeruki thanks for the input! It seems like an advanced bit of change to be making from the ground up, especially for someone wet behind the ears like me. It seems like the original design was theoretically accounting for someone up to 6'8" with some minor modifications. The more I've looked into it, the more I think my primary problems will actually be knee room and CG due to weight, as I'm 6'9", largely leg. I think, barring building my own, which is a goal but a long-tailed one for now, buying and modifying seems like my best option (if it's viable at all). Top of mind right now for leg fitment is: - Can I change the instrument panel to give as much clearance in the knee department as possible, which seems relatively straight forward, just might need to cut a new template and change / reorient any avionics that are already there. - Move rudder pedals to something that makes sense for my position once in the seat - Worst case scenario is cannibalize some pax seat space if needed (but I feel relatively confident the above two will solve for me, I've seen posts of 6'5" and 6"6 leggy folks having it pretty easy) The weight provides it's own set of problems and I'll have to read more posts here, and do some other diligence to really start to understand it. I'll be looking more into: - CG and a 300lb pilot - a 300lb pilot and gross weight. Seems like with the more popular 0-320 it's generally recommended to have a longer nose and some forward ballast (or move your hydraulics and batteries as far forward as possible), I'm curious how extra weight in the pilot seat affects that recommendation. Then off course the limitations it starts to push against with gross weight, though if it accounts for 250 for both passengers in the original documentation (PilotOperatingHandbook.PDF (iflyez.com)) if i can leech 50 pounds from the passenger allotment that makes me a bit more sure. Oddly enough, the handbook actually specifically calls out that it was designed to accommodate pilots up to 6'8", which makes me wonder which of the founders knew someone that tall they had in mind, us giants are almost always overlooked! Now to find someone nearby to see if any of this is even worth the research effort!

Hey y'all, happy to be here! I'm a student pilot, and got turned on to home builds by an instructor as an option for ownership without paying the crazy prices for traditional planes as they stand now, especially as I'm 6'9", and can't fit in almost anything smaller than a C182. I'm here to mostly learn as much as I can and figure out what my options are! I made a separate post in the Long EZ Channel here that I probably should've done here instead, but here we are! I'm located in Gastonia, North Carolina as well, and usually find myself either out on a motorcycle or hiking/camping.

Hey everyone! I'm a leggy, broad of shoulder 6'9", 280-300 pound student pilot an am starting down the rabbit hole of experimentals/home-builds as an alternative to spending $200k+ on a relatively outfitted plane where I fit. For reference, I am doing my training lessons in a C182Q, which is surprisingly comfortable, but I am wholly unable to fit/operate within a C172. My instructor mentioned EZ Longs when discussing experimentals / my goals, as I would like to have ability to fly regularly for both work and pleasure generally within a range of NC - Central Florida, with occasional flights further abound. Obviously, as I think everyone probably is, the EZ Long seems incredibly attractive for a multitude of reasons, and given the relative diversity in home builds, I'd really like to learn more about potential differences that may accommodate someone my size. I am new to this exploration, so am just looking for resources, as well as any specific modifications (or even specific crafts) that folks here might know of that may reach that goal. I've seen mention of modified panels to give more knee room above the rudder slots, moving the rudders further forward, as well as larger canopies to accommodate more head room, but my primary concern from my viewing of different folks sitting in-cockpit is the shoulder space, specifically at the top of the fuselage where the canopy rests. Happy to be here and absorb as much knowledge as I can, excited to hang around and learn a thing or two!