Re: F24 and Jake 755

[flyingbanks]

'I'm wondering how many out there have first hand experience with Jake
powered F24s? I'm not looking for tall tales, but rather the real story
on these modified planes. I understand that there are a number of them
flying and that a few have ended up on their noses... maybe it was CG
related or maybe not. I imagine that several 24s have been on their
noses due to poorly maintained expander brakes and or just plain poor
piloting...Neither of which are necessarliy permanent or a death
sentence.
I thought CG is CG where the limits are usually pretty well defined, If
the Jake makes the plane nose heavy then why wouldn't part of the
installation include adressing this issue with moving the battery or
placing balast in the tail. Who would sign a field approval or do an
STC without this being addressed fully and in detail?
If it was not addressed at installation, what would stop someone from
getting it sorted out now? Or is it something that just cant be fixed
without junking the Jake?

Thanks for the input ...

Matt'

[Arthur H Boschen]

'--- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, "flyingbanks"
wrote:

>
> I'm wondering how many out there have first hand experience with

Jake

> powered F24s? I'm not looking for tall tales, but rather the real

story

> on these modified planes. I understand that there are a number of

them

> flying and that a few have ended up on their noses... maybe it was

CG

> related or maybe not. I imagine that several 24s have been on their
> noses due to poorly maintained expander brakes and or just plain

poor

> piloting...Neither of which are necessarliy permanent or a death
> sentence.
> I thought CG is CG where the limits are usually pretty well

defined, If

> the Jake makes the plane nose heavy then why wouldn't part of the
> installation include adressing this issue with moving the battery

or

> placing balast in the tail. Who would sign a field approval or do

an

> STC without this being addressed fully and in detail?
> If it was not addressed at installation, what would stop someone

from

> getting it sorted out now? Or is it something that just cant be

fixed

> without junking the Jake?
>
> Thanks for the input ...
>
> Matt
>

My dad had a '42 that he owned when I was very young (had to sell it
in the mid-1970s) and was working on a 2nd ('46) before he died. Both
were skinned in aluminum. The first is still flying I believe, I
don't know where the second one wound up.

Wish I could ask him for ya.

-Art'

[jhed9253@aol.com]

'No first hand experience but I would imagine that the weight concern is with the attachments of the landing gear to the fuselage.  It would be a fair amount of weight if a side load was applied.  Like everything else, "not a problem until it became a problem.
81265


-----Original Message-----
From: flyingbanks
To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:41 am
Subject: [fairchildclub] F24 and Jake 755




























I'm wondering how many out there have first hand experience with Jake

powered F24s? I'm not looking for tall tales, but rather the real story

on these modified planes. I understand that there are a number of them

flying and that a few have ended up on their noses... maybe it was CG

related or maybe not. I imagine that several 24s have been on their

noses due to poorly maintained expander brakes and or just plain poor

piloting...Neither of which are necessarliy permanent or a death

sentence.

I thought CG is CG where the limits are usually pretty well defined, If

the Jake makes the plane nose heavy then why wouldn't part of the

installation include adressing this issue with moving the battery or

placing balast in the tail. Who would sign a field approval or do an

STC without this being addressed fully and in detail?

If it was not addressed at installation, what would stop someone from

getting it sorted
out now? Or is it something that just cant be fixed

without junking the Jake?



Thanks for the input ...



Matt


































[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]'

[norbert J. Mc Luckie]

'Matt at flying banks---I have a 1939 F-24 that is powered by a 225 Jacobs. The engine was installed in 197? and the battery is located a few feet behind the baggage area. It flies very well and we have never had any bad landing problems.
Norb Mc Luckie Illinois (KIKK) 815 472 2523

Lucky

----- Original Message -----
From: flyingbanks
To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 1:41 PM
Subject: [fairchildclub] F24 and Jake 755


I'm wondering how many out there have first hand experience with Jake
powered F24s? I'm not looking for tall tales, but rather the real story
on these modified planes. I understand that there are a number of them
flying and that a few have ended up on their noses... maybe it was CG
related or maybe not. I imagine that several 24s have been on their
noses due to poorly maintained expander brakes and or just plain poor
piloting...Neither of which are necessarliy permanent or a death
sentence.
I thought CG is CG where the limits are usually pretty well defined, If
the Jake makes the plane nose heavy then why wouldn't part of the
installation include adressing this issue with moving the battery or
placing balast in the tail. Who would sign a field approval or do an
STC without this being addressed fully and in detail?
If it was not addressed at installation, what would stop someone from
getting it sorted out now? Or is it something that just cant be fixed
without junking the Jake?

Thanks for the input ...

Matt





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

'

[Arthur H Boschen]

'Ya know, now that I think about it, as far as CG goes, Pop had the
motor mounted, no wings and no tail. The only weight on the back end
to keep it down was one head off a Ford 302.

We dragged that thing outside, chained ot to a telephone pole, and
fired it up with a 3gal gas can on the roof.

Hahaha. Good times.'