childressj
Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2013
- Messages
- 17
- Reaction score
- 8
I own N22BT an old O-200 Cont. powered Baby (1973) which I did not build and I do not own any version of the plans. If I had the current plans, I would be interested in whether there have been changes with respect to the way the dual flying/landing wires attach to the plates attached to the spars. Mine originally had the wires attached (using fork ends) to those plates individually-one wire to each plate presumably to provide redundancy for each wire. The wires however are at an angle from the spar plates and therefore half of them tend to pull the plates away from the spar while the opposite wire pulls the plate towards the spar. Were the plans revised to change this or is this arrangement on the current plans?
I have changed mine by adding a fitting between the plates attached to the spars, opening up the holes in those plates from .187 to .250 and using a ¼ bolt to attach the new fitting between the aluminum spar plates. The wires now attach to the new fittings in such a way as to allow the wires to angle away from the spar attachment without pulling the plates away from the spar. I lose some redundancy perhaps but am willing to do that to eliminate the angular misalignment.
I also noticed that my outboard aileron attach bolts have no means of being safetyed. Do the current plans address this? I am relying on thread locker. I have a version of this portion of the plans in which it is not clear where the rotation is to take place with respect to the bushing. I assume the correct place for the rotation is at the bolt/bushing and not the O.D. of the bushing with the bushing hole. Have the plans been clarified in this regard and perhaps some means of safetying the bolt suggested?
BTW, my Baby was one of those suffering from the cabane weldment drawing error resulting in the upper wing having about 5 degrees too much incidence. I corrected it after it freightened 10 owners in 23 years. On landing the upper wing would stall and the lower wing with center of lift behind c.g. would raise the tail and put you on your nose costing a prop and maybe a crankshaft or worse. It was corrected with a fitting at the rear spar attachement raising the rear spar exactly 1 inch. It lands correctly now and the trailing edge is no longer down in the windscreen. In order to reuse the wires, I eliminated almost all the dihedral but who needs or wants it in an aerobatic airplane anyway?
I could not tolerate the locking tail wheel, so fitted a long shank, small wheel steerable one. I love it but I do not allow anyone else to fly the thing.
I have double braced tail-no need for pitch trim.
Previous owner did structural mod allowing the reclined seat back; I can't imagine it otherwise. Is this standard now?
I have changed mine by adding a fitting between the plates attached to the spars, opening up the holes in those plates from .187 to .250 and using a ¼ bolt to attach the new fitting between the aluminum spar plates. The wires now attach to the new fittings in such a way as to allow the wires to angle away from the spar attachment without pulling the plates away from the spar. I lose some redundancy perhaps but am willing to do that to eliminate the angular misalignment.
I also noticed that my outboard aileron attach bolts have no means of being safetyed. Do the current plans address this? I am relying on thread locker. I have a version of this portion of the plans in which it is not clear where the rotation is to take place with respect to the bushing. I assume the correct place for the rotation is at the bolt/bushing and not the O.D. of the bushing with the bushing hole. Have the plans been clarified in this regard and perhaps some means of safetying the bolt suggested?
BTW, my Baby was one of those suffering from the cabane weldment drawing error resulting in the upper wing having about 5 degrees too much incidence. I corrected it after it freightened 10 owners in 23 years. On landing the upper wing would stall and the lower wing with center of lift behind c.g. would raise the tail and put you on your nose costing a prop and maybe a crankshaft or worse. It was corrected with a fitting at the rear spar attachement raising the rear spar exactly 1 inch. It lands correctly now and the trailing edge is no longer down in the windscreen. In order to reuse the wires, I eliminated almost all the dihedral but who needs or wants it in an aerobatic airplane anyway?
I could not tolerate the locking tail wheel, so fitted a long shank, small wheel steerable one. I love it but I do not allow anyone else to fly the thing.
I have double braced tail-no need for pitch trim.
Previous owner did structural mod allowing the reclined seat back; I can't imagine it otherwise. Is this standard now?
Last edited:
