Fellow Canadian here and I can confirm, igloos perform best when painted white. Our dog was trying to paint ours yellow, which caused significant melting. 😉
People do not seem to believe that there is no global warming here. The second largest nation gets no global warming at all. This begs the question, is the warming really planetary? If it does not include our dear Canada, then it can not be global warming.
@@CompleteWalkaround I have been shoveling almost every other day, here in Saskatchewan. As you likely know, there is no global warming in Canada. It would not be a bad thing if there were some sort of warming here.
The front landing gear retracts while parked so the plane doesn't tip over backwards from a gust of wind (its tail heavy with nobody in the cockpit). I usually saw about 150kts+ on 6gph above 8,000ft with a 118hp O-235 engine. My longest flight was over 1000 miles before I had to land. Plane could have kept going for hours more!
Less well known Log EZ crash - author James Glieck likely had carb icing on landing, causing reduced power and impacted rising terrain short of the runway. Tragically, his 8 year old son died from the crash. Nothing to do with the Long EZ design itself, but a cautionary tale about carb icing and following the checklist (on landing in this case.)
@@flow5718 Most "certified" aircraft engines from Lyconosaurus are straight out of the 50's. The sad reality of GA aviation is if it's certified it's either extremely old, extremely expensive, or most commonly both.
@@AG-qq3zl NTSB report confirmed that the pilot was attempting to make an open-style sandwich while aviating. This was the impetus to the ban on all breakfast-type sandwiches on aircraft in US airspace.
I recommend reaching out to the rutan aircraft flying experience. They are a non-profit that recovers abandoned builds. They're always looking for new sponsor pilots to help get those kits in the air and then fly them.
Also in the camp of loving this thing the first time I saw this and still kinda want one to this day. I do wish the rear seat had *slightly* more space then it'd be over the moon with it. It's so hard to argue with that performance if you just want to cruise somewhere relatively inexpensively
Not all longs are the same. I am 6'2" and about 10% of the longs I sat in, I couldn't close the canopy. Not all builders follow the plans exactly, some just put lower profile canopies to get a few knots. I have been in one with a bigger than plans canopy which was nice. As a 6'2" 260 lbs pilot, I can fit in the back seat which cramped for most but comfortable for me for 2 hours as long as the back bar on the canopy is removed. I don't mind small spaces. I will take off 1700lbs gross but it makes the landing gear squat. I do 155kts true at 8ghp with O-320 150hp Climb prop doing 2550 Rpm. Endurance is about 6 hours. If I do 2350 RPM, I burn 6gph but at 125kts true.
@@CompleteWalkaround I do not own a large canopy Long Ez. I have personally sat in about 12 Long Ezs and seen about 20 before I bought my first which was a project and my second which is a flying Long. I went to look at two longs that a guy was selling in and one I could fit and one I couldn't, that because one had a small canopy. I have also looked at one that had a larger than normal canopy, which was nice. My Longs have normal sized canopies. I have sat in one where the builder glassed the front seat for a short pilot, I didn't fit in either dimension on that long ez, legs or height. I can also fit in a vari ez with no to slight modifications.
I have a longez also, I am 6’ 2” and 230lbs , if I put a guy my size in the back he wants out after 2 hours, but I have flown by myself for a little over 4 hours. I love my airplane! I have a 290 engine so it falls in between the 235 and 320 in performance.
@@cebunting I am going to modify the back seat in my long, I am going to get rid of the bar on the rear part of the canopy, get rid of the strobe box by replacing the stobes with new LED ones, this will allow passengers more comfort because they will be able to recline better and their head will fit where there is currently a panel blocking their head from going into that space.
@@cebunting Baby that 290 as best as you can, parts are very hard to find. The long I am rebuilding came with a broken 0-290 and finding rings for it was near impossible, jugs too.
I own a Long Ez. I had the O-235 with hi compression pistons so it put out around 125 hp. It would cruise at 165 knots true at 8500 ft. I wore that engine out and now have an O-360 with about 180 hp. It will cruise at 185 knots true at 8,500 ft.
I'd love to see more aircraft with aeromomentum engines period. Last I checked that operation was having serious issues delivering paid for products to customers. I.e. people waiting literal years to get fitting products they paid for.
Met him once a couple years ago when he did a tour of his hangar and a plane he was working on. Sadly i wasnt huge into aviation at the time, so i dont think i appreciated it as much as i would now
So not a pilot, don't fly, everything I know about GA airplanes I learned from this website-is that a bad thing? Or youtube...okay, it's a bad thing. One clarification for the grounded set, the two rear wheels are fixed and the nose retracts. Or a big skid plate...Just asking. Don't hate me, I do love airplanes and this channel..
Welcome. The front gear retracts because the center of gravity is directly over the rear wheels. It'll tip over if left on all three wheels. The pilot is the ballast to keep the front end down while taxing. Since it retracts, you also pull it up in flight to reduce drag. But the point is to keep it from tipping over.
@@CompleteWalkaround Thanks, been learning about CG on planes, makes sense..maybe those Boeing 737 guys should have kept it that simple...hahaha. Love the channel.
Isn't the twin vertical tail/rudder situation a bit dicey? Also, Cannards and Flaps are like Peanut butter and Chocholate, so Yes, Long Paved runways are preferred.
I paid 5K for my present Long EZ. Got lucky because the guy already had 4 airplanes and a helicopter and just wanted it gone. It was in my shop 25 years ago and I did several upgrades to it. I did have to do a 1K top end to the 290 G. It's just a good utilitarian EZ. It only cruises at 170 MPH @ 2.500 RPM.
These are all very custom built. It's definitely possible to build one that would fit. The one I tried was smaller but that's just that one individual plane. To be fair, a lot of these planes were built a while ago. 6'3" and 240 is much more common now than in the 70s.
I was smitten...the first time I saw her back in the seventies...yeah disco...bell bottoms...afros..high heels..( for dudes )...and the low spark of high heeled boys.....sleeping late and smoking tea..skateboards..VW bugs..bean bag chairs...watergate..Vietnam.. Kitcars...Petrocks..domehomes.. yeah..if you were a cool pilot uou would build own and fly a Long Ez....All the ladies loved a man with a Long Ez... 🐦 ... .. ... .
@@CompleteWalkaround Cheap to buy, cheap to operate, and cheap to maintain. It’s part of a broader group of called Short Wing Pipers that were designed to be faster, more efficient cruisers than the Cub line. The Tri-Pacers its derived from will outrun a 172 and carry the same load. Since it’s made out of the same parts as all the other fabric Pipers, parts are easy to find and are still made brand new. The price new $5k in 1961, and I paid $18k for it 2020. Allegedly, it would sell for about $36k now courtesy of the money printers. A relaxed cruise gets you 100 mph at 6 gph. I use auto gas so $25/direct operating costs. Engine is the Lycoming O-235-C1. Overhauls are cheap and far between. TBO is 2,400 hours. An annual costs easily under $1k if there’s nothing wrong. You may be noticing a theme. The story goes that Bill Piper wanted a cheaper Tri-Pacer as a stopgap trainer until the Cherokee was in full production. (www.aopa.org/go-fly/aircraft-and-ownership/aircraft-fact-sheets/piper-colt) There are literally zero frills. No flaps. One door. A single brake lever operates both brakes on stock Colts. Useful load is good for a two seater, 600ish pounds. It had one 18 gallon tank factory stock in the left wing, but I’ve never seen one in the wild without two (right tank was a frill). The right tank has a limitation that it can only be used in straight, level flight. That’s probably the second biggest gotcha this plane has. The biggest gotcha is fabric. Cheaper Colt’s usually have rough, old fabric these days. It’s hard to justify $36k in work to keep an $18k airplane going, and it used to be that you could pour half a million into a Colt and still have it be worth the same as when you got it. Owners end up playing a game of hot potato until someone gets stuck with the recover job. I’m recovering mine now, and I knew it was coming. Not cheap, but absolutely worth it. Good fabric will last 40 years. This last fabric job did on mine did. Keep it in hanger unless you want to recover it again much sooner. More Colts die of corrosion than anything else. A hangar will help that. There’s a frame tube on the left side next to the pilot’s knee. It collects rainwater and can’t be inspected until a recover. Not mine though. I can look at my frame all day, but my Colt is weird. Details on that later. Abandon all your Fat Tire Cowboy fantasies. Takeoff roll is probably over 1,200 feet, and climb out is usually less than 500 fpm. Climb to cruise slow. Once level, the speed picks up so you don’t feel so bad about it. In flight, handling is pure Piper. Gentle, forgiving, impossible to stall. There’s no stall warning (frill). Power off glide is brick-like. Short wings make short glides. Landing performance is fine, but the tendency is to drop in hard. I’ll often carry some power into the flare and sometimes after touchdown. Lack of flaps doesn’t help, but the Tri-Pacer guys say they don’t help much. You’ll also be going faster on final than a 172, and that spooks some folks. The point is that you don’t pull power to idle until you’re done flying. Insurance doesn’t seem to be bad on most but it is on mine since it’s a tailwheel. And that’s the final point, STCs! The possibilities for customization are absurd. 108 hp isn’t enough? What about 125? 135? 150? 180?! 36 gallons isn’t enough? What about 60? Rudder trim? Oil Coolers? Tailwheel? Speed wingtips?Constant speed props? METAL SKIN? Mine is partially metallized. It was fully metallized at one point, but a previous owner removed the metal wing skins to get his useful load back. It’s the metal fuselage and the removable, not fabric interior that let’s me catch frame corrosion redhanded. In any case, nearly anything that was an option on any fabric Pipers was STCed to most other fabric Pipers at some point, and there’s tons of field approvals out there. If you want you can add all the frills back. Except for flaps.
You had mentioned you wanted to incorporate actual ownership of an airplane into the channel. If that’s still the case and you’re kinda skinny, a metallized Colt would be .
I don't know if weirdness is a good quality for an airplane... Harder to maintain, lesser known issues, less transferability of the flying skills... but the airplane is cool, sure. Must be a reason it's so cheap though.
There is nothing difficult to maintaining these. The simplicity is on par with any small Cessna. Lots of fun to fly, because they are easy to fly. This is a lot of plane for the money.
Ever since watching several near misses and one crash at osh, I am very hesitant to fly a design this radically different from your standard airplane, let alone get in one with a different pilot flying. Really should be a highly experienced pilot before buying one of these. It's a functional design with nothing wrong with it, its the human factor that makes this plane dangerous.
I would say most pilots kill themselves putting themselves into spin conditions upon landing. The main wing does not stall on this plane thus preventing spins. It also has good glide characteristics. Because of the higher landing speeds this isn't for pilots that just got their pilots license. I did buy mine at 130 hrs flight time though.
I generally agree that the Long-EZ isn't a great first airplane for a beginner pilot, but I bought mine while I was a student pilot. While I'm not a "natural stick & rudder man" and by no means God's gift to aviation, I'm an obsessive engineer and fully understood the design to the extent possible without a five year education building it. I read every FAA and NTSB canard accident report to avoid mistakes others made. I read the Central States Association newsletters and the Canard Aviator's forum. I was a bit sheepish when taxiing in upon completing my check ride when the examiner asked what I was going to be flying and I pointed at the Long-EZ. I think my instructor had probably told him that the Long-EZ tied down in front of the FBO was mine. It's not as bad as a newbie pilot jumping into a twin, but the Long-EZ is fast and things can happen quickly for an inexperienced pilot. One way I coped with that was staying out of controlled airspace as much as possible to avoid pilot overload as I built hours and gained familiarity in the Long-EZ. I bought my Long-EZ after the builder lost his medical had parked it disassembled in his garage for five years. I went over the plane very carefully to ensure that it was mechanically sound, then had the local A&P go over the engine. Even then, I was very cautious. I taxied it around the airport and did touch backs for eleven hours before I felt comfortable enough to fly it. This was a rural airport and I did this in the evenings after work when few people were there. I was careful to allow the brakes to cool in between taxi tests. The regulars at the airport teased me a little, but it was good natured teasing. They'd ask if I was going to fly that weird plane or just drive it around the airport, but I could tell they were glad that I was aware of my limited experience and was taking a cautious approach. I swear they were more overjoyed than I was when they heard my radio call change from "taking the active for high speed taxi test" to "taking the active for departure". They were even happier when I landed 45 minutes later after flying around getting the feel of the Long-EZ in actual flight. The Long-EZ is much easier to fly than the typical Cessna or Piper. The wing loading is higher and the design is more aerodynamically stable in turbulence. Landing a Cessna I'd always need to make large over corrections to the flight controls, essentially flying the average of large inputs to fight crosswinds and burbles shed from the trees to the sides of the runway. With the Long-EZ, I'd line it up and fly it to the numbers with a slight flare naturally occurring as it flew into ground effect. It was like it was on rails when on final. My small control inputs on the side stick and rudders were almost subconscious. It's as if the Long-EZ knew what I wanted it to do before I did. It also helped that the main gear is a big fiberglass shock absorber. I got a lot of compliments on the landings but that was all Long-EZ. The gear would touch very gently with almost no weight on it and as the plane slowly settled to the runway the gear would very gradually take more of the weight. There was usually a chirp from the wheel spinning up but no feeling of the main gear touching the runway. I'd keep the nose wheel off the runway as long as possible to increase aerodynamic braking (deploying both rudders as well), and when the nose finally settled it always reminded me of the Space Shuttle or Concorde landing.
Not accurate statistics. I flew Longeze N160RG for for five years and 500 hours also a Vari-eze for five years and 500 hours. The Veri is small but the longeze was roomy for my 6'2" size and comfortable also the back seat in a longeze is very roomy and will fit a 250 pound large man. I once took a 6'5" guy in my tiny veri-eze back seat for a ride over burning man. Also both my 032 Longeze and 125HP 0200 continental engine planes could cruise at 160 knots throttled back for good performance. Lastly when I flew in formation with my 0320 Long with a buddy who had an 0235 my fuel consumption was very close to his. Since I was at one third throttle and he was at full throttle. He was trying to go fast and I was trying to go slow at his pace and we burned about the same fuel. So basically a larger engine works less hard and uses less fuel. If I pushed it to the fire wall it would have been a lot more fuel but going 180 knots
He did but it was more because he wasn't familiar with the plane. The original builder had relocated the fuel selector. He hadn't checked it and was unable to reach it.
@@richardbabin4393 Actually it is widely believed that the location of the fuel selector switch may have caused him to crash, as he reach back to use it causing him to dip the plane…. While at high speed and close to the ground(ocean)
@@richardbabin4393 the joy of home builders. Nothing is really standardized. From what I remember the builder put the fuel selecter behind the pilot on the bulkhead. The idea was that he did not have to run the fuel line inside the cabin. Which makes sense if you were in a crash.
Fellow Canadian here and I can confirm, igloos perform best when painted white. Our dog was trying to paint ours yellow, which caused significant melting. 😉
People do not seem to believe that there is no global warming here. The second largest nation gets no global warming at all. This begs the question, is the warming really planetary? If it does not include our dear Canada, then it can not be global warming.
@@CompleteWalkaround I have been shoveling almost every other day, here in Saskatchewan. As you likely know, there is no global warming in Canada. It would not be a bad thing if there were some sort of warming here.
@@CompleteWalkaround forecast of -28c and snow tonight for Edmonton. :(
The front landing gear retracts while parked so the plane doesn't tip over backwards from a gust of wind (its tail heavy with nobody in the cockpit). I usually saw about 150kts+ on 6gph above 8,000ft with a 118hp O-235 engine. My longest flight was over 1000 miles before I had to land. Plane could have kept going for hours more!
Less well known Log EZ crash - author James Glieck likely had carb icing on landing, causing reduced power and impacted rising terrain short of the runway. Tragically, his 8 year old son died from the crash. Nothing to do with the Long EZ design itself, but a cautionary tale about carb icing and following the checklist (on landing in this case.)
Don't forget John Denver
They still use carburetors today?
@@flow5718 Most "certified" aircraft engines from Lyconosaurus are straight out of the 50's.
The sad reality of GA aviation is if it's certified it's either extremely old, extremely expensive, or most commonly both.
@@AG-qq3zl Yeah... Basically he ran out of gas, and had an uncoventional fuel selector that was faulty. Never a good idea in any aircraft.
@@AG-qq3zl NTSB report confirmed that the pilot was attempting to make an open-style sandwich while aviating. This was the impetus to the ban on all breakfast-type sandwiches on aircraft in US airspace.
I've been waiting for one about the Long EZ, it's just so unique.
For a canard pusher would love to see the Valkyrie being done. Great videos as always!
Yeah Totally! BTW thanks for making these videos, they add some incredible value to our purchase plans of very far future.
I swear I will find one of these eventually. I absolutely love the design!
I recommend reaching out to the rutan aircraft flying experience. They are a non-profit that recovers abandoned builds. They're always looking for new sponsor pilots to help get those kits in the air and then fly them.
Mike Toomey just sold his yellow L.EZ ....
czcams.com/video/gtiLv-BTzSw/video.html
@@richardbabin4393 THanks for the info mate, didn't knew that. they are doing such a good intentioned work.
@@TanM you're welcome 🙂
There's one sitting in the sun out at Scholes Field in Galveston....thing never moves.
I bought the plans for this plane over 40 years ago. I had dreams of building and flying it. Those were pleasant dreams.
You still have those plans?
Also in the camp of loving this thing the first time I saw this and still kinda want one to this day. I do wish the rear seat had *slightly* more space then it'd be over the moon with it. It's so hard to argue with that performance if you just want to cruise somewhere relatively inexpensively
Not all longs are the same. I am 6'2" and about 10% of the longs I sat in, I couldn't close the canopy. Not all builders follow the plans exactly, some just put lower profile canopies to get a few knots. I have been in one with a bigger than plans canopy which was nice. As a 6'2" 260 lbs pilot, I can fit in the back seat which cramped for most but comfortable for me for 2 hours as long as the back bar on the canopy is removed. I don't mind small spaces. I will take off 1700lbs gross but it makes the landing gear squat. I do 155kts true at 8ghp with O-320 150hp Climb prop doing 2550 Rpm. Endurance is about 6 hours. If I do 2350 RPM, I burn 6gph but at 125kts true.
That's a very good point. You own a big one you say?
@@CompleteWalkaround I do not own a large canopy Long Ez. I have personally sat in about 12 Long Ezs and seen about 20 before I bought my first which was a project and my second which is a flying Long. I went to look at two longs that a guy was selling in and one I could fit and one I couldn't, that because one had a small canopy. I have also looked at one that had a larger than normal canopy, which was nice. My Longs have normal sized canopies. I have sat in one where the builder glassed the front seat for a short pilot, I didn't fit in either dimension on that long ez, legs or height. I can also fit in a vari ez with no to slight modifications.
I have a longez also, I am 6’ 2” and 230lbs , if I put a guy my size in the back he wants out after 2 hours, but I have flown by myself for a little over 4 hours. I love my airplane! I have a 290 engine so it falls in between the 235 and 320 in performance.
@@cebunting I am going to modify the back seat in my long, I am going to get rid of the bar on the rear part of the canopy, get rid of the strobe box by replacing the stobes with new LED ones, this will allow passengers more comfort because they will be able to recline better and their head will fit where there is currently a panel blocking their head from going into that space.
@@cebunting Baby that 290 as best as you can, parts are very hard to find. The long I am rebuilding came with a broken 0-290 and finding rings for it was near impossible, jugs too.
I continue to love this video format. Cheers
Still waiting on the Globe Swift, love the videos!
I own a Long Ez. I had the O-235 with hi compression pistons so it put out around 125 hp. It would cruise at 165 knots true at 8500 ft. I wore that engine out and now have an O-360 with about 180 hp. It will cruise at 185 knots true at 8,500 ft.
“Why we paint our igloos white” awesome line
Would love to see a long ez fitted with an aeromomentum engine
GREAT video as always
It is rare to see that engine although probably the cheapest solution (~10k) in that power range, am I right?
I'd love to see more aircraft with aeromomentum engines period.
Last I checked that operation was having serious issues delivering paid for products to customers. I.e. people waiting literal years to get fitting products they paid for.
@@electricaviationchannelvid7863 Viking engines are cheaper, but they’re heavier
I'd like to see a Cost to Own for a Nanchang CJ-6. There's a couple at my local airport and it seems like one of the easier warbirds to get into
Short and petite 😅🤣 you crack me up
Would love to see a video on the Velocity SE
Awesome plane and great presentation, love me some canards. Velocity SE next please!
I would add that they are exceptionally fun to fly.
Looking for something a little less “UFO” and a little more “Hey, isn’t that a Piper PA-44?”
Great videos! Love the humor!
I really want one of these. That super efficient cruise is so attractive.
Love your channel & your narration style. Any way you could do more bush planes?
Man I want one of these (or a Berkut, Velocity or Cozy) so bad. I wonder if the costs are comparable...
Looking forward to seeing more Rhutan inspired designs. Co-Z perhaps?
the MK3 and Mk4 are only slighty bigger, more expensive and slower so just round these number up slightly
@@nolaneads2826 interesting.
Can you make a video about piaggio avanti? It just looks really cool :P
Every now and then a project one pops up and I think mmmmmmmmmmmm
but I never seem to pull the trigger on that one.
the Spacek SD-1 Minisport is a interesting lil plane. I would love to see a video about it.
I second that motion. Wonder how it would fly with a modified Predator 670cc V-twin.
It was interesting to see at the airshow, definitely welcome though!
This was the aeroplane John Denver died in a California crash.
Rest in peace, John Denver.
(1943 - 1997)
Yes, but it had an idiotically mounted fuel selector that was nearly impossible for the pilot to operate, as I recall.
My buddy has a Very EZ in the rafters of his garage. I keep asking him if he wants to sell it.
Would like to see one of the velocity XL
The Cozy MK IV was developed from the Long EZ and has more room en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cozy_MK_IV
A great video thank you for making it!!!!!!!
Any chance we will see a Bearhawk 5 video one day?
Now I wanna see the voyager too 😊
Velocity V-Twin?
Burt Rutan lives in my hometown of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. He’s a great guy and very active in our local airport KCOE
Met him once a couple years ago when he did a tour of his hangar and a plane he was working on. Sadly i wasnt huge into aviation at the time, so i dont think i appreciated it as much as i would now
So not a pilot, don't fly, everything I know about GA airplanes I learned from this website-is that a bad thing? Or youtube...okay, it's a bad thing. One clarification for the grounded set, the two rear wheels are fixed and the nose retracts. Or a big skid plate...Just asking. Don't hate me, I do love airplanes and this channel..
Welcome. The front gear retracts because the center of gravity is directly over the rear wheels. It'll tip over if left on all three wheels. The pilot is the ballast to keep the front end down while taxing. Since it retracts, you also pull it up in flight to reduce drag. But the point is to keep it from tipping over.
@@CompleteWalkaround Thanks, been learning about CG on planes, makes sense..maybe those Boeing 737 guys should have kept it that simple...hahaha. Love the channel.
I had a friend with one. Apparently the flight characteristics are similar to flying a jet. :O
Isn't the twin vertical tail/rudder situation a bit dicey? Also, Cannards and Flaps are like Peanut butter and Chocholate, so Yes, Long Paved runways are preferred.
I'm still going to get one
Succes always on work
How do the Velocity and Cozy aircraft compare? The Velocity XL and Cozy MK IV are four seaters
what about long ez s wide couisn the cozy mk 4
Fantastic!!!
This is the one
Quick question: Are the fixed/variable costs you list per year?
Fixed per year. Variable per hour
Have you looked at the Gyroflug Speed Canard?
cruise speed listed is a little low. i cruise at 180 kts in mine.
Nice!
Anybody planning to install a DeltaHawk 180hp Diesel ?
I paid 5K for my present Long EZ. Got lucky because the guy already had 4 airplanes and a helicopter and just wanted it gone. It was in my shop 25 years ago and I did several upgrades to it. I did have to do a 1K top end to the 290 G. It's just a good utilitarian EZ. It only cruises at 170 MPH @ 2.500 RPM.
Would you make a cost to own a titan T-51 mustang?
I love the looks, but I'm not sure about actually flying it
Love this one, canards 4 life🙂
Could you build one with a canopy fit for yourself? Or have you settled on that RV-15?
Thats true. Had if fit off the bat, there would probably have been a sale.
Ever heard of the jet ez?
So that video wasnt sarcastic? Ok thats not what im here for :O
have you done the velocity and v twin ?
It makes ght even be " about as bad: as a Ranta Rutab"!
Has anyone scaled up the design to be a significantly larger airplane? Like instead of two inline seats, four to six passengers in pairs?
Yes. Cozy and Velocity are the best known
So at 6'3" and 240, I won't fit. Bummer.
These are all very custom built. It's definitely possible to build one that would fit. The one I tried was smaller but that's just that one individual plane. To be fair, a lot of these planes were built a while ago. 6'3" and 240 is much more common now than in the 70s.
But the front landing gear??
So I wasn't far off when you did that video on you buying a plane then huh?
id love to buy a long ez but being close to 2m tall doesn't help
The elevator provides LIFT.
I was smitten...the first time I saw her back in the seventies...yeah disco...bell bottoms...afros..high heels..( for dudes )...and the low spark of high heeled boys.....sleeping late and smoking tea..skateboards..VW bugs..bean bag chairs...watergate..Vietnam..
Kitcars...Petrocks..domehomes..
yeah..if you were a cool pilot uou would build own and fly a
Long Ez....All the ladies loved a man with a Long Ez...
🐦 ... .. ...
.
Can we get a dyke delta?
A cost to own on the s-51 or sw-51 replicas?
Do you think a 6'3" person could fit in a Lobg EZ?
No. Cozy IV instead
YESSSSSSSSS
How tall are you? I'm 6' 4"... so probably too small
Piper Colt, please!
What can you tell me about your piper colt?
@@CompleteWalkaround Cheap to buy, cheap to operate, and cheap to maintain. It’s part of a broader group of called Short Wing Pipers that were designed to be faster, more efficient cruisers than the Cub line. The Tri-Pacers its derived from will outrun a 172 and carry the same load. Since it’s made out of the same parts as all the other fabric Pipers, parts are easy to find and are still made brand new. The price new $5k in 1961, and I paid $18k for it 2020. Allegedly, it would sell for about $36k now courtesy of the money printers. A relaxed cruise gets you 100 mph at 6 gph. I use auto gas so $25/direct operating costs. Engine is the Lycoming O-235-C1. Overhauls are cheap and far between. TBO is 2,400 hours. An annual costs easily under $1k if there’s nothing wrong.
You may be noticing a theme. The story goes that Bill Piper wanted a cheaper Tri-Pacer as a stopgap trainer until the Cherokee was in full production. (www.aopa.org/go-fly/aircraft-and-ownership/aircraft-fact-sheets/piper-colt) There are literally zero frills. No flaps. One door. A single brake lever operates both brakes on stock Colts. Useful load is good for a two seater, 600ish pounds. It had one 18 gallon tank factory stock in the left wing, but I’ve never seen one in the wild without two (right tank was a frill). The right tank has a limitation that it can only be used in straight, level flight. That’s probably the second biggest gotcha this plane has.
The biggest gotcha is fabric. Cheaper Colt’s usually have rough, old fabric these days. It’s hard to justify $36k in work to keep an $18k airplane going, and it used to be that you could pour half a million into a Colt and still have it be worth the same as when you got it. Owners end up playing a game of hot potato until someone gets stuck with the recover job. I’m recovering mine now, and I knew it was coming. Not cheap, but absolutely worth it. Good fabric will last 40 years. This last fabric job did on mine did. Keep it in hanger unless you want to recover it again much sooner. More Colts die of corrosion than anything else. A hangar will help that. There’s a frame tube on the left side next to the pilot’s knee. It collects rainwater and can’t be inspected until a recover. Not mine though. I can look at my frame all day, but my Colt is weird. Details on that later.
Abandon all your Fat Tire Cowboy fantasies. Takeoff roll is probably over 1,200 feet, and climb out is usually less than 500 fpm. Climb to cruise slow. Once level, the speed picks up so you don’t feel so bad about it. In flight, handling is pure Piper. Gentle, forgiving, impossible to stall. There’s no stall warning (frill). Power off glide is brick-like. Short wings make short glides. Landing performance is fine, but the tendency is to drop in hard. I’ll often carry some power into the flare and sometimes after touchdown. Lack of flaps doesn’t help, but the Tri-Pacer guys say they don’t help much. You’ll also be going faster on final than a 172, and that spooks some folks. The point is that you don’t pull power to idle until you’re done flying.
Insurance doesn’t seem to be bad on most but it is on mine since it’s a tailwheel. And that’s the final point, STCs! The possibilities for customization are absurd. 108 hp isn’t enough? What about 125? 135? 150? 180?! 36 gallons isn’t enough? What about 60? Rudder trim? Oil Coolers? Tailwheel? Speed wingtips?Constant speed props? METAL SKIN? Mine is partially metallized. It was fully metallized at one point, but a previous owner removed the metal wing skins to get his useful load back. It’s the metal fuselage and the removable, not fabric interior that let’s me catch frame corrosion redhanded. In any case, nearly anything that was an option on any fabric Pipers was STCed to most other fabric Pipers at some point, and there’s tons of field approvals out there. If you want you can add all the frills back.
Except for flaps.
@@WilliamWhitneyChristmasMD Nice. Thanks :)
You had mentioned you wanted to incorporate actual ownership of an airplane into the channel. If that’s still the case and you’re kinda skinny, a metallized Colt would be .
Wait so, if you take off at max weight you gotta burn 100lbs of fuel to land?
Exactly. That's not that uncommon
Aerostar!!!
Narco delight 😅
How does that thing land with no Nose Gear?
Nose gear retracts. It parks retracted to prevent tipping over backwards
I don't know if weirdness is a good quality for an airplane... Harder to maintain, lesser known issues, less transferability of the flying skills... but the airplane is cool, sure. Must be a reason it's so cheap though.
There is nothing difficult to maintaining these. The simplicity is on par with any small Cessna. Lots of fun to fly, because they are easy to fly. This is a lot of plane for the money.
It looks like a loitering munition tbh
How tall are you that you couldnt close the canopy?
6'2", but short legged. It's likely the canopy was on the small side as well.
@@CompleteWalkaround I'm 6'5 so maybe this one is out for me too. Time to save for the cirrus
@@aheroux23 Maybe you could fashion a canopy like the super guppy
Ever since watching several near misses and one crash at osh, I am very hesitant to fly a design this radically different from your standard airplane, let alone get in one with a different pilot flying. Really should be a highly experienced pilot before buying one of these. It's a functional design with nothing wrong with it, its the human factor that makes this plane dangerous.
I would say most pilots kill themselves putting themselves into spin conditions upon landing. The main wing does not stall on this plane thus preventing spins. It also has good glide characteristics. Because of the higher landing speeds this isn't for pilots that just got their pilots license. I did buy mine at 130 hrs flight time though.
I bought my longez when I had 60 hours total time , I now have 300 hours in my long ez.
@@majorchungus Where are you based out of?
I generally agree that the Long-EZ isn't a great first airplane for a beginner pilot, but I bought mine while I was a student pilot. While I'm not a "natural stick & rudder man" and by no means God's gift to aviation, I'm an obsessive engineer and fully understood the design to the extent possible without a five year education building it. I read every FAA and NTSB canard accident report to avoid mistakes others made. I read the Central States Association newsletters and the Canard Aviator's forum. I was a bit sheepish when taxiing in upon completing my check ride when the examiner asked what I was going to be flying and I pointed at the Long-EZ. I think my instructor had probably told him that the Long-EZ tied down in front of the FBO was mine. It's not as bad as a newbie pilot jumping into a twin, but the Long-EZ is fast and things can happen quickly for an inexperienced pilot. One way I coped with that was staying out of controlled airspace as much as possible to avoid pilot overload as I built hours and gained familiarity in the Long-EZ.
I bought my Long-EZ after the builder lost his medical had parked it disassembled in his garage for five years. I went over the plane very carefully to ensure that it was mechanically sound, then had the local A&P go over the engine. Even then, I was very cautious. I taxied it around the airport and did touch backs for eleven hours before I felt comfortable enough to fly it. This was a rural airport and I did this in the evenings after work when few people were there. I was careful to allow the brakes to cool in between taxi tests. The regulars at the airport teased me a little, but it was good natured teasing. They'd ask if I was going to fly that weird plane or just drive it around the airport, but I could tell they were glad that I was aware of my limited experience and was taking a cautious approach. I swear they were more overjoyed than I was when they heard my radio call change from "taking the active for high speed taxi test" to "taking the active for departure". They were even happier when I landed 45 minutes later after flying around getting the feel of the Long-EZ in actual flight.
The Long-EZ is much easier to fly than the typical Cessna or Piper. The wing loading is higher and the design is more aerodynamically stable in turbulence. Landing a Cessna I'd always need to make large over corrections to the flight controls, essentially flying the average of large inputs to fight crosswinds and burbles shed from the trees to the sides of the runway. With the Long-EZ, I'd line it up and fly it to the numbers with a slight flare naturally occurring as it flew into ground effect. It was like it was on rails when on final. My small control inputs on the side stick and rudders were almost subconscious. It's as if the Long-EZ knew what I wanted it to do before I did. It also helped that the main gear is a big fiberglass shock absorber. I got a lot of compliments on the landings but that was all Long-EZ. The gear would touch very gently with almost no weight on it and as the plane slowly settled to the runway the gear would very gradually take more of the weight. There was usually a chirp from the wheel spinning up but no feeling of the main gear touching the runway. I'd keep the nose wheel off the runway as long as possible to increase aerodynamic braking (deploying both rudders as well), and when the nose finally settled it always reminded me of the Space Shuttle or Concorde landing.
John Denver died in one oft these.
We paint our roofs red.
This is a cultural thing, meant to represent the atrocities committed by both sides in our great civil war
EZ PZ
Not accurate statistics. I flew Longeze N160RG for for five years and 500 hours also a Vari-eze for five years and 500 hours. The Veri is small but the longeze was roomy for my 6'2" size and comfortable also the back seat in a longeze is very roomy and will fit a 250 pound large man. I once took a 6'5" guy in my tiny veri-eze back seat for a ride over burning man. Also both my 032 Longeze and 125HP 0200 continental engine planes could cruise at 160 knots throttled back for good performance. Lastly when I flew in formation with my 0320 Long with a buddy who had an 0235 my fuel consumption was very close to his. Since I was at one third throttle and he was at full throttle. He was trying to go fast and I was trying to go slow at his pace and we burned about the same fuel. So basically a larger engine works less hard and uses less fuel. If I pushed it to the fire wall it would have been a lot more fuel but going 180 knots
All long ezs are the same size. That's interesting. I can see why you turn comments off on your videos
Do the world expects too much from the 'Murricans to learn how to write km/h?
They can do whatever they like. Just like me and hopefully just like you
John Denver had some trouble with his…
He did but it was more because he wasn't familiar with the plane. The original builder had relocated the fuel selector. He hadn't checked it and was unable to reach it.
@@richardbabin4393 Actually it is widely believed that the location of the fuel selector switch may have caused him to crash, as he reach back to use it causing him to dip the plane…. While at high speed and close to the ground(ocean)
@@richardbabin4393 the joy of home builders. Nothing is really standardized. From what I remember the builder put the fuel selecter behind the pilot on the bulkhead. The idea was that he did not have to run the fuel line inside the cabin. Which makes sense if you were in a crash.