Hangar Flying

You can find the article on the www.ez.org homepage - it is the top news item on the page.

I personally don't think this situation will last - its too open-ended; and Orange County has been recovering from a bad bankruptcy over the last 10 or 15 years - so I'm not surprised they're the first ones to try this.  As soon as it affects someone with lots of money, there will be a legal challenge to it.

Now, for those (like me) that don't have lots of money, I suggest doing the same thing I (and others) have emailed to Len:  

Contact the AOPA and EAA and let them know!  Organizations like these typically have lobbyists and lawyers on their staff, right?  Put them to good use!  Raise the profile of this potential crisis - heck, maybe one of the pilot magazines will be interested in writing an article about it.  Anything to put pressure on OC to make them back down.  Its obvious to me that they're trying to quietly raise their revenues; and hoping that no one will be willing to get into a legal fight over it.

Take care,

--Noel

I've only flown in a VE - but after having seen several LongEZ's close up, my impressions are:

1) Well the biggest difference is Range.  The LE can take you 1000 - 1500 nm at a stretch; while the VE is good for half that distance.

2) The stock LongEZ is about 1.5 to 2 inches wider in the cockpit.  I'm 6'1" and 200 lbs, so that extra room is good for my elbows... But I know of at least 1 VE out there that was widened to the LongEZ width (during construction) no problem.  

3) The "strake pockets" and overall size of the LongEZ make for more storage...  With two guys my size in a VariEze (the configuration I flew it in), there was really no storage space other than a couple of small map-pockets.  If you're planning on taking some clothes and gear with you on trips, the LongEZ is easier to pack.

4) The LongEZ with an O-235 or O-320 has a bit more power than a VariEze - but you do have higher costs due to the bigger/heavier engine.

5) The VariEze that I flew in was pretty much a "day VFR only" plane.  And I can't see doing much IFR or IMC flying in one (and IMC accident rates in EZ's prove that its not a good idea)...  The LongEZ can handle "soft" IFR much much better, by all accounts.

6)  Between the engine-power, the panel-space, and the range - the LongEZ is the better plane for long-distance trips.  If you're only going to fly recreationally on the weekends around your local area, the Vari is lighter and has a slightly lower cost of ownership.

7) The VariEze is, as it was put, a little sports car.  It REALLY reminded me of the spry handling and responsiveness of my Mazda Miata (little 2-seat convertible).  I'm a computer-gaming-addict, so my hand-eye coordination is very sensitive... But some folks claim that the VariEze is a little bit "twitchy" for them.  I love it, but the LongEZ is reportedly a slightly more stable platform.  Not that the VariEze is UNstable - but the LongEZ supposedly requires a bit firmer controlling and feels more stately in its response.  I'm betting its still a lot more fun & more maneuverable than a Cessna, though. ;-)

Due to the wing-sweep, the VariEze has a higher touchdown speed, IIRC.  Its lighter weight means that both have about the same T/O & roll-out distances - but there's a 5 - 10 knot difference in landing speeds (again IIRC; someone correct me if I'm wrong).

9) Some VariEze's have been hit with some metal corrosion problems - exacerbated by the wing-attach design of the plane.  Its not a bad design; just not as convenient as the LongEZ.  This issue is really a small matter - just something to be aware of when looking to buy a used plane.



...The BEST advice anyone can give, is that you look for some local canard flyers in your area.  Most are very friendly folks - and would be happy to meet with you and show off their planes.  Nothing will compare to you taking a close-up look in person, and chatting face-to-face with an experienced pilot.... maybe even sitting in the plane or taking a ride from the back seat, if you're lucky!  After you've done this, THEN you'll be able to judge for yourself which plane suits you best.

Take care,

--Noel

Hey, I'm not complaining - they may not be perfect, but they're a heck of a lot more complete than any other canard set I've seen for X-Plane.  Its obvious you've put a fair number of hours into them - especially since I started toying with Plane-Maker tonight.  I took the liberty of tweaking with your Cozy design, just to see what the plane is capable of...

If the wings were totally rigid bodies (as X-Plane makes everything), you could put nearly full-span ailerons on...  I did, and with a couple of other tweaks to the control systems I got the roll rate to about 300 degrees per second - wow!  

Funny thing is, in real life I've heard deeper-chord ailerons beat wider-span ailerons, because of the wing-flex near the tip.  But I toyed with aileron chord lengths of 0.27 to 0.40 and really didn't see nearly the improvement that wider-span ailerons give - at least on a stiff wing.  I think the deeper-chord ailerons start to spoil the airflow over the main wing before they generate enough force to compensate for their short moment-arm relative to the fuselage centerline...

Okay, enough geeking-out for one night on here. :-P  This is what happens when you're a computer guy who's suppressed the urge to fly for a decade...

Take care,

--Noel

The following is my opinion - as a flight-sim fan AND as an experienced (though out of work) computer game developer:

For me, the trade-offs are as follows:

1) MS-Flight Sim is a much more "polished" product - its formally developed by a dedicated team.  X-Plane is more of a "darkhorse" development - by 1 full-time programmer and a few contributing coders & artists.  This doesn't mean that X-Plane or Laminar Research put out an inferior product - but for compatibility, polished terrain graphics, etc. I'd bet Flight-Sim will always have a slight edge.  X-Plane will always be somewhat "in development" - with new features being added and put out before they (or older features) are completely polished and matured.  Over time, I believe that keeping X-Plane cross-platform between Windows & Mac will become a bigger headache, though... MS is furthering DirectX, but OpenGL is somewhat stagnant and has always suffered more driver/compatibility problems - it remains to be seen whether graphics-card manufacturers will still be supporting it for consumer products in 5 - 10 years.

2)  Flight-Sim is a "mass-market" product.  It therefore will probably enjoy greater support from real, commercial airplane manufacturers and the aerospace industry.  X-Plane has been customized for clients like Scaled Composites and others; but as far as putting "name-brand" planes in the latest version of the program, Flight-Sim will always be able to tout huge numbers of planes "right out of the box".  However, this "mass-market" attitude means that some of the more technical and less-fun aspects of flight may NEVER be included or modelled in MS Flight-Sim.  X-Plane's "grass roots" mod community seems to be able to field a huge number of user-built planes, too - but the quality is always a bit suspect without thorough professional testing.

3)  As a counter-point to #2, X-Plane is a highly-targetted product.  Its entire goal is to simulate (roughly) the physics of something flying through the air.  LOTS of parts of the product are "hacked in" and don't follow proper physics (land inverted or ground-loop a plane and watch your wheels go crazy, for a good example)... But the actual physical flight modelling is pretty darned excellent.  The application of physics to flying bodies and the fairly-accurate accounting for density / altitude, temp., wind, etc. make the "core" of X-Plane fairly technically advanced.  Do NOT confuse good flight physics with a godly programmer, though!  While I give Austin Myers a great deal of credit for his software, his recent news update about "vectors & objects" cover VERY BASIC modern programming practices; and the fact that he is just now making use of them was rather shocking to me (but then I'm frustrated because people keep knocking be for being more of a web-programmer than a "real" programmer)...  I have found plenty of subtle errors in X-Plane; but for a very small company, the product is extremely good.  Austin certainly has a tenacity and determination that I couldn't possibly match - the product has probably consumed at least 10,000 to 20,000 hours of his life.

Bottom line for me is:  If you care about the in-flight handling of your aircraft - and aren't necessarily interested in an accurate representation of your home-town's buildings from the air - X-Plane is the way to go.  Its small-team roots are a double-edged sword, providing a slightly less-polished product; but with a tighter focus and the agility to fix or add to the product quickly.  If you want the flashiest graphics and product support; as well as a more casual flight experience, then MS Flight-Sim is the way to go.  I have a feeling that the former of the two is more appropriate for the folks here. ;-)

Take care,

--Noel

Lightening the fuel load and shifting the CG forward helps, but I can still induce a "snap roll" of sorts, to an invertted fully deep-stalled attitude with a couple of quick alternating rudder inputs.

The interior/panel and exterior models of the aircraft look great - but something about the handling just feels "off".

--Noel