trailer frame

[Colin Roney]

I am considering modifying my glider trailer to incorporate
an extended fuselage support frame to permit rigging on
the lines of the modern lift-top trailers.
The frame/channelling needs to be about 2m long with a
section of about 60 x 50mm with tapered sides. Has
anyone had a go at making one of these frames and where
to obtain the parts? Is the chanelling in aluminium or some
other metal mix and are there any designs available?

[[email protected]]

On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 8:30:05 AM UTC-4, Colin Roney wrote:
> I am considering modifying my glider trailer to incorporate
> an extended fuselage support frame to permit rigging on
> the lines of the modern lift-top trailers.
> The frame/channelling needs to be about 2m long with a
> section of about 60 x 50mm with tapered sides. Has
> anyone had a go at making one of these frames and where
> to obtain the parts? Is the chanelling in aluminium or some
> other metal mix and are there any designs available?

I constructed one of fabricated aluminum and found it to be less than satisfactory.
Having had a trailer that had a track/frame like you describe I would suggest the following:
Steel channel tracks about 50mm wide with depth of sides of about 25 mm. Wall thickness 3-4mm. In the US these could be produce from 2 pieces of 1 inch steel angle having 1/8 inch wall thickness and welded into a channel configuration. Cross members would be same wall thickness and larger section.
Good luck
UH

[[email protected]]

Another thing to consider is the trailer CG, your mod will add weight to the aft end. When fitting out the trailer for my Albatross, I cut down an old 601 trailer by removing about 6' off the end. That made the tongue weight more than I could lift, so I added 50# of lead to the aft end.............that made the trailer sway side to side so bad that I was forced to remove the lead weight and get 2 people to lift the tongue! Recommend against adding any aft modifications.
JJ

[Papa3[_2_]]

Ditto what JJ said. There was a syndicate that owned a PW5 at my field years ago. Their trailer was a square section with a huge cradle that rolled out the back with the glider. It probably weighed 3,000 pounds... for a PW5. Made handling a nightmare.

We have a number of 1st/2nd generation glass ships on the field with older tube trailers (ASW-19, Libelle, etc.). Spending some time on optimizing the fuselage dolly as it rolls out the back gate and especially the wing root dollies (stability in particular) is probably a way easier path to better rigging. JMHO.

Erik Mann (P3)

[[email protected]]

On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 11:51:33 AM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
> Ditto what JJ said. There was a syndicate that owned a PW5 at my field years ago. Their trailer was a square section with a huge cradle that rolled out the back with the glider. It probably weighed 3,000 pounds... for a PW5. Made handling a nightmare.
>
> We have a number of 1st/2nd generation glass ships on the field with older tube trailers (ASW-19, Libelle, etc.). Spending some time on optimizing the fuselage dolly as it rolls out the back gate and especially the wing root dollies (stability in particular) is probably a way easier path to better rigging. JMHO.
>
> Erik Mann (P3)

I agree. I made the rash assumption that the trailer does not have a fold down door. If it has one, make that work. Weight in back is never an improvement.
UH

[Colin Roney]

At 16:31 30 October 2017,
wrote:
>On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 11:51:33 AM UTC-4,
Papa3 wrote:
>> Ditto what JJ said. There was a syndicate that
owned a PW5 at my field
>y=
>ears ago. Their trailer was a square section with a
huge cradle that
>rolle=



Many thanks for your contributions to my question.
Much appreciated.



>d out the back with the glider. It probably weighed
3,000 pounds... for a
>=
>PW5. Made handling a nightmare.=20
>>=20
>> We have a number of 1st/2nd generation glass ships
on the field with
>olde=
>r tube trailers (ASW-19, Libelle, etc.). Spending
some time on
>optimiz=
>ing the fuselage dolly as it rolls out the back gate and
especially the
>win=
>g root dollies (stability in particular) is probably a way
easier path to
>b=
>etter rigging. JMHO.=20
>>=20
>> Erik Mann (P3)
>
>I agree. I made the rash assumption that the trailer
does not have a fold
>d=
>own door. If it has one, make that work. Weight in back
is never an
>improve=
>ment.
>UH
>