Jump to content

JLKnolla

Members
  • Posts

    72
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JLKnolla

  1. Keith, I have a spreadsheet for budgeting a build-up using the Open-EZ plans, can't put my finger on it right now but I think it worked out to about $6K in raw materials from AS&S. There is a guy here on the forum who does CNC hot wire cores that only add about $1-2K total but make a much faster build. All up with engine and avionics is about $30-45K depending on equipment and engine selection. As far as metal tube frame with non-structural aerodynamic skins think all the Mooneys, Glastar and Sportsman, Titan T-51, Bellanca Lightning (fastest piston prop GA plane on the planet at one time), the beautiful Lionheart Staggerwing and a few others - it has been done before.
  2. Contract/consultant engineer, specializing in reliability, maintainability, logistics support and project/systems engineering for aerospace and defense companies. I live in my RV when working away from home (99%) of the time - home base, Wifey and Daughter are in Albuquerque, I am presently in Salt Lake City and will be relocating to San Diego in about 3 weeks to work on a foreign Regional Jet program.
  3. A real tragedy. I met Vickie when Beagle and I flew up to Golden West back in June, very nice and gracious lady. This is a terrible loss.
  4. For the record, I'm not suggesting DD in theory is more draggy, just saying that the difference between what is calculated vs. what the real world needs may yet result in some changes specific to Waiter's plane. Look at Wayne Blackler's or Bill James' NACA style DD inlets and compare them, spillage drag can be significant, especially for an otherwise very clean plane. Not making any criticism of Waiter's design BTW, just saying that DD cooling is a significant change from the baseline and that inlet area, plenum design, exhaust area, etc., will all contribute to whether it works or not, and if so, how well or not. This is why we call it EXPERIMENTAL aviation. I remain confiddent Waiter will get it all figured out.
  5. Keep in mind that there are many things going and multiple changes all introduced simultaneously any one of which could not yet be optimal (DD cooling is my best guess at a culprit). I know Waiter knows this, just saying that there are I bet many little things that will present themselves and be fixed. Key at this point I think is to make one fix at a time, e.g., oil cooler inlet/exhaust, then DD inlet and plenums, then maybe a flowguide for spinner, etc. Don't forget prop settings too (coarse pitch stop, etc.) Glad it is flying OK, I am confident Waiter will track it all down.
  6. I will put in my $.03 ($.02 adjusted for inflation). The question really relates to my biggest putoff with canards, takeoff (TO) performance. Canard takeoff performance is limited by several things when compared to a conventional aircraft, lifting power of the canard, cg position, low overall CLMax (can't use flaps on main wing without some exotic mechanisms like the Starship's variable geometry canard to maintain the aerodynamic balance between wing and canard), lack of prop blast on pitch control and poor acceleration. Only a couple of these are things you can actually do something about with a given design, mainly acceleration and CG. Operate light and at aft CG like Waiter says, or move to a CS prop to increase the rate of acceleration. Since most EZ's seem to have cruise pitched props, acceleration is just plane slow, couple that with limited lifting ability and we really can't expect anything other than the TO performance we get. Changing landing gear geometry (main wheel axle location) could improve TO performance In fact, it would be interesting to get Waiter's opinion on TO performance with the prop change on his Long. Others have commented that TO performance in the few CS prop equipped Cozy's is significantly better than for fixed pitch props - I suspect Waiter can really feel it but am interested in his observations rather than my own suspicions.
  7. Have you considered a flow guide (like a reverse spinner) for forward of the spinner Waiter? I know Klaus sells them, and LongEZ.com too. I would suspect that to be more important given your new DD cooling scheme - maybe exhaust augmentation too depending on where your pipes exit the cowl.
  8. Jonesin' for an update....how goes it Waiter? Do you have a qualitative before and after handling feel yet? Hope all is going according to plan.
  9. My apologies to Crissi and Randi, I should have asked them the question privately to avoid the swinging unit syndrome - lesson learned.
  10. Excellent! Still waiting on a reunion tour - talk about mudflaps my girl's got 'em.
  11. Congratulations Waiter, this has been a long time in coming and I know you will approach this 're'test phase with your usual professionalism and attention to detail. Hope the rough running clears up with an injector cleaning and that the performance blows you away (then you can blow all of us away). I have said it before but think it bears repeating, thank you so much for putting in the additional time beyond this serious upgrade and modification effort to catalog it on your website for all the flyers and dreamers out here in happy data land - it is a tremendous resource and a great legacy. Blue Skies!
  12. Great post Rick, and thanks for the insight - now I am even more excited to see how it plays out.
  13. FWIW, Ezelady did not post the pix here, ColinB did. She came in to answer a few questions, including one about her being a 'toy', and has received what I would call an aggressive if not hostile line of questions dripping with innuendo - something others have commented about in regards to this forum, myself included. She says they have consulted with engineers, pointed out that someone there does the design work, and they DO build, modify and FLY planes down there, I would leave it at that. Hell, there are Cozy guys apparently planning on putting 540's into their planes chiming in on 'modification', I mean puhlease - Mr Pot I would like you to meet Mr. Kettle. What kind of a heart attack would Nat have about that? Or Burt and the 1100 lb empty weight and 320 or 360 powered Long's? And yet, they fly and fly reasonably well in many cases - I flew one a couple weeks ago myself. It is called EXPERIMENTAL aviation for a reason - once we change something from the original design it is no longer the original design, I think we all understand that whether we are putting 540's into our plane designed for the 320/360, or sticking a kerosene burner into something based on the Long-EZ, or dropping a 3-rotor Mazda into an otherwise stock airplane, or substituting carbon for S-glass. To quote the country duo of Montgomery-Gentry, 'You do your thing, I'll do mine'. Let's give each other a little benefit of the doubt about not being stupid or dangerous, or at least try and ensure the way we ask a question doesn't come out that way.
  14. Andrew, David Orr might be able to recommend someone in the area to inspect the project with you (canardfinder at att dot net). John
  15. Rahul, I recommend getting in touch with David Orr (callsign 'Beagle'), he knows where just about all the planes and projects that are or 'might be' for sale are and only asks a very reasonable finders fee. You can reach him at canardfinder at att dot net. John
  16. I am jealous now, looks very fun, put a low-vis tactical grey paint scheme on it with Navy markings and a squadron flash and look out.....
  17. Congratulations on first flight and on successfully navigating the challenges of emotion vs. logic during flight test. The DD cowl looks interesting - what kind of temps did you see during your brief flight?
  18. Ezelady, thanks for piping up. Have you guys looked at the need for increased rudder area being so much closer to the center of mass (shorter arm)? It is hard to tell but the pix look similar to the standard Long-EZ winglets with the tall rudder mod. The look is great BTW. Great idea borrowing the tube-in-tube with springs setup like the GP-4, one of George's greatest ideas in the GP-4 IMO. Eager to see the steerable setup, might have to 'borrow' that myself. That is why we call it 'experimental' aviation, keep up the good work, utility and practicality be damned - love what you guys are doing at EZ Jets.
  19. Trans4md, it appears that there may be some anecdotal evidence but no one has yet set out to simply build some representative coupons (samples) to show what, if any, weight savings there are, nor whether or not there are structural benefits (although we know epoxy rich layups are undesirable). Like so many other things, there is no shortage of opinion (both informed and otherwise) but hard data seems hard to come by (or is something those in the know are not willing to share). The appeal, and undeniable reason for the success of the Rutan Moldless Foam Core methodology is that it is exceedingly tolerant of the kind of variations in technique, environment and results that the average builder will accept as 'airworthy', and of course it creates large shapes and structure in a relatively short period of time with a minimum of tooling. My question centered on the low-vac approach as an improvement to the Rutan method, specifically in terms of weight - it is logical that 'some' weight would be saved, but how much is not quantifiable based on the responses and like (IMO) too many discussions here, it degraded into areas not part of the question (e.g., setup time, consumables cost, and the ever present heresy of varying from the plans, etc.). The lesson I have learned is be prepared to sort a lot of chaff to get to the wheat or ask private questions of folks whose opinion and experience you respect.
  20. Steve, Hollman's books are crappy in terms of production value but good in terms of 'core' content. I say 'core' content because as you will soon learn, he has a real problem with Rutan and the Long-EZ family. The info about techniques and materials and designing with composites is all good, but there is a lot of 'opinion' when he talks about Rutan designs. I have Martin's composite book as well as his Modern Aircraft Design Vol. 1 - again, good info but he apparently has some very deep seated issues with the Long (and presumably the Cozy as well being a derivative), so does Jack Lambie who's book on Composite Construction for Homebuilt Aircraft is also a good read (except the parts about canards in general and the Rutan's specifically). Just shows to go you that you can lead a horse to water but that doesn't make him a duck - IOW, opinions are like *******s, everybody has one. Congrats on the plans and good luck with the build.
  21. Related Question: What is the throw (in inches) of the rudder pedals from neutral to full rudder deployment and then all the way to maximum braking? Trying to figure out a way to mock up the pedals and see if there is a way to make the brakes work with my prosthesis. My concern is the leg hole restricts my ability to move my leg like I normally do to get good rudder/braking. This might be a make-or-break issue for the Long-EZ for me.
  22. As I recall failure reportedly occurred in the 12+ G range using leadshot bags, think they may even have ran out of lead initially. Since the moldless foam core construction method was essentially new for aircraft use at the time I would think it might be hard pressed to call anyone 'professionalists' at the time but it was certainly the folks at RAF who had built several planes at that point I assume. As Marc and others are quick to point out, with something like a thousand examples flying now and untold flight hours, no accidents of the Long's have been attributed to inflight structural breakup (if built to plan anyway). Structural failure at 7-8 G's is a big deal compared to the 12G number I remember reading somehwere, although 8G's is still a good margin over normal operations and even mild aerobatics at the plan weights or maybe even a little heavier (not doing the math right now). When Dick and Melville flew their record flights their birds weighed almost 2500lbs reportedly, or put another way, half a ton over the design weight. Certainly didn't do any aero at those weights, but the planes flew for extended periods at high weights.
  23. Thanks for that article, real eye opener although too many unknowns (previous cycles, previous loads, any history of overstress or damage, age, environmental, workmanship, etc.) to make a definitive decision IMO. As I recall, RAF did some extensive structural tests on fresh LE wings and canards and the results (if memory serves) were very impressive.
  24. Waiter, Just looking for ways to help you pin down the weights - I know you are very competent and detail oriented but offer the following for whatever help it might be (if any): Did you keep a W&B change record as you went through all the mods/upgrades? Either actuals or estimates? Specifically: - DD Plenums and hardware - New vs old cowl - Oil Heat (incl, hardware, lines and oil) - RG install (incl, hardware, lines and hyd fluid) - Paint (and filler, etc) - other convenience items Are you including some tare or other non-essential weight? In retrospect, did any of your repairs/mods/upgrades possibly include weight not accounted for in your estimates? Are you convinced the scales were properly zeroed out and calibrated? Hopefully you can get to the bottom of it and not have serious issues to deal with. Regardless, the plane really looks good and you have also done a tremendous service to all Long builders and pilots with your excellent website.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information