Eccentric

In the picture, the top profile is the Roncz canard. The lower profile looks like the original Long-EZ canard.

I'm still using the fixed pitch. The Vari-Prop is a true variable pitch prop with it's own hydraulic control system independent of the engine. That makes it good for use with the rotary engine. I did a couple test flights over a year ago. It weighs over 50 lbs. so I'm currently waiting for a lighter hub they are building for me.

I think Spencer's is based on a Ford engine. Direct drive. Don't remember the details on the Buick eRacer except he had a lot of issues.

7-22-2009 My rotary Long-EZ has been flying for 10 years. 720 hours TT Zero glider time http://www.mickaircraft.com/duckt.htm

Hi Wayne, good to hear from you. Hope your bird is doing well. The ducted fan was loud because of the fan tip speed. It's the same engine installation now but it's much quieter. People say it sounds about like any other airplane. I don't have a muffler installed. My engine is running rich best power all the time. Probably 12.5:1 air-fuel. Throttle control only, no lean control. The ECU has an atmospheric pressure sensor and automatically compensates for altitude. No issues up to 14,000 feet - haven't been higher yet. The ECU still thinks it's in a car. Others have had great success leaning the rotary. I built an electronic circuit to manipulate the signal from the airflow sensor before presenting it to the ECU for lean control. It did work but I removed it to increase the control range and haven't re-installed it yet. That's the status as of now. I'm just flying these days and not modifying. The fuel burn doesn't bother me since I burn mogas and the price came back down since last summer's peak. The advantage of having the lean control would be to extend the range, that is already considerable. 720 hours TT. July 19 will be the 10th anniversary of first flight.

That must be me, as far as I know my Long-EZ is the only one based at MMV. Have we met? There are a couple VEZs and a Cozy flying out of UAO, and a Long-EZ now based at 7S5 - a transplant from Idaho. Eccentric - 13 year build, 10th year flying.

Further looking, there is a photo with canard installed.

I would say it needs a canard but I don't see where that has been provisioned for in the pictures? The nose is very short. Perhaps the intention was flying wing.

Thanks for that picture. I don't understand why the collision took place so far down the runway and on a taxiway off to the side of the runway? I admit I haven't kept up with the latest info on this accident that may have come out the last couple days.

A friend just told me my plane is visible in google maps at coords 45.1981,-123.1414 I posted a screenshot at http://www.bridgingworlds.com/googlemap20080222.jpg

I wouldn't say they haven't had any problems. Some are accumulating significant hours now. Actually in a pusher the engine is oriented in the correct direction - same as in the car. It's those tractor guys that have it backwards.

I don't have any fundamental disagreements with your analysis Mr. Zeitlin. It's always good to have some data to analyze. A few comments: Richter had a turbo 13B, not a 20B. I've seen this engine in a hangar in Everett Washington, now being installed on a Long-EZ. Al Gietzen is flying his 20B Velocity out of the San Diego area I think, not sure which field. Sorry, I forgot about Steve Brooks. Knew I was probably forgetting somebody! If I were flying around with a Lycoming, I would be worried about the piston blowing out of the cylinder, as Dick Rutan experienced recently. With my rotary, I don't worry about a failure of the engine itself. If I ever experience an engine stoppage it will not likely be due to the engine itself, it will probably be something else related to EFI, electronic ignition, overall electrical failure, coolant leak, or PSRU related. Regardless of installed engine, it's not wise to take too many risks flying your canard at low altitude over hostile terrain. I considered but discarded the turbo option, IMO just not enough room and too much engine compartment heat for a Long-EZ. A turbo increases the chance of detonation which can and does fracture apex seals. I was flying about 100 hours a year but that's tapered off a bit lately. My running average now over the last 8.5 years is 80 hours/year. If I don't fly at least once a week I get withdrawal symptoms.

Ron Gowan (Texas) put a couple hundred hours on a rotary Long-EZ in the early 90s. Greg Richter had a turbo rotary in a Cozy for awhile, he replaced it with a jet engine. That rotary engine with turbo is now being installed in a Long-EZ in the Seattle area. George Graham (Florida) flew a rotary Eracer for several years, he accumulated several hundred hours. His first flight was about the same time as mine, circa 1999. John Slade turbo Cozy you know about. Al Giezen is currently flying a rotary Velocity in Southern California, still in test period I think. Mike Perry (Florida?) has been flying a rotary Long-EZ, haven't heard much from him lately. Despite the similarity of the name, he is not me. Paul Conner flew a rotary SQ2000 but unfortunately had a fatal accident while still in test period. Fuel supply to engine or injector-related problem. Joe Hull (Seattle) flew a rotary Cozy for awhile but is now installing a Lyco. He had some adventures with his homebuilt exhaust system and broken spark ingestion (incorrect spark plugs IMHO). That's all that comes to mind right now for flying rotary canards. Apologies if I missed anyone. With about 675 hours now I think I have the highest time in a rotary canard. There are other aircraft types flying with more rotary hours, RVs and gyrocopters.

There is more info at the website link I provided. You have to click some of the links on the page to get more pictures. Of most interest to builders would be the link "how to install a rotary in your long-ez".

Approaching 9 years and 700 hours on my rotary. Kein Probleme. Wouldn't fly anything else. http://www.ductedfan.com

I think the 0.002337 is density in slugs/cuft.Didn't you forget the 1/2 factor? 0.5 * 0.002337 * 220^2 = 56.6 lbs / sq ft At 10,000 feet (where we travel) the density drops to 0.001756 slugs/ft^3 0.5 * 0.001756 * 220^2 = 42.5 lbs / sq. ft. or 0.295 lbs / sq. in. or 0.6 inches of mercury. Using 160 knots that I travel at and 10,000 feet you get 64 lbs / sq. ft = 0.9 in. mercury, about what I see on my manifold pressure gauge.

I was too lazy to do the calculation, but that is about what I see on my manifold pressure gauge.

I have a ram air inlet on my rotary install. I notice a slight effect at cruise speed, 160 knots. You don't get a lot of pressure boost from ram air at these speeds.

If you are referring to my design, the oil pan is an integral part of the plate. The plate, otherwise known as a Schertz Beam, is 1/2" thick, not because it needs to be that thick, but because the rubber bushings are designed for 1/2" thick material. As shown in the previous GIF the rearmost eight pan bolts are longer and bolt into the iron rear housing.

Thanks Chrissi! I really enjoy it, an incredible design thanks to Mr Rutan.I think welding the oil pan as an integral part of the beam would eliminate any concerns. I initially replied to this thread after Joe asked about oil leaks around the pan, which I do experience. You could eliminate 1/2 the leakage problem by integrating your oil pan with your mount plate as well.

I show eight 6-mm screws in a C pattern, that bolt into the rear iron on the engine. Considering your canard is held on with only two 1/4" bolts, this would seem sufficient, but if you can prove otherwise by analysis I'll listen.

I've been flying for several years now with an aluminum oil pan welded up by a friend who does welding for a living. It has fins both inside and outside on the bottom surface. I was hopeful this would help with oil temperature but it made no noticable difference. Can't hurt and looks cool though.

My Long-EZ has a small oil seepage leak (from being parked nose down) that started about about a year after the 2001 re-installation. My existing mount has a 1/4" aluminum plate between engine and oil pan. I just live with the leak because I don't want to remove the engine and reseal. The next time I have to remove the engine for whatever reason, I plan to build a new engine mount. The new engine mount design does away with the plate - it combines the Schertz beam with the oil pan so there is one less seam to leak. There is a guy in Seattle currently installing Greg Richter's turbo engine in a Long-EZ with this engine mount design: http://www.bridgingworlds.com/LEZ13B/LEZ13B.htm If you want a pre-fab mount you'll have to buy Chrissi's because I'm not producing this mount design, just providing the info for do-it-yourselfers.

What I meant was "stock LEZ fuel system" up to the EFI dual-pump sump, which is not part of the stock system. I already had my plane built per plans when I decided to go rotary EFI-EI. So I put the small EFI dual-pump sump where the gascolator is shown in the plans, with EFI fuel return to the sump rather than any fancy valving stuff trying to get fuel back to a main tank. Later I moved the sump to the cold side of the firewall. I don't really like calling it a "sump" because it sometimes creates confusion.

I'm not familiar with the Berkut sump, but that sounds like the system I have. Stock Long-EZ fuel system, the selected main drains by gravity to a sump tank that is bolted to the cold side of the firewall, very low! My tank is made from steel and has two high pressure EFI pumps inside. The fuel return from the engine goes back to this sump tank. The sump tank must be vented, but you don't want it pressurized higher than the mains from forward facing vents. My sump vent is lower (above and behind the passenger's head) and has a very smaller inlet compared to the main tank vents. Sump only holds about a gallon, there is no "fuel heating" as some have theorized. No issues in almost 700 hours of flying.