Posted: 3/18/2010 17:39:13
I'm new to the forum. Still trying to get past the "WOW" factor. This is just great!
I'm building a Pober Pixie. Making a few minor mods...nothing drastic. Cont A-65 for power. Coming along nicely.
Would like to build the Junior Ace also, when I'm done with the Pixie.
Anyone building these designs? I know alot of people are building the Acrosport Bipe and there are quite a few Pixie's flying and a few Junior ace's, but was wondering if any are in the building stages and how your doing on it.
I'am old school. Wood, tube and rag man. I love curling up with a good set of plans on a rainy evening...but I'll admit, Vans RV-12 is looking good! Quite impressive and can be flown year round.
Hope to hear from someone. I'm down here in Florida, near Jacksonville.
Posted: 3/19/2010 18:39:52
I'm not building one now, but I would love to build a Junior Ace like the one Tim Gallagher did with the Rotec radial engine on it. There was a beautiful Junior Ace at OSH in one of the tents back in 2003(?) but I can't find any pictures of it. Anywhere.
If there's a resource for Pober builders, I haven't found it yet. At least not one that's active. If anyone knows of one, please share it!
And if there is a need for a Pober builders forum, I would be more than happy to add it to my site for all Pober builders to use, free of charge!
Posted: 3/21/2010 10:52:23
Rotec's web site has a number of projects using the Rotec radials. Tim Gallagher's Pober Junior Ace is featured as well. Check it out.
There are no builders forums that I'm aware of but the designs are pretty simple and straight forward wood, tube and rag which there are tons of info on the web already. Just nothing I know of that address these designs specificly.
Tim's Pober Jr. was damaged during takeoff due to a rudder pedal that broke during the roll. Very sad. I sure hope he will be able to get it flying again.
So...I'm still plugging away on the Pixie.
Posted: 3/26/2010 19:07:34
There is a yahoo Pober Builders group here:
Activity is in fits and starts, sort of like building an airplane. Hope this helps,
Posted: 3/26/2010 19:41:11
I built the Poper Pixie II featured in Sport Aviation back in January 2002. It has about 800 hours on it now. First flight was in May 2000, so we are approaching our tenth aniversary. The Pixie II is derived from the original Pixie, only scaled up for two and use of a larger engine. It is a sweet flying airplane, very predictable and a joy to take aloft. There are some things about the Pixie plans that you might want to discuss, could save some trouble later.
I am currently building Poberezney project #2, the Pober Speedster. It too is a one-of-a-kind Paul P project with origins in his work at Oshkosh. I stumbled into it at Osh 2007 and purchased it from Paul later that summer. Its a low wing, strut braced tandem two place reminiscent of the Gee Bee Sportsters of the early '30's. Wood, tube, and fabric of course. We are building an eliptical wing that spans about 28 feet, and will probably use a small Lycoming to power it. No complete plans, but we are using CAD drawings as we go and the Acro 1 plans for reference. You can contact me direct if you like, my email address is below.
Posted: 8/26/2010 13:16:56
Well there is at least one other Pixie builder out there.. Me. I am ready to cover and am currently assembling my aerovee engine. Now here is where the problem comes in. I am getting ready to build the engine mount and that means it is time to think weight and balance.
I am questioning where the plans set the center of gravity. When I convert it to a % of the MAC I get 33.5% to 40%. I
have not been able to find any aircraft with it back quite that far. And since having a CG too far back adversely effects the aircraft's stall/spin recovery. I would like to play it safe. I have found that the Pietenpol plans say 25% to 33% and a texas parasol says 25% to 35%. These are also rather far back but I have found literature that states that this is common for a parasol since maintaining the CG as far aft as possible, without going past the aft limit, will give a more efficient flight, and cause more sensitivity in the Pitch Axis, however, if the aft limit is surpassed (very dangerous), the wing probably will NOT come out of a stalled flight condition. Also, when I plot the fore and aft CG limits of the prototype plane (the Pixie hanging in the museum) I get 32.25% to 36.5% which is a little forward of the forward end listed in the plans. My current plan is to shoot for that same range but before I make a decision I would like to get some weight and balance numbers from other Pixies and other parasols like any of the Corben and Pober aircraft.
Could people please post their data for a Pixie or other parasols. Both what the plans call for as well as what they actually ended up with. Best if given in %MAC but as log as I have the distance from that Datum to the leading edge of the wing and the wing chord I can do the math.
Posted: 10/19/2010 13:03:10
Modified: 10/19/2010 13:07:11
How far have you goten on your pober pixie? I am wanting to use a Cont 65 as well. Have you built your engine mount yet? If so, do you have any information you can pass along to me.