Page 2 of 2
Re: Warner engine
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 4:28 pm
by mtaylor
Don't know what he did for top wing height, but Mehlin did put a door on the front cockpit for easier entry.
Re: Warner engine
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:34 pm
by Bill Rusk
Guys,
I am sorry I have not been on the site for a while. I have been very busy at work and have a few more days to go before I see the light of day. I will try to help with what I can as soon as I have a free moment. I looked for lead in the tail area and could not find any and so thus reported, but I later found out that Mehlin had pored it into the rudder post. So it DOES have lead in the tail to balance it. I will look through my notes to see if I can figure out how much when I have time. Thanks for your patience gents.
Bill
Re: Warner engine
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:53 pm
by dougm
Bill Rusk wrote: I looked for lead in the tail area and could not find any and so thus reported, but I later found out that Mehlin had pored it into the rudder post. So it DOES have lead in the tail to balance it. I will look through my notes to see if I can figure out how much when I have time. Thanks for your patience gents.
Bill
Aha! the plot thickens....
Looks like Jackal was on to something when he mentioned lead in the tubes....
Re: Warner engine
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:10 pm
by mtaylor
I was thinking that Mehlin had told me lengthened the fuselage by 11"...because that was the length that his workshop size allowed him to stretch it. Sounds like it measures out to 8", though.
Re: Warner engine
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 5:52 pm
by jdgleitz
That is interesting information. As I mentioned, I thought it would take somewhere around 15 lbs, and by calculation, the tail post should hold about 15 lbs of lead. If shot was used, it probably would be considerably less, unless it was melted inside the tube. I wasn't sure I wanted to make the weight permanent though. We'll have to wait hear what form the lead was in.