Hangar Flying

Until recently, I didn't put too much stock in a motorized nose gear system.  However, I hurt my back lifting the nose not too long ago and I'm now more interested! Still, every time some mod gets made to the plane, it manages to ground me for several months and I really hate that. So I'm now considering an interim solution. I'm considering one of two solutions. 1) make some kind of lock on my manual system so that the nose can be securely parked only part way down. If the nose is even just one foot off the ground, it helps considerably with lifting the nose manually the rest of the way. 2) Extend the height of my nose dolly (how I normally park and maneuver the plane in/out/around the hangar). Option two doesn't help when I'm away, but it still helps at the homebase.

I don't really believe the Long Ez is as "dead" as is made out here. Significant number of plans were sold (thousand +), significant numbers have been completed and flown (700 +) , and significant numbers have  languished in construction or after being built. I believe it is these languished projects that more often you see being sold for cheap, although I have also seen an occasional true flightworthy bargain.

Even in its hey day, though, the design was "unique". One has to be somewhat educated in its special features for it to be truly appreciated. That is already a barrier to many tradionalists. The design was always more expensive in time and materials than metal airplanes, and that is even more of a factor today considering the poor state of the GA economy. Also, tandem seating is not preferred by most.

Unlike the ubiquitous RVs and true for even the Cozy Mk IV, the Long Ez is not being promulgated by anyone. In fact the design was abandoned due to unwarranted legal issues. The charismatic leaders of the type are now retired. Nevertheless, the plane is still being built, has a loyal following, and is still active in several forums. Even though the design is 40 years old, it still offers great performance and modern aerodynamics. By all accounts, this year's gatherings, such as at Oshkosh and Rough River, have all been well populated by the type.   Long live the Long Ez.

I own a LongEz with an O-320 and if I were to tackle my battery and wiring system in its entirety, I would take the battery out of the nose and mount it nearer to the engine. Probably, just behind the passenger's head or below his/her thigh support. With this configuration I see at least two significant advantages. 1)Weight and length (resistance) of thick cable runs to the engine is minimized. 2)It helps to keep the electrically noisy cables away from noise-sensitive wiring to the avionics. It also puts the battery in a warmer location than the notoriously cold nose, for greater performance. By the way, I use an Odyssey PC625 battery which is considerably lighter than the standard Gill25 battery originally used, and can be mounted in any orientation. I'm pretty sure I could get away with an even smaller battery, if I were so inclined.

The battery in the nose was good for weight and balance when the plane was originally designed and built to plans. However, considering the customizations in most planes, with electric retract, more heavily instrumented panels, lighter alternators, starters (making heavier O-320s more practical), lighter cowlings, disuse of heavier aluminum spinners, etc., I think that even if some additional nose ballast was still required for W&B, the advantage of a more reliable electrical system is worth the penalty. Furthermore, this ballast could be smaller and placed even more forward than where the battery would fit.

You didn't say what engine you have or if you have a standard or lengthened nose section, but you will still be able to get your CG correct with the battery out of the nose. I have confidence you will do a proper W&B.

Yeah that is interesting about what the factory guy said. Your intuition proved correct. Kudos to you. It may be that our gear legs are flexible or resonant enough to be particularly sensitive to disc warping. Afterall, there aren't too many aircraft types around with purely composite legs.

Kevin, If it is not too late, you might want to investigate using Transtar 6134 Gray Epoxy primer (and 6144 activator). It is an easy to work with, 1:1 mix, zero induction time primer. Available in quart sizes for about $38 for the primer and $31 for the activator. It claims to be compatible with most paint systems. I don't know what its UV blocking properties are. I've used it a little bit on a metal plane, liked it, and intend to use it on my Long for some spot painting.

Of course the engine rubber mounts can go bad, but usually after some aging. 13 years can be more than enough aging. Does the rubber have cracks? Are the bolts much closer to one side of the ring or generally in the center of the ring (in other words does the rubber show a set or sag)? The rubber is normally pretty hard, but when I replaced mine, they were like rocks...not capable of attenuating any vibration.
I would consider the possibility of a cracked engine mount. Carefully look over your aluminum extrusions and your motormount welds, especially around the dynafocal rings.
Just a thought.

Dave, thanks. I only have the ignition module (with the sensor in the magneto hole), so I must have a later version. Thankfully, it has been working well. At one point last year I was having a kind of "miss". I discovered one of the 12Vdc power wires at the ignition on/off switch was separating from its crimp connector. Fixed that and the "miss" went away.

The McMaster O-ring catalog number I mentioned is for the 75 durometer Viton. The Cleveland specified Buna-N O-rings are 70, so I figured I better stay as close as I could to that softness. I would have to disagree that saying Viton is like saying "rubber". However, I do know there are several Viton formulations, but the standard "A" formulation seems to me like the best for this application. Ordering from McMaster's is easy for me, but if there is a better brand or vendor, it would be good to know.

Incidentally, I just looked at some specs for the HSN/HNBR formulation. Seems much superior to generic Buna-N, but there was specific warning against using with brake fluid. The reference didn't mention which kind of brake fluid. I'm not expert at any of this, but I have not yet come across any such warning against Viton.

The point about keeping the Nylaflow a bit further away from the calipers makes sense, even when using the 83282 fluid. I'll look into how I can do that with my LGEZ.