It Flys!!

[rockiedog2]

>>>N end of S bound rodent.

Doolin you changed my post didn't you. figures.

i've seen you say s*** on the list. now what kinda example is that?

[Dan_]

Dint change your post... I added a couple of entries to the filter to catch the deleted space work around...

Perhaps it is time to turn the dirty word filter off. 

I don't get why this is such a big deal..?

[riorex2002]

Joe
If you would just turn that darn rodent 180 he'd have the sun shining out his #@$#.see we don't need no #@$# filter.
Rex

[Dan_]

Joe is just stirring the s_it pot to see what jumps out.  Must be raining in Grenada, he is a little bored... 

[rfeenstra]

" Rob, sounds like you are re-playing a lot of what we did with Stubby to get the flying CG right." 

Doesn't everyone go through some playing to get it flying right?  I added 4.5 lbs. more lead to the tail.  That put the Cg at about 30% of cord.  It's really starting to fly nice.  The trim tab is much more effective, and I can flare to where I drop it in - NOT GOOD!  Need landing practice.  The sight picture is soooo different than what I'm used to.  Practice, practice, practice!

Once I get it to where I like how it handles I'll have to figure out how to get rid of the tail weight and keep the CG in the 30-33% range.  Steve put me on to an electronic ignition system that would get rid of the mags; there's 16 lbs off the nose.  That would give me room to move the engine back a good 2", maybe 3.  Then with a battery for the ignition in the tail, I'd be there.  I'd have to add a wind turbine for power.  All together, I think my  empty weight would go down.

Having GREAT fun!

Rob

[Tom H]

Rob, you have a nice looking Eagle, there.  Used latex paint, too, kept cost down.

It's a good feeling when you make changes that go in the right direction, like sneaking up on the correct flying CG.  Starts to land like a real airplane should.

I noticed on the pictures that you made the gear legs straight down, not canted forward.  And, on another forum, you put out all your weights, arms, balances, etc., and said your tail wheel weight was something like 15 lbs.  Ours is 34 lbs., with the canted gear.  That's with the airplane sitting level, so, on the ground, the tail weight is even higher, and picking the tail up for ground handling is a load.

I've believe that the canted gear is not needed once the correct configuration is achieved to produce a flying CG at around 30%.  You are right at that point with the flying CG.  Do you notice any tendency to nose over with the straight gear when you taxi, brake, etc?

I'm bringing this up to allow any new builders to have some actual operational data when they choose either straight or canted gear.

[rfeenstra]

I've never felt a tendency to nose over, though I really only use the brakes on runup with full up elevator and to make a sharp turn.  As I get more used to the plane I will start playing with picking the tail up off the ground while holding the brakes to get a feel for  what it will do.  I really don;t think it will be a problem.  I can tell that the tail doesn't come up on takeoff nearly as quickly as it did on its maiden voyage.  Today I did try just once to use a lot of forward stick pinning it on the ground during one takeoff.  I felt nothing unusual. 

May tail weight level was about 18 lbs.  Now I've added another 12.  I'm glad I didn't build the canted gear!

Did a lot of landings today trying to get a feel for how best to land it.  I still need to land with power.  It just does not feel like I can get the nose up without some throttle.  Seems about 1000 rpm works.  I practiced some idle approaches today.  Steve K. is right - you gotta point the nose down!  To maintain a 40 mph approach, the windshield is almost all ground, not much horizon!  It's amazing how draggy these things are. Our cabin versions probably more so.  I'm used to the Comanche which has a great glide angle.  Even the Champ had a much shallower approach.  It's just something to get used to.  It's actually kind of fun!

I'm not the worlds most coordinated pilot so it's for to finesse this  thing on the ground, but I'll get there.  Having a ball!  Put about 3 more hours on it this afternoon with at least a dozen landings.

Rob

[Tom H]

Well, with your adjustments to get flying CG correct, your tail wheel weight is getting close to Stubby's.  So, even with the non-canted gear legs you should have plenty of weight on the tail wheel to resist nose-over on the ground.  But, the non-canted gear does reduce the weight on the tail wheel a little bit, as compared to a canted set-up, so a little less to lift by hand.  Keep us apprised of the situation.

The approach to landing in Stubby is relatively steep, especially with power at idle, as compared to other airplanes I've flown.  The proper CG allows the plane to flare with no or little rpm.  But, holding the steep approach until the last moment, then flaring, seems to take some practice.  But, it can be done.

I was up with a friend in his 172 a while back and he let me make some landings.  I had a hard time getting used to the shallow approach and keeping the speed correct.   The DE has little tendency to gain speed.  As you said, you have to point it at the ground, compared to larger airplanes.

By the way, Stubby is not one of the cabin versions.  It's occupant area is per plans, but I added doors.  So, if anything, I think I have reduced drag by a bit.

[rfeenstra]

For some reason, I was thinking that it was a cabin version!  Probably the doors that threw me off.  Sorry about that.  If I get used to the steep approach, I may have hard time with the Comanche!

[Sam Buchanan]

For some reason, I was thinking that it was a cabin version!  Probably the doors that threw me off.  Sorry about that.  If I get used to the steep approach, I may have hard time with the Comanche!

Or...just carry some power and you can make the approach as shallow (Comanche-ish) as you wish.

[rfeenstra]

It's kind of fun to point the nose at the ground.  I feel like a dive bomber! (Not really that drastic.)  But yes, carrying a little power makes for a very conventional approach.  Nice morning here, I need to go flying!

Rob