N549V Flies with Continental 0200

For general discussion of the Just Aircraft family of aircraft.
Includes: Highlander, Escapade, Summit and SuperSTOL.

Moderator: scubarider2

N549V Flies with Continental 0200

Postby cutoff1 » Tue Oct 21, 2008 11:24 pm

On Friday, October 17, our Highlander received its airworthiness certificate. We weren't able to fly it, though, until Sunday because of weather conditions, but on Sunday we were able to take it up for its first flights. Here are some photos.

One note, we had to add 7 pounds to the tail to make the weight and balance work, but other than that, everything turned out great.

Special note to DaveU - I'm glad we didn't take your suggestion and not build this plane with this engine.

Image

If you go to YouTube.com and enter N549V, you will be able to see videos of the warm-up, take off, and a fly-by.
Bob Vaughan
500 Pass Road
Gulfport, MS 39507
251-510-7805
cutoff1
New Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:34 pm
Location: Gulfport, MS

Postby Dave Krall CFII SEL SES » Tue Oct 21, 2008 11:59 pm

Way to go Bob! Let us know about performance when you get a chance...
Dave Krall CFII SEL SES
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:29 pm
Location: Seattle WA

Postby Av8r3400 » Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:42 am

(I'm a newbie to a/c building and a little dumb, so please forgive the remedial question.)

When using a "certified" engine are you limited to the work you can perform on the engine or does the experimental category of the a/c allow you to work on the engine, too?

Very nice looking (and sounding!!) aircraft.  Congratulations on your accomplishment!

Thanks.
Av8r3400
User avatar
Av8r3400
Seasoned Member
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 6:50 am
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Postby rgmullins » Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:26 am

Contgratulations! You guys kicked ass and built it pretty quick!

What did you end up with for the empty weight?
Rick Mullins #144
Cincinnati
rgmullins
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 8:21 am
Location: Cincinnati

Postby DaveU » Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am

I did not intend to discourage experimental aviation.  What I intended was to relay the information that I gathered while researching the issue.

This was my actual post that you refer to:

"seriously considered using the 0-200.  

I do not think it is a reasonable choice for the airframe.  It exceeds the design parameters for weight on the firewall.  The usefull load will suffer.  You will likely have to put lead in the tail to get the CG in range, and the fuselage is not stressed for that type of concentrated weight.

If you must use an 0-200, build a different airplane.

Sorry to bear the news."

It does exceed the design weight for the engine, 200#.  Useful load is reduced by the extra weight of the engine and the lead in the tail.  You did have to add lead in the tail.

I am sure that you have built a great aircraft and I personally do not like the rotax and would have been much happier with an airplane engine.  I would expect that you will have no issues and enjoy your airplane more than most.

I hope your little "dig" made you feel better.  I am glad that you did not take my advice as well.  You should have learned by now that free advice is worth every penny you pay for it, and free advice on the internet is worth even less.

Dave
DaveU
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:20 am

Postby scubarider2 » Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:30 pm

I remember these posts as well on this subject.  I remember the concern as well being the stress loads, CG and loss of useful load.  Having to add tail weight to this plane would be a concern to me.  She has plenty of wiggle room both aft and forward with any of the "standard" engines, and you having to add weight to the rear would be an alarm bell to me.  This is not a "sides" issue.  It is an information one for all those out there thinking of doing the same.  I just don't want to see anyone hurt in any of "OUR" planes.   Just for information purposes I would like to hear about what the manufacturer said about these issues, or I would like to hear about any testing done on the extra load up front.  Thanks....
Dennis
Live as though you were going to die tomorrow, learn as though you were going to live forever...
User avatar
scubarider2
Topic Moderator
 
Posts: 1067
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:03 pm
Location: Cleveland, GA

Postby MH434 » Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:58 pm

Hi Bob

What a great effort and congratulations. I've been following your build with extra interest because I am putting a 'heavy' Rotec into my Highlander, and this will require ballast and/or fiddling with the Cof G.

I am very interested in how you managed to use so little ballast, what you moved aft etc, and how you distributed the weight. You are busy now with the flying but when you get time I look forward to hearing that and your performance figures.

I have had great support from Just re the 'heavy' engine and they see no balance or structural issues. Neither do I. I have flown many aircraft with ballast fitted and 7 pounds is peanuts in the overall scheme of things.

Keith
MH434
Forum Regular
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:50 pm
Location: Katikati, New Zealand

Postby Dave Krall CFII SEL SES » Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:06 pm

Just a side note on gross weight and heavier engines for experimental planes:
As I understand it the builder determines the new gross weight and new useful load, often higher than standard. This has always been common in floatplanes and amphibions as well.

Keith, what kind of weight FWF are you looking at for the Rotec?
Dave Krall CFII SEL SES
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:29 pm
Location: Seattle WA

sounds good

Postby billy5823 » Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:52 am

man, that thing sure does sound good!!!!!!!!!!!!!
billy5823
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:23 pm
Location: murphy

Postby Larry Tener » Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:00 am

I know you are all young, but they have been putting about 9 lbs in tha aft end of a cub so you can fly it from the front seat for years.
Larry Tener
New Member
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:15 pm
Location: Rose Hill Kansas

Postby MH434 » Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:24 pm

Dave
Rotec reckon on an extra 50 lb heavier than a rotax installation. Not that it matters to me, but I see that offset by the extra hp and torque. The R2800 complete with starter, alternator and accessories runs all up at 106kg.
I'm very interested in your comment re the builder establishing their own gross weight as I see the max weight of the Highlander set to remain within LSA etc, and not what it is capable of. That said I still plan to operate within the current weights with the Rotec setup, for my purposes.
Keith
MH434
Forum Regular
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:50 pm
Location: Katikati, New Zealand

Postby rgmullins » Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:24 am

Larry Tener wrote:I know you are all young, but they have been putting about 9 lbs in tha aft end of a cub so you can fly it from the front seat for years.


I took my taildragger training in a Cub. That thing barely got the ground on hot days with an instructor and me on board.  :shock:
Made me appreciate what a difference weight makes in performance. One of the A&P's there has a intreresting attitude about it. He said if you are considering on adding it to your plane, take it and hold it at arms length. Let is go and if it drops, don't install it...

Bob, I'm curious because I looked at the 0200. What did you end up with for an empty weight?
Rick Mullins #144
Cincinnati
rgmullins
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 8:21 am
Location: Cincinnati

CG & empty Weight

Postby cutoff1 » Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:49 pm

We ended up with an empty weight of 760.

As for the ballast, we could actually have gotten away with probably only 1 pound because we were so close to the parameters when figuring a pilot of 170#. However, we wanted to be well within the range, so we added the extra weight, which will allow for heavy pilot, passenger, baggage, etc., without having a problem.

And we didn't have to move anything or make any adjustments, except that we moved the battery from the baggage compartment to behind the baggage wall, and added an access panel. Other than that we did not make any concessions or adjustments for the engine weight.

In reference to the engine, av8r3400, we did all the work on it, rebuilding it from the case up, including the exhaust system.
Bob Vaughan
500 Pass Road
Gulfport, MS 39507
251-510-7805
cutoff1
New Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:34 pm
Location: Gulfport, MS

Postby m7flyer » Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:56 am

That looks really sweet and I love the sound of that O-200.

Another Idea for ballast would be what Maule uses for the early M7's which is a lead slug with a pipe to slide it into aft of the luggage area and another pipe under the pilots seat.  When solo I keep it aft and when loading up I put it under my seat, or just leave it in the car.  I'm not sure how much it weighs but must be at least 10 lbs.  It takes just a few seconds to move it.
m7flyer
New Member
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 5:32 am
Location: SoCal


Return to Just Aircraft