how roll fuselage/engine package

[Dick]

Having a "better <G>" idea, decided to hang my engine on M1 fuselage without
wings in order to have the ability to roll it outside the hanger for breakin
efforts.

After struggling with several versions of a wooden framed, wheeled "wagon",
a thought occurred that I may be "reinventing the wheel" (as usual).

Has anyone out there found a method to move the "engine on fuselage without
wings" or move a completed plane with one wing removed?? The M1 has main
gear on the wings, not on the fuselage.

Thanks, Dick

[Highflyer]

"Dick" > wrote in message
m...
> Having a "better <G>" idea, decided to hang my engine on M1 fuselage
> without wings in order to have the ability to roll it outside the hanger
> for breakin efforts.
>
> After struggling with several versions of a wooden framed, wheeled
> "wagon", a thought occurred that I may be "reinventing the wheel" (as
> usual).
>
> Has anyone out there found a method to move the "engine on fuselage
> without wings" or move a completed plane with one wing removed?? The M1
> has main gear on the wings, not on the fuselage.
>
> Thanks, Dick
>

In order to move my Piper Apache fuselage around the hangar while I have the
wings off I made up a little cart. It is basically a frame with two ends
and a bottom mounted on large heavy duty casters. I stretched a length of
carpeting about three feet wide across the frame ends to make a wide carpet
saddle that the fuselage lays on. When I park it I put a two by six through
the spar openings and take a bit of a strain on it with the jacks. That
steadys the fuselage in the sling. The third wheel on the ground also
steadys it fore and aft. It looks kind of like an old bedstead with carpet
slung from the headboard to the footboard and the airplane across the bed!
:-)

Highflyer

[guynoir]

I don't know what an "M1" is. I think you you plan on mounting your
engine to the fuselage, then mounting the fuselage on some sort of
wheeled table so that you can move the assembly around, and also run the
engine (not while you're moving it around, of course). And you want it
to be simple, cheap and easy to build, made out of 2 x 4's held together
with drywall screws and duct tape.

I happen to know a very simple solution, much simpler than building a
custom carriage. This method has been thoroughly tested and it really
is the way that at least 99% of successful aircraft builders do it.
Attach both wings and the landing gear to the aircraft, and then hook up
all engine and airframe systems before running the engine. That way the
aircraft is easy to move around on its own wheels, you have a safe
engine test stand for engine break in, and you're running the aircraft
as a complete system, the way it was designed to work. Why would anyone
want to do it any differently?

Skystar Aircraft, manufacturers of the Kitfox, almost went bankrupt when
a runaway 182 went through their hangar. The A&P mechanic decided to
test run the engine without installing the pilot seats. He had the
throttle linkage backwards. When the engine ran away from him, he lost
his balance in the unfurnished cockpit and became a baggage compartment
passenger while the 182 made a full throttle tour of Skystar's hangar.
$300,000 in uninsured damage for Skystar.

That sounds like the kind of adventure you're preparing for.


Dick wrote:
> Having a "better <G>" idea, decided to hang my engine on M1 fuselage without
> wings in order to have the ability to roll it outside the hanger for breakin
> efforts.
>
> After struggling with several versions of a wooden framed, wheeled "wagon",
> a thought occurred that I may be "reinventing the wheel" (as usual).
>
> Has anyone out there found a method to move the "engine on fuselage without
> wings" or move a completed plane with one wing removed?? The M1 has main
> gear on the wings, not on the fuselage.
>
> Thanks, Dick
>
>

--
John Kimmel


Naturally, these humorous remarks are all entirely my own opinion, based
solely
on rumor, supposition, innuendo and damned lies, and should be
interpreted in a
spirit of fun. My memory is faulty, also.

[Dick]

Thanks, the 3' carpeting sling and stabilizing 2x4 thru spar openings is a
good idea.
"Highflyer" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dick" > wrote in message
> m...
>> Having a "better <G>" idea, decided to hang my engine on M1 fuselage
>> without wings in order to have the ability to roll it outside the hanger
>> for breakin efforts.
>>
>> After struggling with several versions of a wooden framed, wheeled
>> "wagon", a thought occurred that I may be "reinventing the wheel" (as
>> usual).
>>
>> Has anyone out there found a method to move the "engine on fuselage
>> without wings" or move a completed plane with one wing removed?? The M1
>> has main gear on the wings, not on the fuselage.
>>
>> Thanks, Dick
>>
>
> In order to move my Piper Apache fuselage around the hangar while I have
> the wings off I made up a little cart. It is basically a frame with two
> ends and a bottom mounted on large heavy duty casters. I stretched a
> length of carpeting about three feet wide across the frame ends to make a
> wide carpet saddle that the fuselage lays on. When I park it I put a two
> by six through the spar openings and take a bit of a strain on it with the
> jacks. That steadys the fuselage in the sling. The third wheel on the
> ground also steadys it fore and aft. It looks kind of like an old
> bedstead with carpet slung from the headboard to the footboard and the
> airplane across the bed! :-)
>
> Highflyer
>
>
>
>

[Dick]

Midget Mustang, single seater experimental.

There are 2 other planes crammed into the hanger and having wings installed
is not an option at this time. The builders on the field have broke-in
engines on a fuselage without wings several times previously. Safety of
course is most important. I find builders innovative and some, basically
cheap (myself).
Hence the 2x4 approach. Although my stand has no duct tape, we did race a
formula Vee back in the 60's and sometimes used duct tape for securing body
skin at 95-100 mph..

"guynoir" > wrote in message
...
>I don't know what an "M1" is. I think you you plan on mounting your engine
>to the fuselage, then mounting the fuselage on some sort of wheeled table
>so that you can move the assembly around, and also run the engine (not
>while you're moving it around, of course). And you want it to be simple,
>cheap and easy to build, made out of 2 x 4's held together with drywall
>screws and duct tape.
>
> I happen to know a very simple solution, much simpler than building a
> custom carriage. This method has been thoroughly tested and it really is
> the way that at least 99% of successful aircraft builders do it. Attach
> both wings and the landing gear to the aircraft, and then hook up all
> engine and airframe systems before running the engine. That way the
> aircraft is easy to move around on its own wheels, you have a safe engine
> test stand for engine break in, and you're running the aircraft as a
> complete system, the way it was designed to work. Why would anyone want
> to do it any differently?
>
> Skystar Aircraft, manufacturers of the Kitfox, almost went bankrupt when a
> runaway 182 went through their hangar. The A&P mechanic decided to test
> run the engine without installing the pilot seats. He had the throttle
> linkage backwards. When the engine ran away from him, he lost his balance
> in the unfurnished cockpit and became a baggage compartment passenger
> while the 182 made a full throttle tour of Skystar's hangar. $300,000 in
> uninsured damage for Skystar.
>
> That sounds like the kind of adventure you're preparing for.
>
>
> Dick wrote:
>> Having a "better <G>" idea, decided to hang my engine on M1 fuselage
>> without wings in order to have the ability to roll it outside the hanger
>> for breakin efforts.
>>
>> After struggling with several versions of a wooden framed, wheeled
>> "wagon", a thought occurred that I may be "reinventing the wheel" (as
>> usual).
>>
>> Has anyone out there found a method to move the "engine on fuselage
>> without wings" or move a completed plane with one wing removed?? The M1
>> has main gear on the wings, not on the fuselage.
>>
>> Thanks, Dick
>
> --
> John Kimmel
>
>
> Naturally, these humorous remarks are all entirely my own opinion, based
> solely
> on rumor, supposition, innuendo and damned lies, and should be interpreted
> in a
> spirit of fun. My memory is faulty, also.
>

[guynoir]

I still don't understand why you want to break in an engine on a
non-flying aircraft. What's the point? You're going to have to finish
putting the aircraft together anyway, and it will probably be days,
weeks or months between the assembly and actual airworthiness. Why not
run the engine then?

Dick wrote:
> Midget Mustang, single seater experimental.
>
> There are 2 other planes crammed into the hanger and having wings installed
> is not an option at this time. The builders on the field have broke-in
> engines on a fuselage without wings several times previously. Safety of
> course is most important. I find builders innovative and some, basically
> cheap (myself).
> Hence the 2x4 approach. Although my stand has no duct tape, we did race a
> formula Vee back in the 60's and sometimes used duct tape for securing body
> skin at 95-100 mph..
>
>

--
John Kimmel


Naturally, these humorous remarks are all entirely my own opinion, based
solely
on rumor, supposition, innuendo and damned lies, and should be
interpreted in a
spirit of fun. My memory is faulty, also.

[Dick]

I don't know if you're pulling my leg or not,but..

some reasons are:

Running the engine gives a lot of personal satisfaction; debugging the
instrumentation and operating parameters as actually connected to the planes
panel and not on a test stand; something to do while awaiting parts,
whatever; can figure out exhaust and mufflers layout; can figure out cowling
fit; can solve any heating/cooling problems; etc, etc..

Boils down to my project and whatever makes me happy <G>
"guynoir" > wrote in message
...
>I still don't understand why you want to break in an engine on a non-flying
>aircraft. What's the point? You're going to have to finish putting the
>aircraft together anyway, and it will probably be days, weeks or months
>between the assembly and actual airworthiness. Why not run the engine
>then?
>
> Dick wrote:
>> Midget Mustang, single seater experimental.
>>
>> There are 2 other planes crammed into the hanger and having wings
>> installed is not an option at this time. The builders on the field have
>> broke-in engines on a fuselage without wings several times previously.
>> Safety of course is most important. I find builders innovative and some,
>> basically cheap (myself).
>> Hence the 2x4 approach. Although my stand has no duct tape, we did race a
>> formula Vee back in the 60's and sometimes used duct tape for securing
>> body skin at 95-100 mph..
>>
>>
>
> --
> John Kimmel
>
>
> Naturally, these humorous remarks are all entirely my own opinion, based
> solely
> on rumor, supposition, innuendo and damned lies, and should be interpreted
> in a
> spirit of fun. My memory is faulty, also.
>

[larsen-tools]

> Boils down to my project and whatever makes me happy <G>

See........ Dick is a dick.


"Dick" > wrote in message
...
> I don't know if you're pulling my leg or not,but..
>
> some reasons are:
>
> Running the engine gives a lot of personal satisfaction; debugging the
> instrumentation and operating parameters as actually connected to the
planes
> panel and not on a test stand; something to do while awaiting parts,
> whatever; can figure out exhaust and mufflers layout; can figure out
cowling
> fit; can solve any heating/cooling problems; etc, etc..
>
> "guynoir" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I still don't understand why you want to break in an engine on a
non-flying
> >aircraft. What's the point? You're going to have to finish putting the
> >aircraft together anyway, and it will probably be days, weeks or months
> >between the assembly and actual airworthiness. Why not run the engine
> >then?
> >
> > Dick wrote:
> >> Midget Mustang, single seater experimental.
> >>
> >> There are 2 other planes crammed into the hanger and having wings
> >> installed is not an option at this time. The builders on the field have
> >> broke-in engines on a fuselage without wings several times previously.
> >> Safety of course is most important. I find builders innovative and
some,
> >> basically cheap (myself).
> >> Hence the 2x4 approach. Although my stand has no duct tape, we did race
a
> >> formula Vee back in the 60's and sometimes used duct tape for securing
> >> body skin at 95-100 mph..
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > John Kimmel
> >
> >
> > Naturally, these humorous remarks are all entirely my own opinion, based
> > solely
> > on rumor, supposition, innuendo and damned lies, and should be
interpreted
> > in a
> > spirit of fun. My memory is faulty, also.
> >
>
>

[guynoir]

Your reasons for running the engine suck. A proper, deliberate and
methodical approach to finishing your aircraft will result in a finished
flying aircraft in the minimum time and with fewest problems. Disasters
like the Skystar incident are rare, but pursuit of instant gratification
is all the invitation needed.

I agree with your reasons for having the engine mounted on the fuselage.
You have already figured out a way to support the fuselage with the
engine on it, since you have the fuselage completed and the engine is
mounted on it. It seems to me that there is no obstacle to your
completing the aircraft. Final debugging can be done with the wings and
landing gear installed, as has been the usual practice for everyone else
who's ever built a midget mustang or mustang 2.

Dick wrote:
> I don't know if you're pulling my leg or not,but..
>
> some reasons are:
>
> Running the engine gives a lot of personal satisfaction; debugging the
> instrumentation and operating parameters as actually connected to the planes
> panel and not on a test stand; something to do while awaiting parts,
> whatever; can figure out exhaust and mufflers layout; can figure out cowling
> fit; can solve any heating/cooling problems; etc, etc..
>
> Boils down to my project and whatever makes me happy <G>
> "guynoir" > wrote in message
>
--
John Kimmel


Naturally, these humorous remarks are all entirely my own opinion, based
solely
on rumor, supposition, innuendo and damned lies, and should be
interpreted in a
spirit of fun. My memory is faulty, also.

[[email protected]]

I was originally going to suggest making a structure that would bolt to
the ends of the main spar fittings, but that could impart stress on
those fittings that could damage them. The bed/carpet sling idea is
OK, except that you will be running the engine, not just moving the
assembly around. How about making a wood structure that "sandwiches"
the wing stub ( say about a foot outboard of the fuselage sides ) Think
of the "clapboard" that the movie industry uses before each "take" of a
scene. Cut out the shape of the airfoil between (2) 2 x 8's. Hinge
the 2 x 8's on one end and bolt them together on the opposite end.
Then extend a vertical board on the forward end of the structure and
put casters/wheels on the end. You could arrange the casters far
enough forward that you wouldn't have to add weight to the tail with
the wings removed. Make one for each side and maybe secure each
structure to the other one for rigidity. Of course making the whole
thing stout as hell and protect the wing. Might work.

Neal

[Dick]

Neal,
Leaning towards a stub-out wing section with permanent gear mounted. This
allows me to: complete braking system; still fit project alongside my flying
plane; continue folding wing mechanism developement; etc.

Thanks for positive thoughts, Dick
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>I was originally going to suggest making a structure that would bolt to
> the ends of the main spar fittings, but that could impart stress on
> those fittings that could damage them. The bed/carpet sling idea is
> OK, except that you will be running the engine, not just moving the
> assembly around. How about making a wood structure that "sandwiches"
> the wing stub ( say about a foot outboard of the fuselage sides ) Think
> of the "clapboard" that the movie industry uses before each "take" of a
> scene. Cut out the shape of the airfoil between (2) 2 x 8's. Hinge
> the 2 x 8's on one end and bolt them together on the opposite end.
> Then extend a vertical board on the forward end of the structure and
> put casters/wheels on the end. You could arrange the casters far
> enough forward that you wouldn't have to add weight to the tail with
> the wings removed. Make one for each side and maybe secure each
> structure to the other one for rigidity. Of course making the whole
> thing stout as hell and protect the wing. Might work.
>
> Neal
>