If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Baby Ace
Anyone ever had anything to do with this plane, I really like it. Just
wonder about the gear used on modern versions. Such as what type wheels /brakes? I actually like the original simple rubber/washer combination in the landing gear itself. Any experiences? -- Patrick Dixon student SPL aircraft structural mech |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"W P Dixon"
: Anyone ever had anything to do with this plane, I really like it. Just wonder about the gear used on modern versions. Such as what type wheels /brakes? I actually like the original simple rubber/washer combination in the landing gear itself. Any experiences? The original gear is OK, but if you have a set of early drawings you'r eplanning on building from, you'd be better off leaving them in the drawer. There are a few design deficiencies in the early thirties versions particularly in the wing fittings. Paul Poberezny fixed all of those when he revamped the airplanes, but I don't think there's anythng wrong with the outrigger gear in the original. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting,
I will have to get out the wing fittings, thanks! Patrick "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ... "W P Dixon" : Anyone ever had anything to do with this plane, I really like it. Just wonder about the gear used on modern versions. Such as what type wheels /brakes? I actually like the original simple rubber/washer combination in the landing gear itself. Any experiences? The original gear is OK, but if you have a set of early drawings you'r eplanning on building from, you'd be better off leaving them in the drawer. There are a few design deficiencies in the early thirties versions particularly in the wing fittings. Paul Poberezny fixed all of those when he revamped the airplanes, but I don't think there's anythng wrong with the outrigger gear in the original. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Check them out that is, heck my mind was thinking one thing and fingers
typing another...OK finger! I use the Hunt and Peck typing system! I would like to build it as original, any details on those problems? Patrick "W P Dixon" wrote in message ... Interesting, I will have to get out the wing fittings, thanks! Patrick "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ... "W P Dixon" : Anyone ever had anything to do with this plane, I really like it. Just wonder about the gear used on modern versions. Such as what type wheels /brakes? I actually like the original simple rubber/washer combination in the landing gear itself. Any experiences? The original gear is OK, but if you have a set of early drawings you'r eplanning on building from, you'd be better off leaving them in the drawer. There are a few design deficiencies in the early thirties versions particularly in the wing fittings. Paul Poberezny fixed all of those when he revamped the airplanes, but I don't think there's anythng wrong with the outrigger gear in the original. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"W P Dixon"
: Check them out that is, heck my mind was thinking one thing and fingers typing another...OK finger! I use the Hunt and Peck typing system! I would like to build it as original, any details on those problems? OK, if you're looing at original 30s drawings, the worst fault is the actualy spar attachment point. I don't have the drawings in fromt of me, but the fitting welded to the fuse to capture the spar is just a strap bent around the spar and on the vertical and a single bolt drilled through that fitting verticaly through the spar. That's the cabin model. The open cockpit model has just a strap welded to the top of the cabane with the same bolt inserted vertically through the spar to a strap that binds the two spars together. Not the best setup, though they did make a lot of those airplanes and as far as I know it never fell into disrepute. On the Paul Poberezny revamp for the revived Mechanich Illustrated airplane in the '50s, that was the major mod he did to the airplane. There are substantial fittings on each spar end which transmit the load into the drag anti drag wires and it's a hinge type mating to the cabane struts. This is the way to go. The rest of the airplane is fairly OK and if you just build it using standard practices it should be fine. But if you're going two place, the junior has outrigger gear anyway! It's a great little airplane, though. I've got a cabin ace on one of the multitude of backbuners in my head.. Someday, maybe, if I get this one on the front burner finished before I pop my clogs. Bertie |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Yep,
I am thinking on the lines of the cabin ace myself and I have noticed the wing attach. If anyone knows of a reported failure I'd sure like to know about it. May have to see if I can get ahold of the old Mechanix Illustrated article of Paul's as well. I think I'd be an idiot to pay for plans from a place in Georgia or whomever, when they are public record in any library since being published. I imagine they have made improvements, but it comes to a point when you are overkilling something and just adding weight..so I am trying to see where that fine line ends and starts I guess you could say. Patrick "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ... "W P Dixon" : Check them out that is, heck my mind was thinking one thing and fingers typing another...OK finger! I use the Hunt and Peck typing system! I would like to build it as original, any details on those problems? OK, if you're looing at original 30s drawings, the worst fault is the actualy spar attachment point. I don't have the drawings in fromt of me, but the fitting welded to the fuse to capture the spar is just a strap bent around the spar and on the vertical and a single bolt drilled through that fitting verticaly through the spar. That's the cabin model. The open cockpit model has just a strap welded to the top of the cabane with the same bolt inserted vertically through the spar to a strap that binds the two spars together. Not the best setup, though they did make a lot of those airplanes and as far as I know it never fell into disrepute. On the Paul Poberezny revamp for the revived Mechanich Illustrated airplane in the '50s, that was the major mod he did to the airplane. There are substantial fittings on each spar end which transmit the load into the drag anti drag wires and it's a hinge type mating to the cabane struts. This is the way to go. The rest of the airplane is fairly OK and if you just build it using standard practices it should be fine. But if you're going two place, the junior has outrigger gear anyway! It's a great little airplane, though. I've got a cabin ace on one of the multitude of backbuners in my head.. Someday, maybe, if I get this one on the front burner finished before I pop my clogs. Bertie |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
... "W P Dixon" : Anyone ever had anything to do with this plane, I really like it. Just wonder about the gear used on modern versions. You can check out the Baby Ace webpage; http://exp-aircraft.com/aircraft/ace/ace.html |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks Doc,
I had seen the site, it really is a nice looking little plane. They do not seem to be using the gear setup the original used, and I really do like the original setup. Sure there are better ways to do it, but I just like the simplicity that Corbin used in the design. I would imagine I would go with a more modern wheel and brake system but I would like the use the original gear set up and not have to go with a Cub type gear. Maybe my train of thought is I want a real Baby Ace and not a clone of Piper gear etc., hoping to get some input here to see if "I" am the only one who thinks it is feasible to do and do right. I will go with a Continental 65, just because they are easier to get ahold of than the original powerplants. Patrick "Doc Font" wrote in message ... "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ... "W P Dixon" : Anyone ever had anything to do with this plane, I really like it. Just wonder about the gear used on modern versions. You can check out the Baby Ace webpage; http://exp-aircraft.com/aircraft/ace/ace.html |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"W P Dixon"
: Yep, I am thinking on the lines of the cabin ace myself and I have noticed the wing attach. If anyone knows of a reported failure I'd sure like to know about it. May have to see if I can get ahold of the old Mechanix Illustrated article of Paul's as well. I think I'd be an idiot to pay for plans from a place in Georgia or whomever, when they are public record in any library since being published. I imagine they have made improvements, but it comes to a point when you are overkilling something and just adding weight..so I am trying to see where that fine line ends and starts I guess you could say. Just had a look at the old magazine article. Teh strut attach points aren't the best design either, but they're not the worst form that period. The wing attach points would definitely have to be redone, though. The straps simply aren't a good idea. The 30s version also has no jury struts. If you omit them and the main struts are of insufficient dia and thickness to resist flexing under compression, you'll get control reversal when your wings warp as you aply aileron! (I know someone who rebuilt a T-craft and did exactly this). The strut attachments to the lower fuselage are OK, though I'd alter the rear one and subsitute something closer to the front, but the rear strap arrangement would be OK. The top fuse to wing weldments really have to be changed, though. There wouldn't be a lot of extra weight. Couple of pounds, tops. Just looking at them now, though, It's hard to see how it would be done with the cross members buched up around the wing area. Someone has built a replica of that airplane form original plans, though, and you could always ask him! Just found him, in fact... http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNum...Numbertxt=386m Good luck! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"W P Dixon"
: Thanks Doc, I had seen the site, it really is a nice looking little plane. They do not seem to be using the gear setup the original used, and I really do like the original setup. Sure there are better ways to do it, but I just like the simplicity that Corbin used in the design. I would imagine I would go with a more modern wheel and brake system but I would like the use the original gear set up and not have to go with a Cub type gear. Maybe my train of thought is I want a real Baby Ace and not a clone of Piper gear etc., hoping to get some input here to see if "I" am the only one who thinks it is feasible to do and do right. I will go with a Continental 65, just because they are easier to get ahold of than the original powerplants. Well, you could easily powere it with anyhting that will give you 30 or more HP and it will go like a rocket with 65! Even if you build one with modern plans, it would be a snap to put outrigger gear on it. It's been done to a few airplanes that never had it. There's a few Hatz bipes with outrigger gear, for example. As long as your struts mount to a substantial part of the fuselage, that is, a good solid cluster, you're fine. Since it was originally designed to do that, no problem. If you go for the two seater Junior Ace, or the Super ace, they both still use outrigger gear anyway. The outrigger gear, in conjunction with a nice long travel strut (shihc were in use with airplanes of the period) would also give you excellent rough field capability.. Bertie |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fly Baby Plans Sets Wanted | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | June 9th 04 06:18 AM |
Fly Baby Plans Off the Market | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 9 | June 6th 04 02:45 PM |
New Home of the Fly Baby | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 17 | February 20th 04 02:38 PM |
100th anniversary baby born | [email protected] | Home Built | 7 | December 19th 03 05:25 AM |
Tire talc...baby powder? | No Spam | Owning | 12 | August 8th 03 05:03 PM |