Jump to content

longez360

Members
  • Content Count

    177
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About longez360

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 10/25/1972

Personal Information

  • Real Name (Public)
    Wayne Blackler
  • Location (Public)
    Melbourne AUSTRALIA
  • Occupation
    Lead Engineer, Boeing

Flying Information

  • Flying Status
    210hrs TT
  • Registration Number
    VH-WEZ
  • Airport Base
    YMNG

Project/Build Information

  • Plane
    Long-EZ
  • Plane (Other/Details)
    IO-360, all the mods.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://ez.org/feature/F0411-1/F0411-1.htm
  1. longez360

    Progress

    From an operational perspective, the sight gauges are a wonderful tool. The most accurate indication available and can be calibrated with the nose down & parked and in a cruise aoa. If i were doing it over, for the minimal effort, i would absolutely include them. With the sending units today, i would stress it even more. Too much advice on this forum from builders who are not assessing mods from an operational perspective. Aesthetics for example are driving some really bad ideas.
  2. I designed my system to operate at temps per the Lycoming service bulletin. That's how you should operate your engine. Forget old wives tales about CHTs and oil temps... Per the old Lycoming Service bulletin and Skyranch you are actually OK. Lycmong now states you should be below 400F. I consulted the Sky Ranch Engineering book and checked the Lycoming website for details... Seems the Lycoming service bulletin quotes maximum service life temps CHT<400F and Oil 165-220F in cruise, and observe redline in climb. The Sky Ranch Engineering book and previous Lycoming service bulletins show CHT requirements 350F-435F, the average of which is 392.5F. If I average their oil value, I get 192.5F. . . That's almost exactly what I get on VH-WEZ at OAT=82F in high power cruise. I can control my oil temp using a variable outlet which allows me to reach 212F if I like (nice to have). Forget inlet size. Be honest with yourself about your baffles, if they aren't sealed tight, and I mean TIGHT, you are wasting your time. If you have antennas in the inlet, remove them. If you have a NACA submerged duct on the belly and your nose puck is not faired, fair it. The feet that come with electric retract units have an effect on NACA ducts also. Aside from that, work on inlet diffusion, and exit size (remove your spinner and flight test). Remove anything that hinders airflow through your cylinders - hoses etc.
  3. longez360

    The ideal panel

    For a VFR aircraft, on a VFR ticket, fit the aircraft out that way. You don't need synthetic vision, or redundant airspeed indicators. If you use the term "but if you get into trouble you can always get out" then you need to go back to flight school, and not rely on a skyview. THAT BEING SAID, for a high quality integrated system, with autopilot, on a budget, goes hands down to Dynon. I would put skyview in my aircraft in a heartbeat. That's not based on what some flavour of the month forum builder states e.g. "buy blue mountain!" (because it looks 'cool'), that's from flight experience with dynon and their continued product support. Growth potential to IFR, and for the unit itself is solid.
  4. Call Lycoming or a good engine shop. AeroSportPower (Bart Lalonde) is my recommendation...
  5. Be careful sitting in someone's Long EZ and deeming it too small. I built mine to suit and added enormous volume, but the external fuselage dimensions are 100% per plans... In June 2004 I weighed 286 lbs at 6'1" and found the cockpit fit just fine. My CG was within limits. I'm now 240lbs, and find the front pit has enormous room compared to most aircraft. It's an armchair ride. I have sat in 3 other Long EZ front seats and all were VERY tight! Remove all cushions first :-) In terms of CG, you may not have any issues either. The cozy III was designed to take 340lbs in the front seats, and some Long EZs are not far off that for the front seat limit for one person. Check the owners manual, pilot guide W&B an confirm. Changes I made: 1. Thigh support is 1" lower (as is intrument panel in depth) 2. Used a hollow D-Nose strake, and added a radius to the fuselage/strake area to allow my arms to comfortably slip inside. I can, but never use the right console for my elbow to fly the aircraft. I use the strake. 3. Used adjustable rudder pedals or adjust plans location. 4. NOTE: This is where you should seek engineer advice to analyse the locations and ply schdules: I removed core in strategic locations on the fuselage sides and stiffened the skins. This added an inch more width. This was a suggestion by Ken Miller who also shops at the big man's store. Enormous difference. 5. Use 1" of conforfoam/temperfoam only. It's plenty comfortable. You don't need 3" thick cushions! 6. Remove the plans 'roll over' and add an engineered roll over with better belt attach points and head rest (which I seldom use). 7. Use a larger control column. Mine is literally from an early F-16. I find most other sticks too small for my hand.
  6. Well said. I admired your Long EZ in the Canard Pusher Newsletter some years ago. All the best with the new project. If I were to build another Long EZ, I'd look to build the lightest, simplest 'plain vanilla', VFR, O-235 version I could. I would approach is just as Savier, Hertzler and Joe Person have with their Vari Eze's, and enjoy the designer's intent to it's fullest. It would use a fixed pitch propeller without question... I have learned with building and flying my O-360 Long EZ, that complexity is often a drawback. KISS. Ronny, contact Gary Hertzler mate, you will not be dissapointed, I can assure you. Simplicity, elegance, kick ass performance and superb product support.
  7. Tyson, agree, I should have listed the caveats in smallprint. Happy for you to go through that data an multiply by the efficiency factors you see for e.g. an MT and a silver bullet for each of the flight profiles. No question. I will be interested to see the resultant deltas between the designs, and compare them to published test data. I believe they will be smaller than you think, and hence I deemed them relatively inconsequential. Given CS prop are essentially a fixed blade design that twists at the hub, they too are set for an optimum flight profile. Is blade design, independant of hub more efficient for a CS prop? Published tests in the CSA newsletter, might be Jack Fehling's 200hp Velocity from memory, were quite telling when comparing the MT to the silver bullet, and I think they included environmental data.
  8. 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.
  9. 617lbs empty if I recall correctly 150-155KTAS at 16,500, burning 3.3 gph. . . Sheesh... I WISH!! That is the qunitessential VariEze and having seen it and flown along side it many times, I can say without reservation that it is one of the nicest ever built. It is exactly how I'd hope to build a VariEze and like Joe says it would be the O-200. A Jab would be my alternate also. We flew to Havre Montana in formation (one of the best trips I've ever done), and his machine did what mine did at a fraction of the cost. Keep it light and simple, Jamie. The 320 is the wrong engine for this aeroplane. Klaus and Gary Hertzler have proved it time and time again.
  10. Whatever you decide to put in, throw it up in the air and if it comes back down it's too heavy.. Stick with plastic. Another thought is the colored handle knobs from piper aircraft e.g. lance. Maybe there is something to be had there.
  11. Hey MacGyver, can you make a helicopter out of a hills hoist? ;-)
  12. A 9.2:1 (Lycoming piston) or 10:1 Lycon piston parallel valve 360 does very well for 285lbs.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information