New clipwing rebuild

[3Dreaming]

Re: New clipwing rebuild

"unchanged strut fittings"

My 180 HP clipwing had unchanged fittings too and flew airshows for 12 years like that (Sid Nelson)- it was as I understand it a sistership to the Ritchey Clipwing. I guess that answers my question about modification of that fitting! Since I am staying light- I may just leave mine alone.

Eric, I've seen Sid fly many airshows in that airplane. I was always told it was a Cole conversion. Did you buy it from Sid, or did it come out of Indiana? I've also been told it was harder to fly than a 450 Stearman. The same person had also flown a Swick (one of the 100hp airplanes modified from the factory) and compared it to Bucker.
Now for the strut attach fitting I think I would go ahead and change it. For the cost of the weight it would be worth getting rid of the twisting action on the longeron. Tom

[gmackay]

Re: New clipwing rebuild

Here is a list of items from the back of the 337 when the wings were modified.
1. Shortened front and rear spars by 30" at inboard end and 12" at tip end.

3. Length of outboard compression bay was shortened to match existing bays.

5.New strut attach fittings fabricated from .065" 4130 steel.

6. Butt fittings adapted from original strut fittings. Birch reinforcing plates added to butt end of both spars.

Tom,
Thanks for all this information! Several of us have been wondering about these early clipwings. Can I ask a couple questions to clarify?
1. What is the total wingspan? It looks like they cut 7 ft off, so that would make it 29 ft? But then in item #3 they mention that the outboard bay was shortened to match the rest of the bays. I've thought about that same concept, but I come up with about 26.5 ft (based on all bays about 31"). I'd love to try that, but don't want to be the first.

2. Do you know if they milled the butt end of the spars for the doublers? Or did they just glue thicker doublers and fit the 'new' butt fittings to the outside of the fittings on the fuselage?

Thanks,
Greg

[3Dreaming]

Re: New clipwing rebuild

Tom,
Thanks for all this information! Several of us have been wondering about these early clipwings. Can I ask a couple questions to clarify?
1. What is the total wingspan? It looks like they cut 7 ft off, so that would make it 29 ft? But then in item #3 they mention that the outboard bay was shortened to match the rest of the bays. I've thought about that same concept, but I come up with about 26.5 ft (based on all bays about 31"). I'd love to try that, but don't want to be the first.

2. Do you know if they milled the butt end of the spars for the doublers? Or did they just glue thicker doublers and fit the 'new' butt fittings to the outside of the fittings on the fuselage?

Thanks,
Greg

The wing span on this bird is right at 29'. If I remember right the last bay does not go all the way to the tip, so you have a little extra span there.
The spars were not milled on the end they just added the doublers. This requires installing the doublers after most of the wing is together. The new fittings do go on the outside of the fuse fittings with a spacer in the middle. Tom

[Acroeric]

Re: New clipwing rebuild

Tom- It did fly very different than a Stock T or a Swick . After I sold the one that Sid flew I bought a 100 HP Swick- it flew much better. I have only briefly flown the 450 Stearman- much more time in a 220- I think I understand your friends point. Most people think the 450 ruins the stearman and Sid's plane was a good example of too much weight.

Sid's old plane did not like to be 3 pointed....I almost ground looped it the first time I tried but later just accepted th efact that it liked to be wheel landed. In a spin it would never really get wraped up, and it was heavy. I wonder how he flew it so well b/c it was not a great flying plane. I got a chance to fly an old Cole conversion with an 0-200 and it was really nice but the ailerons were a little slower and heavier than the Swick.

I am going to have this one come in at 700 pounds- the little hopped up C90 should really make it go good at that weight.

[gmackay]

Re: New clipwing rebuild

Thanks Tom, I appreciate all your help. By the way, your restoration looks great! Can't wait to hear about the flight report.

[Jim Herpst]

Re: New clipwing rebuild

Tom, Thank you. You gave us the in info we have all been thirsty for. Your clip wing design is (almost) identical to the one I am going to have . My difference is the last two outboard bays will each get respectively(and progressively) larger than what you describe yours to be. It will have one foot out of the out boardboard bay and loose the orginal root bay.Ailerons will be stock. Ribs will all be prewar as they are very light. Plane is pre-war. Leading edge of the same material you guys used. Goal is as light as possible. The factory said the BL's left the factory at 640 lbs. (I think they spent a lot of time in the dope room when they wrote that one) Wonder what one could weigh with the wings chopped by four feet each and no interior? How much more does a c-85 weigh (without electrics) I going to use a c-85 with the 0-200 crank and C-90 cam. Controls will all be stock.

[3Dreaming]

Re: New clipwing rebuild

Jim, I don't know which BL's came out at 640#, but the one I had was 692# if I remember right. It was 689# from the factory. All covering was 1.7 oz cloth with the least amount of paint material possible. Basic instruments, no carpets, and aircraft fabric side panels. The picture of this plane is the one on the top of the taylocraft.org home page. I would think 730# for a light clip wing would be a good number. I still can't believe this one came out at 830#.

[Jim Herpst]

Re: New clipwing rebuild

Tom did you have a Lycoming or Continental A-65 on it? Looks very nice. Open Cowl so would not think you got much of a cruise speed out of her. Bet she flew good though !! I am doing a long wing BL also but using a A-65 and closed cowl. Will use light weight fabric (1.7 oz) . Wings are almost done for this one. No wing tanks ( no nuttin in fact.)I hope to have that one flying next year or by the early 2007. Its a long road.............................................. ................. !!

[M Towsley]

Re: New clipwing rebuild

Hey Tom,

The clipwing looks good now that it is put together. I bought Roy's T-Craft back in Oct of '04 there at Olney-Noble and saw the clip wing while you were just starting to paint. Visited again last January when it was temporarily put together, and again this last summer. I know what it looks like in-person and it is very nice. As a side note, I was able to get the back issue of Vintage magazine that had your T-Craft in it about ten years ago. This was the same one my parents had flown here in Springfield at the old Southwest Airport, found the n-number in their logbooks. My mom was very glad to see it is still flying. Good luck getting the clip wing finished.

[3Dreaming]

Re: New clipwing rebuild

Tom did you have a Lycoming or Continental A-65 on it? Looks very nice. Open Cowl so would not think you got much of a cruise speed out of her. Bet she flew good though !! I am doing a long wing BL also but using a A-65 and closed cowl. Will use light weight fabric (1.7 oz) . Wings are almost done for this one. No wing tanks ( no nuttin in fact.)I hope to have that one flying next year or by the early 2007. Its a long road.............................................. ................. !!

Jim, mine came from the factory with a Lycoming, but had a C-65 in it when I bought it. I put a Lycoming back in it. My cruise speed was about 90 mph. the trim wouldn't allow for any more nose down, so if I tried to push it faster it would climb. Being light weight it floated like a feather. I hope you have your 1.7 oz fabric already as you can not get certified 1.7 oz anymore. Tom

[Jim Herpst]

Re: New clipwing rebuild

Tom
1.7 oz fabric. Not a problem with me. Airplane will be signed off legally of course.

IS the trim situation common to all prewars? Seems I have heard somthing like this before. Possibly from you? Chet recalls getting 105 cruise out of a closed cowel 1940 BC?

Very interested in this and would like to learn from you.
Thank you

[3Dreaming]

Re: New clipwing rebuild

Tom
1.7 oz fabric. Not a problem with me. Airplane will be signed off legally of course.

IS the trim situation common to all prewars? Seems I have heard somthing like this before. Possibly from you? Chet recalls getting 105 cruise out of a closed cowel 1940 BC?

Very interested in this and would like to learn from you.
Thank you

For my airplane I only had two trim positions full nose up or down. Full nose down trim would give 90 mph hands off cruise. If you wanted to go faster you had to hold pressure against the control wheel. Full nose up would give you about 70 mph glide. I have only flown one other airplane with the trim tab below, and I don't remember the details for that airplane. I just did a test flight after a engine change from a Lycoming to a Continental. Tom

[Jim Herpst]

Re: New clipwing rebuild

Interesting. Any on else care to weigh in on this ?. Can not imagine that with all the pre war clips flying around WITH the orginal trim config that this situation Tom describes is unique to the fleet of prewars but who knows??? Anyone Else??

[flylo]

Re: New clipwing rebuild

My '38 BL was 650# from the factory.It's now 690#.Level cruise @ 2100 RPM is 90 MPH.This is with the open cowl & wheelpants.The trim works well, full nose up I get 60 MPH in the pattern,full nose down @ cruise I get a slight dive.I like the way the prewars fly,a little slower but more graceful.

[Swick-T N7010S]

Re: New clipwing rebuild

Hi guys,
I used to have a 41 with a closed cowl and a C-75 and had the same problem with the trim. With full nose down trim it still would climb. I used some vinyl tape to gap seal the elevator and that helped the problem. It would indicate arround 100mph in cruise.

Mike