The Perfect Long Ez

[CANARDAV8R]

Scott,

 

I don't have an owners manual from RAF but have ordered one. I've read somewhere about a 5 kt creep. Once airborne increase the speed by 5 kt increments until you reach the manufacturers vne, power max or you notice a flutter.

 

I'll hunt for the info as well. Since we're looking see if you can find the maneuvering speed.

 

Ed

[CANARDAV8R]

Just read your reply Dale,

 

From what I understand the Renesis has been completely redesigned from the old 13b including porting modifications. However if I only get a 180 to 200 hp performance it would be fine with me. I'm after the dependability more than the horsepower.

 

I'll try and dig further into the Renesis and 13b comparison.

 

Thanks again.

 

Ed

[Dale_R]

,,,

From what I understand the Renesis has been completely redesigned from the old 13b including porting modifications.

 

 

Dunno about "completely redesigned". The displacement is the same; the rotors and rotor housings are physically interchangeable (need to match counterweights to rotors); the rotor housings are still cast with the legend "13B". The biggest difference is that the exhaust has been relocated from a pheripheral port to a side port - so the end and center housings are all new.

 

Now the _induction_ system was redesigned, but not in a way that you'll likely get to use, unless you drop in the complete factory system, like Perry Mick did with his (unducted) DUKT. Nothing wrong with that, it certainly speeds up development time - but the factory setup is unnecessarily heavy.

 

However if I only get a 180 to 200 hp performance it would be fine with me. I'm after the dependability more than the horsepower.

...

 

The base engine will give you the dependability. Put your research effort into the support systems: fuel supply, ignition, air induction - those are where

the problems have come from.

 

Reliable ignition is readily available from a number of sources. Arrange your induction so that if little pieces do come loose, that they can't be sucked into the engine (no bolts, nuts, clips/retainers _inside_ the air path.) Mistakes in your fuel system can kill you - rotary or Lycosaurus. Redundancy, the ability to recognize (impending) failures, and an _easy_ to implement switching system are high-priority considerations.

 

Good building

 

Dale R.

[CANARDAV8R]

Dale,

 

I appreciate the info and will keep it in mind. My plans are to get Bruce Turintine of "Rotary Resources" to build the engine with aviation mods for about $5700. This eliminates the guess work and assures the engine is built right with the latest modifications. It still saves around 20K from a traditional 360 of equil power.

 

Ed

[CANARDAV8R]

I have a quick question for someone. Why is the epoxy on some partially completed aircraft a dark brown? Is this because it was kept in the sunlight and may have UV damage?

 

Ed

[swinn]

The EZ-Poxy system is a dark brown in color (It was originally called EPO-Lite I believe). That's the type that we are using on our Long EZ. The newer MGS is a more pleasant green, probably not many LongEZ built with this newer system, but plenty of Cozy.

 

On your HP discussion, getting LESS power is never a problem, as long as the weight of the Renesis is acceptable to you the engine should work fine. It really is all of the installation details that make or break the auto conversions.

[CANARDAV8R]

Thanks Scott,

 

To save time, I initially looked at purchasing a partially completed Long EZ project, but felt the dark brown color indicated it was left in the sun too long. I've watched Burt and Mikes construction video several times and the epoxy they used was never a dark brown. I've found some projects so dark they almost looked black. Maybe this was a different type of epoxy system.

 

Is there a way to tell if an old Long EZ project has UV damage? I know what UV damage can do to my bay boat fiberglass, is it the same? I do plan to use the MGS 285 epoxy system for the entire project. I hear it has superior adhesion than the old epoxies.

 

On the hp issue. I trust Bruce and know his work at Rotary Resources. They're several COZY and Velocity builders currently installing his rotaries with Tracy Cook re-drives. The only problem I had was the cooling issue that was recently solved by George Graham. I plan on using George's three radiator system to keep things cool.

 

I'm no longer concerned about too much hp because I've found several Long EZ's with V8 engines installed that put out much more hp than the renesis will.

 

I'm currently reviewing the CP's and making changes to the Long EZ plans to ensure accuracy. I hope to make a material purchase as soon as this is finished.

 

Thanks again, Ed

[swinn]

Ed,

 

I read an article somewhere about the color of the epoxy systems. It said something about the pigment amount being variable from batch to batch. Some folks had expressed some interest in mixing based on color, but this wasn't a valid idea since the pigment wasn't constant. Colors varying from light brown to very dark almost black are normal. If you decide to buy an unfinished project, I wouldn't worry about the color of the epoxy.

 

As far as UV damage is concerned, I don't know what the effects look like. I would think that whatever method you use to determine damage on your boat would be the same for aircraft fiberglass.

 

After you finish going through the CP's, dont forget to go through the Central States newsletters too!

[CANARDAV8R]

Scott,

 

Thanks for the info. I feel a little better now about some of the projects I've seen. I still plan on building the LEZ from the beginning and will continue to visit your site for inspiration.

 

I received the CSA newsletters last week and have read all four quarterly issues twice. There's a lot of good info about all aspects of canard construction. We're also planning on being added to the CSA list for pilots to call that need help in our area. CSA is a great organization and I'm proud to be a part of it.

 

There's a lot of CP changes I'm trying to ensure the plans are updated with. I hope to make the first order soon. I've also started cutting out templates in preparation of the build.

 

Counting down the days. Ed

[David Staten]

Swinn -

I've had an on and off mood about the Rotary because they're hard to keep cool. I may have found an answer to the cooling problem with a two stage radiator system. I'm awaiting a reply from Paul Lamar who is currently evaluating it.

 

I've been away from here for a while, but saw the rotary comment and wanted to chip in my 2 cents. I apologize if this is a stale thread.

 

Cooling on the rotary isnt a problem if you use enough radiator area and have enough cooling air flow. Thats what the "problem" is. Pushers have it extra bad because the prop blast isnt blowing over the air intake, and cooling air flow only occurs with facing into the wind, or with forward motion.

 

I contemplated dual rads as well, in "series" which I am assuming is what you mean by two-stage radiator. Cooling is a function of CHANGE in temp.. "Delta T" in science lingo. You get the most heat rejection by having hot coolant going across a rad with cool air.. sounds intuitive... but if you put two rads in series, the first one will cool ever so much, then the second one will not have nearly as much effect, because the hot coolant is already "pre-cooled".. not as great a change in temp, so not as much heat is lost/rejected.

 

Conversely, having both rads plumbed in PARRALEL allows the water flow to be split between two rads, slowing the coolant velocity through each rad (each rad handles half the flow (compared to a series installation, with equal sized rads). Each rad has the coolant for a longer period of time due to the slow flow and each rad has HOT coolant with the greatest delta T compared to the cooling air.

 

Good luck with what Paul L can come up with for you. No disrespect towards him, but there is ANOTHER rotary oriented forum, called the FlyRotary list, its a true list serv, and Marv, the moderator, rarely intercedes. He doesnt delete or edit posts like Paul does, when you say things he doesnt agree with. The FlyRotary list is where most of the folks are who are FLYING rotaries. Pauls list has lots of theory, Flyrotary has lots of practical experience. In my mind, one practical test beats an analysis ANY DAY. Dont get me wrong.. He's a smart guy and much of his material is useful.

 

I unsubscribed from Paul when I went to the Reno air races and havent bothered to sign back up. If you want, flyrotary can be subscribed to at http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/Lists/?Language= and that link will let you link to the web archives. Check it out, you might be surprised what is there.

 

The most important factors about the Rotary is there are only three moving parts and the high power to weight ratio. A 13B rotary normally will produce about 160 hp but will put out as much as 200 hp with a little tweaking. The weight (including the re drive) is a little more than what a 320 would weigh. The new Renesis rotary (improved 13B) found in the RX8 sports car will put out 240 hp with normal aspiration and has a 40% increase in fuel economy over the old 13B. I would like to see around 140 to 160 hp in the Long EZ.

 

The three moving parts is a big plus in my mind, but keep in mind that most of the problems that have occured with the rotaries have been the DIRECT result of inadequate or substandard accessories attached to it. Even though you have a car engine, I recommend aircraft or racing style craftmanship: hoses and fittings, safetywire, aircraft or race quality filters.

 

I also must say the 240 hp mazda claims its Renesis is putting out is probably inflated. Much of the "magic" is a direct result of a tuned auto intake and tuned exhaust, neither of which will be practical for aircraft use. You will have to fabricate your own intake and exhaust, and in all likelyhood a user built one will not be tuned to optimize power. Turbocharging can make up for this, even a light turbocharging, but the renesis makes part of its additional power by using 10:1 compression rotors (significantly higher than the earlier gens) and the high compression arrangement is less suitable to turbocharging due to a narrowed detonation margin.

 

The 40% increase in fuel economy has to be straight out of a mazda promotional book, and considering car performance is at much lower power than where the plane will be running, I dont consider that a credible value. Essentially the car will idle and make low power more efficiently. The Brake Specific Fuel Consumption of the NA older gen rotaries is in the .50 range (.5 lb/hp/hr) compared to .45 in a NA lycoming and about .55 in a turbo 13b. Yea.. thats right, the lycoming is actually slightly more fuel efficient than a rotary, but you can offset that cost by using car gas, getting tax rebates, and having cheaper overhaul and replacement costs. The rotary is slightly less efficient than a Ly/Con.. but your rotary operating costs are significantly less.

 

In case I have been vague about my leanings, I am PRO-rotary, 100% but I consider it a disservice if I dont present the bad with the good. How can someone make a truly informed decision if all they see are the good things, and are oblivious to known difficulties.

 

I am contemplating engine startup within 30 days or so, 2nd gen 13B, rebuilt by me, using Bruce Turrentine's rebuild kit, Tracy Crook's RD-1B PSRU, his EC-2 Engine Controller and EM-2 Engine Monitor. I have a custom intake of my own design, and will use the stock throttle body with modification. Normally aspirated to begin, and will add a turbo as able. Using a 3 blade IVO magnum electric inflight adjustable prop.

 

Dave Staten

[CANARDAV8R]

David,

 

Thanks for the reply. You may be the one to ask about my two stage cooling system I had written on an earlier post.

 

I was wondering why we couldn't use a two stage radiator system. Mount a radiator in the air flow beneath the plane without an electric fan. Mount a second radiator beneath the engine and out of the airflow with an electric fan mounted on it. Both radiators would be smaller but equivalent or larger to the area of one radiator needed to properly cool the engine. They would be hosed together in succession, from the engine to the electric radiator to the airflow radiator and back to the engine. The radiator system should be a closed pressurized system with at least a 16 lbs radiator cap. It will also need an overflow tank mounted on the firewall. A closed system is needed because for every pound of pressure in the radiator system you reduce the boiling point by 10 degrees. This is why modern radiators are so much smaller now and not the size found in my '51 Chevy truck.

 

When taxiing on a runway the electric fan radiator thermal switch would switch on the fan keeping the temp reduced. It may not totally keep the temp at 180F but below boiling. When in the air the second airflow radiator would kick in keeping the temp at 180F and allowing the thermal switch to kick off the electric fan radiator. Keeping the electric fan out of the airflow would eliminate the air dam issue.

 

I currently plan on using George Graham's three radiator setup if I have enough room under the LEZ cowl. This is detailed in Contact newsletter issue #62. He had a rotary race car driver give him a great tip on cooling. He said to ensure the hot water hose is connected to a radiator and not capped off because it will cause the rotary to overheat at high rpms. If this doesn't work I'll be forced to use the two stage system described above.

 

On the gas saving issue: Safety is the biggest factor for my rotary decision. If the rotary is a little higher in fuel consumption than the Lycoming, as you said earlier other benefits will offset the difference. Do you know the recommended TBO for a rotary?

 

I thought about overhauling the engine myself but changed my mind. I have experience in conventional auto mechanics but not with the rotary. I felt something as important as this should be left to the experts and is why I plan on getting Bruce to do it with the aviation mods.

 

Ed

[David Staten]

David,

 

Thanks for the reply. You may be the one to ask about my two stage cooling system I had written on an earlier post.

 

I was wondering why we couldn't use a two stage radiator system.

 

You can, but from what I've been told it wont work as well.

 

What you are describing is having the rads in series. You will get less heat out of the system (from what I have had described to me) doing this, as compared to having both in parralel with each other, both ducted to have airflow going over them. You can put the fan somewhere ELSE with a very weak spring and hinge on a large flapper. Turn the fan on when on the ground or at low forward speed, and if the ram air isnt strong enough to blow the flapper down, the fan will force air over the rads.

 

I am using two Goldwing M/C rads. Each was designed for a 1100 cc M/C engine. Each comes with a 12v fan, and I will likely find a way to use them. I plan to mount them in parralel. This splits the water flow between the two rads, slowing it down, allowing it more time to transfer heat to the air. Each rad will also have the hottest possible water going into it, so that you can therefore transfer the greatest amount of heat.

 

The radiator system should be a closed pressurized system with at least a 16 lbs radiator cap. It will also need an overflow tank mounted on the firewall. A closed system is needed because for every pound of pressure in the radiator system you reduce the boiling point by 10 degrees. This is why modern radiators are so much smaller now and not the size found in my '51 Chevy truck.

 

I hope you meant that every PSI INCREASES the BP of water by 10 degrees. Sounds nifty but keep in mind that Rotaries dont tolerate overheating well, and lose power/compression when this occurs. Granted, more cooling occurs through the OIL (up to 30% of it) as compared to water, but making the cooling system capable of handling more heat in this manner may backfire. Maybe it will work for you.

 

When taxiing on a runway the electric fan radiator thermal switch would switch on the fan keeping the temp reduced. It may not totally keep the temp at 180F but below boiling. When in the air the second airflow radiator would kick in keeping the temp at 180F and allowing the thermal switch to kick off the electric fan radiator. Keeping the electric fan out of the airflow would eliminate the air dam issue.

 

Again, there are ways to mount rads in the airflow without putting the fan in the way, yet still being able to use the fan. The big scoop on the bottom of the LEZ lends itself to having a large enough area for this. The LEZ's with the top cowl mounted scoops may be even better for this, as you can put EACH in the airflow. If you are building from new, you may even put an oil cooler in the nose, velocity style, to permit cabin heat from waste heat from the oil. You have lots of options at your disposal. Truth is, you will have to find what works best for you, and like some of the military folks around here can vouch for, no plan survives first contact with the "enemy".

 

I currently plan on using George Graham's three radiator setup if I have enough room under the LEZ cowl. This is detailed in Contact newsletter issue #62. He had a rotary race car driver give him a great tip on cooling. He said to ensure the hot water hose is connected to a radiator and not capped off because it will cause the rotary to overheat at high rpms. If this doesn't work I'll be forced to use the two stage system described above.

 

On the gas saving issue: Safety is the biggest factor for my rotary decision. If the rotary is a little higher in fuel consumption than the Lycoming, as you said earlier other benefits will offset the difference. Do you know the recommended TBO for a rotary?

 

I thought about overhauling the engine myself but changed my mind. I have experience in conventional auto mechanics but not with the rotary. I felt something as important as this should be left to the experts and is why I plan on getting Bruce to do it with the aviation mods.

 

Ed

Recommended TBO hasnt been established, per se. Highest time that I am aware of is about 1400 hours, and that is Tracy Crook's. He is flying a Renesis now, so the old engine was REPLACED but not because it NEEDED to be. I did some math a ways back, and 2000 hrs engine time would have been 110,000 miles at highway speeds in a car (but not at the same RPMS, etc).

 

I can appreciate the hesitation regarding your own overhaul, and if you choose to let Bruce do it, thats fine. He will do it RIGHT. A local "expert" may not, as John Slade can attest to (he frequents elsewhere, but his website is www.canardaviation.com). But, if you arent going to port the engine, know how to follow instructions to the T, and how to read a micrometer, and how to use simple tools, you should be able to do a rotary overhaul yourself. It will be a big confidence booster and also will validate the skills to do your own repairs in the future if needed. Nothing like knowing it was done right cause you did it yourself. Bruce sells a tape that breaks it down. The main "aviaton mod" doesnt involve overhaul, and involves replacing a thermal pellet valve in the hollow e-shaft with a slug.

 

Good luck,

Dave

[CANARDAV8R]

David,

 

Radiator connection: George Graham has his three radiators setup the same way you've described without the electric fan. If you private post or email me and give me your physical address I'll be glad to send you the Contact issue #62 newsletter he sent me. He's posting temps from 150 to 180F even with full run ups and long taxis. I've decided to adopt his cooling system. My only concern was he installed it in an E-Racer style aircraft and may have more room in his cowl than a Long EZ. I do plan on installing ram air in the cowling (probably arm pit) to aid in cooling the additional radiators.

 

Oil Cooling: I know oil is helpful in keeping an engine cool by pulling temps away. However, I've read you should mix two stroke oil in your fuel to properly lubricate the ceramic seals in a rotary. Do you have any info on this process?

 

I didn't know that about Bruce and his engines. I'll do more research about overhauling the engine myself. I have a friend that has just overhauled his rotary and said it was the easiest thing to do.

 

Thanks for the info

 

Ed

[CANARDAV8R]

I need assistance.

 

Last night in preperation for the build, I counted the newley aquired template sheets for our Long EZ and discovered we are missing A1, A2, A4, A5, and A12. Can anyone help with providing either old templates or copies of the templates. I'd be glad to pay for your effort. If anyone knows how to solve this issue please email at emoreno1@cox-internet.com.

 

I believe I have enough to build the aircraft with what I have but would feel better if I had all the info before building in Jan. '06.

 

HELP! Ed

[CANARDAV8R]

GREAT NEWS!!!! I found the missing templates.

 

Moving forward...

 

Ed

[Jon Matcho]

GREAT NEWS!!!! I found the missing templates.

That is good news. Congratulations (although I was entirely confident you would eventually be able to acquire them).

 

Moving forward...

Keep us posted!

[sbarton]

Hi, was reading this intersting thread on using the 13B rotary in an aircraft. I have a couple of questions maybe someone can answer....

 

How much HP do most of the PRSU units take to drive? The only knowlege I have to draw on here is dyno'ing motorcycle engines (both air cooled and water), and usually I've seen about a 15-20% reduction in HP when comparing "Rated HP" to "Rear Wheel HP".

 

The following is a list of rated hp for various 13B's. Seems like best case you could see around 160hp in NA configuration if you split the difference between relibility/performance (total WAG on my part). I've heard that the intake needs to be shortend significantly so doesn't that drop it even more? Given that and lets say 15% for the PSRU is a realistic figure to the PROP more like 136?

 

Whats an honest, realistic figure?

 

 

Eng. Yrs Model cc x rotors Comp BHP/rpm, Torq(lb-ft/rpm)

 

13B 73 R130 (Japan) 654 x 2 = 1308 9.1 125/6000, 127/3500

13B 74-75 RX-4 654 x 2 = 1308 9.2 110/6000, 117/3500

13B 76-78 RX-4 654 x 2 = 1308 9.2 110/6000, 120/4000

13B 76-78 RX-5 (Cosmo) 654 x 2 = 1308 9.2 110/6000, 120/4000

13B DEI 84-85 RX-7 (GSL-SE) 654 x 2 = 1308 9.4 135/6000, 133/2750

13B DEI 86-89 RX-7 2nd gen 654 x 2 = 1308 9.4 146/6500, 138/3500

13B Turb 86-89 RX-7 Turbo II 654 x 2 = 1308 8.5 182/6500, 183/3500

13B 89 Luce (Japan929) 654 x 2 = 1308 8.5 177/6500, 181/3500 JIS

13B VDEI 89-92 RX-7 Light Rotor 654 x 2 = 1308 9.7 160/7000, 140/4000

13B Turb 89-91 RX-7 T II Lt Rtr 654 x 2 = 1308 9.1 200/6500, 196/3500

13B Twin 92+ RX-7 Seq. Turbo 654 x 2 = 1308 9.0 255/6500, 217/5000

[CANARDAV8R]

Thanks for the info.

 

I'm not sure what the horsepower will be at the prop. If it is equivalent to a Lycoming 320 or 360 I'll be happy. My focus is dependability and safety. I haven't posted for a while so allow me to bring everyone up to date.

 

I recently purchased a complete Long EZ airframe that has put me years ahead of building. Now all I need to do is paint, add an engine and install a panel.

 

To do this, I've ordered a 13B engine from rotary resources with the aviation modifications. I'm a fair mechanic but after watching the 13B overhaul video I felt it best initially to be completed by a professional. When the TBO is due (2000 to 4000 hrs) I'll do the overhaul at a cost of about $700. Bruce has assured me with the porting and modifications the engine will produce about 180hp on the dyno. http://rotaryresources.com/

 

It will be mounted to the airframe with a Conversion Concepts engine mount that I've recently ordered. http://conversionconcepts.com/index.html

 

The engine will have all of Tracy Crook's Real World Solution components, i.e. RD-1C redrive with a 2.85:1 gear drive, EC2 engine controller and EM2 engine monitor. http://www.rotaryaviation.com/

 

I received the IVO Magnum in flight adjustable prop with a 68" diameter blade and a 105 pitch last week. Looks great! http://www.ivoprop.com/

 

I'm being told with this combination I can expect a great climb and cruse with outstanding fuel performance. Even if it is the same as a Lycoming 320 or 360 I feel better with the rotary three moving parts and $2 gal fuel.

 

I'm not an engineer but from my research this was the best rotary combination I could come up with. The only thing left to do is the cooling and exhaust. To do this I intend to follow George Graham's cooling example and will mount two Flow master Hush Power II mufflers to keep things quiet.

 

I hope I've answered your question, if not visit the links above.

 

Ed

[cdavis]

IMHO the biggest challenge will be simply completing the plane. Even with lots of help, this is a huge project.

 

I think mods fall into two categories: things that can be implemented that take little or no more time than the stock plans (or that actually save construction time) while improving performance, and re-engineering.

 

I'd implement all of the former, and none of the later. It's hard to improve on Burt's core technology.

 

Some people just enjoy building everything, experimenting, and have a very limited budget.

 

Some people have more of a budget, and just want to fly. If you have the $$ buy anything prefab you can get (wheel pants, etc).

 

If you seriously don't have 2,000 to 3,000 free hours over the next 4 years, or unless you just enjoy building (bless you who do!) then consider more of a kit plane than a plans built plane, or buy a quality project that has the fuselage, wings, and canard complete.

 

We've done the following mods/upgrades:

Roncz canard

High performance rudders

Wilhelmson nose lift

electric speed brake

downdraft cooling

wortmann gear legs

O-320e2d

aluminum instrument panel

davenport long nose

Grove high performance brakes

front master cylinders

oil cooler heating system

BMA EFIS/Lite G4

Crossover fuel vents (like Cozy)

Gas tube canopy strut

[Jon Matcho]

That's good feedback.

 

Where do you go about getting the plans or know-how to build Wortmann gear legs? I assume they're a stock strut with the airfoil shape glassed over? How did you do that?

[CANARDAV8R]

I appreciate your response and will keep it in mind. However I am a little further along than you know. You can go to my web site and follow my progress at http://rotary-ez.myairplane.com. I have all the prefab bells and whistles for the modifications previously listed.

 

To date; I've installed a 195 hp rotary engine built by Bruce at Rotary Resources. It's controlled by Tracy Crook's EC2 engine controller and monitored by his EM-2, as well as driven by his RD-1C re-drive. I have also mounted the IVO Magnum 68", 105 in flight adjustable prop to help push it along. All this will be wired by Bob Whites wiring harness.

 

Jack W. retracts and bearings.

 

Currently building the Roncz Canard with Marty Martindale (the first person to build one, and featured in the CP's) and will be cutting the nose to extend the cg. I hope to have the LEZ in the air before the end of summer.

 

I have one question, where did you get the EFIS lite G4. I've had an order in with BMA for 4 months for the EFIS Lite G4 and have just spoke with Greg the owner of BMA who assured me none have been sent out as of yet. I and others would like to see pictures of your project. There aren't many of us around building Rotary LEZ's.

[cdavis]

Regarding the Wortmann gear legs, there are sites that show how to do it in detail.

 

Regarding the Efis/Lite G4, dont' have it yet, haven't ordered it, and probably won't until 6 months after first flight. I have 2-1/4" "steam gage" backups that I'll do initial flight testing with (airspeed, altimeter, t&b, compass).

 

My brother, Mike, does all the glass work. I install the electrical and avionics and write the checks.

[Limo EZ]

Fairing the gear legs can be found in back issues of the CSA newsletter. The Limo EZ has all of those mods and more. I did not do the electric speed brake as the manual linkages serves as a pivot point for the back seat rudder pedals

 

Joe Berki

LimoEZ

[Jon Matcho]

Regarding the Wortmann gear legs, there are sites that show how to do it in detail.

As far as I know, Wayne Hicks' site is the only one that covers the topic in detail. A quick visit to Wayne's page reminds me how nice his plane is going to be.