rhofacker Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 I was just looking at the specs of thte E-Racer and the Cozy.The Cozy info pack lists its wing span as 28.1 ft and area as 88.3 sq.ft. The E-Racer is listed as having a span of 26.2 ft and 94 sq.ft of area. I thought both of these designs were derivitives of the Long eze and had the same wings and canard. Anybody know just what the facts is? Are there other significant differences in the lifting surfaces? Airfoils? Wing twist? etc., etc.? The CAFE foundation did an evaluation of the Cozy. Does anybody know if they've done one for the E-Racer? If so, would you know which issue it was in? There are some other differences in specs: Cozy gross weight 2050 lbs, E-Racer gross weight 1800 lbs. Cozy take off/landing @ gross 1700/1300. E-Racer t.o./landing 1200/1500. These differences could be attributed to weight and hp. Interestingly enough both claim a cruise speed of 220 mph even though the Cozy is 180 hp and the E-Racer is 240 hp! I can't recall off hand what the CAFE report said about the Cozy speeds. If the Cozy advertisement is correct, it's in the ball park with 300 hp Glassairs WOW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Zeitlin Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 The Cozy info pack lists its wing span as 28.1 ft and area as 88.3 sq.ft. The E-Racer is listed as having a span of 26.2 ft and 94 sq.ft of area. I thought both of these designs were derivitives of the Long eze and had the same wings and canard. Anybody know just what the facts is? Both ARE derivatives of the L.E., and use exactly the same WING planform, shape, and structure (although the COZY wings have more glass in the spar due to the heavier weight). However, the strakes could be different sizes, so the total area would be slightly different. Are there other significant differences in the lifting surfaces? Airfoils? Wing twist? etc., etc.?No. Although the Eracer may use the old GU canard airfoil, rather than the Roncz, but I don't know about that. The CAFE foundation did an evaluation of the Cozy. Does anybody know if they've done one for the E-Racer?I've never seen a CAFE report for the Eracer - check the cafefoundation web site for a list of the planes they've tested. There are some other differences in specs: Cozy gross weight 2050 lbs, E-Racer gross weight 1800 lbs. Cozy take off/landing @ gross 1700/1300. E-Racer t.o./landing 1200/1500. These differences could be attributed to weight and hp.Yes, well, weights are always attributable to weight :-). The Eracer is a 2 seater, and the COZY is a 4 seater, so the gross weight of the COZY will be higher. Interestingly enough both claim a cruise speed of 220 mph even though the Cozy is 180 hp and the E-Racer is 240 hp! I can't recall off hand what the CAFE report said about the Cozy speeds.The COZY speeds are close to the claims. I've never seen two Eracers that had the same engine, so it's hard to say what the performance SHOULD be. You also need to be careful about comparing Vne's and Vmax's, as well as IAS and TAS. Quote Marc J. Zeitlin Burnside Aerospace marc_zeitlin@alum.mit.edu www.cozybuilders.org copyright © 2024 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam holman Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Re: Useful Load Long EZ Chris I had an E Racer and the wing/canard was the same as the LE except the trailing edge was straight and there is 25% more wing spar caps and canard spar caps. The vne on the E racer was 300 mph, I had mine to 291 mph T at 10,000. My AC was a very heavy version of the E Racer. The stock MGW was 2000 lbs with a 0320 or small alumunum buick v8. I installed a 360 hp supercharged IO540 with extra fuel and tested it to 2240 lbs,take off weight only. That weight was with 370 lbs, pilot/pass, 69 gal of fuel and about 20 lbs of baggage. That weight also included 25 lbs of nose ballast weight to offset the heavy engine. I know these numbers are most likely of no value for what you are looking for but I thought you might be interested. Jack E Racer Extreme Jack Have you lengthen the fuselage on your new e racer to eliminate the ballast? Sam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Morrison Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 No , I did not lengthen my fuselage, hence the ballast. The prototype E racer had a buick v8, approximately 225 hp and had a top speed of 240 mph. I believe the gross weight was increased to 2000 lbs. The E Racer also used the roncz canard. My new E racer is a foot longer in the nose and with the batteries moved forward a foot, I might not need ballast, time will tell. I am hoping my new AC will come in quite abit lighter than my last one. Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynn Erickson Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 No , I did not lengthen my fuselage, hence the ballast. The prototype E racer had a buick v8, approximately 225 hp and had a top speed of 240 mph. I believe the gross weight was increased to 2000 lbs. The E Racer also used the roncz canard. My new E racer is a foot longer in the nose and with the batteries moved forward a foot, I might not need ballast, time will tell. I am hoping my new AC will come in quite abit lighter than my last one. Jack Mine is very close to an Eracer, a bit wider and taller canopy. powered by IO360 angle valve, 200 HP model, at 8500 ft density altitude it does 200KTS GPS ground speed done on a triangle coarse with the engine at 2850 RPM. all E racers are build with the Roncz canard with the same elevator length as a long ez. the wing is the same as the long ez but the wing and center section spar cap layup thickness is increased by 25%. my gross is tested to 2200 lbs. with hydraulic pump and battery in the nose there is no need for balast with a 150 lbs pilot to 420 lb front seat load. Quote 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 More sharing options...
EracerFL Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 My E-Racer has a O-320 160HP. At 5000' and 2500 RPM and 24" MP it will indicate 152 Knots = 163 Knots true. At 2600 RPM 24.6" at the same altitude it will indicate 155 Knots = 167 Knots true. It has a Performance 3-Blade 61" X 65" prop which seems like a cruise prop with a longish takeoff roll. I think a O-360 or climb prop would be a better performer with the extra weight of the airframe with retracts. Empty weight is 1100 lbs. It has a Roncz canard with slight dihedral. One mod is the fuselage sides were made 1" deeper all the way. With a passenger takeoff is extended and elevator trails down more than solo. Extra room with passenger seat empty is nice vs the Long-Ez. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverquit Posted November 27, 2008 Share Posted November 27, 2008 Anyone interested I have a copy of the SA article of Shirl Dickey's original E-Racer in PDF. I tried attaching it here but won't work. Just PM or email me and I'll attach it for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishead Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 Can you email me a copy at 319569@pilot.fedex.com Thanks Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigorneau Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Enclosed specifications i have with my E-Racer: Engine is V-8 electronic injection 4,6 liters from Land Rover 165kw (225 cv). Parameters are : Span 7,98 m Lenght 5,11 m aera 10,15 m2 Max speed (Vne) 480 km/h (260kt) Cruise speed à 75% 300 km/h (162kt) Maxi load 930 kg Stall speed (parachutage) 110 km/h(59kt) at 820 kg-115 km/h(62kt) at 930 kg Cross wind landing tested 20 kt (37 km/h) Take off at 930 kg 580 meters Landing lenght at 930 kg 590 meters Flight duration 6h30mn plus 1/2h saffety time avgas 100LL per one hour from 20 to 26 liters for cruise speed from 280 à 320 km/h using avgas 100LL -possible to use 100LL or no lead 98 ascentional rate 1500 à 2500 ft/mn best ascentional speed 105 kt best lenght tested at 880 kg : 17 : with 100kt speed Down wind speed 100/105kt speed to put out gear legs 120 kt Final speed 80kt Landing speed 70kt Speed take off from 70 to 80 kt and 100 à 110kt, gear off 500ft, ascentional at 100 to 110 kt, cruise super chip at 140kt(260km/h)(19l/h), chip cruise to 150kt(278km/h)(21l/h), cruise 75% 162kt(300km/h)(26l/h), high speed cruise 180kt(333km/h)(26l/h), maxi speed tested 216kt (400 km/h). Maxi load pilot+passager 180kg (front balance) You may see this aircraft at LFOQ airfield. You have more photos on tagazous.free.fr i may send more information if you need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAF_Zoom Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Mine is very close to an Eracer, a bit wider and taller canopy. powered by IO360 angle valve, 200 HP model, at 8500 ft density altitude it does 200KTS GPS ground speed done on a triangle coarse with the engine at 2850 RPM. all E racers are build with the Roncz canard with the same elevator length as a long ez. the wing is the same as the long ez but the wing and center section spar cap layup thickness is increased by 25%. my gross is tested to 2200 lbs. with hydraulic pump and battery in the nose there is no need for balast with a 150 lbs pilot to 420 lb front seat load. Hi Lynn, Pardon my ignorance, but when you say "same elevator length as a long ez" do you means that the canard is the same lenth from tip to tip or are you only refering to the actual control surface. If you where not talking about the canard lenght, do you know if they measure up? And if no what are the measurment? Thanks, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Schubert Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 The E-racer canard is 147" long, excluding tip extensions. IIRC, this was done to make the lifting surface outside the fuselage the same as the long-eze. The E-racer canard is also mounted lower on the fuselage, more in line with the strake. The Cozy MKIV had an original length of 141", after flight testing this was changed to 135", also excluding tip extensions. The elevators were also shortened 3" per side. I will let others debate the relative effects these differences may make. Quote "We choose to do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard." JFK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Springer Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 The E-racer canard is 147" long, excluding tip extensions. IIRC, this was done to make the lifting surface outside the fuselage the same as the long-eze. The E-racer canard is also mounted lower on the fuselage, more in line with the strake. The Cozy MKIV had an original length of 141", after flight testing this was changed to 135", also excluding tip extensions. The elevators were also shortened 3" per side. I will let others debate the relative effects these differences may make. According to my plans, the Cozy Mk IV is 141" after shortening it from 147". It would have to be shortened twice to get to 135". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Schubert Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 You are correct, I was going from my Aerocanard cozy plans which already have the 6" reduction in span incorporated. Quote "We choose to do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard." JFK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAF_Zoom Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Thanks guys, And one other thing do you guys know what variant (Cosy IV 147" or 141" canard) the CAFE fondation tested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airnico Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 The E-racer canard is also mounted lower on the fuselage, more in line with the strake. do you know why they lowered the canard's position? did it produce any measurable effect? Quote Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads. (Dr. Emmett Brown) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Schubert Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 And one other thing do you guys know what variant (Cosy IV 147" or 141" canard) the CAFE fondation tested That was Mark Beduhn's Cozy. According to the CAFE article in Sport Aviation(April 1999) the canard span measured 145.2 inches(12.1ft) so allowing for the tips it seems his canard might be around 141" do you know why they lowered the canard's position? did it produce any measurable effect? I think it was done mainly for styling purposes. I don't know of anyone that has done a before and after performance survey Quote "We choose to do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard." JFK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Morrison Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I was not aware there was any difference in the LE and E Racer canard location. I will look at the plans of both and report back. Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Morrison Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Richard You are right on. The E Racer top of F22 is at WL 17 and the LE top of F22 WL is 18.9, quite a difference. Interesting tidbit, thanks. Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverquit Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Jack, Shirl's design had that big V8 sitting forward of the spar. I never saw your E-Racer in its original form. You once had a twin turbo V8 or V6? Was it forward of the spar? How about your E-Extreme? I noticed you also had several configurations for your downdraft cooling and exhaust. Which did you find works the best and what's E-Extreme going with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Morrison Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 The proto type had a CM F58 olds basic aluminum V8. bored and stroked with cut down chev. 327 rods, a combination of many engins with an end result of 289 cu-in about 225 hp at rpm NA. I had a all aluminum 4.3 chev V6, srroked to 4.9 with a vortec supercharger, 365 lbs, 280 hp at 4000 engine rpm, above 300 at higher rpm. It was also mounted in front of the firewall as per plans, in my opion not a good design. My new AC will have the 10540 with high compression pistons, twin Klaus ign. and an airflow performance injection, 325 hp. Weight should come in around 415 lbs, I will know for sure when I weigh the completed engine which should be very soon. Project is moving right along. Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigorneau Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 The proto type had a CM F58 olds basic aluminum V8. bored and stroked with cut down chev. 327 rods, a combination of many engins with an end result of 289 cu-in about 225 hp at rpm NA. I had a all aluminum 4.3 chev V6, srroked to 4.9 with a vortec supercharger, 365 lbs, 280 hp at 4000 engine rpm, above 300 at higher rpm. It was also mounted in front of the firewall as per plans, in my opion not a good design. My new AC will have the 10540 with high compression pistons, twin Klaus ign. and an airflow performance injection, 325 hp. Weight should come in around 415 lbs, I will know for sure when I weigh the completed engine which should be very soon. Project is moving right along. Jack hello jack, my eracer (n°263) has a V8 from landrover 4.6liters injection and power is 225CV at 3500 rpm at engine with 2243 rpm at propeller. the main point is that i burn only 26 liters per hour of avgas 100LL at 3500rpm at 160 knots speed; and 30 liters at 180 knots; and the cost of engine/reducer is shiper than IO 540 , same effect for spare parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Morrison Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 The 10540 was fine after my incident. I went to high compression pistons, klaus duel electronic ign and airflow performance fuel injection, 325 hp at 2800 rpm. Fuel burn at altitude should be 11 gph at 200 kts true. Top end should be 275 mph. Everything was set up for the lyc. engine and I have an option of several cooling systems. Because of all the changes I have made to the new AC, I cannot call it an E Racer. Testing will tell exactly the performance and modifications will tell their worth. Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam holman Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Jack, I know I am only curious, pictures, drawings??? This is more dramatic than Penn over Rourke. Please give us a break. Sam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.