Long-EZ, a more practical airplane
Heading out for Rough River, one north Texas Long-EZ lifts off an hour before the rest of us. Even with the other EZ’s head start, James Redmond in his Berkut will still be the first to call entering Rough River.
I lift off from my far southwest edge of the DFW Class B while the others are swarming together in the northeast quadrant. They have lifted off a little early and are already 15 minutes east of Dallas.
While James Redmond is up at 14K, we are cruising at 7500 feet and all getting about the same minor tail wind. The group includes a couple of detailed Longs, Vance Atkinson’s Oshkosh Grand Champion Cozy, and Scott Carter’s Wright Brothers (or is it Lindberg winner?) award winning Long-EZ. They are all playing dueling wing levelers and fuel flows and make more than a few pointed mentions of their bountiful and important cargos.
I lean back and relax listening in to the juking and jousting, again enjoying this high slice of EZ life. During the trip they stay pretty much together and I catch up to them a little and have time to consider the relative pecking order and status of the group. Can’t help it. Of course i get to make the rules.
Things settle into a rhythm and every few minutes they report general comparisons on ground speed and fuel burn. The ground speed settles to about 180 knots. An initial fuel burn roll-call starts with a distracted 11.2 gph. Vance counters with his 7.8 gph and causes everyone else to sit up and get leaned out. The 11.2 gph’er quickly tweaks down to 8. At this low altitude and still under 6 gph I count my blessings and continue to consider elements I gain or concede.
So far, in ten years I have been too busy to look up and covet what I might have missed by choosing the VariEze, and have never wished to be in any other plane. But cruising along and listening in on how everyone else is doing, you can’t help but notice the upper range of capability and the overall outright stunning performance that these guys are getting.
These trips are always a big event to me. If you are traveling to be with other EZ folks, it’s certainly nice to get started early along the way. It was a great day back in the Marines when a couple-a-few or a dozen helos headed out on a mission roaring through tactical troop inserts on one island, then regroup and shut down on a nearby beach for lunch, or maybe refuel at Maui and hurting yourself at the resort hotel buffet. After transitioning to the Cessna 120 civilian world it was quickly obvious that having a mission and mixing with others was more fun than just boring holes in the air.
And in Texas, flying or driving, anytime I get home from another state in half a day it is a big deal. On family trips to south Texas we routinely drive twelve hours. Someone recently demonstrated to me how you can flip Texas to the left and put Houston in the water off LA, or right and put El Paso in the Atlantic. Or flip the state up and South Padre Island is a stones throw from Canada. With the versatility of the plane I look forward to claiming more parts of the country as friends. The VariEze has certainly allowed significant widening of these personal horizons. I can’t help but think how crossing the country in this way would astound the Wright Brothers, or Glen Curtiss. Can you believe those other folks don’t even look up when a plane flies over?
So how did my pecking order turn out?
Everyone made it to Rough River. And back. Each in the style and comfort and in the flight accommodations that they chose. Extreme personal freedom, how ever you choose to describe it.
The group pecking order? One to ten?
All Ones.
Although cruising strong in a very sweet ride, being around the LongEZs I can’t help but notice their strong points.
Did you know that a number of VariEze guys have a 90%/90% Long-EZ lurking somewhere in a hangar back corner?
More Practical
To the point, I readily agree that the Long-EZ is a more practical airplane. It started as a modification to resolve significant limits in VariEze payload and low-speed handling. I remember seeing a picture of the first LongEZ with VariEze wings a wider spar, and then another with a completely new wing.
With one-third more wing area, it readily handles a starter and alternator, normally has a lower landing speed, is generally more capable, and just allows for a more civilized lifestyle all around.
Walking the flight line among the 102 canards at Burt’s birthday a few years ago he was asking “What are all these VariEzes doing here, didn’t they get the message?”
Some folks are surprised that the Long-EZ isn’t necessarily longer. In our hangar my VariEze is longer than the stock Long-EZ in the next slot. I think both designs have the same bulkhead and firewall fuselage stations.
The major differences are the 1/3 more wing area, two inches more front seat shoulder room, and about twice the fuel capacity. The wider strakes and center spar give the Long-EZ front seat elbow room and side baggage room. Long actually refers to range, about 52 versus 26 gallons. One of the Canard Pusher spec sheets mentions that a LE can carry the pilot and 52 gallons, or two people and 38 gallons.
Even though both planes are highly capable and might be able to stagger off the ground with quite a load, overloading a Long-EZ’s 99 square feet of wing area with two new-millennium age folks-plus-necessities is a little less significant than overloading pretty much the same stuff into a VariEze’s 66 square feet of wing area. The Long-EZ is just a more practical airplane.
I’m still watching for the aircraft that doesn’t harbor a hard compromise.
The payload of either plane can be quickly eaten up. A new Long-EZ owner once stopped in at the hangar shaking his head saying he had just weighed his new toy and that with him and his wife two gallons of fuel put them at the advertised gross weight. Another friend tells of his surprise when his LongEZ was topped off with fuel rather than getting the 25 gallons he requested… and the ‘interesting’ ensuing takeoff.
The impression I get from flying both is that they are great handling planes. Once you get acquainted, pitch in both planes is a positive experience. There is definitely a little different in roll in the two planes, but it doesn’t seem to be an issue.
Many airplanes have surprising results when using rudder alone. Comparing the two EZs, the LongEZs I have flown seem to have relatively ‘easier’ or more coordinated turns with less, or even without rudder input. I don’t quantify that as better than the VariEze, just different. I am very pleased with my plane’s handling. Getting up to speed in either plane should include practice with and without rudder, and especially on crosswind approaches reminding oneself to be aware of and ready to use them.
With the rudders, an interesting exercise is to roll left to 30 degrees banked turn, and then over to a right 30 degree banked turn. In LongEZs I have done this without rudder input. A little rudder helped, but wasn’t required. The same maneuver in a VariEze with and without rudder is different. The VariEze is definitely a rudder airplane.
In my VariEze, rolling 30 degrees left to 30 degrees right with rudders is very brisk and comfortable. Without rudder input there is a little hesitation or butt wagging joggle going through wings level. Its my habit to lead turns with a little rudder, especially on landing.
Evidently not all of you have access to the CPs and Burt’s philosophy on the 0-235 Long-EZ. Here it is, from CP 28 Page 5.
“How much Power ?
One of the basic functions of the aircraft designer is the sizing of the aircraft such that the selected powerplant is correct. An engine too-small for the aircraft results in inadequate climb in high-altitude summer conditions or an unacceptably long takeoff roll. Too large an engine is wasteful of fuel because either the high cruise speed is at an inefficient flight condition for the airframe (low cruise lift-to-drag ratio), or the engine itself is inefficient when throttled back to obtain the speed for a good lift-to-drag ratio.
If a designer attempts to select an engine for optimum cruise efficiency, ie. at a flight condition for maximum miles-per-gallon he finds the engine inadequate for climb. This situation is not unlike that of the automobile designer who finds his vehicle is cruised at a speed far in excess of that for the best mpg. However, the designer knows that the airplane should not operate at best L/D (or at best mpg) anyway, since this is not practical unless you are setting a distance record. Increases in speed above but near the best mpg speed result in only small losses of mpg. But, as the speed increases considerably above the best mpg condition the mpg drops drastically. The big question, then, is how fast should you really fly? If this question can be answered, then the designer can size the engine for this practical speed.
Aerodynamicist, Dr. B.H. Carson if of the US Naval Academy has published an excellent analysis of the fuel efficiency of light planes (AIAA publication 80-1847) and has presented theoretical rationale for practical cruise efficiency. His interesting technical treatise is beyond the scope of this article, but the summary of findings is of interest to pilots. Rather than focusing on the cost per distance (mpg), he finds the speed that gives the minimum cost per speed. This “cruise optimum” speed corresponds to minimum outlay in extra fuel (over best mpg) per increment in additional speed. This speed corresponds to the closest approach of the airplane to a “technology barrier“ of efficiency proposed by Gabrielli and Von Karman in an article “What price speed?” published in Mechanical Engineering Vol. 72 October 1950.
This “cruise optimum speed, at 32% over the speed for best mpg, results in a 16% increase of total fuel used, requiring a 52% increase of power and saving 24% of flight time. This speed is regarded as the most productive use of excess fuel for cruising. The pilot should consider it his best “economy” cruise speed.
Accepting this theory, lets see what the resultant engine size is for the Long-EZ. At 8000 ft. altitude and 1325 lb. weight the “cruise optimum” speed is 139 kt. (160 mph) and requires 47 thrust horsepower (55 brake horsepower). This is a power setting of less than 48% when using the 118 hp 0-235 Lycoming. This suggests that, for 65% power cruise (to allow operation at lean side of peak EGT), the ideal engine for a Long-EZ would have 86 hp. However, here is where the theory breaks down. The ‘Long’ is a fast aircraft for a fixed pitch prop application. Thus, with the low prop efficiency at slow speeds, it requires a 100 BHP engine for satisfactory take off performance.
The larger engines, 160 BHP for example, are wasteful of fuel at any speed. This is because specific fuel consumption (SFC) increases as the engine’s power is reduced below 75%. (Snip – a related graph is not shown).
If a Long-EZ is cruised at “cruise optimum” speed, its 0-235-L2C engine will burn 8% less fuel than would an 0-320-B at the same speed (48% power for the 0-235 and 36% for the 0-320). If both engines were run at 65% power the 0-320 would burn 22% more fuel than the 0-235 for a given trip.”
<<<<<<<<<<< So there. LongEZ 0-235 efficiency from the horse’s mouth.
Munching on this and comparing it to the FLYING HIGH AND FAST (http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/hp_limts.pdf) helps point out the fine balance between structural strength and weight versus speed.
So. What is it worth to have the larger planform but having to stuff in more power to keep up with the pack? A 22% loss of efficiency? Not worth it? Or Priceless? I guess that’s your call.
This is not a technical paper on the LongEZ, rather an admiring concession to a few of its noteworthy attributes. I look forward to learning from those of you that have optimized these canard types. If I am around where you are, please be persistent enough to tell me about your successes.
Bill James, Fort Worth VariEze
ATP, Society of Flight Test Engineers SFTE Member
There was supposed to be anhedral?
