I am looking for a fast cross country plane to commute from Alaska to Lower 48 in a single leg. It will usually be just myself and the dog, so no need to have a lot of useful load, but speed and range are of paramount importance.
I am intrigued by the Long EZ.
Does anyone have experience with them?

I would steer you more towards the RV-6 or RV-7 series with extended range tank option. (crosswinds will be easier and you can scratch the dog's ear from time to time). The RV-9 is also a fairly decent cross country machine.

http://hotelwhiskeyaviation.com/rv7

My neighbor had a 180hp Glasair he built. Would do Flagstaff to a NW stop then from there to SE AK. All the same day. I think he sold it fairly inexpensively. He said it was easy to fly and not bad to maintain.

Although I really do like these planes, they require more runway than I operate from. I really like the efficiency of the design as mentioned in this article:

https://www.wired.com/2009/11/45mpg-at-207mph/

It would be a great cross country aircraft, especially the Long EZ with 52 gallons of fuel. I'm curious how well the design fairs in turbulence.

For your stated mission, it would be a good fit.

Being a long legged 6’4” , I wonder if I could even sit comfortably in the EZ for 5 hours. The RVs look intriguing as well, especially since I could go into some gravel and grass strips in it.
Hmm, glasairs might be the perfect compromise between bush plane and cross country machine.

The CFI I did my last BFR with has an RV-6 with I believe 120 gallons total. With a turbocharged engine, he cruises up high and has something like a 24 hour range. I think the RV platform would be a pretty good choice.

There was a guy where I grew up in CO that had a long or maybe vari ez. I don’t know what engine it had but it would not outrun our 250 Comanche. Looked fast though, I think because it was so small.

If you're really interested in a Long-EZ, find a forum with experts in the type, and see what they have to say about owning and flying one. Don't take my word for it – I am absolutely NOT an expert in the type... I just read a lot!

With all that said, I understand that the Long-EZ utilizes a laminar flow wing, and that even slight moisture (or even dead bugs on the leading edge of the wing cause a significant change in the airfoil's behavior and performance. A CFI I flew with once (ferry flight) owned a Vari-EZ (another Rutan canard design – a speedster that gets almost 200 mph with an O-200 engine) and he would not fly his in any visible moisture whatsoever. We didn't spend a lot of time talking about it because it only came up when he was about to get on his commercial flight back home.

I found that going to a type forum is usually met with overwhelming support for the type and confirmation bias. But here, unless I'm asking what's the best backcountry airplane which instantly elicits the emergence of the Maule and Cessna 180 camps, I get a more unbiased opinion on a non-backcountry airplane.

I also got some negative feedback on the rain effect on the Long EZ and since I live in SE Alaska, well, that just makes that plane pretty undesirable.

You might also consider the Lancair 320/360.

http://lancair.com/320-360/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancair_320

Great XC performance with a more conventional configuration that the Long EZ.

And if it's within reach - the Lancair Legacy

These are great flying aircraft if you understand that they are not designed for slow flight.

Thank you for the Lancair suggestion. I haven’t heard of them before and they look like they’ll fit my mission perfectly!
Even the ones in a more budget category.
Thanks for all the suggestions!

You might consider looking into insurance rates and minimum times for Lancairs, and the safety record. They do one thing (go fast) extremely well, but are not forgiving. A family member of mine built a IV-P, flew it for about 900 hours and sold it. It took the pilot 10 hours to turn it into a smoking hole in the ground, along with two other people. I knew a couple of other pilots that had Lancairs that are no longer with us. Perhaps an RV would offer a fighting chance to land in the wilds if something went wrong. I haven't flown to Alaska, and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn last night, so take it for what it's worth.

jcadwell wrote:You might consider looking into insurance rates and minimum times for Lancairs, and the safety record. They do one thing (go fast) extremely well, but are not forgiving. A family member of mine built a IV-P, flew it for about 900 hours and sold it. It took the pilot 10 hours to turn it into a smoking hole in the ground, along with two other people. I knew a couple of other pilots that had Lancairs that are no longer with us. Perhaps an RV would offer a fighting chance to land in the wilds if something went wrong. I haven't flown to Alaska, and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn last night, so take it for what it's worth.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

How do the Glasairs compare to the Lanceairs safety wise? The Glasairs are fairly competitive with the Lanceairs. A good RV9 is spec'd to do 195 mph with an O-320:

https://www.vansaircraft.com/rv-9/

We looked at them before getting the Maule. I wouldn't fly a Van's where I put the Maule into. But if your mission is strictly airport to airport, a Van's is also a good choice.

As a recovering RV builder and flyer (RV-8, 13 years) I would recommend them over a Lancair/Glasair for your purpose. My RV-8 stalled around 50kts, whereas they Lancair/Glasair are a lot higher than that and I expect the stall is a lot sharper. You can get an RV into/out of relatively short grass strips, but still get a really good cruise. I used to cruise at 160 kts on 9 gph, and you have 42 gal on board.

My Maule is a LOT slower and burns a LOT more fuel ... .but I can load up the back with a pile of stuff and land almost anywhere. The Bearhawk 4pl I'm building should be even better but I still miss the 160 kt cruise and the ability to do an aileron roll from straight and level

Cheers

Thanks for the insights. I haven't really thought of the insurance angle... Good thought though.
I fly my 170B on tundra tires or wheel skis, which fits the off-airport mission nicely, albeit slowly.
This would be a purely airport to airport with only enroute IFR capability, since I'll have the option to choose my days wisely.
The Sportsman is attractive in that it might fit both missions well and having only one plane to maintain would be nice!

It wouldn't give up my 170B for "love nor money" but a sweet little cross country rocket would be a cool ride to have as well . I looked at a couple of partially completed RV-10's and if the right opportunity arose I'd be giving it a very serious look

jcadwell wrote:You might consider looking into insurance rates and minimum times for Lancairs, and the safety record. They do one thing (go fast) extremely well, but are not forgiving. A family member of mine built a IV-P, flew it for about 900 hours and sold it. It took the pilot 10 hours to turn it into a smoking hole in the ground, along with two other people. I knew a couple of other pilots that had Lancairs that are no longer with us. Perhaps an RV would offer a fighting chance to land in the wilds if something went wrong. I haven't flown to Alaska, and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn last night, so take it for what it's worth.

The Lancair IV-P is indeed unforgiving if you try to go too slow and inadvertently enter an accelerated stall. Lancair's other models are considerably more predictable with reasonably forgiving characteristics. The Lancair ES is a very fine airplane.

Most fast planes will bite if you ask them to do what a bush plane does. Generally if you carry a little extra speed, you won't have any problems.

Two of my friends own Glasair IIs. They like the planes a lot as "go-fast, go-far" airplanes. But both of them have commented that insurance is expensive (but nowhere near how much a Lancair costs...). One couple flew their G-II to OSH (from the Dallas area) every year, but took only enough clothing for the an overnight stay or two with them in the airplane. The rest (camping equipment and most of their clothing and supplies for the week) was shipped to OSH by UPS. A couple of years ago, they purchased a Malibu, and the Glasair mostly sits now... When I asked about it, it was the wife who answered that the Malibu was just SO much more comfortable for trips, and that the convenience of being able to take the dog, their baggage, and all the camping equipment and supplies with them was just so much nicer...

The other guy (who is single) has the Glasair II, and he seems to like it just fine. He also owns a Piper Cherokee 180. They share a hangar, and neither needs to be moved in order to fly the other one. Both planes have 180 HP engines, and burn the same fuel per hour, so it's mostly just the mission (and his personal choice) that dictates which one he flies on any given day. But he seems to fly the Cherokee about twice as often as the Glasair, though he does use the Glasair for longer trips. And he will NOT take the Glasair if the destination is a turf runway.

With a cruise speed of around 190 knots, the Glasair II is a great cross-country machine. With the proper avionics, it makes a decent IFR platform as well. Check into insurance costs, and plan to do some transition training with an experienced Glasair pilot, but I would think the Glasair fits your bill pretty well.

But when you really think about it, an RV-4, RV-8, RV-6, or RV-7 has cruise speeds just a bit slower than the Glasair, would be a LOT easier to insure, most A&P/IAs are willing to work on them, and it would be a lot easier to find one for sale near you (they're more common than tics around here!). For those times you want or need to land on grass, I'd rather be in an RV than in a Glasair II.

Richard VanGrundsven designed a series of very nice-flying, highly useful airplanes that are a great compromise for most folks. I don't know anyone who owns an RV that doesn't love their plane...