Bailey 68-2 turning circle

[KNWH]

Does anyone know the turning circle of a Bailey 68-2 Motorhome. I want to know if I need to widen the entrance to my drive before mine is delivered. It is on a narrow lane.
Neither Bailey nor Peugeot have been able to help.
It is the radius of the circle that the outside front wheel makes when turning on full lock.
If anyone has one and lives near a car park or similar to measure it?

 

[tonka]

As the Peugeot is virtually the same as the Ducato.. Have a look here. 38.1 feet
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=45_Fwux5xu4&ved=2ahUKEwjIwayRwejeAhXFCMAKHQjrDeIQwqsBMAB6BAgJEAU&usg=AOvVaw3H9FSyCY4Yoik1iIY7zE0X

However what about length and rear overhang ???

 

[denisejoe]

Depends on length of van not just the same as standard van distance between wheels also comes into account the front may go in but may cut across from back

 

[KNWH]

Thanks for that quick response!
The turning circle will vary with wheelbase (the 68-2 has a 4m wheelbase) so I’ll have to check the Fiat’s to compare.
The front and rear overhangs will need taking into account of course.
I have drawn everything out on CAD using an approx. turning circle calculated from the angle the front wheels turn (using a protractor!) but a more accurate figure would be useful.

 

[hilldweller]

>>> Bailey 68-2 turning circle

Give the man a prize, a whole new question on FUN.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[KNWH]

Right, found a site that gives turning circle (between kerbs) for different wheelbase Peugeot vans:
L1 (3m wheelbase) = 11.26m
L2 (3.45m wheelbase) = 12.64m
L3/4 (4.035m wheelbase) = 14.24m
Adjusting each of those pro rata to allow for a 4m wheelbase gives values of 15.01m, 14.65m and 14.12m
This variation is possibly due to the changes in suspension geometry that Peugeot makes to suit each wheelbase (the inside and outside wheels obviously have to turn different amounts during cornering and this difference is affected by wheelbase)
I will assume a 14.5m turning circle to play safe!

 

[hilldweller]

I will assume a 14.5m turning circle to play safe!

It beats me how you factor in the overhang.

And then you have to do it on a dark rainy night.

Good luck.

 

[nicholsong]

If you think this turning circle calculation is difficult, you should try working out what pavement width one needs on turns at airports for various streched versions of the Boeing 747, Airbus 380 etc.

An aircraft has to have its nosewheel on the line drawn on the pavement, then one has to calculate where the inner main undercarriage bogeys will track and lay concrete accordingly.

There were no figures available for different angles of taxiway turns and radii in my time at British Airports Authority, so we devised a method of using a scale cut-out on a scale drawing and then using a pin to fix the aircraft through segments of each turn and then plotting the track of the wheels.

Of course it is not only the wheels on pavements that one has to consider but also the wing clearance, because with swept-wing aircraft the wingspan effectively increases during a turn because of 'wing-sweep' - similar to the overhang problem on a MH.

The difference for both these problems is in the cost of getting it wrong.

Somehow we got it right.

Geoff

 

[The Wino]

If you have too much room you will never have a problem if you are tight and on one occasion get it wrong it will cost you big time!!!. Why calculate to the nth degree what will you hit if you get it wrong if its a hedge might not be too bad if it's a wall!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[KNWH]

Interesting and pragmatic approach with the aircraft problem!
I did indeed start off with a paper cut-out and graph paper before realising it would be easier and more accurate to use CAD, which was probably not generally available then.
CAD then makes it easy to work out how much the rear overhang affects things.
As an engineer I would always use the best available data when calculating a solution. I would then use an appropriate safety factor. If calculating stresses, for example, the safety factor might be three, or even more.
In this case, if it looks like I will miss a tree by 750mm I will probably risk it but have my wife keeping a close watch; if I am only going to miss a tree by a theoretical 150mm I will cut it down.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[WynandJean]

If it is going to be this tight getting in, have you thought about how you’ll be getting out?
What area are you?
How wide could it be? I’d make it the max rather than the min.

Wyn

 

[nicholsong]

If it is going to be this tight getting in, have you thought about how you’ll be getting out?
What area are you?
How wide could it be? I’d make it the max rather than the min.

Wyn

I always try to go into a tight space on one lock.

If I get it a bit wrong I start again and go in on one lock.

That way I can get out on the same lock.

Geoff

 

[WynandJean]

Interesting and pragmatic approach with the aircraft problem!
I did indeed start off with a paper cut-out and graph paper before realising it would be easier and more accurate to use CAD, which was probably not generally available then.
CAD then makes it easy to work out how much the rear overhang affects things.
As an engineer I would always use the best available data when calculating a solution. I would then use an appropriate safety factor. If calculating stresses, for example, the safety factor might be three, or even more.
In this case, if it looks like I will miss a tree by 750mm I will probably risk it but have my wife keeping a close watch; if I am only going to miss a tree by a theoretical 150mm I will cut it down.

It looks like you have reached the 5 free post you get on this forum. To continue will require joining. It will be the best £15 you'll spend on your motorhoming life. See 'Subscribe' tab at top of page.

Wyn

 

[SpeedyDux]

The simple answer for non-engineers should be Bailey's Big Turning Circle = Always Allow Plenty of Extra Room especially for the blind side reverse.

A Banksperson with a walkie-talkie also a Good Idea when you have a narrow entrance. Fiat/Peugeot door mirrors aren't really that effective until you straighten up again.

 

[nicholsong]

The simple answer for non-engineers should be Bailey's Big Turning Circle = Always Allow Plenty of Extra Room especially for the blind side reverse.

A Banksperson with a walkie-talkie also a Good Idea when you have a narrow entrance. Fiat/Peugeot door mirrors aren't really that effective until you straighten up again.[/QUOTE]

One of the reasons I advocate/bang-on-about having parabolic mirrors.

Geoff

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Tude]

I’ve seen milk turn quicker than them long wheelbase Baileys