An aircraft for Jesse

mikea said:
I think, the wheels are pretty far outboard of the prop arc so that shouldn't be the problem. Depending on the cabin load, I might be worried about getting tossed on the tail by a bump on the nose.

The cool thing about the Rutan canard design, besides the performance, is they're un-stallable (stall-spin proof?). The canard provides 40% of the lift and is set at a higher angle of attack. If you hold the stick full aft, the canard stalls first and the lift lost on the nose lowers the nose. :cool:

I had a fantasy to build a Long-EZ in my carefree youth when I first visited Oshkosh. Wouldda been a challenge to do in a Chicago flat. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

There is a caveat to that.... the aircraft has to be constructed/assembled/rigged correctly.
 
wby0nder said:
What Jesse needs is an affordable RV3, one that needs a little TLC and hasn't hit the market yet. One that needs the spar mods and a few other tweeks and a GOOD home. If he could get into one of those for under $20k, way under perhaps, and fly it away that would rock. Someone out there has one but just isn't ready to part with it yet. When they are ready Jesse would be the man for it.

No wait, not him, ME.
Click to expand...

I don't think that Jesse would be happy with a single seater.
 
lancefisher said:
I don't think that Jesse would be happy with a single seater.
Click to expand...

yea matts 20 yrs flying gliders has made him forget that some of us like to take friends with us when we fly. ive had a lot of fun flying his flybaby, but its sorta lonely.
 
VariEZ is a 2 seat aircraft.
 
tonycondon said:
VariEZE doesnt meet short/grass requirements
Click to expand...

How short, how rough? grass is good if it isn't too rough. Vary EZ can do 1000' with good approaches/departures.
 
wby0nder said:
What Jesse needs is an affordable RV3, one that needs a little TLC and hasn't hit the market yet. One that needs the spar mods and a few other tweeks and a GOOD home. If he could get into one of those for under $20k, way under perhaps, and fly it away that would rock. Someone out there has one but just isn't ready to part with it yet. When they are ready Jesse would be the man for it.

No wait, not him, ME.
Click to expand...

There is a nice -3 on Barnstormers for $18K.:rolleyes: No spar mods yet , but you can still fly it under 4 G's. Add the spar mods and you'll have a nice sport acro plane.
 
I had a seller contact me directly with what appears to be a very nice RV-4. NAAA evaluator at TAP puts its value at $46.3, but this guy is a motivated seller and says he'll "accept any reasonable offer (I need a four place now)".

I've forwarded the info on to Jesse; if he rings back here that he's not interested at this time, and somebody else is, PM me with your email address and I'll send the detailed contact info and photos. It's silver with blue accents.

Spec Sheet:
1996 Vans RV-4, SN #1093
Based @ 88R, Spicewood, TX (Near Austin, TX)
Professional Workmanship thru out,
Color: Base coat: Silver blue metallic with dark navy blue stripes (2 shades) on fuselage and tops & bottoms of wings.
Aircraft hangared since new.
Interior: All over light gray, with gray cloth seats trimmed in blue vinyl (Fireblocked materials, w/confor foam inserts)
Times are approximate, since the plane is flown regularly.
TTSN: 715
TTSFN Lycoming 0320E2B, 1855
TSTOH 450
TSNP 200
ENGINE OPTIONS:
Spin on oil filter
Electric pad heater
K&N air filter
Quick drain oil valve
SkyTech lightweight starter
Vetterman stainless exhaust system
Sterba 68/70 prop
Gel Cell battery G25XL
AIRCRAFT DETAILS
Tru-Trak Pictorial Pilot Autopilot coupled to GPS
Garmin Pilot III GPS (Moving Map) Hardwired w/external antenna.
King KX-197A Flip/flop comm.
Narco AT-50 Transponder w/encoder
Sony CD/AM/FM Stereo
Sigtronics Intercom W/Music mute
Duel "eyeball" air vents
Seatbelts w/shoulder harness
Dropped rear cockpit floors
Rear flight controls (Stick & Rudder pedals)
Manual Flaps & Trim
ELT /w remote test panel/remote antenna
Belly Strobe light
Navigation lights
Two place canopy gust lock, with Taxi position (allows the canopy to be open, but locked in place so you don't have to hold it)
Two wing tanks, 16 gals each
Last annual March '08 New Tires & tubes, Brakes
Aircraft is built light, 917 lbs empty
Performance is per Van's reports, Solo, 193 mph @75% @ 8000', 174mph @ 55% @ 8000'
2000' ROC is normal
The plane is very clean & shiny, Canopy is perfect, & there is a small cargo hold behind the rear seat.
 
Thanks for the listing Troy. Unfortunately, at this exact moment in time, I'm not in the financial position I need to be in to buy such a thing. I'm likely looking at summer or fall 2009.

My goal is to make it happen in '09. We'll see...
 
FlyNE said:
Essentially, he needs 6Y9.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't take an EZ in there after it rained or in the winter. But it is big enough.


Runway 10/28
Dimensions: 2000 x 100 ft. / 610 x 30 m
Surface: turf, in good condition
SOFT WHEN WET; CALL 906-355-2257 TO VFY COND.


so make the call for any aircraft.
 
NC19143 said:
I wouldn't take an EZ in there after it rained or in the winter. But it is big enough.


Runway 10/28
Dimensions: 2000 x 100 ft. / 610 x 30 m
Surface: turf, in good condition
SOFT WHEN WET; CALL 906-355-2257 TO VFY COND.


so make the call for any aircraft.
Click to expand...

Lots of big trees--the EZ really doesn't accel in this area. It'd be a nice airplane, for sure, but I need short field without fear of gear collapsing.
 
6Y9 is still listed as 2000 ft, however the actual usable runway was 2500 ft this summer when I was there. It definitely does have the proverbial 50 ft obstacle, however. Also, the Long EZ has the issue of potential prop strikes at takeoff and landing if your angle of attack is too high due to its pusher configuration.

The takeoff issue could probably be dealt with just fine with enough power. A 200 hp IO-360 comes to mind as being really nice, but even a 180 hp O-360 would probably suffice. Landing might be a bit interesting, especially with the bumps on the eastern end of the runway, which to me would invite a prop strike on a pusher. A plane that has robust landing gear would certainly be important for the kind of places that Jesse wants to fly.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Also, the Long EZ has the issue of potential prop strikes at takeoff and landing if your angle of attack is too high due to its pusher configuration.

To make this happen you must over control to a point off the scale.

The takeoff issue could probably be dealt with just fine with enough power. A 200 hp IO-360 comes to mind as being really nice, but even a 180 hp O-360 would probably suffice. Landing might be a bit interesting, especially with the bumps on the eastern end of the runway, which to me would invite a prop strike on a pusher. A plane that has robust landing gear would certainly be important for the kind of places that Jesse wants to fly.
Click to expand...

the 0-320- 150 horse is all the power you need in a LONGEZ, to do a 1000' take off run and climb at 1500' per minute.

The aircraft I linked to in the first post is a VARIEZ, and they are powered by a 0-200 100 horse and do very well with that much power.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
the Long EZ has the issue of potential prop strikes at takeoff and landing if your angle of attack is too high due to its pusher configuration.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. Due to it's Canard configuration, it won't allow for that since it won't rotate before it will fly (which is why they use the runway they do and won't do a full stall landing). As soon as the canard will pick the nose up, you're flying. Also the prop to ground clearance is considerable.
 
The more I think about it, the more the Long EZ seems like a good solution.

It will operate on all the runways you've mentioned so far. It's fast, has excellent range for an aircraft its size, and it's got some really cool technology. I haven't flown one, but specs call for 160 knots at 5.5 gph. Not bad at all!

Is the gear actually a problem? I would think that it would be pretty sturdy.....

-Felix
 
Well, it was owners who'd had prop strikes that brought on my comments. So, my references could be off, but I remember when I was considering one of these planes I saw no shortage of owners talking about how care must be taken to make sure you don't have a prop strike. That combined with my short field desires (like Jesse) was part of why I didn't want one.

I also recall seeing there were a number of engine choices. While O-200s and O-235s were probably the most common, the O-320 and O-360 variants had significantly better performance. "Just fine" is all a matter of opinion.
 
Ted, I know next to nothing about the Long EZ, but it seems to me that any high performance aircraft requires skill. Maybe the Long EZ is particularly susceptible to prop strikes, but I haven't read anything that indicated that it is if you have good technique. What's the verdict from those that have significant experience in these planes?

Just seems to me that this aircraft would appeal to Jesse. It's got excellent capabilities for the money, it's a good X/C airplane, it requires a bit of skill to fly safely (shouldn't be a problem for the world's greatest pilot)...

Maybe there's a caveat I'm missing?
 
I completely agree, Felix, any high performance airplane (especially in the experimental regime, it seems) requires more skill than I believe most of the owners have. I tend to fault lack of skill for a lot of the bad rep that Lancairs get. If nothing else, from lurking on the Lancair mailing list, I've read about a number of Lancair accidents caused by sheer stupidity, and the rest seem to be lack of pilot skill.

While I don't believe Jesse would have any of the skill issues with the Long-EZ, what I read tended to indicate there were some definite airframe issues. The problem with the pusher configuration is that, as you lift the nose for takeoff, the prop gets closer to the ground. For whatever reason, it seemed that there were a number of people for whom this was a problem. I would attribute that in general to pilot skill, and on standard paved strips I would see this as being no big deal, and nothing that couldn't be dealt with by a skilled pilot using proper technique.

Thinking about short and soft fields combined with some ruts, however, I could see additional issues. Coming into 6Y9, for example, it seemed that everyone logged 2-3 landings per attempt simply because of the bounces. Keeping the nose in the air was the order of the day, and a lot of those noses went way up with the bumps. Regardless of technique, I could see that being an issue on a pusher like the EZ. On paved short fields that don't have such bumps in them, I probably wouldn't see it as an issue that couldn't be overcome by proper technique. Given the landings at 6Y9 by all the pilots, though, I would expect it to be an issue there.

While the Long EZ makes a lot of sense for all the other reasons, I see and agree with Jesse's point for where he wants to fly it.
 
Ted, that all sounds right, but I'd like to get some input from people who've actually flown the aircraft. Most of what we've read so far is not based on first-hand knowledge.....

-Felix
 
You would have to severely abuse the controls to get a prop strike on a Vari-EZ. The small wheels are not ideally suited for soft field ops, but they don't seem to have a problem taxiing to parking at Sun 'n Fun or Airventure on grass.

Here's a picture of the one in the NASM.
A19860067000cp01.jpg


And if you're interested in the Long-EZ, here's a site with one that has retractable mains as well. It includes some interesting tips on flying one, too.

http://www.iflyez.com/index.shtml
 
Last edited:
sba55 said:
Ted, that all sounds right, but I'd like to get some input from people who've actually flown the aircraft. Most of what we've read so far is not based on first-hand knowledge.....

-Felix
Click to expand...

I'd agree, Felix. Especially from an owner.
 
Steve said:
You would have to severely abuse the controls to get a prop strike on a Vari-EZ. The small wheels are not ideally suited for soft field ops, but they don't seem to have a problem taxiing to parking at Sun 'n Fun or Airventure on grass.

Here's a picture of the one in the NASM.
Click to expand...

For grass, I'd splurge for some full size wheels instead of those little economy sized ones, and go to a shorter, more efficient 3 blade prop in addition to micro VGs and castoring slats.
A19860067000cp01.jpg


And if you're interested in the Long-EZ, here's a site with one that has retractable mains as well. It includes some interesting tips on flying one, too.

http://www.iflyez.com/index.shtml[/quote]
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
I'd ... go to a shorter, more efficient 3 blade prop
Click to expand...

3-blade props are shorter, but are they more efficient? I seem to recall reading (to my surprise at the time) that 2-blade props are more efficient than 3-blade props. Just talking aerodynamically, nothing else such as tip speed or noise or clearance.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
3-blade props are shorter, but are they more efficient? I seem to recall reading (to my surprise at the time) that 2-blade props are more efficient than 3-blade props. Just talking aerodynamically, nothing else such as tip speed or noise or clearance.
Click to expand...

It depends on a number of factors in prop design. As a rule of thumb, if you take two props that are otherwise identical, the one with fewer blades should be more efficient. However when you get into an old design 2-bladed vs. a modern design 3-bladed, especially with a smaller diameter that doesn't have as high tip speeds, you can easily get a 3-bladed (or more blades, even) that is more efficient than the 2-bladed.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
3-blade props are shorter, but are they more efficient? I seem to recall reading (to my surprise at the time) that 2-blade props are more efficient than 3-blade props. Just talking aerodynamically, nothing else such as tip speed or noise or clearance.
Click to expand...
The tip speed affects both noise and efficiency. If they go transonic, not only are they loud as heck (think C-210 on takeoff) but the drag increases dramatically, which reduces the efficiency during that period. After you pull back the RPM, however, then you're getting into the area you're really talking about.

For the best apples-to-apples comparison, note that when Mooney re-introduced the 252 as the Encore (do I have the right name for it?) they tested a variety of props and prop blade configurations and ended up putting a 2 blade on it to maximize that famous Mooney efficiency (which they have since abandoned in favor of pure top speed).
 
sba55 said:
Ted, that all sounds right, but I'd like to get some input from people who've actually flown the aircraft. Most of what we've read so far is not based on first-hand knowledge.....

-Felix
Click to expand...


What would you like to know.

You can see mine in few video's on Youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2edx2I3aFU&feature=channel

You may also like to look at Ez.org and over on http://www.canardzone.com/forum/index.php

These are two very active fora that we all sor tof hang around on.

Allen
 
Allen C said:
What would you like to know.

You can see mine in few video's on Youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2edx2I3aFU&feature=channel

You may also like to look at Ez.org and over on http://www.canardzone.com/forum/index.php

These are two very active fora that we all sor tof hang around on.

Allen
Click to expand...
Allen,

Thanks for those references - I'll take a look.

Right now I'm mostly interested in how well the Long EZ would handle on grass and semi-short strips (2000' long). It seems like that might be a problem with its small wheels, but maybe not. Someone also mentioned that it might be possible to put larger wheels on.

Jesse's main objection to the EZ seems to be a (perceived) lack of grass/unimproved strip performance - I'm trying to find out if that's as much of a concern as everybody says it is.

-Felix
 
Burt specifically says that this plane is intended for hard surfaces. That said, there are a few guys out there that have put them on grass strips.
The issue here is that the gear will pick up dirt and small rocks and toss them through the prop arc. I recently had this happen when I took off from a local lake airport. I picked up something and put it through my prop. You can see some pictures here
http://www.ez.org/smf/index.php?topic=4570.0

The other issue is that these planes eat up a good bit of runway. Factor in the drag of sod and you create new obstacles to overcome.
As I said, there are many who have put in to grass strips, but not routinely, as I understand it.
 
I am sorry, but I just noticed that I did not completely answer your question.

On my plane, I run the smaller tires for drag purposes since I do not have wheel pants installed. When I bought my plane, it came with a set of pants that I just have never taken the time to finish and install. The smaller wheels are simply a compromise.


Runways distances are like with any other plane; they rely much on how comfortable the pilot is with the plane. My personal minimum is nothing shorter than 3000’. This is because our fiberglass gear legs can be damaged if we over heat the brakes. Several of my friends land on strips shorter than 2000’. Again, it’s a personal limit on my part.
By the way, my wife and I moved from San Jose back in 02’. Also, waiter, the guy over at www.iflyez.com, built his plane there in the San Jose area and first flew it out of Hollister.


I cannot say enough great things about these planes. They are the Mazda Miata of the sky. Fast, economical and handle like a sports car. To put that into perspective, Waiter would fly from the bay area to Ohio in about 8 hours… on one tank of gas. We hold the same amount as a Cherokee. (52 gallons) I flew from Melbourne Florida to Roanoke Virginia VFR and dodging storms the entire way, in 4.2 hours on around 30 gallons.


Fantastic planes.
 
Allen, thanks for all that insight. That's exactly what I was looking for!

-Felix
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top