Is 970lbs empty for an O235 too heavy?

[jclisham]

Looking at a Long-EZ that has an empty of 970lbs. I'm 190 and wife is 165. Gross is set at 1500.im a flat lander in Ohio. What kind of climb performance can I expect in summer?  I've read an O235 should be closer to 850 empty? 

[Kent Ashton]

The EZ I built was 993# with an O-320-H2AD (150-160 hp).  At 993# with the larger engine, it was pretty peppy.  I am 225 and I flew a bit with another 200# guy.   We did a lot of pattern work with half-fuel at a low-land airport and it was no problem at all.  You would be 70# lighter in crew-weight, 23# lighter in the airframe but 20-25 lower in HP.   I'm guessing you would see lower T/O & climb performance but not dangerously lower.   I is not too hard to re-engine these airplanes but more complex than just bolting-in a different engine.  As for weight, another fellow said:

Quote

Based on data supplied by CSA I have done a small Long-Ez weight study, mainly to find the impact of the use of the popular O-320 engine option.   Based on data for 92 nos. O-235 powered vs. 107 nos O-320 powered versions of the Long I found that:

• O-235 Long-Ez, average weight 896 lbs (Max. 1050 lbs/Min. 791 lbs)
• O-320 Long-Ez, average weight 961 lbs (Max. 1084 lbs/Min. 845 lbs)

https://www.canardzone.com/forums/topic/18382-useful-load-long-ez/?do=findComment&comment=24753

Another guy added retracts and other stuff and went up to 1180#  Yikes!   https://www.canardzone.com/forums/topic/18802-long-ez-stolen-in-ohio/?do=findComment&comment=29275

This is not as good as talking to some O-235 owners.  I hate to suggest Facebook but there is a Rutan LongEZ and VariEze Public group . . .

Edited October 21, 2020 by Kent Ashton

[jclisham]

Thanks Kent!  I'll definitely ask around.  I did get some opinions, but the usual answer is get a 320.  ...for speed reasons, not gross weight/etc.  I'm perfectly content with a 'stock' O-235 Long-EZ's performance. 

I'm just curious if I could expect 800-1000fpm climb at 1500 gross on a 0-235 in the summer time. If so, I'll be good to go.  My home airport is 5500ft so good there.  Destinations not necessarily so. Likely ~3800-4000ft for the shortest barring an unplanned landing. 

[Marc Zeitlin]

15 hours ago, jclisham said:

Looking at a Long-EZ that has an empty of 970lbs. I'm 190 and wife is 165. Gross is set at 1500.im a flat lander in Ohio. What kind of climb performance can I expect in summer?  I've read an O235 should be closer to 850 empty? 

The short answer to the title of this thread is "kind of" - a 970 lb. LE with an O-235 that you expect to fly regularly is on the heavy side. The performance will still be better than a C-172, but a plane 50 - 100 lb. lighter would be better. At 970 lb., the implication is that if you ever upgraded to an O-320, you'd be well over 1000 lb. - that's a heavy Long-EZ, even if one sets one's MGW to 1500 - 1680 lb. Competent? Flyable? Safe? Sure. There are many LE's in this weight range.

Now, it may not be easy to find a lighter LE - most are a lot heavier than they should have been. And given the relative performance of this plane against spam-cans, it'll still be better (probably substantially so). So I'm not saying don't get it - just make sure you know what you're getting, and for Cthulhu's sake, get a Pre-Buy examination from someone like me or FreeFlight Composites who knows what they're looking at and can advise you clearly of what you're getting into.

[jclisham]

Marc,

Excellent advice.  I will definitely get a prebuy done by someone like yourself for FreeFlight.  I guess Gil Hutchinson was involved in mentoring this bird's refurb.  My understanding is that he's very reputable, but honestly, I've never met him.  I'm on the other side of the country in Ohio.  

While I appreciate performance will be competent vs. a 172, I'm curious as to if anyone can hazard a guess as to by how much?  Are we talking 800 ft/min climb on an 85-90F day at field elevation of 635ft good?  Or worse/better at 1500lbs?

Thanks!
John

[jdubner]

16 hours ago, jclisham said:

... What kind of climb performance can I expect in summer? ...

Short answer: not good but acceptable at lower density altitudes.

For years I flew an O-235 Long-EZ that weighed 979# empty.  My GF and I weigh 85# less than you and your wife.  My engine (-L2C) had the 9.75:1 compression pistons (125HP at sea level theoretically) and a sweet Hertzler prop that was an excellent match for my airframe/engine.

In wintertime temperatures (~35F) here at sea level, solo, with half fuel or less I would see 1500 FPM rate of climb for a brief time.  Summertime , dual, and climbing through about 3000 MSL I would be pleased to see as much as 1000 FPM.  But amazingly, I could nudge it up to 15,500 MSL and occasionally 17,500 at 100 - 300 FPM.

At high density altitudes carrying a passenger would be eye-watering (in a scary way).  I learned to leave fuel behind and also to lean for max. power before takeoff.  And of course, try to avoid the hot part of the day and unfavorable winds (e.g. absolutely no tailwind).

The lack of HP was my biggest dissatisfier with that airplane because I fly in the West and often dual but YMMV.  But the O-320 engine really hits the sweet spot for the Long-EZ.

 

[Marc Zeitlin]

1 hour ago, jclisham said:

... I'm curious as to if anyone can hazard a guess as to by how much?  Are we talking 800 ft/min climb on an 85-90F day at field elevation of 635ft good?  Or worse/better at 1500lbs?

Joe D. gave you some useful reference points. I'd point you to pages 52 through 61 of the POH, which shows performance for an O-235 LE. That's at an MGW of 1000 - 1400 lb, so at 1500 lb., figure a bit worse than the 1400 lb. curves. CG actually has at least as large an effect on top speed as MGW, so flying at the rearmost CG position (103") will get you the best performance.

[jclisham]

Thanks!  I'll take a look

[Cbretanag]

I bought an O-320 LEZ 3 years ago and have made numerous mods to it.  It is 985lbs empty, I weigh 220, and wife is 145. We fly out of Prescott AZ (KPRC), Elev: 4980, and even with full fuel I have no performance difficulties, even in hot summer months. I'm mainly concerned about stress on main gear struts at high gross weight landings.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Cbretanag

[Kent Ashton]

Charlie Bretana?  THE Charlie Bretana? I can't imagine you at 220 but when you knew me I was quite a bit more buoyant too.  Charlie you are way too old to be operating aviation-related equipment.  🙂

Edited February 3, 2021 by Kent Ashton
add a dig

[MikeD]

Long-Ez Gross weight with Lyc O-320, electric nose gear and electric brake.  Weighing in at 1005 lbs.

The POH Second Edition dated October 1981 specifies a max landing weight of 1325 lbs and a max take-off weight of 1420 lbs (with conditions).  Pages 53 and 54 performance figures show data for 1400 lbs gross weight. 

Searching the CP's I notice that in CP32  there is a note saying  'CAUTION CP is the latest and best information. If we put information in the Canard Pusher,
it supersedes the information in the plans, and is the correct information to use'.

Then I found the following for the Long-Ez:

CP32 p12 Gross Weight 1325/1425 lb
CP33 p10 Gross Weight 1425 lb 
CP35, 36 and 39  p12 Gross Weight 1425 lb 

The 'Light Aircraft Association TADS' in the UK show a max weight of 1325 lbs but I'm not sure if their data is up-to-date. Could someone enlighten me with the latest figures or a reliable link to any POH that may have been issued after 1981. I'm about to do battle and want to be sure of my facts.

MikeD (UK) 

 

 

 

[Kent Ashton]

I doubt there has been any “official” Rutan update to the POH since RAF went out of business.   That TAD was a pretty good summation of the current status of the EZ. http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/TADs/074A RUTAN LONG-EZ.pdf

A weak area that might need to be added to the TAD is the possibility of loosening main gear attach angles.   The angles are bolted through wood and glass layers in the side of the fuselage.   Heavy operation or hard landings make the bolts loose.   Marc adds an aluminum plate to repair that.   Pic in the picture gallery on his website.   Www.burnsideaerospace.com     I would also suggest beefing up the engine mount extrusions   The TAD mentions inspecting them at p. 10 but doesn’t suggest making them stronger.

I don’t know how your LAA does it but with an O-320, I’d certify it at the max wt they will accept and not worry too much about flying it over-gross if those areas have been addressed.   The structure is pretty bullet-proof otherwise.

[MikeD]

Kent,

Many thanks for the very informative reply, it's really helped me to move forward. 

I have already changed the engine mount extrusions when installing the new engine mount frame I purchased from Cozy Girls.  I will be looking at the main gear attachment angles with a view to modifying at the earliest opportunity.

Mike