LongEZ VS RV7?

cocolos

cocolos

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
468
Location
Davis, CA
Display Name
Display name:
cocolos
Note I am not in the market mostly just window shopping. First off are the RV7 and LongEZ compatible in missions? FYI I chose to look at RV7 over RV9 mainly due to greater efficiency with a compatible engine.


LEZ:
Pro: 6-7gph @ 160kts?
Pro: Fighter jet feel
Pro: Canard stall
Pro: Up front cost 40k-60k
Con: Small panel
Con: Can't land in grass or dirt strips
Con: Low baggage space
Con: Greater cost for insurance

RV7
Pro: 8gph @ 165kts?
Pro: Land on dirt or grass
Pro: Aerobatics
Pro: Good baggage space
Con: light controls
Con: Up front Cost 65k+

Is this about right? How do the other costs of owning add up? That is annual and such.
 
Last edited:
cocolos said:
RV7
Pro: 8gph @ 165kts?
Pro: Land on dirt or grass
Pro: Aerobatics
Con: light controls
Con: Up front Cost 65k+
Con: Good baggage space
Click to expand...

I guess "good" is a relative term, but in general, isn't good baggage space a 'pro'?
 
The RV7 is probably quieter.

The loudest I've flown in are

#1 Cessna 162
#2 Long EZ (I was in the back seat)
 
Two rather different missions actually, but your pro/con look right to me.

The Long-eze was intended for long, high trips on a tight budget. I've got a few hours in them. The RV-7 is more of a 100 buck hamburger plane that can flip around. I have zero time in one.

Unless you are planning to go long distances with one other light person and a few pair of undies, the Long-eze isn't much use. Which is why they are fairly cheap to buy. Both are more challenging to land than a Cessna, but for very different reasons.
 
I'd say your pros and cons are pretty close. I wouldn't call an RV being light in the controls in the con category. I've flown an RV-7 a couple of times and it's no lighter on the controls than my Velocity. It'll roll faster than mine but the control inputs in force are about the same. It's not as sensitive as a Glasair that's for sure. Light controls are pretty much standard in most high performance homebuilts.

Also, have you compared insurance rates? I'd guess that the lower purchase price of the Long Ez might offset the higher premium for that type.
 
I thought you could do acro in the EZ?

Also I know they can land on grass, maybe not as ruff as the RV, but I've seen quite a few do it, didnt appear to require any heroic efforts.

RVs are sweet, just overpriced IMO for what they are, much like what J3 cubs go for.

What about a glasair RG?
 
Since a Long-eze is a homebuilt, one could certainly stamp 'rated for acrobatic flight' in the logs, and define the limitations yourself to loop, roll, Cuban 8, etc but Rutan has historically been in the 'no acro for eze planes' camp. Not because of the stresses involved but it's simply not designed for the attitudes of acro flight. I assure you, if you get the nose pointed straight down in a Long-eze and don't pull out quick with throttle to idle you'll be at Vne almost instantly.
 
I always thought of Vans as go out and play airplanes whereas Long EZs are get there airplanes. Of course the comparison you should really be making is between the EZ and an RV8 (or 4), as like the RV they're tandem. The RV7 is a side-by side aircraft, meaning you can have intelligible conversations and stuff.

I have been told (with no experience to speak of) that the EZ has on the order of a 25 to 1 glide ratio, meaning if you loose the mill you've a sporting chance to make it to the runway. A good thing too, since you're going to be coming in quite fast making the crash fairly energetic with those inverse square laws and all. The RVs I flew in (a 6 and a 7) had about at much glide as my Cherokee, that is to say not much. I think they come in a bit fast too, though I don't think they come in as hot as an EZ.

Vans have the advantage that the company that makes the kit is still extant, if you need parts. There are way more Vans flying and more folks making them than EZs, and way more for sale from what I've seen.
 
steingar said:
...I have been told (with no experience to speak of) that the EZ has on the order of a 25 to 1 glide ratio...
Click to expand...

Glide ratios can be somewhat misleading. Two different aircraft might have very different glide ratios but from a given altitude might both be on the ground in 3 minutes. The one with the higher ratio is just moving faster and when it comes to landing anywhere other than an airport runway that's not an advantage.

Something that hasn't been considered in this particular comparison is the passenger experience. The back seat of a Long EZ doesn't offer much of a view and you're pretty much back there on your own. Ingress and egress can also be something short of graceful.
 
Anyone have real world costs of either?

I chose the side- by-side option mainly because I am still debating if I really want tandem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
cocolos said:
Anyone have real world costs of either?

I chose the side- by-side option mainly because I am still debating if I really want tandem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You don't, or rather your pax don't.

Unless 90% of your flights are solo, tandem kinda sucks for flying non-aviation folks around.
 
cocolos said:
Note I am not in the market mostly just window shopping. First off are the RV7 and LongEZ compatible in missions? FYI I chose to look at RV7 over RV9 mainly due to greater efficiency with a compatible engine.


LEZ:
Pro: 6-7gph @ 160kts?
Pro: Fighter jet feel
Pro: Canard stall
Pro: Up front cost 40k-60k
Con: Small panel
Con: Can't land in grass or sit
Con: Low baggage space
Con: Greater cost for insurance

RV7
Pro: 8gph @ 165kts?
Pro: Land on dirt or grass
Pro: Aerobatics
Pro: Good baggage space
Con: light controls
Con: Up front Cost 65k+

Is this about right? How do the other costs of owning add up? That is annual and such.
Click to expand...
I think you have it wrong on the RV-7 being more efficient than a RV-9. The 7 allows aerobatics while the 9 does not. The 9 is more efficient with an additional 5 feet of wingspan per side. The 9 is very easy to fly and the stall speed is extremely slow at just 34 knots. If you want to land on dirt or grass you would be better with the 7 or 9 rather than the 7A or 9A.

Annual cost likely about the same between the two provided the same A&P doing the annual - there can be a great difference in cost between A&P's.

The LEZ will require much longer runway than the RV. The LEZ will be faster on the same power than the RV. The LEZ will tolerate turbulence better than the RV. The LEZ may show some pitch instability in rain depending on the canard it has. The RV has better support. The RV being aluminum is less prone to radio issues than the LEZ.

Light controls isn't necessarily a con...
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
The RVs I flew in (a 6 and a 7) had about at much glide as my Cherokee, that is to say not much. I think they come in a bit fast too, though I don't think they come in as hot as an EZ.
Click to expand...

Steinger,

I <politely> beg to differ.

RV's glide a LOT better than Cherokees. 10:1-11:1 vs maybe 7 or 8 to 1 for the Cherokee. The CAFE foundation tested an RV-6A about 15 years ago. I'm too lazy to dig up the report (it is online somewhere) but I think their number was 11:1 for the RV, which is pretty good compared to anything other than an EZ.

In my RV-6, I come over the threshold at <65 knots and put it on the ground at ~50 knots (I'm a bit busy at that point and have never watched the ASI all the way to the ground). The low speed handling is benign and the speeds are much slower than I see most people landing 172's, and certainly Cherokees. (Although a decent pilot in a 172 should be able to out slow-fly an RV.)

The RV's have very good low speed characteristics.
 
The versatility of the 7 is very appealing but again so is the cost efficiency of the LEZ. Even with the higher insurance premium, which might even out from the fuel savings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
schmookeeg said:
Rain affects pitch stability in a canard? I had never heard that before.
Click to expand...

I believe it's more common in the varieze. It is not all canards just the ones that have that particular wing.
 
The original canard airfoil on the Long eze was the same as the Vari-eze. However, the Long-eze due to some of the balance loads being greater, had a pitch trim instability in rain that wasn't as pronounced on the Vari-eze. As I recall, Burt sent out to Roncz for some design changes and there was a change to the canard for the Long-eze using the 'Roncz airfoil'. I believe most if not all of the current produced Long-eze will have this Roncz canard fitted to reduce pitch trim instability.

On a related note, my limited understanding of RVs that Roncz had some kind of input on the airfoil for the RV6? or 7? or something? I don't know the RVs hardly at all but there's something stuck in my mind that I heard the name mentioned in relation to one of the current crop of RV wings. Meh - maybe I'm having a Brian Williams moment!
 
docmirror said:
The original canard airfoil on the Long eze was the same as the Vari-eze. However, the Long-eze due to some of the balance loads being greater, had a pitch trim instability in rain that wasn't as pronounced on the Vari-eze. As I recall, Burt sent out to Roncz for some design changes and there was a change to the canard for the Long-eze using the 'Roncz airfoil'. I believe most if not all of the current produced Long-eze will have this Roncz canard fitted to reduce pitch trim instability.

On a related note, my limited understanding of RVs that Roncz had some kind of input on the airfoil for the RV6? or 7? or something? I don't know the RVs hardly at all but there's something stuck in my mind that I heard the name mentioned in relation to one of the current crop of RV wings. Meh - maybe I'm having a Brian Williams moment!
Click to expand...

The RV-9 has a Roncz airfoil. The other one and two seaters use a 23012.5 NACA airfoil.
 
Sorry OP for the tangent :) Is the instability due to the canard being deflected and literally smacking the raindrops, changing its angle of attack?

Fascinating things these experimentals. I sorta wish they made a "plus size" long-ez... I frequently am solo XC for vast distances, but that little hot dog tube seems real cramped for a long flight.
 
kyleb said:
The RV-9 has a Roncz airfoil. The other one and two seaters use a 23012.5 NACA airfoil.
Click to expand...

Cool, thx. I think the only other plane I know uses the Roncz is Cirrus. Pretty good company then, Long-eze, RV9 and Cirrus.
 
schmookeeg said:
Sorry OP for the tangent :) Is the instability due to the canard being deflected and literally smacking the raindrops, changing its angle of attack?
Click to expand...
It's due to the rain or water on the canard tripping a little flow separation on a laminar airfoil. Bugs, paint stripes, lots of little things can do it.

Nauga,
and his flow solver
 
schmookeeg said:
Sorry OP for the tangent :) Is the instability due to the canard being deflected and literally smacking the raindrops, changing its angle of attack?

Fascinating things these experimentals. I sorta wish they made a "plus size" long-ez... I frequently am solo XC for vast distances, but that little hot dog tube seems real cramped for a long flight.
Click to expand...

Surface contamination. The canard is laminar flow across the entire surface. It doesn't take much to spoil the characteristics across the chord.

Long eze is a cramped cockpit. Both Rutans were slender guys, and they were meticulous about weight and low drag so no extra room for the plus sizes.
 
docmirror said:
Cool, thx. I think the only other plane I know uses the Roncz is Cirrus. Pretty good company then, Long-eze, RV9 and Cirrus.
Click to expand...
Zivko Edge, Visionair Vantage, and everybody's favorite, the Icon LSA seaplane are ones I recall.

Nauga,
and some curved air
 
Any longez owners want to comment on comfort? With two are you left with a small backpack as luggage?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
schmookeeg said:
I sorta wish they made a "plus size" long-ez... I frequently am solo XC for vast distances, but that little hot dog tube seems real cramped for a long flight.
Click to expand...
Check Cozy Aircraft
 
I don't rank Canard Stall as a solid positive, to be it's 50/50 at best. Canard stall is why they need so much runway, the wing will fly long before the canard has the power to attain a climb angle.
 
Long Ez wins this contest every day in my book. Plus it's closer to 170 knots speed wise and you can always get underwing pods for carrying a decent bit of kit. Aside from engine and avionics the single most expensive airframe part on a LEZ is about $2200 bucks for pre-cut foam cores, less if you do it yourself. The pay as you go cost for the LEZ is hard to beat.
 
From many years experience with composites and a little bit of experience in the long ez I don't think there is any comparison between the RV and the ez. The ez uses a whole lot more runway, its not as maneuverable, 2 guys and a lunchbag is more realistic than a backpack, speeds aren't much different in cruise, glide ratio of the ez is not nearly as good as its being painted in the thread, and its just an oddball to fly. For some reason the canards have been idolized as the ideal efficiency aircraft but for the same powerplant they don't really go any faster except when you least need too....landing, they use way more runway and are cramped. Of course there are those who think they're the greatest thing since popcorn and they're perfectly entitled to that opinion. Thats what makes us great is the ability to choose what we like. My opinion is that the composite construction methods used on the ez are not the most long lasting. Styrofoam isn't a long lived material and while you may think its primary purpose is to be a cheap and easy to form mold for the fiberglass covering its also a structural member. I don't like having a structural part made from insulation. Both the core and the resin are subject to damage from UV rays and are difficult to inspect. Paint is critical on these planes as it is the only real barrier to UV and protects the structure. Paint on an aluminum plane is decoration in most cases. When you buy a composite plane built by someone else you have no real way to inspect it for quality of build and structure. Even when you can see the material you can't really tell whether its sound. On the other hand you can see most everything in an aluminum riveted plane and build quality is evident with a look at a few important spots. Maintenance costs are based on this too though my guess is the biggest difference in cost between the two for yearly maintenance will be the prop on the pusher which will likely take more damage if you use fields that have debris on them....another - in the column for the ez. Molded composites are one thing where you can actually see some of the structure and you're not depending on the cheapest foam ever made. Moldless styro on the other hand......prototypes and mockups.

Just my opinion based on years of building plastic planes and drones.

Frank
 
 
Well I guess I just need to figure out if I want to do short hops with the ability to do dirt/grass strips VS long distance with little to no baggage.
 
cocolos said:
Well I guess I just need to figure out if I want to do short hops with the ability to do dirt/grass strips VS long distance with little to no baggage.
Click to expand...
The utility and support of the RV's is hard to beat. Pretty easy to sell one as many see value in the Vans line despite the tendency to be more expensive than the LEZ's.

Another consideration is do you really want a tandem? If planned use involves IFR, the side by side offers much more panel space for the little items which make IFR flight safer and easier.
 
I think a better comparison would be the Long EZ vs an RV-4. Both tandem and both sell for about the same money. An RV-7 is Cozy / Velocity territory. Personally, I chose either a cozy or a Velocity over an RV-7.

As far as the pitch stability in moisture, it's a non event. You'll feel a slight vibration on the stick in clouds / rain, and either a pitch up or down. I'd say most pitch down slightly. Mine pitches up slightly. Depends on what type canard you have.

Stalls are also a non event. I filmed this pitch buck today while out flying. 58 kts, 700-800 fpm descent rate.. If I wanted to power out of this, just add power and climb out at 700-800 fpm while pitch bucking.

Oh, turn the volume down on the vid unless you want to hear an annoying gear warning.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0821.MOV
    2.3 MB · Views: 39
Last edited:
Personally I think Piaggio and the Katmai got it right, use both a tail and canard.
 
The only canard I have flown was a Quickie TRI-Q200. We almost bought it. It would turn tighter circles than anything I have been in. It would hold altitude right where it was left without an autopilot. We stalled it as much as a canard may be stalled and it would just porpoise along. It had a belly board which afforded the pilot an ability to induce a great deal of drag at a moments notice. This was great if a little high on approach. Contrast that with our RV-9A which has a tendency to float and lacks the belly board.

I like the composites. Both of our planes have O-320 motors but one cruises 30 knots faster than the other. Point the nose down and one will easily hit 220 kts. But, if you want something with factory support, plenty of builders nearby, easy to work on and get parts for, easy to fly, easy to sell, want a new panel? one can be ordered as a pre-assembled bold on item.
 
steingar said:
I always thought of Vans as go out and play airplanes whereas Long EZs are get there airplanes. Of course the comparison you should really be making is between the EZ and an RV8 (or 4), as like the RV they're tandem. The RV7 is a side-by side aircraft, meaning you can have intelligible conversations and stuff.
Click to expand...

There are some instances where side-by-side seating is valuable -- but "conversation" isn't one of them. The intercom works just fine. :wink2:

We tiptoed into the tandem seating when we bought our RV-8A, after many years of flying side by side aircraft. The main difference we have found is that the second pilot (my wife's a pilot, too) cannot perform duties like radio tuning, etc.

We have minimized that problem somewhat by installing a glass panel that allows bluetoothing a tablet from the back cockpit. This allows us to run Garmin Pilot, and to emulate the EFIS screen. The backseat pilot is no longer just along for the ride.

The -8A has the same wing and empennage as the -7. It is a sweet-flying machine. We have plenty of baggage space in the -8A, with fore-and-aft baggage compartments. Not sure how much the -7 has, in comparison.

I don't have any time in Long EZs, but they've always been on my list of "must-fly-before-I-die" aircraft. :yesnod:
 
Thanks everyone. I will need to fly in either to get the feel for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top