Lynn Erickson

Has anyone out there thought of a small 1 place canard like a shrunk ez?I am thinking somewhere along the lines of a cri cri (cricket) or leon davis da-11 for size...

I think of the vari ez as a shrunk down Long eze why would you want to spend 6+ years building something that small when you could build a real airplane in the same time and have a very safe aircraft.

Dayton E-Racer Project is sold but Ebay E-Racer in Sedona, AZ project just got re-listed. $3000 No Reserve.

I am not sure he knows what he is building. the anwsers to some of the questions on the ebay ad are all wrong. he said it could be a 4 seater. wrong!

he said you can get the main gear from velocity. yes you can but it will require a mod to the plans to make them fit. if you use the velo gear it will take up another 10" of the baggage space

Has anyone opened up the Firgelli automation actuators? Specifically, has anyone modified the limit switches to restrict the throw? I bought and installed a 6" 200# actuator for our pitch trim. It works perfectly, except at the very max limit it is a hair too long and causes a bind between the instrument panel and the back of the nose gear bulkhead. If I could shorten the stroke by 1/4" to 1/2" it would be perfect. There was mention of machining the end to accept a rod end, which may also work, but I would be afraid that would actually ADD length.

 

If not, anyone need a 6" actuator basically brand new so I can replace it with a 4" (which strikes me as possibly being too short, so I'd end up machining it for the rod end...)

not sure why you would need 6" of travel or the limit switches. 2" is way more then you can use. during operation you only use about 1/2" max. from level elevator to about 1" down at trailing edge is a whole lot. never needs to go above level unless you are trying to be a lawn dart.

No , I did not lengthen my fuselage, hence the ballast. The prototype E racer had a buick v8, approximately 225 hp and had a top speed of 240 mph. I believe the gross weight was increased to 2000 lbs. The E Racer also used the roncz canard. My new E racer is a foot longer in the nose and with the batteries moved forward a foot, I might not need ballast, time will tell. I am hoping my new AC will come in quite abit lighter than my last one.

 

Jack

Mine is very close to an Eracer, a bit wider and taller canopy. powered by IO360 angle valve, 200 HP model, at 8500 ft density altitude it does 200KTS GPS ground speed done on a triangle coarse with the engine at 2850 RPM. all E racers are build with the Roncz canard with the same elevator length as a long ez. the wing is the same as the long ez but the wing and center section spar cap layup thickness is increased by 25%. my gross is tested to 2200 lbs. with hydraulic pump and battery in the nose there is no need for balast with a 150 lbs pilot to 420 lb front seat load.

The short answer is, if you want to fly... go Lycoming. If you want to tinker, the rotary is a fun project.

I think with all your experience with engines this is really not a short answer but the same one I tell too.

This device acts as a passive splitter on receive, which is OK.

 

But on transmit it acts as a relay, which solves the isolation problem.

 

Unique gadget.

 

JCP

it will also isolate you from your money, only costs $900 so i think adding an antenna might be a little cheaper way to go

The Long EZ is suiting me just fine so far given the data we have here. Probably will have an up-graded engine and be a bit over-gross, but I am not expecting 1100 lbs useful load like Cozy either :-P, probably ~ 810 lbs useful with 2 pax, bags, and fuel which is within experience (At reduced G Loads and V Speeds for rough air). If I was to go full fuel and all the bells n whistles I'd be at 270 (Pilot)+220 (PAX, not the wife , she's much lighter )+20lbs (Bags)+300lb (Fuel). I wonder if you could stick COZY wings and Canard on LEZ Body , just a thought, but perhaps for another thread . I wouldn't likely carry full fuel either since pit stops are more frequent. Thanks for the comment though! I am sure this will generate more discussion so keep it coming!

 

-Chris

the long ez wing is the same as the cozy 3 wing. the cozy IV has the same wing outboard of the strake, the difference is in the spar length and the fuselage width. the span is 2 feet longer but the fuselage is 2 feet wider. the only gain with the longer spar on a long ez would be slower roll and slower plane. the extra width and wing span do make a big difference in top speed if powered by the same engine. A Cozy IV with a IO-360 will go 200 mph and a long ez with the same engine will go 240 mph

Well coming from an A&P I would'nt expect anything else! And its a good thing But being a guy that mostly work on P&W PT-6 turboshaft engines, I prefer the Redrive/Engine combo. And thats what the Wankel give you... low displacement at high RPM instead of low RPM big displacement in order to give you the same power output. Which means a lot less stress of the crankshaft... Never saw (or heared of) an Wankel with a broken shaft.

 

But we can argue till we are blue in the face... it will not change our respective point of view.

ah but thats where you are wrong. I love the rotary engine but did not want to spend many many hours building one to find out all the seemingly good Ideas have to be changed and after flying one for several years to only have logged 10 or 20 hours. when you have had as many years in experimental aircraft as I have you will have a better idea of the reality of using auto engines in aircraft. if you have not been there you have no idea of the problems that can arise.

turbo prop gear boxes are one thing. a homebuilt redrive is another animal. go watch one take off. or I should say listen to one take off. when you can hear there noise of the redrive over the noise of a rotary with open exhaust and prop noise during takeoff I don't think that is a good sign of longevity.

Ya know... I've owned a couple of RX-7's too. And I wanted a rotary in my Cozy when it was time for an engine. But.. I have seen several beautiful rotary installations removed only to be replaced with a Lycoming. Nice installations, years of work, but now they are gone.

 

I haven't seen anyone replace a Lycoming with a rotary or subaru engine (I'm sure its happened, I just don't know about it).

 

The airplanes that I have seen flying, the ones at Rough River, have airplane engines. The old 4 cyl airplane engines are far from perfect, but thats what gets almost all of these planes in the air.

 

The two rotors are not independent of one another... they turn the same crankshaft... if one gets "stuck"... the engine stops.

If you want to fly use a proven aircraft engine. if you want to spend the first several years experimenting with a power plant then put in a non proven engine. the first year I flew the Lycoming over 300 hours and never had a problem with the engine and still don't have any problems just like the other aircraft with this engine. I have never heard of any that use other than aircraft engines that have flown 300 hours in the first year, most have not flown 300 hours in many years and many will never fly 300 hours.

What I wanted to say is the oil cooler in front will only work when you are moving forward or a strong wind is blowing on your nose. It is very unefficient at ground handling of the A/C. There is a flap were you can redirect the heated air into the cabin to keep you warm.

 

Sure there is a oilpressure drop by the time you reach the oil cooler I never mesured that one. The indicated oil paressure at the engine is 60psi normal.

 

Yes I have multible oil coolers parallel to the one in front to get the heat away from the turbocharged engine.

if the oil coolers are in parallel how do you assure that there is flow in all the coolers?

I have 3 coolers in series 2 for oil cooling and one for cabin heat. it goes to the cabin heater first and if the blower is on it heats the cabin if the blower is off it is just a wide spot in the oil line.

Yeah, I've been told 8 degrees is the limit for those.

most of the instruments that are effected are sold either 0 or 8 degree tilt. that has been the aviation standard for 50 years. you will pay more for an 8 degree instrument.

TMann, have you considered the conductive nature of carbon and the possible galvanic corrosion issues with any metal fasteners and instruments you use (titanium fasteners are ok tho). Often a layer of veil glass mat is placed over the carbon to insulate the direct metal contact on the flat faces, but do give consideration to potential contact with carbon as fasteners attach through the IP.

Whilst looking very cool, I do have concerns about the mirror finish IP reflecting glare as well.

 

Just my 2 bobs worth.

 

Bruce.

if you have enough moisture on you instrument panel to worry about the carbon effecting the fasteners, you may have bigger problem with the instruments and radios that no longer work.

Ok I cat now,

In my case I made all the glass work with vacuum bag.

After I sanded and applied the carbon fiber.

But if you want to do all layups on the vacuum, you will need to 320grit sand the roughness that the peel ply leaves in the layer and a litlle of the carbon too.

Then you apply the pure epoxy and cover with the plastic.

If you want the shine.

I you want flat shiny carbon panels. do the layups on a piece of glass and bag them

....... took the words right out of my mouth.

 

Good luck finding a Long-EZ or Cozy with retracts if you are buying pre-built.

I don't know if you can buy the 'best' at this time.

I have a set on order, but that is because I was willing to take some risk and put my money where my mouth was.

 

Many of the sets that were available are no longer.

I know Lynn prefers the type that pivots at the fuselage.

I prefer the type that pivots at the outboard end of the center section spar.

 

There is plenty of information on the forums (and much heated discussion on the subject) if you do some searching.

actually I don;t care where the pivots are but if I have to fly with retracts I prefer the ones the do come down when you need them and don't self destruct during landing.

What is the best type of RG?

 

The type that is welded down

I'll second that. the best type is the ones that don't retract and you put on wheel pants to reduce drag.

I'll respectfully disagree with Lynn on some issues. The rudders are not used for "slowing" the plane (neither is the belly brake) - they're used for drag increase and glideslope control.

 

"In the real thing the rudders do not do that much slowing." Is that not what I said?

they do increase drag and if you deploy them and hold a 0 rate of desent they will slow you down.

my plane is flown a bit different on approach. I can fly a much steeper approach then a stock cozy do to the retractable landing gear. I can fly a higher approach and when the gear is deployed the approach angle is a lot steeper. use the belly board and rudders with a slip and it is a like a falling rock.

I don't want to open an new thread so i'll post hear

 

check this :

 

http://www.price-induction.com/

 

i know you poeple think it's vaporware again, but still worth to check the possible evolution of this product/company...

you will find 3d model of the engine and a couple of software to help you design your aircraft perf with this engine onboard

if they do build them they will be more cost effective and cheeper and when they are ready for sale they will be slightly less then the current stuff which will be even more then it cost now, so it will seem cheap then and be somewhere around a million give or take a few million

Thanks Drew,

 

I'm not judging the Long Ez based on this FSX version. I'm pretty sold on the idea of buying or building one.

 

Just wanted to know if the feel was right. As I'm practicing a lot of landing in the virtual EZ.

 

Finally, is the rudder response irl so week.

In the real thing the rudders do not do that much slowing. they add some but it is not going to save a bad approach. I don't ever use them on landing as they effect the roll way more then speed and they will cause more unwanted banking and yaw if not deployed perfectly equal. I use them only if needed to line it up in the last few feet. otherwise you almost forget they are there. if you need to use them in the video game then it is not like the real thing.

http://blogspace.mweb.co.za/default.aspx?alias=Velocity

looking at the pics it is hard to tell if you have installed them so there is a differential of pressure across the coolers . you need at least 3-4 " of water pressure to get any cooling. those fans will not put out more then about 1/2" of water pressure . the cooler needs to be baffled the same as the engine with cooling air coming in from the bottom and exiting at the aft end near the prop. this will give you a differential of pressure while on the ground and in the air. you can test to see what the differential is by using a manometer. connect each hose to a aquarium air stone and mount them to the cooler one in front and one behind in the air flow. run the hoses to the cockpit and connect to the manometer so you can monitor the pressures during the flight. I did this to solve my oil temp problems and it was worth the effort without it you are just guessing as to what is going on back there.

I have the same engine installed in my Velocity. Is there anybody els out there with the same configuration? Please contact me at alfons@iafrica.com

I have major problems with oil temperatur and the test pilot flying my Velocity refused to go again with the turbo charger in it!

running any 360 will require at least a 13 row cooler with a turbo it will need double that. do you have the cooler in the nose?

Yes, there are several places in the plans when duct tape is left on for long periods of time. I know you know this, but for others out there we use duct tape because (1) it's cheap; (2) it's a good mold release; and (3) it can be used to build up thicknesses to mold space for layups that will come later. I use the trick of applying one layer of electrical tape first, then applying the duct tape when I know it might be a while before it'll come back off.

One of the tapes I used is plumbers tape it is the same basically as electrical tape but comes in 2" wide is very cheep and comes in 5, 10 and 20 mill thick. when you need to build up even more thickness use a layer of the tape with a layer of foam double sided tape covered by the tape . epoxy will not stick to plumbers tape and it gives a smooth finish.

Thanks Steve but I am already in the process of building a new E Racer with a few mods. Should have it flying in the spring.

 

Jack

E Racer Extreme

Jack, you are my hero.

I can't wait to see this new bird. Hopefully we can fly together next summer.

i am sure it doesn't serve any purpose other than vastly improved aesthetics but is there any issue with swept back canards, structural or aerodynamic vise?

thats really getting into another can of worms. it would have to to be mounted farther forward as the sweep will move the center of lift aft. in slow speed you will get less lift as the air flow moves more spanwise and the wing already suffers from this why add it to the canard too? there is long eze type at chino that has a swept canard. designed by an aerospace engineer it does work but there is not enough flight data at this time to say if it is a good idea. as far aesthetics I don't think it looks as good as the straight ones.

Guys I need the prop size which the VE airframe geometry would allow if I would retract the prop station by 8" (Don't want to take the VE of my friend and and tilt and measure (rather cumbersome) once I know the max I will talk with the engine designer (since I am opting for a light geared engine I will install one of the new light CS props anyway)

 

wolf.

why would anyone know this? there aren't any vari ezes built this way. if your engine is lighter why would you not put the engine back farther and the prop where it is designed to go? with the prop forward it may have more interference drag caused by turbulence of the wings and fuselage.

In restoring my VE I will install a BMW Motorcycle 2 cylinder engine (which is being sucessfully used since 20 years, up to 125hp out of 178lbs installed). The engine is about 8 inches shorter than a O-200. If I have my prop station 8 inch advanced I can install a longer prop (the engine being geared a longer prop would make sense)

Now my question, does a longer prop make sense on the VE, if yes how much longer can it be??

 

wolf.

What would you gain by a longer prop? the prop still has to drive the same aircraft at the same speed with the same HP. if the prop is longer then it may need to be thinner or different blade shape. what does being geared have to do with it. the faster vari ezes are running 3000 + RPM and they use shorter props