Hangar Flying

I suspect many of these TRT250s have not yet been modified to comply with an AD that has been issued on them. Apparently, the original design occassionally did not respond to ATC or airborne interrogations, effectively making you invinsible. Make sure your TRT250 has Mod 2 & especially Mod 5. The cheaper used units are least likely to be modified and I don't know if any avionics shops will still work on them.

Kudos to all of you for having the courage to build. My impression is that even all ready built, active flyers often wind up on the rebuild/modify treadmill. I don't mean to be discouraging at all. It just seems to me that these planes are a "journey" one has to enjoy rather than being a full time "destination". (Please remind me of that when I have to fix something.)

In reference to engine mounts...
I made a little effort a short while ago asking how people have dealt with hanging the O-320. I got about a dozen responses from several places. Some bulders have beefed up the mount, especially when they are in the building stages. However, there are many, many O-320 LongEzs flying with the per plans mounts. The more important thing seems to be to add a stiffener tube if using the dynafocal mount originally made for the O-235. I have read about an occasional mount crack, either the extrusions themselves or the dynafocal/conical tubing, but those had occurred with O-235 as well as O-320s, if I recall correctly. No one has ever reported an accident or incident due to a failed mount with an O-320.

My take on the O-320 is that while it has more propulsive and torque forces, it does not necessarily weigh more than an O-235 if lightweight starters and alternators are used. In the air, the additional forces are not such a burden on the extrusions. I may be uninformed and incorrect.

You may or may not know that Lycoming specifies engine overhaul after 12 yrs, whether it has been used or not. I've personally seen several canards for sale with low time engines, but last overhauled over 12 years ago. The engines seem to be running fine, but does anyone really overhaul an engine just because it is over 12 yrs old? It would seem to me that with good compressions, minor if any oil leaks, and routine oil analysis, why not have confidence in the engine? Any experiences out there with this issue?

Yeah, I noticed the 735/1250. Presumably, the builder built heavy and simply certified with a heavier gross, which any builder can do.

Congrats on your new bird Eric. I know you've been around the block looking at planes and it sounds like you wound up with a very nice one. It sounds like you got a personal rocket.

I just want to chime in and say that I also think something should be done. I don't want to see this nice forum being cheapened. I too was surprised by how suddenly this spam started coming in and was wondering why it was not being removed. The admin is a good guy to give us all this site and I'm sure something will be done.  Meanwhile, I'll just ignore topics that are too general or irrelevant...not even giving the spammer the victory of a view. Those of us who care about these planes know how to author a meaningful topic sentence.

Hi Keith,

So how's your new plane flying? What equipped empty weight does she have? What's your cruise speed? Filling those wing gaps will gain you some.

Long noses are usually done on Long Ezs to help compensate for a heavier O-320 engine instalation. I was not aware that Vari-ezes were also getting long noses for their heavier engine retrofits. They look pretty nicely proportioned as is.

Nevertheless, my understanding is that there are no actual "plans". This (ez.org) site has a pretty good article on extending noses. Also, Eric Cobb used to sell a video on the topic. Presumably, the extension is done "by eye" and would be the same whether for Vari or Long.

Although man, many noses have been extended, and apparently with no ill effects, Burt always felt the modification was "destabilizing". Good luck with your project.