Hangar Flying

Thanks for a really useful discussion not only for myself but for others out there too .
Its adding to my notes .
Hand propping is an emotive issue i suppose (I have never hand propped an aircraft ).
I have never had an engine stop on me except on finals when the idle was not set right . I guess as a human you want that ability to actually be able to try and restart if you have to . But 40 Lbs is a lot of weight ... The idea of "dead" locking the brakes by putting holes in the discs is unique and practical so that resolves the runaway issue ( safety ) . Hand starting a pusher is much safer and hand cranking does give you some idea of the compression as discussed . I guess you have to live with the levels of simplicity you want . It breaks down into some basic issues .....
 If i hand start i have some control of who is close to the prop , i can see smoke or listen for some irregular noises
If the brakes are "dead" locked like Bill suggests then that resolves the runaway issue , makes hand propping less of an issue .
If the engine stops in flight i am unsure if it can be air started ? and leading on to that is the issue of fuel systems . I like the fuel system where the last available fuel is in the lower seat / tank so if you have fuel your engine should not stop . On long decents and only fuel in the seat/ sump tank is it possible to have too little fuel pressure ?
During hand propping is the fuel able to get to the engine when its on its nose ? Do you use or have a boost pump for the start sequence ?
I suppose the nosewheel is another item which has a higher chance of error . The nosewheel window goes some way to remind the pilot of its status . I guess you have to be careful with your checks but i understand the possibility of  human error. From what i can understand the mechanical nosewheel system is rugged provided the gearing is not actually used to hold the nosewheel but that it is capable of going fully over center for locking . The overcenter cam taking the landing loads .
What about fuel systems ? Do you place the filler caps so the aircraft can be on its nose during filling and still be filled to its max ? Some have a fuel drain close to the leading edge of the strake to check the fuel when the aircraft is in the nosedown position .
Flyoz

I appreciate the suggestions and reflections from both Joe and yourself
I have read the articles and comments about your aircraft and were really useful to those like myself  trying to understand this aircraft type
My wish list is fairly simple - I want to build essentially a single seater with a possibility of a passenger from time to time .Burt's philosopy was a light, small ,simple aircraft
I think he achieved that with a basic Varieze. I have no intention to build other than for myself .
I will have more questions as i go along
Thanks
Flyoz
 

The point is that even Burt Rutan decided to change the wing attach system when the product became the Long Ez .
Is the Varieze inferior ? I don’t think so - just different . Products evolve . The car you drive today has seatbelts , ABS and airbags- they did not in 1976 .
Part of the reason aircraft /  space  market is changing is because of entrepreneurs like Burt and the hundreds of experimental builders out there .
Every time I read his Varieze manual and check the drawings  I am inspired by the beauty of his designs .
I am simply trying to look at the design for myself .
Flyoz

Thanks
Thats the one ... 
Interesting to note the 3.5G rating , based on this test
Thats partially my reason for finding another way of fixing the wing
Also the long ez system is easier to build with more repeatable results
I am sure most Varieze aircraft were built well so my attempt to find another way
is simply to my own personal decision
Another issue that came from this test is the wing twist issue
The original spar /wing joint is only 3.5 inches ( 89 mm ) from bolt center to bolt center
If you take the lever from the center of the spar to the center of the tip roughly 48 inches ( 1213mm )
Putting a pin at the leading edge of the root into the strake would help in keeping this area from twisting
In hindsight it easier to look back at the design and make smaller changes but i never lose sight of the elegance of the original design
Flyoz

Thanks for the reassurance
I am sure built correctly most of the Varieze's flying are as robust as yours
I have seen some destructive testing of a Varieze and one other issue is twisting
When the wing is loaded up starts to twists at the Strake wing joint
It makes sense if you see just what that joint has to take and the load paths to it
All i was looking at is the possibility of joining it like a Long Ez which from an engineering point
of view is a  much much less stressed joint with better loadpaths
The Varieze wing in that test failed at 7 Gs and the canard at 8
Actually at the inbord central spar section of the wing spar joint
If you want i can post that test ( PDF )again
Flyoz

Thanks Steve
I have had a careful look at the long Ez wing . Its only when you start to redraw in CAD that you can appreciate
how Burt Rutan could do this in his garage without a computer . Amazing stuff . And its very accurate .
Just to clarify what i had in mind.....
Only the root portion of the wing would move back 4+inches at the BL 32 line nothing else the wing area could remain the same
The main spar remains in exactly the same position although the tip is moved back about .75 inch ( 19mm )
The C section Long Ez spar looks lighter than the box section of the Varieze and does not have as much weight in the wing root fittings
Those wing root fittings mean the glass attached to them had to be much heavier to handle the loads at that point 
It would be interesting to calculate just how much weight goes backward if you take all that into account - i have not done that yet 
But i suspect its very little . My concern is the aerodynamics . The long Ez wing changed significantly , moving back and getting bigger so
the design can absorb some change .
My question is if the Cof G range could be made the same as original do you think moving the root back slightly would
have implications on the aerodynamics ?
Flyoz