Hangar Flying

I may have missed something...but I think that you can build a safe oil cooler/heater installation in the nose of the plane without spending the money and gaining the weight of an additional oil pump (which, if it is feeding oil from the sump, which is at low pressure, needs to be able to pump cold oil, in order to be able to move cold oil through the system and replace it with hot oil).
You install a one-way valve on the return oil line at the point where it feeds back into the engine. You also install a cable-operated on-off valve in the oil line that feeds from the engine, again in the engine cpmpartment close to the engine feed take-off for the oil.
If you suspect an oil leak in the heater/cooler circuit in flight, you pull the shut-off cable, and the entire nose oil circuit is isolated from the engine, preventing any further loss of oil. You will lose your cabin heat, but a controlled cold descent with an engine is bettter than a controlled cold descent with no engine...
Bear in mind that you will have up to 1 quart of oil in the nose circuit that cannot be drained at each oil change, unless you devise a special arrangement to bleed that oil using a drain fitting or valve in the nose area at the lowest point in the nose circuit. If you are using a high-pressure feed from the engine oil gallery, that may be more difficult to engineer than a circuit using low-pressure oil from the sump. Depending on where your engine compartment oil cooler is currently mounted, this may or may not be a negative operating factor. In my case, the current oil cooler is mounted at the top of the firewall, and cannot be drained at a normal oil change unless you remove the cooler from its mounting, disconnect it from the circuit and drain it separately. So, with my current configuration, moving the cooler to the nose does not make the oil retention problem much worse. (I plan to remove the engine compartment oil cooler and replace it with a Setrab cooler in the nose, since I currently do not have an oil cooling problem in the engine - I have to blank off the cooler in the winter to get the temperature up to 180 degrees).

I tried a heat muff system on my Long-EZ. It did not work at all. I got next to no warm air up front.
Running a heat muff system for cabin heat in a Long-EZ is difficult for several reasons:

1.  The narrow width of the fuselage restricts the size of ducting that can be used. In my case the largest size usable was 1.25 inch SCAT
2.  SCAT tubing, because of it's irregular internal contours, is a high-drag means of conveying air. A powerful fan or pump is required to overcome the drag and pull or push the air up to the front of the plane
3.  The long air run to the front will result in sigificant heat losses from the warm air en route

If you add the reality of physics that the heat energy capacity of oil is much larger than air, then it is easy to see why it is difficult to get a heat muff system to work in a tandem canard pusher. I intend to fit a nose oil cooler system at the end of this year.

I am ready to purchase a Vari or Long. I have read much on both.
I do however, see a great deal of EXPERIENCE/KNOWLEDGE with these birds on this web site. I would be honored if some of the "Pros" could provide their list of their "10 most important items" when buying a -eze?

I will have a go:

1. Build quality
2. Build quality
3. Build quality
4. How much local support did the builder have/use?
5. Are the deviations from plans due to the incorporation of modifications which are proven and which have a positive impact on safety and operability?
6. How much has the plane been flown recently?
7. Quality of avionics
8. Age/generation of avionics
9. Origin of engine (in conjunction with 6)

I'm stopping there. Let me now expand on these items:
1-3. From a safety/longevity perspective, a well-built plane is a must. If the plane is well-built but has obsolete avionics, well, you can invest $$$ in new avionics. If it won't fly straight because the wings are unequal in dimensions, there is not much you can do about that to permanently and properly correct the problem apart from building one or more new wings, which requires skills that you may not possess.
In passing, I should note that I was specifically warned off a poorly-built Long-EZ in 2000 when I was looking for one, my advisor at the time commenting that it was possibly the worst-looking plane of its type that he had ever seen, and he was hoping that the pilot would be grounded before he killed himself...
4.  Some builders operate either in areas where there are no other builders nearby, or they shut themselves off in a cocoon and "do their own thing". I would be slightly wary of any plane built under those circumstances. The best way to prevent silly errors is to have somebody more experienced than you looking over your shoulder. I once came across a Velocity RG project in a hangar near where I live. The builder was an elderly guy, and his engine installation (which was a Mazda 13B) was the weirdest, ugliest and most bizarre-looking I had ever seen. As we left the hangar, my colleague (a Long-EZ builder) remarked that with any luck the guy would be grounded before he could fly it...my plane was built by the original builder with support from some of the best Long-EZ gurus out there, and it shows, not only in the build quality and attention to detail, but also in the way that improvements have been incorporated into it to reduce flight risks and improve operability.
5.  Very few plans-built planes are built exactly to plans. This is particularly true of planes such as the Long-EZ, where the plans were not sold after 1986, and where a lot of interesting and useful modifications originated in builder communities. 3 examples - the long nose, removal of the lower winglets, the use of an O-320 originated in the builder community, and improvements like this have never been officially endorsed by RAF or Burt Rutan. Other improvements such as nose lifts, electric trim systems, gas canopy struts are also recent developments. If you find deviations from plans, and the seller is the original builder, it is worth asking why the deviations exist. If the builder has been "freelancing" and implementing modifications not already successfully used elsewhere, I would be wary.
Example - my plane has a common sump under the rear seat. This modification was previously made by several East Coast builders, and is proven in operation. Therefore it was a modification with next to no downside and significant upside.
6. If a plane has been flown infrequently, there is more chance that you will discover problems, expecially with the engine. The more recip aircraft engines are flown the longer they last. A plane that has sat around in a hangar, particularly in a humid climate, may be hiding significant current or future engine issues.
7.  Cheap avionics are likely to prove inaccurate and troublesome. A case in point is engine data guages. I have spoken to folks working in the automotive industry who have made the point that good-quality guages are not cheap - expect to pay in excess of $150 for good ones. Cheap ones are inaccurate and just do not last. This may be significant since some builders make a lot of use of automotive guages for engine data display purposes.
8.  Ancient avionics are a pain; they are heavy, prone to failures which are expensive to repair (ask me how I know this), and with the limited panel size in a tandem canard pusher, getting enough "steam guage era" instruments into the basic panel design is a challenge. Having said that, they can be reliable and useful. I have a transponder in my plane that is 30 years old, and in weight approximates to a small boat anchor. However, the last time it was tested, it worked perfectly, and the last person that overhauled it told me that it is 30-40% more powerful than most modern transponders. So,..as long as it works OK, it is a good piece of equipment. At the end of the day, if the avionics are obsolete,you can re-design the panel and retrofit the latest and greatest all-singing all-dancing EFIS, engine monitors etc. All that takes is $$$ and some time.
9.   Based on my experience with the Lycoming engine in my Long-EZ, I would submit that there is a tendency for engine builders to assemble engines differently once a builder utters the "E" word to them. The rules allow you to put almost any type of engine of known or unknown origin on your plane. (Wood-burning? Why not? Automotive? Have At It). Leaving aside the large discussion potential around the use of non-aviation engines, I would try to find out as much as possible about the origin of the engine. If the engine was built and is maintained to yellow tag standards and all ADs are complied with, I would be a lot more comfortable than if the engine "fell off the back of a truck", has no logs, and no AD compliance records are available.
My current credit card debt is a direct result of discovering that the engine as installed in my plane was a Heinz 57 assemblage of bits and pieces with a number of ADs not complied with. I had it rebuilt following a valve train failure to "yellow tag" standards with all ADs complied with, and now it is 25 hp more powerful, and more importantly, I have a much higher degree of confidence in what is turning the bladed thingy at the back.

Some of my $0.02. Remainder being saved for my Oshkosh presentation or my Barbara Walters interview. Your mileage may vary.

Graham Shevlin
N131JF
Designed by Burt, Built by Jesse Huerta