by Jackal » Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:59 pm
Congratulations on your ambition to have an actual Warner powered Hatz. I had considerable interest in the same, as I think the grease blowing back on your goggles would be so cool. Due to the complications with the weight and balance (primarily balance) and the fact my fuselage was done I chickened out. (I'm doing the Rotec thing.)
For what its worth: I spoke to Mehlin at the last Brodhead he attended (can't remember if its been 1 or 2 years now????????)
I spoke with him about the extending of his fuselage to balance the Warner and he said he did indeed extend it (seems to me he agreed on the 8" figure I've often heard) but it was more for aesthetics. He said he wanted it to look like an old plane and "not an acro-sport" (nothing against the acro-sport, just quoting Mehlin) or some new biplane. For this reason he stretched it out and the longerons run straight from the aft cockpit station to the tailpost. It does not have the additional bend near the leading edge of the H-Stab. Although I recall him saying it did make things a little tight back there width-wise. I'm actually builing a CB-1 - maybe all the Classics are as he described his in this regard. He said he intentionally made the cockpit openings as small as possible so the ratio of the size of the plane to the size of the cockpit opening would be more like that of a much larger Waco. I think he said he raised the top wing also to make it proportioned more like a larger plane. In regard to the 8" extension of the fuselage I specifically recall him saying he did it primarily for aesthetics and he chose 8" (or whatever length he chose) because "that was the longest that would fit in his workshop". I"m certain I recall him saying that even with that he still had to add a bunch of weight to the back.
If someone has examined the plane and says there's no weight there, and can determine the tailpost, rudder spar, etc. is not filled with lead, then how can that be argued. If it aint there, it aint there.
Either way, I think Mehlin succeeded wonderfully in his attempt to keep the propotions right because his plane was/is majestic in appearance, far beyond simply what the round engine does for it. Not to mention he was just a really great guy who was willing to talk to and help anyone. His enthusiasm for the building of airplanes................. well, he was a neat guy.
One thing we know is that IT CAN BE DONE. If someone is determined to build a Warner powered Hatz it is possible. Since I'm not building a "proven plan" in that I'm not using an O-200 on my CB-1 I can't be certain how the CG will fall out and so opted for the more easily adjusted H-Stab and also put "hard points" in the very aft fuselage so that I have a place to put weight later if I find it necessary without having to weld them in after being covered, or find some other inconvenient way to add weight or build in 2 battery boxes, etc.
Good luck with the Warner, I'm sure we'll all be watching you.
Congratulations on your ambition to have an actual Warner powered Hatz. I had considerable interest in the same, as I think the grease blowing back on your goggles would be so cool. Due to the complications with the weight and balance (primarily balance) and the fact my fuselage was done I chickened out. (I'm doing the Rotec thing.)
For what its worth: I spoke to Mehlin at the last Brodhead he attended (can't remember if its been 1 or 2 years now????????)
I spoke with him about the extending of his fuselage to balance the Warner and he said he did indeed extend it (seems to me he agreed on the 8" figure I've often heard) but it was more for aesthetics. He said he wanted it to look like an old plane and "not an acro-sport" (nothing against the acro-sport, just quoting Mehlin) or some new biplane. For this reason he stretched it out and the longerons run straight from the aft cockpit station to the tailpost. It does not have the additional bend near the leading edge of the H-Stab. Although I recall him saying it did make things a little tight back there width-wise. I'm actually builing a CB-1 - maybe all the Classics are as he described his in this regard. He said he intentionally made the cockpit openings as small as possible so the ratio of the size of the plane to the size of the cockpit opening would be more like that of a much larger Waco. I think he said he raised the top wing also to make it proportioned more like a larger plane. In regard to the 8" extension of the fuselage I specifically recall him saying he did it primarily for aesthetics and he chose 8" (or whatever length he chose) because "that was the longest that would fit in his workshop". I"m certain I recall him saying that even with that he still had to add a bunch of weight to the back.
If someone has examined the plane and says there's no weight there, and can determine the tailpost, rudder spar, etc. is not filled with lead, then how can that be argued. If it aint there, it aint there.
Either way, I think Mehlin succeeded wonderfully in his attempt to keep the propotions right because his plane was/is majestic in appearance, far beyond simply what the round engine does for it. Not to mention he was just a really great guy who was willing to talk to and help anyone. His enthusiasm for the building of airplanes................. well, he was a neat guy.
One thing we know is that IT CAN BE DONE. If someone is determined to build a Warner powered Hatz it is possible. Since I'm not building a "proven plan" in that I'm not using an O-200 on my CB-1 I can't be certain how the CG will fall out and so opted for the more easily adjusted H-Stab and also put "hard points" in the very aft fuselage so that I have a place to put weight later if I find it necessary without having to weld them in after being covered, or find some other inconvenient way to add weight or build in 2 battery boxes, etc.
Good luck with the Warner, I'm sure we'll all be watching you.