Long EZ Passenger Leg Room

[SAF_Zoom]

Ya know... I've owned a couple of RX-7's too. And I wanted a rotary in my Cozy when it was time for an engine. But.. I have seen several beautiful rotary installations removed only to be replaced with a Lycoming. Nice installations, years of work, but now they are gone.

 

I haven't seen anyone replace a Lycoming with a rotary or subaru engine (I'm sure its happened, I just don't know about it).

 

The airplanes that I have seen flying, the ones at Rough River, have airplane engines. The old 4 cyl airplane engines are far from perfect, but thats what gets almost all of these planes in the air.

 

The two rotors are not independent of one another... they turn the same crankshaft... if one gets "stuck"... the engine stops.

Have you ever saw a stuck rotor??? When a rotary "blows" its the seal that goes buy buy... If a rotor was to come loose from the cranckshaft (which would mean that it striped all the grooved down (highly unlikely but whatever)) it would still freely "role" on the crank... not likely to jam. Even saw 13B that ingested par of the Turbo impeller end keep going... Not to say the casing was not destroyed... but the engine keep going... But no one can saw never. So when I say... two engines in one... it meant to say when one rotor goes.. the other one keep spinning...

[SAF_Zoom]

If you want to fly use a proven aircraft engine. if you want to spend the first several years experimenting with a power plant then put in a non proven engine. the first year I flew the Lycoming over 300 hours and never had a problem with the engine and still don't have any problems just like the other aircraft with this engine. I have never heard of any that use other than aircraft engines that have flown 300 hours in the first year, most have not flown 300 hours in many years and many will never fly 300 hours.

Well coming from an A&P I would'nt expect anything else! And its a good thing But being a guy that mostly work on P&W PT-6 turboshaft engines, I prefer the Redrive/Engine combo. And thats what the Wankel give you... low displacement at high RPM instead of low RPM big displacement in order to give you the same power output. Which means a lot less stress of the crankshaft... Never saw (or heared of) an Wankel with a broken shaft.

 

But we can argue till we are blue in the face... it will not change our respective point of view.

[TMann]

But we can argue till we are blue in the face... it will not change our respective point of view.

WOW ...... not ever a member for 2 weeks yet.

I agree.......as the wankel crowd gains momentum, we'll find out. I read of piston engines giving it up but I don't trash talk them. Their are a lot of rotaries flying and more on the way. Hats off to Tracey and others that took the initiative to forge ahead in spite of the criticism.

 

It's that type of spirit that got us west of the Mississippi (not withstanding the folks that took the boat around. )

[Drew Swenson]

I just realised... how did this went from... a discussion on passenger leg room to a discussion on engine type

 

Well thanks all for the replies, its real fun to exchange ideas/opinions.

 

Fly/build safe

 

You would have to go reread your first and then your second post to understand----the answer is----you started it within the thread that you started

[SAF_Zoom]

WOW ...... not ever a member for 2 weeks yet.

I agree.......as the wankel crowd gains momentum, we'll find out. I read of piston engines giving it up but I don't trash talk them. Their are a lot of rotaries flying and more on the way. Hats off to Tracey and others that took the initiative to forge ahead in spite of the criticism.

 

It's that type of spirit that got us west of the Mississippi (not withstanding the folks that took the boat around. )

This was in no way mant to trash talk anyone... just stating a fact. BTW I'm French so go easy their TMANN...

[SAF_Zoom]

You would have to go reread your first and then your second post to understand----the answer is----you started it within the thread that you started

Well I know what I posted... just did not realized how much of a debate ROTARY vs RECIPRICAL engine was...

[Lynn Erickson]

Well coming from an A&P I would'nt expect anything else! And its a good thing But being a guy that mostly work on P&W PT-6 turboshaft engines, I prefer the Redrive/Engine combo. And thats what the Wankel give you... low displacement at high RPM instead of low RPM big displacement in order to give you the same power output. Which means a lot less stress of the crankshaft... Never saw (or heared of) an Wankel with a broken shaft.

 

But we can argue till we are blue in the face... it will not change our respective point of view.

ah but thats where you are wrong. I love the rotary engine but did not want to spend many many hours building one to find out all the seemingly good Ideas have to be changed and after flying one for several years to only have logged 10 or 20 hours. when you have had as many years in experimental aircraft as I have you will have a better idea of the reality of using auto engines in aircraft. if you have not been there you have no idea of the problems that can arise.

turbo prop gear boxes are one thing. a homebuilt redrive is another animal. go watch one take off. or I should say listen to one take off. when you can hear there noise of the redrive over the noise of a rotary with open exhaust and prop noise during takeoff I don't think that is a good sign of longevity.

[SAF_Zoom]

ah but thats where you are wrong. I love the rotary engine but did not want to spend many many hours building one to find out all the seemingly good Ideas have to be changed and after flying one for several years to only have logged 10 or 20 hours. when you have had as many years in experimental aircraft as I have you will have a better idea of the reality of using auto engines in aircraft. if you have not been there you have no idea of the problems that can arise.

turbo prop gear boxes are one thing. a homebuilt redrive is another animal. go watch one take off. or I should say listen to one take off. when you can hear there noise of the redrive over the noise of a rotary with open exhaust and prop noise during takeoff I don't think that is a good sign of longevity.

If it sounds that bad its probably getting ready to die on the guys

 

Well anyhow... I'm a long way from mounting an engine in that back... lol... I aven't even started...

 

 

But my Terf CD should be in... in a few day... same for my CSA newsletters.....

 

Thanks for the infos,

[SAF_Zoom]

Found this when looking around... if anyone is interested in a Wankel for his plane...

 

http://www.rotaryengines.ca/main/aircraft.htm

 

These seem to have been adapted specifically for aircrafts

[TMann]

When you're ready ...... see the CozyGirrrl for the rotary engine mount.

None better!

[SAF_Zoom]

When you're ready ...... see the CozyGirrrl for the rotary engine mount.

None better!

Will do

[N1966Z]

Wow? After reading this thread I wonder if I should pull out my rotary and replace it with a Lycoming...I finished my 13b repower in Long Ez 1 week ago, flew avg. 2 hours/day with no squalks in the first 14 hours, and found the EZ easy to transition into with little help but the POH. On the first flight, got up to pattern altitude at the end of runway on takeoff, and throttled back. Thought the engine had died due to lack of sound and vibration. Advanced throttle and rpms came back up, it was alive afterall...

I'm just tired of changing cylinders, cleaning plugs,and timing mags, and vibration. MY plane starts and runs like my car.Thanks to Tracy, Terry, and Clark Lydick, engine swap was easy, I took half a year off from work to do it,have had NO cooling issues even in 95 deg. Texas heat.I suppose all the naysayers are chomping at the bit to be pallbearers at my funreral when it kills me. Have begun construction on my next plane, 3cyl. turbodiesel EZ and I suppose that will have some naysayers, too.Bob Mencl N613NC

[SAF_Zoom]

Nice to ear. Do you have pictures of your installation. I would appreciate for when I get to that stage.

 

Thx

[dirtdox]

Congratulations N1966Z on the rotary install. I would also like to hear more about your installation and see some pictures.

 

SAF_ZOOM, there is also a rotary powered Long EZ for sale on Barnstormers. There are a few pictures in the ad.

[SAF_Zoom]

Congratulations N1966Z on the rotary install. I would also like to hear more about your installation and see some pictures.

 

SAF_ZOOM, there is also a rotary powered Long EZ for sale on Barnstormers. There are a few pictures in the ad.

Saw that ... but I think it as a ROSS PSRU and not one from Tracy... from what I gather from my reading... the Ross units are problematic to say the least...

[N1966Z]

.......That IS me on Barnstormers, guys. Now at 32 hours, no squalks except replaced oil cooler, I had bent it in building, it developed a small leak 4 days ago. Robert

[gianmarko]

i have been following the avionized-automotive scene since 30 years now. with few exceptions, like the VW engine, it has been a history of failures.

 

yes, a skilled mechanic can without doubt modify a car engine and fit it to an airplane, and manage to keep it running more or less safely. but it will cost a lot of time, pain and worries.

i own a small two seater, rotax 912 powered. i got it built from kit for me by a good friend. i bought the kit, i bought the engine, i paid the guy, i have now a reliable airplane. i go to the airfield, tank up, start up, warm up and take off. no time spent checking if all bolts are secured, if a leak has developed, or redesigning that bracket that has cracked, that hose that develops a kink, to reroute cables that rub somewhere and so on.

 

i know that this engine, given air, fuel and spark, will run reliably forever, requiring a oil change every 100hrs and nothing else. in the unlikely case that something would break, spares and rotax workshops are everywhere.

i fly over water or mountains without much worries. would i do the same if my engine was a back-yard job started from a scrapyard engine? i dont think so.

 

moreover, i think a long-ez is not the airplane you want to use for testing a prototype. because your rotary adaptation will be a unique, untested prototype. use a C152 or something you can crash land with a chances of surviving.

 

if you want to fly, bolt a lyco to your firewall. if you want to tinker, then it desnt have to be an airframe the thing to which you bolt your prototype. a car trailer would be a much wiser choice.

 

modern engines are very specialized devices developed for a specific use.

 

in the case of aircraft engines the following engineering principle certainly applies:

light, cheap, reliable. pick any two.

[TMann]

Rotax and VW are Okay?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't think either had been certified.

 

Rorary is bad?

Is this ALL rotary applications?

Would a Mistral engine be less reliable than a Rotax?

Have you alerted all the RWS & RV guys to this potentially deadly situation?

 

I think your argument may have more holes in it than say ............. Swiss Cheese!

[N1966Z]

Hi Gianmarco, thanks for sharing your experiences on flying with avionationized auto engines. I feel your concerns for my safety are sincere. But I wonder how safe you are flying an airplane with an aviationized snowmobile engine.

 

I would also like to encourage you to develop the habit of preflighting your plane before every flight, as is the custom here. Part of that preflight for both certificated and experimental planes is to check for loose bolts and oil leaks. Here, it is not legal to simply gas up the plane and fly away,as you describe. A pilot could be held criminally liable for negligence in the event of an accident.

 

I did like your comment, light, cheap, or reliable, pick any 2. That statement seems to be the undeniable demon in aviation through the ages. My two seater is ifr, cruises around 200 and 6.5 gph and I can get a 0smoh replacement engine for under $3,000.and the completed plane weighs in about the same or 25 lbs lighter than comparably squipped Long Ezs.

 

I wish you a long and enjoyable flying hobby! Sincerely, Robert

[Lynn Erickson]

i have been following the avionized-automotive scene since 30 years now. with few exceptions, like the VW engine, it has been a history of failures.

 

yes, a skilled mechanic can without doubt modify a car engine and fit it to an airplane, and manage to keep it running more or less safely. but it will cost a lot of time, pain and worries.

i own a small two seater, rotax 912 powered. i got it built from kit for me by a good friend. i bought the kit, i bought the engine, i paid the guy, i have now a reliable airplane. i go to the airfield, tank up, start up, warm up and take off. no time spent checking if all bolts are secured, if a leak has developed, or redesigning that bracket that has cracked, that hose that develops a kink, to reroute cables that rub somewhere and so on.

 

i know that this engine, given air, fuel and spark, will run reliably forever, requiring a oil change every 100hrs and nothing else. in the unlikely case that something would break, spares and rotax workshops are everywhere.

i fly over water or mountains without much worries. would i do the same if my engine was a back-yard job started from a scrapyard engine? i dont think so.

 

moreover, i think a long-ez is not the airplane you want to use for testing a prototype. because your rotary adaptation will be a unique, untested prototype. use a C152 or something you can crash land with a chances of surviving.

 

if you want to fly, bolt a lyco to your firewall. if you want to tinker, then it desnt have to be an airframe the thing to which you bolt your prototype. a car trailer would be a much wiser choice.

 

modern engines are very specialized devices developed for a specific use.

 

in the case of aircraft engines the following engineering principle certainly applies:

light, cheap, reliable. pick any two.

Can't agree more and it is a shame that there will be so many un- experianced builders that will do just that, try out a unproven engine on a ez type aircraft.

[Lynn Erickson]

Rotax and VW are Okay?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't think either had been certified.

 

Rorary is bad?

Is this ALL rotary applications?

Would a Mistral engine be less reliable than a Rotax?

Have you alerted all the RWS & RV guys to this potentially deadly situation?

 

I think your argument may have more holes in it than say ............. Swiss Cheese!

and yes, Tmann, Rotax does have a certified version of the 912 the 912 A and it is in the certified Diamond Katana

would a mistral engine be less reliable then a Rotax?, well the FAA has not yet certified it and they keep having failures while trying.

[TMann]

.....and they keep having failures while trying.

I wasn't aware of that.

What failures?

Mechanical, EFI?

Where can I read more?

 

Bob Mencl N613NC, have you experienced these failures?

I would expect that someone who actually flies a rotary would know.

Can you help us out here?

[brainfart]

> I wonder how safe you are flying an airplane with an aviationized snowmobile engine.

 

The 912 and its variants are NOT based on snowmobile engines!

[SAF_Zoom]

The 912 (79HP/TO81HP) and 914 (100/TO115HP) are nice aviation powerplants... just a bit short on power... for my needs

[N1966Z]

I wasn't aware of that.

What failures?

Mechanical, EFI?

Where can I read more?

 

Bob Mencl N613NC, have you experienced these failures?

I would expect that someone who actually flies a rotary would know.

Can you help us out here?

Hi Mann,My engine hasn't skipped a beat in 40 hours, but this is too short a time to develop any history. Better to ask Tracey Crook, who has done as much to shape the future of experimental as any man. The exhaust and plugs look clean. Starts and runs like my Toyota. Other rotary pilots told of cooling problems, so I put extra effort there, and have had no heat trouble. Am using TWM induction, Atkins manifold, Microtech fuel injection which I had tuned by a really sharp guy, Ari at RX7.com, and I think that has helped as much as anything. At the urging of my IA Bob Wagstaff at K&W aviation, my plane often gets a cowl off checkup, but we really never find anything, add a bit of chafing gear or zip tie.

 

It is my understanding that most failures are with the systems, not with the rotary its self. My future plans are bladder tanks with internal pumps and redundant ignition, and I have a prototype for a new titanium hydraulic nose retract that weighs less than a pound, runs on engine oil pressure (duh, got pressurized fluid available). I am selling (turned down a close offer this week)to begin the new plane, turbodiesel aircooled Ez... and yes, with pistons!I live in Texas and Maine, and the trip in the old Cessna was unbearably long. Ez is really the only good option I see for future trips.

 

I have had 2 engine outs in 1,200 hours, both in certificated planes, and both were caused by my error. So chalk one up for certificated.

It is interesting to note that in both cases the planes did continue to fly, and did not "fall down out of the sky". All the time I have ever flown vfr in anything, I was either taking off, landing, or looking for the next available place to put down in case of engine out.

 

Am presently trying out an Ivo ground adjust magnum prop, but my friend Teal and I are having the same problem, still not enough pitch.I am maxed out on pitch adjustment, but still am blowing past rpm at the start of takeoff roll or during runup checks,(drags the tires on dry pavement) altho it does taxi at lower rpm, climbs much better, and has some increase in top end. I do miss my Clark Lydick prop and feel he has the quietest smoothest prop I have flown, and great communication.

 

I do know there is some element of risk in all this. But my trade is Union pipewelder, and I have seen some good men die under horrible conditions at work. I do the best I can to keep my plane up and fly safe, but if God calls me home I'm ready to go.

 

Fair winds and following seas, Robert