Vortal Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 In fact it isn't heavy in a way it weigh a lot, it's heavy because there is a lot of modification: My mod will be executed in two phase, Phase one is a proof of concept for the geometrical layout of the aircraft: The basics is a long EZ, (far inspiration) -the fuselage will be molded and more worked out in an aerodynamic mater, the aircraft will be ±25% bigger than a long -the wings will be lowed to have shorter landing gear and have more space in the aft of the aircraft and also get the wheels for the propeller -winglets will be blended and twisted at the base to create a forward lift effect in the bottom section and re twisted in the mainstream direction as the wingtip vortex effect decreases (to be tested) -canard will be reshaped, although with the same roncs airfoil, to have an elliptical lift distribution -a ±300hp engine -molded carbon wings and canard, glass for the fuselage (except where needed) but this is still to be determined (as all the rest, the theory is one thing, but flight test will be the final judge) -etc... Phase two (long term) is to determine the feasibility of an new airfoil, high lift systems and so on i see you people with big eyes thinking "an other one mad guy thinking he can put a heavy not so efficient high lift system in his aircraft" actually the twin seater isn't the end of the hole project, it's a proof of concept for something bigger (not talking of a 200 seater but still bigger than a velo for example)... the point of this is to have a modernized canard to go and tickle Lancair's aircraft in performance (we'll see if it's possible) and maybe this project will get some interest from the rocket racers (never know!) my goal is to explore, and try to bring new ideas to the pot , and i know people much more experienced than i am will disagree with my project, but i think that our friend Burt didn't stop his projects because of experienced guys from Cessna or Piper... and it's not so EZ any more! BTW it will be meant to be produced and commercialized (medium term) I've been working on that since i was 12 so I'm not willing to change my mind in 3 months... Comments are welcomed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynn Erickson Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 In fact it isn't heavy in a way it weigh a lot, it's heavy because there is a lot of modification: My mod will be executed in two phase, Phase one is a proof of concept for the geometrical layout of the aircraft: The basics is a long EZ, (far inspiration) -the fuselage will be molded and more worked out in an aerodynamic mater, the aircraft will be ±25% bigger than a long -the wings will be lowed to have shorter landing gear and have more space in the aft of the aircraft and also get the wheels for the propeller -winglets will be blended and twisted at the base to create a forward lift effect in the bottom section and re twisted in the mainstream direction as the wingtip vortex effect decreases (to be tested) -canard will be reshaped, although with the same roncs airfoil, to have an elliptical lift distribution -a ±300hp engine -molded carbon wings and canard, glass for the fuselage (except where needed) but this is still to be determined (as all the rest, the theory is one thing, but flight test will be the final judge) -etc... Phase two (long term) is to determine the feasibility of an new airfoil, high lift systems and so on i see you people with big eyes thinking "an other one mad guy thinking he can put a heavy not so efficient high lift system in his aircraft" actually the twin seater isn't the end of the hole project, it's a proof of concept for something bigger (not talking of a 200 seater but still bigger than a velo for example)... the point of this is to have a modernized canard to go and tickle Lancair's aircraft in performance (we'll see if it's possible) and maybe this project will get some interest from the rocket racers (never know!) my goal is to explore, and try to bring new ideas to the pot , and i know people much more experienced than i am will disagree with my project, but i think that our friend Burt didn't stop his projects because of experienced guys from Cessna or Piper... and it's not so EZ any more! BTW it will be meant to be produced and commercialized (medium term) I've been working on that since i was 12 so I'm not willing to change my mind in 3 months... Comments are welcomed! sounds just like the first prototype Starship that Burt built before Beech took it and screwed it up 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...
steve Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 i know of 3, good start but a slow finish. in 5 years......nothing so, good luck and the sooner you stop typing and start building the faster you will hit the spot that seams to bite. just after the frame is done (with 14 unsolved problems) and its time to spend the big buck on the drive train. Quote Steve M. Parkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Zeitlin Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 -the fuselage will be molded and more worked out in an aerodynamic mater...What's not aerodynamic about the Long-EZ fuselage?the wings will be lowed to have shorter landing gear and have more space in the aft of the aircraft and also get the wheels for the propellerHow will you deal with the reduced dihedral effect of lowering the wing, as well as the different wake effect of the canard on the main wing at varying AOA's? People scrape the wingtips on occasion with the wing in it's current configuration - it will only get worse with a lower wing. -winglets will be blended and twisted at the base to create a forward lift effect in the bottom section and re twisted in the mainstream direction as the wingtip vortex effect decreases (to be tested)While I obviously believe that a blended wing/winglet is a useful thing, having helped Jack implement his blended winglets, I don't understand the rest of your comments. The winglets are ALREADY producing a lift vector in the forward direction - this is how Whitcomb winglets reduce overall drag. -canard will be reshaped, although with the same roncs airfoil, to have an elliptical lift distributionYou may want to do some reading on the concept of elliptical lift distribution - you want an elliptical lift distribution on the whole aircraft, as viewed from the far field - you don't necessarily want an elliptical lift distribution on each lifting surface. In fact, this is one of the main reasons why a canard aircraft can almost never be as efficient as a standard configuration aircraft - it's almost impossible to get a whole aircraft elliptical lift distribution. I've been working on that since i was 12 so I'm not willing to change my mind in 3 months... Comments are welcomed!No contradiction there, huh? Why welcome comments if you're already convinced of everything that you're doing? 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...
Vortal Posted August 3, 2008 Author Share Posted August 3, 2008 What's not aerodynamic about the Long-EZ fuselage?I was talking about applying to the EZ the same sort of job done by Steve Wright on his stagger EZHow will you deal with the reduced dihedral effect of lowering the wing, as well as the different wake effect of the canard on the main wing at varying AOA's?Canard will be moved around also, it's a bit like moving up the fuselage without moving the wings and canard, except that the wing will have a greater dihedral angle to avoid wing strike. Canard will be positioned accordingly. Anyways the Bateleur has a low wing and the speed canard has a negative dihedral more prone to wing strike, and these to machine are still working wellWhile I obviously believe that a blended wing/winglet is a useful thing, having helped Jack implement his blended winglets, I don't understand the rest of your comments. The winglets are ALREADY producing a lift vector in the forward direction - this is how Whitcomb winglets reduce overall drag.To make it short, if your (very nice by the way) job on the blended winglets incorporated a 5 deg outboard AOA of the winglets, my design is very similar.You may want to do some reading on the concept of elliptical lift distribution - you want an elliptical lift distribution on the whole aircraft, as viewed from the far field - you don't necessarily want an elliptical lift distribution on each lifting surface. In fact, this is one of the main reasons why a canard aircraft can almost never be as efficient as a standard configuration aircraft - it's almost impossible to get a whole aircraft elliptical lift distribution.I'll try a couple of thing first and I’ll come bake to you on that one.No contradiction there, huh? Why welcome comments if you're already convinced of everything that you're doing?No contradiction here, but bad formulation, I still need those good advices like the ones you just gave me (thanks for that), I needn't anything like "why do you want to change anything at the perfect configuration of the Ez? Keep it as is!" because that aren't my intentions. And what I also meant is that I had a bit of time thinking about what I’m doing, but I do not know every thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMann Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 To make it short, if your (very nice by the way) job on the blended winglets incorporated a 5 deg outboard AOA of the winglets, my design is very similar. I don't think that is correct. As I recall, Jack was caful to maintain the original AOA of the winglet which is INBOARD. I'm not positive but I think it is one degree. Quote 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 More sharing options...
Marc Zeitlin Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 I was talking about applying to the EZ the same sort of job done by Steve Wright on his stagger EZSteve modified the fuselage because he wanted it to look better. There is no aerodynamic advantage to Steve's fuselage over the stock LE or COZY fuselage. So I repeat the question: What's not aerodynamic about the Long-EZ fuselage? Or did you just mean that you wanted the LE fuselage to look nicer? C...Anyways the Bateleur has a low wing and the speed canard has a negative dihedral more prone to wing strike, and these to machine are still working wellSure, but they're different aircraft. To make it short, if your (very nice by the way) job on the blended winglets incorporated a 5 deg outboard AOA of the winglets, my design is very similar.Jack did not change the aerodynamics of the winglet at all - I was very clear in my recommendations to him to do NOTHING except remove the outboard 12" of the wing, the bottom 12" of the winglet, and then blend the two airfoils together with a continuous shape. We did NOT change the angle of incidence (not the AOA - that's set by the direction of the free stream) of the winglets at all. And what I also meant is that I had a bit of time thinking about what I’m doing, but I do not know every thingNor does anyone. As long as you're open to suggestions... 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...
Vortal Posted August 4, 2008 Author Share Posted August 4, 2008 Or did you just mean that you wanted the LE fuselage to look nicer?Yes, I find it much more cleaner, also parts are integrated and transitions (strakes incorporation for example) permits thins like wing carmans and further more air streamline control using CFD (i don't know if he went this far) that's what i meant with "aerodynamics". It will sure be harder to build than an EZ. Sure, but they're different aircraft.so is mine compared to an EZ, there is as much difference between an EZ with my concept than there is with a speed canard or with a bateleur Jack did not change the aerodynamics of the winglet at all - I was very clear in my recommendations to him to do NOTHING except remove the outboard 12" of the wing, the bottom 12" of the winglet, and then blend the two airfoils together with a continuous shape. We did NOT change the angle of incidence (not the AOA - that's set by the direction of the free stream) of the winglets at all.Ok, so my approach is different, i will modify the angle of attack (compared to the local air stream) locally on the wing tip, and over the wing the flow goes inboard (initial flow of the wing tip vortex), you can catch that inboard going flow with the winglet pitched outboard, but less than the flow, the winglet will then have a positive angle of attack compared to the flow and so produce lift, the lift direction will have a forward component producing thrust. Nor does anyone. As long as you're open to suggestions...I am, your suggestions will force me to ask myself the right questions and see if my design is okay, suggestions can only make my design better... 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.