Long EZ Aerobatics - EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2018 

AirshowStuffVideos Thank you for not putting music over this video.

$$$$$$$..?

InfinitExpanse I was thinking the same thing

I noticed that same thing, but wasn't sure if it was the prop, or some other flow of air.

Well you've got the Berkut variant

IIRC, it's supposedly rated to +/- 10 G. The Berkut 360 that is based on the Long EZ certainly is!

Very robust... but it has characteristics that make it unaerobatic, its not designed for that quite the contrary.

@@Wingnut353 What are those characteristics?

John Denver you have all the money in the world what are you going to do today? "eh kill myself in some stupid plane" ... allrighty then.

at 6 minutes 40 seconds, I think so.

Lol good analogy

The red line crew does this with Van's R6 and it is impressive. So some 18 wheelers can be race cars too. This routine seemed relaxed.

I don't agree, it's more like racing a stock sports car.

@@happyfox711 not really. A stock sports car can be quite maneuverable and responsive. A LongEZ is not. The max roll rate is about 1/3 that of an rv6 and the minimum speed is much higher than the stall speed of comparable light aircraft. The LongEZ is really good at going somewhere in a straight line burning minimal gas, assuming you are bringing a toothbrush and clean underwear. That's about it.

@@sblack48 a female friend use to fly with a long ez from where she work, canary island, spain long way home in rome, italy.... since a couple of years every 3 months... she alway told me, "it's no matter what happens if something go wrong when fly EZ, it's always able to recover, if you don't stay on the underpowered original engine, it's a lack of horsepower, not the low drag design"

Rutan Defiant. Not a lot of them around.

The Rutan Long-EZ features very high speeds and outstanding fuel economy. It can reach around 180-200 MPH with only a 100 HP engine. It's also very cramped inside, and it's canard design requires higher takeoff and landing speeds then a conventional design. So, the pilot has to be better--he has less time to correct for errors when landing. In general, the conventional ('tail-aft') layout is favourable because it provides better efficiency in flight and allows for shorter takeoff and landing distances at lower speeds. The Long-EZ is fast, efficient, and really cool, though :)

It is, a butload of fighter jets have these

@@UmVtCg The fighter jets you see with canards are different--the canards are there for flight control, but do not provide constant lift like on the Long-EZ. These fighters are unstable in flight and *must* have a fly-by-wire system to be controllable. On the other hand, they can have very good control because the canards are ahead of the main wing, so they don't receive any turbulent airflow from it.

@@Paiadakine Dunno whats gone on there, I only posted it once... RU-vid gremlins. I will try and delete that shit.

Drummer Dan figured that. I deleted my post.

Enough so they don't bust when yanking the stick :)

Its an experiment, so.....

Literally nobody gives a fuck what you say in texas

I'm sorry. What? The Long-EZ is arguably the most stable experimental homebuilt aircraft to ever fly. The elevator on a Long-EZ is on the canard and is part of the airfoil of the canard and as it is deflected, the camber of the airfoil is changed and therefore the lift curve both moved along AND shifted. Therefore, as the canard reaches its critical angle of attack and stalls, the elevator is therefore also stalled, which prevents the pilot from pulling any more lift out of the canard. As the lift curve of the canard is always below that of the main wing, the main wing never stalls and the airplane retains 80% of its lift at all times. The center of pressure of the main wing is aft of the center of gravity, a canard design is not inherently unstable as you surmise. Aerobatics in a Long-EZ is considerably more "boring" due to the inability to stall the main wing. Violent aerobatics almost always require the main wing to be stalled for "snap" maneuvers and the like. The Long-EZ cannot be stalled in the normal sense of the term and therefore, can only do a limited set of aerobatic maneuvers. The airplane is a swept wing with very large winglets. As a result, it has relatively high dihedral effect. Therefore, minor excursions in yaw result in rolling moments. That said, the Long-EZ, unlike almost every other design, flies with it's ball in the center (i.e. neither skidding nor slipping), all the time without any input from the pilot thanks to the cambered and center-lifting winglets. Getting a little active on the rudder pedals can show the qualities in the video, however, at no time is the airplane anywhere near out of the pilot's control. That said, these maneuvers can be flown smoother than seen in the video, however, Kyle is also fairly new to the type and is a budding pilot. As far as I'm concerned, he deserves kudos for bringing such a strong, stable, phenomenally fun flying machine to Oshkosh and showing it off to the world.

Diverge? Diverge from what exactly? Explain please.

Andy Amendala so what made it so twitchy then?

​@Winter Blues No idea, it wasn't part of his routine on the day the video was filmed for whatever reason. On plenty of other performances, Kyle has flown loops. The airplane is entirely capable of and approved for the maneuver.

@@wholelottamiata6976 Can you point out a timestamp in the video that you're considering "twitchy"? I would remind you that this routine was recorded in Oshkosh, Wisconsin in the mid-afternoon and it was likely quite turbulent, 80+ degrees F outside, and probably classic midwestern plains windy. In a highly maneuverable airplane with a swept wing an high dihedral effect, the airplane will appear twitchier when an excursion in yaw or roll occurs. That doesn't mean the airplane is unstable. It merely means that if bumped in the yaw, the airplane will want to roll slightly. If the pilot inputs a rapid stick motion to counter the roll, it will appear to the watcher to be "twitchy", it doesn't mean the pilot was fighting for control, nor that the airplane wouldn't have damped that motion on its own without pilot input.

They don't do well with the engine up front, the prop wash messes them up and causes excessive vibration. As for the pusher configuration, a completely different design and engineering logic is needed for the airframe, including augmented cooling for both piston and turbine powerplants. Beechcraft's Starship was the only major push into the medium executive jet market, which didn't succeed. The only pusher canard on the commercial passenger market with substantial foothold is the Piaggi Avanti. The Rafale, Typhoon, several Sukhoi and the BlackJack bomber military aircraft are the only ones known to operate with canards, for a variety of reasons.

Nighthawke70. At one point in time canards were to be the future of aviation, or so it was told like many other things.

No flaps, so they need a long runway. Small wheels, so paved runways are pretty much standard. Propwash doesn't hit the rudder and elevator, so stalled moves like a Hammerhead or flat spin isn't in aerobatic routines. Very efficient design and designed to be stall resistant. There are always exceptions.

Kevin Moore. I guess I'm not knowledgeable enough in aerodynamics to understand why smaller wheels go with the canard design. I never even thought about flaps. Split rudders and/or raised elevators exist on some conventional designs too though perhaps for the same prop wash reason. I love planes. It's a shame I never got my license. There were those persistent and pesky things like food and shelter always getting in the way.

joe woodchuck The small nose wheel is just part of the design. Limitations of the retractable nose gear going into the small cabin. A canard could be fixed gear and larger wheels. There is a fully retractable gear canard, Bercuit (sp?) One reason this plane is so efficient is the prop doesnt blast the rear control surfaces.

Lycoming O-235, carbureted 100-115 hp, this is what recommended and fuel efficient for these, this one might have something bigger?:)

Paul Dark I don’t think Lycoming makes an O-250

@@rootkitxx thank you paul

@@anthonyvega1959 wholelottamiatta is right its o-235, carbureted 100-115 horsepower, sorry. I have the same engine in mine, don't know how I misspelled it🤔🤔🤔😁😁😁

@@wholelottamiata6976 you are right, Its o-235

lol

rkernell LongEZ or VariEz. Sadly, he didn't get fully familiar and ran out of fuel, when he needed to switch tanks. Pilot error, not a design problem.

Thanks.

I thought he died in an ultralight.

He didn't run out of fuel...the engine was consuming fuel from one wing tank only which caused a weight imbalance that resulted in a roll and crash, probably from his unfamiliarity with the layout of the plane controls...and I do believe it was the same or similar Rutan aircraft

Nah, the one he crashed is all banged up.

This funky aircraft are fun to watch until they slam into the dirt while doing aerobatics. Thus , my desire to take up aviation resultantly comes to an abrupt end.

@@matthewjackson9615 why will they slam into the dirt?

@@faustoseletti9805 Sudden, unexpected attacks of gravity cause that effect.

don't watch then

This comment does not make sense

Heye, canard planes dont really aerobatics due to how they fly and are controlled. Cant really do much with them.

@@rogelio451 I think they meant it's impressive to see a canard do aerobatics despite being unconventional.

@@DinoDays703 Burt Rutan's whole idea of the small canard plane was that it had natural AoA limiting and was generally stall and spin resistant. That means it can only do mild aerobatics. The only time you'll see an actual production aircraft with canards is in the military--they take advantage of having the control surfaces mounted ahead of the main wing, to give exceptionally good controllability at high AoA without resorting to expensive and maintenance-intensive thrust vector control. Think of the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale etc. The Amercian stealth fighter, the F-22, still has a conventional 'tail-aft' design because it improves stealth characteristics when flying head-on into the enemy. A canard design would have increased radar reflections when approaching head-on, so the F-22 has a conventional layout, and gets its great controllability with thrust vector control. It also costs an arm and a leg, making it unsuitable for mass-production (unless you work for the Pentagon, of course.)

You look very twitchy.

Abby Babby, I have a basic Long EZ and have done all of those maneuvers in my plane.