LongEZ question

Rgbeard

Rgbeard

En-Route
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
4,345
Location
Phoenix, AZ and Ensenada, Mexico
Display Name
Display name:
rgbeard
So I was at the airport today, playing the role of the aviation appearance technician, and next to me is parked a LongEZ.

It is sitting in its spot, strapped down with straps around its wings, and its nose resting on a used aviation tire.

I presume that it did not taxi into that spot without nose gear. The nose gear is simply retracted. I would think the grinding sound would be unbearable any other way.

My question is, why retract the nose gear upon leaving the aircraft? Why not leave it sit on all three wheels?

Then of course, there is the whole straps around the wings thing, but I really don’t care about that as much. It just looks dorky.

I took a photo.
 

Attachments

  • F4F9F31E-31CA-451B-9DAB-2000F87FF200.jpeg
    F4F9F31E-31CA-451B-9DAB-2000F87FF200.jpeg
    118.4 KB · Views: 201
They are tail heavy without a pilot. Resting on its nose avoids having an expensive tail/prop strike.
 
Guys with a Long EZ look at other planes and think they look dorky.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
They actually don't need to tie it down anyway. The aircraft can withstand heavy winds in the nose down parking configuration. There’s actually a pic somewhere on line with a Long-EZ parked and several conventional aircraft behind it destroyed by a storm.
 
The chicks really dig the LongEZ... let me tell you... :cornut:
 
By lowering the nose the fuel tanks move forward of the main gear. When the aircraft is level that weight is behind the main gear.
 
Rgbeard said:
I’m sure! I just think I would have some kind of tiedown, instead of putting ratchet straps around the wings
Click to expand...

I'm guessing the builder didn't build in tie-down anchors on the underside of the wings on that particular airframe.
 
1. Easier to get in and out of it.
2. Negative angle of attack on the ground for wind storms.
 
Easier to saddle up. Otherwise, you would have back off some and make a run at it.
 
champ driver said:
1. Easier to get in and out of it.
2. Negative angle of attack on the ground for wind storms.
Click to expand...

Maxnr said:
Easier to saddle up. Otherwise, you would have back off some and make a run at it.
Click to expand...

I thought the nose wheel on an EZ had to be cranked down before getting in, and cranked up after getting out?
 
GRG55 said:
I thought the nose wheel on an EZ had to be cranked down before getting in, and cranked up after getting out?
Click to expand...

You lower the nose before you exit the airplane and raise the nose after you board for the next flight.
 
kyleb said:
What happens in a quartering tailwind?
Click to expand...
The trailing edge higher off the ground than leading edge of the wing so air coming from behind gets squeezed under the leading edge as it flows under which gives suction just like a venturi - the same venturi effect that causes lift on the top of a wing.
(See, I can make up fairy tales too!)
 
kyleb said:
You lower the nose before you exit the airplane and raise the nose after you board for the next flight.
Click to expand...

Curious. never considered this aspect. Is it manual or electric or ....

Tim
 
The feeble screw mechanism can't raise or lower the gear while there are occupants in the plane. It would strip the little worm gear. To get in the plane, the passenger would board with the nose on the ground, the the pilot would hold the nose up and crank the gear down, then climb in. At least that's how we did it in the one I helped build..

We parked it with the nose down to preserve the fragile nose gear and to keep the wind from getting under the canard.
 
IK04 said:
The feeble screw mechanism can't raise or lower the gear while there are occupants in the plane. It would strip the little worm gear. To get in the plane, the passenger would board with the nose on the ground, the the pilot would hold the nose up and crank the gear down, then climb in. At least that's how we did it in the one I helped build..

We parked it with the nose down to preserve the fragile nose gear and to keep the wind from getting under the canard.
Click to expand...

That was my recollection also.

We only have one active Long-EZE left at our airport. It has a small manual crank for the nose gear. It also has a little pull out handle, similar to a BAS handle on a taildragger, to assist lifting the nose. The owner cranks the nose gear down and tucks the sliding handle away before getting in.
 
Last edited:
The manual crank isn’t designed to raise the nose while someone is sitting in it. The electric one can though.
 
GRG55 said:
I thought the nose wheel on an EZ had to be cranked down before getting in, and cranked up after getting out?
Click to expand...
That's the way I've seen it done. Open the canopy, lift the nose with one hand, reach in and lower the gear with the other, set it on the gear but keep a hand on it to hold the nose on the ground, then get it. Although saying get in seems inaccurate. The examples I've seen, it seems more like you have to put the airplane on yourself like a tight pair pants more so than 'climb inside and sit down'.

I always thought the performance and efficiency numbers on them were amazing. Then I looked at one up close and saw that cockpit that looks like its about all of 8" wide and said yeah no thanks. Actually I think what I said to myself was dang I never knew John Denver was such a tiny fella.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
The examples I've seen, it seems more like you have to put the airplane on yourself like a tight pair pants more so than 'climb inside and sit down'.
Click to expand...
Handy to have a ground crew with you. Then after you land they can turn the airplane upside down and shake you out. :p
 
I watched the show on Reelz last night about John Denver's plane. Crazy to think someone would move the fuel switch to that location.
 
Gerhardt said:
I watched the show on Reelz last night about John Denver's plane. Crazy to think someone would move the fuel switch to that location.
Click to expand...

Yeah I’ve seen that as well. Not sure what the original builder was thinking. I’m not a fan of the fuel sights being in the back either. Constantly have to remind yourself to look back. Gotta be some fuel starvation cases with that setup.
 
Gerhardt said:
I watched the show on Reelz last night about John Denver's plane. Crazy to think someone would move the fuel switch to that location.
Click to expand...
Crazy to think that someone would fly that airplane low over the water with a nearly empty tank (after being told that it was nearly out of fuel) knowing that it was not easy to switch tanks (the selector valve was in need of service on top of everything else.)

Velocity173 said:
Not sure what the original builder was thinking.
Click to expand...
Reducing the risk of a cockpit fire by not running fuel lines through it.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Crazy to think that someone would fly that airplane low over the water with a nearly empty tank (after being told that it was nearly out of fuel) knowing that it was not easy to switch tanks (the selector valve was in need of service on top of everything else.)


Reducing the risk of a cockpit fire by not running fuel lines through it.
Click to expand...

Yeah and that was bad judgment on the builder’s part. It’s beefed up beneath the fuel valve on the original plans so there’s no reason to deviate. Plus, you’ve got two clear sight fuel gages in the cockpit. So instead fuel leaking at your feet, you’ll have fuel all over your back.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
And, apparently, the final owner thought it was OK because he didn't have it changed.

I don't see any way to blame anyone but the pilot for that accident.
Click to expand...

He didn’t think it was OK and said just the day prior to the accident that he was going to have it moved to the original design position. He only owned the thing for 2 weeks.

I agree, even with a fuel selector in a hard to reach position, I put the blame on the PIC. Doesn’t change the fact the NTSB puts primary blame on the design modification though.

https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-rel...le_Diverting_His_Attention_During_Flight.aspx
 
Velocity173 said:
Yeah I’ve seen that as well. Not sure what the original builder was thinking. I’m not a fan of the fuel sights being in the back either. Constantly have to remind yourself to look back. Gotta be some fuel starvation cases with that setup.
Click to expand...

The plastic tube site gauges in the wing roots of my Husky are damn difficult to read from the front seat also. I have to crane my neck back and look over the top of my sunglasses to catch sight of the fuel sloshing up and down in them.
But then, who actually depends on fuel indicators of any sort to track how much gas is left in their aircraft tanks? :D
 
GRG55 said:
The plastic tube site gauges in the wing roots of my Husky are damn difficult to read from the front seat also. I have to crane my neck back and look over the top of my sunglasses to catch sight of the fuel sloshing up and down in them.
But then, who actually depends on fuel indicators of any sort to track how much gas is left in their aircraft tanks? :D
Click to expand...

The Velocity was originally designed with clear sight gauges in the back as well. Mine was either built without or modified later with a digital reading up front. Prefer up front but the original design wouldn’t be a deal breaker for me.
 
I didn't install the sight gauges in mine. I heard that some would get brittle and didn't like the idea of fuel in the cabin after one decided to let go.

Besides, on every other plane I had flown you NEVER trusted the fuel gauges anyway. Stick the tanks prior to takeoff and use a watch to determine how far you could go.

But with the Princeton fuel level probes feeding the GRT EFIS and a fuel flow transducer, I know how much fuel I've got within .5 gallons. So who needs those stinkin' sight gauges. :D
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Crazy to think that someone would fly that airplane low over the water with a nearly empty tank (after being told that it was nearly out of fuel) knowing that it was not easy to switch tanks (the selector valve was in need of service on top of everything else.)
Click to expand...

Yep, and he had scheduled the plane to have that fuel selector addressed. My own opinion is that he probably did not want to add fuel to the plane as he knew it was going in to fuel work. To put the vice grips to the fuel selector behind your shoulder was too much contortion not to upset the flight, too bad it was too low to recover.

I loved reading a news article that mentioned a Long EZ crash and them saying it was the same kind of plane Elton John died in.

And here I thought Elton John was that chick from Grease.
 
Had he put fuel in the proper tank, he would never been retired to switch tanks.
 
Stingray Don said:
He didn’t even have a valid pilot’s license at the time of the crash. He had no business even flying.
Click to expand...

John Denver was not legally permitted to fly at the time of the accident. In previous years, he had a couple of drunk driving arrests. In 1996 the FAA learned that Denver had failed to maintain sobriety by failing to refrain from alcohol and revoked his medical certification. The autopsy found no sign of alcohol or other drugs in his body.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top