Rube Goldberg

I'm going to attempt "Maiden flight #2" with my yellow Long-EZ 46 later this week; I was perusing the Raidentech/Nitro Models websites when something took me by surprise with regard to the Long-EZ models.

The yellow one is supposed to be a "newer version". The white model, with the blue details is the "older version"; then we have photos of the new version of the white Long-EZ with the red, blue and yellow trim.

Look closely----the wing of the yellow version and the original white version have only one angle point in the leading edge that puts the leading edge of the wing at the fuselage about mid-canopy. The new version of the white model has 2 angle points in the leading edge of the wing; this puts the leading edge of the wing at the fuselage quite a bit more forward than the former---nearly at the trailing edge of the canard.

Whats it matter? Probably not much with regard to wing area, but this could be HUGE with regard to the placement of the CG, being specified as "X distance back from the leading edge of the wing at the fuselage"!

So if you have one of the newer white versions with the 2 angle points in the leading edge of the wing, DO TELL what the number for the CG spec is, and if you would measure the distance from the leading edge of the canard to the CG point, and while you're at it the distance from the CG point back to the trailing edge of the wing at the fuselage and include those numbers----please! I would be MOST APPRECIATIVE!

Thanks!

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

Mine specified the CG at a certain distance behind the leading edge of the CANARD. That wouldn't change.

Jim

jmupilot

I have the double angle LongEZ, But I wouldnt call it the newer one I've had mine for about a year. I think the Raidentech/Nitro Models ( yellow and white) version is different from the RichModels(white with/red,blue and yellow trim) one. If you look the cowl on the RichModels is different shaped too. I think this is why ther are some cocerns over cowling placement as too aligning with the fuselage shape.
I posted my CG info from the canard leading edge in another thread here on RCU. I even posted it with the nose gear retracted and extended. I just measured the mark on mine and its 16.75 inches behind the leading edge of the canard wing.

Pete

Rube Goldberg

Thanks Pete, I regard you as THE authority for info with regard to these models. The "yellow" Long-EZ 46 I have I seem to remember seeing "Evergreen Model" on the box. I think it is a knock off of the Rich Model ARF; yet the "Rich Model" that is sold by AKM---with the one picture in the ad----is even different from the line up of the 380 electric/46/60/120 versions of the Chinese Rich Model website (and where do you suppose you could get a 46 size one of those here in the states?)....
Anyway, my yellow version specified the CG at 152 mm from the leading edge of the wing---no mention of a distance X from the canard. I just found this browsing about some other forums, going to run through the numbers and link it here as it might help others---its a CG calculator for canard aircraft.

http://adamone.rchomepage.com/cg_canard.htm

And this looks like a really nice deal on the little "Rich Model" 380 electric Long-EZ (Is it really a "Rich Model"--the real deal? ) that just might do pretty good with a vintage Super Tigre X-11 !

http://www.hobby-estore.com/rh-long-...-airplane.html

Dave (as in not the brother of Carl !)

jmupilot

Dave, I just looked up my instruction manual (hehehehe) and the CG they called for was 430 mm from the leading edge of the canard. I did a conversion and that equates to 16.92 inches. SO mine at 16.75 is darned close, about 3/16 of an inch off.

I like the little LongEZ, I bet a OS 25 LA would realy haul the mail. Maybe even get by with a 15. Cheap flying, but most of the little ones are a bit touchy. I like the Larger versions RichModels has advertised. Wish list has the 84in. wingspan one on it already. Would be a great plane for the Saito 150 I have here in my hobby hangar. I have been on vacation and plan on flying the LongEZ this weekend I've been putting time on a few other models finishing up a Royal 336 Skymaster, and a CMP Cessna 182. I just bought a Great Planes 25 size Combat F4U Corsair that I need to get ready next.

Pete

TestPilot6

Please correct me if I'm wrong. However, I thought CG is really the point where all forces converge, i.e., lift, drag, weight of the plane and the thrust, to mention the major forces. If they don't, the plane will start to pitch. In this case, we are talking about the static CG, therefore mainly lift and weight.

The main lift is provided by the wing and the canard has relatively small effect on this if any. So I would agree to giving CG in reference to the LE of the wing, not the carnard. Of course, for a given plane, you can choose any point in the plane as the reference, because CG doesn't change.

I also have a yellow Long EZ from Raidentech. It's not quite completed. But I'm not prepared to fly it, either, after reading some of the threads. One of the reasons for the hesitation is the lack of rudders in the model. We get quite a bit of crosswind during this time of the year, and I'm not sure if I can handle it without a rudder.

I have been planning to install the ST GS-40, but I'm considering to change to a SK .50.

- Ken

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

No, sorry. CG (Center of Gravity) is simply the point at which the weight ahead of the CG equals the weight behind the CG. The Center of Lift must be behind the CG for the airplane to be stable in pitch. The further behind, the more stable. The "Center of Drag" would be the net result of half a dozen kinds of drag and its position changes every time you move a control surface. Just as the Center of Lift moves every time you move the elevator. The thrust line can be almost anywhere, witness the pylon mounted engines on seaplanes.

The forces effecting an airplane in flight are dynamic and complex. Even the position of the CG, as measured on the surface of the wing, changes as the airplane climbs or dives. When we set the CG on a model, we are adjusting it's static, level flight CG position to match the position that produced the desired performance in the manufacturers flight testing. And the manufacturer should properly specify it using the simplest way to measure it accurately. In the case of a wing with the planform of the Long EZ, measuring from the straight leading edge of the canard is going to be the most accurate for the most people.

Actually the canard produces at least 25% of the total lift of this model. If you would like to see how the first guess CG of a canard airplane is calculated go to http://sky.prohosting.com/air2/cg_canard.htm

Jim

Rube Goldberg

Hoping to attempt "maiden flight #2" with my yellow Long-EZ this afternoon. If I do, will report back to this thread.

"Film at 11"......

As a cross reference, I checked the CG specs of the yellow one that I bought from Raidentech (being spec'd as 152mm back from the leading edge of the wing) vs. the white version that Pete has above (being spec'd at 430mm back from the leading edge of the canard) and the net result is that it is the same spot, i.e. 430mm back from the leading edge of the canard = 152mm back from the leading edge of the wing on the YELLOW version with 1 angle point in the leading edge of the wing.

I also ran the CG calculator I posted above. Used mm as units of measure, and for the root chord of the wing I merely extended the leading edge to the fuselage for the measurement which does not take into account the small triangular area from the angle point in the leading edge to the leading edge at the fuselage back to the extended leading edge then to the angle point. The calculator suggested:

For 5% Static Margin: CG at 454mm back from LE of canard.
For 10%: 443
For 15%: 432

So if anything, it appears the spec'd number is in the ballpark, and I probably wouldn't want to set the CG any further forward than the spec. Right now, mine is just about 1/4 inch forward of the spec by adding right at 5 oz. of lead atop the supplied "ballast" chunk of metal out on the cantilever piece inside the front cowling, and the battery below the cantilever piece strapped in with wire ties. The receiver is behind the ballast and the lead against the front of the fuselage---which I'm not crazy about since a hard nose in crash would probably destroy my Futaba PCM receiver!

With regard to choice of engines, I think others are having good luck flying the white version with an OS 46 LA, which is about 3.6 oz. lighter than the OS 46 AX I am using. I really think the key here is to find the crossover of weight vs. power so that you don't have to add additional lead in the nose, and I'm thinking the LA might be the better choice.......that is until I go with my OS Wankel

Maiden flight #1 I was running a Master Airscrew 3 blade 9X7 prop, the engine did not exhibit any tendency to overheat with the cowling on and the outside temp about 98F and 50+% humidity ( I was vacationing in Mississippi ); however I think that the engine was under-propped as it was running like a scalded dog (a Mississippi souvenier) and seemed to be pushing with a LOT of autority. I've since armed myself with an arsenal of various 2 blade props to attempt to "find the one".

Dave

jmupilot

The only reason I referenced the leading edge of the canard is because,,,1 its where RichModels referenced it and...2 it a common point of these models. I think there is a different wing planform on the RaidenTech and the Nitromodels version than the RichModels. Overall demensions are the same for both models, ie wingspan, fuselage length and canard span and chord,

Ken, You mentioned rudders, I dont know if you knew it but the full scale LongEZ doesn't have rudders either. The verticle fins have rudder like moving surfaces that just swing outone side only to produce the yaw effect of a rudder. The model is a handful when trying to line up with a good crosswind, and it will fly at a slow speed, or at least mine will. I have overshot the landings quite a few times trying to keep the speed up so the model tracks straight on landing approachs. It just takes a little practice to get the feel of it.

As far as engine choice I would suggest you look at the power output vs. weight. If the 40 is very close to the 50 in power but lighter I'd go for the 40. I fly mine with a OS46 LA. I had an OS46 FX on it but on another thread here some suggested that the OS 46LA wasn't enough motor. I had one lying around I wasnt using and the bolt pattern was the same for both engines so I tried it. The 46 LA is about 3 oz lighter than the FX I'm using the same prop same muffler .Its a perfect match for the model.


Pete

jmupilot

Looking forward to the "Film at 11" Dave


Pete

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

I didn't know that "an arsenal of various" pusher props existed. You are using a pusher prop aren't you?

Jim

Rube Goldberg

Through Tower Hobbies I obtained 7 props:

Zinger woods 11X7, 11X8 and 12X6 for the 46AX; 9X5 and 9X6 for the OS Wankel if I go that route,

APC 11X6 and 11X7 for the 46AX.

All are pusher props.

Looks like the flight will get put off to maybe tomorrow......we have 3 local AMA sanctioned fields; the preferred field has a paved runway about 285X60 but due to its close proximity to a sanctioned karting track we have to split the year with those guys due to liability issues---and this is their weekend for a night time race. So maybe hopefully they'll be too burned out and hung over to hang around the track tomorrow afternoon. Field #2 has a paved runway about 230X25 yet is on lease property where if a plane goes down we have to call the owner before striking out through the briars and brush to find it. Field #3 is a grass strip that is tight for flying space.

Bummer!

redneckteddy103

a friend of mine has one and brout it to the field last week boy that was fun just need to teach the oldtimers a few new tricks and it was airborne flew great

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

Great! I'm running a 10x7P APC on the TT46 in my Long EZ. It is very fast at full throttle and I usually fly it at half except for low passes.

You may run into ground clearance issues, especially with that 12 x 6.

Jim

drone pilot

Redneck teddy... Does you friend fly with that cowl on? I have the same plane and was worried about engine overheat. Got two flights on mine, both knee knockers, but took some good advice and cut the throws way down and cranked in a lot of expo. Think I'm about (after two months) ready to go for flight number 3.......Cliff

redneckteddy103

yes he does you cant see it but on the bottom side he has cut out i think a 2'' by 3 '' hole down there for the air flow and down here its 100 degs plus and he hasnt had any problems yet , we had to bend out his main gear a little to make it a little more stable on the ground and fix the nose gear so itwont spin around other than that its a great little plane , he has about 13 flights on it now and hes been doing loops and rolls with it he did a waterfall with it and said he wouldnt do that again so at our field he just goes fast and turns left lol . when he frist brought it to the field we had to get the thought in the old timers head that he had the canard set wrong frist 2 trysto take off he was pushing the nose in the ground he was thinking of a normal plane elevater up plane goes up , this elevater down plane goes up lol its all in fun though still had a great time .

ill post a video as soon as i can figure it out on here ..

[link=http://www.scalerchelis.com/g2/main.php/v/redneckteddy103/-9999/RIO+GRAND+VALLEY+FLYERS_MSWMM.html]rio grande valley flyers [/link]<--link should work
theres a ucando and a extra 300 on there too vid is low qualty but ya get the point lol

Rube Goldberg

Well, it turned out to be a beautiful but HOT Sunday afternoon at flying field of choice #1 and just as predicted, the karters apparently had enough fun last night in their night time race to completely desert the track/karting facility area.

NO karters means WE can FLY! (and the best part is that nobody else in the flying club thought the same as us so we have the field to ourselves!)

Yellow Long EZ with the OS 46AX and the CG set spot on at 430mm back from the leading edge of the canard. I even put the wheel pants on it. Tried several of the props from the "arsenal", and according to the "push-o-meter" 86 year old Pop says to stick with the APC 11X6. Had hesitation in the low end and mid range, top end wound out right at 12,300 RPM.

Contemplated maiden flight #1's discovery of a slight roll to the right after lifting off (where I got out of the throttle and upon impact the plane spun around and broke the canard and twisted the landing gear) and we set just a fuzz of down aileron on the right wing only to hopefully compensate for the torque from the pusher engine configuration. Also had the nose gear set to enable the leading edge of the canard to be 15mm higher than the trailing edge of the wing...Thank You oh Thank You Pete!.....

Taxi to the end of the runway, turn around, gradually get into the throttle and it's moving but gurgling on the transition to full throttle for the first 75 feet......then WHAAAAA!!! it's on full power for the next 125 or so feet and finally at about 250 feet of the paved runway behind us it begins to lift off and Houston we're flying! Slight bit of up elevator and we make a low angle climb out to about 200' AGL, left turn and level flight requires about 2 clicks of up elevator trim.

Get off of full power and start flying around at about 60% power. With the elevator set at -40% exponential and the ailerons at -24% this thing is flying like a trainer! If I had to use just one word to sum up the way it flies I'd have to say....elegantly....for the first 5 minutes of the flight......

Then at about 350-400' AGL all of a sudden "Braaaaaappppp" followed by silence, followed by my exclamation of "OH SH_T!!" and we are dead stick.

Now this is my first time to fly a canard configured aircraft, and on top of that I'm going to have to land dead stick?!

Absolutely amazed at the glide ratio. This thing doesn't drop like a rock, it is rock steady and has a real shallow angle of attack on the glide down! Make a sweeping left turn to bleed off some speed and touch down about 100' past the beginning of the runway.

ALL SMILES!!

We'll sort the engine transition issue as it was probably running really rich in the mid range and that caused the flame out. But it did fly, and it is still in one piece!!

TestPilot6

Congratulation, Dave!

It sounds like your long EZ is quite stable and docile unlike some others. I hope mine will fly like that.

- Ken

DairingDave

Hi all flying season is already here.I think you have me talked into the purchase of the long ez,,46 but will put a maginum 91 four stroke in it,later from dairingdave in arkansas

DairingDave

Hi all flying season is already here.I think you have me talked into the purchase of the long ez,,46 but will put a maginum 91 four stroke in it,later from dairingdave in arkansas

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

The Long EZ is a 90-100 mph airplane with a 46 2-stroke, and it takes a ton of nose weight to balance the 46. The 91 will add 4 to 6 ounces in the back, plus another 6 to 8 ounces of nose weight. You will have to change to taller, (heavier) gear to clear the prop and top speed will end up lower.

So why is it that you want to use the 91?

Jim

DairingDave

Hello thank you for the reply,the 91 is one i had lying around,ok i wont use it,i have a os .40 will that work 2stroke.this is fun later guys from arkansas.

jw400a

Hi everybody I just bought a put together WHITE long-ez but it was missing the gas tank,spinner, and book of words (owners manual) I'mpretty new to this sport so any input would be greatly appreciated! After reading the posts i understand that the correct c.g. is 430 back from the l/e of the canard,but what make or type of gas tank would fit and would be the best way to mount the engine (sideways or upside down)? Thank you for any and all help!! Jamie

JFallon

I hope to use the Nitro LongEZ 46 as a platform for First-Person-Video flying (because there's no prop in front of the camera). Today's On-Screen-Display units have an AutoPilot Return-To-Home feature in case I fly out of control range. The AutoPilot (which relies on GPS and has no atitude sensors) would initially set control surfaces and throttle to fail-safe values. I would imagine that yaw-based turns would be safer for the AP than aileron turns (I see the plane doing aileron rolls in an attempt to turn home [&o]), but the LongEZ has no active rudder. Does anyone have experience using the steerable nose-gear to effect a turn in the air (with or without a wheel-pant)? Any suggestions?
Jim