Adding Strake fool, er fuel

[Edge 513]

Its a little quiet around here, so I will throw something out on the table. Here are my sketches for added permanently attached strake nacelles for 6 gals per side added fuel. I plan on moving the inboard strake bulkhead also to allow more fuel in the strake itself. This placement of forward fuel will allow me to remove the foam blocks just in front of the Spar and use that space for fuel as well. I am going withe longer canard due to my needs, as a opening shot. I can always cut it later. I asked Marc if he would calc out all the particulars regarding what this will do to my plane...and he is interested. [Thanks Marc- money to follow]. I hope to get 8.5 gallons per side additional. I know my bird will be a bit more draggy than Chris E's Cozy540RG as I dont want the RG...but I am jazzed to reflect I may be able to get similar performance [see Chris's excellent write-up in EAA's Sept issue] and hopefully 1000mile range at 10k 200+ a smidge knots. A bit less than 11gph ave and I am there.

Anyway, such are the musings of a madman.

 

Oh yea, I had a note on the sketch wrong- Marc reminded me that it was Dick Rutans plane, not Mike's that had these, [albeit they were blunter].

[TMann]

??? what kind of HP are you planning on?

[Edge 513]

I've got 9 to1 pistons in it..so right around 280, a bit more the A+P says, but no dyno. He says close to 285 as a guess.

[TMann]

At 280 HP you're looking at about 18.7 GPH.

You can get additional fuel capacity by fattening the strakes and getting rid of the kink in the strake.

[Edge 513]

Thanks.I will be using aerocads strake skins, and that does have taller strake ribs. You also get the benefit for fuel in the leading edge. [Marc used these and turned me on to them]. In talking with Jack Morrison a few months ago ,his supercharged 540 has near those numbers you are talking about.

Chris's numbers are much different at cruise. It may be high at climb-out. but it settled down at cruise. 200knts @10gph at 10k published. He has described this several times. I know when I got a ride from him at last RR, he was remarking about his 10.5gph at 10k, 200 knts on his arrival leg there. I dont want to lose my inside strake storage entirely, and didnt lengthen my fuse to put a sump in... so that is why I am headed in a nacelle direction. He also can do 7 hours at 195 knts with his capacity. My bladder is good for 5 max.

About the kink..I kinda like it. And It conforms more to the plans strake. Lynn Erickson and Jim Emmons out of Chino, said to omit the kink, just as you have drawn.

[Drew Swenson]

Will the nacelle fuel be separate from the strake fuel? The part I would worry about is the removal of the aft foam piece. If the nacelles were empty and you have a nose high attitude, your strake gas can sift your cg uncomfortably aft---or make your stick feel funny. The great news is that for your anticipated change, you are calculating out the data to see what the fuel will do over different attitudes and conditions----and instead of relying on gut feel (as per my answer)---relying on the data. Smart way to go.

[Big Steve]

Edge:

 

If you have a 5 hour bladder why do you need 7 hours of fuel? Seems like a lot of work. Just for longer time in the air. I am not real jazzed with the look either. Every thing else on your plane is super snarky. Then you add those radar domes to it and make it look like its been to a bad doctor and had breast implants for a Japanese movie monster. My .o2 STeve build on

[steve]

well i for one love the look of the rendering and hope it works out well so i can steel the planes and mass prod.....i mean help my 20b get 7 hours of flt

[Lynn Erickson]

Edge:

 

If you have a 5 hour bladder why do you need 7 hours of fuel? Seems like a lot of work. Just for longer time in the air. I am not real jazzed with the look either. Every thing else on your plane is super snarky. Then you add those radar domes to it and make it look like its been to a bad doctor and had breast implants for a Japanese movie monster. My .o2 STeve build on

I agree with Steve, don't worry Steve he is just having one of those designer moments, what the hell was I thinking. 5 hours at 11 GPH is 55 gallons. 5 hours at 200 MPH is 1000 Miles. how much does it have without the implants? have you used up all the space out board? what about making a extension to the tank that protrudes out board into the wing but one that you don't have to let people see. when you fly you don't want to cause the same chaos as a japanese movie monster. at high speeds the extra vortex from the implants my cause cars to overturn and roofs to be blown off. the FAA will have to restrict you to only flying over Groom lake. so as not to scare people or mislead them into thinking that you are advertising for a Madonna concert. what about pods under the wing, that way people will only think you are carrying bombs to drop on the Japanese movie monster and they will be happy to see you fly by.

[Cozy Girrrl]

Edge:

 

If you have a 5 hour bladder why do you need 7 hours of fuel? Seems like a lot of work. Just for longer time in the air. I am not real jazzed with the look either. Every thing else on your plane is super snarky. Then you add those radar domes to it and make it look like its been to a bad doctor and had breast implants for a Japanese movie monster. My .o2 STeve build on

Maybe Edge has an FAA mandated 2 hr bladder reserve?

[Lynn Erickson]

Maybe Edge has an FAA mandated 2 hr bladder reserve?

Ya, when I plan a non stop 5 hour flight ( which I never do ) I need to plan for the 2 hr reserve. meaning I may have to stop two hours earlier than planned. even on 3 hour flights I have had to use the two hour reserve.

[Edge 513]

Hey, I'm going for the Madonna, bullet bra effect.

In white, it will look very sexy along with the rest of the 'ensemble'.

You guys are not the first to draw the 'boobs' parallel.

 

The one thing I am not keen on is the reduced sideways viewing.

 

Gotta have a bit more fuel someways.

 

Lynn, I got Gary Hunter's pods for occasional flying/trip needs...you want me to install someMORE pods? I kinda LIKE that idea!!!!!

 

I am just looking for 60 gallons...maybe larger fuel sump blisters, combined with the inboard strake baggage area move...?

 

Then again, maybe a smaller pair of nacelle's...don't fault me, my bro-in-law is a plastic surgeon, so I have been unduly influenced...

[argoldman]

Just a thought,

 

Have you considered using the already fabricated below wing baggage pods.

 

Seal them off, install filler caps, use a facet pump to transfer fuel into the mains. Simple, clean, isolatable requre no structural changes and and are aerodynamically and W&B tested. Almost as sexy as the much merchandised Madonna. Of course they are now hanging down to her waist.

[Bruce]

Another interesting way to increase the amount of fuel is what Ken Murphy did with his Cozy. He had a 172 gal fuel tank made for him that fits in the back seat area. Ken said it only takes him about an hour to put in, with the mains and the extra tank he has a range of 3,000 to 4,000 miles. Of course you loose the back seat but, with a range like that it's a tempting trade off. The most he's had in it so far is 150 gallons and the CG was fine. The max he can carry is 212 gallons, now that has to hurt ($$$) at the fuel pump. I'll try and get some photo's the next time he's in town with it.

 

Bruce

[Cozy Girrrl]

Ya, when I plan a non stop 5 hour flight ( which I never do ) I need to plan for the 2 hr reserve. meaning I may have to stop two hours earlier than planned. even on 3 hour flights I have had to use the two hour reserve.

It's going to be a battle of the bldders for Randi and I so I do not worry about fuel capacity and when I want to put it down I will just need to open my cold air vent and let it hit her, that will be good for an instant "put this thing down at the nearest restroom".

[Cozy Girrrl]

Edge, talk to Robert and Valerie at RR (you ARE coming to RR?) about about what it takes to fatten up your strakes instead of doing this boob job on your plane.

They have to fatten the strakes up to get the needed fuel capacity for the EZ-Jets, I think Rick Roberts did the same thing on the King Kozy as well.

...Chrissi

[Steve Innova]

Where I live, inside the DC ADIZ, I am avoiding adding anything to my aircraft that could look like bombs or missiles.

 

If I make a mistake on the transponder code, I want the F-16 driver to at least hesitate...

[Edge 513]

The King Kozy will never fly, despite many referring to its existence. One look at that turkey, and I shudder at the shape.

Thanks for the lead on 'strake fatteners anonymus'. I not be at RR, to much fit itting the shan.

[Marc Zeitlin]

They have to fatten the strakes up to get the needed fuel capacity for the EZ-Jets, I think Rick Roberts did the same thing on the King Kozy as well.

With all due respect for the Harris', whom I respect very much, their "EZ-Jets" have not yet flown, and as Dennis points out, the King Kozy never will, so we'll never know what effect its strakes would have had.

 

Major aerodynamic changes to the strake shape may or may not have substantial performance/handling/stability/safety implications. Pods/LE Nacelles have been reasonably thoroughly tested on EZ's.

[Edge 513]

Major aerodynamic changes to the strake shape may or may not have substantial performance/handling/stability/safety implications. Pods/LE Nacelles have been reasonably thoroughly tested on EZ's.

Thus,the reason, Marc and I are looking at the nacelles. But I made a math error and can lop 10 inches off the tips of those babies..which is much more reasonable. In white, I think they will look great. I hope the #'s are favorable.

 

Steve H, I agree, with these nacelles and Gary's pods a'hanging, I should NEVER bust airspace or some F-16 will assure I will be a fireball for sure...

 

So, in the sketch below, I downgraded these from DD to C cups...they have the capacity I want and are not so 'in your face'.

[Neverquit]

The design looks great from an esthetic stanpoint. But looks like a lot of extra hours for fit, finish, sealing, etc. How about making something like the sumps but longer? Say a quarter round tucked between the strake and fuse. Keeps the fuel closer to axis center, a bit lower CG, less vortex problems, fore/aft fuel shifting would be about the same. Most of all, easier to build. Just a suggestion.

[Jon Matcho]

...the sketch below...

I do say Dennis, you are quite the artist!

[Marc Zeitlin]

I should have said this earlier, but had forgotten. One of the engineers here at Scaled who has built/refurbished a beautiful Long-EZ has fabricated (but not installed or flown yet) two "pod/nacelles" that are not dissimilar from what Dennis is proposing here. They are about 3/4 below the wing, but do not have pylons to attach them to the wings/strakes - they wrap around the leading edge in a similar fashion, and will be removable fuel tanks.

 

When I asked "why not just pods with fuel in them", the answer was "because these are different".

 

I mention this now because I just happened across them resting in the shop downstairs while examining some rocket motor components.

[Edge 513]

Lets talk about this guy's configuration Marc, as you have described it. That is what I originally wanted to do, but didnt want to run feeder tubing to the low spots and have to use a pump system. Then again, being lower always assures that there is fuel in the nacelles for CG. Off list or here..how do you see this? Very interesting.

[Marc Zeitlin]

Lets talk about this guy's configuration Marc, as you have described it...how do you see this? Very interesting.

I don't know. I'll have to ask him what his pumping/fuel delivery plans are the next time I see him. Since he's at least in theory my manager, that's pretty regularly :-).