FlyingPilgrim

My Feedback: (26)

I was just checking out some of the Hogs on FubarHill.com and looking at the different cowls that people have adapted to them. It struck me- wouldn't this plane look great with a Saito mounted up front with a simulated radial engine surrounding the real engine? Has anyone tried this? What radial engine kit did you use? Pics available?

Pilgrim

swooper

I put a round cowl on my first Hog-Bipe. It had a picture of a radial engine sealed onto a disc of ply with thinned epoxy. The picture disc was glued in to the front of the cowl. One or two "cylinders" were removed to provide engine air. I looked great from the front but kind of klunky from other angles. The box fuselage left giant gaps to the sides and bottom of the cowl.

Now I think to really get a nice radial effect you'd need to make the front of the fuselage round by adding partial formers, stringers, and sheeting. For a lightweight aerobat it seems like a cheeked cowl like for a flat-four type engine would be easier to adapt to the stock fuselage and look better.

FlyingPilgrim

My Feedback: (26)

Yeah, I see your point. It seems easy enough to put side stringers on this plane to "round it out", then mount a fully exposed radial kit on the nose. It's a nice looking plane, but I think it's shortfall is the front end. It looks like a trainer with cheek pieces as it is designed. It needs something more.

Pilgrim

LouW

I’m presently building a Hog Bipe and notice the same thing. The biggest problem with a radial engine look is the length of the nose. Full scale airplanes with radial engines have a rather short nose in order to balance the weight of the engine, which is usually more than a comparable flat four or inline engine. I considered shortening the nose but in the Hog, that leaves little room for the fuel tank. The tank can’t be moved much aft because of the design of the cabane structure. After considering a lot of alternatives, I decided to just make a fairing to avoid that unfinished look at the firewall, much like the nose of a Stearman, and leave the engine exposed. We’ll see how it works after the airplane is finished and painted. If it doesn’t work like I expect, the fairing is attached with four screws, and I can make a cowl to fit the same attachments..

swooper

With my first H-B I too wanted to dress up the front end. It started with a horizontally mounted ST .75 and the nose built up with wood for a PT-19 kind of look. Later refitted with the round cowl. Neither one really looked all that great. For my second one simplicity, lightness, and ease of operation took priority. It is a sport plane, after all, and nothing's easier to "live with" than an exposed engine.

Probably one of the after-market cowls would be the easiest way to dress it up without getting into a kit-bash.

With a .91 4-stroke you can cut the nose back 1/2-inch and still use a 14 oz. tank. Both my Hogs got fuel tank hatches cut out, once again for ease of operation.

As to other mods, my second version got 1/2 of the dihedral left out of the bottom wing (it's flatter than as per plans) . The dihedral change meant cutting longer interplane struts and replacing the aileron interconnect 4-40 wire (too short).

The fin and rudder were reshaped. The fin was rounded more at the top. The rudder was widened about 3/4-inch and then tapered strongly. The tail now has a rounder look with more rudder authority and more of it down low.

The result of these changes was easier knife-edge. Maybe Hog-Bipe #3 will have straight wings in an attempt to further reduce control coupling.

CafeenMan

I've just read too many positive things about this aircraft to ignore it. It is now very high on my wish list. I have three potential choices for engines and would like some comments from those who have flown the plane.

Choice 3: Brand new O.S. 1.60 twin. I think this would be the best choice, but maybe too much power?
Choice 2: Old O.S. 1.08 that was in my airboat. Just replaced the bearings - old ones were badly rusted
Choice 3: New and never run O.S. .61 FX

swooper

Hi Cafeenman! I hope you do build one and show us the results. I think the .61 FX sounds best. This bipe can be finished around 7 lbs. The ST .75 seemed very powerful here at 6300 ft. so the .61 should be similar where you are. A 14 inch prop clips a bit of grass now and then. The twin sounds better for a Goldberg Ultimate. I'm talking about "traditional aerobatics", not 3D unlimited vertical etc. Maybe the 1.08 would power the Superhog. The concensus from what I've heard and read is .91 4-stroke power's the best.