Long EZ

[PA32pilot]

Anyone have info on the Long EZ that went down at Dutton?

[YYZSaabGuy]

Anyone have info on the Long EZ that went down at Dutton?

Not too much coverage out there, unfortunately:
https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/pil ... ction-site
https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/luc ... lane-crash

[Squaretail]

If you’re going to be in a crash, those things are among the worst, there’s nothing after all between you and the impact but a little bit of fibreglass and the pedals.

[AirFrame]

If you’re going to be in a crash, those things are among the worst, there’s nothing after all between you and the impact but a little bit of fibreglass and the pedals.

And the heavy bit is behind you.

About the only good place to "crash" in one would be calm water. The fuselage is a foam bucket, that would both float and insulate you. Or so Rutan suggests. I wouldn't want to put it down on anything else if the engine quit.

[Inverted2]

There’s a subdivision going up right at the end of his runway. I heard from someone it was an engine problem. He almost made it back to the runway but hit a pile of lumber between 2 houses being built. Has had that plane for many years. I believe since 1989. Not a worse plane to do a forced approach in. Like sitting in a fibreglass canoe.

[Taxivasion]

C-FGFY

[‘Bob’]

Even a simple nose over can be deadly which given the fragility of the nose gear or the possibility of forgetting to extend it is more likely than in most aircraft.

Trapped under the canopy and soaked in fuel that’s now mixing with electricity. Any wonder the previous owner of John Denver’s aircraft wanted to keep fuel out of the cockpit.

But it’s super safe because it won’t stall.

[AirFrame]

Even a simple nose over can be deadly which given the fragility of the nose gear

Nothing particularly fragile about it. It holds the loads it's designed to quite well, and will absorb a good whack on a hard landing. Off-airport, the procedure is to leave the nosegear up.

or the possibility of forgetting to extend it is more likely than in most aircraft.

No more than any other retractable. Gear up and gear down on every flight. Nice thing about it is that if you *do* forget the gear, there's a sacrificial skid-plate. Once you come to a stop, lift the nose again and drop the gear. On pavement, anyway, it won't damage the aircraft. Replace the skid plate when you get back to the hangar.

Trapped under the canopy and soaked in fuel that’s now mixing with electricity. Any wonder the previous owner of John Denver’s aircraft wanted to keep fuel out of the cockpit.

A lot like any other low-wing, bubble-canopy aircraft.

But it’s super safe because it won’t stall.

That *is* different, i'll grant you.

[‘Bob’]

Sure there, pal

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2014/11/r ... d.html?m=1


https://www.longezpilot.com/PG10%20Last ... N220EZ.htm

[airway]

"We EZE owners know what the survival rate is in these wonderful machines."

Bit of a contradictory statement. I'm thinking I never want to get into one of these.

[AirFrame]

Sure there, pal

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2014/11/r ... d.html?m=1
https://www.longezpilot.com/PG10%20Last ... N220EZ.htm

Not sure what you're trying to say... Two crashes with rollovers where the pilots both survived. Neither sounds much different than comparable accidents in other low-wing two-place amateur-builts. When you're upside down, you get pinned in and you have to smash your way out.

[PilotDAR]

I have no experience with a LongEZ, other than watching one fly, and thinking to myself I might ask the owner for a ride. As he landed, the nosewheel shimmied so badly that the whole nose leg broke off, and it slide to a stop on the nose. No ride that day, I helped him walk it off the runway. But thy intrigued me. So I helped a friend build a Quickie, to get to know the plane. During that time in my life, I was also helping out a little as labour for wreck recovery. Knowing the cabin structure of the Quickie, and seeing the structure of the wrecks we were cleaning up, I began to understand some differences, as they related to crash forces on the occupants.

The glass/foam composites are really stiff and strong. where riveted aluminum will crumple. The glass/foam is kinda like riding in an egg shell - very strong, until it breaks, then very weak. An aluminum cabin will progressively crumple, maintaining some strength until it stops. If you're going to come to a hard stop, the greater the distance from beginning to hard stop to the final stop, the better. And better yet, if that happens in one rather progressive deceleration, instead of hit hard, little crumple, so high crash load, then the structure bursts and you have to stop again.

As a result of what I learned, I bought an aluminum riveted airplane - but, it can't compete with the performance of the glass backward foambuilt!

[karmutzen]

Your probability of crashing in a GA airplane is about 1:1000 over a 30 year period. I'll take those odds any day to fly whatever I want with total disregard to survivability. The rest of you can fly a Cirrus with one hand on the BRS deployment handle.
Anybody know why Bennetto's engine quit in this accident?

[Bede]

Your probability of crashing in a GA airplane is about 1:1000 over a 30 year period.

I highly doubt it. Hull insurance on land planes is about 1.5% of hull value per year. That tells me that there's about 1:67 hull losses per year. Let's say half are not-in-motion. That's about a 1:130 per year. It's a rough guess but a couple of orders of magnitude off your guess.

[AirFrame]

I highly doubt it. Hull insurance on land planes is about 1.5% of hull value per year.

I'd hazard a guess that at least half of that, if not 90% of that, is profit for the insurance companies.

[Bede]

I highly doubt it. Hull insurance on land planes is about 1.5% of hull value per year.

I'd hazard a guess that at least half of that, if not 90% of that, is profit for the insurance companies.

No it's not. Margin is about 20% for insurance companies.

[photofly]

Is it really that high? Broker gets 10%, not sure the underwriter gets as much.

[Squaretail]

If you’re going to be in a crash, those things are among the worst, there’s nothing after all between you and the impact but a little bit of fibreglass and the pedals.

And the heavy bit is behind you.

About the only good place to "crash" in one would be calm water. The fuselage is a foam bucket, that would both float and insulate you. Or so Rutan suggests. I wouldn't want to put it down on anything else if the engine quit.

To be fair, the engine behind isn’t at dangerous in a crash as it might seem, besides the fact of not having it to crush in front. I seem to recall some studies on pusher mounts, where there were almost no incidents of the feared breakthrough and crushing happened. I think the only guy I knew who had an engine on top of him (and survived being burned by the metal in addition to a lot of fractures) was in a Quickie crash. Even in this crash it didn’t happen judging by the photos.

That still doesn’t mean that I think it would be an easy plane to forced land.

[AirFrame]

To be fair, the engine behind isn’t at dangerous in a crash as it might seem, besides the fact of not having it to crush in front.

The issue is more that when you crash a conventional plane, the weight behind you is generally the weight of the tailcone and the empennage. In an EZ, the weight behind you is *everything but the nosecone*. Engine, wings, fuel tanks, main gear. That's a lot more mass pushing forward after the nosecone hits something.

You can see in the photos of this crash, that all of that extra mass stayed together. No sign of the forward fuselage, most likely because it broke off or was pushed into the aft fuselage in the crash, no doubt contributing to the pilot's injuries.

I loved flying one when I had the opportunity. But I never kidded myself...Crashworthiness was not it's strong suit. Although... If you're going to land a retractable airplane gear up, this is the one I would pick. Apparently.

[pelmet]

C-FGFY, a privately registered amateur built Rutan LONG-EZ, was on a flight from St. Thomas
Municipal Airport (CYQS), Ontario, to Dutton Airport (CDT7) Ontario, with the pilot as the sole
occupant. During the downwind for runway 21 the engine (Lycoming O-235-L2C) began running
rough, and as the pilot turned base, the engine failed. The pilot flew directly to the threshold of the
runway while attempting a restart and switching fuel tanks, but landed approximately 50 feet short,
striking a stack of plywood on the unfinished main floor of a house under construction. The fuel
tanks were not breached, and there was no post crash fire. A neighbor responded within minutes,
and the local fire department arrived shortly afterwards. The pilot received serious injuries to both
legs during the impact and was airlifted to hospital.