Jump to content

Long EZ Passenger Leg Room


SAF_Zoom

Recommended Posts

Hi guys, did a lot of searching around and have found no indication on the passenger leg room in the Long EZ. My girlfriend is 5'10" and is very interested in knowing a much leg room there is.

 

Also, I'm 6'1" (230lbs) and I know the LE will fit me good. (If I build) Is it possible to bring in the pilot seat a bit forward (max 1 inch) to give missy some more leg room? Will that make foe more confort? Or is it plenty of space?

 

Finally what would be the effect on the CG of the plane (moving forward 1 inch). The way things look now, if I build, I'm leaning toward a Wankel 13b or newer (2 rotors) turbocharged engine, which I understand weighs about the same (with redrive) as a Lyc O320.

 

Why the Wankel??? Well mostly because of the reading I did today.

 

Although I was drawn at first to the Lyc/Cont (my being an ex-aircraft mechanic and all).... I did not really know about the use of rotary engine as an aircraft powerplant (never cared for homebuilt other than the Long EZ)

 

But reading many post and web site I it made me remember that when I blew my 1985 Mazda RX-7 engine in 1990 (after it had more then 80K (hard :rolleyes: ) miles on it) that blown engine ran long enough for me to get to colledge (10Miles), then back home (20miles), and then to the shop (5 miles), then back home (5 miles), then back to another shop (20miles)... where it was removed and replaced.... The thing still powered the car to 60mph... was shaking like hell but got me their...

 

So yes I can vuch that a wankel will take more abuse than a regular piston engine... well any how... thats why I think that it is a likely candidate to go in the back....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It sounds like you're going to take a really long time to build. Especially if you use a wankel! That's two or three extra years at least!!! Will the back seat size be an issue? Will your girl hang around that Long? :D I may have mentioned before that I had two late 80's RX-7's and wanted to use a rotary in mine. Take the money for an auto conversion and convert it into an aircraft engine. You will save time and majot headaches. I just bought my third airplane last week. It was a formerly flying airplane, no engine or instruments. Now all I have to do is find another airplane engine to install. Of course I still have to final finish my second airplane so this third one is in the corner for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Front seat is very roomy. Backseat is not. The front is pretty wide at the shoulders (Cozy MKIV actually comes closer to the shoulders) and you can easily put your elbows into the strakes for a really wide feeling. In the back, you can't really put your elbows in the strakes----and it narrows down quite a bit. I have had some tall people in the back---about 6'4" or so---not going to say that they were exactly comfortable---but they had fun.

 

Backseat comfort is really more a function of how you actually build the backseat---which is not part of the plans. In the plans, the backseat is just a hole in the back with a cusion. Putting in a thigh support and a back support can really make things more comfortable.

 

I can't overemphasize the point that small modifications add an extreme amount of time to the build. When you follow directions, you can build pretty fast. When you don't, you have to spend a lot of time figuring out what the next step is---and how that change just rippled thru the plans.

 

The basic plane either fits your needs or not. If the backseat is not big enough, I would look at another airplane like an RV.

 

I thought you had stated before that you did not want a long build time----you are most surely guaranteeing one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got a ride in a long ez at Rough River this year. I am 6 feet tall 210 lbs with long legs(34 inch inseam). The fit was good. I am a little short in the waist. I could have used a cushion to get me up a little higher but the leg room was adequate but just a little tight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I forgot to mention that I'm as tall as Burt who happens to be 6'4". I also wheigh 235. I'll just bet he designed the back seat to fit him and Dick who is also the same size. It's tight in the back but not uncomfortable. Just don't plan on stretching out your legs. You sit with your knees up and not any moving around room. My only regret is that I couldn't give my dad a ride who is more broad thru the shoulders and he has wider hips than me. He's more stocky than I am so there is a limitation for some people on size. I used to say if the girl didn't fit in the back of a Vari-Ez I wouldn't date her. Still applies, but I'm dating less....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SAF_Zoom,

 

Next time you're in the Toronto area, I'd be happy to spend some time with you going over the pro's and con's of Long-EZ vs RV vs Lancair, retracts and Mazda 13B conversions vs Lycoming. I have some hard-learned experience in all of the above. I can be found at CNC3.

 

As for comfort, I'm 6'1", 200lbs and I'm comfy in the front or back seat of my Long (built to plans).

 

Neil K

Aircraft built and flown;

Lancair 235 with 13B

RV6 with 13B

RV7 with O-360 CS prop

and currently, Long-EZ with 0-320

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zoom, the back seat is fine and you're having too much fun to worry about it anyway.

If you are going to play with a rotary you really need to come to Tracy's rotary roundup, it is usually mid-october. Well worth the trip.

...Chrissi

CG Products

www.CozyGirrrl.com

Cozy Mk-IV RG 13B Turbo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks so much for the answers guys/girls (?) ...

 

And thanks for the offer... I would need more infor on the LE... But I'm not going RV (well I think) the LE as always been kind of a dream of mine... :D .... btw any of you guys use Teamspeak (or MS Messenger) here... We could talk about it a bit...

 

Well as I mention earlier... going rotary would be for safety reason... nothing else...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks so much for the answers guys/girls (?) ...

 

And thanks for the offer... I would need more info on the LE... But I'm not going RV (well I think) the LE as always been kind of a dream of mine... :D .... BTW any of you guys use Team-speak (or MS Messenger) here... We could talk about it a bit...

 

Well as I mention earlier... going rotary would be for safety reason... nothing else...

the block is safe, but then you have to build all the stuff to bolt on it.......like fuel rails, air box, cooling for water and oil, something for spark, and you'll need two of every thing!. all this will be from your hands and your wallet. lets do the math shall we. 13b 1500 re-drive 3000 spark 1000

water 1000 oil 1000 mount (cc) 2000, paint 30 that's 9500 and you get to test it for 40 hours, hope you didn't miss something ??? what if it runs bad? or gets hot ? has a funny sound? there will be no book no repair shop. going turbo ? add 3000 just food for the brain my 2 cents

Steve M. Parkins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that many newbies assume that the risk for the automotive engine in the airplane is the same. You can talk about gear reduction all you want---but I don't newbies quite get it through their head that they are driving the auto-engine to rpms that their car rarely goes to.

 

I am NOT slamming auto-engines----but you don't get auto-engine reliability in an auto when you convert an auto-engine for aircraft use.

 

Did I say those rpms are smoking? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well as I mention earlier... going rotary would be for safety reason... nothing else...

Question::

 

Since when is a rotary auto conversion safer than a Lycoming?? I have yet to even see one fly regularly let alone safely??? STeve build on

Steve Harmon

Lovin Life in Idaho

Cozy IV Plans #1466 N232CZ

http://websites.expercraft.com/bigsteve/

Working on Chapter 19,21

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Well as I mention earlier... going rotary would be for safety reason... nothing else...

 

Uh oh... wrong answer. :D

The risk with a Wankel are:

 

Low quality redrive (which is BTW a reduction planetary gear drive similar to those used by ALL turboshaft engines). As far all my research for incident/accident report weilded no case where a redrive unit was at fault;

 

Engine failure (very rare occurence, way more Lyc/Cont failure per hour of use);

 

Accessory failure (here is where it all lies, many installation use auto quality parts that are unsuited for aircraft application... using aircraft grade accesories makes a rotary engine as safe (read more safe) then a Lyc/Cont)

 

Water pump/alternator beld drive... This is this system weak point. One need to install bouble belts and pulleys to have some sort of redundancy... A gear driven accessory box should be develop to address this issue... any one up for this :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that many newbies assume that the risk for the automotive engine in the airplane is the same. You can talk about gear reduction all you want---but I don't newbies quite get it through their head that they are driving the auto-engine to rpms that their car rarely goes to.

 

I am NOT slamming auto-engines----but you don't get auto-engine reliability in an auto when you convert an auto-engine for aircraft use.

 

Did I say those rpms are smoking? :)

 

Well I'm an aircreaft mechanic... I would hardly consider myself a newby.... newby...

 

BTW read up on Wankel engine... only 3 moving parts... no cams... no lifters... no exhaust valve to cook... no cylinder head to crack... Yeah... a recyprical engine is safer.... hummm

 

Ans as I mentionned earlier... I manages to drive about 100 miles on a blown rotary engine (driving 60mph) try doing that with a piston engine... you're lucky to make it to the curve...

 

But it as some draw back that needs to be adress... see previous post...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have yet to even see one fly regularly let alone safely???

Really? Tracey Crook has over 1600 hour on his RV4.

You'll see many more at the Rotary fly-in. http://www.rotaryaviation.com/

http://www.Mistral-Engines.com seems to put a lot of faith into the rotary.

Perry had been running his canard for quite a while on a rotary.

 

Many folks like the Lycoming and I don't fault them for that but times are changing.

T Mann - Loooong-EZ/20B Infinity R/G Chpts 18

Velocity/RG N951TM

Mann's Airplane Factory

We add rocket's to everything!

4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9, 10, 14, 19, 20 Done

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question::

 

Since when is a rotary auto conversion safer than a Lycoming?? I have yet to even see one fly regularly let alone safely??? STeve build on

Come on down to Tracy's Rotary Roundup fly-in every October down in Florida.

Plenty of rides to go around. Randi and I both enjoyed rides in Tracy's RV, the performance was awesome.

Weather permitting we get people from the midwest and as far away as San Diego in their Mazda powered RV's (grass field). Not everybody will fly into SNF or Osh, it does not mean there are no RX powered aircraft out there.

 

...Chrissi

CG Products

www.CozyGirrrl.com

Cozy Mk-IV RG 13B Turbo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Chrissi 100%. Get it from the experienced developers, and follow their process.

 

Flip side of the coin:

 

Three times I have been really glad I had a Lycoming. First time was when I sat in the aircraft for the first engine start and realised really I couldn't see a thing going on back there, 2nd was when I crossed the rocky mountains and 3rd was when I was out over desert Australia hundreds of miles from anyone, or anything.

 

A rotary is smooth, higher power, small package low weight and would seem perfect for the application, but in my opinion service history is everything.

Cheers,

 

Wayne Blackler

IO-360 Long EZ

VH-WEZ (N360WZ)

Melbourne, AUSTRALIA

http://v2.ez.org/feature/F0411-1/F0411-1.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a guy at Roanoke Texas who had a rotary intstallation in his Long. After two failures where one left him in the field by his home airport, he went back to having a Lycoming.

If your an aircraft mechanic, why the big consideration to go with the wankel? I would think that you would be seeing lycomings all the time for sale and could put a great engine together for cheap without the engineering cost. (Time, more time, lots of time. You say you have lots of money so that shouldn't be a problem.)

Tracy Crook has done great things with the Mazda. But he spent over twenty years getting there.

I've still got a 13B core sitting in my shed if anybody wants to come take it away!!! No garanties on the condition though. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are lots of folk on this forum how have a tag (profile) that states 13B or 20 B rotary.

 

I ask!

 

How many are flying?

How many will still have a rotary 2 yrs after their first flight? (or Subie)

How many will reliably achieve the performance and reliability of a LYC

Can the flyers who once had a rotary and now have a LYC speak up?

 

I know I am going to piss a few of you off! But there are to many of you who will end up frustrated and out of pocket.

 

I want people who come onto this site and see all these 13B's and 20B's in the profiles of builders to know that very few of these planes fly or are close to flying. The ones that do get airborne have or will have all sorts of problems!

 

One day someone may get it right, but it aint happened yet!

 

Burt and Nat have given us fantastic airframes.

Both say dont stuff with the engine.

 

If you want to be able to drive to the airport in anticipation of a flight with out worrying about the engine for God's sake put in a LYC.

 

There are 2 or 3, people in the EZ world who have the expertise to take alternative engines further but for the rest of you, wait till its been done.

 

I dont want to see builders spend 5 to 10 years building and then go through the disappointment and possible life threatening engine problems when they should be enjoying these fine aircraft.

 

Nuf said!

 

Chris Byrne, who once thought about installing a Subie, but saw the light and realised it was a train! I now fly a IFR Cozy IV that achieves 165kts on 26L/HR at 13000.

 

Its fun, I hope all of you can experience it one day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a guy at Roanoke Texas who had a rotary intstallation in his Long. After two failures where one left him in the field by his home airport, he went back to having a Lycoming.

If your an aircraft mechanic, why the big consideration to go with the wankel? I would think that you would be seeing lycomings all the time for sale and could put a great engine together for cheap without the engineering cost. (Time, more time, lots of time. You say you have lots of money so that shouldn't be a problem.)

Tracy Crook has done great things with the Mazda. But he spent over twenty years getting there.

I've still got a 13B core sitting in my shed if anybody wants to come take it away!!! No garanties on the condition though. :cool:

Lycoming are in my humble opinion dynosaurs... If it was not for lobyiste... not sure Lycoming / Continental would still own the major share of the market... buts thats just MY opinion...

 

Well Tracy took 20 years... the Lycoming / Continental are pratically unchanged since the 50s... Except for new alloys and threatments

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are lots of folk on this forum how have a tag (profile) that states 13B or 20 B rotary.

 

I ask!

 

How many are flying?

How many will still have a rotary 2 yrs after their first flight? (or Subie)

How many will reliably achieve the performance and reliability of a LYC

Can the flyers who once had a rotary and now have a LYC speak up?

 

I know I am going to piss a few of you off! But there are to many of you who will end up frustrated and out of pocket.

 

I want people who come onto this site and see all these 13B's and 20B's in the profiles of builders to know that very few of these planes fly or are close to flying. The ones that do get airborne have or will have all sorts of problems!

 

One day someone may get it right, but it aint happened yet!

 

Burt and Nat have given us fantastic airframes.

Both say dont stuff with the engine.

 

If you want to be able to drive to the airport in anticipation of a flight with out worrying about the engine for God's sake put in a LYC.

 

There are 2 or 3, people in the EZ world who have the expertise to take alternative engines further but for the rest of you, wait till its been done.

 

I dont want to see builders spend 5 to 10 years building and then go through the disappointment and possible life threatening engine problems when they should be enjoying these fine aircraft.

 

Nuf said!

 

Chris Byrne, who once thought about installing a Subie, but saw the light and realised it was a train! I now fly a IFR Cozy IV that achieves 165kts on 26L/HR at 13000.

 

Its fun, I hope all of you can experience it one day!

LOL the only reason the Lyc / Cont are the number one choice is because they where there first... They are common and poeple have for the most part trouble shot their installation. But as for the Wankel... cooling issues have to be adressed when they are installed (as I understand from reading many post in here)

 

It is true that Burt gave us a futaristic plane... but poeple still stick in the back very OLD technology... :rolleyes:

 

Subaru engines... well how are they any different from a Lyc/Cont... they are also boxer type engines... but with more advance (complex) engine management technologies. So if I was to decide between two receprecal type engine... one which the crackshaft was design to absorbe the vibration and forces from the propeller and the other one that was not... well I think the choice is clear... go for the aircraft engine... And BTW how many Lyc/Cont don't even make it to their TBO... humm... many... :mad: And that not even counting poeple who are installing previously certified engines which add a prop strike :envy:

 

Now the Wankel... well its not the engine that as to absorbe the forces (bending and traction/compression) of the prop... its the REDRIVE... Well these units are common these days... all turboprop engine have them (well similar units)... And as I stated before... none as failed so far...

 

Also... in a Wankel each rotor is independant of the other one... its basically two engine in one... So if one fails you still have the second one to push you through the air... Hell when my rotary gave up the ghost (after being tortured by ME over many years (read being overreved more time that I care to count)) it still managed to go 100 miles at more then 60 mph on one rotor... Try doing that with a blown cylinder on an receprical type engine... the engine will seize up in a hurry...

 

But hey... its a free world (well mostly) and we are all entitled to our opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Chrissi 100%. Get it from the experienced developers, and follow their process.

 

Flip side of the coin:

 

Three times I have been really glad I had a Lycoming. First time was when I sat in the aircraft for the first engine start and realised really I couldn't see a thing going on back there, 2nd was when I crossed the rocky mountains and 3rd was when I was out over desert Australia hundreds of miles from anyone, or anything.

 

A rotary is smooth, higher power, small package low weight and would seem perfect for the application, but in my opinion service history is everything.

Well tell that to Burt Rutan when he blew a cylinder in a Cessna...

 

The problem with ALL experimental type aircraft is that some neglect the preventive maintenance... so we will never be able to compare uncertifed engines (even Lyc/Cont) to certified engines... Thats just comparing apples and oranges...

 

My opinion is... assuming proper maintenance of both... a receprical type engine and a rotary type engine... the rotary type engine is less prone to catastrophic mechanical failure. Now... accessories... they need to be of aircraft grade... for it (the Wankel) to be as safe as a certified engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya know... I've owned a couple of RX-7's too. And I wanted a rotary in my Cozy when it was time for an engine. But.. I have seen several beautiful rotary installations removed only to be replaced with a Lycoming. Nice installations, years of work, but now they are gone.

 

I haven't seen anyone replace a Lycoming with a rotary or subaru engine (I'm sure its happened, I just don't know about it).

 

The airplanes that I have seen flying, the ones at Rough River, have airplane engines. The old 4 cyl airplane engines are far from perfect, but thats what gets almost all of these planes in the air.

 

The two rotors are not independent of one another... they turn the same crankshaft... if one gets "stuck"... the engine stops.

Andrew Anunson

I work underground and I play in the sky... no problem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya know... I've owned a couple of RX-7's too. And I wanted a rotary in my Cozy when it was time for an engine. But.. I have seen several beautiful rotary installations removed only to be replaced with a Lycoming. Nice installations, years of work, but now they are gone.

 

I haven't seen anyone replace a Lycoming with a rotary or subaru engine (I'm sure its happened, I just don't know about it).

 

The airplanes that I have seen flying, the ones at Rough River, have airplane engines. The old 4 cyl airplane engines are far from perfect, but thats what gets almost all of these planes in the air.

 

The two rotors are not independent of one another... they turn the same crankshaft... if one gets "stuck"... the engine stops.

If you want to fly use a proven aircraft engine. if you want to spend the first several years experimenting with a power plant then put in a non proven engine. the first year I flew the Lycoming over 300 hours and never had a problem with the engine and still don't have any problems just like the other aircraft with this engine. I have never heard of any that use other than aircraft engines that have flown 300 hours in the first year, most have not flown 300 hours in many years and many will never fly 300 hours.

Evolultion Eze RG -a two place side by side-200 Knots on 200 HP. A&P / pilot for over 30 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information