dwaynenancy

My Feedback: (62)

Richard, my email is [email protected]. Thanks, Dwayne

n8622t

My Feedback: (8)

my thinking exactly! The repair cost alone would be hard to bare on a Moki, then you get it back wondering if anything was missed...how many moving parts are there in a Moki? Lets just say more than a DA

n8622t

My Feedback: (8)

Hey Im certainly not trying to discourage anyone from going with a radial engine, Im just projecting what goes through my mind with all the pitfalls of this hobby, and especially with a wild ride like a GB R2!!!! My thinking is if I go with a radial engine it will be on a more controllable or less erratic airplane. How about an R4 or even a BGY? Its all about the fun anyway so go with what YOU want

RichardGee

My Feedback: (156)

OK, so now that I have sent the Gee Bee video so all who have requested it, and we have all had a chance to ooooh and aaaaah over the off-the-charts cool [8D] factor of a big Moki radial in a Gee Bee R2, here is the downside...

My buddy Hannes from Germany (a super contributor to this blog and fellow Gee Bee fanatic) sent me this photo of the ultimate end of this aircraft. Again, this is NOT to discourage anyone, but simply to illustrate the harsh reality of this plane/engine combo[].

I think we can all agree that other than a slightly harder touch down, the Moki powered Gee Bee looked very controllable in every respect. No doubt superior pilot skills also played a big part. But make one tiny mistake, and a Gee Bee WILL BITE YOU![X(] And how many of us are perfect for every flight?

The CompARF R2 is the ultimate Gee Bee BECAUSE it is so scale, but that is also why I do not believe a 12 pound radial is the best choice for an engine.

Those who still elect to bolt the Moki to the nose, you will be the HERO after every successful flight! But when the inevitable happens, you will also be the object of the wispering armchair flyers with "I knew that was going to happen" and "I told him so..." etc...not to mention a substantial repair bill.

There is NOTHING more demanding to fly than a Gee Bee R2 - Ironically, the pilot of a Moki 250 powered CARF will be the ONLY guy at the field not having fun[&o]

n8622t

My Feedback: (8)

Hannes!!!! Im in tears looked like a hard impact on the gear side like a the descent rate was too high...my question is was it flying ok and the landing went bad or...what happened??????

RichardGee

My Feedback: (156)

This is NOT a picture of Hannes' plane, but a friend of his in Germany - the one from the video I sent out to everyone.
Hannes powered his first CARF Gee Bee with a 3W106, but GBR2 #2 will be sportin' a DA150.

nexusdc5

My Feedback: (4)

Hi Richard, You said this is the plane from the Video... Wow, Must have a been a significantly harder landing than the two landings we saw in the Video. Neither of his two landings were very soft. I can see this happening if it came in and touched down to hard. My heart goes out to the Owner of this Gee Bee. Its sad to see such a beautiful Craft destroyed.

nexusdc5

My Feedback: (4)

What is the weight difference between the 215 and the 250?

TheRickster

My Feedback: (12)

There have been many Gee Bees in worse shape without the radial on them..LOL

For me the radial adds the realism in both visual and sound that only a radial can produce. It is a "Necessay Evil" to me and in my opinion a fellow at the field with a Gee Bee with a Moki is the only one that IS having fun!!!!!!

The 250 is 176.4 oz. and the 215 is 179.9 oz.



Rick

nexusdc5

My Feedback: (4)

Hi Rickster, You said that perfectly! cant agree with you more. Must have been a really hard landing for that to happen... Seeing this will prompt me to Stiffen the wing saddles with carbon fiber and resin, that should help.

n8622t

My Feedback: (8)

your right rickster, the guy with a plane like that is going to get all the attention!!!!! Im glad it wasnt Hannes.

hotrodblazer

Looks like a bit more than a "hard landing"!
I see one blade of the prop broken,My guess is he may have had to try a deadstick landing,or a similar scenario.
A loss of power will cause a rapid descent rate, and hit the runway hard enough to slam the gear up and cause that kind of damage..
The up side is the Moki appears undamaged!!
I also suspect these guys in Germany are getting their planes from the factory at a better price than we see over here.
Still hate to see mishaps, would much rather read about success stories.But if we can learn the cause of the crash, that info can benefit us all.
Danny

n8622t

My Feedback: (8)

You missed something hotrod, the other blade tip has debris on it! that means a spinning prop!

hannes83

It´s hard for me to understand all your postings here, my english is to bad for this. But Richard translate for me in "school" englisch :-)

Thanks Buddy

Here are some other pictures of the Moki Gee Bee from Klaus Svancara from Germany:








Klaus, the owner of the plane said that the Moki isa fantastic engine. The sound, the look,... BUT not for the Gee Bee!!! He´sbuilding the next onethismoment, but it gets a DA again!!

Heflys the Moki in his RENOYAK 11 from the SkygateCollection fromGermany with SOLO Prop, look thevideo:

www.youtube.com/watch

FANTASTIC!!!

jeznewsome

hannes,
Do you have any other photos of the moki equipped gee bee? i am always interested to see the solutions that others have used for installtions. particularly interested in the installation on the back of the motor dome and also the exhaust extensions and routing

thanks Jez

nexusdc5

My Feedback: (4)

Hello Hannes... You stated that Klaus the owner of this Gee Bee said that the Moki was not an Ideal Engine for this plane??? He Doesn't Give His reasons Y. Can you find out for us? Like to know his experiences with it and Y he doesnt think its a good match to him. You aid he is building the next one with a DA... Did something happen to the Moki GB?

kochj

Just happened apon the discusion about the pitch sensitiveness....and ill handling.. most likely due to airflow issues.

I had read review about a pitts m-12 and how the reviewer needed to pull (make spacers) the cowl away from the fuse, so air would go
through and out the cowl, and then go over the tail feathers, in order to make it good handling....

evidently, he had a electric conversion, and was running a smaller lenght, higher pitch prop than gasoline/petro setup....
THis lack of prop length, is what was causing the issues.....
Issues, were solved by creating airflow through the cowl to the tail surfaces...

TheRickster

My Feedback: (12)

Another thing to consider is as well ..

When you add a smoke system you have just added another 2-3lbs. depending on how much fluid you land with which when put on a twin just bumped it to Moki weight.. When you add smoke to the Moki powered one it is that much more...[X(]

Rick

hotrodblazer

Smoke?
If we are after scale realism here,Delmar flew the airshow circuit for ten years and I do not recall a video of his R2 belching smoke.
I do know in his book on the plane, it did not have a smoke system.
I would also wager that as a purpose built race plane, the Granvilles had no place for a smoke system on board.
I fell that a Gee Bee flying around is a show in itself,and does not need smoke.although it might be useful in leading the search crew to the wreckage!

RichardGee

My Feedback: (156)

None of the original Gee Bee's nor Delmar's had a smoke system. BUT, having flown mine with smoke and looking at the great picture of Klaus's Moki smokin' Gee Bee, I can state categorically that it looks awesome!

Having communicated for quite some time with Henry Haffke, the man who wrote the book on the Gee Bee racers, I can tell you that his opinion was "the two biggest enemies of the Gee Bee R1/R2/Z are weight and torque."

It was asked why Klaus felt the Moki was a poor choice for this plane....... and Mr. Haffke answered that question for me almost 20 years ago.
SUPERIOR pilot skills CAN overcome these gremlins[>:], but eventually the Gee Bee will conspire with both (and gravity) and the inevitable WILL occur.

Keep in mind too, radials like the Moki do not stop spinning in the same propeller location. You cannot set up the propeller to stop horizontally....it stops whereever it wants to, thus, the chances of a prop strike increase dramatically in the event of a dead stick. And you can buy a very nice DA150 for the price of a Moki crank[]

RichardGee

My Feedback: (156)

Gee Bee Gents,
Whether or not the big Moki is appropriate for this plane, will remain an enigma…hats off to those intrepid pilots who tempt the fates!

But back to the task at hand, which is to get this thing built and flying:
All of this Gee Bee talk has motivated me to get back to work on mine, specifically the flying wire mounting hatches.
There are two ways to mount the flying wires; the quick and dirty method of bolting them directly to the surface of the wings OR make hatch cut outs and auger the spar area to recess the mounting points; then creating hatches with which to cover the mounting hardware. BOTH methods are shown in the Builder’s Manual, and it should be emphasized that IF you opt for recessing the mounting points in the spars, GREAT CARE and CAUTION must be exercised to avoid auguring TOO MUCH away from the spar!!!
On my first Gee Bee, I opted for recessed mounting/hatches; did lots of turnin’ and burnin’ (and VERY hard landings) with my Gee Bee and never experienced anything approaching a spar failure. I have taken even greater care with Gee Bee #2.

Creating the hatches is a tedious job, but one that gives the plane a more finished appearance.
On Gee Bee #1, I made the hatches from thin ply, attaching each hatch with two screws; priming, sanding and painting each hatch to match the wing.
On Gee Bee #2, I simplified and improved my mounting method and opted to laminate thin sheet plastic to 3/32” ply, cutting my hatches from the finished laminate. Not sure that I have saved any time, but it was worth a try… AND I will probably end up painting these hatches anyway to better match the wing.

Landing Gear: Like Delmar’s R2, I have set up my gear/flying wires to have the mains ever so slightly canted outward; not at perfect 90 degrees. I believe this may help alleviate the tendency for the plane to ground loop and scrape a wingtip.

Dihedral: It has been suggested that we increase dihedral by one to two degrees for better flight stability. I have NO IDEA how to accurately measure this, short of blocking up the Gee Bee (off its gear) and using a laser or other incidence meters to attempt to measure. All I can tell you is that I made an effort to increase dihedral on this second Gee Bee, but the increase is totally by sight, while also comparing what I see to the 3 view. It does appear my model has more dihedral than the 3 view, and I know it has more than my first Gee Bee because I compared them side by side.

This one will fly with a 3W157CS on Johnson smoker mufflers. My prop of choice will be a XOAR 30x12 wood to start, but then will probably try a CF 30x14. Markings are for Jimmy Doolittle’s Gee Bee R1, Number 11, ‘NR2100.’

Also note** The updated Gee Bee kits have the aileron servo hatches, whereas the older kits directed the builder to recess the aileron servo upright in the wing. Notice the short robust linkage.... NO FLUTTER ALLOWED[&:]

RichardGee

My Feedback: (156)

Guys,
I tried to post pictures to support my previous post, but kept getting an "Internal Server Error"
Now this morning, I posted pictures, but they appeared totally whacked out, so I deleted them.
Here goes another try...

OK guys, I apologize, but something is very wrong with RCU image upload server...
I will give it one more try, this time with very compressed images. Hopefully this works.

hannes83

@ Richard: I can see all pics


Today my Prop arrived. It´s a full scale 30x14 NOT for Display, it´s made to fly!!

The only thing I have to chance is the color, the prop will get a "chrome" finish!!

Here some pics, what do you think?

RichardGee

My Feedback: (156)

Three words:

I WANT ONE

dirtydingus

Outstanding!!!