Gary ~ What's The Plan For Diamond Lil ? 2006 and Beyond!

[Jack Cook]

Great post Gary.
You're right that everyone has a different way of doing things.
I've anywayd wondered why T-28 guys never pull throught the prop
prior to start but go 12 blades on start-up. On the T-6s and the 25 we pull through and count blades. Any reason for this you T-28 gurus??

[herkman]

Well as an old Loadmaster, I see that we are quickly heading to Weighing time.

I presume that we are looking at the C of G moving aft. My understanding is that was one of the reasons on later aircraft that the fusalage had a insert put into it.

On previous comments you indicate that the airplane was tail heavy, can you fix that with fuel loadings or do all the tanks fall on the same MAC.

It is great work you have done, and I realy hope that yours uppers appreciate your efforts.

All the best

Col
Australia

[retroaviation]

Good question, herkman. But actually, the airplane wasn't tail heavy as far as the Center of Gravity is concerned (was always in range for flight), it was just tail heavy when sitting on the ground, due to the location of the main landing gear being right on the CG. The airplane actually had about 200 pounds (give or take) of lead weight in the back when I started on this project. It would be a pure guess if I'll have to put weight back there or not after all of the changes that were made. Sooooo, that's why we're going to reweigh the airplane as soon as I get to that point.

I still need to finish the waistgunner's door (which will hopefully be in the next couple of days), and then need to finish the entry door. I only have two weeks to get all of this done before ground school starts and frankly don't know how I'm going to do it. That dang entry door has been a thorn in my side from day one and I could still use another couple of months to make it right, but I simply don't have that kind of time.

But anyway, your right on the money when you mention us thinking about weighing the airplane. It ought to be interesting to see what the final results are.

Gary

[herkman]

looks to me that you might be on a winner.

All these mods that you have done will have increased the weight, but as most of the the weight is aft of the C of G, then you may not have to put all of the ballast back in.

This should mean that the basic weight may not change much, as the increased weight for the mods, could be offset by the reduction in the ballast.

Do you use a slide rule to calculate the loaded C of G.

Regards

Col

[snjfxr]

Herkman, No F/E's that I know of, use the sliderule. What we do use and is the subject of much discussion, is a weight and balance worksheet and a calculator. The discussion is mostly about the fact that all the changes in the airplane, will change the known values (weights at specific moments), that is currently on the worksheet. Once the airplane is weighed and we can update the worksheet, with the known values, we can accurately calculate the C/G and MAC, after plugging in all the variables. That is fuel load, passengers, additional cargo, etc.
As with everything else the man does, Gary's all over this!
Can't wait to show her off
Dave F/E B24A

[retroaviation]

Yeah. What he said.

Gary

[retroaviation]

Okay, here's a quick update for y'all....

Scott & Ellen, along with James West have all been here the last couple of days, doing their best to knock out some of the smaller (but equally important) squawks that remain on the list of "to do" items. Scott came up with an ingenius and simple gun lock method for the waist gun that holds it in position in the stowed and in the "shoot-'em-up" positions. It's simple enough that dang near anyone in our Squadron ought to be able to work it.......












Oh, and I've finished the waistgunner's door. Had a bad spell of not feeling well this weekend, so I really wasn't in the mood to take a ton of progress pictures (although nothing too noteworthy was done anyhow). But here's the final result. (NOTE: I took the outside picture just shortly after painting the door this morning, so it looks a touch glossier than it'll end up being. It should match the surrounding areas pretty well eventually though.).....






And one last thing...We were originally going to discuss Ol' 927's reconfiguration this past winter at Oshkosh this year, with Sen. George McGovern at our side. His portion of the session was actually going to take up most of the time we had, but now scheduling conflicts have made it to where he won't be in attendance for our time slot. Soooooo, it's just going to be me up there. What I need from y'all is a bunch of questions so that we can keep everyone from being bored to tears while I'm up "front and center." Our scheduled time to speak is on Thursday, July 26, at 11:30 a.m. and will be at the airplane in Aeroshell Square. It would be great to see all of y'all there!

Gary

[K5DH]

Gary,

Thanks for the excellent tip on "pulling" the props through instead of "pushing" them through. We flew Chuckie yesterday and I used your method, and I also started training some of the other ground handlers to do the same. In addition to the improved safety factor, it seemed as if I was able to gain a better mechanical advantage by pulling instead of pushing.

Your safety and operational tips are much-appreciated by your fellow warbird operators! Keep 'em coming!

Cheers!

[mustangdriver]

I am sure that we will come up with a bunch of questions for you Gary. If not, do you tap dance or anything?

[Steve Nelson]

Looking good!

I'm curious..did the B-24A have retractable wind deflectors in front of the waist hatches like the later models? If so, that'll be a paint to build.

SN

[retroaviation]

I'm curious..did the B-24A have retractable wind deflectors in front of the waist hatches like the later models?

Nope.

[ww2John]

One line of "obvious" questions might deal with the lessons learned in early WWII combat that were applied to evolve the later models of the B24 (compared to this A Model). It might also be an easier way to explain why very few early models were kept in service and therefore very few survive today.

If all else fails, I bet more than a few of us will gladly volunteer to be "ringers" in the crowd and throw these questions at you.

[retroaviation]

If all else fails, I bet more than a few of us will gladly volunteer to be "ringers" in the crowd and throw these questions at you.

Bring it on! I ain't skeered.

Gary

[herkman]

When I joined the RAAF in 1957, we were still flying C47's and used the station loading or compartment centre and moment system. This worked well and the slipstick did not get a look in.

With the arrival of our C130A's the whole system changed and we went to the slip stick came back into vogue, and since then several other methods have been used, all designed to improve accuracy and speed.

I note that several air forces are using palm tops, and by using excel programs, the same result is produced in a flash.

Have nothing against the weight/arm - moment concept, cannot get more accurate than that, but it is slow.

I suspect some days, some displays you do not have lots of time.

Wish you all the best for the coming season, a great job done by all.

FLY SAFE

Regards

Col

[snjfxr]

Herkman, I have in fact a gadget called a PalmOne TungstenE2, for that very purpose. I agree it will save time but requires user skills. This is where I'm having some difficulty I will keep on it and maybe master the darn thing. Until then, it's paper, pencil and the calulator

Dave CAF F/E B24A