capabilities of the long EZ

[ronny]

As far as I understand the Long EZ is designed to be powered by an O-235 engine. I know some people have upgraded to a O-320

 

But if we for one second disregard the weight of the engine, how much power can a Long EZ handle ?

200-250 HP ????

 

 

In the automotive world engines can " easily" be upgraded to produce higher outputs of HP. Hence would it be possible to extract 200 HP from a O-235 or O-320. Keeping the weight within its limits.

Where should one look to "upgrade" Lycoming engine.

 

Thx

Ronny

[raiki]

In the automotive world engines can " easily" be upgraded to produce higher outputs of HP. Hence would it be possible to extract 200 HP from a O-235 or O-320.

In the automotive world we have the option of increasing RPM which is why we can 'easily' increase HP. With a few mods getting an auto engine from 200HP@4800RPM to 350HP@6000RPM is possible (although I wouldn't say easily or cheaply). I know this because I have done it.

 

With a direct drive engine you are limited to the RPM of the prop (generally 2700-2800 for anything bigger than an 0-200). If you want to increase the HP of an 0-235 from say 115 to 200 you need to improve volumetric efficiency by a factor of around 60%. Lets say the VE of the 0-235 was around 80%(that's a pretty low figure by auto standards but I'd estimate it's close to aircraft engines of a stock variety), your VE for 200HP would be in the realms of 140%. That is well above the results achieved by the average normally aspirated (na) drag car.

 

If you turbo/supercharged the 0-235 and boosted it to roughly 15psi you would achieve approx 160% VE and possibly 230HP, but the engine wont last long at these boost pressures. At reasonable 'streetable' boost levels of say 9psi, you might get around 190HP. But now you are talking the weight and complexity of turbo/super chargers.

 

Now using the above example it would certainly be possible to push the 0-320 to 200HP using a blower. Maybe without but with a wacky cam/ignition/intake and all the comprimises that will give you. Now compare the weight of the blown 320 vs a 360 na. The na engine will certainly last longer.

 

Max torque occurs at max VE. Torque is proportional to VE, and HP is proportional to torque AND RPM. So increasing VE or RPM gives more HP. This is why autos are easier. In one step you improve VE and RPM so you get a double hit in the HP stakes.

 

In summation in my opinion you have no chance of a reliable, easy to use/maintain 0-235 with 200HP. You will get 200HP out of an 0-320 but it wont be all that happy about it.

 

Oh forgot to add, more HP means more heat but you are not adding more surface area to the air cooled engine to dissipate it. (if you are making 75% more HP you are burning roughly 75% more fuel, assuming rpm remains the same).

 

disclaimer: no real math/engineering done here, just using common armchair principles.

[Drew Swenson]

Or you could boost to maintain HP with the increase in altitude.

[ronny]

wooow

 

Thanks guys for the info.

 

This all makes sense.

 

Guess there s only one route to go to get more HP. And thats more cubic inches.

 

How did that saying go ? Only one thing better than cubic inches : thats more cubic inches

 

But fine then this leaves us with a weight issue

a O-235 weighs 250 lbs for 115 HP

a O-320 weighs 275 lbs for 160 HP

a O-360 weighs 285 lbs for 180 HP

 

I dont know enough of the plane yet to be able to assses the effect on the centre of gravity of 35 extra lbs at the back, maybe a battery can be moved forward. or ???

 

I just saw a clip on youtube about a South African Long EZ in Cape Town, (a nice yellow bird ZS VFA) He is using a O 360 engine

 

What is the ideal weigth for a Long EZ, I am sure there is a "design weight" calculated by Mr Rutan

 

What are the issues involved in running a more powerfull engine ?

 

Is there a "design HP" for the EZ? And what HP can the design handle?

 

I am not looking for a 500 HP long EZ, but as in my cars I like powerfull engines and having some extra power available at the push of a ...

 

Tx

Ronny:) :)

[Big Steve]

Keep a Loneze under 800# and you will have a sweet flying machine It is even better under 750# but that is really hard to do with a starter and big motor. STeve

[longez360]

wooow

 

Thanks guys for the info.

 

This all makes sense.

 

Guess there s only one route to go to get more HP. And thats more cubic inches.

 

How did that saying go ? Only one thing better than cubic inches : thats more cubic inches

 

But fine then this leaves us with a weight issue

a O-235 weighs 250 lbs for 115 HP

a O-320 weighs 275 lbs for 160 HP

a O-360 weighs 285 lbs for 180 HP

 

I dont know enough of the plane yet to be able to assses the effect on the centre of gravity of 35 extra lbs at the back, maybe a battery can be moved forward. or ???

 

I just saw a clip on youtube about a South African Long EZ in Cape Town, (a nice yellow bird ZS VFA) He is using a O 360 engine

 

What is the ideal weigth for a Long EZ, I am sure there is a "design weight" calculated by Mr Rutan

 

What are the issues involved in running a more powerfull engine ?

 

Is there a "design HP" for the EZ? And what HP can the design handle?

 

I am not looking for a 500 HP long EZ, but as in my cars I like powerfull engines and having some extra power available at the push of a ...

 

Tx

Ronny:) :)

A 9.2:1 (Lycoming piston) or 10:1 Lycon piston parallel valve 360 does very well for 285lbs.

[ronny]

This is an interesting point.

 

A nice light plane with a decent engine can be very hot

A bit heavier plane with mega power can also be huge fun.

 

Similar to an Atom Areal 500 and a Porsche GT2. The Atom having a 1000HP/Ton lots more than the Porsche 350 HP/Ton

But then I feel lots more safe in the Porsche than in the Ariel (poor roadholding etc)

 

Hence I am still interested in finding out what is all required to go the O-360 route. Wayne saw pics of your bird, wooow looks very hot, great job you did there.

 

I certainly would like to hear from others their opinions on this subject.

Saw a brief clip regarding a Long EZ sporting a Ford V8 small Block. Even exceeding the 250 HP range

 

I am not (yet) thinking of installing anything else but a Lycoming.

 

Thanks you all for giving me your thoughts

Ronny

[fpullanojr]

Without getting technical I can add a few points from experience.

 

I had a VariEze with 90 HP, have a bunch of flights in a sweet 320 Long EZ and now own and fly a 360 BerkEz.

 

The Varieze was fun..

The LongEz was more fun..

The BerkEz blows both of them away...

 

My plane is NOT the most efficient, isn't going to win a CAFE contest and certainly isn't going to win a craftsman award at Oshkosh but if you want pure performance the extra horses under the cowl make a huge difference.

 

Again, not technical info, just seat of the pants hangar flying.

[Waiter]

Throw in a Constant speed prop and you have a rocket ship;

 

YYYEEEE HHHHAAAA

 

 

Waiter

[Drew Swenson]

<snip>My plane is NOT the most efficient, isn't going to win a CAFE contest and certainly isn't going to win a craftsman award at Oshkosh but if you want pure performance the extra horses under the cowl make a huge difference.<snip>

 

Frank---I agree with you---but those are increasing horses on different planes. The 360 on your Berk EZ has got to be great---but the 360 on a Varieze has got to fly like a dog---except that it goes real fast, climbs like you read about, doesn't carry very much, and is relatively unresponsive on the controls.

[ronny]

Hi guys, thanks for all your comments, I realy appreciate the time you take for sharing all your knowledge with me.

 

I am now facing a big dilemma.

On one hand I love the Lomg EZ, fun design, like what I hear about it, enjoyed the ride I have been able to make in one. I want one !!!

 

On the other hand I live in Belgium, nice place to live, but runways tend to be shorter than 2400 Feet.

One of the comments from Waiter said : "" I start getting cautious when the runway length gets down to 2500 ft.""

Good man Wolf tells me : ""Ronny don't worry an 800m strip is perfectly safe, especially since you are about see level and it does not get that hot in belgium"" He advices me to look out for a O 290 or O 326 EZ.

 

One thing I learned here is not to rush into this, ( I still need to get a PPL anyway, this will take me into spring 2010 !!) And I want to be a little carefull, whenever I get my PPL I'll start out as a rookie not a hot shot pilot.

 

Hence I wanna use this time to get as much info as I can

 

I hope you all understand the headaches, the dilemma I am struggling with

 

Thx

Ronny

 

:envy: :envy:

[macleodm3]

On the other hand I live in Belgium, nice place to live, but runways tend to be shorter than 2400 Feet.

One of the comments from Waiter said : "" I start getting cautious when the runway length gets down to 2500 ft.""

Good man Wolf tells me : ""Ronny don't worry an 800m strip is perfectly safe, especially since you are about see level and it does not get that hot in belgium"" He advices me to look out for a O 290 or O 326 EZ.

As a low time pilot, I would not consider 800m or 2500 ft "safe" for myself in any EZ derivative. My local airport is over 5000 ft long, and I presume that I'll have a learning curve getting my Cozy on the ground even here with all this room.

 

We have EZ pilots here on the web that do operate out of shorter runways.

 

If I was planning to operate out of shorter runways, I might consider an RV. I don't like the design as much as the EZ family, but they do have better short field capabilities.

[fpullanojr]

As for operating an EZ on grass OR out of a short field ( < 3,000 FT )

 

I used to base my varieze out of Bader Field (KAIY) in Atlantic City NJ. The "longer" of the two runways was 2900 feet while the other was only 2400 feet in length.

 

There was NO ROOM for error at that airport. Granted, I was flying a VariEze with a 90 HP engine so the takeoff roll was long. Landing was ok as long as I was on speed and also touched right on the numbers.

 

It was a VERY interesting airport to fly into. There were lots of obstacles and surrounded by water on three sides. There were bulkheads at the end of the water side thresholds so carrying a little extra speed and a steeper glide slope were both required. It made me a much better EZ pilot but it was very touchy to say the least. Sea Guls used the runway to crack open shell fish so there were tons of birds and tons of FOD too.

 

If you are flying a LongEz/Cozy with sufficient power however you'll be able to operate consistantly from shorter fields than a varieze can.

 

As for a grass strip? I wouldn't do it unless the strip was like a golf course fairway, at least 4,000 feet long (@ sea level) , cool temps, and my nose gear was beefed up - a lot.

 

When flying into Oshkosh, I wasn't even able to taxi my varieze on the grass. I had to get out and either push the plane or walk her with the engine running. I couldn't imagine operating normally out of grass with a stock varieze although some may have or may be doing that.

 

I could see a velocity (or similar) doing it with little trouble becasue of the gear configuration.

 

Just some thoughts, but as always YMMV

[ronny]

Macleod,

 

an RV ? Like in a Vans Aircraft RV-8, noway, no thanks,

 

If it s not a Long EZ then I might go for a Lancair 320 or 360

 

Ronny

:envy:

[Marc Zeitlin]

If it s not a Long EZ then I might go for a Lancair 320 or 360

If you believe that a high performance aircraft such as a Lancair will have substantially (or any) shorter runway requirements than a canard aircraft, you're mistaken.

 

There's no substitute for wing area when looking for short takeoffs and soft field performance. Looks and aesthetics are not a reason to choose an airplane that doesn't meet your mission requirements.

[catchrow]

There's no substitute for wing area when looking for short takeoffs and soft field performance.

Yes there is! Flaps, leading edge devices, section coefficient.....

(ok, ok so S gives you more bang for buck for the equivelant cost, but where is the fun of flaps?)

For all the non aeros out there, you are trying to manipulate the lift equation to maximise lift, so S and Cl are the two terms you play with...easy!

 

And good to see the man is addicted to canards.....

 

Cheers all,

 

Rowan

[ronny]

On Saturday was invited to fly a Long EZ (backseat)

 

Engine O-235

 

With two adults on board ( both not really the slimmest) We were airborne well before the 1500 feet sign next to the runway.

Landing was very similar.

 

Damn I enjoyed that flight.

 

Guess I ll need to get lots of experience very soon very quick.

This kind gentleman offered to give me some more EZ time in order to see if the plane fits my expectations (as soon as I get my PPL) and see if we can operate it out of my airport (2400 feet)

 

 

Am still wearing this hughe smile

 

Ronny

:) :)

[macleodm3]

On Saturday was invited to fly a Long EZ (backseat)

Well, you most certainly are a lucky one. I must say I'm a little jealous.

 

I haven't even sat in a Canard aircraft yet. As soon as I get my fuselage off of the rotisserie, I'm gonna just quit building and glue in an LCD flatscreen, load up X-plane, and fly around the cheap way.

 

Anyway, congratulations on your ride! From watching the videos on youtube, these airplanes look like fun!

 

Don't be too hard on the RV's... they may not be fast glass, but they truly are a very competent family of aircraft. Although, if I had to start my build over, I would NOT change anything. I am still so glad I chose to build a Cozy!!

[ronny]

Indeed Mac I do consider myself lucky for being able to fly the Long EZ last weekend

 

As you all know I am struggling with the required length of the runways. In the Pilots Manual I read about two props being used : a cruise prop and a climbing prop. I have a feeling I understand but then again I don't, can somebody please explain me the difference.

 

Should I assume that both props "run" at the same revs ?

Is the climbing prop more effective at lower airspeeds?

 

OK I ll stop guessing please tell me.

Would a different choice of prop help my case? Make the EZ more safe on shorter runways?

WHy is then a Constant Speed prop not to be used?

 

Thanks (and forgive me for abusing this forum with all my questions)

 

Ronny

:) :)

[Waiter]

The closest anology is a manual transmission in your car;

 

A Climb prop is like 1st gear, Great for takeoff and climb, but really bad for cruise. (your car is stuck in first gear)

 

A Cruise prop is like 4th gear or overdrive, Really great for cruising at 70mph, but not good at starting off from the stop light.

 

 

A Constant speed prop is like an automatic transmission, it can change gears automatically.

 

 

So, Why are rpms important, Horse Power,

 

A standard Lycoming O-320, full throttle at sea level will put out 160hp at 2700 rpm. At 2100 rpm its putting out about 100 hp. At 2900 rpm its putting out about 180 hp.

 

The lycoming O-320 has a fairly linear power curve of about 10hp / 100 rpm (between 2100 and 3000 rpm)

 

 

Waiter

[fpullanojr]

a cruise prop and a climbing prop. I have a feeling I understand but then again I don't, can somebody please explain me the difference.

A cruise prop vs a climb prop is going to be different for every engine. In other words, one man's cruise prop is another man's climb prop.

 

A climb prop for a particular airframe/engine marriage will allow the engine to produce a higher RPM / closer to maximum horse power @ slower or no air speeds. It's a relatively finer pitched blade (or a combination of finer pitch/smaller diameter.) when compared to what you might consider a cruise prop.

 

The cruise prop will be a more coarse or "fat" pitch and in many cases a larger diameter too. This will allow your engine to spin at a lower RPM while maintaining a given cruise speed.

 

Think of it in this way even though it's not directly related to a car. A Climb Prop is like driving around in first gear. A Cruise prop is like doing it in 5th Gear.

 

Should I assume that both props "run" at the same revs ?

They will yield rather different performance given the same RPM. Example. I used to fly a 61 X 61 wood prop on my VariEze. At 2700 RPM, I would see an indicated airspeed of 150 Knots. Flying with a 61 X 70 cruise prop I could run at 2450 RPM to see the same speed but couldn't make much more RPM than that. I burned much less gas in this case, cruised at a much lower RPM but since I was stuck in 5th gear, you might imagine what my bid did when trying to go up a steep hill.

 

 

Is the climbing prop more effective at lower airspeeds?

It's different. It's the engine that is more or less effective because of the pitch and diameter for the prop.

 

 

Would a different choice of prop help my case? Make the EZ more safe on shorter runways?

For shorter fields, a climb prop is a much more sensible way to go. You are going to want to be able to shorten your TO/Land distances as much as possible.

 

 

 

WHy is then a Constant Speed prop not to be used?

Nothing saying you can't use a CS prop. I flew an Electric IVO prop on my varieze, even though it took three different versions to get it right, once it was dialed in, it was AWESOME! A CS prop will allow the best of both words for both climb/descent and cruise.

 

The drawbacks of a CS prop on a canard has to do with increased weight, added mass on the end of a prop extension, potential issues with exhaust heat on the blades and of course complexity.

 

I wouldn't consider the complexity increase a factor to your question since we're just talking about performance.

[Lynn Erickson]

Indeed Mac I do consider myself lucky for being able to fly the Long EZ last weekend

 

As you all know I am struggling with the required length of the runways. In the Pilots Manual I read about two props being used : a cruise prop and a climbing prop. I have a feeling I understand but then again I don't, can somebody please explain me the difference.

 

Should I assume that both props "run" at the same revs ?

Is the climbing prop more effective at lower airspeeds?

 

OK I ll stop guessing please tell me.

Would a different choice of prop help my case? Make the EZ more safe on shorter runways?

WHy is then a Constant Speed prop not to be used?

 

Thanks (and forgive me for abusing this forum with all my questions)

 

Ronny

:) :)

a cruse prop has a higher pitch designed into the blade and will have a higher top speed. the climb prop has a lower pitch blade which allows the engine to run at higher RPM and develop more HP and is made for better acceleration and climb performance. a constant speed is adjustable within a range of pitches but not as efficient as a fixed blade prop. they only cost about ten times as much and weigh about 45 lbs. A CS for a long ez runs about $12,000. A fixed pitch run about $ 800 to $1400

[ronny]

Thanks, Waiter, Frank and Lynn,

 

I am learning fast here, thanks

 

So a constant speed is heavy and expensive, tricky to get it sorted out. The altnernative is buying a selection of props and finding the one with the best compromise (take of distance and cruise speed).

 

Indeed Waiter it s all about horse power. The engine needs to be able to get this prop spinning at the required RPM, this requires the right amount of HP.

 

Assuming an O-235.

 

The more time I spend on reading and learning this the more I get the feeling there is a fine line to be walked, a line defined by weight and HP.

 

To continue a litttle on props. There is also the props where pitch can be changed, not in flight but on the ground. Are they avaiable for pushers? Expensive? What about their weight ?

 

What about the choice two or three bladed props?

 

How about carbon props versus wood, arent they a lot lighter?

 

Where does one go to buy props?

 

Thanks again

 

Ronny

:D :D

[longez360]

My contention: The difference between a well tuned fixed pitch prop and a 2700RPM limited CS prop is inconsequential IMO.

 

If you static 2500 (like my climb prop) it gives 93% of available horsepower. Are you willing to pay an extra $12000+ (and maintenance costs) for the other 7%? What was the consequence of not having that 7% on hundreds of thousands of EZ flight hours?

 

At 2700 RPM, the props are similar. Performance is similar. Are you willing to pay an extra $12000+ (and maintenance costs) for similar performance?

 

If you top end 2900 it gives 107% of available horsepower. Are you willing to pay an extra $12000+ (and maintenance costs) for the 7% reduction in top end? (not that you will use it very much).

 

A metal prop would be an advantage, if it could be done, from a damage tolerance point of view. If not, your blades are equally susceptible to damage, given leading edge protection is mutually exclusive.

 

The right prop for these aircraft, on the basis of published test results would be a fixed pitch 2 or 3 blade. 3 blade use, IMO, is predicated on exhaust location. Weight is a demon, eliminate it.

[Drew Swenson]

checkout canardzone>flying>props

 

Also search for prince, hertzler, and catto.