Big John wrote in
:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:41:38 -0800 (PST), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

On Feb 6, 10:07*pm, Big John wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 06:02:58 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:





Big John wrote in
:

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 18:06:56 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
wrote:

On Feb 4, 4:39 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Morgans" wrote
:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote

well, it must be at least a bit interesting for an
experimenter. The rocket
man posted som salient stuff there and understanding the
relationship between CG and the aerodynamic center is a very
useful thing for a builder.
Not strictly neccesary, of course, but definitely nice to
know. Less so for
a pilot...

*I feel I have a good grip on the relationship between CG an
AC *for
conventional planforms. *I have no interest in canards or
tandem lifting wings.

I did pay a bit more attention to a few of the posts, though,
and his being some of them.

Well, it's relevant to conventional airplanes in an indirect
sort of way, which is my point. If you truly understand the
principles involved, you then thoroughly understand enough to
trim your homebuilt. My own airplane is notorious for needing
stab adjustments after the first flight. A real PITA since the
stab is welded into position ( I plan to make mine adjustable
with shims) Now, the stab on my airplane has a negative
incidence, while the top wing is set at zero and the bottom is
set at plus 2 degrees. Doesn't seem to add up, does it? The
stab is flat plate, BTW. So, waht's all that about?

Bertie

I hear a candiate screamin for the Darwin Awards.
Leave flying to us pro's, you stay in outhouse.
......

*****************************************

Lets throw the D-17 in the discussion and why it was so fast in
it's time frame.

Ponies!

Actually I thnk it had more to do with the careful attention to the
fillets and a relatively small frontal area on the fuse. Probably
used a fairly thin wing section as well.

They just got it all right with that one, didn't they?

Bertie

************************************************** **************
Bertie

Thought someone would talk about the negative stagger and inter
action between the two wings and rigging, etc *)

I would if I knew! You'd have to ask someone with a lot more knowledge
than me for a definitive answer. My own view is that like all
airplanes ever built it was a case of comprimise and integration. The
deisrability of a stagger and the slightly better negative stagger
configuration ( for drag, if not lift) went nicely hand in hand with
the desire to increase, if only slightly, in flight visibility ( over
say, a Waco UIC) and tied in well with the wing mounted gear which
allowed a relatively simple retract system. It was simply a well
thought out airplnae which balanced the pros and cons of each element
of the configuration and brougth them all together into one slick
machine. I'm struggling to think of something comparable that did it
quite so beautifully. Having siad that, if you put that and a WACO SRE
in front of me, I think I'd choose the WACO


Almost bought one, one time. Had a friend who did buy a run out one
and had overhauled and recovered in Panama when we were stationed
there. There was a shop who did a excellent job for bottom dollar
price. It took them about 6 months to do between other jobs to keep
price down. * Can't find those economical places any more even over
seas.

Nice. Kicking yourself now, eh? A friend of mine bought a project B17
with the Jake in it and gave up on it after a few years and sold it. I
was really hoping to get to fly it!

Bertie
************************************************** ********************
*
****

You don't have to rub it in (

It takes a PILOT to fly one with it's take off and landing
characteristics. Not a beginners aircraft. The WACO
would be a more comfortable and relaxing bird to fly I'm
sure but wouldn't attract the crowd of gawkers when you
landed at a GA airport ).


I think I could manage a 17 OK, It's the performance of the WACO I'd
prefer, I think ( runway and climb) And I prefer it's looks. Having said
that it;s like choosing between two supermodels..


Bertie