Hangar Flying

If you have the "per-plans" mechanical landing brake (with the parallel springs running along the aft left corner of the front seat bulkhead), loop a tywrap figure-8 style around the springs, mid-length, and cinch them together.  See if this makes this harmonic noise go away.  Not saying this is your source, but if so-equipped, is a possible source.

I'll weigh in a bit here.

Flight characteristics (VEZ compared to LEZ):  Similar, but the LEZ has better harmony between pitch and roll - the VEZ is a little more sensitive in pitch, but just an aspect that one gets used to.  Nothing I would write home about, unless you are ham-fisted and try to fly the airplane with your whole arm.  The VariEze is a little hotter on landing, but the addition of trailing edge fences does a fair bit to knock off some knots required for approach and landing.

Useful load:

By-the-book, the LEZ standard max gross is 1325 pounds, with allowance to go to 1420 or 1425 with limitations (See Page 39 of the LEZ Owner's manual in the Downloads section of this website).  The VariEze, by-the-book, and assuming correctly-built sparcaps & wing fitting interfaces (one does not know this unless they built the airplane, and built up the sparcaps and shear webs in stages like I did), is limted to 1050 pounds, and 1110 pounds max over-gross (with similar limitations as the LEZ).  Rutan recommended tighter limitations on VariEzes (lower max g limits at +2.5 gs) based on forensic examination of a VariEze that had "swelled" sparcaps immediately adjacent to the wing fitting .125 inch plates.

My Eze is 617 pounds empty, and by-the-book, I have an almost 500 pound useful load.  As the builder, I opted to placard my Eze to 1200 pounds.    Doing the math, a Long-EZ, by the book, would have to weigh around 920 pounds empty to have the same useful load.  Many Long-EZs out there are this heavy or heavier, and consequently are operated beyond the max gross weight prescribed by Rutan.

One thing to look at with either airplane is the empty weight, and the placarded max gross weight.  I'm sure there are non-builder owners who operate beyond the weight that is physically placarded as the max weight for their airplane - doing this, and having a crack-up, and having a determination made that one was operating beyond the placarded weight can have some fun legal and insurance consequences.

Regardless of the type you may purchase, definitely have a qualified builder of the same type have a good look at your potential purchase.  Also, if looking at a VariEze, make sure any help you have in assessing the condition of the airplane is done by an experienced VariEze builder - there are some differences in the VariEze (wing attach, for example) that a Long-EZ-only builder may not undertand well enough to give a sound evaluation.

I have flown 5 different Long-EZs, and two VariEzes over the past 22 years.  Each one had some small level of uniqueness, based on fit, finish, engine type, etc.  They all flew very well.  I am partial to the VariEze because it suits my mission requirements.  My far-better half enjoys local flights, and some cross-country work, and I made every effort to ensure the back seat fit her profile as well as possible.  This is key.  Having built my Ezes, I added one inch of width, primarily to give a little more shoulder room for the back-seater.  I'm 6' and 210 pounds, and broad-shouldered.  A "stock" VariEze's upper longerons made solid contact with my shoulders , in the back seat.  One inch of extra width back there made significant difference.  The Long-EZ is about 1.5 to 2 inches wider than a VariEze, inside, which is a big difference if you or your back seater are big people.

Hope this helps,

-Joe Person
VariEze N79JN
Bothell, WA  (KPAE)

Good luck

Dave,

I usually look to the manufacturers' data first, when evaluating what to do.  I'd suggest looking at Lycoming Service Instruction (SI) 1014M first.  You can download this (and many other useful data) from www.lycoming.com.  Every owner & operator of an aircraft engine (and I don't care what type of aircraft it is installed in) should familiarize themselves with the myriad of service and operationl data available from the associated manufacturer.

I began using the Philips X/C oil I noted above, on the recommendation of ECI.  I have been happy with the performance of this oil, in conjunction with the use of the new ECI Titans on my O-200.

Your mileage may vary.

From what I have read, the problem with running syntheic oil that does not have certain scavenging compounds blended in, is the buildup of lead-based deposits on and around the rings.  600 - 900 hours, before this phenomenon manifests itself, according to a Shell lubrication engineer who made this statement.

FWIW, after installing ECI Titan cylinders on my O-200 and following the prescribed break-in regimen, I have stable oil consumption (25 hours/quart), using Philips X/C 20W50 aviation oil.  The engine has not shown any increase or decrease in the few innocuous oil "weeps" it has had for years. I change the oil every 25 to 35 hours now, on average.    A case of this oil lasts me the better part of a year.

All depends on a combination of whatever pre-existing or intrinsic skills/craftsmanship capabilities you have, coupled with how well you truly want to make a safe, light, and well-integrated airplane.

You can do a Long-EZ in this way in around 2500 man-hours.  This does not include studying the plans, researching of all the other things (avionics, etc.), or setting up shop, etc.,  that you will do.

Bottom line is, invest the time to do it right and do it light.  If you accept anything that is substandard (even seemingly innocuous things), you work through on a project that will end up heavy, and less safe than a "clean", well-integrated airplane.  For the airframe, begin with foam cores that are as close to perfection as you can render.  Plan your layups ahead of time.  Have good help when you need it (cutting foam cores, doing wing spars and skins).  If opting for a modification of any type, make sure it is well-proven (by others), and that you know all of the integration requirements.  If charging off on your own modification of any sorts, be methodical in evaluating it, and bounce it off of a few other qualified people.

Be careful if integrating a whole bunch of independent ideas you may glean from forums such as this - the sum of the parts can sometimes be less that expected.

Go back and read of examples of canard airplanes that were/are stellar examples of workmanship - read about Fred Keller's Alaskan VariEze (October, 1980 Sport Aviation), or George Nopper's Grand Champion Long-EZ (Sport Aviation, 1990, as I recall).  Whatever you do, don't slather/slobber the airplane together - you will be far happier in a straight, smooth, light airplane than a sloppy, heavy one.  The few extra hundred hours you spend "doing it right" are far better spent than hundreds of hours re-working things.

My two bits,

-Joe Person
EAA Tech Counselor 4418
VariEze N79JN
Bothell, WA  (KPAE)

Original Ted Hendrickson VariEze (O-200) 56 x 70 propeller for sale.
Less than 10 hours on this prop total time since new. Excellent
condition. I have three propellers now, and no longer need this one as
a spare. Happy to send pictures to interested parties. Asking $450.

contact me at ezejoe@comcast.net

-Joe Person
VariEze N79JN
Bothell, WA  (KPAE)

Bruce sez:

"Buying a homebuilt is cheaper than building one or buying a certificated airplane.
You also get a better airplane than a certificated airplane."

Begging to differ here.

I built two VariEzes for far less than what it would cost to have purchased them.  The old adage, "You can have it good, fast, or cheap - pick any two", goes a long way in the world of homebuilts, particularly plans-built airplanes.  The offset is that you have to spend time to build.  I'd rather spend the time to build (read:  "Learn") than the dollars to buy an airplane that was built (the vast majority of the time) by a total stranger.

This leads to my next point.

There is NO guarantee that any homebuilt is "better" than a certificated airplane.  On the contrary, I've seen plenty of homebuilts (both plans-built and "kit") that were not deserving of an Airworthiness Certificate.  Yes, there are homebuilts that could be positively deemed "better" than a certificated airplane, but this would have to include the ability to show that the airplane was better in all ways (i.e. comparing/evaluating the overall airplane against 14CFR Part 23, for example), and not just "better because it goes faster and costs less to operate".

I've seen homebuilts that were well-done, but that had engines and/or engine installations that were quite unsafe.

Building your own has some definite advantages.  You are the "whole enchilada" - you are the quality control officer, the fabricator, the assembler, the tester, etc., and (hopefully) you take great care & patience in doing everything as correct as possible.  I've seen these airplanes, where the builders not only build for the cost, but for the education of it all as well.

Assuming that a homebuilt that was constructed by someone else is a good, safe airplane is an unsound assumption, from my experience.

My 2 bits.