EAABipe40FF
Established Member
Joined: May/29/2009
Location: Springfield, WV
Online Status: 
Posts: 52
 EAA Biplane
|
   Topic: Flying an EAA Biplane?
Posted: Jun/12/2009 at 04:44 |
|
I've about completed the assembly and minor restoration of my EAA Bipe and am ready to contact my A&P for it's inspection....
Please, some pointers on it's take-off/flight properties.(125 horse) I've done highspeed taxi up to about 50mph and find it's ground handling very good. One thing I find somewhat "odd"? On initial throttle application/take-off roll, it take almost full forward stick to get the tail up? Maybe this is normal but as I recall my Pitts(150/S1C), I was able to get the tail up almost at once. I've done high speed taxi in Glen's AcroSportII up to about 60mph and found the same to be true of it. I suspect this is normal and these aircraft just are not a Pitts and I need to do it different... I just don't want to find something "odd" after I'm committed to flight..
I'd like comment and suggestions on take-off technique as I approach my first flights in both aircraft.
Thanks,
Jack
|
|
|
|
|
|
akt227
Established Member
Joined: Dec/16/2008
Location: Iowa Park, TX
Online Status:
Posts: 25
Pitts S-1S
|
Posted: Jun/12/2009 at 05:39 |
|
An EAA Bipe (115 hp) was my first biplane. I learned a lot with that little plane. I always preferred to hold the stick just forward of neutral and let the plane fly off when it's ready. If you force the tail up early, you can get a pronounced yaw to the left as the tail comes up. That is due to the prop's precession on the end of that long nose.
Landings are a breeze, by blind biplane standards. It will sink like a brick with idle power, but the wide gear and low speed makes for easier landings. Far easier than a Pitts. My EAA Biplane was the best thing I've ever flown in strong crosswinds.
Don't compare it to a Pitts in flight. It's a tooling around, enjoying the scenery type of plane, not a hot acro ship. You can do basic acro, but the roll rate is pretty low.
Have fun.
|
|
|
|
EAABipe40FF
Established Member
Joined: May/29/2009
Location: Springfield, WV
Online Status:
Posts: 52
EAA Biplane
|
Posted: Jun/12/2009 at 07:28 |
Originally posted by akt227
An EAA Bipe (115 hp) was my first biplane. I learned a lot with that little plane. I always preferred to hold the stick just forward of neutral and let the plane fly off when it's ready. If you force the tail up early, you can get a pronounced yaw to the left as the tail comes up. That is due to the prop's precession on the end of that long nose.Landings are a breeze, by blind biplane standards. It will sink like a brick with idle power, but the wide gear and low speed makes for easier landings. Far easier than a Pitts. My EAA Biplane was the best thing I've ever flown in strong crosswinds.Don't compare it to a Pitts in flight. It's a tooling around, enjoying the scenery type of plane, not a hot acro ship. You can do basic acro, but the roll rate is pretty low.Have fun.
Thanks. That is just what I suspected. I wanted to get the tail up early just now to make sure I didn't go flying..YET. My first flight, make that take-off, in my Pitts was a near diaster. It was in the air already as I brought the tail up to see and I just barely hit the ground again. Things just happened so fast compared to the C120 I had been flying.
After inspection, I will do as you say and I bet things will be fine. I noted the P-effect but it was easily managed. I remember doing the same in the Pitts just "playing" before my first flight and learned that when you push the throttle full forward in a Pitts, you better go flying. I was tail-up doing maybe 50 when I chopped it, almost lost it and never did that again... Yes, the EAA is not a Pitts, I don't think a Pitts is in my playbook anymore?(but I would probably strap one on if offered) :-)
I'm 62 now (was 32 when I had the Pitts)and I think the EAA Bipe will suit me just fine. I was never into acro anyway, I'm a barrel roll/loop guy, I owned the Pitts just because I liked the airplane and all my friends had them with a Skybolt or two thrown in.......
Yes, I think the EAA Bipe will suit me just fine..
Thanks a bunch,
Jack
|
|
|
|
EAABipe40FF
Established Member
Joined: May/29/2009
Location: Springfield, WV
Online Status:
Posts: 52
EAA Biplane
|
Posted: Jun/12/2009 at 07:35 |
|
Oh BTW, what speeds did you look for, if you remember?
Climb, approach and over the fence...?
I'm thinking 75-80 with a bit of power and 65 over the fence but a bit slower might work when I get the hang of it?
There are a couple locals including my A&P who have flown EAA Bipes but I haven't had time to talk to them yet. Always looking for another data point to put into the file....
Thanks again,
Jack
|
|
|
|
akt227
Established Member
Joined: Dec/16/2008
Location: Iowa Park, TX
Online Status:
Posts: 25
Pitts S-1S
|
Posted: Jun/12/2009 at 13:45 |
|
I don't remember what speeds I used. I do remember that my airspeed indicator was none too accurate, so I'm not sure the numbers would do you any good, anyway. I'd start a bit on the high side for approach at first, because the plane is so light and high drag it bleeds off speed in the flare pretty quickly.
As far as acro goes, the most fun maneuver I ever did in that airplane was cutting toilet paper. Loads of fun. When I tore the fabric off for recover I found some paper has forced its way into the wing past the inspection covers.
|
|
|
|
EAABipe40FF
Established Member
Joined: May/29/2009
Location: Springfield, WV
Online Status:
Posts: 52
EAA Biplane
|
Posted: Jun/13/2009 at 04:15 |
Originally posted by akt227
I don't remember what speeds I used. I do remember that my airspeed indicator was none too accurate, so I'm not sure the numbers would do you any good, anyway. I'd start a bit on the high side for approach at first, because the plane is so light and high drag it bleeds off speed in the flare pretty quickly. As far as acro goes, the most fun maneuver I ever did in that airplane was cutting toilet paper. Loads of fun. When I tore the fabric off for recover I found some paper has forced its way into the wing past the inspection covers.
Thanks! Good advice, numbers might vary from plane to plane enough that picking a number and not "flying" the airplane.....well anyway....keep it fast enough to have a margin...
My friend Glen and another pilot who was doing the flying found out the hard way about too slow in his ACII. The other guys first flight and he got too slow, 60-65 as I recall, and then started his round-out too high and fell in about 5'(or so?). Cost him a broken gear, ruined prop and bent crank......
Yea, unless it's been through a complete rebuild, I suspect you might find some toilet paper stuffed somewhere in my old Pitts(N95R)...:-)
Jack
|
|
|
|
darylat8750
Moderator
Joined: Jun/20/2008
Location: laramie, wy, usa
Online Status:
Posts: 587
skybolt
|
Posted: Jun/13/2009 at 07:26 |
|
cutting toilet paper and popping balloons is a time honored tradition.
Edited by darylat8750 - Jun/13/2009 at 07:27
|
|
Daryl in WY
|
|
|
|
EAABipe40FF
Established Member
Joined: May/29/2009
Location: Springfield, WV
Online Status:
Posts: 52
EAA Biplane
|
Posted: Jul/06/2009 at 20:11 |
|
Made first flight and was surprised by out of trim, needed forward stick in climb. Also heavy left wing. Adjusted the horz. stab. a couple washers and bent the existing aileron tab a bit more. 2nd flight was much better but wing still heavy. 80-85 worked ok but yes, speed really bleeds off fast as the nose comes up. Anyway, I'm glad that's over. It had been 34 years since I got out of my last bipe(Starduster Too). I've been flying a J5 cub of late....not really much help, had to rely on the old(and OLDER) memory banks.... :-) Thanks for the help
Jack
|
|
|
|
Neil
Frequent Flyer
Tech' Advisor
Joined: Nov/10/2006
Location: Monroe, LA
Online Status:
Posts: 1256
Acro Sport II
 View My Gallery
|
Posted: Jul/06/2009 at 20:27 |
|
Congrats on the first flight! Takes a while to sort these things out but it's all part of the fun.
Edited by Neil - Jul/06/2009 at 20:29
|
|
|
|
Jerry
Frequent Flyer
Joined: Aug/21/2006
Location: South Jersey - NJ02
Online Status:
Posts: 2062
Radial Engine Skybolt - 73%
View My Gallery
|
Posted: Jul/06/2009 at 21:28 |
Jack
Congrats on the first flight.
Pictures of it when you get a chance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EAABipe40FF
Established Member
Joined: May/29/2009
Location: Springfield, WV
Online Status:
Posts: 52
EAA Biplane
|
Posted: Jul/19/2009 at 04:05 |
Yes Marcia(wife), it really does fly.:-)
Jack
Edited by EAABipe40FF - Jul/19/2009 at 04:09
|
|
|
|
EAABipe40FF
Established Member
Joined: May/29/2009
Location: Springfield, WV
Online Status:
Posts: 52
EAA Biplane
|
Posted: Jul/27/2009 at 07:19 |
|
I've got a couple hours on the EAA Biplane and after the trim issues were fixed, it has been great. Roll is HEAVY IMO but everything else is nice. I used 80mph approach at first but find it ok but too fast over the fence.. I slow to 65-70 at 10 feet or so and even at 60 it will float a bit but of coarse not for long... If I hold it off touchdown is about 50mph. But if I try for full stall/3-point the tailwheel will hit first with mains maybe 6" off. Not too noticeable on grass but it causes a little bounce on hard surface. Handling is very nice even on hard surface, like others suggested, not as intense as my Pitts. 80mph seems like best climb rate with 70 looking more impressive.Stall is just under 50 IAS. Cruise is only about 100-105mph. That's with a cruise prop at 2400rpm that gives 2300 static and 2500 in an 80mph climb. I have the same prop with 2" less pitch which should give about ideal climb with the 125 horse Lyc. and if cruise doesn't suffer too much may be better? I like it. I have not tried any acro and not that interested and likely not too much fun considering the heavy ailerons. I'm self taught in the Pitts many years ago and this ain't a Pitts....
Jack
|
|
|
|
gedson
Established Member
Joined: Dec/23/2008
Location: La Porte In.
Online Status:
Posts: 44
Eaa Biplane
|
Posted: Nov/05/2009 at 11:31 |
1st congrads on the flight. I have question for you concerning the ailerion bell crank. There was a modifciation on these units back in the early 70's. Did you use that mod or use the crank as designed in the plans. Have not had much luck on getting answers to the change. I have the upper wings completed and coverd, the lower wings are completed bu not coverd. not to late to change this out.
Garry
|
|
|
|
EAABipe40FF
Established Member
Joined: May/29/2009
Location: Springfield, WV
Online Status:
Posts: 52
EAA Biplane
|
Posted: Nov/05/2009 at 11:59 |
|
I did not built this airplane. It was built in 1973 using "P2" plans. I have the plans and can check my bellcrank against the plans? Both are at the airport. I'm grounded right now(need flight review) but I'll go look tomorrow if you like.
What was the difference?
Regards,
Jack
PS. I've flown it 10 hours now and I guess it's now pretty normal to me but ailerons are still heavy.
|
|
|
|
gedson
Established Member
Joined: Dec/23/2008
Location: La Porte In.
Online Status:
Posts: 44
Eaa Biplane
|
Posted: Nov/06/2009 at 08:32 |
The difference is in the amount of up aileron deflection given. My understanding is there was some reverse yaw being introduced with the original design. It was around 1970 that the changes were introduced. Article in Sport Aviation. Email me at my home and I can get you a copy.
By the way how does she fly? We are about 1/2 way completed on plans built unit. Only have 2/3's to go. Sometime next year, if my wife lets me alone.
GE
|
|
|
|
EAABipe40FF
Established Member
Joined: May/29/2009
Location: Springfield, WV
Online Status:
Posts: 52
EAA Biplane
|
Posted: Nov/06/2009 at 17:25 |
|
I checked my plans and my crank is very different but I'm not sure it changes travel? That sheet of my plans is dated 1957.
On the plans bellcrank, the arms and 60 degrees from each other and in a different plane with the pushrod to stick passing under the other arm. The arm to the stick is 2 1/4" long and the arm to aileron is 3" long. Pushrod to aileron is is 9 3/8" long(plus rod ends).
On the bellcrank on my airplane, the arms are in the same plane and are approx 120 degrees apart and the stick pushrod has a straight shot off the arm. Arm to stick approx 2 1/2" long and arm to aileron is approx. 4" long. Pushrod to aileron is 5 1/4" long(plus rod ends)
The location of the bellcrank on the rib may be different as maybe the length of the pushrod to the stick?
Airplane flys ok but roll is heavy IMO. I don't have elevator trim and might like it. It's pretty much a single place biplane that is well behaved but personally, I think I'd build something else. Too many inexpensive little biplanes for sale quite cheap of late. :-(
hope this helps
Jack
|
|
|
|
mcc4533
Registered Member
Joined: Jul/05/2007
Location: Chesapeake City, Md.
Online Status:
Posts: 17
Pitts S-1s
|
Posted: Nov/19/2009 at 13:33 |
|
I am building an EAA biplane also, beginning with a started project I got about 2 years ago. My plans are the P-2 plans, and the aileron bellcranks are the type you talk about on the plans, and the ones on my airplane are also the 60 degree/tow separate planes type. They give you the correct differential aileron, namely more up travel and less down travel for a given stick deflection. this reduces adverse yaw, and should reduce rudder required for a given amount of aileron deflection, but shouldn't really make a lot of difference in the roll rate or stick forces required. I am glad to hear about your luck with the first flight. I am building the EAA biplane for my son to use to get used to tailwheel biplanes. I have a Pitts S-1s that I fly myself, and it has spades on the ailerons, so when I get to fly the EAA bipe, I will probably think that I am flying the stearman I used to have. What you said about the handling goes right along with what I have heard, and everyone says that the EAA is a great biplane to get started with. Good flying. Dan M.
|
|
Dan
|
|
|
|
gedson
Established Member
Joined: Dec/23/2008
Location: La Porte In.
Online Status:
Posts: 44
Eaa Biplane
|
Posted: Nov/20/2009 at 04:16 |
|
Noel Becar, wrote a report on his findings after a careful review of the EAA Bi-Planes design and drawings. It was noted in that August 1970 article, in Sport Aviation, that the flaw (his term) to the design was in the bell crank. I quote "One of the most interesting to come to light was the fact that the differentially operated ailerons an this design were operating differentially, but in reverse manner from which they were suppose to operate." end quote. In reviewing the plans I have (also P2) these drawings show the original design. The article goes on state some of the effects of this design. Now I do not wish to promote either design, I would like to find some one that has the up-date design or has made the design change and can tell if it has reduce the problems that could arise. In speaking to Neil, it seem when the AS I was designed the aileron bell cranks were designed to mimic the design on the Pitts. Which in fact looks very similar to the suggested design change from Noel Becar. Any thoughts, any one.
|
|
|
|
Neil
Frequent Flyer
Tech' Advisor
Joined: Nov/10/2006
Location: Monroe, LA
Online Status:
Posts: 1256
Acro Sport II
View My Gallery
|
Posted: Nov/20/2009 at 05:05 |
|
Generally speaking, with a push pull aileron system the aileron bell crank will have a less than 90deg angle.
|
|
|
|
EAABipe40FF
Established Member
Joined: May/29/2009
Location: Springfield, WV
Online Status:
Posts: 52
EAA Biplane
|
Posted: Nov/20/2009 at 05:08 |
|
As I said before, it seems I have the "new/modified" cranks, not the off axis design/different plane in the plans. My airplane flys pretty normal except for rather heavy roll compared to pitch and rudder. Adverse yaw is no worse than my Pitts(as I recall). Can't comment on the other bellcrank?
Jack
Edited by EAABipe40FF - Nov/20/2009 at 05:09
|
|
|
|
