Jump to content

Best engine for my mission


finaltable

Recommended Posts

I am looking into buying (I'd rather build but I don't have time) a Long-EZ for a twice monthly commute from SE Texas (KLBX) to NE Georgia (KAHN) (airnav distance says 684 nm) I'd like to do this flight in about 4 hours and in one single leg. I would also like it to be as cheap as I can get it given the cost of fuel. I'm working on my IFR cert so my guess is that with the range of the LEZ I should be good even if I get diverted around by ATC in either direction (one way I deal with Hartsfield, the other way I go through the Hobby/IAH airspaces)

 

Never having flown this route before, I don't know if flying above FL100 will be useful but I understand that going up there usually requires a turbo to still go fast. I haven't seen any TO-235's and I can't confirm that TO-320's exist either. Given the characteristics of the plane with just a 235 I am loathe to give up the 6 gph burn.

 

So...given that I am looking for something in the area of at least 180 ktas and have to deal with the weather and B airspaces on each end, what are y'all's thoughts on the right engine? (Note: I used to work on car engines and an A&P is a friend of the family so replacing an engine is an option. I just need to know which one fits best from the people who know these planes.)

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am looking into buying (I'd rather build but I don't have time) a Long-EZ for a twice monthly commute from SE Texas (KLBX) to NE Georgia (KAHN) (airnav distance says 684 nm) I'd like to do this flight in about 4 hours and in one single leg.

That's trivial in a Long-EZ, distance wise. You'll need 170 kts. GS to make the flight in 4 hours.

 

I would also like it to be as cheap as I can get it given the cost of fuel. I'm working on my IFR cert so my guess is that with the range of the LEZ I should be good even if I get diverted around by ATC in either direction...

Easy. See above. An O-320 LE will burn around 7-8 gal/hour to get the 170 kts when up high (above 8K ft.), and with a 52 gallon capacity, you've got over 6 hours of duration with IFR reserves.

 

Never having flown this route before, I don't know if flying above FL100 will be useful but I understand that going up there usually requires a turbo to still go fast.

Hardly. You must be flying spam cans with crappy climb rates, and never go up high. You'll lose a few kts TAS by going above 8K ft., but even 15K - 17K is easily doable in an O-320 LE - many folks fly that high if the winds are favorable, or to get over some weather. Hell, some O-320 LE's regularly fly in the low 20's, when IFR. Don't know why they want to - it's COLD up there, but if you can get a 40 kt. tailwind, I guess it's worth it :-).

 

I haven't seen any TO-235's and I can't confirm that TO-320's exist either. Given the characteristics of the plane with just a 235 I am loathe to give up the 6 gph burn.

You won't get 170 kts. TAS in an O-235 LE - figure on 140 - 150 kts max. Get an O-320 and be happy with the climb rates and speeds, and feel free to throttle back to 6 gph if you've got a tailwind.

 

So...given that I am looking for something in the area of at least 180 ktas...

Then you'll definitely need an O-320 LE.

 

and have to deal with the weather and B airspaces on each end, what are y'all's thoughts on the right engine?

See above. If you actually want to fly the plane regularly, and not just experiment with the engine installation for years before it works reliably, the Lycoming is the only way to go. For the speeds (and fuel flows) you want, the O-320 is the only choice. You do NOT need a turbo for your flight requirements.

 

Put in an auto conversion if you want to tinker - not fly regularly and reliably.

 

There is exactly ONE reliably flying rotary conversion Long-EZ; only a couple of reliably flying rotary canards (or even Subaru canards) and many more rotaries that have been removed for Lycomings. This site is filled with discussions of engine choices - search around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if flying above FL100 will be useful but I understand that going up there usually requires a turbo to still go fast. I haven't seen any TO-235's and I can't confirm that TO-320's exist either.

Flying high is useful: lower fuel burn for about the same TAS as down low. A Long will easily fly at 15-17000 if you have oxygen and a little heat. It's probably one-hop to Georgia (two going westbound). Speed is overrated. Better to spend money on a good autopilot versus a turbo.

 

An O-320 with an Ellison TBI will get you close to IO-320 performance. Many 320s were made. Parts are cheap (relatively). Simple, reliable. I'm installing an O-320-H2AD if I can figure out the engine mount and oil filter. Oh yeah, and "Electronic Ignition".

-Kent

-Kent
Cozy IV N13AM-750 hrs, Long-EZ-85 hrs and sold

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I go high for the speed, duration, and economical fuel burn. I typically fly eastbound at FL180 and westbound down low, FL100. I run a normally aspirated O-320, Carb with electrinic ignition.

 

( I would say you really need EI to go high, unpressurized Mags start missfiring as you increase altitude. I have had mags (bendix) do OK at FL180, but the current mag I hav starts missfiring at FL150 and is completely dead by the time I get to FL180)

 

I just checked the winds aloft for FL180 and FL100 between San Jose, CA and Toledo, OH. Distance = 1800 nautical miles (I fly this four or five times a year)

 

At FL180 winds are 70kts eastbound and FL100 they are only 30 kts eastbound.

 

 

FL100

 

Winds Aloft = 30

Fuel burn = 7gph

KIAS = 135

Ground speed = 165kts (135 + 30)

Travel time = 10.9 hours (1800 / 165)

Fuel Used = 76.36 gallons (10.9 * 7)

 

FL180

 

Winds Aloft = 70

Fuel burn = 4.5 gph

KIAS = 120

Ground speed = 190kts (120 + 70)

Travel time = 9.4 hours (1800 / 190)

Fuel Used = 42.6 gallons (9.4 * 4.5)

 

 

The Winds aloft for your route looked like 15 kts for FL100 and 20 kts for FL180. (700 km distance)

 

FL100

 

Winds Aloft = 15

Fuel burn = 7gph

KIAS = 135

Ground speed = 150kts (135 + 15)

Travel time = 4.6 hours (700 / 150)

Fuel Used = 32.7 gallons (4.6 * 7)

 

 

FL180

 

Winds Aloft = 20

Fuel burn = 4.5 gph

KIAS = 120

Ground speed = 140kts (120 + 20)

Travel time = 5 hours (700 / 140)

Fuel Used = 22.5 gallons (5 * 4.5)

F16 performance on a Piper Cub budget

LongEZ, 160hp, MT CS Prop, Downdraft cooling, Full retract

visit: www.iflyez.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the info. I appreciate the comments about reliable flying; this is not a plane I want to tinker with as I will need it to be good for four four hour trips a month minimum.

 

The poster was right about my experience; most has been in 172's with a little time in my Dad's 182 and 2 glorious hours in a friend's Bonanza. As much as I liked the A36 the idea of 13+ gph is not exciting to me at all. The 182 has a 540 in it, much bigger than anything we are discussing here but its purpose is very different than what I am needing. I don't need to carry, I simply want to get there fast, safe and cheap.

 

I had planned on using a certificated engine for this, nothing out of the ordinary so it looks like an IO-320 is the way to go. I may at going diesel down the road but nothing fitting my mission is available right now.

 

I tried doing some reading here and on various builders' website before I posted, now that I know roughly what I will be looking for I will focus a little more on the 320 as I continue my research.

 

Thanks again for everyone's help. I know someone with a Velocity whose plane was built by a guy with a Long-EZ; I think I'll give him a call and start by asking questions with a local owner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should be able to run either direction, none-stop.

 

Oh-Yah, I forgot to mention. Relief tubes are a must for long haul none stop travel.

 

I call it; "The ability to leave yellow contrails"

 

Waiter

F16 performance on a Piper Cub budget

LongEZ, 160hp, MT CS Prop, Downdraft cooling, Full retract

visit: www.iflyez.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can this not be done in one? [Georgia to Texas]

Yeah probably, my mistake.

 

Say 50 gallons in a Cozy at 8 GPH and 165 KTAS, 5 gallon reserve. That would get you 928 miles no wind. With a 50 kt headwind, 646 miles. Sounds like you could make Texas from Georgia comfortably even on a winter day.

-Kent

-Kent
Cozy IV N13AM-750 hrs, Long-EZ-85 hrs and sold

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

You should be able to run either direction, none-stop.

 

Oh-Yah, I forgot to mention. Relief tubes are a must for long haul none stop travel.

 

I call it; "The ability to leave yellow contrails"

 

Waiter

When I was in the Navy, if you were a new guy in the squadron, we got you to go test the sound powered phone in the aircraft....

We make no mistakes, ONLY INNOVATIONS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should be able to run either direction, none-stop.

 

Oh-Yah, I forgot to mention. Relief tubes are a must for long haul none stop travel.

 

I call it; "The ability to leave yellow contrails"

 

Waiter

All this talk of flow rates makes me want to go to the boys room. I carry diapers in plastic bags since I don't have a tube. Going back to OK from RoughR a few years ago, my flying buddy had to put his Long down in some scary valley/hill areas in east Arkansas to relieve himself. Wasted gas and time. I was happy and comfortable and still up on high. He no longer teases me about my diapers, and he has some in his plane. It was almost a real emergency for him.

My first Long had a relief tube and my girlfriend fell for the 'talking telephone' trick! "EYEWWW!!" Was what she said when she realized what she wasn't holding a microphone. Heheheh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah... My first long had an 0235 and did great to go from OKC to Houston to visit that same girlfriend. 7 gph. I never leaned it agressively. As far as I know the roughnecker oil guy I sold it to is still taking regular trips from Texas to Florida.

My current Long has the 0-320. You can't go wrong with either engine. I prefer the 0320 for the obvious reasons. Faster and climbs better, and it jumps off the ground sooner. Energy managment is easier.

I did climb to 11.5k going back to OKC from Houston one time with the 0235. No problems. < 7 gph. Sometimes < 6 gph when throttling back. (Why would you want to?)

Gas is cheaper when you consider the bigger engine for the added safety margin. The same can be said for leaning out. Gas is cheaper than a new engine. One buddy of mine always bragged about how he could lean down to <4 gph on a c-85 vari. His exhaust pipe was always white inside! Of course I said gas was cheap three years ago before all these price increases!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, one time we got a guy to sick his hand under the yellow contrail tube told him we needed him to stick his hand under there so we could purge the condenser on the radar to see if any water came out.

 

"Yeah guys, lots of water coming out, its warm too..."

 

EYEWWW!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those guys with the O 320 are naturally going to recommend it. Those with the O 235 will recomment that. Either one will do the job

 

The O 235 no matter how you slice it will save you more money by burning less gas.

 

The O 320 will lift off faster, climb faster and get you there faster no doupt but there will only be about an hours difference in time and will burn more gas in doing so. The difference in fuel burn per hour between engines is what it's going to cost you X 4 times a month.

 

There is a lot of perfectly good Long EZ's with O 235's still flying 700 miles trips out there.

 

6gph x 5 hours x $6/gal = $180, one way. If you're flying solo you can get a cruise prop and do even better on the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those guys with the O 320 are naturally going to recommend it. Those with the O 235 will recomment that. Either one will do the job

 

The O 235 no matter how you slice it will save you more money by burning less gas.

 

The O 320 will lift off faster, climb faster and get you there faster no doupt but there will only be about an hours difference in time and will burn more gas in doing so. The difference in fuel burn per hour between engines is what it's going to cost you X 4 times a month.

 

There is a lot of perfectly good Long EZ's with O 235's still flying 700 miles trips out there.

 

6gph x 5 hours x $6/gal = $180, one way. If you're flying solo you can get a cruise prop and do even better on the time.

the best choice is an fuel injected IO-320. it can cruse all day, leaned back to 5.5 GPH and still get a way faster cruse the any O-235 at full throttle. the O235 is really lacking if you want to carry any weight and take off on a hot day. it is very easy to fly an IO 320 as if it is a smaller engine just throttle back, but the power is there when you need it. the fuel injection makes a big difference in the ability to lean over peak compared to a carburated engine. the cost is only slightly more than a smaller engine but they last longer as they are not flying at full throttle all the time. the build time is the same. if building today the IO-320 is the best choice as it gives you a more versatile aircraft.

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

I had no idea that I had a problem with the O235 on my Longez until I installed a O320. WOW what a difference. Now that I have a COZY with electronic ignition and fuel injection, I wish that I would have made my O320 powered Longez with at least balanced fuel injections for the reasons listed by Lynn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My old Longeze had and 0235 c2c motor I regularly burned car gas it ran fine. When I was by myself it was perfect put a gib and add full fuel and it turned into a dog. I always thought that the 0320 would be the perfect motor for the Longeze. When I build my next Longeze it will have an 0320 with Cozy IV motor mounts. 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

Why? Is that just an availability thing? Or are cozy motor mounts different (and presumably better) somehow?

the long ez mount is mounted to a piece of aluminum angle that is bolted to the fuselage side and thur the stringer and main spar. the cozy IV mount is bolted thur the firewall . the mount is wider and the firewall is fastened to the fuselage with reinforcement at those points. on the long there is not much room to do it like the cozy IV and I don't see any reason to do it different. the mount is a lot narrower and there for the loads on the mounting points are higher in some directions. the long ez mount works well and has not been a problem. if you do it like a Cozy IV you will add another thing to the long test flight list of things that you hope will work.

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