xxxl long ez

[busta bob]

I need to find a way to maybe modify a long ez to fit two people total combine weight 625lbs and the height of 6'6'' would like to know has anyone ever heard of a twin engine EZ could it be built( yes heard of the starship) but a bonify twin EZ with turbo props.

[airnico]

check this out Bob:

[Marc Zeitlin]

check this out Bob:

This airplane has since been modified back into a single engine aircraft, since the performance was not any better than the single, with all the issues of two engines. And it most certainly wasn't a turbo prop, since no reasonable turbine engines of an appropriate size exist.

[Bruce]

Any idea who's picture/plane that is? I think it would make an excellent addition to the Big Book of Canards and I'd like to find a higher resolution one.

 

Bruce

[Marc Zeitlin]

Any idea who's picture/plane that is?

It's Mike Bowden's Long-EZ, which had twin Jabiru 2200's (80HP) engines. His exact words, on December 15th, 2000 were:

 

"More drag, less performance"

 

All the photo websites referenced in his posts on the canard-aviators mailing list hare no longer active. There are three pics at:

 

http://www.roughriver.org/2001_photos.html

[Cozy Girrrl]

Last time we were at Steve's hanger where Mike keeps his plane he said that on one engine it could not maintain altitude. Shame, it was certainly a very cool looking plane.

...Chrissi

[Bruce]

Thanks for the lead Marc, I didn't think about the RR web site. I'll see if it's OK to use some shots in the book. It's up to about 200 pictures, going to look good with all the really good shots people have taken.

 

Bruce

[jprock]

Getting Back to the original question...

 

The LongEZ is probably not the best choice for that size and weight. You would probably be better off looking at a Cozy or Velocity.

[Cozy Girrrl]

I seem to remember hearing of one Cozy being built as an extra wide Ez, the front and back seats were being built as bench seats. Widen the armrests and you'll be riding in style and comfort. Front seat is rated for 450 lbs, total load is well beyond your requirement, still room for hauling baggage.

[Wayne Hicks]

Defiant... maybe.

[ZUCZZ]

And then there was another twin IIRC, designed and constructed by the feller that later did the Europa.

 

Or so it seemed at the time ... maybe my memory is totally shot after all

 

Losing a few Lb's may make one live longer ...

[TMann]

Defiant... maybe.

My thought as well. I don't think you can work out a twin on a two place (or a four place for that matter) and have the second engine do much for you.

 

Burt's defiant design overcomes the negatives associated with having two engines.

 

Also ........ if you're really interested in a Two/Twin engine solution, get a couple hours in an Aztec (or other multi-engine airplane). It will run you close to $300/hr without the instructor......... and there's a reason it costs that much.

 

......... and if you're still interested, price out some engines.

[Lynn Erickson]

And then there was another twin IIRC, designed and constructed by the feller that later did the Europa.

 

Or so it seemed at the time ... maybe my memory is totally shot after all

 

Losing a few Lb's may make one live longer ...

That would be Ivan Shaw of South Yorkshire, England. It was a vari ez with I believe Norton Rotarys

[argoldman]

My thought as well. I don't think you can work out a twin on a two place (or a four place for that matter) and have the second engine do much for you.

 

Burt's defiant design overcomes the negatives associated with having two engines.

 

Also ........ if you're really interested in a Two/Twin engine solution, get a couple hours in an Aztec (or other multi-engine airplane). It will run you close to $300/hr without the instructor......... and there's a reason it costs that much.

 

......... and if you're still interested, price out some engines.

As a matter of history, a twin e-z was worked on by the developer of the Europa. It utilized 2 midwest rotaries. I think that he stopped the project before finished.

 

Not sure what you meant by saying "I don't think you can work out a twin on a two place (or a four place for that matter) and have the second engine do much for you."

 

Two and four passenger twins are viable. (the two passenger, the wing derringer was the first certified glass aircraft). What centerline thrust does for the pilot, theoretically, is to eliminate the problem of the critical engine and make handling, in the event of engine loss, similar to that of a single. Cessna, in their 337 (sky/mix master, push-me pull-you) and the earlier 336 (non-retract) felt the same way and expected a drastic decrease in engine out accidents/fatalities with that configuration. They were wrong and that plane had the HIGHEST rate. The problem wasn't the arrangement of the engines, but lay in the hands of the pilots who when they had a rear engine loss, (usually on takeoff) didn't recognize it, climbed as if both fans were spinning and stalled at low altitude. Again not the fault of the airplane. The AD notes that followed were, as I remember, a light indicating proper operation of the rear engine and the necessity to throttle the rear engine to full power before advancing the throttle of the front engine for takeoff.

 

Now as to the question of what the second engine does for you. That is a great question but it's answer depends on many factors.

 

If you loose an engine on takeoff, the conventional twin can be a negative as it gives you the opportunity to make the wrong decision. Logically the twin should be able to take off and climb well on one engine, however with an engine failure, the first decision that must be made is "should I get this plane on the ground now. In a single this decision is made for you. In a twin, the answer is "that depends" and here is the first possible fatal error. In a twin there is a speed Vmc under which with full power on one engine and no power on one, the aircraft is uncontrollable and will roll independent of control position. This problem actually increases with the increase of power in the good engine. Above this airspeed, or if above stall, by reducing the power on the good engine sufficiently, controlability is adequate.

 

When an aircraft looses 50% of power it is not the same as reducing power by 50%. The dead engine/prop, etc adds huge drag. With one engine pumping and the other loafing, most twins (non turboed) are quite marginal (especially at or above gross as in taking off for a long flight)

 

With an engine failure, you must clean the plane up right now as if the airspeed decreases (remember we just lost 50% of our thrust) below VMC you are toast. In a short period of time, you must raise the gear, raise the flaps, Identify the dead engine (not as easy as one would imagine as the sweat is pouring down your spine) retard the throttle, check if you are right, feather the prop, and isolate the engine from the aircraft (mixture fuel, electrical, etc) With most non-turbo twins, the climb rate with this scenario, assuming everything is done right will be quite anemic and in some planes (twin Navion) will be negative.

 

So engine failure on takeoff enables you to make a whole bunch of fatal mistakes. That's where training and practice come in. If you do everything right, and are at an airport with a adequate DA, you can climb out and return for a landing with just a laundry bill.

 

Many times an engine failure at takeoff should be treated as a failure in a single engine plane.

 

Now let's talk about single engine failure once straight and level, or without the necessity to climb somewhat rapidly. If you are relatively awake, the VMC problem doesn't exist since you are well above that speed. The same engine isolation techniques must be made, however you have plenty of time to do them in, and if you make a mistake, you just loose a little altitude before recognizing and correcting them. If you are below the single engine service ceiling usually not much more than 3-4Kfeet (again don't overgross) the aircraft will fly like a single, albeit that strong rudder correction toward the good engine (that's why twins have rudder trim) is vital and the necessity to fly good engine wing slightly low for best efficiency is there.

 

Twins are usually equipped with cross-fed fuel options which allow you to feed the good engine off of the tank that the dead engine would have sucked from. You can fly until the tanks are dry merrily going along, although slower. Some problems with older planes are the question which engine turns the generator (remember I said older), the vacuum pump and the gear hydraulics.

 

Go-arounds although possible, understanding the situation are not specifically recommended.

 

So when is the twin better. Well if you plan to do a lot of over the water flying, or flying in relatively low land (desert etc) where there is not a plethora of landing spots or very hostile tarrain twins are a great + If you or GIB or GIS like the ability not to have to put the plane down in possibly hostile circumstances (with the exception of T.O.) they are a plus. If you fly a lot of instrument flights, under the same circumstances, it may save your bacon. Some twins have an increase in usuable compared to a similar single. Some a higher cruise. Modern twins have duplication of most of the necessaries, ie alternator, vacuum, etc. The Macho of grabbing a fistfull of throttles can't be underestimated.

 

The negatives of the twin are as follows. Two of everything expensive and self-destructive. Some say twice the potential for engine failure since you have 2 engines. Higher cost of maintainence. The necessity to constantly train and practice for, safety if you have to use the twins advantages during takeoff.

 

So, it depends on your mission. It is not a case of one or the other.

 

"when I had singles, I wanted twins-- When I had twins, I wanted singles"

 

 

 

Happy holidays to all!!!

[Lynn Erickson]

As a matter of history, a twin e-z was worked on by the developer of the Europa. It utilized 2 midwest rotaries. I think that he stopped the project before finished.

 

 

 

Happy holidays to all!!!

You think Wrong. it flew at least 250 hours before he remove the engines and was going to convert it back to single. I believe he did but not sure. Mid-west Aero engines Limited applied for a test approval on the Norton 90 HP 100 R Rotary for the same engine in an all metal plane called the Super 2 after Shaw's aircraft had flown.

[Richard Schubert]

the wing derringer was the first certified glass aircraft

Wing Derringer was conventional aluminum construction with chemically milled skins.

[argoldman]

You think Wrong. it flew at least 250 hours before he remove the engines and was going to convert it back to single. I believe he did but not sure. Mid-west Aero engines Limited applied for a test approval on the Norton 90 HP 100 R Rotary for the same engine in an all metal plane called the Super 2 after Shaw's aircraft had flown.

.........

Wing Derringer was conventional aluminum construction with chemically milled skins.

 

 

Boy, wrong on two accounts in one posting. Thanks for keeping me honest. (after all I come from Illinois-- anybody want to buy an aircraft seat???)

 

The wing was indeed a metal twin. The aircraft that I was thinking of and renamed, as well as adding an additional engine to was the Windecker Eagle.

 

My understanding is that Midwest certified the single rotor 50 HP Norton derivative JAR someting or other. They took the 2 rotor and fuel injected it as the 110R and were in the process of trying to get it certified also. Diamond aircraft bought 100% of the stock in the company marketed the engines, under their name, and ultimately closed the company. I am told that hey now produce a 1 rotor variation.

 

I own a midwest 110R which was in my dragonfly. It was rebuilt to the 110R by Midwest, from the 100R, after diamond bought the company. My original engine bore the Norton name plate. After the remanufacture, it bore the Midwest moniker.

 

I spoke to Shaw before his flight of the twin and heard nothing since then about the aircraft. Thanks for the update

 

I still hold to the facts stated about the twin vs single (I was more awake by then)