46
Hangar Flying / Looking for Les Porter?
« on: May 04, 2006, 10:32:37 AM »
Ok, I'll give that a try. Thanks.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
47
Hangar Flying / Looking for Les Porter?
« on: May 04, 2006, 09:23:08 AM »
I'm trying to get in touch with a former LongEz builder named Les Porter in Tucson, AZ. His number is not listed, and I've lost his info. Anyone know how I can contact him?
48
Hangar Flying / Long EZ on e-bay
« on: May 03, 2006, 12:56:26 PM »
Yeah, most Longs are closer to the 900 pound weight. Yes, many don't tell the true weight. My beef is that there is no standard for what configuration defines a "basic empty weight" in a LongEz. BEWs range from ships in primer with the minimum required FAA equipment to full ifr panels with 5 pound fire extinguishers and heavy conforfoam leather cushions.
My suspicion is that the reason so many LongEzs have been converted to O-320s is because the extra power was necessary to overcome the heavy builds and satisfy the original performance numbers. Some will always have the need for POWER, but given the effort and expense required for the conversion, most were just making up for a heavier ship.
Now the Ez on eBay can be had for $18k with the O-235. If it was an O-320 it would already be gone. If you're looking for an $18-$25k ship, you're not likely to be finding an O-320 ship. So, one lives with it, and probably very happily.
Me, I'll keep looking for a light ship....
My suspicion is that the reason so many LongEzs have been converted to O-320s is because the extra power was necessary to overcome the heavy builds and satisfy the original performance numbers. Some will always have the need for POWER, but given the effort and expense required for the conversion, most were just making up for a heavier ship.
Now the Ez on eBay can be had for $18k with the O-235. If it was an O-320 it would already be gone. If you're looking for an $18-$25k ship, you're not likely to be finding an O-320 ship. So, one lives with it, and probably very happily.
Me, I'll keep looking for a light ship....
49
Hangar Flying / Long EZ on e-bay
« on: May 03, 2006, 08:44:54 AM »
I've been searching for the "right" LongEz for too long. I've come across many that were heavy. There is one plane in particular that is stunning and with decent panel and one of the most clean engine installs I've seen. It weighs 985 pounds! The owner loves it, babies it, and I'm sure it flies wonderfully, for him.
I guess it all depends on what particular mix of attributes makes a nice airplane for you. I can easily see some combination of good price, nice finish, Ok engine, easy availability, trust in seller/builder, etc that could rightfully justify buying a heavier ship. Just know that your value system or judgement criteria is different from that promoted in the Canard Pusher. The Canard Pusher had a charter to defend and promote the design. No doubt, a lighter ship will more closely perform like the personal jet fighter it was designed to be. However, not every buyer can get the perfectly light ship.
From what I have gathered, a heavy ship will fly more like a U-Haul than a Ferrari, if they could fly ;-) The major penalty for weight is climb rate and range. However, my guess is that almost any LongEz will be more thrilling to fly than a Cessna 172. I would like someone else to endorse this idea.
I guess it all depends on what particular mix of attributes makes a nice airplane for you. I can easily see some combination of good price, nice finish, Ok engine, easy availability, trust in seller/builder, etc that could rightfully justify buying a heavier ship. Just know that your value system or judgement criteria is different from that promoted in the Canard Pusher. The Canard Pusher had a charter to defend and promote the design. No doubt, a lighter ship will more closely perform like the personal jet fighter it was designed to be. However, not every buyer can get the perfectly light ship.
From what I have gathered, a heavy ship will fly more like a U-Haul than a Ferrari, if they could fly ;-) The major penalty for weight is climb rate and range. However, my guess is that almost any LongEz will be more thrilling to fly than a Cessna 172. I would like someone else to endorse this idea.
50
Hangar Flying / Weight of GU vs Roncz canard
« on: April 23, 2006, 12:17:12 PM »
Does anyone know what the nominal weight difference is between the two canards? In addition to mitigating the rain effects, does the Roncz also save somne weight?
51
Hangar Flying / Smoke System for the Long EZ
« on: April 21, 2006, 09:16:50 PM »
Frank Pullano has sold his Vari-eze, but he had a smoke system installed on it.
52
Hangar Flying / Crisis of Confidence...
« on: April 16, 2006, 08:28:19 AM »
Oh, Noel,
Very heavy issues you raise. It is often is a life long goal to find "convergeance" in one's situation, interests and responsibilities. Also, it is a bad habit of the more intelligent people that knowing they can do almost anything that it becomes hard to pin their lives on any one thing. Frankly, I would rather hire a smart generalist who could be trusted to learn specialized skills on the job than a specialist who often fails at the other flexible and varied task requirements of a good job.
More education is good, go for it. Don't worry about the future bills. Unless you self destruct, you'll be able to figure out reasonable payment terms. However, education, I'm afraid, is not the sole nor necessary solution and may simply put you in a holding pattern.
The thing I've often grappled with is the circumstance of turning a passion into a job. Consider yourself lucky to have passion for aviation. At the moment, you can enjoy any aspect of it. Combine it with work politics, having to earn a living, fighting for a promotion, and low pilot wages....you might loose your passion.
Realizing that we are total strangers, I nevertheless have the following thoughts for you. You need a job were your jack of all trade aptitude (actually it is a skill in its own right) is respected. Where you find this respect is infinitely more important than the particular industry. That's your job setup. Then, you can, with no rush, earn your cfi and use it to get a part time job at your convenience. That's your passion setup.
By the way, the above does not neccesarily go against the Scaled job. I have no direct knowledge, but my impression is that while they'll take everything you got, with little pay, you'll also get great job satisfaction and exposure to cutting edge aviation. It does sound like an environment where a generalist can carve out his niche...and still enjoy flying.
Very heavy issues you raise. It is often is a life long goal to find "convergeance" in one's situation, interests and responsibilities. Also, it is a bad habit of the more intelligent people that knowing they can do almost anything that it becomes hard to pin their lives on any one thing. Frankly, I would rather hire a smart generalist who could be trusted to learn specialized skills on the job than a specialist who often fails at the other flexible and varied task requirements of a good job.
More education is good, go for it. Don't worry about the future bills. Unless you self destruct, you'll be able to figure out reasonable payment terms. However, education, I'm afraid, is not the sole nor necessary solution and may simply put you in a holding pattern.
The thing I've often grappled with is the circumstance of turning a passion into a job. Consider yourself lucky to have passion for aviation. At the moment, you can enjoy any aspect of it. Combine it with work politics, having to earn a living, fighting for a promotion, and low pilot wages....you might loose your passion.
Realizing that we are total strangers, I nevertheless have the following thoughts for you. You need a job were your jack of all trade aptitude (actually it is a skill in its own right) is respected. Where you find this respect is infinitely more important than the particular industry. That's your job setup. Then, you can, with no rush, earn your cfi and use it to get a part time job at your convenience. That's your passion setup.
By the way, the above does not neccesarily go against the Scaled job. I have no direct knowledge, but my impression is that while they'll take everything you got, with little pay, you'll also get great job satisfaction and exposure to cutting edge aviation. It does sound like an environment where a generalist can carve out his niche...and still enjoy flying.
53
Hangar Flying / Looking for a good GPS. On a budget so 396 is out.
« on: April 12, 2006, 07:43:36 PM »
Yes, I stand corrected about the Terrain Alert in the Airmap 1000...it does not have it. Actually, what I was thinking is that it has ''obstacle" awareness while the Garmin 196 does not.
54
Hangar Flying / Looking for a good GPS. On a budget so 396 is out.
« on: April 12, 2006, 10:30:36 AM »
I thought I was all set to bid on a Garmin 196. The panel page, especially for the GIB, was aluring. I'm now prefering the Airmap1000.
For less than price of a used 196, you can get a new 1000. The 196 does not have terrain awareness, the 1000 does. The larger display is a big bonus for my eyes. I'm thinking the overlayed EFIS type graphics over a map might be more useful than the panel page alone. There seems to be a philosophical difference between Garmin and Lowrance on displaying Turn Coordinator info...Lowrance does not think it A GPS should display a TC facsimile. Not a big gain/loss, aty any rate.
Anybody using the 1000?
For less than price of a used 196, you can get a new 1000. The 196 does not have terrain awareness, the 1000 does. The larger display is a big bonus for my eyes. I'm thinking the overlayed EFIS type graphics over a map might be more useful than the panel page alone. There seems to be a philosophical difference between Garmin and Lowrance on displaying Turn Coordinator info...Lowrance does not think it A GPS should display a TC facsimile. Not a big gain/loss, aty any rate.
Anybody using the 1000?
55
Hangar Flying / LongEz cover
« on: April 05, 2006, 12:39:40 PM »
You know, I tried contacting her thru her eracer website and could not establish contact. I'll try the address you mentioned.
56
Hangar Flying / Automotive Electronic Ignitions on Lycomings?
« on: April 05, 2006, 12:38:03 PM »
I was gradually coming to the same conclusion. The price difference after buying all the parts a' la carte is not significant enough considering the convenience of the experimental aviation units. Were you convinced that the long duration spark is significantly better than a standard CDI spark?
57
Hangar Flying / Automotive Electronic Ignitions on Lycomings?
« on: April 05, 2006, 08:25:09 AM »
Right, that's the unit. Why isn't everyone using these or silmilar? Any actual field experience using automotive EI in aircraft?
58
Hangar Flying / LongEz cover
« on: April 05, 2006, 06:58:35 AM »
A full set of fuselage, wing, canard, engine prop covers costs $1,700 in Sunbrella. Beautiful workmanship and durability, but ouch. I'm thinking I could have them made locally for a lot less.
Has anyone made their own covers? I know it depends on how you panelize the covers, but how much yardage would it take for a full set?
Has anyone made their own covers? I know it depends on how you panelize the covers, but how much yardage would it take for a full set?
59
Hangar Flying / Automotive Electronic Ignitions on Lycomings?
« on: April 05, 2006, 06:50:45 AM »
About a year ago there was mention of using an automobile electronic ignition system from Electromotive Inc. in canards. I believe it was an HPV-1 model, and a bunch of southern CA flyers worked it out.
The prices of these automotive units are far less than the Lightspeed and Electroair/Rose systems. The capabilities seem the same and direct crank sensors are available. Granted these auto units are not as turnkey as the aviation units, but, for discussion purposes...why not use these on our planes?
The prices of these automotive units are far less than the Lightspeed and Electroair/Rose systems. The capabilities seem the same and direct crank sensors are available. Granted these auto units are not as turnkey as the aviation units, but, for discussion purposes...why not use these on our planes?
60
Hangar Flying / Breaking down and towing
« on: March 30, 2006, 05:31:03 PM »
Now that tie-downs and outside covers are being discussed, I'l like to bring up some issues.
One of the national aircraft cover makers, having done some testing for the military, says that layered covers tend to trap sand and extremely fine grit which will grind away at canopies and paint. Also, some fabrics actually chemically attack the canopy bubble. They use a fabric, called Sunbrella, that they say minimizes this effect and I believe they use only one layer. I'm familiar with Sunbrella and it is indeed good weather proof stuff, but I do wonder about the claim against multiple layers.
Also, does anyone know how many yards of fabric it takes to fully cover a Long? Anyone with sewing patterns?
One of the national aircraft cover makers, having done some testing for the military, says that layered covers tend to trap sand and extremely fine grit which will grind away at canopies and paint. Also, some fabrics actually chemically attack the canopy bubble. They use a fabric, called Sunbrella, that they say minimizes this effect and I believe they use only one layer. I'm familiar with Sunbrella and it is indeed good weather proof stuff, but I do wonder about the claim against multiple layers.
Also, does anyone know how many yards of fabric it takes to fully cover a Long? Anyone with sewing patterns?