sbarton

Hi, was reading this intersting thread on using the 13B rotary in an aircraft. I have a couple of questions maybe someone can answer.... How much HP do most of the PRSU units take to drive? The only knowlege I have to draw on here is dyno'ing motorcycle engines (both air cooled and water), and usually I've seen about a 15-20% reduction in HP when comparing "Rated HP" to "Rear Wheel HP". The following is a list of rated hp for various 13B's. Seems like best case you could see around 160hp in NA configuration if you split the difference between relibility/performance (total WAG on my part). I've heard that the intake needs to be shortend significantly so doesn't that drop it even more? Given that and lets say 15% for the PSRU is a realistic figure to the PROP more like 136? Whats an honest, realistic figure? Eng. Yrs Model cc x rotors Comp BHP/rpm, Torq(lb-ft/rpm) 13B 73 R130 (Japan) 654 x 2 = 1308 9.1 125/6000, 127/3500 13B 74-75 RX-4 654 x 2 = 1308 9.2 110/6000, 117/3500 13B 76-78 RX-4 654 x 2 = 1308 9.2 110/6000, 120/4000 13B 76-78 RX-5 (Cosmo) 654 x 2 = 1308 9.2 110/6000, 120/4000 13B DEI 84-85 RX-7 (GSL-SE) 654 x 2 = 1308 9.4 135/6000, 133/2750 13B DEI 86-89 RX-7 2nd gen 654 x 2 = 1308 9.4 146/6500, 138/3500 13B Turb 86-89 RX-7 Turbo II 654 x 2 = 1308 8.5 182/6500, 183/3500 13B 89 Luce (Japan929) 654 x 2 = 1308 8.5 177/6500, 181/3500 JIS 13B VDEI 89-92 RX-7 Light Rotor 654 x 2 = 1308 9.7 160/7000, 140/4000 13B Turb 89-91 RX-7 T II Lt Rtr 654 x 2 = 1308 9.1 200/6500, 196/3500 13B Twin 92+ RX-7 Seq. Turbo 654 x 2 = 1308 9.0 255/6500, 217/5000

Holly crap, I go away for a few weeks and you guys have this thing almost all worked out. Nice going! Not sure what I can do to help, but if there is anything I can do, please let me know. Jon I can help with your website if needed as I have some experiance in variouse web techo. Tony, is your plane using rounded fuselege like the berkut or flat bottom like stock. Not sure what the rounded design offers, but it certainly looks cooler. If I remember correctly you did stretch the nose. Bart

I posted the link to the company that specializes in digitizing blueprints. I was hoping someone who knows how many templates there are and what thier sizes are could look on that site and caculate the cost. They have the prices for various sizes posted right on the website. It would be nice to have one company do the drawings so the file formats, scale, etc., would be consistent. If the cost was spread over 4 or 5 people, it might not be that bad. Then get someone who knows how to draft modify the drawings with the mods that everyone does anyway...like the long nose mod and maybe the 2" widening and 0-320 mount, etc, etc. Remove all the references in the drawing to Long-EZ and RAF and repackage the whole thing as the Open-EZ experimental aircraft design.

I was being factitious. It seems so hypocritical that some would hold up a torch and cry foul over the uses that are being proposed. There is this whole history, past and present, of individuals leveraging the design for commercial purposes. And on top of that, there is very little evidence that RAF has ever tried to protect the original art. So some people wan't to build an original airplane based on the Long-eze design for *personal* *education* and *research*. Copying those templates and building a plane while designating it as something other than a Rutan Long-eze design is perfectly legal from everything that I've read. Copying those templates and SELLING them for a profit IS ILLEGAL. The FAA (a goverment entity) licenses and regulates the operation of experimental aircraft for the purpose of *education* and *research*. There couldn't be a better qualifier for "useage" under the Fair Use clause. Realisticly, RAF can't endorse this practice one way or the other. If they did, that would reopen the door to thier liability concerns. However, I think you can take a queue from their lack of action over the commercial long-eze variants to deduce that they have completley moved on. I certainly respect other peoples opinions on this matter, but I don't agree with them given the context and scenarios we discussing. Bart

Or someone could just hand draft the whole design, change it subtlety and start selling whole aircraft and airframe components. That would far more ethical.

Here is a link to a service with pricing. I don't know what the size and quanity of a complete Eze template set is. Perhaps someone who does can do the math? http://vectorex.com/cms/prices_enduser.php#Paper_to_CAD Bart

I wonder how much it would cost to have the original templates professionally drafted into a format (dfs/dmg). I know Tony has already completed some of the bulkheads but he is doing everything from scratch. I'll bet there are companies out there that specialize in doing this. Heck there may even be technology that could do it quickly. Someone with more drafting experiance would have to answer this one. The question is, would it cost hundreds, or thousands? Bart

You know, I guess everyone has to make thier own opinion on this. I was one of the ones that contacted Michael about his offer and I respect his desire now not to pursue. The situation seems similar to that of abandonware with all the legal/ethical opinions of everyone from one end of the spectrum to another. RAF doesn't seem terribly concerned all of the other Long-eze inspired designs that clearly only modifications/enhancements to the original theme and I really don't think Michael had any intentions other than to help future builders. I'm just as certain that I'll eventually obtain a set Long-ez plans/templates as I am that I will not pay $1200+ for them on ebay. Personally, I think its all Burt's fault for designing such a cool and enduring airframe in the first place. Cheers, Bart

Thanks Tony, I downloaded your dxf's and they look great in my cad program (qCAD). You seem to be doing all the modifications that I want to research...long nose, rotary, retracts. Looks like your project is coming along nicely. Bart

Ceramic Piezoelectric transducers molded into the underside of the leading edges spaced appropriatley might be used to induce the necessary aggitation.

This is fun. Sure its been hashed and rehashed by engineers for decades, but what the heck, I'll play. what about using sound, resonation or other such foolishness to loosen the ice up so the airstream can finish the job.... fiberglass might be idealy suited to something like this. remember those vibrating football games in the 70's? noodle that for awhile and report back here with some possible implementations... Bart

I'm considering a similar setup here in sunny Colorado. We have a small 3 br tri-level with a half basement. The basement is looking more and more like the prefered workspace at least for the first phase of constuction on a Long-EZ. We have a gas furnace and gas hot water heater in the basement and I am concered about epoxy and hardener fumes in such close proximity to an open flame. I have a couple of windows that I can use for a ventilation setup much like yours. Can this type of work area be used safely? I'm not totally familure with all of the chemicals that will be in use yet, but I'm a little concerned. I hope I can work something out, otherwise winter building may not be an option for me. Bart

Can someone explain at what point in the build process of a Long-EZ you need the templates? I'd like to get going on this project by ordering the TERF CD, doing research, getting my build space setup, ordering materials, etc.. Can I actually do any contruction without the templates? Trying to give myself as much time as possible to locate a reasonable set of plans (read not $1500), but not have that holding up the whole project. Just trying to find out at what point I will be at a standstill without them. Thanks in advance, Bart