Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
gullikson

Lycoming IO-233-LSA for Long-EZ?

Recommended Posts

It appears Lycoming is going to be producing an IO-233-LSA engine that weighs 200-210 lbs and produces 100hp-116hp.

Even though I am 3-4 years away from needing an engine, it is always helpful to plan ahead. I am all but sold on the idea of an IO-320 but, this new engine is so light that it seems that even with only 116hp it may be a real viable alternative. I would really appreciate any thoughts about this that any of you experienced Long-EZ drivers may care to share.

:feedback:

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It boils down to operational limitations. If you accept the limitations that less power provides, then go for it.

 

A higher HP aircraft expands the operational capability of the aircraft; more runways available, larger envelop for croswwind operations. heavier lift capability (higher gross weight operations, more fuel, more passangers). Higher altitude capabilities.

 

 

Takeoff and climb performance:

 

I would say that A 1000lb LongEZ with 160 hp will perform a little better than a 650 lb EZ with 115 hp. The 160hp will be able to cruise faster. operate out of more airports, carry more fuel ans passangers, and have a higher resale value.

 

 

Your best method (also the least expensive) at gaining performance improvement will be to keep your building and operational weight at the absolute minimum, 100lbs makes a noticable difference in performance.

 

 

For any given power setting, (i.e. both aircraft generating 115hp), the heavier plane will burn a little more fuel, but not significant (i.e. .5 gph).

 

This can be attributed to a couple items, the higher angle of attact means higher drag. AND, the higher hp aircraft is not operating at its optimal rpm or speed, but the lower hp aircraft is, very unfair comparison.

 

As a result, for an identical power setting, the heavier aircraft will be a little slower, maybe 1 or two kts.

 

 

 

You will NOT save any significant fuel by going to the smaller engine. If you find yuourself in a position that you want to conserve fuel, simply pull the throttle back and redo the mixture.

 

 

 

Waiter


F16 performance on a Piper Cub budget

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

visit: www.iflyez.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It boils down to operational limitations. If you accept the limitations that less power provides, then go for it.

 

A higher HP aircraft expands the operational capability of the aircraft; more runways available, larger envelop for croswwind operations. heavier lift capability (higher gross weight operations, more fuel, more passangers). Higher altitude capabilities.

 

 

Takeoff and climb performance:

 

I would say that A 1000lb LongEZ with 160 hp will perform a little better than a 650 lb EZ with 115 hp. The 160hp will be able to cruise faster. operate out of more airports, carry more fuel ans passangers, and have a higher resale value.

 

 

Your best method (also the least expensive) at gaining performance improvement will be to keep your building and operational weight at the absolute minimum, 100lbs makes a noticable difference in performance.

 

 

For any given power setting, (i.e. both aircraft generating 115hp), the heavier plane will burn a little more fuel, but not significant (i.e. .5 gph).

 

This can be attributed to a couple items, the higher angle of attact means higher drag. AND, the higher hp aircraft is not operating at its optimal rpm or speed, but the lower hp aircraft is, very unfair comparison.

 

As a result, for an identical power setting, the heavier aircraft will be a little slower, maybe 1 or two kts.

 

 

 

You will NOT save any significant fuel by going to the smaller engine. If you find yuourself in a position that you want to conserve fuel, simply pull the throttle back and redo the mixture.

 

 

 

Waiter

I agree with Waiter

I might add that the build time is the same and the cost of a overhauled 320 is going be a lot less then a new engine no matter what the size.

 

where is Lyc. going to shave the weight. my guess is it will be the same old O-235 with lighter or no accessories, light weight starter or no starter alternator, no vacuum pump, no mechanical fuel pump. no mags ( electronic ignition ). no big heavy carburator.

 

Lets hope it is not a lighter crank and less aluminum in the crank cases

 

If you build a O-235 with

no starter

no mechanical fuel pump

no mags ( EI )

no vacuum pump

no oil filter ( just oil screen )

no exhaust system ( just 6" straight pipes )

 

start out with a stock O-235 put in an Ellison, the right pistons and a performance cam and roller lifters and what do you have ?

 

a 125 HP engine that weights 50 lbs. less then the stock Lycoming.

you just beat the factory by 10 lbs.

 

but you still only have an O-235. go for the IO-320 you won't be sorry.

every time I fly a long with a O-235 it feels like I am back driving my old VW bug again.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm researching the io-233 on a Long-EZ.  I have a question: When pulling back the throttle to land, one would expect a lower sink rate at a given speed to a o-320 EZ that's 60LB heavier, so the cruise and stall and touchdown speed would all be lower with the io-233.  Is that correct?  (I'm getting up to speed on aircraft design). -- edit --  I'm thinking about the advantages of the io-233 from the perspective of coming from low performance, economical airplanes.  Also, it seems Lycoming has a pretty big jump in engine performance going from the o-233/235 to o-320.  Experimental Aviation could really use a model somewhere in-between.

Edited by Mark Wiygul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you would a hard-pressed to see a difference from 60 pounds but the difference in HP, acceleration and climb would be quite noticeable between 116 hp and 150-160 hp.  Even the effect of putting a 200 lb person in the back seat is a little hard to discern.  The takeoff might be noticeably longer with the 200 pounder.  You might  be landing a touch faster with the 2nd person but not more than 5 kts.  But going from 150-160 hp to 116 hp would be fairly apparent.  If endurance and range was your goal, maybe the O-233 would be OK.  It's not such a difference in cruise but the extra HP really makes a difference in acceleration and climb on a hot day or a full fuel load (or a 200 pounder in the back seat).  🙂

  • Like 1

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought a project which included a Lycoming O-235 when I knew very little about homebuilts.    When I discovered the facts,  bought a rebuilt O320, and finished the project.

What nobody mentioned was SAFETY.   If you take a buddy or wife on a summer trip, maybe you stop at a nice little field to refuel; they have CHEAPER avgas.    OK, it is midday.  HOT. 

You urgently need to get up to cooler air.   You get to the runup area.    Then you realize that (1) there is no wind  (2) the runway in use when you landed has a slight slope UPHILL; well,you COULD taxi to the other end but it is HOT so maybe it is OK.   But the asphalt is BLACK so it absorbs the sunlight and there are heat waves rising from the pavement.   You and your buddy or wife weigh a total of almost 400 pounds.   Will your 100 HP get you up to the air?    In the winter or from a different airport where the fuel is more expensive or if you had picked a runway that is sloping downhill or if you are flying solo, the 100 HP could be OK.

I remember when we lost two guys that went into a "nice little airport" in the summer and filled it with fuel.    Killed them both.

Don't even think about that O-233.

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

The Canard Zone

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information