Long EZ jet crashed

BSBD

Sounds like the man built one heck of a airplane too

“ooley told Kitplanes Magazine the aircraft took off at 80 knots and that was the approach speed. It cruised at 250 knots true on 31 GPH and had a 4.5 hour range”

 
I just re-read the two-part KitPlanes article. He had an engine failure in the past, but made it back to a runway. The fast downwind landing ignited a brake fire, which caused extensive damage to the plane. The pilot flew 737s, I believe, as his day job (ATP, several type ratings.)
 
Awh man... that’s really a shame! :(

Cool machine!

RIP
 
I thought tthat was greg richters aircraft formerly of blue mountain avionics.
 
FORANE said:
I thought tthat was greg richters aircraft formerly of blue mountain avionics.
Click to expand...

Greg’s was a Cozy but Robert & Valerie (EZE Jets) at Covington TN help build his as well.
 
Sad, but that's the hazard of a test pilot..he will be missed.
 
A CFI brought me up to M04 and I met them, about 6-7 years ago when they were building that plane. Sad to hear the news. it was a really impressive project.
 
This is spooky as hell - this morning, awake before the kids for once, I grabbed my coffee and a random magazine form my Unread stack. Guess which one I read . . .2018-09-03 12.43.51.jpg

R.I.P. Pilot.
 
Oblivion said:
This is spooky as hell - this morning, awake before the kids for once, I grabbed my coffee and a random magazine form my Unread stack. Guess which one I read . . .View attachment 66864
R.I.P. Pilot.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I shot that photo... I will put more photos back on this thread later.

This year at Oshkosh, I got to spend some time talking with Lance. He was talking to people about his plane and about the time one would finish, another would walk up. I was just standing out of the way waiting. He noticed me and finally told a guy who walked up that I had been waiting patiently for a long time and he walked over to me. I told him I was in no hurry and explained that I was the photographer that did the air-to-air shoot with him the year before. His face broke out in a smile. He was so happy to talk to me. He laughed and asked me if I remembered what I asked him to do during the shoot. I said, "Yes, I told you to smile!" He started laughing and asked if I knew how hard it was to fly not only that close, but at that slow of a speed. He said he had his hands full. I told him I thought he was just playing the fighter pilot role and trying to look the part.

I'm glad I got a chance to have a great conversation with Lance. He was a great guy. Without guys pushing the boundaries, what fun would aviation be? I'm thankful that guys like him are willing to try new things. I'm so very sad today.

41054304282_94c9afd8a8_b.jpg
 
All amateur built aircraft are experimental by definition. This one truly was by any definition. As such there are far more inherent risks in this type of experimental than in the standard experimental amateur built that 90%+ of builders attempt to build and fly. It takes vision and guts. RIP.
 
If it was a structural failure, hopefully learning will come from this that leads to an improved version so that others can keep his idea going.

Blue skies and tailwinds...
 
I can't help but think back to two brothers who took crazy risks trying to figure out how to fly.

Guys like Lance that fly truly experimental planes cross boundaries that, even as pilots, few of us would consider. He knew he was flying something that wasn't as safe as your common GA plane, but he was having a blast doing it.

I think the aviation world is worse off today. Many people are content to just dream, he lived his.

Should my end come while I am in flight,
Whether brightest day or darkest night;

Spare me your pity and shrug off the pain,
Secure in the knowledge that I’d do it again;

For each of us is created to die,
And within me I know,
I was born to fly.

— Gary Claud Stokor
 
Lowflynjack said:
The report is out. Sounds like bad practices when building. Too bad. Still a sad day for me.

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2020/04/aircraft-structural-failure-hooley-jet_8.html
Click to expand...
"The witness who was the owner and operator of Jet Guys reported that, about 2 months after the accident airplane's first flight in 2017, a flutter event occurred with the accident airplane's left wing. The witness stated that he saw the flutter event on a video that the accident pilot had showed him. The video camera appeared to be mounted on the left wing, and the video of the flutter event showed the left winglet moving forward and aft, in a back-and-forth motion, about 4 inches and about one revolution per second. The witness thought that the airspeed during the flutter event was 232 KIAS. The witness reported that he was unaware of any structural repairs or modifications to the accident airplane after that flutter event."
Of course, with flutter, the best practice would have been design practice. Flutter will destroy any plane's structure, rapidly.
 
Test pilot can be risky business, but it sounds like some additional unnecessary risks were taken here, based on the Kathryn's Report link the pilot had at least once gone (presumably) well over Vne

Composites are incredible and don't fatigue (at least not the way metal typically does) but everything has a limit

**also, flutter is the real deal. That dude in Australia should be paying attention
 
Tantalum said:
Test pilot can be risky business, but it sounds like some additional unnecessary risks were taken here, based on the Kathryn's Report link the pilot had at least once gone (presumably) well over Vne
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that airplanes should not be tested beyond Vne? Some testing standards *require* it.

Nauga,
beyond and back
 
nauga said:
Are you suggesting that airplanes should not be tested beyond Vne? Some testing standards *require* it.
Click to expand...
No. I understand Vne is related to (and lower than) Vdive or Vdiveflight as well as the structural cruising speed Vc, which is based on wing loading, and are often exceeded for testing to explore flutter, and confirm design parameters, etc

...BUT, and this could be an incorrect inference on my part.. but the way the writing was done in the Kathryn's Report article it seemed to suggest that this was more of a "how fast can she go" cowboy-esq flight vs a well defined engineering test flight.. "Yes, I went 22 knots past Vne to do flight testing" vs "Have I been past that [airspeed]? Yeah, it was exciting, and I won't tell you how far I went past it."

It also sounds like there were some known flutter event issues with the left wing, and it's unclear if those were resolved, or how. Clearly the structure failed and this was not one of the plane's first flights. Presumably there were more Vne excursions than what testing would call for (or maybe not)

Sucks either way.. poor guy is dead and a real cool piece of flying machinery is gone.
 
donjohnston said:
What dude in Australia? Is someone down there building a jet powered Long-EZ?
Click to expand...
The guy who was building the 300 knot totaled-car-Audi-engine airplane who was experiencing landing gear destroying flutter during a taxi test which he was trying to resolve by wiggling the wing tips by hand on the ground. It takes some real science to build a plane
 
I think every type certificated production airplane as part of its initial flight test has to be flown to 105% of its never exceed airspeed before being delivered to a user.
 
Tantalum said:
...but the way the writing was done in the Kathryn's Report article it seemed to suggest that this was more of a "how fast can she go" cowboy-esq flight vs a well defined engineering test flight.. "Yes, I went 22 knots past Vne to do flight testing" vs "Have I been past that [airspeed]? Yeah, it was exciting, and I won't tell you how far I went past it."
Click to expand...
1) The 'writing...in the Kathryn's report article' was the NTSB final, and 2) I expect the setting of the quote you bring up is as relevant as the words. It was spoken "in a narrated webinar titled "So, You Want to Build a Jet?"" and I expect the audience was not looking for a detailed description of the envelope expansion tests. I've had much better-known airplane designers decline to tell me their test limits in a public setting, and I understand why they might choose to do so. I've also been on/in/around tests that inadvertently exceeded limits, sometimes by a large margin, and there's no way in hell I would broadcast numbers like that to the general public. The attitude you describe may have been an issue, but I don't think there is sufficient information in the final for someone not involved to know. Maybe there are more details in the docket, it's on my must-read list, but for the time being I'm not jumping to conclusions.

donjohnston said:
What dude in Australia? Is someone down there building a jet powered Long-EZ?
Click to expand...
Australia, Georgia, what's the difference?

Nauga,
verbatim
 
Last edited:
nauga said:
1) The 'writing...in the Kathryn's report article' was the NTSB final, and 2) I expect the setting of the quote you bring up is as relevant as the words. It was spoken "in a narrated webinar titled "So, You Want to Build a Jet?"" and I expect the audience was not looking for a detailed description of the envelope expansion tests. I've had much better-known airplane designers decline to tell me their test limits in a public setting, and I understand why they might choose to do so. I've also been on/in/around tests that inadvertently exceeded limits, sometimes by a large margin, and there's no way in hell I would broadcast numbers like that to the general public. The attitude you describe may have been an issue, but I don't think there is sufficient information in the final for someone not involved to know. Maybe there are more details in the docket, it's on my must-read list, but for the time being I'm not jumping to conclusions.


Australia, Georgia, what's the difference?

Nauga,
verbatim
Click to expand...
Why did I think Raptor was Australian??

That's a fair point on the non disclosure of the high speed tests.. I haven't read the whole thing either but I intend to do so. There seemed to at least be a hint that the Vne excursions were potentially culpable

So.. when you build a home built experimental, say from Vans, are the builders required to do the full bout of flight testing to explore the envelope limits or does Vans already publish such figures?
 
Tantalum said:
So.. when you build a home built experimental, say from Vans, are the builders required to do the full bout of flight testing to explore the envelope limits or does Vans already publish such figures?
Click to expand...

Require? No. Strongly recommend, yes. It is hard to tell individualists like homebuilders exactly what to do and to expect them to conform. ;-)

It is good form to use your 25 or 40 hour Phase 1 test period to test the performance of the aircraft. VNE, maybe not so much on an RV, because Van's has already done that for you. Same with flutter testing. Probably not a good idea for anyone but Nauga. To that end, EAA publishes a set of test cards for EAB's that will lead you through a flight test sequence to validate your aircraft's performance. Some people are diligent enough to follow a program like that, and others fly around in circles for 40 hours. On one of Van's designs, where there shouldn't be much individual variation, it is a reasonable assumption that one RV-6 performs about like another RV-6. On aircraft that are less proven (particularly scratch built aircraft) it is more critical for the builder to do a test program to make sure the aircraft performs as expected.
 
Last edited:
Saddest thing is had he built it properly it probably would have held together through everything he put it through. Those designs are pretty sturdy, if you remember to wet all the cloth with resin. Doesn't work as well when you don't.
 
kyleb said:
Require? No. Strongly recommend, yes. It is hard to tell individualists like homebuilders exactly what to do and to expect them to conform. ;-)

It is good form to use your 25 or 40 hour Phase 1 test period to test the performance of the aircraft. VNE, maybe not so much on an RV, because Van's has already done that for you. Same with flutter testing.
Click to expand...
Van's provides limitations, and it is strongly advised to test TO those limits. Past VNE or flutter testing is strongly advised against doing by most everyone that would advise someone on testing a kit build airplane.
 
^so with building a Long EZ is it typical to do flutter testing and going beyond Vne?

At what point of owner made modifications to an existing kit (like adding a jet) is it typical to venture beyond what another engineer and test team already did?
 
Tantalum said:
^so with building a Long EZ is it typical to do flutter testing and going beyond Vne?

At what point of owner made modifications to an existing kit (like adding a jet) is it typical to venture beyond what another engineer and test team already did?
Click to expand...
When I spoke to the builder, he was clear to point out this was not a Long EZ. They had started with that design and modified it completely, beefing it up, etc.
 
steingar said:
Saddest thing is had he built it properly it probably would have held together through everything he put it through. Those designs are pretty sturdy, if you remember to wet all the cloth with resin. Doesn't work as well when you don't.
Click to expand...


I find it more difficult than you would guess. Early on I learned the hard way that I would apply too much pressure to squeegee out the extra resin. Even with a few years of modifying/repairing carbon boats I still get surprised by a void now. The last occasion the part looked great, solid tap test and I still found a dry area when trimming it to shape. There is no way I would build a composite airplane without some pretty serious NDT testing.

Some of the composite work I have seen on the raptor build really makes me cringe.
 
Tantalum said:
^so with building a Long EZ is it typical to do flutter testing and going beyond Vne?

At what point of owner made modifications to an existing kit (like adding a jet) is it typical to venture beyond what another engineer and test team already did?
Click to expand...
As has been pointed out, this wasn't a LongEZ and neither LongEZs nor this airplane are built from what one would think of as a kit these days.

If changes to the structure or aerodynamics are likely to change the flutter speed or characteristics, or change the performance such that existing limits are likely to be exceeded, then one would be wise to test them. If you don't know if your changes will have an effect and you don't want to test them then maybe you should reconsider your goals.

Nauga,
to V∞...and beyond
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top