Smooth Operator

[Royal]

This is just the shell of my idea. I did design it off of the line drawings of a long eze. Should be able to use the controls and linkages. Cabin is wider and lower. I also wanted to make it slippery as possible. I have more to and a bit of CFD tuning and probably some better airfoils after the CFD. 

Anyone can help or maybe build it if they like.

[Kent Ashton]

Nice but swoopy  designs are hard to build.   Plugs, then molds, then structures—lots of work. There is already something similar by Revelation Aerospace And it does not seem like they are doing much.   

https://bobklynstra.wixsite.com/website

IMO, Your design is only practical as a model aircraft or a kit and the kit airplane market is very small.    It’s not a waste of time because you are developing an ability to design and draw things.    Make a flying model and see how it goes.    Good luck

[Royal]

I built a small glider first. Worked pretty good...till the dog jumped on it after the kids looked at it. Easily fixed though.

[Royal]

But I also think with the foam cores that can be CNCed like the wings on burts planes this could easily be done on there. I have built plugs and molds for Anointed Aero and some other car projects. The pics are the plugs I made by hand then had them manufactured in fiberglass. 

OIP (1).jfif OIP.jfif

[Kent Ashton]

Your bumper-work looks great.  The problem with airplane design is that beautiful shapes must be drawn hand-in-hand with engineering data so I am interested in your calculations.  🙂

That's particularly important in a canard design.  I am not an engineer but I know that from from reading flight and accident reports.  For example Puffer found in the Cozy IV that a little too much canard area could drive the aircraft into wing-stall.   Perhaps your small canard will not develop enough lift at slower speeds to support the nose, or stall out at higher AOA before it can utilize the maximum lift of the wing.    You only know that by making preliminary calculations of centers-of-lift of the canard and wing and position of the center-of-gravity.    To do that, you have to know the position of the engine, the crewmembers, the fuel, and make a wag at the weight of the structure. 

Canard airplanes sit high off the ground so the airplane can rotate and land without hitting the prop.  The wheels have to be mounted at a station which will give the canard the leverage to lift the nose to rotate but if the wheels are too far forward, the ground handling will be tippy or the prop will hit the runway.  When we fly a Cozy solo, we have to add lead ballast to the nose to keep the CG in a good position (to keep the stall behavior acceptable).    Swept wings look cool but they are not necessary in subsonic airplanes.  Rutan only swept the EZ wings so he could mount rudders at the ends for stability and directional control.  There is just a lot to figure out.  I am not trying to be a debbie-downer, just bringing up things you may not have thought much about.

Justin has a simpler job by sticking pretty close to the original design where Rutan worked out those problems. 

Speaking of which:  Just saw this discussion of canard stall on HBA  https://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/threads/canard-deep-stalling.33761/

Edited June 17, 2020 by Kent Ashton

[Royal]

I think I'll find an accurate 3d model of a Long-EZE and learn to use the CFD better.  I'll also go into learning how to do the engineering part of it. I did use real airfoils from NASAs airfoil plotter. What I had intended to do was design off existing aircraft and known drag reducing tricks and some not used but I have seen tested. Probably why the GLASAIRs are so damn expensive and look so good too. I think part of what makes a plane or company successful is the end user experience. People cant be cramped or have crappy interior. A 152 may have vacuum formed plastic interior and kinda suck but its an interior none the less and the airplane preforms amazing for what it is designed to do. I think I need to get back to why I want to design this plane and figure out if there is something that can help the swept front canard in CFD or not. I did change the wing tip airfoil but I didn't add any twist to it. I'll read more on the deep stall. 

[Royal]

The X-29 had an interesting feature by the tail cone. It was like an elevator or some kind of flap to help the air come off the wing root. The AOA of the X-29 was insane. If they could figure out the wing flutter issue it would have been pretty amazing.

[Justin]

Canard Pusher Leaflet No.76 has an article on deep stall.

[Royal]

I did some digging. The Berkut 360 is pretty much what I was going after. They lowered the wing a bit. I'm guessing only to get the landing gear to be retractable. The engine stayed the same though which I would have thought they would want it inline with the wing. 

For the landing gear I don't see why they can't move them back so the angle to the propeller is better when it rotates as seen in the second picture. I also wonder about the 3 blade propellers vs the 2 as far as size goes.

I know there is the long nose mod for the long-ez. Is it in this side view of the long-ez?

 

[Justin]

Oooer....

The side view you have there is the Berkut, not Long EZ.

You cannot move the mainwheels rearward. It would load the nose gear too much, and you would need excessive speed on the take-off run to lift the nose. I think there isn't much of an issue with prop-ground clearance in the Long EZ. Perhaps this is why the engine axis is above the wing level. As far as I know it is not recommended to fly off grass. 

The wing height in the Berkut looks pretty similar to that in the Long EZ. I think the Berkut gear leg pintle is in the fuselage, so wing height has little influence.

That Berkut picture raises a question. It looks like the engine axis is pitched upwards a tiny amount at the rear. Is that really the case?

[Royal]

Ah sorry. The other screenshot didn't load. I lined up the propellers because I ASSUME that's where they are pretty much the same. And yes the wing didn't move much but I do wonder why they moved it down slightly. I need to upload the other drawing I did over them.

[Royal]

I think you could change the front just slightly to make it look better and more like a jet or even just an add on to the top. Idk. Be fun to just make a scale model. I need to find pictures of all the bulkheads for the berkut 360 and the Long-EZ.

[Justin]

3 hours ago, Royal said:

Ah sorry. The other screenshot didn't load. I lined up the propellers because I ASSUME that's where they are pretty much the same. And yes the wing didn't move much but I do wonder why they moved it down slightly. I need to upload the other drawing I did over them.

 

I think you have not yet downloaded the Open EZ plans. You should do this, and read up on the scaling issues on a few of the drawings. Also go to this site and get the build manual:- http://www.aryjglantz.com/p/documents.html  . Ary Glantz is one of the many heroes who have built the real thing from a lot of fairly uncoordinated data.

I would not scale anything from bitmap files unless you have some kind of scaling marks. The Long EZ plans have these, and I still think this is a primitive way to go. Some proper dimensions cannot be beaten. At least, if you use the plans that you can download from the Open EZ project, you also have station positions, waterlines, and buttock lines with definite numbers.

In my work/play with the Open EZ I have extended the nose. This is not because I think it looks nice. I thought the standard nose looked like it makes a downforce, and this is a bit absurd just ahead of a lifting canard. Someone else in the Long EZ forum posted a CFD pressure map that supports this hunch. 

I have played a little with the canopy geometry, and if I was building a real Open EZ I would use the UL390i engine. It has the same weight as the O-235, but for us in Europe, is more convenient to use than the old O-235, and with FADEC and fuel injection you can have a little more power, and unclutter the aircraft a little with no mixture or carb heat systems. Otherwise, I can't think how the basic Long EZ design could be improved. Anything else is a new aircraft. The EZ is a very clever, mouldless design.

I am unlikely to build a real EZ. I am in my 60s and need a simple kit like a Sonex. However, I like playing with the EZ in CAD, and intend to make one or two for X-Plane.

[Royal]

I have made some the same observations with CFD and watching cars and planes in wind tunnel tests. I think just by changing the canopy and putting on a few fillets around the wings and canards you can reduce lots of drag even without doing any testing. Obviously this will change a lot of things with the plane. power needed. trimming during cruise. Landing speed. 

I think the best thing to do is build an RC model and put all the certain weights where they should be.  Doesn't even need to have a round shapely body as seen the the Cybertruck except for that huge red flat part. 

Then there is the lifting body that could be incorporated into a design but that starts making it hard to see over the edge.

[Royal]

I started to digitally build the files. I think if most of the bulk heads are the same thickness you could make one sheet of 4x8 foam and fiberglass on one side. have the foam and all the other parts CNCed then vacuum form over top of the rest of the parts that need carved and cut. I think having a bulkhead kit for some people would save a ton of time. 

[J.L. Frusha]

@Royal  I like the lifting body.  Do you have side and top views to work with?  Kind-of reminds me of a slope-soarer fuselage.

[Ian Ashdown]

This discussion makes me wonder if we properly organized all the talent and resources that regularly contribute to this forum, why couldn’t we have one really well researched, designed and developed Open-Source-EZ project.  Each person involved could contribute their particular skills and experience.

I feel a modernization of the LongEZ/Berkut themed design, possible with all of todays CFD tools,  good structural analysis, then a collectively owned set of composite tooling, it should be possible to create a near Quick-Build set of parts with a very high standard.

Is potential liability the killer of such a project?

Ian

SoCal

[Kent Ashton]

34 minutes ago, Ian Ashdown said:

why couldn’t we have one really well researched, designed and developed Open-Source-EZ project.  Each person involved could contribute their particular skills and experience

Who will bell that cat?  Airplanes developed by a group do not usually pan out.  Interests change, distance is a problem, getting individuals to do things is problematic.  You see that our friend Royal was one of many who planned to digitize the plans but has disappeared for two years.

Molds have already been developed.  Search for "A-solution" (or Berkut).   If you want to build and Open-EZ just start ordering materials and build one.  Along the way you will see lots of builder ideas you might incorporate to customize it for yourself.  A fancy molded airplane will triple the build time and get you to your destination only slightly faster.  Just do it.

[Ian Ashdown]

I work in aerospace engineering and our teams are spread worldwide.  Distance is no longer an impediment.  Time zones are a bit, but it’s possible to work around them. The key is having clear targets, a good plan and good management.

I ran my own aerospace composites company for 15+ years so fully understand the processes.  The Rutan method of shaping foam and then laying up over it is very time consuming and can give inconsistent results.  A well designed set of tooling can make one of this type of aircraft almost snap together and somewhat self fixturing.  A consistent, high quality product can be achieved for very little additional unit cost, but with more consistency any potentially higher quality, all in much less time.  The mind numbing monotony of sanding and filling is reduced to almost zero!

If there is no interest, that’s fine.  I’m not planning to build an EZ, but would be happy to help others.

Ian

SoCal

[thseng]

On 6/25/2022 at 5:26 PM, Ian Ashdown said:

The Rutan method of shaping foam and then laying up over it is very time consuming and can give inconsistent results.  A well designed set of tooling can make one of this type of aircraft almost snap together and somewhat self fixturing.  

The best thing about Rutan's method is that anyone can hand-craft an airplane in his garage with simple tools. 

The worst thing about it is that you have to hand craft the airplane with simple tools in your garage.  

I wonder if there might be a middle ground.  Random example: fully pre-shaped foam fuselage parts that self-fixture together prior to glassing.  

[Kent Ashton]

6 hours ago, thseng said:

The worst thing about it is that you have to hand craft the airplane with simple tools in your garage.  I wonder if there might be a middle ground.  Random example: fully pre-shaped foam fuselage parts that self-fixture together prior to glassing.  

It seems to me that  the folks who have tried molded parts did it because they anticipated starting a business and filling a demand but the businesses didn't develop and the demand is low.  It is not like making custom parts for thousands of motorcycles.  Really, the hand-work is fun and the sanding is not that bad.   There is a learning curve but I have stripped/refinished one airplane and built two others.    Here is a post with pics   https://www.canardzone.com/forums/topic/18661-kents-long-ez-project/?do=findComment&comment=68608  

1.  Fill as you go along.  Don't waste epoxy

2. Use West and West Microlight filler--easier sanding

3.  Mix thick and put on heavy the first time.  Use a heated dry-wall knife to smooth it down.

4.  Stop standing as soon as you see cloth. 

5.  Identify high and low spots by rubbing with an aluminum bar

6.  If there are more than just a few high/low spots, do a complete refill.  Spot-filling doesn't work well due to hardness differences in your filler-mixes and the teeter-toter effect of the sanding spline or high spots.

7.  When you are happy with the final sanding, spray a guide coat of black sandable primer and sand it all off to expose those last final defects.

Edited June 27, 2022 by Kent Ashton

[Chris007]

I have bumped into this website from time to time over many years. But circumstances always have conspired to keep my own EZ dream from becoming reality. This thread has inspired me. Combined, we have more than enough knowledge and skills to create an EZ for the 21st century. If someone with good CAD skills will work with me, I will build it. The original design was revolutionary, a generation ago. Yes, it is that old. We can design something, sleeker, sexier, lighter, and more efficient, and most importantly, reduce the build time by an entire magnitude. Making a kit as simple to assemble as an Airfix. Gone will be the days, years, of being the third, fourth owner of a partially built kit, with still no end in sight. I am aiming for a 200, not 2,000 hour build time. A 50% weight reduction, and a 2,000 mile range, with a 80hp class engine. Thats all very achievable. I will build the prototype. Once that is flight proven, I would crowdfund to create moulds and mass produce. I just need the design put into CAD. Who wants to do that? 

[zolotiyeruki]

A 50% weight reduction?  An extremely light Long-EZ is close to 800 lbs empty.  Where do you propose to cut off 400 lbs?

[sixfivelrp]

A major consideration for building one of these aircraft is the performance vs cost. Prefabricated parts will be expensive. if I’m spending six figures I’d rather have two aircraft to show for it. 

[Jon Matcho]

On 11/19/2022 at 7:19 AM, Chris007 said:

I am aiming for a 200, not 2,000 hour build time.

That's overly ambitious in my opinion. Here's an example of a kit that is said to take 250 hours: https://clcboats.com/shop/boats/recreational-vehicles/clc-teardrop-trailer.html

The airplane version of that would have to be nearly fully assembled. It would have to be so plug-n-play complete that it would likely not meet the amateur built regulations in the U.S. or any other country.

Plus...

On 11/19/2022 at 7:19 AM, Chris007 said:

A 50% weight reduction, and a 2,000 mile range, with a 80hp class engine. Thats all very achievable.

According to who? Take a look at the VariEze, which is lighter than the Long-EZ but still couldn't meet your standards if it were built 100% with carbon fiber/nanotubes. Fuel is heavy, people are heavy, comfort is heavy, even an 80 HP engine is heavy.

Seriously, what are you willing to sacrifice beyond $1,000,000 to fund this thing?

On 11/19/2022 at 7:19 AM, Chris007 said:

I just need the design put into CAD. Who wants to do that?

It's happening but CAD requires real work which also does not come free.

I'm working on a small step with the Open-EZ Rev 6 plans, but that goal is not aligned with your dreams here. I don't mean to burst your bubble.