Original Posted By: "w b evans"
Gene I really like your solution to fin adjustment as stated below. It is alsoone of the reasons I stay with this group.Great Ideas, new or old. One thing that led me to the Piet/GN-1 is theinfinite solutions builders seem to find to little problems or quirks of thedesign.In response to one of your earlier questions about A engine mounts: BHPstates that the down thrust angle of ash engine bearers allow the prop tobite the air squarely in climb attitude. How do we know this is right? Iassume he tried many different angles.I have decided to make a tubular engine mount that is adjustable in thrustline both horizontally and vertically. It would consist of two long "V's" tocarry the front of the engine and two shorter ones for the rear. The engineitself is a rigid beam. If the cowlings are mounted only to the engine andmount, thrust line changes wouldn't require cowling changes.The angle of incidence of the wing to fuselage and also to the thrust line,seems like an area that a lot of experimenting can go into. When eachindividual builder incorporates their own small changes, it gets a littletough to compare if changes are beneficial. I think it was Graham Hansen whosaid or quoted "Add lightness and simplicate!"That Travel Air fin adjust method is a good example.John McNow that I think of it, though, I could make a fitting similar to the oneon the front of the fin on the Travel Air, which consists of two 90 degreetabs with a long threaded bolt horizontally between them. The bolt goesthrough the leading edge of the fin with a lock nut on either side of thefin. This allows infinite adjustments by repositioning the locknuts andmoving the fin left or right. This is really not much different thanBernie designed, the bolt through the fin is just a little longer.Gene________________________________________________________________________________