Did some fabric repair on the clipper

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

A little fabric rejuvenation on the wings of the stinson 108-2. 2 jugs.. and leads..

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

Bush master is flying again

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

mmartin1872 wrote:Bush master is flying again

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

That thing is a beast. New landing gear configuration?

CamTom12 wrote:

mmartin1872 wrote:Bush master is flying again

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

That thing is a beast. New landing gear configuration?

New landing gear.. 20" or so of travel. New tail wheel... New panel. Seaplane doors.. it was a fun project

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

Since we are both working on experimental super Stinsons, we have the higher engine weight W+B issue. Im sure you would like to avoid ballast as much as me. Would adding a ~3” leading edge cuff not move the MAC forward enough to compensate for the higher nose weight? l’m thinking of making a replacement rib or leading edge fuel tanks with a droop built in. thoughts?

VortexAlternator wrote:Since we are both working on experimental super Stinsons, we have the higher engine weight W+B issue. Im sure you would like to avoid ballast as much as me. Would adding a ~3” leading edge cuff not move the MAC forward enough to compensate for the higher nose weight? l’m thinking of making a replacement rib or leading edge fuel tanks with a droop built in. thoughts?

I think any gain you had by moving the MAC ahead with the cuff would be lost with putting fuel in leading edge tanks. I think a baggage style tank would be a good setup as it kills 2 birds with 1 stone for you. Helps the CG and gives you extra fuel. I know you don't want any pumps, but IMO you should have pumps even if you go more outboard with your fuel tanks. The thing I like least about a Scout is that you cant just fill your inboard tanks if you want, and in reality you dont need the outboards most of the time. Having a pump or valve on between so you can decide if you want to use the outboard or not would be high on the list of priorities, or just go with a tank in the rear and at least your ballast is useful...

Good point. You are probably right. Would have to do the numbers to be sure though.

Or just a normal cuff/droop and extra outboard tanks might be easier anyway. If the outboard fuel is centred on the MAC then I assume it’s a wash and the new MAC may eliminate the need for ballast.

the outboard wing tanks may not be useful in terms of cofg, but they should be useful in terms of gross weight and wing loading.

The outboard section of wing is being forced up by xxx pounds of pressure, with the pivot point being the strut attach. If you hang xx amount of weight outboard, then you can carry more weight inboard because of the reduction of wing loading at the strut attach.

You do need to burn the inboard fuel tanks first though, when at these raised gross weights, so you don't over load the wings.

I'm not an engineer and only know enough to make myself dangerous, but it makes sense to me after a few beers and said real fast.

Bushmaster is flying take 3.. my buddy Larry had a terrible hunting season last year. Helicopter ride out for him and his buddies, helicopter ride out for the airplane. Tube in the door post let go from corrosion. Wing went up about 3-4".

Complete rebuild done at EA Structures. (Upper valley aviation only painted it/ where i work)

Twin turbo sequential fuel injected water/ meth injected io540, custom 1 off mt propeller. More garmin glass than my airplane is worth.

Custom tricolor red paint. It took Larry and the team at EA, 6 months. The fuselage is all brand new, longer and wider than original, done by bbi in Ontario. Carbon fiber interior, etc..

First flight was today. 60 percent power and 35 degrees outside at sea level 1800 feet a minute climb.. once they have the fuel charts (efii) calibrated it will be exciting to see how it performs

What is that tailwheel situation? Is that a coil over?