SAF_Zoom

If it sounds that bad its probably getting ready to die on the guys Well anyhow... I'm a long way from mounting an engine in that back... lol... I aven't even started... But my Terf CD should be in... in a few day... same for my CSA newsletters..... Thanks for the infos,

Well I know what I posted... just did not realized how much of a debate ROTARY vs RECIPRICAL engine was...

This was in no way mant to trash talk anyone... just stating a fact. BTW I'm French so go easy their TMANN...

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.

Have you ever saw a stuck rotor??? When a rotary "blows" its the seal that goes buy buy... If a rotor was to come loose from the cranckshaft (which would mean that it striped all the grooved down (highly unlikely but whatever)) it would still freely "role" on the crank... not likely to jam. Even saw 13B that ingested par of the Turbo impeller end keep going... Not to say the casing was not destroyed... but the engine keep going... But no one can saw never. So when I say... two engines in one... it meant to say when one rotor goes.. the other one keep spinning...

I just realised... how did this went from... a discussion on passenger leg room to a discussion on engine type Well thanks all for the replies, its real fun to exchange ideas/opinions. Fly/build safe

Thanks guys, My duscription of stalling the plane.. was maybe off... What I should have said that : at that point I'm "running out of elevator". So its not a main wing stall... its just that the Canard his nearing its stall.... Regards,

Well tell that to Burt Rutan when he blew a cylinder in a Cessna... The problem with ALL experimental type aircraft is that some neglect the preventive maintenance... so we will never be able to compare uncertifed engines (even Lyc/Cont) to certified engines... Thats just comparing apples and oranges... My opinion is... assuming proper maintenance of both... a receprical type engine and a rotary type engine... the rotary type engine is less prone to catastrophic mechanical failure. Now... accessories... they need to be of aircraft grade... for it (the Wankel) to be as safe as a certified engine.

LOL the only reason the Lyc / Cont are the number one choice is because they where there first... They are common and poeple have for the most part trouble shot their installation. But as for the Wankel... cooling issues have to be adressed when they are installed (as I understand from reading many post in here) It is true that Burt gave us a futaristic plane... but poeple still stick in the back very OLD technology... Subaru engines... well how are they any different from a Lyc/Cont... they are also boxer type engines... but with more advance (complex) engine management technologies. So if I was to decide between two receprecal type engine... one which the crackshaft was design to absorbe the vibration and forces from the propeller and the other one that was not... well I think the choice is clear... go for the aircraft engine... And BTW how many Lyc/Cont don't even make it to their TBO... humm... many... And that not even counting poeple who are installing previously certified engines which add a prop strike Now the Wankel... well its not the engine that as to absorbe the forces (bending and traction/compression) of the prop... its the REDRIVE... Well these units are common these days... all turboprop engine have them (well similar units)... And as I stated before... none as failed so far... Also... in a Wankel each rotor is independant of the other one... its basically two engine in one... So if one fails you still have the second one to push you through the air... Hell when my rotary gave up the ghost (after being tortured by ME over many years (read being overreved more time that I care to count)) it still managed to go 100 miles at more then 60 mph on one rotor... Try doing that with a blown cylinder on an receprical type engine... the engine will seize up in a hurry... But hey... its a free world (well mostly) and we are all entitled to our opinion.

Lycoming are in my humble opinion dynosaurs... If it was not for lobyiste... not sure Lycoming / Continental would still own the major share of the market... buts thats just MY opinion... Well Tracy took 20 years... the Lycoming / Continental are pratically unchanged since the 50s... Except for new alloys and threatments

Well I'm an aircreaft mechanic... I would hardly consider myself a newby.... newby... BTW read up on Wankel engine... only 3 moving parts... no cams... no lifters... no exhaust valve to cook... no cylinder head to crack... Yeah... a recyprical engine is safer.... hummm Ans as I mentionned earlier... I manages to drive about 100 miles on a blown rotary engine (driving 60mph) try doing that with a piston engine... you're lucky to make it to the curve... But it as some draw back that needs to be adress... see previous post...

The risk with a Wankel are: Low quality redrive (which is BTW a reduction planetary gear drive similar to those used by ALL turboshaft engines). As far all my research for incident/accident report weilded no case where a redrive unit was at fault; Engine failure (very rare occurence, way more Lyc/Cont failure per hour of use); Accessory failure (here is where it all lies, many installation use auto quality parts that are unsuited for aircraft application... using aircraft grade accesories makes a rotary engine as safe (read more safe) then a Lyc/Cont) Water pump/alternator beld drive... This is this system weak point. One need to install bouble belts and pulleys to have some sort of redundancy... A gear driven accessory box should be develop to address this issue... any one up for this

Thanks so much for the answers guys/girls (?) ... And thanks for the offer... I would need more infor on the LE... But I'm not going RV (well I think) the LE as always been kind of a dream of mine... .... btw any of you guys use Teamspeak (or MS Messenger) here... We could talk about it a bit... Well as I mention earlier... going rotary would be for safety reason... nothing else...

Hi guys, did a lot of searching around and have found no indication on the passenger leg room in the Long EZ. My girlfriend is 5'10" and is very interested in knowing a much leg room there is. Also, I'm 6'1" (230lbs) and I know the LE will fit me good. (If I build) Is it possible to bring in the pilot seat a bit forward (max 1 inch) to give missy some more leg room? Will that make foe more confort? Or is it plenty of space? Finally what would be the effect on the CG of the plane (moving forward 1 inch). The way things look now, if I build, I'm leaning toward a Wankel 13b or newer (2 rotors) turbocharged engine, which I understand weighs about the same (with redrive) as a Lyc O320. Why the Wankel??? Well mostly because of the reading I did today. Although I was drawn at first to the Lyc/Cont (my being an ex-aircraft mechanic and all).... I did not really know about the use of rotary engine as an aircraft powerplant (never cared for homebuilt other than the Long EZ) But reading many post and web site I it made me remember that when I blew my 1985 Mazda RX-7 engine in 1990 (after it had more then 80K (hard ) miles on it) that blown engine ran long enough for me to get to colledge (10Miles), then back home (20miles), and then to the shop (5 miles), then back home (5 miles), then back to another shop (20miles)... where it was removed and replaced.... The thing still powered the car to 60mph... was shaking like hell but got me their... So yes I can vuch that a wankel will take more abuse than a regular piston engine... well any how... thats why I think that it is a likely candidate to go in the back....

Actually this is the type I prefer. Less risk of failure. The design is very simple. Their is no need to compress the gear before retract (on a LE). The system can be made to be electricly actuated. Just safer and better..

Thanks Lynn read all of your post (and Tmann's) post regarding the Infinity gears.... This is why I'm asking questions like these... to get both side of the coin... But hey being an ex-aircraft technician and working on crashed engines (when I worked at P&W)... well lets just say I tend to approach safety concern with a great deal of attention...

Well I know what type you will be installing (read that on another forum)... not sure they are the BEST though...

And why should I do all of that if I end up buying a completed aircraft ??? But for your info I'm already signed up at CSA (with present at past issues in the mail) and EAA... As for the Terf CD... I will be buying this soon enought as the price is well insignificant... Contrary to you I beleive in asking around before I loose any time over something. Why should I spend a significant amount of time reading countless threads were many who post have no actual first hand knowledge... My question is simple... in order to plan this project (either buying or building) what is the best (meaning most reliable) retractable front and main gear system out there. And I would like to ear from poeple that actually have these system in theit plane. Poeple that are actually using them in the feild.

This was meant more for fun then to actually include this in as a design mod... I'm looking for off the counter stuff...

Thanks for all the replies. Will keep them in mind.. The virtual version on the LE is quite like you guys describe. Using both rudder gives a steeper decent with no increase in airspeed. Deploying the landing brake will cause a large nose up moment and slight drop in airspeed. Probably more due to the nose pitching up than the actual effect of the airbrake. I can land this virtual bird well below 85kts... all the way down to 65kts... but thats stalling it on the runway... And again, thanks for all the input.

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.

As some of you know... I'm debating buying versus building Long EZ (or Open EZ)... but this is another story. I presently have this great bird on my PC hardrive, I got this here: http://www.alphasim3.com/store/product_info.php?cPath=32&products_id=235 Well my question is: What is the maximum speed one can use the rudders as airbrake... Also as anyone compared this virtual version to the real thing... and how do they measure up? Thanks,

Well as a NHL coach once said.... nothing beets experience...

http://www.deltadieselengines.com/pdf/A3%20brochure%20Delta%20Diesel%20Engines.pdf Thx for the info,

Well looks like I have a line on a Long EZ... will keep you posted...