Gooday all
In rebuilding my Proctor Mk1 I was cleaning up the tie-down brackets and was amazed at their massiveness. These are big (relatively) steel castings. These must way about a kilogram each and there are 6 of them. That’s a big weight to be carrying around – especially 2 are attached to the tail. (Think CofG and moments)
In comparrison I looked at the size of the ones on my Tiger Moth which to my way of thinking are in proportion to the rest of the aeroplane and in keeping to that I see on Cessnas and Pipers.
My question is did the British Military have a standard bracket that they fitted to aeroplanes. I am sure the brackets fitted to the Proctor could have easily been fitted to a 4-engined bomber and would have had sufficient strength.
cheers
By: Proctor VH-AHY - 5th February 2009 at 21:32
Mark V
All of what you seems to be in line with what I think, they don’t need to be massive. I will try and put up an image (after I take one) so readers can see what I mean.
I am trying to understand why the design standards demanded lightning holes in thin ply in order to save the odd gram or two. The Percival Proctor Mk1 is a well designed aeroplane – but these are an abboration from the normal persival design techniques.
Its very interesting to speculate.
cheers
By: Mark V - 5th February 2009 at 11:01
My question is did the British Military have a standard bracket that they fitted to aeroplanes. I am sure the brackets fitted to the Proctor could have easily been fitted to a 4-engined bomber and would have had sufficient strength.
cheers
No dont think so – different designs for different aircraft. On the Mustang its a spring loaded device that pulls down from the wing. On the Spitfire its a clever D shaped internal tube in the wing you thread the rope through. On the Hurricane they are small (1″ dia) screw-in eye-bolts weighing a few ounces each, to name a few examples I am familiar with.
Sign In
February 4, 2009 at 9:22 pm