Baby Ace

[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?

--
Patrick Dixon
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

[Bertie the Bunyip]

"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.

[W P Dixon]

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.

[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?

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.
>

[Bertie the Bunyip]

"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

[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.

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

[Doc Font]

> > "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

[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.

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

[Bertie the Bunyip]

"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/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=386m

Good luck!

[Bertie the Bunyip]

"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

[W P Dixon]

Yeah the one strap for the wing join just "needs" something doesn't it! ;)
As for the main struts,..if you use the design diameters it should be ok
wouldn't you think. They did build these as a kit and of course I am just
guessing here (since I wasn't alive wayyy back then! ;) ) but if there had
been a warping problem as "built as designed" wouldn't we have heard about
it? Not arguing with you mind you, it is a distinct possibility with "not
the right stuff" for the job. I may have to just get an old mechanix
Illustrated copy and see the changes Paul made,...heck I may like his design
as well.

Patrick

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "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/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=386m
>
> Good luck!

[Bertie the Bunyip]

"W P Dixon" >
:

> Yeah the one strap for the wing join just "needs" something doesn't
> it! ;) As for the main struts,..if you use the design diameters it
> should be ok wouldn't you think. They did build these as a kit and of
> course I am just guessing here (since I wasn't alive wayyy back then!
> ;) ) but if there had been a warping problem as "built as designed"
> wouldn't we have heard about it? Not arguing with you mind you, it is
> a distinct possibility with "not the right stuff" for the job. I may
> have to just get an old mechanix Illustrated copy and see the changes
> Paul made,...heck I may like his design as well.
>
>
I prefer the look of the thirties, one, of course. The outrigger gear just
looks right for it. It'd be nearly as tough as cub gear and I'd say Paul
only changed it for reasons of fashion. The other changes he's made are
much more significant though and looking at both side by side, they make a
lot of sense.
He changed very little aside from the wing attachments, though. Tail
fittings all look pretty similar, tubing sizes are all OK and since they
only used mild steel on the 30's version IIRC, it'd all be a lot stronger
anyway.
I've been through a lot of plans of similar airplanes, and they all have
wing fittings similar to the 50's and later Aces. The strut to spar
fittings look to me to be a bit weak as well. That wraparound thing they
did is much more easily and efficiently dealt with by simply using a
slightly more robust and smaller fiting along with a couple of 1/8th
doublers, as is modern practice. Probably be lighter as well as stronger
too!

[Bertie the Bunyip]

"W P Dixon" >
:

> Yeah the one strap for the wing join just "needs" something doesn't
> it! ;) As for the main struts,..if you use the design diameters it
> should be ok wouldn't you think. They did build these as a kit and of
> course I am just guessing here (since I wasn't alive wayyy back then!
> ;) ) but if there had been a warping problem as "built as designed"
> wouldn't we have heard about it? Not arguing with you mind you, it is
> a distinct possibility with "not the right stuff" for the job. I may
> have to just get an old mechanix Illustrated copy and see the changes
> Paul made,...heck I may like his design as well.
>

Oh yes, the struts. on the relatively short wing, they're probably OK the
way they are. Pope Paul added jury struts to his, but he also used
streamlined tubing which is narower along the short axis and so might have
been more flexible (though I doubt it)
Lots of similar airplanes ofthe period had no jury struts (monocoupe 113
and 70, ST. Louis Cardinal, Inland Sport, etc) so it may be that round,
faired struts are less flexible in compression.
The other major change i can see is that Paul deleted the "N" strut on the
open model and subsituted a drag wire in it's place. The cabin model
doesn't use one, of course.
People have built cabin models of the modern designs as well. Most of these
are "convertible" i.e., they are plexiglass enclosures that can be taken
off in summer, but a few have built them permanently enclosed by adding a
fairing from the trailing edge straight back to the stab.
There's also at least one undr construction using the rotec radial engine,
which should really look the business when it flies!

[Scott]

Well, if you want a "real" Baby Ace, you won't be able to use modern
wheels and brakes or a 65 HP Continental. If you make those
concessions, you may as well go for the Cub type gear as well. Probably
less drag as well.

If you are interested in the "real" Corbens, you can check out a copy of
the original Corben Literature at my website
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/ as it shows what the originals looked
like. It even shows the cabin version. If you are truely interested in
the Ace series, you can also sign up for the CorbenAces email list from
the site.

Scott
Corben Junior Ace

W P Dixon wrote:
> 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
>
>