W&B for a modified Long..

[catchrow]

Hi Forum,

 

I am doing my homework (strange i know!!) before the long anticipated build begins in the near future, by doing a w&b estimate as there will be a few mods based around mainly, O-360, elect nose/speed brake, longer nose, me in the front (wide we go!- calcs already done for wing bending moment etc). To this end I have the following data for a check w&b pre build:

 

O360: add 80lbs typical @ fs140 (over a 0-235)

Battery (original): 20lbs @ fs19

New Battery 22lbs @ wherever it ends up (0-15" mine will have a long nose)

Fuel xxxlbs@ fs104.5

Oil 8lbs @fs140

 

Pilot , pax etc i I have, question: how do these numbers above look please?

Also does anyone have an estimate on :

Propeller (40lbs? at what fs?) say a typical 3 blade job.

Prop extension: weight and locn?

Spinner weight

A typical avionics weight (equip at inst panel)

Baggage pods: empty weight and full weight , locn

 

I will be adding a Willheimson Electric nose lift. what do they weigh?

 

Also Could a couple of people please give an indication of a typical empty airframe weight (sans fuel, oil etc notewhat toys are in it) and more importantly, fs location for the empty aircraft? This will give me a better idea of a bare weight to use as a baseline for my spreadsheet.

 

It would be great if we has a spreadsheet of members planes with this sort of data for everyone to access :-)

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Rowan

[NeilK]

Someone did. The file author says Rick Glos so if he did gathered the info, My hat is off to him.

 

NeilK

 

 

It would be great if we has a spreadsheet of members planes with this sort of data for everyone to access :-)

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Rowan

Canard Weights.pdf

[NeilK]

I tried to upload the XLS file but it wouldn't transfer. I see now that the PDF got messed up a little. If you PM me with your email address, I'll send you the XLS and a W&B spreadsheet I stole from Waiters web site.

[argoldman]

Rowan,

 

If you have not altered the wing/canard location (with respect to each other and the datum) and have kept the same datum, The center of lift will be in the same place, with respect to the datum as with an unmodified ship. The difference is that with the extended proboscis, you may put more weight ahead of the datum with more forward CG results. The proctological additions would, of course give you a more rearward shift of the CG possibility.

 

The CG range should be be kept pretty close to what Nat suggested.

 

I think that Marc posted a W&B spreadsheet, at one time, that might help.

 

If not, making your own should be a fairly easy task, if indeed you fully understand the concept of W&B, ---which you, and all pilots should.

 

Make the stations for the prop and all changes variables. The weight of each, of course should be a variable.

 

With these, you can originally estimate, and as more accurate figures come in, change them and see the results.

 

 

It's a balancing game. Stay balanced!!!

[TMann]

I'll send you the XLS and a W&B spreadsheet I stole from Waiters web site.

No need to steal it ...... it's free from www.IFlyEZ.com

 

You'll want to bookmark that site. Tons of good info for Long-EZ Builders

[Drew Swenson]

What Rich said.

 

I assume that you are going to put on a "standard" long nose. With that said, everything needs to go where it goes (extension and prop go on the back---battery way up front---unless you are a really big guy---then you could always put the battery on the center section spar).

 

When all is said and done, you will have to put the plane on the scales to determine the CG. And then calculate the CG with you in it. If you are not in the CG range, you will need to ballast or shift things around so that it does balance.

 

The more weight you put into the plane, the less desirable the flying qualities. However, I will tell you that the massive increase in capability of an O320 over an O235 was well worth the loss of a little bit of flying qualities. This equation does not last forever on a Longez----a monster 1000 lb engine may be powerful---but the aircraft would fly like crap.

[Big Steve]

Rich:

 

I think he is talking about a fat Longeze not a CozyIV so Burt would be the one to quote and Marc runs a site for Cozy builders. I had a light Longeze in a previous life it was a joy to fly. The only thing I would have changed is swap the 0235 for an 0320 Still keeping it light is the best thing you can do for these planes. STeve build on

[longez360]

Without a type cert standard airframe with tooled structure and stabilised infusion and finishing processes, weight is added in a non-uniform fashion throughout the airframe during the build procecess so the tolerances are quite high in terms of final CG location. Accessories are one thing, but even cowlings can have an unanticiapted effect.

 

If you add a 'long nose' and give room ahead of NG31 for the use of a variety of battery types (as small as an Odyssey PC680 and room for two so anything fits including baggage), you should be able to create an aircraft that balances as required. The associated wiring changes (particularly if 12V) should also be considered if you can move the battery(ies) aft which is desirable.

 

So much changes with time. :-) My 360 Long EZ initially met the W&B balance requirements. The engine was 265lbs dry. I use the Wilhelmson retract (was a Wright initially), and an Odyssey PC680 battery (was two initially, lots of wiring gone too) ahead of NG31. My cowls have more than halved in weight. I have replaced my skytec with a B&C. My baffling is now all CFRP (with GRP and silicon as required) - reduction. Props - my lightspeed is way heavier than my hertlzer. Even with these changes, my CofG is acceptable. I recalc after most of the larger mods.

 

If you do a W&B on a spreadsheet, it's a good rule of thumb but difficult to acheive as times change.

[argoldman]

Rich:

 

I think he is talking about a fat Longeze not a CozyIV so Burt would be the one to quote and Marc runs a site for Cozy builders. I had a light Longeze in a previous life it was a joy to fly. The only thing I would have changed is swap the 0235 for an 0320 Still keeping it light is the best thing you can do for these planes. STeve build on

Don't know where I got the IV Idea. However the concept is the same. If the wings and canard are in the same relation. There might be some change due to the width of the fus , however I don't think it would change the CL much. (when I say I don't know, I don't know, but I doubt it )--except for the possible lift created by the increased width..

 

If it were me, I would still go by the book CG range (for the long if that is the basis) and make my first flight with the CG in the middle and expand the envelope outward. W&B concepts are the same be it a LSA or the A380. Only the numbers change. (when you go supersonic the CL changes and complexities set in------Don't fly your Cozys supersonic!!!

[catchrow]

Guys,

Thanks for the feedbacK. As an Aero engineer, I live on numbers and analysis! Thats why i want the weights of the stuff listed above. I appreciate that estimated weights and actual weights will change- thats why I was hoping there would be a few people willing to share component weights to do an analysis and set some typical bounds. While I havent cut or built anything for the plane just yet, its a good time to do the check calcs for all these mods. Better to highlight a potential problem now and implement a design fix rather than later when it requires major surgery! Call it 12+years of experience in the industry (design, composites, windtunnels, flight test and certification)- ALWAYS GET CETIFICATION AND WEIGH AND BALANCE SORTED EARLY IN THE PROJECT!!!

I am not moving canard positions etc at this time. I would like to lower the canard by its thickness, and maybe stretch the fuse, but then I would have to re-calculate everything. If I am going to that much effort, I may as well design from a clean sheet of paper :-) (which is a future project). So aerodynamic centres are staying put. (the vertical canard posn is till up for grabs).

I will be widening the fuse at the pilots bulkhead (2"? have read a lot on what everyone else is doing)as I'm quite broad at the shoulders, 6'1ish and in that weird weight measurement, around 210lbs. I have checked bending moments and its right onthe edge of dont worry about it and reduce manoeuvre g factor, vs add a ply and abit.

 

 

Re Mods: It is in many ways a good time to build, now that everyone else out there has pretty much done it all! Although it is also a trap- If I incorporate all the good mods in the build, how can I measure improvement?!!!!

I will post a list of proposed mods at a later date for the group to peruse and provide feedback on.

 

Cheers,

Rowan

[RGlos]

Here is a current XLS file

Canard Weights II.xls

[Lynn Erickson]

Guys,

Thanks for the feedbacK. As an Aero engineer, I live on numbers and analysis! Thats why i want the weights of the stuff listed above. I appreciate that estimated weights and actual weights will change- thats why I was hoping there would be a few people willing to share component weights to do an analysis and set some typical bounds. While I havent cut or built anything for the plane just yet, its a good time to do the check calcs for all these mods. Better to highlight a potential problem now and implement a design fix rather than later when it requires major surgery! Call it 12+years of experience in the industry (design, composites, windtunnels, flight test and certification)- ALWAYS GET CETIFICATION AND WEIGH AND BALANCE SORTED EARLY IN THE PROJECT!!!

I am not moving canard positions etc at this time. I would like to lower the canard by its thickness, and maybe stretch the fuse, but then I would have to re-calculate everything. If I am going to that much effort, I may as well design from a clean sheet of paper :-) (which is a future project). So aerodynamic centres are staying put. (the vertical canard posn is till up for grabs).

I will be widening the fuse at the pilots bulkhead (2"? have read a lot on what everyone else is doing)as I'm quite broad at the shoulders, 6'1ish and in that weird weight measurement, around 210lbs. I have checked bending moments and its right onthe edge of dont worry about it and reduce manoeuvre g factor, vs add a ply and abit.

 

 

Re Mods: It is in many ways a good time to build, now that everyone else out there has pretty much done it all! Although it is also a trap- If I incorporate all the good mods in the build, how can I measure improvement?!!!!

I will post a list of proposed mods at a later date for the group to peruse and provide feedback on.

 

Cheers,

Rowan

If you leave the wings and canard as per the plans and build a wider /bigger fuselage then you will not be the first. it has been done. an Eracer is a long ez with a wider fuselage and the canard moved down 2". some use the IO 360 angle valve engines and there is even one with a SIO 540. there are wider cozy IVs, wider long ezs and the limo ez. the berkut is a long ez with a 12" stretch. so as long as you don't get to crazy with the overall weight or move things to totally different position it will fly.

[longez360]

Guys,

Thanks for the feedbacK. As an Aero engineer, I live on numbers and analysis! Thats why i want the weights of the stuff listed above. I appreciate that estimated weights and actual weights will change- thats why I was hoping there would be a few people willing to share component weights to do an analysis and set some typical bounds. While I havent cut or built anything for the plane just yet, its a good time to do the check calcs for all these mods. Better to highlight a potential problem now and implement a design fix rather than later when it requires major surgery! Call it 12+years of experience in the industry (design, composites, windtunnels, flight test and certification)- ALWAYS GET CETIFICATION AND WEIGH AND BALANCE SORTED EARLY IN THE PROJECT!!!

I am not moving canard positions etc at this time. I would like to lower the canard by its thickness, and maybe stretch the fuse, but then I would have to re-calculate everything. If I am going to that much effort, I may as well design from a clean sheet of paper :-) (which is a future project). So aerodynamic centres are staying put. (the vertical canard posn is till up for grabs).

I will be widening the fuse at the pilots bulkhead (2"? have read a lot on what everyone else is doing)as I'm quite broad at the shoulders, 6'1ish and in that weird weight measurement, around 210lbs. I have checked bending moments and its right onthe edge of dont worry about it and reduce manoeuvre g factor, vs add a ply and abit.

 

 

Re Mods: It is in many ways a good time to build, now that everyone else out there has pretty much done it all! Although it is also a trap- If I incorporate all the good mods in the build, how can I measure improvement?!!!!

I will post a list of proposed mods at a later date for the group to peruse and provide feedback on.

 

Cheers,

Rowan

 

Hi Rowan,

 

I think you're missing a lot of items that will affect your calc. E.g. engine installation area; what engine mount, extrusions, exhaust, accessories, where are you mounting your oil cooler (firewall, cowl, aft - add hose length too), cowls (you making them? or prefab?), prop bolt length (my savier prop needs much longer heavier bolts), baffling changes, alternator size, etc etc etc. Your firewall aft weight that you are going to generate will be highly innaccurate without them.

 

What are your electrical system weights? Using 12V? What's in your panel.

 

Changing canard thickness? That intregues me. Are you planning on going head to head with John Roncz? :-)

 

Cheers

 

Wayne

[catchrow]

Wayne,

 

You are right, but at this stage, as I am using existing aircraft empty weight,all that stuff is included. This is also why the pre-build w&b is a good guide only, or as you say, you go and do an awful lot of research!

I am fairly happy now with my spreadsheet- it shows that the configuration can work.I have the cg mid range at 101, which is as good as any place to start. As I progress I will add more detailed data until we get to the final weigh-in.By then the spreadsheet should be full of stuff and fairly accurate.

Sometimes I have to remind myself its an experimental and not a normal cat aircraft! Still its all good practice.

 

The canard move is all about moving the canard location down 2"- not changing the geometry of the surface, as much as i would like to (10 deg sweep would look cool), because again, too much analysis- see prior post re design.

Moving the canard down allows for reshaping of the top deck and removing the one ugly feature ofthe long- the 'boxiness' of the fuselage around the canard in the transition to the nose. Some pl deal with this really well, others seem to build to plans. I think I have two approaches which could deal withhte problem, lowering the canard is one.

 

Thanks again for the input- keep firing away folks,I do appreciate it.

 

Cheers,

 

Rowan

[airnico]

it's not the first time we talk about the different position of the canard in the E-racer(2"down), what is the reason it has been done for?

is there any datas showing diferences in the aircraft behaviour due to this mod?

[Lynn Erickson]

Wayne,

 

 

 

The canard move is all about moving the canard location down 2"- not changing the geometry of the surface, as much as i would like to (10 deg sweep would look cool), because again, too much analysis- see prior post re design.

Moving the canard down allows for reshaping of the top deck and removing the one ugly feature ofthe long- the 'boxiness' of the fuselage around the canard in the transition to the nose. Some pl deal with this really well, others seem to build to plans. I think I have two approaches which could deal withhte problem, lowering the canard is one.

 

Thanks again for the input- keep firing away folks,I do appreciate it.

 

Cheers,

 

Rowan

lowering the canard 2" does not seem to have any effect in the way they fly. but it would make it hard to fit in an electric nose lift. the E racer uses hydraulics for the nose gear so it does not interfere with the canard.

[airnico]

lowering the canard 2" does not seem to have any effect in the way they fly. but it would make it hard to fit in an electric nose lift. the E racer uses hydraulics for the nose gear so it does not interfere with the canard.

does it make something better for forward visibility?

[Lynn Erickson]

does it make something better for forward visibility?

the Eracer front seat is 10" further back then it is in the long or cozy so the look over the nose is different. i suppose if the Eracer had it 2" higher then the visibility might not be as good but then you could see under it better

[catchrow]

"lowering the canard 2" does not seem to have any effect in the way they fly. but it would make it hard to fit in an electric nose lift. the E racer uses hydraulics for the nose gear so it does not interfere with the canard."

 

Lynn, nice pickup on the nose lift! I hadn't thought of that.

 

Usually the canard is set in such a position such that the wake flows either over the top surface of the wing or the lower surface all of the time, through most of the pitch range. If the flow is switching from top to bottom, then you get undesirable changes in flow over the main wing. This could cause problems in stall, control surface response etc.

I havent decided on the move yet, it will depend on the outcome of a thorough analysis.

 

Cheers,

 

Rowan

[Lynn Erickson]

"lowering the canard 2" does not seem to have any effect in the way they fly. but it would make it hard to fit in an electric nose lift. the E racer uses hydraulics for the nose gear so it does not interfere with the canard."

 

Lynn, nice pickup on the nose lift! I hadn't thought of that.

 

Usually the canard is set in such a position such that the wake flows either over the top surface of the wing or the lower surface all of the time, through most of the pitch range. If the flow is switching from top to bottom, then you get undesirable changes in flow over the main wing. This could cause problems in stall, control surface response etc.

I havent decided on the move yet, it will depend on the outcome of a thorough analysis.

 

Cheers,

 

Rowan

there is an Eracer that was built with the canard in normal long ez position and it flys the same as the ones with the lowered canard. the top speed was the same to the tenth of a knot and the stall is the same also. remember the main wing never gets to stall on a canard aircraft. there are no control surfaces behind the canard, the ailerons are mostly outboard of the canard

[Jack Morrison]

I had-have a electrical nose gear retract system in my E Racer, I had to modify the attach brackets that Jeff Russell designed for the cozy 4. I have all the drawings for anyone interested, works great and cost about $400.00 if you make your own brackets. Also has a manual crank down if the electric ram fails.

 

Jack