Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-dq
January 13, 2004 - January 25, 2004
glad to try and send it directly to you.
Hope all this helps.
John Dilatush NX114D
Salida, CO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
<003a01c3da44$fa03f320$d401a8c0@Alex>
| Subject: | Re: Piet information list |
I have a formula that I got from Greg Cardinal somewhere around here that uses
the weight of the ship level and then the weight of the ship in three point attitude,
loaded, of course. It will determine the vertical CG of the ship when
loaded. Maybe the math guys can come up with it faster than I can.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: Alex Sloan
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet information list
Hank J.
Good information. Can you give the math to go with the measurments?
Alex S.
----- Original Message -----
From: hjarrett
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet information list
OK, I'm going to stick my nose in once more. To be useful you need to know
where the contact point of the tire is in relation to the CG in a level attitude.
Sorry guys but all the other measurements don't help much from a nose over
point of view. The other thing that is needed is the height from the ground
to the CG. With those measurements you can calculate the nose over moment and
with the tail force and arm you can calculate exactly how much brake you can
use verses the airspeed. That is what tells you if you are going to have a
"grazer" or a tail dragger.
Hank J
----- Original Message -----
From: At7000ft(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet information list
Good idea Carl, one question though is what to use for a datum to measure
from. Since people move their engine forward sometimes 6 -8 inches for CG I don't
think that will work. Same thing with the wing leading edge, people move
the wing forward and backward too. How about the front Ash floor cross strut?
Rick Holland
I think the questionaire on Piets is an excellent way of cataloging the
variations in the airplanes. Unless I missed it, there's one addition I would
like to see. When brakes are added to a Piet, some folks move the mains axis
forward to reduce the tendency to nose over on heavy braking (mine have been moved
forward 2.5" from the plans). We could include the dimension from prop hub
to the axle....Whatta ya think?....Carl Vought
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear Location |
Re: Landing Gear Location
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike
To: John Dilatush
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: Landing Gear Location
Let's see, how about a two fuel tanks, brakes, electrical system, ELT, tailwheel
with tow hook, some extra instrumentation to monitor engine performance, and
the jenny gear which seems to be heavier than the split axle gear. The engine
carries a 40 lb PRU too. Nothing added to the basic airframe which came out
quite light in spite of 2.7 oz. covering. The engine complete with stock flywheel,
alternator and starter was 222 lbs. One thing leads to another you know!
Interestingly enough, in 1994 the Buckeye Pietenpol Association did weight and
balance on 8 Piets at Brodhead. Those with the long fuselage averaged 742.8
lbs empty! This seems to be a long way from the empty weights being reported
now by builders. Don't know what has changed?
John
Thanks, John. the spreadsheet came through fine. I see that you've calculated
your cg positions from your empty weight and not weighed for them, which is
probably what most people do.
I'll do some math work later to see what your gear weighs on the scales.
I notice that your empty weight is pretty high. What do you have in your bird
besides that super-pooper turbo-charged Subaru engine?
Mike Hardaway
on 1/13/04 17:27, John Dilatush at dilatush(at)amigo.net wrote:
Mike,
Here is the W&B and you can see how it is normally computed for various loadings.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Piet information list |
In a message dated 1/13/04 7:11:56 AM Central Standard Time, Carbarvo(at)aol.com
writes:
<< Unless I missed it, there's one addition I would like
to see. When brakes are added to a Piet, some folks move the mains axis
forward to reduce the tendency to nose over on heavy braking (mine have been
moved
forward 2.5" from the plans). We could include the dimension from prop hub
to
the axle....Whatta ya think? >>
Carl,
The datam on the Pietenpol is the firewall. I'll include you're
suggestion in the 'Alterations' section of the Infomation Sheet.
My split axle is in the plans location of 17" behind the firewall. I
have brakes, for run up, and taxiing in tight areas - not to stop the landing
roll out. If you move the axle forward, you place more weight on the tailskid
/
wheel, and it will not come up as quick on the take off run.
Chuck Gantzer.
3 days in a row, of Piet wether !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | full stall vs. wheel |
Group-- this is just an observation over the years--- I'm not good at wheel
landings at all. I can do them, but I full stall my Piet 100 % of the
time-- and after 350 hours, twice to Oshkosh and twice to Brodhead I've
landed (especially at Brodhead last summer where they had the diagonal
runway X-ed out) in some nasty crosswinds and never had a problem. Tons
of aileron into the wind and a burst of power if you need it, but hardly
ever so. Of course grass is more forgiving. I do wheel
landings/touch/goes for fun on the grass on calm nights on one wheel then
the other (try to be Bob Hoover in a Piet for a minute) but that's about
it. Did the same in the Champ. I realize the rationale for doing wheel
landings and keeping your speed up for aileron authority, etc, but if you
full stall a Piet you are going slow enough on touchdown that if you have
full aileron into it, keep the nose straight w/ the rudder, you won't go
anywhere you don't want to.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear Location |
I have two words in reference to rough fields, big engines and good
brakes: Helio Courier. It's mains are practically under the prop, and
if not for the extremely slow rollout I would bet it would be very
exciting to land.
I hope John Dilatush will be a Brodhead this year. I really would like
to see his pimped-out Piet performing like a VTOL. :-)
John
John Ford
john(at)indstate.edu
812-237-8542
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | At7000ft(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Buying spruce for AirCamper |
I used to teach taildragging in a Decathalon and a Super Cub and never had an
experienced pilot take over 10 hours, may want to find a different instructor.
2) I'm a private pilot with about 200 hours, now working on a
tailwheel endorsement. Although my instructor says I'm "almost there,"
it has taken a LOT longer than I expected (over 20 hours), and this in a
Citabria which sounds like it's much easier to land/take off than a Piet
by all descriptions I have heard. Should low total time and a long time
learning to handle a taildragger deter me from building a Pietenpol, or
will this seem like a distant problem in a few years when I'm ready to
fly it?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | At7000ft(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: wing & fabic/paint weights |
Did you also need to move your wing back?
Rick Holland
DJ,,, I moved my corvair out 2 and a half inches and I'm sure glad I did.
Besides my big butt not helping the w&b, it
really gave me a little extra room from the firewall. It gets real crowded
back there to boot. I know this is repetitious
but don't ya just love that corvair engine? Man what a kick,,, your's really
looks great.
Carl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | At7000ft(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Piet information list |
Hank - given this data how do you calibrate how hard you can press on the
brakes at a given speed to avoid grazing? Rick H.
OK, I'm going to stick my nose in once more. To be useful you need to know
where the contact point of the tire is in relation to the CG in a level
attitude. Sorry guys but all the other measurements don't help much from a nose
over
point of view. The other thing that is needed is the height from the ground
to the CG. With those measurements you can calculate the nose over moment and
with the tail force and arm you can calculate exactly how much brake you can
use verses the airspeed. That is what tells you if you are going to have a
"grazer" or a tail dragger.
Hank J
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear Location |
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Location
==================================
John
I'll try to be at Brodhead this year if I don't sell Mountain Piet first.
A word of caution however, the turbo'd engine is only useful here at high
altitude where I live and fly. At sea level the plane will only perform the
same as any other 110 to 135 hp powered Piet. 45 inches of manifold
pressure at 10,000 feet or 100 feet produces the same hp.
John
=================================
>
> I have two words in reference to rough fields, big engines and good
> brakes: Helio Courier. It's mains are practically under the prop, and
> if not for the extremely slow rollout I would bet it would be very
> exciting to land.
>
> I hope John Dilatush will be a Brodhead this year. I really would like
> to see his pimped-out Piet performing like a VTOL. :-)
> John
>
> John Ford
> john(at)indstate.edu
> 812-237-8542
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Buying spruce for AirCamper |
<018b01c3da36$2e226100$d4ddf6ce@hjarrett>
Don't want to profit from this, I'm too busy with the airforce, but if I
can help someone and save them some $$ I certainly will.
hjarrett wrote:
>
>
> MAN! You should go into the kit parts business. Collect up and package all
> the wood to build a Piet and sell for a huge profit. You would still be
> beating the pants off the competition. Good deal for us and you.
> Hank J
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "dave rowe" <rowed044(at)shaw.ca>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Buying spruce for AirCamper
>
> >
> > Silly question, but what part of the country do you live in? If you are
> > in WA or Ore, you can do way better. My entire airframe cost for wood
> > is under $400.00 Canadian. I should have plenty of leftover yellow
> > cedar if anyone wants some for wing ribs, let me know. A local mill
> > here lets me wander through and hand pick anything I want, so larger
> > sizes can be had too.
> >
> > At7000ft(at)aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Not having a lot of experience dealing with Aircraft Spruce or Wicks
> (yet) I was wondering if some of you veterans would give me your opinion on
> this:
> > >
> > > Aircraft Spruce has an AirCamper spruce kit for $804. Since Wicks has no
> equivalent kit I asked AS for the kit part list, (the contents matched that
> of an Excel spreadsheet I have seen posted at this site) sent the list to
> Wicks and they came back with a price of $1075. Then I added up the AS
> prices for the list items and came up with around $1070. The AS rep said the
> $804 price is discounted because its a kit, however the lead time is 1 to 2
> months. Wicks claims a 1 weeks lead time.
> > >
> > > I can't believe AS is discounting spruce this much and there must be a
> catch, problem is I may need to wait 2 months to find out what it is. Has
> anyone else ordered this wood kit from Aircraft Spruce before?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Rick Holland
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Buying spruce for AirCamper |
Agree, sonds like some profiteering to me.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
I personally know some tailwheel instructors are super-nit picky about
signing someone off in a taildragger just because of liability reasons and
that the person might be then renting that Cub or Citabria after
checkout. Sometimes an instructor can be too casual and sign you off too
early---case in point: A guy builds a Tailwind, gets a quickie checkout in
a Cub and then on the second flight in his Tailwind he stall spins on
takeoff. Saw it. Some people are just slow learners on tailwheels,
others adapt more readily.
The Citabria is really easy to see over the nose also like a Champ because
you can fly it from the front seat. That's great for a while to get used
to tailwheels, but then if you can for a Piet, ask the instructor if once
you get good at the front seat if he'll let you fly from the rear seat to
really see what it feels like. Course a Cub needs the pilot in the
back--most models.
More fodder.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Eldredge" <steve(at)byu.edu> |
Mike,
How is a stall-spin accident related to a tailwheel?
Groundloop?
Steve e.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
D Cuy
Subject: Pietenpol-List: taildraggers
I personally know some tailwheel instructors are super-nit picky about
signing someone off in a taildragger just because of liability reasons
and
that the person might be then renting that Cub or Citabria after
checkout. Sometimes an instructor can be too casual and sign you off
too
early---case in point: A guy builds a Tailwind, gets a quickie checkout
in
a Cub and then on the second flight in his Tailwind he stall spins on
takeoff. Saw it. Some people are just slow learners on tailwheels,
others adapt more readily.
The Citabria is really easy to see over the nose also like a Champ
because
you can fly it from the front seat. That's great for a while to get
used
to tailwheels, but then if you can for a Piet, ask the instructor if
once
you get good at the front seat if he'll let you fly from the rear seat
to
really see what it feels like. Course a Cub needs the pilot in the
back--most models.
More fodder.
Mike C.
==
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
du>
>Mike,
>How is a stall-spin accident related to a tailwheel?
>Groundloop?
>Steve e.
Steve-- I guess the point is that this guy built a Wittman Tailwind and got
a quickie checkout in a Cub that flies nothing like a Wittman Tailwind that
he had just spend 7 years building and not flying. So he gets a
tailwheel checkout and thinks he can fly anything with a tailwheel. Yikes
! I have flown a Corby Starlet and it was absolutely nothing like the
Pietenpol or Champ---I mean totally different animal, but still a tailwheel
airplane. Just like the back seat of a Champ or Citabria are much
different than the front seats.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kent Hallsten" <KHallsten(at)Governair.com> |
I like this talk about taildraggers, as I need to get my endorsement someday.
First, much more building to do.
Back in my work history I spent lots of time driving forklifts, which steer from
the back end. It took a little time to get used to that feeling of your butt
moving before your front. But soon enough it came naturally and you can get
in and out of tight spots and do things that a front steering vehicle could
not do.
By any chance would that help me in any way when I start training in taildraggers?
Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> (by way of Matt Dralle <nospam(at)matronics.com>) |
| Subject: | Your local aircraft service centre (???) |
The case for auto engines.
At least here in Canada
e513035.JPG
Parts and maintenance for your CAM can be found at your local
<http://www.firewall.ca/faq.htm#Question14>auto service centre.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Eldredge" <steve(at)byu.edu> |
Ok I understand the point and agree. Just didn't want it to get
attributed to just being a Tailwheel airplane.
Steve Eldredge
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
D Cuy
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: taildraggers
>Mike,
>How is a stall-spin accident related to a tailwheel?
>Groundloop?
>Steve e.
Steve-- I guess the point is that this guy built a Wittman Tailwind and
got
a quickie checkout in a Cub that flies nothing like a Wittman Tailwind
that
he had just spend 7 years building and not flying. So he gets a
tailwheel checkout and thinks he can fly anything with a tailwheel.
Yikes
! I have flown a Corby Starlet and it was absolutely nothing like
the
Pietenpol or Champ---I mean totally different animal, but still a
tailwheel
airplane. Just like the back seat of a Champ or Citabria are much
different than the front seats.
Mike C.
==
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | At7000ft(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: taildraggers |
Very good point Mike. If you are going to fly a tamdem/taildragger you really need
a Rear Seat checkout (with a front seat passenger with a big fat head) AND
a taildragger checkout. I don't recall if I always had a taildragger checkout
student fly some time from the back seat with me in the front.
Rick H
> The Citabria is really easy to see over the nose also like a Champ because
> you can fly it from the front seat. That's great for a while to get used
> to tailwheels, but then if you can for a Piet, ask the instructor if once
> you get good at the front seat if he'll let you fly from the rear seat to
> really see what it feels like. Course a Cub needs the
> pilot in the
> back--most models.
> More fodder.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: taildraggers |
Rick H-----I had zero tailwheel time and bought 1/2 interest in a Champ
with my older buddy from church. (he had many hours from the 1950's when I
wasn't even around) The insurance required that I get 15 hours dual in the
plane before I was legal to go solo. I had a friend who was happy to help
me out for pizza and dinner now and then plus fuel and oil but we got bored
after about 8-10 hours so he put in in the back seat and said, "ok.....now
let's see what you are made of." We worked off of grass strips at first
and in fairly calm winds and then he worked me up to winds, then finally
winds with in the back seat. The door removed from a Champ (it's fine to
fly it like that) is wonderful !!! (it also makes landings easier because
like in the Piet your side vision is pretty wide open which helps keep you
in line.
Walt E. , Steve E. and others can attest to this---when I have a front
passenger I ask them to either shift their shoulders to the far right or
far left side of the fuselage. They don't have to duck down, just move
some shoulder out of my line of sight and it does make short final and
flare out more accurate. Sure helps with a broad shouldered passenger.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: taildraggers |
Mike,
good suggestion! I'll try that.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: taildraggers
> Walt E. , Steve E. and others can attest to this---when I have a front
> passenger I ask them to either shift their shoulders to the far right or
> far left side of the fuselage. They don't have to duck down, just move
> some shoulder out of my line of sight and it does make short final and
> flare out more accurate. Sure helps with a broad shouldered passenger.
>
> Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: taildraggers |
I wouldn't worry about a bit too much instruction. When you send in your
insurance application for your new Piet you will be dollars ahead with more
than 25 hours in type.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: taildraggers
>
> I personally know some tailwheel instructors are super-nit picky about
> signing someone off in a taildragger just because of liability reasons and
> that the person might be then renting that Cub or Citabria after
> checkout. Sometimes an instructor can be too casual and sign you off too
> early---case in point: A guy builds a Tailwind, gets a quickie checkout in
> a Cub and then on the second flight in his Tailwind he stall spins on
> takeoff. Saw it. Some people are just slow learners on tailwheels,
> others adapt more readily.
> The Citabria is really easy to see over the nose also like a Champ because
> you can fly it from the front seat. That's great for a while to get used
> to tailwheels, but then if you can for a Piet, ask the instructor if once
> you get good at the front seat if he'll let you fly from the rear seat to
> really see what it feels like. Course a Cub needs the pilot in the
> back--most models.
> More fodder.
>
> Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave and Connie <dmatthe1(at)rochester.rr.com> |
<5.1.1.5.2.20040114114142.01761778(at)popserve.grc.nasa.gov>
When I bought the Taylorcraft the insurance folks wanted 15 hours of dual
for someone with 65 hours total and all of that in a 150. The first
takeoff looked like a drunk weaving down the runway. We decided that I
should yank it off the ground before I hit any lights. The last few hours
consisted of lots of laughing in the headsets as we flew into every farmer
strip around here.
Dave
N36078 '41 BC-12-65
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Weaver" <Mytyweav(at)earthlink.net> |
<6.0.0.22.1.20040114194025.01dc8898@pop-server.rochester.rr.com>
| Subject: | Re: taildraggers |
Love it.... So cool eh Dave? Now, don't you think the wing section would
make a good Piet airfoil?
Weav
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave and Connie" <dmatthe1(at)rochester.rr.com>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: taildraggers
> When I bought the Taylorcraft the insurance folks wanted 15 hours of dual
> for someone with 65 hours total and all of that in a 150. The first
> takeoff looked like a drunk weaving down the runway. We decided that I
> should yank it off the ground before I hit any lights. The last few hours
> consisted of lots of laughing in the headsets as we flew into every farmer
> strip around here.
>
> Dave
> N36078 '41 BC-12-65
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: taildraggers |
I think the key is to get a tricycle and peddle it around the
neighborhood while sitting backwards. Make airplane noises while you do
it, what the hell most people think we're nuts anyway!! Seriously,
experience is the key, and practice, practice, practice. I never do the
same type of landing or take-off twice, I always work on short-field,
soft-field, etc. every time I fly. I still draw lines on maps and
figure wind vectors too. Anything to keep my skills as sharp as
possible, and gives me the excuse to fly as often as my wallet allows
until the Piet takes to the skies.
Kent Hallsten wrote:
>
>
> I like this talk about taildraggers, as I need to get my endorsement someday.
First, much more building to do.
>
> Back in my work history I spent lots of time driving forklifts, which steer
from the back end. It took a little time to get used to that feeling of your
butt moving before your front. But soon enough it came naturally and you can
get in and out of tight spots and do things that a front steering vehicle could
not do.
>
> By any chance would that help me in any way when I start training in taildraggers?
>
> Kent
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Your local aircraft service centre (???) |
I LOVE IT!! Yes I'm yelling. I just read the biggest auto-conversion
bashing session I've ever seen on the Thorp newsgroup. They feel if
it's not Lycoming, it shouldn't be in an aircraft. They also seem to
firmly believe that horzontally-opposed air-cooled engines are the be
all and end all. Guess that old Rolls-Royce Merlin was a big hunk of
crap! Bombardier better stop their V-6 development!!
"Clif Dawson (by way of Matt Dralle )" wrote:
>
> The case for auto engines.
> At least here in Canada
>
> e513035.JPG
>
> Parts and maintenance for your CAM can be found at your local
> <http://www.firewall.ca/faq.htm#Question14>auto service centre.
>
> [Image]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Conkling" <hpvs(at)southwind.net> |
| Subject: | Re: taildraggers |
When the time comes, I'll have to see if my 28 hours in a J-3 are still
"useful" (in addition to getting some more current taildragger time!) My
first solo was a long time ago! ;-)
Mike C.
Pretty Prairie, KS
--- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: taildraggers
>
> I wouldn't worry about a bit too much instruction. When you send in your
> insurance application for your new Piet you will be dollars ahead with
more
> than 25 hours in type.
> Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Conkling" <hpvs(at)southwind.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear Location |
My old copy (1965) of "Practical Lightplane Design & Construction" by Bill
Fike listed the average landing angle as being 12 to 14 degrees -- with the
fuselage level, the wheel axle was in-line with the leading edge of the
wing (16 degrees down & forward of the CG point) -- for a "cub" like
airplane with brakes.
Mike C.
Pretty Prairie, KS
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Bobka
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Location
To clarify John's post below, the 16.5 degree angle is with the tail up
and the ship level fore and aft using the top longerons at the cockpit for
leveling.
chris bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: John Dilatush
To: Pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 12:46 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Location
----- Original Message -----
From: At7000ft(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet information list
Pieters,
The proper location of the landing gear ground contact point is
determined by the CG of the plane.
The CG of the entire plane is a combination of the horizontal and
vertical centers of gravity. From this point a line may be drawn to the
ground contact point of the landing gear. The angle of this line is usually
16.5 degrees forward from the vertical if the plane is equiped with brakes,
somewhat less if the plane has no brakes. It might be neccessary to
increase this angle if the thrust line is high, so as to prevent nose over
during run up and rough field operation. However, the heavier the tail load
is, the more of a tendency for ground looping upon landing.
On "Mountain Piet" this angle is about 12 degrees and this seems to work
out OK, both for rough fields and no ground looping tendencies. The brakes
won't hold the plane during run up, so this is not an issue. My tailwheel
weight when the plane is leveled up is only about 9 lbs.
I had attached the spreadsheet used for my plane, however it was too
large for Matronics to accept, so it was bounced. If anyone is interested,
I'll be glad to try and send it directly to you.
Hope all this helps.
John Dilatush NX114D
Salida, CO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
<6.0.0.22.1.20040114194025.01dc8898@pop-server.rochester.rr.com>
| Subject: | Re: taildraggers |
awwww come on! you used headsets in a Tcraft?!!!
:-)
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave and Connie" <dmatthe1(at)rochester.rr.com>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: taildraggers
> When I bought the Taylorcraft the insurance folks wanted 15 hours of dual
> for someone with 65 hours total and all of that in a 150. The first
> takeoff looked like a drunk weaving down the runway. We decided that I
> should yank it off the ground before I hit any lights. The last few hours
> consisted of lots of laughing in the headsets as we flew into every farmer
> strip around here.
>
> Dave
> N36078 '41 BC-12-65
>
----
>
> ---
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andimaxd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Engine mount and tailfeathers |
Hello to all:
My project is coming right along. The engine mount is welded straight, in
other words no one inch down and no half to one inch right or left. We are
using a cont. 75 HP. Should I mount the vertical tail fin an inch or so over to
one side or is it worth messing with?
Also do I need to have more incidence in the left wing to compensate for
torque and P factor?
Any constructive criticisms are welcome. I have seen them all ways. Let the
debates begin...
Thanks in advance,
Max L. Davis
Arlington Tx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John McNarry" <jmcnarry(at)escape.ca> |
I learned to fly (as much as I have 70 hours) in a PA12 sitting in the
back seat plus some Cornell 18 hrs & Harvard 7hrs all dual time in the
back seat. Had a lesson sitting in the front of a Citabria and found it
harder as being on the axis of the yaw deviations from straight ahaead
aren't picked up "by the seat of the pants" quite as soon.
John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shawn Wolk" <shawnwolk(at)sprint.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine mount and tailfeathers |
My A-65 powered Piet has the top of the engine mount 1" longer at top. This
was done by spacers at the engine mount/firewall. (1" bottom, 2"top) The tail
isn't a standard Piet design or mount, but it's offset approx. 3/4" and its not
enough. So a small trim tab was added to the rudder to compensate. The one piece
wing was rigged with identical incidence on both sides. The tips have approx.
1.25" of wash. (this was measured in inches using an incidence jig) The plane
will fly with the ball in the center for a long time in stable air.
For you cold weather pilots out there. A pic of my Pietenpol won me a hat today on http://www.avweb.com . You just have to bundle up a bit to enjoy it.
(it was mild, only -10C) It flew great on skis, and the air was smooth.
Shawn Wolk
C-FRAZ 1932 Pietenpol Aircamper
C-GZOT Skyhopper 2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Weav wrote-
>Now, don't you think the wing section [23012] would make a good Piet
>airfoil?
This airfoil has gotten kicked around quite a bit on the KRNet, in
discussing it as a possible good one for KRs. The crux of the discussion
was that the wing has an abrupt stall characteristic, as seen by the sharp
break in the lift coefficient curve. Some of this effect can be moderated
by using wing washout so the stall progresses from root to tip rather than
having the whole wing stop flying at once, but that complicates the wing
rigging and decreases the wing efficiency. The EAA Biplane uses this
airfoil, so does the T'Craft, the Beech Bonanza, and a host of others... but
there are ones with better stall characteristics.
It sure would be interesting to get the Piet airfoil tested in a wind tunnel
and get some characteristic curves to study! But until then, there will
always be hangar discussions about possible airfoils, won't there?
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
Learn how to choose, serve, and enjoy wine at Wine @ MSN.
http://wine.msn.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | At7000ft(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: taildraggers |
Really, back in my day we just screamed and yelled at each other.
Rick H
awwww come on! you used headsets in a Tcraft?!!!
:-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | corvair engine gripe |
Last night, I was trying to clean up the garage a bit and the plan was to
remove all the cooling tin from the Corvair engines I just got so they would
neatly fit into the corner. Just to pull the tins off, I used every wrench
from 1/4" to 5/8", it was nuts! I've pulled whole engines apart with less
wrenches.
Anyway, I was going to snap a picture of the cute little buggers lined up in
the corner and attach it, but that may be just silly. Also, the question
periodically arises about where a person should start an airplane project.
The following is a section taken from an email that I sent to another
gentleman, here are my thoughts:
My opinion is that you should start with the engine first. Some people say
the tail feathers or the wing ribs, and it's too easy to quit after just
building those. I think it would be hard to futz around for a few years
building inexpensive parts, and then try to justify the most expensive
component on the aircraft. If you are willing to build the engine first,
build a test stand, strap on a prop, and run the damn thing, just the
presence of that assembly in the shop would provide the pressure to
continue. Additionally, the engine complete won't consume anywhere near the
floorspace as it sits and waits for the completion of the rest of the
project, unlike a set of wings or a fuselage.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: corvair engine gripe |
I somewhat agree with the logic of building the engine first. I did not do it
that way myself but I did build the engine pretty early in the project. I'm
about 50% done with the airframe and I just finished my engine.
Here's my logic and why I did it that way.
Start with something small... ribs or rudder, etc. and get a feel for how to work
with the materials. Them move onto the fuse. Get the fuse up on the wheels.
By this point you have probably been working on the project for about a year or
so and are probably in the downward swing of motivation (like I was).
THEN build yourself the engine! It takes a couple months to get it done but when
your done and you have fired that baby up you are pumped and overflowing with
massive amounts of motivation.
Building the engine is a rejuvinating experience. It will pull you right out of
that slump that you seem to get in at the 50% mark.
I haven't seriously touched my airframe for months and months. I built my Corvair
back in September-November and now I'm juiced and going strong on the airframe
again. In fact I'm hoping to have continuity to the elevators and rudder
in the next week and then it's time for wings.
You could build the engine first but I think after it sitting in the shop for a
couple years it would loose it's luster and exitement factor.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Haines
Subject: Pietenpol-List: corvair engine gripe
Last night, I was trying to clean up the garage a bit and the plan was to
remove all the cooling tin from the Corvair engines I just got so they would
neatly fit into the corner. Just to pull the tins off, I used every wrench
from 1/4" to 5/8", it was nuts! I've pulled whole engines apart with less
wrenches.
Anyway, I was going to snap a picture of the cute little buggers lined up in
the corner and attach it, but that may be just silly. Also, the question
periodically arises about where a person should start an airplane project.
The following is a section taken from an email that I sent to another
gentleman, here are my thoughts:
My opinion is that you should start with the engine first. Some people say
the tail feathers or the wing ribs, and it's too easy to quit after just
building those. I think it would be hard to futz around for a few years
building inexpensive parts, and then try to justify the most expensive
component on the aircraft. If you are willing to build the engine first,
build a test stand, strap on a prop, and run the damn thing, just the
presence of that assembly in the shop would provide the pressure to
continue. Additionally, the engine complete won't consume anywhere near the
floorspace as it sits and waits for the completion of the rest of the
project, unlike a set of wings or a fuselage.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
=
This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by Half Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more information on an anti-virus email solution, visit <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Headsets - intercom |
On the subject of headsets...
About 6 months ago, I bought a used pair of headsets with a portable 9v battery
powered DC intercom system with plans to use the system in the open cockpit Piet
whenever its finished. I have since started flying quite a bit in my father-in-law's
T-craft BC-65. Most of my flights are buddy rides (whenever the president
is not vacationing at the Crawford Ranch) and I spend a lot of flights
training my father-in-law, who has yet to solo. Though I am not a CFI, I am
helping him with the basic skills so that whenever he finds a tailwheel instructor
he'll be ahead of the game. Anyway, the headsets are GREAT for that purpose.
We have no radio, so the headsets are strictly used to talk between ourselves.
Wow - what a difference.
I have a lot of hours flying in old airplanes without headsets. At times, I have
literally become horse trying to communicate with my passengers. Headsets
change all that. It is especially gratifying to actually interact with my kids
when taking them up for sightseeing. Its a whole bunch better than yelling
at them. They get enough of that from me at home. Anyway, I am also looking
forward to teaching them to fly in a few years. The headsets and intercom are
the way to go.
One adverse effect though, is that it took me quite a while to get used to flying
with headsets on. They do a good job of dampening noise. But this can be
detrimental if you are like me and rely on all of your senses to fly the airplane.
Our airstrip is short with obstacles at both ends and sometimes (hot calm
weather) it can be tricky to land the Taylorcraft there. As much as the T-craft
floats, side slipping all the way to flare is a must at our place. You have
to have the flare speed nailed just right or you'll float all the way down
the strip. I found that whenever I am having difficulty with this technique
it is best to go around and lose the headsets. I am used to them now and hardly
notice them. Still, sometimes I am able to make better landings when I toss
the headsets so I am able to listen to the wind noise on short final thru flare.
I guess I am a seat of the pants kind of guy.
Terry L. Bowden
Trapped inside the Crawford TFR for the past 2 weekends...looking forward to flying
this weekend if the weather clears.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: corvair engine gripe |
It doesen't matter where you start...just GET CRACKING!
As in my case...I need to KEEP CRACKING!
Terry L. Bowden
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: FW: 6 peteskis |
Corky has been in the hospital for 3 days for tests. We hope he may be home
in a couple of days. Isablcorky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Corky has been in the hospital for 3 days for tests as his left leg seems to
go to sleep so I am going in today at 11:30 to check the test results. He
feels fine but is staying in bed. Isablcorky @aol.com--his wife at home at this
time.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Weaver" <Mytyweav(at)earthlink.net> |
The reason I like the 23012 section is less drag with plenty of lift. Nasty
stall characteristics??? I don't think so. It's a forgiving airfoil that
slides through the air easier than most. What's with all the graphs and
curves anyway? How about good old practical flying? Besides, what do you
want anyway? A faster airplane or one that "Stalls Better"?
Weav
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: airfoils
>
> Weav wrote-
>
> >Now, don't you think the wing section [23012] would make a good Piet
> >airfoil?
>
> This airfoil has gotten kicked around quite a bit on the KRNet, in
> discussing it as a possible good one for KRs. The crux of the discussion
> was that the wing has an abrupt stall characteristic, as seen by the sharp
> break in the lift coefficient curve. Some of this effect can be moderated
> by using wing washout so the stall progresses from root to tip rather than
> having the whole wing stop flying at once, but that complicates the wing
> rigging and decreases the wing efficiency. The EAA Biplane uses this
> airfoil, so does the T'Craft, the Beech Bonanza, and a host of others...
but
> there are ones with better stall characteristics.
>
> It sure would be interesting to get the Piet airfoil tested in a wind
tunnel
> and get some characteristic curves to study! But until then, there will
> always be hangar discussions about possible airfoils, won't there?
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Learn how to choose, serve, and enjoy wine at Wine @ MSN.
> http://wine.msn.com/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Buying spruce for AirCamper |
| From: | "Hodgson, Mark O" <mhodgson(at)bu.edu> |
A few points:
1) I did unusual attitude/upset recovery training in a Super
Decathlon, and the instructor pointed out that with 180 hp it was
actually easier to land/takeoff than a lower-powered taildragger. I
wasn't going for a tailwheel endorsement at the time, but landing it
just didn't seem all that hard, either.
2) For some reason, wheel landings have come much easier to me than
3 point, proceeding well even under what the instructor called "very
challenging" wind conditions at times. I had a tough time earlier on
with the gradual pulling back on the stick for the 3 point.
3) The FBO lost a Citabria to a renter last September when a parked
Mustang got in the way of a particularly low go-around (after the second
bounce); the right wheel caught the driver's side window and pulled the
car over on its side, with the plane sticking up like it had been
planted in the car. Pilot and nephew allegedly walked away, but the
plane was sold to someone in Indiana.
4) Don't know if I'll EVER get the endorsement, but the instructor,
an ex-sky-writer, is simply one of the best I've ever had and I learn
knew tricks with every lesson--we've landed and taken off from an uphill
grass strip that can barely be seen from pattern altitude, in serious
cross-winds on a short paved strip between a river, some woods, and a
hill at the departure end, and numerous other small adventures that have
made it worthwhile to me considering my relatively low time.
Thank you all for the comments on the list in the past couple of days,
Mark Hodgson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Corvair trip to AL & Scanned Piet Article... |
First, that trip I was going to make to Alabama to pick up Corvair parts is off.
Never heard from the guy.....(Robert must have cleaned him out!!!)
In the meantime, I received 3 good leads for 110's after one email to the local
Corvair club. Ain't technology grand! I've found one, but also followed up
on the others for the sake of several of you that asked me to check on bringing
something back from Alabama for them. I'll let you know when/if I hear back
from these others......
I just scanned and posted an article from the May 1956 issue of Experimenter.
(Another cool benefit of having an old timer for a tech counselor, especially
one that has saved every EAA Experimenter/Sport Aviation/etc publication from
the beginning....and has a Corvair 110 in his garage waiting for a home.) Anyway,
this article has several pages of interesting Pietenpol info - plus a note
from Bernard Pietenpol....interesting reading.
<http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID184>
If anyone wants the larger file versions (mykitplane reduces the size of files
to a more manageable web site size), just let me know and I'll email direct.....
Jim in Plano......working on one of the most important parts of my successful Pietenpol
completion......my wife's new kitchen cabinets.....
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
Great photo in AvWeb Shawn !!! Congratulations. Stay warm up thar in
Canada,
Mike C.
PS: For those who missed this photo, go
the way to the bottom and look for the yeller Piet climbing out on snow
skis.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Tailwheel training, was : Buying spruce for AirCamper |
I have taken Tailwheel training in a 65 horsepower Cessna 120 and a 150
horsepower Cessna 152 Texas Taildragger at different times (and states),
and have not yet gotten my TW endorsement. Most of the 65 horse
training involved a narrow gravel road Southwest of Odessa, Texas, and
the 150 horse training on a paved runway in Indiana. The 65 horses
didn't require much compensation for torque or gyroscopics when raising
the tail, whereas the 150 horses required a great deal of compensation.
That said (or typed, as it were), 150 horses in a small plane gets you
off the ground before you can say "runway lights." I never had any
problems with 3-point landings, even in gusty crosswind conditions and
could even do them as well as some of my instructors (I'm low time, but
apparently it's the single thing I "get" and can do well in a airplane),
but I never could stick a wheel landing without excessive speed,
regardless of weight or horsepower. It is easier to get out of trouble
(i.e. back in the air with a positive rate of climb) with more
horsepower, but things seem to be a lot more graceful with less. Having
said all that, for me it's still a tossup between a Model A, a
Continental 65 or 85 or a Corvair. I am pretty sure budget will be the
determining factor and I'll love whatever I get and pine for whatever I
don't...
John
John Ford
john(at)indstate.edu
812-237-8542
>>> mhodgson(at)bu.edu Thursday, January 15, 2004 12:19:56 PM >>>
A few points:
1) I did unusual attitude/upset recovery training in a Super
Decathlon, and the instructor pointed out that with 180 hp it was
actually easier to land/takeoff than a lower-powered taildragger. I
wasn't going for a tailwheel endorsement at the time, but landing it
just didn't seem all that hard, either.
2) For some reason, wheel landings have come much easier to me
than
3 point, proceeding well even under what the instructor called "very
challenging" wind conditions at times. I had a tough time earlier on
with the gradual pulling back on the stick for the 3 point.
3) etc.....
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine mount and tailfeathers |
Max,
Your P factor will be more pronounced with the engine not tipped down .
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Andimaxd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:12 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Engine mount and tailfeathers
Hello to all:
My project is coming right along. The engine mount is welded straight, in other
words no one inch down and no half to one inch right or left. We are using
a cont. 75 HP. Should I mount the vertical tail fin an inch or so over to one
side or is it worth messing with?
Also do I need to have more incidence in the left wing to compensate for torque
and P factor?
Any constructive criticisms are welcome. I have seen them all ways. Let the
debates begin...
Thanks in advance,
Max L. Davis
Arlington Tx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: taildraggers |
For whoever asked, the stall spin on takeoff is related to horsing the ship
off the ground before reaching flying airspeed. A little side slip and a
snaproll ensues. I have done it with R/C ships. A weak tailwheel pilot,
when about to lose control on the ground, will try to horse it off into the
air where control is assumed to be available when in fact it is not, hence
the relation to stall spin accidents with inadequately trained tailwheel
pilots.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: taildraggers
>
>
> I personally know some tailwheel instructors are super-nit picky about
> signing someone off in a taildragger just because of liability reasons and
> that the person might be then renting that Cub or Citabria after
> checkout. Sometimes an instructor can be too casual and sign you off too
> early---case in point: A guy builds a Tailwind, gets a quickie checkout in
> a Cub and then on the second flight in his Tailwind he stall spins on
> takeoff. Saw it. Some people are just slow learners on tailwheels,
> others adapt more readily.
> The Citabria is really easy to see over the nose also like a Champ because
> you can fly it from the front seat. That's great for a while to get used
> to tailwheels, but then if you can for a Piet, ask the instructor if once
> you get good at the front seat if he'll let you fly from the rear seat to
> really see what it feels like. Course a Cub needs the pilot in the
> back--most models.
> More fodder.
>
> Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: wing & fabic/paint weights |
Rick,,, yes I did,, about three and half inches back if I recall correctly.
but that's a piet,,, gn doesn't have that luxury. It's nice to be able to do,,
really makes a difference
Carl
----- Original Message -----
From: At7000ft(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: wing & fabic/paint weights
Did you also need to move your wing back?
Rick Holland
DJ,,, I moved my corvair out 2 and a half inches and I'm sure glad I did. Besides
my big butt not helping the w&b, it
really gave me a little extra room from the firewall. It gets real crowded
back there to boot. I know this is repetitious
but don't ya just love that corvair engine? Man what a kick,,, your's really
looks great.
Carl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
You can tell Corky that the problem with his leg falling asleep during the day
is that it is then up all night!
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: airfoils
Corky has been in the hospital for 3 days for tests as his left leg seems to
go to sleep so I am going in today at 11:30 to check the test results. He feels
fine but is staying in bed. Isablcorky @aol.com--his wife at home at this
time.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
for AirCamper
| Subject: | Re: Tailwheel training, was : Buying spruce for AirCamper |
John,
Making a first flight in a brand new RV-3 with 150 horses up front was a
real kick. I had 2 hours total of trail dragger time when I did it and the
landing was the best I ever made before or since. That was 1983. Since I
have 500+ hours of tail wheel time in the RV-3 and then an RV-6. Only way
to.
Alex S.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tailwheel training, was : Buying spruce for
AirCamper
>
> I have taken Tailwheel training in a 65 horsepower Cessna 120 and a 150
> horsepower Cessna 152 Texas Taildragger at different times (and states),
> and have not yet gotten my TW endorsement. Most of the 65 horse
> training involved a narrow gravel road Southwest of Odessa, Texas, and
> the 150 horse training on a paved runway in Indiana. The 65 horses
> didn't require much compensation for torque or gyroscopics when raising
> the tail, whereas the 150 horses required a great deal of compensation.
> That said (or typed, as it were), 150 horses in a small plane gets you
> off the ground before you can say "runway lights." I never had any
> problems with 3-point landings, even in gusty crosswind conditions and
> could even do them as well as some of my instructors (I'm low time, but
> apparently it's the single thing I "get" and can do well in a airplane),
> but I never could stick a wheel landing without excessive speed,
> regardless of weight or horsepower. It is easier to get out of trouble
> (i.e. back in the air with a positive rate of climb) with more
> horsepower, but things seem to be a lot more graceful with less. Having
> said all that, for me it's still a tossup between a Model A, a
> Continental 65 or 85 or a Corvair. I am pretty sure budget will be the
> determining factor and I'll love whatever I get and pine for whatever I
> don't...
> John
>
> John Ford
> john(at)indstate.edu
> 812-237-8542
>
>
> >>> mhodgson(at)bu.edu Thursday, January 15, 2004 12:19:56 PM >>>
>
>
> A few points:
> 1) I did unusual attitude/upset recovery training in a Super
> Decathlon, and the instructor pointed out that with 180 hp it was
> actually easier to land/takeoff than a lower-powered taildragger. I
> wasn't going for a tailwheel endorsement at the time, but landing it
> just didn't seem all that hard, either.
> 2) For some reason, wheel landings have come much easier to me
> than
> 3 point, proceeding well even under what the instructor called "very
> challenging" wind conditions at times. I had a tough time earlier on
> with the gradual pulling back on the stick for the 3 point.
> 3) etc.....
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
<002801c3db0c$21e126c0$57c5fea9@mke>
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear Location |
Mike,
I am having a lot of confusion trying to understand this angle thing. 12-14 degrees
measured from where to where? I know how to find the C.G. horzontally but
this vertical C.G. point is new to me. Can you clarify this point?
Alex Sloan
alexms1(at)bellsouth.net
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Conkling
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Location
My old copy (1965) of "Practical Lightplane Design & Construction" by Bill Fike
listed the average landing angle as being 12 to 14 degrees -- with the fuselage
level, the wheel axle was in-line with the leading edge of the wing (16
degrees down & forward of the CG point) -- for a "cub" like airplane with brakes.
Mike C.
Pretty Prairie, KS
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Bobka
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Location
To clarify John's post below, the 16.5 degree angle is with the tail up and
the ship level fore and aft using the top longerons at the cockpit for leveling.
chris bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: John Dilatush
To: Pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 12:46 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Location
----- Original Message -----
From: At7000ft(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet information list
Pieters,
The proper location of the landing gear ground contact point is determined
by the CG of the plane.
The CG of the entire plane is a combination of the horizontal and vertical
centers of gravity. From this point a line may be drawn to the ground contact
point of the landing gear. The angle of this line is usually 16.5 degrees
forward from the vertical if the plane is equiped with brakes, somewhat less
if the plane has no brakes. It might be neccessary to increase this angle if
the thrust line is high, so as to prevent nose over during run up and rough field
operation. However, the heavier the tail load is, the more of a tendency
for ground looping upon landing.
On "Mountain Piet" this angle is about 12 degrees and this seems to work
out OK, both for rough fields and no ground looping tendencies. The brakes won't
hold the plane during run up, so this is not an issue. My tailwheel weight
when the plane is leveled up is only about 9 lbs.
I had attached the spreadsheet used for my plane, however it was too large
for Matronics to accept, so it was bounced. If anyone is interested, I'll be
glad to try and send it directly to you.
Hope all this helps.
John Dilatush NX114D
Salida, CO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Wilcox" <CRAIGWILCOX(at)peoplepc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FW: 6 peteskis |
Isabel -
Thanks for letting us know. I hope that he is OK; please keep us updated!
I'll add him to our prayer list.
Craig Wilcox
Lake Worth, FL
----- Original Message -----
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: FW: 6 peteskis
Corky has been in the hospital for 3 days for tests. We hope he may be home
in a couple of days. Isablcorky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: corvair engine gripe |
One concern about building an engine and then letting it sit in a shop
for months is corrosion. For anyone who wishes to do this, please read
up on the processes required to properly store a motor, is would really
suck to bolt it on your new airplane, only to find it totally seized,
and requiring a complete overhaul!!!
barnstmr(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> It doesen't matter where you start...just GET CRACKING!
>
> As in my case...I need to KEEP CRACKING!
>
> Terry L. Bowden
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Conkling" <hpvs(at)southwind.net> |
<002801c3db0c$21e126c0$57c5fea9@mke> <005e01c3dbbe$1a2f9120$d401a8c0@Alex>
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear Location |
Alex,
The 12-14 degrees would be measured between the upper longeron line and the
ground line -- it's the angle your planes sits at when it in 3-point
position.
Vertical CG can be done the same as horizontal CG -- use the upper longeron
as datum & use the same weights for the components -- distances would be
plus (above?) or minus (below?) the datum -- probably won't be too far from
the upper longeron ( a good "ball park" location would probably be your
horizontal CG location at the upper longeron)
Mike C.
Pretty Prairie, KS
----- Original Message -----
From: Alex Sloan
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Location
Mike,
I am having a lot of confusion trying to understand this angle thing.
12-14 degrees measured from where to where? I know how to find the C.G.
horzontally but this vertical C.G. point is new to me. Can you clarify this
point?
Alex Sloan
alexms1(at)bellsouth.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rod wooller" <rodwooller(at)hotmail.com> |
Group,
I have a set of +.030" forged pistons and I am about to have the barrells
bored to suit.
In the Corvair shop manual the piston to bore clearances are given as: Top
land .022" to .031"
and the skirt: .0011" to .0017".
I'm sure I recall reading somewhere that forged pistons require greater
clearances but I can't find where I read it.
Could someone who has rebuilt their own Corvair using forged pistons (or
anyone who has the knowledge) please clue me up on this.
Many thanks,
Rod Wooller
Chidlow
Australia
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Excellent article on W&B |
From an early British aircraft design book.
Provided by Greg Cardinal and Chris Bobka.
Greg found this info and it is the only place we have ever found it. You just
weigh the aircraft in the tail up, level, position and then in the three point
attitude, loaded of course, and then do the formula and it will tell you the
vertical CG. No guesswork.
I've added it to mykitplane.com Photo Gallery area.....
<http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID=185>
I just wish it was something I needed right now but it's excellent information,
and thanks Greg and Chris.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: taildraggers |
That was before the divorce, right?
----- Original Message -----
Really, back in my day we just screamed and yelled at each other.
Rick H
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Grentzer" <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi Rod I have built several V8 Ford and Chevy engines with forged
pistons. Because the aluminum is denser than cast pistons they expand more
when heated. the piston manufacturer should supply the clearance
information. All of the forged pistons I have installed called for .005"
skirt clearance. You can actually hear them rattleing in the engine when
they are cold which I personally dont like but they quiet down when they are
hot from being loaded. Hope this is of some help. Ed G.
>From: "rod wooller" <rodwooller(at)hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: forged pistons
>Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:37:23 +0800
>
>
>
>Group,
>
>I have a set of +.030" forged pistons and I am about to have the barrells
>bored to suit.
>In the Corvair shop manual the piston to bore clearances are given as: Top
>land .022" to .031"
>and the skirt: .0011" to .0017".
>I'm sure I recall reading somewhere that forged pistons require greater
>clearances but I can't find where I read it.
>Could someone who has rebuilt their own Corvair using forged pistons (or
>anyone who has the knowledge) please clue me up on this.
>
>Many thanks,
>Rod Wooller
>Chidlow
>Australia
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
>http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
>
>
Check out the new MSN 9 Dial-up fast & reliable Internet access with prime
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kent Hallsten" <KHallsten(at)Governair.com> |
>
Rod,
Have you joined this list? I remember your same question being discussed recently.
Kent
> See CorvAircraft list details at
http://www.krnet.org/corvaircraft_inst.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | At7000ft(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: taildraggers |
Thats right, after the divorce we only yelled when we were in an airplane.
That was before the divorce, right?
----- Original Message -----
Really, back in my day we just screamed and yelled at each other.
Rick H
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair trip to AL & Scanned Piet Article... |
Jim,
I also have not heard back from the guy, although it may be because my
emails have been bouncing back as if his email account is no longer valid.
This happened to me before while trying to setup a meeting time, it took
weeks to arrange. I doubt very much that he is no longer interested in
selling what he has, he may just be experiencing "technical difficulties".
If I do make contact, I will let you all (y'all) know.
And speaking of your wife's kitchen cabinets... three days after my Alabama
trip, I was ordering my wife a new laptop computer. :)
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
From: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair trip to AL & Scanned Piet Article...
First, that trip I was going to make to Alabama to pick up Corvair parts is
off.
Never heard from the guy.....(Robert must have cleaned him out!!!)
In the meantime, I received 3 good leads for 110's after one email to the
local
Corvair club. Ain't technology grand! I've found one, but also followed up
on the others for the sake of several of you that asked me to check on
bringing
something back from Alabama for them. I'll let you know when/if I hear back
from these others......
I just scanned and posted an article from the May 1956 issue of
Experimenter.
(Another cool benefit of having an old timer for a tech counselor,
especially
one that has saved every EAA Experimenter/Sport Aviation/etc publication
from
the beginning....and has a Corvair 110 in his garage waiting for a home.)
Anyway,
this article has several pages of interesting Pietenpol info - plus a note
from Bernard Pietenpol....interesting reading.
<http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID184>
If anyone wants the larger file versions (mykitplane reduces the size of
files
to a more manageable web site size), just let me know and I'll email
direct.....
Jim in Plano......working on one of the most important parts of my
successful Pietenpol
completion......my wife's new kitchen cabinets.....
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
<007101c3dba2$0ad7b700$0101a8c0@domain>
I have followed the flow of replies to the question of how to land a
Pietenpol. They were all excellent and on point. If I might be so bold, I
would like to take this opportunity to consolidate the advice into one place
where others in the future might look and also benefit from our experience.
I welcome comments and will incorporate any suggestions that clarify the
answer.
My background is that I fly and have around 400 hours in an Aircamper. I am
presently instructing in a Cessna 140 that I own. I earned my flight
certificate in 1964 in a Cessna 140. Over 2/3 of my hours are in a tail
dragger. I am an EAA Flight Advisor and am in the process of doing the
First Flight in two new Aircampers and hopefully mine later this spring.
Attached is how it looked New Years day.
First some basics. In generic terms a good 3 point landing consists of an
approach that concludes with a round out, a flare and a greaser of a
landing. A standard approach is done by flying the aircraft at a constant
pre-determined airspeed (that is usually around 1.3 times faster than
stall). I have been very successful in holding that speed solely with the
use of pitch (using the elevators). The angle of the approach is controlled
with power. This approach speed is carried to an altitude near the ground
when the aircraft is pitched up to an attitude that results in nearly level
flight. This part of the landing is commonly called the round out. Since
pitching up results in a decrease in airspeed, the wings start to lose some
lift. What follows is what determines the quality of the touchdown and is
called the flare. The trick is to slowly pitch up at the precise rate to
equally compensate for the loss of lift from the decrease in airspeed. If
you have been paying attention, you realize that this is a constantly
changing situation. As you pitch up you decrease speed, which decreases
lift, which requires more pitch, which requires ... The object is to slow
down from approach speed to stall speed, maintaining almost level flight,
while allowing the aircraft wheels to ease closer to the runway until they
touch down at the exact moment stall speed is attained. At the moment of
touchdown the elevator control should be back as far as it will travel.
This securely forces the tail wheel down and increases its effectiveness in
controlling direction. This is very important since the rudder quickly
loses effect because of loss of air flowing past it as it slows. I won't
comment here on the importance of keeping a tail dragger going straight
while on the ground, other than to say it is the most important aspect of
flying one. Now, back to landing, if you get to the stall speed before
touching the ground the plane loses all lift and drops to the ground. Not a
bad landing if the drop is a matter of inches. If the ground is touched
before slowing to stall speed a return to flight is likely. This is
especially true in a tail dragger because the pitch angle of the wing is
usually set for a climb when all wheels are on the ground. If you are
flying above stall speed in all likely hood you will touch down on the main
gear first. As you pull back the tail will lower, creating more lift, and
you find yourself climbing back into the air.
In most aircraft the round out and flare are distinct segments of the
landing. The round out might take around 5 seconds and the following flare
might take 15 to 20 seconds depending on airspeed at the start of the round
out. Cessnas seem to float forever.
Now for Aircamper specific observations. This is what it looks like for me
in the pilot's seat. For many reasons the Aircamper doesn't float much.
It has a lot of drag. It doesn't go very fast in the first place and slows
quickly upon reduction of power. Therefore the round out and flare happen
so quickly that they become one operation. If enough speed is not carried
in the approach the elevators become ineffective before completing the round
out/flare and the bungee cords get severely tested. One of the things you
need to discover is the minimum approach speed that still allows elevator
control until full stall and touchdown. This is going to probably be
different for each aircraft because of configuration, instrument error,
etc.. 65 mph works for me. 1.3 stall speed is 55 mph. I pancake in every
time at that speed. I "aim" at the ground and carry 65 mph until a couple
of feet above the ground and then smoothly pull back for the round out/flare
and am on the ground in about 30 - 50 feet. No bounce. No drop. Just a
smooth 3 point landing.
I would suggest that one of the first things to establish on the first
flight is the stall speed. I would then suggest that the approach be tested
at no slower than 1.6 times stall speed. If that gives elevator control but
results in a distinct flare you could reduce the speed in 2 mph steps until
you find the speed that causes mild elevator loss. You now know the minimum
approach speed for your plane in that weight configuration. I usually add a
couple of mph for an adult passenger.
This is a conservative approach to coming up with numbers you can fly with.
Although I have only flown my own Aircamper to date, I believe from
listening to others' experiences that this is the best way to approach your
first landings. What do you say Mike Cuy or Chris?
I met a list member at Oshkosh in 1999. He had completed his plane in April
but didn't have it with him. He told me that on the third landing he bent
the landing gear on a hard touchdown because he ran out of elevator.
Hopefully this discussion will prevent a repeat of that experience.
All of the above only applies to a power off landing. Carrying a little
power allows a slightly slower approach speed and still provides elevator
control during the flare. Cut power at the end of the round out and end up
with a perfect 3 point landing.
Hope this helps someone. Sorry this got so long. It is easier to do than
describe.
Ted Brousseau
PS If any of the above does not make sense don't try it alone. Run out and
get yourself an experienced taildragger pilot to help you. Also, this does
not address crosswind, upwind, uphill, downhill, short field, soft field or
wheel landings.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Whaley" <MerlinFAC(at)cfl.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Texas Air Museum "German" Piet info |
When I heard "Jose somebody with an L-19" in regards to the "German" Piet, a
little light clicked on and I checked with one of my old email buddies...
Jose Cano, from the Int'l Bird Dog Assoc. Sure 'nuff, it was him. Here's
what he said... anyone looking for an L-19? (probably about my 3rd fave
plane, behind the OV-10 and Piet...)
-Mike
Mike Whaley merlin@ov-10bronco.net
Webmaster, OV-10 Bronco Association
http://www.ov-10bronco.net/
http://www.ov-10bronco.net/users/merlin/
----------------------
10:4 Mike, that was me but I never flew it. Tim Talley from Clifton Aero
did the test
flight after we fixed one of the wings and reassembled the whole plane. I
rigged the
ailerons and installed the Jenny wheels on it. The airplane was sold to the
TX Air Museum
and I helped Ken Brown disassemble it and load it on a trailer. I was by
the museum early
part of last year and they still have it and fly it occasionally.
My L-19 project has come to a screeching halt due to work loads and job
changes. I think
I am going to sell it this winter. I have had a few people inquire about it
but you know
the old story "I have to sell my other airplane first.". I have not
advertised it because
I keep thinking I will have time to do a few more things on it before I
advertise it. As
of the last 7 days, there have been two more Birddogs go down due to pilot
error, this
makes mine keep going up in value because there are fewer and fewer of them
around. Let
me know if any of your folks are interested.
I check your OV-10 website periodically to check on the progress of your
museum. Looks
like you all are doing good things. Some of the IBDA folks may be
contacting you all
about a joint project. Due to my work load, I am no longer on the board of
directors but
due continue to put in my two cents worth.
Hope you have a good new year ahead.
Jose' C. Cano, Jr.
Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept.
Wildlife Biologist
406 N. Ave. R
Clifton, TX 76634-1252
254/675-8729 Home/Fax
254/582-2719 Office/Fax
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Whaley" <MerlinFAC(at)cfl.rr.com> |
and Kitplanes
| Subject: | List of Pietenpol articles from Sport Aviation, Experimenter, |
and Kitplanes
Maybe this has been done before but while I was compiling a list of acro
bipe articles for the website at work, I also compiled all the Piet-related
ones as well. This covers Sport Aviation, Experimenter (the old and the new
ones) and Kitplanes. It may have been done before but what the heck, here
they are. A thousand thanks to the Cozy Builder's group for compiling the
indices in an orderly fashion (EAA's article search function really stinks!)
PS - I'll post it as both text in this email (below) as well as attach a
text file so that those of you who aren't on the digest can save to your PC.
-Mike
Mike Whaley merlin@ov-10bronco.net
Webmaster, OV-10 Bronco Association
http://www.ov-10bronco.net/
http://www.ov-10bronco.net/users/merlin/
---
---
Pietenpol Articles - Sport Aviation, Experimenter, and Kitplanes
Compiled 1/14/04 by Mike Whaley (merlin@ov-10bronco.net)
From http://www.cozybuilders.org/ref_info/
Includes:
Sport Aviation (1954 - 1998)(aka Experimenter in the 1950's)
EAA Experimenter (1987 - 1998)
Kitplanes (1985 - 1998)
Search Terms:
Pietenpol Piet GN-1 GN-2 Bernie B.H. Grega Camper Aircamper Sky Scout
Ford Brodhead Corvair Aerial Arial
Sport Aviation (Feb. 53 - Dec. 98) (called Experimenter in the 1950s)
November 1954, Volume 2, Number 11
Photograph of Campbell Modified Pietenpol
p. 8
July 1955, Volume 3, Number 7
Photograph of Rudolph Pietenpol, N13691) _________________________ 1
The Old Pietenpol __________________________________________________ 4
(Three photographs of Rudolph Pietenpol Air Camper, N13691, Leo
J. Kohn) ___________________________________________________________ 4
August 1955, Vol. 4, No. 8
Report On the Fly-In ___ Havel T. Lawson ____________________________ 3
Aircraft Seen At The Fly-In (article lists
Schermerhorn Pietenpol L.S. Air Camper, N18224;
Rudolph Russert-Pietenpol KC-257-13 Air Camper, N13691)
January, 1956, Vol. 5, No. 1
Another Pietenpol Air Camper On The Way (with photograph of
Ernest C. Seiler and Seiler Pietenpol Air Camper) __________________ 16
May 1956, Volume 5, Number 5
The Pietenpol "Air Camper," Second in a series on Famous
Homebuilt Lightplanes ___ George Hardie, Jr. _______________________ 7
(Photograph of two Pietenpol Air Campers, B. H. Pietenpol) _________ 7
(Scale drawings of Pietenpol Air Camper, Jack McRae) _______________ 8-9
>From The Owners And Builders Of Pietenpol Air Campers (with
Two drawings of Pietenpol Air Campers, Wm. Kupka) __________________ 10
(Photograph of Allen Rudolph and Rudolph 1933 Pietenpol Air
Camper, N13691) ____________________________________________________ 11
(Photograph of Schermerhorn Pietenpol Air Camper, N18224) _________ 11
(Photograph of Rudolph 1933 Pietenpol Air Camper, N13691)________ __ 12
September 1956, Volume 5, Number 9
Aircraft Seen At The Fly-In (article lists
Schermerhorn modified Pietenpol L. S. Air Camper, N18224;
Rudolph Russert-Pietenpol KC-257-13 Air Camper, N13691)
January 1957, Volume 6, Number 1
(Photograph of Schermerhorn Pietenpol L. S. Air Camper,
N18224) ___________________________________________________________ 12
November 1957
Modernizing the Pietenpol Landing Gear...........................19
December 1957
The Pietenpol Seaplane Floats....................................12
August 1960
Modernizing The Pietenpol "Aircamper"............................16
MARCH 1962
Pietenpol Corvair Conversion.......................... 31
DECEMBER 1962
More About My Corvair and VW Conversions... 24
AUGUST, 1966
Converting The Model "A" Ford Engine For Flight........ 9
DECEMBER, 1966
Converting the Model A Ford............................. 27
FEBRUARY, 1967
Corvair, Volkswagen, and Drone Engines for Aircraft... 19
JULY, 1967
More on the Model A Ford................................... 11
OCTOBER, 1967
Corvair Powered Autogyro.................................................
22
FEBRUARY, 1968
Pietenpol N-8001R.......................................... 26
MAY, 1968
Corvair Conversions.......by Clayton King........................20
APRIL, 1969
Waterman Corvair Engines...by Waldo Waterman............................4
Your Forest Products Laboratory...by Bob Whittier......................30
A Visit to B.H.Pietenpol...by Bob Whittier.............................40
JULY,1969
Waterman Corvair Engines-Part Two...by Waldo D. Waterman......... 14
AUGUST, 1969
Waterman Corvair Engines-Part Three by Waldo D. Waterman... 14
SEPTEMBER,1969
Waterman Corvair Engines (Part 4).....by Waldo D.
Waterman.................21
OCTOBER, 1969
Waterman Corvair Engines (Part 5)... by Waldo D. Waterman.... 18
NOVEMBER, 1969
Waterman Corvair Engines, Part 6....... by Waldo D.
Waterman...............10
JANUARY 1970
Some Fundamental and Special Considerations of the Corvair Engine - As an
Aircraft Powerplant . . .
by David A. Paddock...........10
MARCH, 1970
Volkswagen Reduction Box on the Corvair.....by Bud Rinker......46
MAY, 1970
The Berg-Aero - from Pietenpol to SE-5A...by John B. Bergeson........38
SEPTEMBER, 1970
Pietenpol Powered by Corvair......................................42
NOVEMBER, 1970
Corvair Clarification.....by James C.Carvin......................22
DECEMBER, 1970
Testing The Corvair Engine...by Bud Rinker...........................19
JUNE 1971
Corvair-powered Corvair.................13
NOVEMBER 1972
Vega Sky Scout...by Jack Cox.......................................31
DECEMBER 1974
Update on the Corvair Engine Syndrome ... by Bud Rinker...............63
JUNE 1975
Chapter 148's Pietenpol . . . by Dale Wolford.......................36
MAY 1977
68 Duplicate Sawing... by John W. Grega
NOVEMBER 1980
38 Ford Fiesta Powered Pietenpol . .. by Jack Cox
MARCH 1981
44 The Pietenpol Aerial... by Chad Wille
SEPTEMBER 1982
58 Imagineering a Pietenpol for the 80's?. . . by Al Baekstrom
FEBRUARY 1985
42 Sky Gypsy/Frank S. Pavliga
MARCH 1987
48 England's First Pietenpol Air Camper/F. A Hawke
FEBUARY 1989
16 Howard Henderson's Model A Ford Powered Pietenpol/Grant E. MacLaren
APRIL 1990
45 A Round Engine Pietenpol!/Jack Cox
JANUARY 1991
25 Ol '12937 - The "Granddaddy" Pietenpol Air Camper/Norm Petersen
February 1998
30 The Pietenpol Sky Scout - Chad Wille
EAA EXPERIMENTER (Dec. 86 - Dec. 98)
AUGUST 1991
page twenty-something: Don Higgs' Pietenpol by Robert N. Gilbert
FEBRUARY 1994
6 A Little AirCamper Replica Named RagWing by Roger Mann
MARCH 1996
A Corvair-Powered Nieuport 26
Solving the challenges of an unusual engine installation-by Rich Dietrich
MAY 1996
Pietenpol NX1 7WR 25
A tried and true homebuilders favorite-by Bill Rewey
Febuary 1998
Rick Crosslin's GN-1 ....................................... 23
An affordable plane anyone can build - by Mary Jones
KITPLANES (Jan. 85 - Dec. 98)
FEBRUARY, 1985
76 BIPED FOR FUN!
Pietenpol's Air Camper is a people-
pleaser that proves low-and-slow can
be beautiful; by Owen B. Deaver.
February 1987
EAA Museum Pieces (Pietenpol Air Camper), p.56
November 1987
Braking a Pietenpol, p. 46
May 1989
Flying an Air Camper (Pietenpol), p. 31
July 1992
Pietenpol Air Camper (Cover)
Check Out This Pietenpol, p. 12.
August 1997
Pietenpols Forever? p. 42
Who Was Bernie Pietenpol? p. 50
Pietenpol Articles - Sport Aviation, Experimenter, and Kitplanes
Compiled 1/14/04 by Mike Whaley (merlin@ov-10bronco.net)
From http://www.cozybuilders.org/ref_info/
Includes:
Sport Aviation (1954 - 1998)(aka Experimenter in the 1950's)
EAA Experimenter (1987 - 1998)
Kitplanes (1985 - 1998)
Search Terms:
Pietenpol Piet GN-1 GN-2 Bernie B.H. Grega Camper Aircamper Sky Scout
Ford Brodhead Corvair Aerial Arial
Sport Aviation (Feb. 53 - Dec. 98) (called Experimenter in the 1950s)
November 1954, Volume 2, Number 11
Photograph of Campbell Modified Pietenpol
p. 8
July 1955, Volume 3, Number 7
Photograph of Rudolph Pietenpol, N13691) _________________________ 1
The Old Pietenpol __________________________________________________ 4
(Three photographs of Rudolph Pietenpol Air Camper, N13691, Leo
J. Kohn) ___________________________________________________________ 4
August 1955, Vol. 4, No. 8
Report On the Fly-In ___ Havel T. Lawson ____________________________ 3
Aircraft Seen At The Fly-In (article lists
Schermerhorn Pietenpol L.S. Air Camper, N18224;
Rudolph Russert-Pietenpol KC-257-13 Air Camper, N13691)
January, 1956, Vol. 5, No. 1
Another Pietenpol Air Camper On The Way (with photograph of
Ernest C. Seiler and Seiler Pietenpol Air Camper) __________________ 16
May 1956, Volume 5, Number 5
The Pietenpol "Air Camper," Second in a series on Famous
Homebuilt Lightplanes ___ George Hardie, Jr. _______________________ 7
(Photograph of two Pietenpol Air Campers, B. H. Pietenpol) _________ 7
(Scale drawings of Pietenpol Air Camper, Jack McRae) _______________ 8-9
>From The Owners And Builders Of Pietenpol Air Campers (with
Two drawings of Pietenpol Air Campers, Wm. Kupka) __________________ 10
(Photograph of Allen Rudolph and Rudolph 1933 Pietenpol Air
Camper, N13691) ____________________________________________________ 11
(Photograph of Schermerhorn Pietenpol Air Camper, N18224) _________ 11
(Photograph of Rudolph 1933 Pietenpol Air Camper, N13691)________ __ 12
September 1956, Volume 5, Number 9
Aircraft Seen At The Fly-In (article lists
Schermerhorn modified Pietenpol L. S. Air Camper, N18224;
Rudolph Russert-Pietenpol KC-257-13 Air Camper, N13691)
January 1957, Volume 6, Number 1
(Photograph of Schermerhorn Pietenpol L. S. Air Camper,
N18224) ___________________________________________________________ 12
November 1957
Modernizing the Pietenpol Landing Gear...........................19
December 1957
The Pietenpol Seaplane Floats....................................12
August 1960
Modernizing The Pietenpol "Aircamper"............................16
MARCH 1962
Pietenpol Corvair Conversion.......................... 31
DECEMBER 1962
More About My Corvair and VW Conversions... 24
AUGUST, 1966
Converting The Model "A" Ford Engine For Flight........ 9
DECEMBER, 1966
Converting the Model A Ford............................. 27
FEBRUARY, 1967
Corvair, Volkswagen, and Drone Engines for Aircraft... 19
JULY, 1967
More on the Model A Ford................................... 11
OCTOBER, 1967
Corvair Powered Autogyro................................................. 22
FEBRUARY, 1968
Pietenpol N-8001R.......................................... 26
MAY, 1968
Corvair Conversions.......by Clayton King........................20
APRIL, 1969
Waterman Corvair Engines...by Waldo Waterman............................4
Your Forest Products Laboratory...by Bob Whittier......................30
A Visit to B.H.Pietenpol...by Bob Whittier.............................40
JULY,1969
Waterman Corvair Engines-Part Two...by Waldo D. Waterman......... 14
AUGUST, 1969
Waterman Corvair Engines-Part Three by Waldo D. Waterman... 14
SEPTEMBER,1969
Waterman Corvair Engines (Part 4).....by Waldo D. Waterman.................21
OCTOBER, 1969
Waterman Corvair Engines (Part 5)... by Waldo D. Waterman.... 18
NOVEMBER, 1969
Waterman Corvair Engines, Part 6....... by Waldo D. Waterman...............10
JANUARY 1970
Some Fundamental and Special Considerations of the Corvair Engine - As an Aircraft
Powerplant . . . by David A. Paddock...........10
MARCH, 1970
Volkswagen Reduction Box on the Corvair.....by Bud Rinker......46
MAY, 1970
The Berg-Aero - from Pietenpol to SE-5A...by John B. Bergeson........38
SEPTEMBER, 1970
Pietenpol Powered by Corvair......................................42
NOVEMBER, 1970
Corvair Clarification.....by James C.Carvin......................22
DECEMBER, 1970
Testing The Corvair Engine...by Bud Rinker...........................19
JUNE 1971
Corvair-powered Corvair.................13
NOVEMBER 1972
Vega Sky Scout...by Jack Cox.......................................31
DECEMBER 1974
Update on the Corvair Engine Syndrome ... by Bud Rinker...............63
JUNE 1975
Chapter 148's Pietenpol . . . by Dale Wolford.......................36
MAY 1977
68 Duplicate Sawing... by John W. Grega
NOVEMBER 1980
38 Ford Fiesta Powered Pietenpol . .. by Jack Cox
MARCH 1981
44 The Pietenpol Aerial... by Chad Wille
SEPTEMBER 1982
58 Imagineering a Pietenpol for the 80's?. . . by Al Baekstrom
FEBRUARY 1985
42 Sky Gypsy/Frank S. Pavliga
MARCH 1987
48 England's First Pietenpol Air Camper/F. A Hawke
FEBUARY 1989
16 Howard Henderson's Model A Ford Powered Pietenpol/Grant E. MacLaren
APRIL 1990
45 A Round Engine Pietenpol!/Jack Cox
JANUARY 1991
25 Ol '12937 - The "Granddaddy" Pietenpol Air Camper/Norm Petersen
February 1998
30 The Pietenpol Sky Scout - Chad Wille
EAA EXPERIMENTER (Dec. 86 - Dec. 98)
AUGUST 1991
page twenty-something: Don Higgs' Pietenpol by Robert N. Gilbert
FEBRUARY 1994
6 A Little AirCamper Replica Named RagWing by Roger Mann
MARCH 1996
A Corvair-Powered Nieuport 26
Solving the challenges of an unusual engine installation-by Rich Dietrich
MAY 1996
Pietenpol NX1 7WR 25
A tried and true homebuilders favorite-by Bill Rewey
Febuary 1998
Rick Crosslin's GN-1 ....................................... 23
An affordable plane anyone can build - by Mary Jones
KITPLANES (Jan. 85 - Dec. 98)
FEBRUARY, 1985
76 BIPED FOR FUN!
Pietenpol's Air Camper is a people-
pleaser that proves low-and-slow can
be beautiful; by Owen B. Deaver.
February 1987
EAA Museum Pieces (Pietenpol Air Camper), p.56
November 1987
Braking a Pietenpol, p. 46
May 1989
Flying an Air Camper (Pietenpol), p. 31
July 1992
Pietenpol Air Camper (Cover)
Check Out This Pietenpol, p. 12.
August 1997
Pietenpols Forever? p. 42
Who Was Bernie Pietenpol? p. 50
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Updated 'Infomation List' |
I've added all the suggestions, and here is the updated 'Information List.'
I'm posting it again, to give everyone one more chance to add something to it.
Speak now, or forever hold your peace !! I'll then send the 'Information
List' to everyone that I have an e-mail for (builders and flyers), and they can
copy / paste to a return e-mail, fill in all the blanks as much as they can,
and send it to me, or to the list. I'll also bring a dozen blank copies (is
that enough blanks?) to Brodhead for anyone else that I missed. This should
give us a pretty good data base, in a common format, on the specific construction
of our fleet of Pietenpols out there. Thanks to all who participate !!
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
I flew the past four days in a row (about a half hour after work), and it's
the middle of January !! Yesterday, I took my buddy's wife up for a ride, and
she absolutely loved it !! Today at work, he said she talked about it all
evening...she called her friends, her mom, and his mom to tell 'em about it !!
Too Cool !!
Here is the updated 'Information List':
Aircraft Information:
N Number -
Name -
Type -
Short / Long fuse -
Empty Weight - lbs.
Gross Weight - lbs.
Engine -
Prop - X
Empty CG aft of Lead Edge - "
Weight of Primary Pilot - lbs.
Max Pax Weight - lbs
Inches wing tilted back - "
Cabane strut length - "
Cowling Material -
Covering -
Paint Process -
Wheels -
Tires -
Brakes -
Tailwheel -
Bunji Chord / Springs -
Seat Belt Harness -
Survival Tools -
Adhesives used:
Ribs -
Wing -
Fuse -
Fuel Capacity:
Range - hrs.
Wing Tank - gal.
Material -
Cowl Tank - gal.
Material -
Alterations :
Fuselage Width - "
Wingspan - ' "
Engine Mount Length - "
Fuselage Front Extension -
Landing Gear Position - "
Other -
Wood type in various locations:
Ribs -
Rib Gussets -
Spar Size - X
Spar Material -
Longerons -
Longeron Gussets -
Other -
Steel type in various locations:
Cabane Struts -
Lift Struts -
Landing Gear -
Engine Mount Fittings -
Fuselage Fittings -
Firewall -
Other -
Airspeeds:
Vr (rotation)
Vx (best angle) -
Vy (best rate) -
Vne (never exceed) -
Vs1 (stall) -
Date first airplane noises / /
Date of the first flight / /
Address -
e-mail -
web site -
builder(s)-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brants" <tmbrant(at)usfamily.net> |
| Subject: | vi kapler hinges |
Anyone have a photo or some info on Vi Kaplers hinges? Is he selling / making
them? How can I reach him? I'm working on the tail section over the winter and
I'll soon be ready for some hinges to put it all together.
Tom Brant
Brooklyn Park, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: vi kapler hinges |
----- Original Message -----
From: Brants
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 12:02 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: vi kapler hinges
Tom,
I haven't talked to him for a couple of years, but try:
Vi Kapler
1033 Forest Hills Drive S.W.
Rochester, MN 55902
507) 288-3322
Hope this helps, let me know the results.
John
Anyone have a photo or some info on Vi Kaplers hinges? Is he selling / making
them? How can I reach him? I'm working on the tail section over the winter
and I'll soon be ready for some hinges to put it all together.
Tom Brant
Brooklyn Park, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dpaul" <dpaul(at)fidnet.com> |
Listers,
Does anyone have a suggestion as to how to cut plywood without pulling up the
top layer of ply? Even with new plywood cutting blades I tend to leave a
rough edge. I'm ready to make a cut in the rear seat back so it can be hinged
for inspection access. I would hate to leave a rough or "over sanded" appearance
in a nice looking piece of plywood.
Dave in Missouri
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
I just got the new issue of the BPA newsletter. There is a Classified ad for a
model A engine with fresh overhaul and conversion including prop hub. It is
listed for $950/offer. Sounds like a deal.
Contact Karl 765-532-4864 or 815-459-7902
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cutting plywood |
Dave,
I did all my wood cutting with a 10" Delta bandsaw. Always a smooth beautiful
cut.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: dpaul
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 1:23 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
Listers,
Does anyone have a suggestion as to how to cut plywood without pulling up
the top layer of ply? Even with new plywood cutting blades I tend to leave
a rough edge. I'm ready to make a cut in the rear seat back so it can be hinged
for inspection access. I would hate to leave a rough or "over sanded" appearance
in a nice looking piece of plywood.
Dave in Missouri
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Cutting plywood |
Try a fine toothed bandsaw
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Cutting plywood |
Score the top and layer with a knife blade along your cut line if it
splinters out it will only go to the scored line.
Terry Bowden
ph (254) 715-4773
fax (254) 853-3805
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "hjarrett" <hjarrett(at)hroads.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cutting plywood |
If you are in a place in the work where you absolutely, positively have got to
have a perfect cut, just lay a scrap piece of wood over and under the piece you
want the smooth cut on. Clamp them together and cut through all three at once.
The splits and tears will be in the outer pieces and the center one will
be perfect. This works really well when doing things like cutting holes for instruments.
You can use almost anything for the outer pieces, like press board,
cheap ply or even tempered masonite. Just make sure the three are clamped
together so the outer pieces take the damage.
Hank J
----- Original Message -----
From: dpaul
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 1:23 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
Listers,
Does anyone have a suggestion as to how to cut plywood without pulling up
the top layer of ply? Even with new plywood cutting blades I tend to leave
a rough edge. I'm ready to make a cut in the rear seat back so it can be hinged
for inspection access. I would hate to leave a rough or "over sanded" appearance
in a nice looking piece of plywood.
Dave in Missouri
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cutting plywood |
In a message dated 1/17/04 10:18:57 AM Central Standard Time,
dpaul(at)fidnet.com writes:
<< Does anyone have a suggestion as to how to cut plywood without pulling
up the top layer of ply? >>
I've used masking tape on the top of the plywood, if you're using a circular
saw, or on the bottom if you're using a table saw. Then put your line on the
masking tape, or use one edge of the masking tape for your line, and cut as
you normally would. You can streach the tape between your marks, and it makes
a
good straight line, eliminating the step of laying a straight edge on, and
marking it with a pencil. The tape keeps the saw teeth from pulling the
splinters up.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: vi kapler hinges |
>Anyone have a photo or some info on Vi Kaplers hinges? Is he
>selling / making them? How can I reach him? I'm working on the
>tail section over the winter and I'll soon be ready for some hinges
>to put it all together.
>
>
>Tom Brant
>Brooklyn Park, MN
>
>
>------ <http://www.usfamily.net/info>USFamily.Net - Unlimited
>Internet - From $8.99/mo! ------
Tom,
Vi was at Brodhead & I think he told me that he's still making hinges
& prop hubs. I got a set when I bought my project. They are nice.
Not doing much on the Piet right now, I'm busy restoring a 50+
year-old sled for my daughter.
Kip Gardner - cold & snowy here too, down to 0 last night
--
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine mount and tailfeathers |
In a message dated 1/14/04 9:13:12 PM Central Standard Time, Andimaxd(at)aol.com
writes:
<< My project is coming right along. The engine mount is welded straight, in
other words no one inch down and no half to one inch right or left. We are
using a cont. 75 HP. Should I mount the vertical tail fin an inch or so
over to
one side or is it worth messing with?>>
Max,
The Continental Engine Mount, drawn by A. C. Hanfet, dated 3/15/67, shows
a difference of 9/16" in the top and bottom lengths of the mount. I
maintained this difference in my engine mount, but made it 8" longer with heavier
wall tubing. It doesn't show any right thrust, but I built 1/16" right thrust
into the mount. The Model A engine mount shows a 1" downthrust along the
horizontal line. Downthrust helps reduce the 'Pendulum Effect' of a high wing,
that
the various power settings have. Add power, the nose pitches up, reduce
power, the nose lowers, however, even with downthrust built into the engine mount.
Also do I need to have more incidence in the left wing to compensate for
torque and P factor? >>
Do Not rig the wing to compensate for torque or P factor. Different
incidence in the wing will cause one wing to stall before the other. Rig the
wing with the same amount of incidence all the way across, or maybe a tiny bit
of washout at the tips.
The plans show rigging the vertical fin straight, but that is with a
Model A engine. Offset fins seem to be used with engines of higher power. Mine
is set straight, with no rudder trim tab, and I use just a tiny bit of right
rudder during high power settings...almost not even noticible by my feet. You
could rig the leading edge of the vertical fin maybe 1/16" to the Left of Butt
Line Zero (BL0) to compensate for engine torque. Corvair engines would be
offset to the Right side, since they turn in the opposite direction. P factor
is only evident when flying at a high angle of attack, with a high power
setting.
I would suggest you use large 'fender washers' under the engine mount to
put some downthrust, and right thrust.
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Hallsten's" <hallfamokc(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cutting plywood |
Dave,
Run a piece of masking tape along the cut line, where the teeth of the
blade will leave the wood. If you cut on a tablesaw it would be the bottom of
the wood. The tape keeps the edge from splintering.
Kent
----- Original Message -----
From: dpaul
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 12:23 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
Listers,
Does anyone have a suggestion as to how to cut plywood without pulling up
the top layer of ply?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Waytogopiet(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Updated 'Infomation List' |
In a message dated 1/16/2004 11:37:44 PM Central Standard Time,
Rcaprd(at)aol.com writes:
and they can
copy / paste to a return e-mail, fill in all the blanks as much as they can,
and send it to me, or to the list
Chuck, Great Job! I'm not much on the cut and paste thing. If you would you
post your mailing address I could then mail you the filled out form on NX920Y
rather than clutter up the list. Thanx, Don Hicks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "hjarrett" <hjarrett(at)hroads.net> |
<002801c3db0c$21e126c0$57c5fea9@mke> <005e01c3dbbe$1a2f9120$d401a8c0@Alex>
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear Location |
With the plane in a level attitude the angle we are talking about is between a
vertical through the CG and the tire contact point and the CG. You can find the
actual CG location by doing a "weigh" with the tail down and find the CG spot
on the ground. A line on the fuselage side (vertical) will become a sloped
line when you bring the tail up to level. Do the weigh again and make a new
vertical line. The crossing point of the lines is the actual CG. Pull another
line from that CG location (with the tail still up) to the contact point of
the tires. The angle between the vertical line and the line to the tire contact
point is the angle we are talking about.
The angle isn't going to be very big between the tail down and up CG locations
so measure carefully (a 90=BA angle would be most accurate). A REALLY accurate
way to locate the vertical location would be to just hang the plane up by the
prop and drop a plumb line down beside it but that seems to cause a lot of fluid
leaks. ;-)
Hank J
----- Original Message -----
From: Alex Sloan
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Location
Mike,
I am having a lot of confusion trying to understand this angle thing. 12-14
degrees measured from where to where? I know how to find the C.G. horzontally
but this vertical C.G. point is new to me. Can you clarify this point?
Alex Sloan
alexms1(at)bellsouth.net
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Conkling
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Location
My old copy (1965) of "Practical Lightplane Design & Construction" by Bill
Fike listed the average landing angle as being 12 to 14 degrees -- with the fuselage
level, the wheel axle was in-line with the leading edge of the wing (16
degrees down & forward of the CG point) -- for a "cub" like airplane with brakes.
Mike C.
Pretty Prairie, KS
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Bobka
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Location
To clarify John's post below, the 16.5 degree angle is with the tail up and
the ship level fore and aft using the top longerons at the cockpit for leveling.
chris bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: John Dilatush
To: Pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 12:46 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Location
----- Original Message -----
From: At7000ft(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet information list
Pieters,
The proper location of the landing gear ground contact point is determined
by the CG of the plane.
The CG of the entire plane is a combination of the horizontal and vertical
centers of gravity. From this point a line may be drawn to the ground contact
point of the landing gear. The angle of this line is usually 16.5 degrees
forward from the vertical if the plane is equiped with brakes, somewhat less
if the plane has no brakes. It might be neccessary to increase this angle if
the thrust line is high, so as to prevent nose over during run up and rough
field operation. However, the heavier the tail load is, the more of a tendency
for ground looping upon landing.
On "Mountain Piet" this angle is about 12 degrees and this seems to work
out OK, both for rough fields and no ground looping tendencies. The brakes
won't hold the plane during run up, so this is not an issue. My tailwheel weight
when the plane is leveled up is only about 9 lbs.
I had attached the spreadsheet used for my plane, however it was too large
for Matronics to accept, so it was bounced. If anyone is interested, I'll
be glad to try and send it directly to you.
Hope all this helps.
John Dilatush NX114D
Salida, CO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "hjarrett" <hjarrett(at)hroads.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet information list |
You need to calculate the thrust and know the moment arm of the prop which gives
you the thrust component of the nose over moment, the brake force (based on
speed of the aircraft to calculate the weight on the wheels and the local friction
coefficient) and the vertical CG location, which gives you the nose over
moment from the wheel brakes, the deceleration of the aircraft times the height
of the CG for the inertia contribution to the nose over moment, and the distance
behind the tire contact point of the CG (which changes as the attitude of
the plane changes, that also changes the lift, changing the weight on the wheels
that changes everything else). Then you do the calculation solving for all
the moments at say every 2 MPH increment to determine the critical speed, angles
and brake force. You also have to factor in the down load available from
the tail and its arm solving for the point where the elevator looses effectiveness.
The one factor that is hard to calculate is how hard your "pucker" is
trying to suck your rear to the pavement and the moment arm from the wheel contact
point to the seat as the nose starts to go over.
Three things are derived from the whole mess.
1) That's why the engineer gets paid as much as he does
2) Now you know why the tricycle gear is so popular with manufacturers
3) That's why we use a "Rule of Thumb" for the angle
If you REALLY want to know the answer to the above I have done it before but it
takes some time and can get expensive. It IS very informative and, by the way,
I wrote the above as I sat in front of the computer so some factors are probably
missing. I would normally do it on paper to make sure I didn't miss anything
and them spread sheet it for each condition.
Anybody want to help finance the paint job on my Taylorcraft? ;-)
Hank J
----- Original Message -----
From: At7000ft(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet information list
Hank - given this data how do you calibrate how hard you can press on the brakes
at a given speed to avoid grazing? Rick H.
OK, I'm going to stick my nose in once more. To be useful you need to know
where the contact point of the tire is in relation to the CG in a level attitude.
Sorry guys but all the other measurements don't help much from a nose over
point of view. The other thing that is needed is the height from the ground
to the CG. With those measurements you can calculate the nose over moment and
with the tail force and arm you can calculate exactly how much brake you can
use verses the airspeed. That is what tells you if you are going to have a
"grazer" or a tail dragger.
Hank J
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
<002801c3db0c$21e126c0$57c5fea9@mke> <005e01c3dbbe$1a2f9120$d401a8c0@Alex>
<044301c3dd64$6004c7e0$ceddf6ce@hjarrett>
| Subject: | Wood landing gear question |
Hi,
Does the bottom ash block on each landing gear get glued to the legs or is it just
held in place only with the metal fittings?
Thanks,
Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Cutting plywood |
Cabinet makers trick-use a knife instead of a pencil.
There are knives made especialy for this. They're
called "marking knives". Available from all the
woodworking catalogue outlets like Lee Valley Tools
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.asp?SID&ccurrency1&page32502&category1,42936,42949
Garret Wade and others also. A good blade is the
45=B0 one from exacto. Cutting the top layer of fibres
limits tearout to that line.
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: dpaul
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 10:23 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
Listers,
Does anyone have a suggestion as to how to cut plywood without pulling up
the top layer of ply? Even with new plywood cutting blades I tend to leave
a rough edge. I'm ready to make a cut in the rear seat back so it can be hinged
for inspection access. I would hate to leave a rough or "over sanded" appearance
in a nice looking piece of plywood.
Dave in Missouri
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Wood landing gear question |
<013001c3da49$5eaa6940$0101a8c0@domain> <002801c3db0c$21e126c0$57c5fea9@mke>
<005e01c3dbbe$1a2f9120$d401a8c0@Alex>
<044301c3dd64$6004c7e0$ceddf6ce@hjarrett>
<002b01c3dd73$64fbb1a0$1e3b4e0c@cacjis20.jud20.flcourts.org>
From a strength point of view, it won't help any as you
are trying to glue end grain in the legs. End grain won't
hold. I would varnish the block and legs before putting
it all together for moisture protection though.
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: Ted Brousseau
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 7:30 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wood landing gear question
Hi,
Does the bottom ash block on each landing gear get glued to the legs or is it
just held in place only with the metal fittings?
Thanks,
Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
<002801c3db0c$21e126c0$57c5fea9@mke> <005e01c3dbbe$1a2f9120$d401a8c0@Alex>
<044301c3dd64$6004c7e0$ceddf6ce@hjarrett> <002b01c3dd73$64fbb1a0$1e3b4e0c@cacjis20.jud20.flcourts.org>
| Subject: | Re: Wood landing gear question |
Hi Ted
I glued and screwed mine together before the metal fittings.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: Ted Brousseau
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 9:30 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wood landing gear question
Hi,
Does the bottom ash block on each landing gear get glued to the legs or is it
just held in place only with the metal fittings?
Thanks,
Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Wood landing gear question |
Mine is held in place by the steel fittings.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ted Brousseau
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wood landing gear question
Hi,
Does the bottom ash block on each landing gear get glued to the legs or is
it just held in place only with the metal fittings?
Thanks,
Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
"piet discussion"
| Subject: | found links to useful information on the net |
Was going thru a newsgroup and found this note. You can download useful text .,,,,,,,,,
<<<<<<http://www.faatest.com/books/AK/
I found the link through: http://www.dauntless-soft.com/ which has
LOTS of free stuff including checklists, links to other books (see
Aviation Library under Freebies) to name a few.>>>>>>>>
walt evans
NX140DL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brants" <tmbrant(at)usfamily.net> |
| Subject: | horizontal stab dimensions |
I built the long fuselage and then (idiodically) built the horiz. stab for the
short fuse (18" wide instead of 19 3/8") - didn't realize until today when I tried
fitting it up. Question: can I glue a wider leading edge to the horizontal
stab to make up the difference? Obviously this would add a bit of weight
to the tail section.. Or could I just fill in behind the turtle deck to take
up the space? Difference is about 1 3/8". Is the 1 3/8" width going to be missed
if I leave it out? Does this cause a problem getting away from the 'airfoil
shape'?
Another related question: does the horiz. stab get bolted through the longerons?
Any help on this would be appreciated.
Tom Brant
Brooklyn Park, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: horizontal stab dimensions |
I didn't know they were different. I built the long fuse and the tail was from
the original prints, so I guess I got the wrong one. but flies great. What
two prints show different tails???
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Brants
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 5:37 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
I built the long fuselage and then (idiodically) built the horiz. stab for the
short fuse (18" wide instead of 19 3/8") - didn't realize until today when I
tried fitting it up. Question: can I glue a wider leading edge to the horizontal
stab to make up the difference? Obviously this would add a bit of weight
to the tail section.. Or could I just fill in behind the turtle deck to take
up the space? Difference is about 1 3/8". Is the 1 3/8" width going to be
missed if I leave it out? Does this cause a problem getting away from the 'airfoil
shape'?
Another related question: does the horiz. stab get bolted through the longerons?
Any help on this would be appreciated.
Tom Brant
Brooklyn Park, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fred Weaver <mytyweav(at)earthlink.net> |
You know Ted, this was a good piece of work. A lot of good, useful
data, that can be used in other types of airplanes too. Thanks for
taking the time to put it to print. I might add....... As I look at a
lot of Piet's, some of them have tail sections with square leading
edges. This contributes to a loss of elevator and rudder control
prematurely. Builders should know to sand/grind the leading edges of
all flying surfaces to get the most from them...
Thanks again for taking the time to type it out...
Weav
On Friday, January 16, 2004, at 07:30 PM, Ted Brousseau wrote:
> I have followed the flow of replies to the question of how to land a
> Pietenpol. They were all excellent and on point. If I might be so
> bold, I
> would like to take this opportunity to consolidate the advice into one
> place
> where others in the future might look and also benefit from our
> experience.
> I welcome comments and will incorporate any suggestions that clarify
> the
> answer.
>
> My background is that I fly and have around 400 hours in an Aircamper.
> I am
> presently instructing in a Cessna 140 that I own. I earned my flight
> certificate in 1964 in a Cessna 140. Over 2/3 of my hours are in a
> tail
> dragger. I am an EAA Flight Advisor and am in the process of doing the
> First Flight in two new Aircampers and hopefully mine later this
> spring.
> Attached is how it looked New Years day.
>
> First some basics. In generic terms a good 3 point landing consists
> of an
> approach that concludes with a round out, a flare and a greaser of a
> landing. A standard approach is done by flying the aircraft at a
> constant
> pre-determined airspeed (that is usually around 1.3 times faster than
> stall). I have been very successful in holding that speed solely with
> the
> use of pitch (using the elevators). The angle of the approach is
> controlled
> with power. This approach speed is carried to an altitude near the
> ground
> when the aircraft is pitched up to an attitude that results in nearly
> level
> flight. This part of the landing is commonly called the round out.
> Since
> pitching up results in a decrease in airspeed, the wings start to lose
> some
> lift. What follows is what determines the quality of the touchdown
> and is
> called the flare. The trick is to slowly pitch up at the precise rate
> to
> equally compensate for the loss of lift from the decrease in airspeed.
> If
> you have been paying attention, you realize that this is a constantly
> changing situation. As you pitch up you decrease speed, which
> decreases
> lift, which requires more pitch, which requires ... The object is to
> slow
> down from approach speed to stall speed, maintaining almost level
> flight,
> while allowing the aircraft wheels to ease closer to the runway until
> they
> touch down at the exact moment stall speed is attained. At the moment
> of
> touchdown the elevator control should be back as far as it will travel.
> This securely forces the tail wheel down and increases its
> effectiveness in
> controlling direction. This is very important since the rudder quickly
> loses effect because of loss of air flowing past it as it slows. I
> won't
> comment here on the importance of keeping a tail dragger going straight
> while on the ground, other than to say it is the most important aspect
> of
> flying one. Now, back to landing, if you get to the stall speed before
> touching the ground the plane loses all lift and drops to the ground.
> Not a
> bad landing if the drop is a matter of inches. If the ground is
> touched
> before slowing to stall speed a return to flight is likely. This is
> especially true in a tail dragger because the pitch angle of the wing
> is
> usually set for a climb when all wheels are on the ground. If you are
> flying above stall speed in all likely hood you will touch down on the
> main
> gear first. As you pull back the tail will lower, creating more lift,
> and
> you find yourself climbing back into the air.
>
> In most aircraft the round out and flare are distinct segments of the
> landing. The round out might take around 5 seconds and the following
> flare
> might take 15 to 20 seconds depending on airspeed at the start of the
> round
> out. Cessnas seem to float forever.
>
> Now for Aircamper specific observations. This is what it looks like
> for me
> in the pilot's seat. For many reasons the Aircamper doesn't float
> much.
> It has a lot of drag. It doesn't go very fast in the first place and
> slows
> quickly upon reduction of power. Therefore the round out and flare
> happen
> so quickly that they become one operation. If enough speed is not
> carried
> in the approach the elevators become ineffective before completing the
> round
> out/flare and the bungee cords get severely tested. One of the things
> you
> need to discover is the minimum approach speed that still allows
> elevator
> control until full stall and touchdown. This is going to probably be
> different for each aircraft because of configuration, instrument error,
> etc.. 65 mph works for me. 1.3 stall speed is 55 mph. I pancake in
> every
> time at that speed. I "aim" at the ground and carry 65 mph until a
> couple
> of feet above the ground and then smoothly pull back for the round
> out/flare
> and am on the ground in about 30 - 50 feet. No bounce. No drop.
> Just a
> smooth 3 point landing.
>
> I would suggest that one of the first things to establish on the first
> flight is the stall speed. I would then suggest that the approach be
> tested
> at no slower than 1.6 times stall speed. If that gives elevator
> control but
> results in a distinct flare you could reduce the speed in 2 mph steps
> until
> you find the speed that causes mild elevator loss. You now know the
> minimum
> approach speed for your plane in that weight configuration. I usually
> add a
> couple of mph for an adult passenger.
>
> This is a conservative approach to coming up with numbers you can fly
> with.
> Although I have only flown my own Aircamper to date, I believe from
> listening to others' experiences that this is the best way to approach
> your
> first landings. What do you say Mike Cuy or Chris?
>
> I met a list member at Oshkosh in 1999. He had completed his plane in
> April
> but didn't have it with him. He told me that on the third landing he
> bent
> the landing gear on a hard touchdown because he ran out of elevator.
> Hopefully this discussion will prevent a repeat of that experience.
>
> All of the above only applies to a power off landing. Carrying a
> little
> power allows a slightly slower approach speed and still provides
> elevator
> control during the flare. Cut power at the end of the round out and
> end up
> with a perfect 3 point landing.
>
> Hope this helps someone. Sorry this got so long. It is easier to do
> than
> describe.
>
> Ted Brousseau
>
> PS If any of the above does not make sense don't try it alone. Run
> out and
> get yourself an experienced taildragger pilot to help you. Also, this
> does
> not address crosswind, upwind, uphill, downhill, short field, soft
> field or
> wheel landings.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: horizontal stab dimensions |
Walt,
You are concerned with a concept called tail volume. Tail volume is the square
inch area of the horizontal surface (elevator and satbilizer together) times
the distance in inches from the center of pressure of the horizontal stabilizer
to the Center of Gravity, this being the point of rotation about which the aircraft
moves based on input of the controls.
As there are three wood fuselages that I know of, namely the version in the F&G
manual and on the Hoopman drawings at 161 inches, the 1933 "Improved Aircamper"
at 163 inches, and the fuselage designed for the Corvair at 172.375 inches,
I am not sure which one you mean. I always called the Corvair fuselage the Pavliga
long fuselage because, well, it is the longest and it is the fuselage used
on Sky Gypsy.
Anyway, if you take the square inch area of each horizontal design times the distance
in inches from the loaded CG to the 33% chord point on each stabilizer
design, you will come up with the tail volume...volume because the units will
now be cubic inches. The hardest thing will be to figure out your loaded CG.
If you make the distance between the CG to the CP of the stabilizer longer, you
can get by with a smaller stabilizer area. Shorten up the CG to CP distance
and you need to increase the tail area.
My analysis of the different fuselages leads me to believe that using the 172.375
fuselage moves the seats back faster than the tail gets longer so it actually
puts the CG further aft than on the shorter fuselages. This means that the
CG to Cp of the stabilizer is actually a shorter distance so a bigger area stabilizer
is needed.
Unfortunately, the 172.375" fuselage drawing is a stand alone. No landing gear
was ever published for it and neither is there a obviously a stabilizer.
I wrote an article on gear placement on the 172.375 inch fuselage that was to be
published in the Grant MacLaren published BPA NL but it never made it because
the very issue it was to be published in was never published as he quit the
post. I will dig it out. Only a hard copy exists, and even it is one of the
drafts, so I will have to scan it to OCR software and see if I can post it.
I hope this helps. I wish people said what inch fuselage they have when they talk
of stuff like this as it really matters (or maybe it doesn't since they all
seem to meet each aviator's expectations)
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
I didn't know they were different. I built the long fuse and the tail was from
the original prints, so I guess I got the wrong one. but flies great. What
two prints show different tails???
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Brants
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 5:37 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
I built the long fuselage and then (idiodically) built the horiz. stab for
the short fuse (18" wide instead of 19 3/8") - didn't realize until today when
I tried fitting it up. Question: can I glue a wider leading edge to the horizontal
stab to make up the difference? Obviously this would add a bit of weight
to the tail section.. Or could I just fill in behind the turtle deck to
take up the space? Difference is about 1 3/8". Is the 1 3/8" width going to
be missed if I leave it out? Does this cause a problem getting away from the
'airfoil shape'?
Another related question: does the horiz. stab get bolted through the longerons?
Any help on this would be appreciated.
Tom Brant
Brooklyn Park, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brants" <tmbrant(at)usfamily.net> |
<002e01c3de36$350ab400$0101a8c0@domain>
| Subject: | Re: horizontal stab dimensions |
Chris,
I am the one that asked the original question.... You're correct in saying that
the drawings stand alone, however if I'd been smart I could have figured on
making a larger stabilizer...
According to your comments (if I interpreted correctly) the 172 3/8" fuse (this
is what I have) requires a larger stabilizer (and elevator??)... My previous
post asks this question - can I use the 18" stab (and elevator) now that they're
built, or do I need to modify or rebuild?
I would be interested in getting a copy of your article on this.
Thanks,
Tom Brant
Brooklyn Park, MN
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Bobka
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
Walt,
You are concerned with a concept called tail volume. Tail volume is the square
inch area of the horizontal surface (elevator and satbilizer together) times
the distance in inches from the center of pressure of the horizontal stabilizer
to the Center of Gravity, this being the point of rotation about which the
aircraft moves based on input of the controls.
As there are three wood fuselages that I know of, namely the version in the F&G
manual and on the Hoopman drawings at 161 inches, the 1933 "Improved Aircamper"
at 163 inches, and the fuselage designed for the Corvair at 172.375 inches,
I am not sure which one you mean. I always called the Corvair fuselage the
Pavliga long fuselage because, well, it is the longest and it is the fuselage
used on Sky Gypsy.
Anyway, if you take the square inch area of each horizontal design times the
distance in inches from the loaded CG to the 33% chord point on each stabilizer
design, you will come up with the tail volume...volume because the units will
now be cubic inches. The hardest thing will be to figure out your loaded CG.
If you make the distance between the CG to the CP of the stabilizer longer, you
can get by with a smaller stabilizer area. Shorten up the CG to CP distance
and you need to increase the tail area.
My analysis of the different fuselages leads me to believe that using the 172.375
fuselage moves the seats back faster than the tail gets longer so it actually
puts the CG further aft than on the shorter fuselages. This means that the
CG to Cp of the stabilizer is actually a shorter distance so a bigger area
stabilizer is needed.
Unfortunately, the 172.375" fuselage drawing is a stand alone. No landing gear
was ever published for it and neither is there a obviously a stabilizer.
I wrote an article on gear placement on the 172.375 inch fuselage that was to
be published in the Grant MacLaren published BPA NL but it never made it because
the very issue it was to be published in was never published as he quit the
post. I will dig it out. Only a hard copy exists, and even it is one of the
drafts, so I will have to scan it to OCR software and see if I can post it.
I hope this helps. I wish people said what inch fuselage they have when they
talk of stuff like this as it really matters (or maybe it doesn't since they
all seem to meet each aviator's expectations)
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
I didn't know they were different. I built the long fuse and the tail was
from the original prints, so I guess I got the wrong one. but flies great. What
two prints show different tails???
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Brants
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 5:37 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
I built the long fuselage and then (idiodically) built the horiz. stab for
the short fuse (18" wide instead of 19 3/8") - didn't realize until today when
I tried fitting it up. Question: can I glue a wider leading edge to the horizontal
stab to make up the difference? Obviously this would add a bit of weight
to the tail section.. Or could I just fill in behind the turtle deck to
take up the space? Difference is about 1 3/8". Is the 1 3/8" width going to
be missed if I leave it out? Does this cause a problem getting away from the
'airfoil shape'?
Another related question: does the horiz. stab get bolted through the longerons?
Any help on this would be appreciated.
Tom Brant
Brooklyn Park, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
lengths
| Subject: | PhD dissertation on axle placement among the different |
fuselage lengths
Walt,
The following is related to your issue and I hope becomes a classic posting that
is referenced by many for years to come. I wrote it 5 years ago almost to the
day in response to a question posed by Greg Cardinal. It was about 5 hours
of research and headscratching. Of course, it will prompt some controversy.
Since the fisherman is gone, we haven't had much. This was supposed to have
been published in MacLaren's BPA newsletter. I sent it to him but he never came
out with the next edition (and took everybody's money - but he did a good job).
I think I will send it to Doc Mosher to put in To Fly!
It appears that the 1932 fuselage has the wood gear axle about 13.5 inches aft
of the firewall. The 1933 Improved Air Camper has the axle 17 inches aft of the
firewall. The weight and balance sheet I have from Don Pietenpol shows the
axle on the "1937 Air Camper with Corvair engine" (metal split axle gear on a
163 inch fuselage) at 16.5 inches aft of the firewall. The question Dale is
asking is how far aft of the firewall should the axle be on the Pavliga long fuselage
for which we have no help from the drawings?
The 1932 fuselage (Hoopman drawings and 1932 Flying and Glider Manual) is 161 inches
long. The 1933 Improved Air Camper fuselage is 163 inches long. The Pavliga
long fuselage is 172.375 inches long. This is the one I understand you
have built.
It appears that the intersection of the first truss verticals with the lower longeron
on the 1932 fuselage is 8.375 or 8.5 inches aft of the firewall, depending
on which set of plans you look at. On the 1933 Improved fuselage, it is 10
inches, and on the Pavliga long fuselage, it is 12 inches. This would mean
that the wood gear, unmodified from the 1932 plans and as mounted on the Pavliga
long fuselage, would put the axle 12-8.5 or 3.5 inches farther aft on the long
fuselage than on the 1932 fuselage. It would be at 13.5 (see paragraph 1
sentence 1) + 3.5 or 17 inches aft of the firewall. Is this a good place for
it? Frank P. said it was too far forward at 17 inches aft of the firewall so
he moved it aft when he did the engine switch.
A better indicator of proper gear position is comparing it to the rear seat back
position in the particular fuselage since this indicates the shift aft of the
CG position as the fuselages have been stretched. The rear seat back (at the
top longeron) in the 1932 fuselage is 70.5 inches aft of the firewall. The
rear seat back in the 1933 Improved fuselage is 72.25 inches aft of the firewall.
The rear seat back of the Pavliga long fuselage is 76.25 inches aft of the
firewall. This is a substantial shift aft in the position of the CG versus
the axle position as the fuselage is stretched.
Therefore, the axle on the 1932 fuselage is 70.5 -13.5 or 57 inches forward of
the rear seat back. The axle on the 1933 Improved is 72.25 -17 or 55.25 inches
forward of the rear seat back. Let us ignore the value from the 1932 fuselage
for reasons to be discussed later. Using the number from 1933 and applying
this to the Pavliga long fuselage, we should have the axle at 76.25 - 55.25 or
21 inches aft of the firewall. Two paragraphs ago we determined that it will
actually wind up at 17 inches aft of the firewall with the wood gear, unmodified,
and Frank P. says this is too far forward. Therefore, it appears that we
need to redesign the gear so that the axle will sit farther aft in the V to the
tune of about 21 -17 or 4 inches.
As we noted above, if you look at the sweep of the V in the 1932 plans, you will
note that the front attach of the V is at 8.5 inches aft of the firewall. We
know that the axle is about 13.5 inches aft of the firewall. Therefore, the
sweep is 13.5 - 8.5 or 5 inches for the wood gear. Doing the same analysis for
the 1933 Improved Air Camper, we know the front attach of the V is at 10 inches
aft of the firewall and the axle is at 17 inches aft of the firewall. Therefore
the sweep is 17 -10 or 7 inches for the split axle gear. The next sentence
is important. If you put the 1932 wood gear on a 1933 Improved fuselage, you
would have an axle that will be 7 - 5 or 2 inches forward of where it would
have been if you had used the split axle gear!!!! So the gears are not necessarily
interchangeable!!! Logic says that it does not matter which style gear
you use. The axle should always be in the same relative position. I see this
as an admission by BP that the original 1932 axle was too far forward by 2 inches.
And now we know what Frank P. was talking about!!!!
It is obvious that BP saw fit, when designing the 1933 Improved Air Camper, that
if he lengthened the fuselage from 161 to 163 inches and moved the pilot's rear
seat back aft by 1.75 inches, then he must move the axle aft by 17 -13.5 -
2 or 1.5 inches. (Consider 2 of the 3.5 inch difference between 17 and 13.5
as a design correction and the remaining 1.5 of the 3.5 inches to be an adjustment
for the new fuselage length and movement aft of the rear seat back.) So
what would BP do if he made the fuselage 172.375 inches long (a whopping 9.375
inches longer) and moved the rear seat back aft yet another 76.25 -72.25 or 4
inches?
As mentioned before, I propose a redesign of the V to allow the axle to sit 4 inches
further aft of where it sits in the 1932 V. This makes sense. As just
discussed, the original sweep was 5 inches. The new proposed sweep is 5 + 4 or
9 inches. This is reasonable compared to BP's increase of sweep in the split
axle gear to 7 inches for a slightly longer fuselage with a repositioned pilot.
Adding even more length for the Pavliga long fuselage and moving the pilot
an astounding 4 more inches aft over the 1933 fuselage and 5.75 more inches aft
over the 1932 fuselage definitely calls for an adjustment in the sweep of the
wood V.
As I see it, after BP's design correction is factored in, if you want to use a
wood straight axle gear in the short 161 inch long 1932 fuselage, then the axle
should be at 13.5+2 (the 2 inch correction) or 15.5 inches aft of the firewall
(the V has a 7 inch sweep). If you want to use a wood straight axle gear in
the 163 inch long Improved Air Camper fuselage, then the axle should be at the
same location as in the split axle gear, 17 inches aft of the firewall (the
V has a 7 inch sweep). If you want to use a wood straight axle gear in the 172.375
inch long Pavliga long fuselage, then the axle should be 21 inches aft
of the firewall (the V should have a 9 inch sweep).
Frank P. started with 5 inch sweep and ended up with 7 inch sweep after his engine
swap and gear modification. I propose that a 9 inch sweep is optimal but you
could probably get by just fine with the 7 inch sweep. Either way, I would
not use the 1932 gear as it is on the drawings. Does this help? I rest my case
and am going to bed.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
I didn't know they were different. I built the long fuse and the tail was from
the original prints, so I guess I got the wrong one. but flies great. What
two prints show different tails???
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Brants
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 5:37 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
I built the long fuselage and then (idiodically) built the horiz. stab for
the short fuse (18" wide instead of 19 3/8") - didn't realize until today when
I tried fitting it up. Question: can I glue a wider leading edge to the horizontal
stab to make up the difference? Obviously this would add a bit of weight
to the tail section.. Or could I just fill in behind the turtle deck to
take up the space? Difference is about 1 3/8". Is the 1 3/8" width going to
be missed if I leave it out? Does this cause a problem getting away from the
'airfoil shape'?
Another related question: does the horiz. stab get bolted through the longerons?
Any help on this would be appreciated.
Tom Brant
Brooklyn Park, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael McCarty" <mmccarty(at)zianet.com> |
| Subject: | Plans Differences |
Hello, My name is Mike McCarty, I'm a wannabe Piet builder in New Mexico.
So far I only have the 1932 F&GM plans and was going to start building the tail
surfaces from these plans.
These plans were very clear to me and I didn't have a doubt in my mind about how
the tail surfaces went together until I started reading the list archives here.
Some messages
made reference to the thickness of materials not adding up. Aside from tapering
the main 3/4"
beam on the horizontal stab to match the 5/8" material on the sides and tapering
the sides
to match the 3/4" leading edge the dimensions add up on the 1932 plans. I then
realized
that some of the dimensions being called out in these messages didn't jibe with
the dimensions
on the 1932 plans. The messages refer to a 1/8" rabbet in the leading edge material
to accept
the 3/32" ribs. This leaves a 1/2" thick web behind the leading edge. The 1932
plans call
for a 3/32" rabbet leaving a 3/8" web. Some of the messages refer to a 3/4" diagonal
brace
in the H stab. I don't see this in these plans.
So, are there a lot of significant differences between the D. Pietenpol supplied
plans and the
1932 plans? I realize the newer plans show options for extended fuselage and split
wing
design, but I expected the tail surafeces to be the same...
-Mac
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
<002e01c3de36$350ab400$0101a8c0@domain> <000b01c3de3f$9285bd10$53246b43@youru10ixi0anw>
| Subject: | Re: horizontal stab dimensions |
Tom,
I just refined the article and posted it to this list a minute ago. The article
is not about the stabilizer size but it gets you thinking a little bit about
the fuselage. I will look around and come up with my opinion on the stabilizer.
Wait a little and see what the others say too. It really all depends on
what loaded CGs others with the same fuselage have. And the CG needs to be given
relative to a fixed point on the fuselage that is common to your fuselage
i.e. the wing leading edge datum (an awful place to use) is not at all useful
unless we know that particular ship's wing leading edge postion relative to the
fixed point on the fuselage that is common to your fuselage.
Chris
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Brants
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
Chris,
I am the one that asked the original question.... You're correct in saying that
the drawings stand alone, however if I'd been smart I could have figured on
making a larger stabilizer...
According to your comments (if I interpreted correctly) the 172 3/8" fuse (this
is what I have) requires a larger stabilizer (and elevator??)... My previous
post asks this question - can I use the 18" stab (and elevator) now that they're
built, or do I need to modify or rebuild?
I would be interested in getting a copy of your article on this.
Thanks,
Tom Brant
Brooklyn Park, MN
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Bobka
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
Walt,
You are concerned with a concept called tail volume. Tail volume is the square
inch area of the horizontal surface (elevator and satbilizer together) times
the distance in inches from the center of pressure of the horizontal stabilizer
to the Center of Gravity, this being the point of rotation about which the
aircraft moves based on input of the controls.
As there are three wood fuselages that I know of, namely the version in the
F&G manual and on the Hoopman drawings at 161 inches, the 1933 "Improved Aircamper"
at 163 inches, and the fuselage designed for the Corvair at 172.375 inches,
I am not sure which one you mean. I always called the Corvair fuselage the
Pavliga long fuselage because, well, it is the longest and it is the fuselage
used on Sky Gypsy.
Anyway, if you take the square inch area of each horizontal design times the
distance in inches from the loaded CG to the 33% chord point on each stabilizer
design, you will come up with the tail volume...volume because the units will
now be cubic inches. The hardest thing will be to figure out your loaded
CG.
If you make the distance between the CG to the CP of the stabilizer longer,
you can get by with a smaller stabilizer area. Shorten up the CG to CP distance
and you need to increase the tail area.
My analysis of the different fuselages leads me to believe that using the 172.375
fuselage moves the seats back faster than the tail gets longer so it actually
puts the CG further aft than on the shorter fuselages. This means that
the CG to Cp of the stabilizer is actually a shorter distance so a bigger area
stabilizer is needed.
Unfortunately, the 172.375" fuselage drawing is a stand alone. No landing
gear was ever published for it and neither is there a obviously a stabilizer.
I wrote an article on gear placement on the 172.375 inch fuselage that was
to be published in the Grant MacLaren published BPA NL but it never made it because
the very issue it was to be published in was never published as he quit
the post. I will dig it out. Only a hard copy exists, and even it is one of
the drafts, so I will have to scan it to OCR software and see if I can post it.
I hope this helps. I wish people said what inch fuselage they have when they
talk of stuff like this as it really matters (or maybe it doesn't since they
all seem to meet each aviator's expectations)
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
I didn't know they were different. I built the long fuse and the tail was
from the original prints, so I guess I got the wrong one. but flies great.
What two prints show different tails???
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Brants
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 5:37 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
I built the long fuselage and then (idiodically) built the horiz. stab
for the short fuse (18" wide instead of 19 3/8") - didn't realize until today
when I tried fitting it up. Question: can I glue a wider leading edge to the
horizontal stab to make up the difference? Obviously this would add a bit of
weight to the tail section.. Or could I just fill in behind the turtle deck
to take up the space? Difference is about 1 3/8". Is the 1 3/8" width going
to be missed if I leave it out? Does this cause a problem getting away from
the 'airfoil shape'?
Another related question: does the horiz. stab get bolted through the
longerons?
Any help on this would be appreciated.
Tom Brant
Brooklyn Park, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Spruce for ribs on eBay |
Need spruce for ribs?
Here's some located in Cincinnati, possibly a great start for someone doing ribs:
I copied this from the ad:
"Here are the deatils...
a.. Each strip is 1/2" wide X 1/4" thick X 6' long
b.. Approx 30 to 40 pieces ( I did not count them)
c.. Was intended for the wing ribs of a Pietenpol Aircamper.
d.. Has been stored in a dry location, but cannot guarantee the wood's condition.
Buy at your own risk.
e.. Still in original wood shipping crate."
I don't know the person (and have NO association with him) but it looks like a
treasure to me....
It's auction number: 2455258271
Jim in Plano
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Spruce for ribs on eBay |
>Need spruce for ribs?
>
>Here's some located in Cincinnati, possibly a great start for
>someone doing ribs:
>
>I copied this from the ad:
>
>"Here are the deatils...
>
>Each strip is 1/2" wide X 1/4" thick X 6' long
>Approx 30 to 40 pieces ( I did not count them)
>Was intended for the wing ribs of a Pietenpol Aircamper.
>Has been stored in a dry location, but cannot guarantee the wood's
>condition. Buy at your own risk.
>Still in original wood shipping crate."
>
>I don't know the person (and have NO association with him) but it
>looks like a treasure to me....
>
>It's auction number: 2455258271
>
>Jim in Plano
Jim,
Was there an identifying name with this ad (a real person's name, not
a screen name)? This sounds a lot llike the guy I bought my project
from, Bob LeTart. I got of a set of ribs with it, but half of them
had been built by someone other than him, which means he could have
wood to make a 3rd half-set left over (if that makes sense). If so,
then I'd say this is probably a safe deal.
Regards,
Kip Gardner
(still snowing & cold in OH, almost done restoring the 50+-year-old
sled for my daughter)
--
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
[This message didn't go through for some reason, so I am re-sending
it again as a forwarded message.]
----- Original Message -----
From: Graham Hansen <grhans@cable-lynx.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: landings
> REF. Ted Brousseau's post on January 15, 2004
>
> Ted,
>
> Your excellent dissertation on Pietenpol 3-point landing technique is
> consistent with my own experience flying my Pietenpol Air Camper
> and three other Piets. In total, I have about 760 hours and literally
> thousands of landings with Pietenpols, but this is spread over many
> years and I need to get out and get some practice once the weather
> warms up.
>
> I agree completely with your observation that 1.3 x stalling speed = 55
> mph is too slow for a power-off approach speed; after round-out there
> is virtually no "float" and no opportunity make any corrections because
> the speed dissipates so rapidly. One's judgment needs to be absolutely
> accurate in order to make a good landing and a heavy landing is a very
> real possibility.
>
> If a power-off approach and landing is made, your suggested approach
> speed of 65 mph will work fine with my Pietenpol, although I like to ap-
> proach at 70 if it is gusty or if I have a load. We are at 2500' asl and,
> on a hot summer day, one needs to be careful---especially when loaded
> to, or near, gross weight. Under these conditions I will generally use a
> "touch" of power to flatten the approach angle and carry it through the
> flare. I feel that extra airspeed is "money in the bank" when flying a
drag-
> gy airplane, and getting rid of any excess speed never seems to be a
> problem.with the Pietenpols and biplanes I have flown.
>
> A power-off approach in a Pietenpol is steep compared to other light-
> planes of similar power (Taylorcraft, Luscombe, etc.). My Sperry Mes-
> senger Biplane reproduction has a steeper approach angle, but my Piper
> PA17 Vagabond, with the same wingspan as my Pietenpol, doesn't ap-
> proach so steeply. As you aptly put it, one does indeed take "aim" at
> the ground with a Pietenpol (or a biplane), and generally you will touch
> down very close to the aiming point.
>
> Wheel landings, with the Piets I have flown, are much easier to accom-
> plish than 3-pointers. Perhaps this is due to the main wheels not being
> located too far forward. With all four Pietenpols it was easy to taxi all
> over the place with the tail up by using just enough power. On the land-
> ing approach my Pietenpol is fairly nose-heavy with reduced power, or
> power-off, and this reduces, or eliminates, the need to "pin it on" with
> forward stick once the mainwheels touch. One simply releases back
> pressure on the stick upon contact. For me, with my aging reflexes,
> this is good!
>
> In my humble opinion, if one can fly a J-3 Cub well from the rear seat,
> he/she would do fine with a Pietenpol, provided they are made aware
> of the dragginess of the latter. The Pietenpol is not a difficult airplane
> to
> fly, but it demands proper technique to make consistently good landings
> (particularly 3-pointers).
>
> Happy landings,
>
> Graham Hansen
> (Pietenpol CF-AUN in somewhat chilly Alberta, Canada)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: vi kapler hinges |
Yes he is still selling them. They look great but do require some filing.
His phone is 507-288-3322.
Good luck,
Greg Menoche
Delaware
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cutting plywood |
What is a FLY CUTTER?
Greg
Delaware
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)speedtrail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: vi kapler hinges |
Netscape/7.1 (ax)
These are the cast aluminum elevator and rudder hinges correct?
Rick H
Gnwac(at)cs.com wrote:
> Yes he is still selling them. They look great but do require some
> filing. His phone is 507-288-3322.
> Good luck,
> Greg Menoche
> Delaware
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cutting plywood |
Here is one pic I found on the net. It's adjustable for hole size. The BIG trick
for a good hole is to cut about half way thru on one side and turn wood over
to finish. This way no raggid edges
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Gnwac(at)cs.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
What is a FLY CUTTER?
Greg
Delaware
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Schreiber <schreib(at)netnitco.net> |
(ax)
| Subject: | Re: vi kapler hinges |
Tom,
Vi Kapler is still selling the hinges. I bought a set from him at
Brodhead this past summer
Rick Schreiber
Valparaiso, IN
Brants wrote:
> Anyone have a photo or some info on Vi Kaplers hinges? Is he selling
> / making them? How can I reach him? I'm working on the tail section
> over the winter and I'll soon be ready for some hinges to put it all
> together.
>
>
>
> Tom Brant
> Brooklyn Park, MN
>
> ------ USFamily.Net <http://www.usfamily.net/info> - Unlimited
> Internet - From $8.99/mo! ------
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
<002e01c3de36$350ab400$0101a8c0@domain> <000b01c3de3f$9285bd10$53246b43@youru10ixi0anw>
| Subject: | Re: horizontal stab dimensions |
Chris,
I am building the long fuselage and would appreciate the information you worked
up on larger stabs.
Thanks
Alex Sloan
alexms(at)bellsouth.net
----- Original Message -----
From: Brants
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
Chris,
I am the one that asked the original question.... You're correct in saying that
the drawings stand alone, however if I'd been smart I could have figured on
making a larger stabilizer...
According to your comments (if I interpreted correctly) the 172 3/8" fuse (this
is what I have) requires a larger stabilizer (and elevator??)... My previous
post asks this question - can I use the 18" stab (and elevator) now that they're
built, or do I need to modify or rebuild?
I would be interested in getting a copy of your article on this.
Thanks,
Tom Brant
Brooklyn Park, MN
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Bobka
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
Walt,
You are concerned with a concept called tail volume. Tail volume is the square
inch area of the horizontal surface (elevator and satbilizer together) times
the distance in inches from the center of pressure of the horizontal stabilizer
to the Center of Gravity, this being the point of rotation about which the
aircraft moves based on input of the controls.
As there are three wood fuselages that I know of, namely the version in the
F&G manual and on the Hoopman drawings at 161 inches, the 1933 "Improved Aircamper"
at 163 inches, and the fuselage designed for the Corvair at 172.375 inches,
I am not sure which one you mean. I always called the Corvair fuselage the
Pavliga long fuselage because, well, it is the longest and it is the fuselage
used on Sky Gypsy.
Anyway, if you take the square inch area of each horizontal design times the
distance in inches from the loaded CG to the 33% chord point on each stabilizer
design, you will come up with the tail volume...volume because the units will
now be cubic inches. The hardest thing will be to figure out your loaded
CG.
If you make the distance between the CG to the CP of the stabilizer longer,
you can get by with a smaller stabilizer area. Shorten up the CG to CP distance
and you need to increase the tail area.
My analysis of the different fuselages leads me to believe that using the 172.375
fuselage moves the seats back faster than the tail gets longer so it actually
puts the CG further aft than on the shorter fuselages. This means that
the CG to Cp of the stabilizer is actually a shorter distance so a bigger area
stabilizer is needed.
Unfortunately, the 172.375" fuselage drawing is a stand alone. No landing
gear was ever published for it and neither is there a obviously a stabilizer.
I wrote an article on gear placement on the 172.375 inch fuselage that was
to be published in the Grant MacLaren published BPA NL but it never made it because
the very issue it was to be published in was never published as he quit
the post. I will dig it out. Only a hard copy exists, and even it is one of
the drafts, so I will have to scan it to OCR software and see if I can post it.
I hope this helps. I wish people said what inch fuselage they have when they
talk of stuff like this as it really matters (or maybe it doesn't since they
all seem to meet each aviator's expectations)
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
I didn't know they were different. I built the long fuse and the tail was
from the original prints, so I guess I got the wrong one. but flies great.
What two prints show different tails???
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Brants
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 5:37 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
I built the long fuselage and then (idiodically) built the horiz. stab
for the short fuse (18" wide instead of 19 3/8") - didn't realize until today
when I tried fitting it up. Question: can I glue a wider leading edge to the
horizontal stab to make up the difference? Obviously this would add a bit of
weight to the tail section.. Or could I just fill in behind the turtle deck
to take up the space? Difference is about 1 3/8". Is the 1 3/8" width going
to be missed if I leave it out? Does this cause a problem getting away from
the 'airfoil shape'?
Another related question: does the horiz. stab get bolted through the
longerons?
Any help on this would be appreciated.
Tom Brant
Brooklyn Park, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
different fu...
| Subject: | Re: PhD dissertation on axle placement among the different |
fu...
Chris,
Thanks for a GREAT article ref. the 172 inch fuse builders out here. Your
research and experience helps for those of us, me, who are just getting started
and learning as we go.
Greg Menoche
Delaware
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
<002e01c3de36$350ab400$0101a8c0@domain> <000b01c3de3f$9285bd10$53246b43@youru10ixi0anw>
| Subject: | Re: horizontal stab dimensions |
Tom,
As I see it, there are two stabs. One is rectangular in shape, as in the 1932
F and G Manual, and the other sweeps about 80 degrees at the tips, as in the 1933
Improved Aircamper. Otherwise, they all have 18" chord.
Anybody else in on this? Mike C.?
chris bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: Brants
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
Chris,
I am the one that asked the original question.... You're correct in saying that
the drawings stand alone, however if I'd been smart I could have figured on
making a larger stabilizer...
According to your comments (if I interpreted correctly) the 172 3/8" fuse (this
is what I have) requires a larger stabilizer (and elevator??)... My previous
post asks this question - can I use the 18" stab (and elevator) now that they're
built, or do I need to modify or rebuild?
I would be interested in getting a copy of your article on this.
Thanks,
Tom Brant
Brooklyn Park, MN
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Bobka
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
Walt,
You are concerned with a concept called tail volume. Tail volume is the square
inch area of the horizontal surface (elevator and satbilizer together) times
the distance in inches from the center of pressure of the horizontal stabilizer
to the Center of Gravity, this being the point of rotation about which the
aircraft moves based on input of the controls.
As there are three wood fuselages that I know of, namely the version in the
F&G manual and on the Hoopman drawings at 161 inches, the 1933 "Improved Aircamper"
at 163 inches, and the fuselage designed for the Corvair at 172.375 inches,
I am not sure which one you mean. I always called the Corvair fuselage the
Pavliga long fuselage because, well, it is the longest and it is the fuselage
used on Sky Gypsy.
Anyway, if you take the square inch area of each horizontal design times the
distance in inches from the loaded CG to the 33% chord point on each stabilizer
design, you will come up with the tail volume...volume because the units will
now be cubic inches. The hardest thing will be to figure out your loaded
CG.
If you make the distance between the CG to the CP of the stabilizer longer,
you can get by with a smaller stabilizer area. Shorten up the CG to CP distance
and you need to increase the tail area.
My analysis of the different fuselages leads me to believe that using the 172.375
fuselage moves the seats back faster than the tail gets longer so it actually
puts the CG further aft than on the shorter fuselages. This means that
the CG to Cp of the stabilizer is actually a shorter distance so a bigger area
stabilizer is needed.
Unfortunately, the 172.375" fuselage drawing is a stand alone. No landing
gear was ever published for it and neither is there a obviously a stabilizer.
I wrote an article on gear placement on the 172.375 inch fuselage that was
to be published in the Grant MacLaren published BPA NL but it never made it because
the very issue it was to be published in was never published as he quit
the post. I will dig it out. Only a hard copy exists, and even it is one of
the drafts, so I will have to scan it to OCR software and see if I can post it.
I hope this helps. I wish people said what inch fuselage they have when they
talk of stuff like this as it really matters (or maybe it doesn't since they
all seem to meet each aviator's expectations)
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
I didn't know they were different. I built the long fuse and the tail was
from the original prints, so I guess I got the wrong one. but flies great.
What two prints show different tails???
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Brants
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 5:37 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
I built the long fuselage and then (idiodically) built the horiz. stab
for the short fuse (18" wide instead of 19 3/8") - didn't realize until today
when I tried fitting it up. Question: can I glue a wider leading edge to the
horizontal stab to make up the difference? Obviously this would add a bit of
weight to the tail section.. Or could I just fill in behind the turtle deck
to take up the space? Difference is about 1 3/8". Is the 1 3/8" width going
to be missed if I leave it out? Does this cause a problem getting away from
the 'airfoil shape'?
Another related question: does the horiz. stab get bolted through the
longerons?
Any help on this would be appreciated.
Tom Brant
Brooklyn Park, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: vi kapler hinges |
Yes Rick,
They are cast aluminum. He sells a set of 9 and include the pin to mate the
two halves. They are about $40.
Greg Menoche
Delaware
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike <bike.mike(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: horizontal stab dimensions |
<002e01c3de36$350ab400$0101a8c0@domain> <000b01c3de3f$9285bd10$53246b43@youru10ixi0anw>
<005701c3df04$2a7b6920$d401a8c0@Alex>
I'm having some difficulty seeing why a longer fuselage would require a
larger horizontal stabilizer. The longer fuselage puts the stab farther
away from the CG, giving it more authority over the airplane's
attitude. In Chris Bobka's terms, the longer arm increases tail volume
without needing to increase the stab area.
I have a long fuselage and the stab and elevators are built to original
plans (signed by Orrin Hoopman).
Mike Hardaway
Fresh out of Corvair College and looking for a core.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: horizontal stab dimensions |
Chris,
Please post or send to me too. Have yet to build the tail, but better to
research now than later.
Greg Menoche
Delaware
Gnwac(at)cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike <bike.mike(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: horizontal stab dimensions |
<002e01c3de36$350ab400$0101a8c0@domain> <000b01c3de3f$9285bd10$53246b43@youru10ixi0anw>
<005701c3df04$2a7b6920$d401a8c0@Alex>
I guess I should have included in my prior post that my long fuselage
has 125-1/8 inches between the aft wing attach point and the tail post.
The short fuselage has 117-3/4 inches for the same dimension. That
indicates to me that, even if the wing is moved aft a little to
accommodate a rearward CG shift, the CG is still farther from the tail
post in a long fuselage than in a standard length fuse. This is what
tells me you don't need to build a larger stabilizer with a long
fuselage.
Mike Hardaway
Still looking.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Cutting plywood |
Don't use this thing in a hand drill. It is very
much out of balance with one cutter way off
center, and be very careful of it in a drill press.
It has a lot of torque so take it easy. There is
one I've seen with a counter weight on the
opposite side but most don't.
It does work quite well in a drill press following
Walt's rules. If you want to cut thick material
drill the center hole first and it will go easier.
There is another fly cutter. It's a very
small knife. Buzzzz.
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
Here is one pic I found on the net. It's adjustable for hole size. The BIG
trick for a good hole is to cut about half way thru on one side and turn wood
over to finish. This way no raggid edges
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Gnwac(at)cs.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
What is a FLY CUTTER?
Greg
Delaware
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
<002e01c3de36$350ab400$0101a8c0@domain> <000b01c3de3f$9285bd10$53246b43@youru10ixi0anw>
<005701c3df04$2a7b6920$d401a8c0@Alex> <400CAACA.26B8A414(at)verizon.net>
| Subject: | Re: horizontal stab dimensions |
Mike,
As I posted earlier, with the seats moved way aft in the 170+" fuselage, the
CG is moving aft faster than the arm is getting longer if the arm gets
longer at all, when compared to the shorter fuselages. I would like to see
some numbers from flying ships, with the CG locations given relative to a
COMMON point. The wing LE does not cut it as you move the wing around and
that makes the numbers incomparable from ship to ship. One needs to use a
fixed location on the fuselage not likely to be tampered with by the builder
as is the firewall.
I truly believe that the 170+" long fuselage has a tendency to get tail
heavy much more easily than the shorter fuselages. I believe that the CG to
'Cp of the stab' distance is shortest with the 170+" fuselage, despite how
it might look. This would mean the 170+" fuselage would have the smallest
tail volume of all the fuselage variants. To compensate, maybe the tail
does need to be made bigger, as Tom Brants suggests. Anyone out there with
good weight and balance data to share, with it converted to use, say, the
forward cabane strut to upper longeron fitting bolt on the longeron as the
datum? Need it for both the shorter and longer fuselages.
Anyone measure the stabilizer chord on "The Last Original"?
Merely my opinion and waiting for facts to roll in. Believe me, I am a
build it stock kind of guy but when you are dealing with the long fuselage,
there is not much else given than a fuselage drawing. We are on our own for
the rest.
chris bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike" <bike.mike(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
>
>
> I guess I should have included in my prior post that my long fuselage
> has 125-1/8 inches between the aft wing attach point and the tail post.
> The short fuselage has 117-3/4 inches for the same dimension. That
> indicates to me that, even if the wing is moved aft a little to
> accommodate a rearward CG shift, the CG is still farther from the tail
> post in a long fuselage than in a standard length fuse. This is what
> tells me you don't need to build a larger stabilizer with a long
> fuselage.
>
> Mike Hardaway
> Still looking.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
<00d301c3df1b$0ecad230$96715118@dawsonaviation>
| Subject: | Re: Cutting plywood |
Two rules of fly cutting.
Never use it in anything BUT a drill press.
Never hold the item being flycut in your hand. It MUST be clamped to the drill
press table and you have one hand on the downfeed and the other poised over the
off switch. That way you never have to look away from the work until after
the drill press is shut off.
Chris Bobka
who drove his USMC aviator buddy to the hospital for 30+ stiches in his palm after
he violated rule 2.
chris bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: Clif Dawson
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
Don't use this thing in a hand drill. It is very
much out of balance with one cutter way off
center, and be very careful of it in a drill press.
It has a lot of torque so take it easy. There is
one I've seen with a counter weight on the
opposite side but most don't.
It does work quite well in a drill press following
Walt's rules. If you want to cut thick material
drill the center hole first and it will go easier.
There is another fly cutter. It's a very
small knife. Buzzzz.
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
Here is one pic I found on the net. It's adjustable for hole size. The BIG
trick for a good hole is to cut about half way thru on one side and turn wood
over to finish. This way no raggid edges
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Gnwac(at)cs.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
What is a FLY CUTTER?
Greg
Delaware
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
I guess I got off lucky - I only had 14 stitches in my thumb after violating
rule #2. Be VERY careful as the cutter finishes piercing the metal. At
that point it can have a tendency to "bite" into the work piece and can pull
it out of your hand over even out of the clamps holding it to the bench if
you are not careful. I consider the fly cutter to be one of the most
dangerous tools in the shop. Be sure there is somebody home who can drive
you to the hospital while you are using it. Seriously.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Christian
Bobka
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
Two rules of fly cutting.
Never use it in anything BUT a drill press.
Never hold the item being flycut in your hand. It MUST be clamped to the
drill press table and you have one hand on the downfeed and the other poised
over the off switch. That way you never have to look away from the work
until after the drill press is shut off.
Chris Bobka
who drove his USMC aviator buddy to the hospital for 30+ stiches in his palm
after he violated rule 2.
chris bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: Clif Dawson <mailto:cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
Don't use this thing in a hand drill. It is very
much out of balance with one cutter way off
center, and be very careful of it in a drill press.
It has a lot of torque so take it easy. There is
one I've seen with a counter weight on the
opposite side but most don't.
It does work quite well in a drill press following
Walt's rules. If you want to cut thick material
drill the center hole first and it will go easier.
There is another fly cutter. It's a very
small knife. Buzzzz.
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans <mailto:wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
Here is one pic I found on the net. It's adjustable for hole size. The BIG
trick for a good hole is to cut about half way thru on one side and turn
wood over to finish. This way no raggid edges
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Gnwac(at)cs.com <mailto:Gnwac(at)cs.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
What is a FLY CUTTER?
Greg
Delaware
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Ted's advice--and flaring too HIGH |
>
<003401c3daa0$c3e43000$b50ba5d1@LOU>
<007101c3dba2$0ad7b700$0101a8c0@domain>
Ted B's words on landings in a Piet were right on with what I've
experienced and Ted has more time in a Piet than I do plus has been flying
since I was 5 years old. Gosh Ted, you must have gotten your ticket when
you were 16 ! You are not that old !!
The only words I would add to what Ted had to say is that first time
flights in a Piet/GN-1, the pilots tend to flare too high. You just are
not accustomed to being that low to the ground (visually) in anything
you've ever flown before. I looks like you are going to burry the plane
on flare but you don't. Just like in a 'tall' taildragger like a Stearman,
my first desire was to "make it look right by making it look like what I
see on the Piet during landing." That was a mistake. Each plane has
it's "view" during the touchdown and the best way to etch that view in your
mind is to sit on the runway or taxiway and visualize where the horizon
crosses thru your nose---get that picture in your head before you fly it
and when you flare, that is the view you need to see to feel for mother
earth. Sounds simple, but it works if you study it before your flight.
Mike C. in balmy 6 F weather !
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Wood landing gear question |
>
<013001c3da49$5eaa6940$0101a8c0@domain>
<002801c3db0c$21e126c0$57c5fea9@mke>
<005e01c3dbbe$1a2f9120$d401a8c0@Alex>
<044301c3dd64$6004c7e0$ceddf6ce@hjarrett>
>Does the bottom ash block on each landing gear get glued to the legs or is
>it just held in place only with the metal fittings?
>
Ted-- I got as tight of fit there as I could and T-88'ed those pieces
together. First I held them in place with masking tape to get my fittings
formed just right so they would not put any force on the legs or ash piece
and then glued the blocks in and later did the varnishing, etc.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | The best Pietenpol article yet..... |
Well, I think it's just about the best one I've seen.....
"The Pasture Pilot's Pride & Joy" was published in 1965 and it's a great article
about the Pietenpol Air Camper with some mention of the Sky Scout......
This is a good one......
If you'll go into your browser's internet options and disable "Automatic Image
Resizing", the pages will display in a size that you can print on your printer
at just about the same quality as the original. Or you can save the file to
your local drive.
It's in the File Library section of mykitplane.com:
<http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/filesList2.cfm?AlbumID43>
Enjoy
JM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hodgson, Mark O" <mhodgson(at)bu.edu> |
FWIW, I got my tailwheel endorsement yesterday, so when my instructor
said I was "almost there" on New Year's day he meant it. It was the
first time I've flown since then, and a chilly, gusty day in southern
New Hampshire (but then, we've been getting your Canadian Arctic air a
lot the past couple of weeks). Good for demonstrating cross-wind wheel
landings, and from the looks of your note I'll need that skill someday
when I'm ready to fly my Piet.
Thanks again to the list for all of the useful comments,
Mark Hodgson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)speedtrail.net> |
Netscape/7.1 (ax)
| Subject: | Re: horizontal stab dimensions |
<002e01c3de36$350ab400$0101a8c0@domain> <000b01c3de3f$9285bd10$53246b43@youru10ixi0anw>
<005701c3df04$2a7b6920$d401a8c0@Alex>
Tom
My long (172 3/8) fuselage plans (Supplementary Plans) shows the
distance from the tailpost to the back of the turtledeck 18 7/8" not 19
3/8". Thats only a 7/8" difference. Still makes you wonder if you should
build the stab 18" or 18 7/8" wide.
Rick H
Alex Sloan wrote:
> Chris,
> I am building the long fuselage and would appreciate the information
> you worked up on larger stabs.
> Thanks
> Alex Sloan
> alexms(at)bellsouth.net
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Brants <mailto:tmbrant(at)usfamily.net>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 9:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
>
> Chris,
>
> I am the one that asked the original question.... You're correct
> in saying that the drawings stand alone, however if I'd been smart
> I could have figured on making a larger stabilizer...
>
> According to your comments (if I interpreted correctly) the 172
> 3/8" fuse (this is what I have) requires a larger stabilizer (and
> elevator??)... My previous post asks this question - can I use
> the 18" stab (and elevator) now that they're built, or do I need
> to modify or rebuild?
>
> I would be interested in getting a copy of your article on this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tom Brant
> Brooklyn Park, MN
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Christian Bobka <mailto:bobka(at)compuserve.com>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 8:44 PM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
>
> Walt,
>
> You are concerned with a concept called tail volume. Tail
> volume is the square inch area of the horizontal surface
> (elevator and satbilizer together) times the distance in
> inches from the center of pressure of the horizontal
> stabilizer to the Center of Gravity, this being the point of
> rotation about which the aircraft moves based on input of the
> controls.
>
> As there are three wood fuselages that I know of, namely the
> version in the F&G manual and on the Hoopman drawings at 161
> inches, the 1933 "Improved Aircamper" at 163 inches, and the
> fuselage designed for the Corvair at 172.375 inches, I am not
> sure which one you mean. I always called the Corvair fuselage
> the Pavliga long fuselage because, well, it is the longest and
> it is the fuselage used on Sky Gypsy.
>
> Anyway, if you take the square inch area of each horizontal
> design times the distance in inches from the loaded CG to the
> 33% chord point on each stabilizer design, you will come up
> with the tail volume...volume because the units will now be
> cubic inches. The hardest thing will be to figure out your
> loaded CG.
>
> If you make the distance between the CG to the CP of the
> stabilizer longer, you can get by with a smaller stabilizer
> area. Shorten up the CG to CP distance and you need to
> increase the tail area.
>
> My analysis of the different fuselages leads me to believe
> that using the 172.375 fuselage moves the seats back faster
> than the tail gets longer so it actually puts the CG further
> aft than on the shorter fuselages. This means that the CG to
> Cp of the stabilizer is actually a shorter distance so a
> bigger area stabilizer is needed.
>
> Unfortunately, the 172.375" fuselage drawing is a stand
> alone. No landing gear was ever published for it and neither
> is there a obviously a stabilizer.
>
> I wrote an article on gear placement on the 172.375 inch
> fuselage that was to be published in the Grant MacLaren
> published BPA NL but it never made it because the very issue
> it was to be published in was never published as he quit the
> post. I will dig it out. Only a hard copy exists, and even
> it is one of the drafts, so I will have to scan it to OCR
> software and see if I can post it.
>
> I hope this helps. I wish people said what inch fuselage they
> have when they talk of stuff like this as it really matters
> (or maybe it doesn't since they all seem to meet each
> aviator's expectations)
>
> Chris Bobka
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: walt evans <mailto:wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 7:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
>
> I didn't know they were different. I built the long fuse
> and the tail was from the original prints, so I guess I
> got the wrong one. but flies great. What two prints show
> different tails???
> walt evans
> NX140DL
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Brants <mailto:tmbrant(at)usfamily.net>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 5:37 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
>
> I built the long fuselage and then (idiodically) built
> the horiz. stab for the short fuse (18" wide instead
> of 19 3/8") - didn't realize until today when I tried
> fitting it up. Question: can I glue a wider leading
> edge to the horizontal stab to make up the
> difference? Obviously this would add a bit of weight
> to the tail section.. Or could I just fill in behind
> the turtle deck to take up the space? Difference is
> about 1 3/8". Is the 1 3/8" width going to be missed
> if I leave it out? Does this cause a problem getting
> away from the 'airfoil shape'?
>
> Another related question: does the horiz. stab get
> bolted through the longerons?
>
> Any help on this would be appreciated.
>
> Tom Brant
> Brooklyn Park, MN
>
>
>
>
> ------ USFamily.Net <http://www.usfamily.net/info> -
>
>
> ------ USFamily.Net <http://www.usfamily.net/info> - Unlimited
> Internet - From $8.99/mo! ------
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The best Pietenpol article yet..... |
Jim,
Thanks, I really enjoyed that article and pictures. The core of why I built a
Pietenpol.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Markle
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 10:58 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: The best Pietenpol article yet.....
Well, I think it's just about the best one I've seen.....
"The Pasture Pilot's Pride & Joy" was published in 1965 and it's a great article
about the Pietenpol Air Camper with some mention of the Sky Scout......
This is a good one......
If you'll go into your browser's internet options and disable "Automatic Image
Resizing", the pages will display in a size that you can print on your printer
at just about the same quality as the original. Or you can save the file to
your local drive.
It's in the File Library section of mykitplane.com:
<http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/filesList2.cfm?AlbumID43>
Enjoy
JM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Norman Stapelberg" <norshel(at)mweb.co.za> |
Hi all
Just thought I'd pop in a quick note my baby flew Sunday for the first
time in two years. Got some small mods to do,
1. prop to be repitched (only getting 2000Rpm static).
2. Battery to be moved C of G tad to far fwd.
3. A.S.I to be calibrated
Regards,
Norman Stapelberg
ZS-VJA (115Hrs)
South Africa
FASI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | congratulations, Mark ! |
>FWIW, I got my tailwheel endorsement yesterday,
Way to go, Mark !!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Norman Stapelberg" <norshel(at)mweb.co.za> |
| Subject: | Control Surface deflexions |
Hi all
Just thought I'd throw this one out there, my pilot/instructor says that
I need control surface stop put in. Just by the way what must the
deflexions be for the control surfaces? I cannot seem to find them any
where.
Regards,
Norman Stapelberg
ZS-VJA (115Hrs)
South Africa
FASI
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: horizontal stab dimensions |
| From: | Mike <bike.mike(at)verizon.net> |
MIME_QP_LONG_LINE
Rick,
If it really bothers a builder to have to build a cover for the gap, it
might be cheaper to build the turtle deck longer. I don't think anyone has
ever complained that a properly configured Piet has insufficient horizontal
stabilizer area, though it is well documented that large, covered, wheels
make it want some more vertical stabilizer.
You probably can't hurt the design by enlarging the horizontal stab area,
but be sure to keep the front flying wires the same distance from the
leading edge. Tail flutter hasn't historically been a problem but,
considering how limber the thin stab is, you don't want to be the first to
flutter test it.
Mike Hardaway
on 1/20/04 11:19, Rick Holland at at7000ft(at)speedtrail.net wrote:
Tom
My long (172 3/8) fuselage plans (Supplementary Plans) shows the distance
from the tailpost to the back of the turtledeck 18 7/8" not 19 3/8". Thats
only a 7/8" difference. Still makes you wonder if you should build the stab
18" or 18 7/8" wide.
Rick H
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ZS-VJA Flies |
Norman,
Good for you! I've seen alot of things from my Piet, but never a giraffe ,elephant
or hippo (Oh my)
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Norman Stapelberg
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 2:46 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: ZS-VJA Flies
Hi all
Just thought I'd pop in a quick note my baby flew Sunday for the first time in
two years. Got some small mods to do,
1.. prop to be repitched (only getting 2000Rpm static).
2.. Battery to be moved C of G tad to far fwd.
3.. A.S.I to be calibrated
Regards,
Norman Stapelberg
ZS-VJA (115Hrs)
South Africa
FASI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Control Surface deflexions |
Norman,
I put stops for aileron deflection only, as per my DAR. Small wood blocks
glued in place on the floor, topped with leather for the torque horns to
"bump" on. They hit the blocks 'just before' the lower part of the aileron
contacts the wing. As for the elevator/rudder, explained that they all had
complete free movement with no possibility of interference with each other,
so the DAR accepted that.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman Stapelberg" <norshel(at)mweb.co.za>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Control Surface deflexions
>
>
> Hi all
>
> Just thought I'd throw this one out there, my pilot/instructor says that
> I need control surface stop put in. Just by the way what must the
> deflexions be for the control surfaces? I cannot seem to find them any
> where.
>
> Regards,
> Norman Stapelberg
> ZS-VJA (115Hrs)
> South Africa
> FASI
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | definition of sweep |
I had a question as to what I meant by sweep of the axle. The sweep is how far
back from the center of the front landing gear attach point the axle is located.
If the axle had zero sweep, it would be located directly under the center
of the front landing gear attach fitting with the fuselage leveled longitudinally.
A 5 inch sweep would have the axle mounted directly beneath a point 5 inches
aft of the center of the from landing gear attach point.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: MacklemAW(at)aol.com
To: bobka(at)compuserve.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 9:48 AM
Subject: Axle Positioning
Chris,
Please define "sweep" of the axle for me.
Allan W. Macklem
TEL: 402 289 2298 FAX: 402 289 3474
"Personal growth comes from being
surrounded by smarter people."
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cutting plywood |
I agree with Jack, this type of flycutter is very tricky to use. ( there is also
a flycutter that's used with milling machines to smooth large sufaces) If you
are going to use this, use clamps to secure the work and imagine the area that
the work would spin in if it started rotating.Then keep all body parts out
of that area. Also, make sure that the cutters are tight on the piece. There
are cutters with tools on both sides. If your going to use one, this type is best
as the cut is balanced. I believe harbor frieght carries that type.
Please use with caution.
Carl
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Phillips
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 5:59 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
I guess I got off lucky - I only had 14 stitches in my thumb after violating
rule #2. Be VERY careful as the cutter finishes piercing the metal. At that
point it can have a tendency to "bite" into the work piece and can pull it out
of your hand over even out of the clamps holding it to the bench if you are not
careful. I consider the fly cutter to be one of the most dangerous tools in
the shop. Be sure there is somebody home who can drive you to the hospital
while you are using it. Seriously.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Christian Bobka
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 1:26 AM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
Two rules of fly cutting.
Never use it in anything BUT a drill press.
Never hold the item being flycut in your hand. It MUST be clamped to the drill
press table and you have one hand on the downfeed and the other poised over
the off switch. That way you never have to look away from the work until after
the drill press is shut off.
Chris Bobka
who drove his USMC aviator buddy to the hospital for 30+ stiches in his palm
after he violated rule 2.
chris bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: Clif Dawson
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
Don't use this thing in a hand drill. It is very
much out of balance with one cutter way off
center, and be very careful of it in a drill press.
It has a lot of torque so take it easy. There is
one I've seen with a counter weight on the
opposite side but most don't.
It does work quite well in a drill press following
Walt's rules. If you want to cut thick material
drill the center hole first and it will go easier.
There is another fly cutter. It's a very
small knife. Buzzzz.
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
Here is one pic I found on the net. It's adjustable for hole size. The BIG
trick for a good hole is to cut about half way thru on one side and turn wood
over to finish. This way no raggid edges
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Gnwac(at)cs.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
What is a FLY CUTTER?
Greg
Delaware
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Control Surface deflections |
on the subject of control cable deflections..... how many degrees are we
looking for in the elevator and rudder?
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | elevator/rudder control cable tension and slack |
How many pounds should the elevator and rudder control cables be set to?
Also, is it common for the elevator cables to lose some tension and slack
when actuating the stick?
For instance.... my elevator "up" pull cable is tight when pulling the
stick back, but the "down" pull cable loses some tension and slacks
slightly. Is this a bad thing?
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
<00d301c3df1b$0ecad230$96715118@dawsonaviation> <002101c3df1e$4d1d88e0$0101a8c0@domain>
| Subject: | Re: Cutting plywood |
Chris,
Another rule for using the fly cutter, feed it into the material SLOWLY.
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Bobka
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 12:26 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
Two rules of fly cutting.
Never use it in anything BUT a drill press.
Never hold the item being flycut in your hand. It MUST be clamped to the drill
press table and you have one hand on the downfeed and the other poised over
the off switch. That way you never have to look away from the work until after
the drill press is shut off.
Chris Bobka
who drove his USMC aviator buddy to the hospital for 30+ stiches in his palm
after he violated rule 2.
chris bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: Clif Dawson
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
Don't use this thing in a hand drill. It is very
much out of balance with one cutter way off
center, and be very careful of it in a drill press.
It has a lot of torque so take it easy. There is
one I've seen with a counter weight on the
opposite side but most don't.
It does work quite well in a drill press following
Walt's rules. If you want to cut thick material
drill the center hole first and it will go easier.
There is another fly cutter. It's a very
small knife. Buzzzz.
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
Here is one pic I found on the net. It's adjustable for hole size. The
BIG trick for a good hole is to cut about half way thru on one side and turn wood
over to finish. This way no raggid edges
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Gnwac(at)cs.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
What is a FLY CUTTER?
Greg
Delaware
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cutting plywood |
Carl,
The only accident I have witnesse was with one of those double cutting fly cutters
with cutters on both sides. They scare me. I have not seen any one mention
where to buy the fly cutters..Sears has two sizes to offer. They do not call
them fly cutters. Cannot recall their designation for them.
My advice for any one using one, be sure the work is clamped down tightly and there
is clerance for the tool on all sides. To get an acurate hole cut I found
it best to use a piece of scrap to use to make a small cut then measure the
diameter to see if it is what is desired.
If the work piece is not clamped securely chatter is a possibility and the tool
will not cut as you want.
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Loar
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
I agree with Jack, this type of flycutter is very tricky to use. ( there is also
a flycutter that's used with milling machines to smooth large sufaces) If
you are going to use this, use clamps to secure the work and imagine the area
that the work would spin in if it started rotating.Then keep all body parts out
of that area. Also, make sure that the cutters are tight on the piece. There
are cutters with tools on both sides. If your going to use one, this type is
best as the cut is balanced. I believe harbor frieght carries that type.
Please use with caution.
Carl
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Phillips
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 5:59 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
I guess I got off lucky - I only had 14 stitches in my thumb after violating
rule #2. Be VERY careful as the cutter finishes piercing the metal. At that
point it can have a tendency to "bite" into the work piece and can pull it out
of your hand over even out of the clamps holding it to the bench if you are
not careful. I consider the fly cutter to be one of the most dangerous tools
in the shop. Be sure there is somebody home who can drive you to the hospital
while you are using it. Seriously.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Christian Bobka
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 1:26 AM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
Two rules of fly cutting.
Never use it in anything BUT a drill press.
Never hold the item being flycut in your hand. It MUST be clamped to the drill
press table and you have one hand on the downfeed and the other poised over
the off switch. That way you never have to look away from the work until after
the drill press is shut off.
Chris Bobka
who drove his USMC aviator buddy to the hospital for 30+ stiches in his palm
after he violated rule 2.
chris bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: Clif Dawson
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
Don't use this thing in a hand drill. It is very
much out of balance with one cutter way off
center, and be very careful of it in a drill press.
It has a lot of torque so take it easy. There is
one I've seen with a counter weight on the
opposite side but most don't.
It does work quite well in a drill press following
Walt's rules. If you want to cut thick material
drill the center hole first and it will go easier.
There is another fly cutter. It's a very
small knife. Buzzzz.
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
Here is one pic I found on the net. It's adjustable for hole size. The BIG
trick for a good hole is to cut about half way thru on one side and turn wood
over to finish. This way no raggid edges
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Gnwac(at)cs.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
What is a FLY CUTTER?
Greg
Delaware
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ZS-VJA Flies |
Great going Norman. Keep us informed.
Alex S.
----- Original Message -----
From: Norman Stapelberg
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 1:46 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: ZS-VJA Flies
Hi all
Just thought I'd pop in a quick note my baby flew Sunday for the first time in
two years. Got some small mods to do,
1.. prop to be repitched (only getting 2000Rpm static).
2.. Battery to be moved C of G tad to far fwd.
3.. A.S.I to be calibrated
Regards,
Norman Stapelberg
ZS-VJA (115Hrs)
South Africa
FASI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brants" <tmbrant(at)usfamily.net> |
<002e01c3de36$350ab400$0101a8c0@domain> <000b01c3de3f$9285bd10$53246b43@youru10ixi0anw>
<005701c3df04$2a7b6920$d401a8c0@Alex> <400D7F4B.7080100(at)speedtrail.net>
| Subject: | Re: horizontal stab dimensions |
Rick,
If you look at the top "plan view" drawing of the 172 3/8" fuse (I'll call it Fuselage
C), it shows 19 3/8" from the back of the vertical brace (same place as
a horizontal brace?) to the tailpost. Then in the layout below which shows
the turtledeck, it shows 18 7/8" from back of turtledeck to the tailpost.. I
nailed a 1/8" piece of ply to the back of the brace (19 3/8") to which my turtledeck
stringers are mounted. So in theory, the dimension in mine from turtledeck
to tailpost is 19 1/4" I don't know how they came up with 18 7/8" unless
I hosed something up, which is entirely possible.
Tom B.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
Tom
My long (172 3/8) fuselage plans (Supplementary Plans) shows the distance from
the tailpost to the back of the turtledeck 18 7/8" not 19 3/8". Thats only a
7/8" difference. Still makes you wonder if you should build the stab 18" or 18
7/8" wide.
Rick H
Alex Sloan wrote:
Chris,
I am building the long fuselage and would appreciate the information you worked
up on larger stabs.
Thanks
Alex Sloan
alexms(at)bellsouth.net
----- Original Message -----
From: Brants
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
Chris,
I am the one that asked the original question.... You're correct in saying
that the drawings stand alone, however if I'd been smart I could have figured
on making a larger stabilizer...
According to your comments (if I interpreted correctly) the 172 3/8" fuse
(this is what I have) requires a larger stabilizer (and elevator??)... My previous
post asks this question - can I use the 18" stab (and elevator) now that
they're built, or do I need to modify or rebuild?
I would be interested in getting a copy of your article on this.
Thanks,
Tom Brant
Brooklyn Park, MN
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Bobka
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
Walt,
You are concerned with a concept called tail volume. Tail volume is the
square inch area of the horizontal surface (elevator and satbilizer together)
times the distance in inches from the center of pressure of the horizontal stabilizer
to the Center of Gravity, this being the point of rotation about which
the aircraft moves based on input of the controls.
As there are three wood fuselages that I know of, namely the version in
the F&G manual and on the Hoopman drawings at 161 inches, the 1933 "Improved
Aircamper" at 163 inches, and the fuselage designed for the Corvair at 172.375
inches, I am not sure which one you mean. I always called the Corvair fuselage
the Pavliga long fuselage because, well, it is the longest and it is the fuselage
used on Sky Gypsy.
Anyway, if you take the square inch area of each horizontal design times
the distance in inches from the loaded CG to the 33% chord point on each stabilizer
design, you will come up with the tail volume...volume because the units
will now be cubic inches. The hardest thing will be to figure out your loaded
CG.
If you make the distance between the CG to the CP of the stabilizer longer,
you can get by with a smaller stabilizer area. Shorten up the CG to CP distance
and you need to increase the tail area.
My analysis of the different fuselages leads me to believe that using the
172.375 fuselage moves the seats back faster than the tail gets longer so it
actually puts the CG further aft than on the shorter fuselages. This means
that the CG to Cp of the stabilizer is actually a shorter distance so a bigger
area stabilizer is needed.
Unfortunately, the 172.375" fuselage drawing is a stand alone. No landing
gear was ever published for it and neither is there a obviously a stabilizer.
I wrote an article on gear placement on the 172.375 inch fuselage that
was to be published in the Grant MacLaren published BPA NL but it never made it
because the very issue it was to be published in was never published as he quit
the post. I will dig it out. Only a hard copy exists, and even it is one
of the drafts, so I will have to scan it to OCR software and see if I can post
it.
I hope this helps. I wish people said what inch fuselage they have when
they talk of stuff like this as it really matters (or maybe it doesn't since
they all seem to meet each aviator's expectations)
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
I didn't know they were different. I built the long fuse and the tail
was from the original prints, so I guess I got the wrong one. but flies great.
What two prints show different tails???
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Brants
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 5:37 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
I built the long fuselage and then (idiodically) built the horiz. stab
for the short fuse (18" wide instead of 19 3/8") - didn't realize until today
when I tried fitting it up. Question: can I glue a wider leading edge to
the horizontal stab to make up the difference? Obviously this would add a bit
of weight to the tail section.. Or could I just fill in behind the turtle
deck to take up the space? Difference is about 1 3/8". Is the 1 3/8" width going
to be missed if I leave it out? Does this cause a problem getting away from
the 'airfoil shape'?
Another related question: does the horiz. stab get bolted through
the longerons?
Any help on this would be appreciated.
Tom Brant
Brooklyn Park, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
<5.1.1.5.2.20040120075434.017c3e60(at)popserve.grc.nasa.gov>
| Subject: | Re: Ted's advice--and flaring too HIGH |
Another tip:
If landing on a runway with a crop on either side, you will
experience a tendency to round out and flare too high. I've
been there and done that!
The tops of the plants will give you a false reference and if
you don't compensate for it, you will "drop 'er on".
This effect is more apparent if the vegetation is tall and the
runway is narrow.
In the flare one has to look to the side of the nose to judge
height, and a tall crop nearby makes this difficult. A little bit
of power enables the pilot to "feel" for the ground under
these conditions.
I find that my landings improve once the harvest is finished.
Cheers,
Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: horizontal stab dimensions |
Re: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensionsUse a piece of light spruce to fair
the gap. Under the fabric, you won't notice.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: horizontal stab dimensions
Rick,
If it really bothers a builder to have to build a cover for the gap, it might
be cheaper to build the turtle deck longer. I don't think anyone has ever complained
that a properly configured Piet has insufficient horizontal stabilizer
area, though it is well documented that large, covered, wheels make it want
some more vertical stabilizer.
You probably can't hurt the design by enlarging the horizontal stab area, but
be sure to keep the front flying wires the same distance from the leading edge.
Tail flutter hasn't historically been a problem but, considering how limber
the thin stab is, you don't want to be the first to flutter test it.
Mike Hardaway
on 1/20/04 11:19, Rick Holland at at7000ft(at)speedtrail.net wrote:
Tom
My long (172 3/8) fuselage plans (Supplementary Plans) shows the distance from
the tailpost to the back of the turtledeck 18 7/8" not 19 3/8". Thats only
a 7/8" difference. Still makes you wonder if you should build the stab 18" or
18 7/8" wide.
Rick H
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LAWRENCE WILLIAMS" <lnawms(at)msn.com> |
I thought this was posted earlier but don't remember seeing it so.....I'll try
again.
I was invited to cast a critical eye on an almost completed Air Camper while on
a house-hunting expedition in N. Florida last week. I was an honored guest of
noted aviation artist (paintings and models) John Ficklen at his home on St.
George Island for a couple of days.
His Piet is assembled and rigged and looks like a winner. Lots of little personal
touches that will keep spectators busy looking for an extended time at airshows.
It's delightful! Although he does have dihedral and a center-section cutout
YUCK (sorry Mike) he rest of the airplane is to-the-plans and extremely well
done. That's expected from someone who makes historically accurate models for
museums and private collectors, I suppose.
Anyway, it is a treat for the eye and, as is always the case, it's a shame to have
to cover it. John's goal is to have it finished for Sun-N-Fun. A two year
build time shows what can be done if efforts are directed to the building board
rather than the keyboard .
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Vydra <jvydra(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | myinks.com..WARNING!!!!!!!! |
ken brown , lisa ,
Sharon Mcmillan , pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com,
maryann ross , rudy ,
Anne Vydra , Marianne Vydra ,
Richard Vydra , Vic Vydra ,
Elaine Vydra-Wiegand
Do not ever order ink cartridges from this place. I did....has cost me over $50.00
for nothing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Edwin Johnson <elj(at)shreve.net> |
Hello Mark,
>
> FWIW, I got my tailwheel endorsement yesterday, so when my instructor
> said I was "almost there" on New Year's day he meant it. It was the
> first time I've flown since then, and a chilly, gusty day in southern
> New Hampshire (but then, we've been getting your Canadian Arctic air a
> lot the past couple of weeks). Good for demonstrating cross-wind wheel
Congratulations on the endorsement. You will certainly enjoy having that
in years to come, and as I said before, it really makes you a better
pilot.
...Edwin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ Edwin Johnson ....... elj(at)shreve.net ~
~ http://www.shreve.net/~elj ~
~ ~
~ "Once you have flown, you will walk the ~
~ earth with your eyes turned skyward, ~
~ for there you have been, there you long ~
~ to return." -- da Vinci ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | John Ficklin's Pietenpol in Florida |
Larry--- Glad you got to see and meet John Ficklin in person. He's the guy
who encouraged me to make a Piet video after sending him a bunch of misc.
footage in 1999 to help him along in the building process. He's full of
energy and enthusiasm. Here are some photos of his instrument panel and
fuselage on the gear and the motor mount for a Continental engine that he
sent me last year. (hope you don't mind, John) And way to go John by
adding the dihedral and wing cutout. Flop, shmop:)) Larry's Piet is
very very cool tho with it's super simple panel and paint job......but
we'll have to pass him on the left when heading to Brodhead next
summer. Kidding Larry ! (we'll give you a head start:)
Mike C. where it was zero when I left for work this morning
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "malcolm Zirges" <macz(at)macsells.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ZS-VJA Flies |
Congratulations, but we'd sure like to see a picture. It is easy now that you
can just attach to your email message.
Mac in Oregon
----- Original Message -----
From: Norman Stapelberg
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 11:46 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: ZS-VJA Flies
Hi all
Just thought I'd pop in a quick note my baby flew Sunday for the first time in
two years. Got some small mods to do,
1.. prop to be repitched (only getting 2000Rpm static).
2.. Battery to be moved C of G tad to far fwd.
3.. A.S.I to be calibrated
Regards,
Norman Stapelberg
ZS-VJA (115Hrs)
South Africa
FASI
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | FW: Pietenpol News |
| From: | "Steve Eldredge" <steve(at)byu.edu> |
Hey guys (and gals)
This my be a repeit, but here is your special invitation!
Steve E.
________________________________
From: Dan Duesterbeck [mailto:dbled(at)ticon.net]
Subject: Pietenpol News
Hey Steve-
I've been trying to send an email to the Buckeye Pietenpol Association
to have it posted on their website. I would appreciate if you being a
Pietenpol enthusiast, that you would pass it on.
Pietenpol Fly-In
Brodhead Airport (C37)
July 23, 24, 25
Brodhead , WI
Chapter 431 Brodhead is looking forward to seeing all new and former
visitors to our area.
For those that are unable to attend, please follow the highlights of
the event through our website. http://www.eaa431.org
Looking forward to seeing you all!!
Dan Duesterbeck
Chapter secretary 431
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Huizenga" <Kirk.Huizenga(at)moundsviewschools.org> |
| Subject: | Axle Dissertation |
Chris,
Thanks for the research. I have one question that I hope will be simply answered.
The question is what affect shifting the wing back would have on the proper
placement of the axle.
Example: For W&B reasons, one shifts the wing back 4in. In theory, this doesn't
change the CG much at all, but the center of lift changes enough to allow for
us that don't fit the FAA 180lb profile to fit leading edge datum CG limits.
Should this also cause a move rearward of the axle?
Thanks for your input
Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Axle Dissertation |
Kirk,
First, let me recommend to you and everybody else we fly balance ships. Who
cares what the FAA says about 180 lb people. You are flying the plane and
it should balance with you in it.
Second, I recommend using something other than the wing leading edge as the
datum. It does not make any sense to do so. If you are moving the wing
around, then you are moving around the datum . The whole IDEA of the datum
is that it is a PLACE THAT DOES NOT MOVE. It is by definition, a fixed
reference point. I was at a loss as to what to use until some others
mentioned using the bolt on the left side were the front cabane attaches to
the fuselage. It seems that people will stretch and shorten the fuselage,
shift the wing forward and aft but this point seems to not get tampered
with. So let us use it going forth. If people give me good numbers, I will
calculate W and Balance for them if they think they can't do it. I agreee
that the Leading edge of the wing eventually becomes important because we
need to make sure the CG is within the fore and aft limits of the airfoil
but we can work that into the calculations later.
I suggest that you look in the archives under the discussions on axle
placement where one puts the axle at some angle forward from the vetical of
about 12-16 degrees with the angle measured at the longitudinal and vertical
CG point on the side of the fuselage. I forget what the number is and I
loaned the book out on it last night so I can't look it up. You will need
to compute the exact point on the aircraft where the CG is when looking at
it from the side. This means longitudinal (how far back from the bolt) and
vertical or up from the floor (Of course the aircraft is level
longitudinally and laterally). You are familiar with the longitudinal CG
but the vertical CG is new for most and this can be computed through a
method Hank Jarrett posted last week and I posted through Jim Markle where
he put it up at:
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID=185
In short, yes, if you move the wing back, the axle needs to be moved back
too.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Huizenga" <Kirk.Huizenga(at)moundsviewschools.org>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
>
>
> Chris,
>
> Thanks for the research. I have one question that I hope will be simply
answered. The question is what affect shifting the wing back would have on
the proper placement of the axle.
>
> Example: For W&B reasons, one shifts the wing back 4in. In theory, this
doesn't change the CG much at all, but the center of lift changes enough to
allow for us that don't fit the FAA 180lb profile to fit leading edge datum
CG limits. Should this also cause a move rearward of the axle?
>
> Thanks for your input
> Kirk
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | awesome technical resource |
go here:
http://www.engineersedge.com/Design_Data.shtml
literally thousands of java calculators and pages upon pages of technical
data pertaining to anything mechanical.
I stumbled upon it tonight when searching for technical data on thread
sizes.
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LAWRENCE WILLIAMS" <lnawms(at)msn.com> |
I just returned from a "retirement property hunting" expedition to Florida and
was hosted most graciously on St. George Island by Piet builder John Ficklin and
his way above average wife, Susan.
John has more talent in his little finger than most mortals and it shows in everything
he touches. His Piet is no exception! It's bare-bones presently and fully
rigged. Soon it will be taken apart and given a good once-over then the covering
process will begin. EVERYTHING is superb, and many of the personal touches
are only going to be seen by someone who takes the time to really go over
it. They will be amply rewarded by John's antique instruments, clever inspection
panels, small blisters and fairings, and a simple but very elegant elevator
trim system. It's a jewel and his goal is to have it at Sun-N-Fun!!! If things
go well, he will try to get to Brodhead and on to OSH with the gaggle.
Made me wonder how many other Piets are out there waiting to hatch.
Piet people are Great!
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Axle Dissertation |
Just remember that you are not moving the wing back,,,you are moving the
body forward. Not being a wise guy, it's just easier to understand what is
affected when you do this.
Picture hanging the plane from the point on top of the wing that is the
center of the theoretical CG. Now with you in the plane, the whole
thing is hanging down with the tail near the floor. Now by losening the
rigging cables, you push the whole body forward under the wing about four
inches. now all of a sudden the whole plane is hanging level on this wire
from the ceiling.
weird thinking but true.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Huizenga" <Kirk.Huizenga(at)moundsviewschools.org>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
>
> Chris,
>
> Thanks for the research. I have one question that I hope will be simply
answered. The question is what affect shifting the wing back would have on
the proper placement of the axle.
>
> Example: For W&B reasons, one shifts the wing back 4in. In theory, this
doesn't change the CG much at all, but the center of lift changes enough to
allow for us that don't fit the FAA 180lb profile to fit leading edge datum
CG limits. Should this also cause a move rearward of the axle?
>
> Thanks for your input
> Kirk
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)speedtrail.net> |
Netscape/7.1 (ax)
| Subject: | Re: Axle Dissertation |
HTML_TITLE_EMPTY
Good points Christian, and your datum point does sound logical. For
people building the long (172") version no axle placement info is
provided with the supplemental plans. Most people just assume it is
placed the same a shown on the original Ford plans, at least until they
read several of the postings on the subject the last few days. To give
us a ballpark idea how about doing an FAA standard 180 lb. pilot (and
maybe even 2 180 lb occupants) calculation for axle placement for the
long fuselage with everything else "per the plans" (10 gal. wing tank,
wing in standard position, corvair engine, etc.?) I would be interested
in seeing how far off it is from the short fuselage position.
RH
Christian Bobka wrote:
>
>Kirk,
>
>First, let me recommend to you and everybody else we fly balance ships. Who
>cares what the FAA says about 180 lb people. You are flying the plane and
>it should balance with you in it.
>
>Second, I recommend using something other than the wing leading edge as the
>datum. It does not make any sense to do so. If you are moving the wing
>around, then you are moving around the datum . The whole IDEA of the datum
>is that it is a PLACE THAT DOES NOT MOVE. It is by definition, a fixed
>reference point. I was at a loss as to what to use until some others
>mentioned using the bolt on the left side were the front cabane attaches to
>the fuselage. It seems that people will stretch and shorten the fuselage,
>shift the wing forward and aft but this point seems to not get tampered
>with. So let us use it going forth. If people give me good numbers, I will
>calculate W and Balance for them if they think they can't do it. I agreee
>that the Leading edge of the wing eventually becomes important because we
>need to make sure the CG is within the fore and aft limits of the airfoil
>but we can work that into the calculations later.
>
>I suggest that you look in the archives under the discussions on axle
>placement where one puts the axle at some angle forward from the vetical of
>about 12-16 degrees with the angle measured at the longitudinal and vertical
>CG point on the side of the fuselage. I forget what the number is and I
>loaned the book out on it last night so I can't look it up. You will need
>to compute the exact point on the aircraft where the CG is when looking at
>it from the side. This means longitudinal (how far back from the bolt) and
>vertical or up from the floor (Of course the aircraft is level
>longitudinally and laterally). You are familiar with the longitudinal CG
>but the vertical CG is new for most and this can be computed through a
>method Hank Jarrett posted last week and I posted through Jim Markle where
>he put it up at:
>
>http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID=185
>
>
>In short, yes, if you move the wing back, the axle needs to be moved back
>too.
>
>Chris
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Kirk Huizenga" <Kirk.Huizenga(at)moundsviewschools.org>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 10:02 PM
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>Chris,
>>
>>Thanks for the research. I have one question that I hope will be simply
>>
>>
>answered. The question is what affect shifting the wing back would have on
>the proper placement of the axle.
>
>
>>Example: For W&B reasons, one shifts the wing back 4in. In theory, this
>>
>>
>doesn't change the CG much at all, but the center of lift changes enough to
>allow for us that don't fit the FAA 180lb profile to fit leading edge datum
>CG limits. Should this also cause a move rearward of the axle?
>
>
>>Thanks for your input
>>Kirk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Axle Dissertation |
I'm not a fan of moving the wing. the tail moment is shortened, the angle between
the landing gear and CG is changed, etc.
Why not move the engine fore or aft to adjust CG? Moving a 200lb engine fore
or aft just 3" makes a difference.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Just remember that you are not moving the wing back,,,you are moving the
body forward. Not being a wise guy, it's just easier to understand what is
affected when you do this.
Picture hanging the plane from the point on top of the wing that is the
center of the theoretical CG. Now with you in the plane, the whole
thing is hanging down with the tail near the floor. Now by losening the
rigging cables, you push the whole body forward under the wing about four
inches. now all of a sudden the whole plane is hanging level on this wire
from the ceiling.
weird thinking but true.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Huizenga" <Kirk.Huizenga(at)moundsviewschools.org>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
>
> Chris,
>
> Thanks for the research. I have one question that I hope will be simply
answered. The question is what affect shifting the wing back would have on
the proper placement of the axle.
>
> Example: For W&B reasons, one shifts the wing back 4in. In theory, this
doesn't change the CG much at all, but the center of lift changes enough to
allow for us that don't fit the FAA 180lb profile to fit leading edge datum
CG limits. Should this also cause a move rearward of the axle?
>
> Thanks for your input
> Kirk
>
>
=
This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by Half Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more information on an anti-virus email solution, visit <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
<4010208B.1000503(at)speedtrail.net>
| Subject: | Re: Axle Dissertation |
I built the long fuselage with an A65 (mount extented about 1 3/4" to anticipate
my bodily weight of 215") And had to move the wing back (sorry, body forward)
3 inches.
I used the split gear plans supplied. 14 gallon nose tank and 10 gal center tank
(usually run empty).
Had read an article by a "seat of the pants guy" who said something like " if
you can hold the plane on the mains with the tail up without a problem on rollout,
then the CG can't be far off.
When doing takeoff roll, no problem getting up on the mains, and after a wheel
landing, I can keep it on the mains for quite a while till it's quite slow. Not
like the tail slams to the ground.
If the wheel location was too far forward, wouldn't it show up in the rollout?
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Good points Christian, and your datum point does sound logical. For people building
the long (172") version no axle placement info is provided with the supplemental
plans. Most people just assume it is placed the same a shown on the
original Ford plans, at least until they read several of the postings on the subject
the last few days. To give us a ballpark idea how about doing an FAA standard
180 lb. pilot (and maybe even 2 180 lb occupants) calculation for axle
placement for the long fuselage with everything else "per the plans" (10 gal.
wing tank, wing in standard position, corvair engine, etc.?) I would be interested
in seeing how far off it is from the short fuselage position.
RH
Christian Bobka wrote:
Kirk,
First, let me recommend to you and everybody else we fly balance ships. Who
cares what the FAA says about 180 lb people. You are flying the plane and
it should balance with you in it.
Second, I recommend using something other than the wing leading edge as the
datum. It does not make any sense to do so. If you are moving the wing
around, then you are moving around the datum . The whole IDEA of the datum
is that it is a PLACE THAT DOES NOT MOVE. It is by definition, a fixed
reference point. I was at a loss as to what to use until some others
mentioned using the bolt on the left side were the front cabane attaches to
the fuselage. It seems that people will stretch and shorten the fuselage,
shift the wing forward and aft but this point seems to not get tampered
with. So let us use it going forth. If people give me good numbers, I will
calculate W and Balance for them if they think they can't do it. I agreee
that the Leading edge of the wing eventually becomes important because we
need to make sure the CG is within the fore and aft limits of the airfoil
but we can work that into the calculations later.
I suggest that you look in the archives under the discussions on axle
placement where one puts the axle at some angle forward from the vetical of
about 12-16 degrees with the angle measured at the longitudinal and vertical
CG point on the side of the fuselage. I forget what the number is and I
loaned the book out on it last night so I can't look it up. You will need
to compute the exact point on the aircraft where the CG is when looking at
it from the side. This means longitudinal (how far back from the bolt) and
vertical or up from the floor (Of course the aircraft is level
longitudinally and laterally). You are familiar with the longitudinal CG
but the vertical CG is new for most and this can be computed through a
method Hank Jarrett posted last week and I posted through Jim Markle where
he put it up at:
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID185
In short, yes, if you move the wing back, the axle needs to be moved back
too.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Huizenga" <Kirk.Huizenga(at)moundsviewschools.org>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Chris,
Thanks for the research. I have one question that I hope will be simply
answered. The question is what affect shifting the wing back would have on
the proper placement of the axle.
Example: For W&B reasons, one shifts the wing back 4in. In theory, this
doesn't change the CG much at all, but the center of lift changes enough to
allow for us that don't fit the FAA 180lb profile to fit leading edge datum
CG limits. Should this also cause a move rearward of the axle?
Thanks for your input
Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
<4010208B.1000503(at)speedtrail.net> <003d01c3e132$4f351880$2cc5fea9@home>
| Subject: | Re: Axle Dissertation |
Walt,
How far is your axle from your firewall? I ask as I am building the long fuselage.
I extended my engine mount 2" from the firewall. I will be using the Corvair
engine.
I am a long way from building the gear but assimilating as much info as this old
brain can hold.
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
I built the long fuselage with an A65 (mount extented about 1 3/4" to anticipate
my bodily weight of 215") And had to move the wing back (sorry, body forward)
3 inches.
I used the split gear plans supplied. 14 gallon nose tank and 10 gal center
tank (usually run empty).
Had read an article by a "seat of the pants guy" who said something like " if
you can hold the plane on the mains with the tail up without a problem on rollout,
then the CG can't be far off.
When doing takeoff roll, no problem getting up on the mains, and after a wheel
landing, I can keep it on the mains for quite a while till it's quite slow.
Not like the tail slams to the ground.
If the wheel location was too far forward, wouldn't it show up in the rollout?
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Good points Christian, and your datum point does sound logical. For people
building the long (172") version no axle placement info is provided with the supplemental
plans. Most people just assume it is placed the same a shown on the
original Ford plans, at least until they read several of the postings on the
subject the last few days. To give us a ballpark idea how about doing an FAA
standard 180 lb. pilot (and maybe even 2 180 lb occupants) calculation for axle
placement for the long fuselage with everything else "per the plans" (10 gal.
wing tank, wing in standard position, corvair engine, etc.?) I would be interested
in seeing how far off it is from the short fuselage position.
RH
Christian Bobka wrote:
Kirk,
First, let me recommend to you and everybody else we fly balance ships. Who
cares what the FAA says about 180 lb people. You are flying the plane and
it should balance with you in it.
Second, I recommend using something other than the wing leading edge as the
datum. It does not make any sense to do so. If you are moving the wing
around, then you are moving around the datum . The whole IDEA of the datum
is that it is a PLACE THAT DOES NOT MOVE. It is by definition, a fixed
reference point. I was at a loss as to what to use until some others
mentioned using the bolt on the left side were the front cabane attaches to
the fuselage. It seems that people will stretch and shorten the fuselage,
shift the wing forward and aft but this point seems to not get tampered
with. So let us use it going forth. If people give me good numbers, I will
calculate W and Balance for them if they think they can't do it. I agreee
that the Leading edge of the wing eventually becomes important because we
need to make sure the CG is within the fore and aft limits of the airfoil
but we can work that into the calculations later.
I suggest that you look in the archives under the discussions on axle
placement where one puts the axle at some angle forward from the vetical of
about 12-16 degrees with the angle measured at the longitudinal and vertical
CG point on the side of the fuselage. I forget what the number is and I
loaned the book out on it last night so I can't look it up. You will need
to compute the exact point on the aircraft where the CG is when looking at
it from the side. This means longitudinal (how far back from the bolt) and
vertical or up from the floor (Of course the aircraft is level
longitudinally and laterally). You are familiar with the longitudinal CG
but the vertical CG is new for most and this can be computed through a
method Hank Jarrett posted last week and I posted through Jim Markle where
he put it up at:
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID185
In short, yes, if you move the wing back, the axle needs to be moved back
too.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Huizenga" <Kirk.Huizenga(at)moundsviewschools.org>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Chris,
Thanks for the research. I have one question that I hope will be simply
answered. The question is what affect shifting the wing back would have on
the proper placement of the axle.
Example: For W&B reasons, one shifts the wing back 4in. In theory, this
doesn't change the CG much at all, but the center of lift changes enough to
allow for us that don't fit the FAA 180lb profile to fit leading edge datum
CG limits. Should this also cause a move rearward of the axle?
Thanks for your input
Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bert Conoly" <bconoly(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables. |
As I stand here with fabric and Polyfiber Chemicals in hand I do wonder:
1) Is there really any "right" way to set the tension on the drag wires? I've
tightened them to where I think they are "snug" but not so tight they twang.
They are cables with turnbuckles. I have safetied everything off.
Thanks, Bert
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
<4010208B.1000503(at)speedtrail.net> <003d01c3e132$4f351880$2cc5fea9@home>
<00b401c3e13f$3e5edf20$d401a8c0@Alex>
| Subject: | Re: Axle Dissertation |
Alex,
Don't really know at the moment. My plans are up in the hanger. Maybe if you
have the prints there,,,I built right to the long fuselage prints supplied from
the Pietenpol family, with the split gear from the supplied prints of 1933/34?
No changes to the long fuse and gear. (using 24" O.D. tires)
One old brain to another :
)
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Alex Sloan
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Walt,
How far is your axle from your firewall? I ask as I am building the long fuselage.
I extended my engine mount 2" from the firewall. I will be using the
Corvair engine.
I am a long way from building the gear but assimilating as much info as this
old brain can hold.
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
I built the long fuselage with an A65 (mount extented about 1 3/4" to anticipate
my bodily weight of 215") And had to move the wing back (sorry, body forward)
3 inches.
I used the split gear plans supplied. 14 gallon nose tank and 10 gal center
tank (usually run empty).
Had read an article by a "seat of the pants guy" who said something like "
if you can hold the plane on the mains with the tail up without a problem on
rollout, then the CG can't be far off.
When doing takeoff roll, no problem getting up on the mains, and after a wheel
landing, I can keep it on the mains for quite a while till it's quite slow.
Not like the tail slams to the ground.
If the wheel location was too far forward, wouldn't it show up in the rollout?
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Good points Christian, and your datum point does sound logical. For people
building the long (172") version no axle placement info is provided with the
supplemental plans. Most people just assume it is placed the same a shown on
the original Ford plans, at least until they read several of the postings on the
subject the last few days. To give us a ballpark idea how about doing an FAA
standard 180 lb. pilot (and maybe even 2 180 lb occupants) calculation for axle
placement for the long fuselage with everything else "per the plans" (10 gal.
wing tank, wing in standard position, corvair engine, etc.?) I would be interested
in seeing how far off it is from the short fuselage position.
RH
Christian Bobka wrote:
Kirk,
First, let me recommend to you and everybody else we fly balance ships. Who
cares what the FAA says about 180 lb people. You are flying the plane and
it should balance with you in it.
Second, I recommend using something other than the wing leading edge as the
datum. It does not make any sense to do so. If you are moving the wing
around, then you are moving around the datum . The whole IDEA of the datum
is that it is a PLACE THAT DOES NOT MOVE. It is by definition, a fixed
reference point. I was at a loss as to what to use until some others
mentioned using the bolt on the left side were the front cabane attaches to
the fuselage. It seems that people will stretch and shorten the fuselage,
shift the wing forward and aft but this point seems to not get tampered
with. So let us use it going forth. If people give me good numbers, I will
calculate W and Balance for them if they think they can't do it. I agreee
that the Leading edge of the wing eventually becomes important because we
need to make sure the CG is within the fore and aft limits of the airfoil
but we can work that into the calculations later.
I suggest that you look in the archives under the discussions on axle
placement where one puts the axle at some angle forward from the vetical of
about 12-16 degrees with the angle measured at the longitudinal and vertical
CG point on the side of the fuselage. I forget what the number is and I
loaned the book out on it last night so I can't look it up. You will need
to compute the exact point on the aircraft where the CG is when looking at
it from the side. This means longitudinal (how far back from the bolt) and
vertical or up from the floor (Of course the aircraft is level
longitudinally and laterally). You are familiar with the longitudinal CG
but the vertical CG is new for most and this can be computed through a
method Hank Jarrett posted last week and I posted through Jim Markle where
he put it up at:
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID185
In short, yes, if you move the wing back, the axle needs to be moved back
too.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Huizenga" <Kirk.Huizenga(at)moundsviewschools.org>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Chris,
Thanks for the research. I have one question that I hope will be simply
answered. The question is what affect shifting the wing back would have on
the proper placement of the axle.
Example: For W&B reasons, one shifts the wing back 4in. In theory, this
doesn't change the CG much at all, but the center of lift changes enough to
allow for us that don't fit the FAA 180lb profile to fit leading edge datum
CG limits. Should this also cause a move rearward of the axle?
Thanks for your input
Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables. |
SSBzdXNwZWN0IGlmIHlvdSBrbmV3IHRoZSB0ZW5zaW9uIGluIHBvdW5kcyB5b3Ugd291bGQgdXNl
IGEgdGVuc2lvbWV0ZXIgdG8gc2V0IGFsbCB3aXJlcyB0byB0aGUgc2FtZSB0ZW5zaW9uIChpbiB0
aGVvcnkgSSBndWVzcykgIFdoYXQgdGhhdCBhbW91bnQgaXMgSSBkbyBub3Qga25vdy4NCg0KWW91
IHVzZWQgd2lyZXMgYW5kIHR1cm5idWNrbGVzIGh1aD8gIE11c3QgaGF2ZSBiZWVuIGV4cGVuc2l2
ZSEgIFRob3NlIHR1cm5idWNrbGVzIGFyZSBsaWtlICQxNSBhIHBpZWNlISAgIEkgYW0gZGViYXRp
bmcgd2hldGhlciBvciBub3QgdG8gdXNlIGNhYmxlcyBhbmQgdHVybmJ1Y2tsZXMgb3Igc3RlZWwg
cm9kIHdpdGggZm9yayBlbmRzLg0KDQpESiBWZWdoDQpONzREVg0KTWVzYSwgQVoNCnd3dy5pbWFn
ZWR2LmNvbS9haXJjYW1wZXINCg0KDQoNCi0NCg0KICAtLS0tLSBPcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlIC0t
LS0tIA0KICBGcm9tOiBCZXJ0IENvbm9seSANCiAgVG86IHBpZXRlbnBvbC1saXN0QG1hdHJvbmlj
cy5jb20gDQogIFNlbnQ6IFRodXJzZGF5LCBKYW51YXJ5IDIyLCAyMDA0IDQ6NTIgUE0NCiAgU3Vi
amVjdDogUGlldGVucG9sLUxpc3Q6IEFkanVzdGluZyB0ZW5zaW9uIGluIGRyYWcvYW50aWRyYWcg
Y2FibGVzLg0KDQoNCiAgQXMgSSBzdGFuZCBoZXJlIHdpdGggZmFicmljIGFuZCBQb2x5ZmliZXIg
Q2hlbWljYWxzIGluIGhhbmQgSSBkbyB3b25kZXI6DQoNCiAgMSkgICAgSXMgdGhlcmUgcmVhbGx5
IGFueSAicmlnaHQiIHdheSB0byBzZXQgdGhlIHRlbnNpb24gb24gdGhlIGRyYWcgd2lyZXM/ICBJ
J3ZlIHRpZ2h0ZW5lZCB0aGVtIHRvIHdoZXJlIEkgdGhpbmsgdGhleSBhcmUgInNudWciIGJ1dCBu
b3Qgc28gdGlnaHQgdGhleSB0d2FuZy4gVGhleSBhcmUgY2FibGVzIHdpdGggdHVybmJ1Y2tsZXMu
ICBJIGhhdmUgc2FmZXRpZWQgZXZlcnl0aGluZyBvZmYuDQoNCiAgVGhhbmtzLCBCZXJ0ICANCg0K
DQo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
<4010208B.1000503(at)speedtrail.net> <003d01c3e132$4f351880$2cc5fea9@home>
<00b401c3e13f$3e5edf20$d401a8c0@Alex>
| Subject: | Re: Axle Dissertation |
Dale Johnson and I are building a long fuselage, A-65 powered with original style
gear. The axle on ours is 19" aft of the firewall. We have not taxied yet but
it does look right.
Cabanes are slanted back about 3 inches.
Greg Cardinal in Minneapolis (-10 F this morning)
----- Original Message -----
From: Alex Sloan
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Walt,
How far is your axle from your firewall? I ask as I am building the long fuselage.
I extended my engine mount 2" from the firewall. I will be using the
Corvair engine.
I am a long way from building the gear but assimilating as much info as this
old brain can hold.
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
I built the long fuselage with an A65 (mount extented about 1 3/4" to anticipate
my bodily weight of 215") And had to move the wing back (sorry, body forward)
3 inches.
I used the split gear plans supplied. 14 gallon nose tank and 10 gal center
tank (usually run empty).
Had read an article by a "seat of the pants guy" who said something like "
if you can hold the plane on the mains with the tail up without a problem on
rollout, then the CG can't be far off.
When doing takeoff roll, no problem getting up on the mains, and after a wheel
landing, I can keep it on the mains for quite a while till it's quite slow.
Not like the tail slams to the ground.
If the wheel location was too far forward, wouldn't it show up in the rollout?
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Good points Christian, and your datum point does sound logical. For people
building the long (172") version no axle placement info is provided with the
supplemental plans. Most people just assume it is placed the same a shown on
the original Ford plans, at least until they read several of the postings on the
subject the last few days. To give us a ballpark idea how about doing an FAA
standard 180 lb. pilot (and maybe even 2 180 lb occupants) calculation for axle
placement for the long fuselage with everything else "per the plans" (10 gal.
wing tank, wing in standard position, corvair engine, etc.?) I would be interested
in seeing how far off it is from the short fuselage position.
RH
Christian Bobka wrote:
Kirk,
First, let me recommend to you and everybody else we fly balance ships. Who
cares what the FAA says about 180 lb people. You are flying the plane and
it should balance with you in it.
Second, I recommend using something other than the wing leading edge as the
datum. It does not make any sense to do so. If you are moving the wing
around, then you are moving around the datum . The whole IDEA of the datum
is that it is a PLACE THAT DOES NOT MOVE. It is by definition, a fixed
reference point. I was at a loss as to what to use until some others
mentioned using the bolt on the left side were the front cabane attaches to
the fuselage. It seems that people will stretch and shorten the fuselage,
shift the wing forward and aft but this point seems to not get tampered
with. So let us use it going forth. If people give me good numbers, I will
calculate W and Balance for them if they think they can't do it. I agreee
that the Leading edge of the wing eventually becomes important because we
need to make sure the CG is within the fore and aft limits of the airfoil
but we can work that into the calculations later.
I suggest that you look in the archives under the discussions on axle
placement where one puts the axle at some angle forward from the vetical of
about 12-16 degrees with the angle measured at the longitudinal and vertical
CG point on the side of the fuselage. I forget what the number is and I
loaned the book out on it last night so I can't look it up. You will need
to compute the exact point on the aircraft where the CG is when looking at
it from the side. This means longitudinal (how far back from the bolt) and
vertical or up from the floor (Of course the aircraft is level
longitudinally and laterally). You are familiar with the longitudinal CG
but the vertical CG is new for most and this can be computed through a
method Hank Jarrett posted last week and I posted through Jim Markle where
he put it up at:
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID185
In short, yes, if you move the wing back, the axle needs to be moved back
too.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Huizenga" <Kirk.Huizenga(at)moundsviewschools.org>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Chris,
Thanks for the research. I have one question that I hope will be simply
answered. The question is what affect shifting the wing back would have on
the proper placement of the axle.
Example: For W&B reasons, one shifts the wing back 4in. In theory, this
doesn't change the CG much at all, but the center of lift changes enough to
allow for us that don't fit the FAA 180lb profile to fit leading edge datum
CG limits. Should this also cause a move rearward of the axle?
Thanks for your input
Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables. |
Hey Bert
My opinion is the wires should have a twang. Harmonics are good indication of
tension. If you give them all the same sound your rig will be all equal.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: Bert Conoly
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 5:52 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables.
As I stand here with fabric and Polyfiber Chemicals in hand I do wonder:
1) Is there really any "right" way to set the tension on the drag wires?
I've tightened them to where I think they are "snug" but not so tight they twang.
They are cables with turnbuckles. I have safetied everything off.
Thanks, Bert
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | More Pietenpol magazine articles..... |
The following two articles are now available in the "File Library" section of www.mykitplane.com:
September 1999 Kitplanes http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/filesList2.cfm?AlbumID45
July 1992 Kitplanes http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/filesList2.cfm?AlbumID44
Enjoy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
<4010208B.1000503(at)speedtrail.net> <003d01c3e132$4f351880$2cc5fea9@home>
<00b401c3e13f$3e5edf20$d401a8c0@Alex> <001501c3e147$aab879d0$0300a8c0@pc40332>
| Subject: | Re: Axle Dissertation |
Greg,
Thanks. I will add that to my growing file of useful info on things to do to mine
when the appropriate time comes.
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Cardinal
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Dale Johnson and I are building a long fuselage, A-65 powered with original style
gear. The axle on ours is 19" aft of the firewall. We have not taxied yet
but it does look right.
Cabanes are slanted back about 3 inches.
Greg Cardinal in Minneapolis (-10 F this morning)
----- Original Message -----
From: Alex Sloan
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Walt,
How far is your axle from your firewall? I ask as I am building the long fuselage.
I extended my engine mount 2" from the firewall. I will be using the
Corvair engine.
I am a long way from building the gear but assimilating as much info as this
old brain can hold.
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
I built the long fuselage with an A65 (mount extented about 1 3/4" to anticipate
my bodily weight of 215") And had to move the wing back (sorry, body
forward) 3 inches.
I used the split gear plans supplied. 14 gallon nose tank and 10 gal center
tank (usually run empty).
Had read an article by a "seat of the pants guy" who said something like
" if you can hold the plane on the mains with the tail up without a problem on
rollout, then the CG can't be far off.
When doing takeoff roll, no problem getting up on the mains, and after a
wheel landing, I can keep it on the mains for quite a while till it's quite slow.
Not like the tail slams to the ground.
If the wheel location was too far forward, wouldn't it show up in the rollout?
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Good points Christian, and your datum point does sound logical. For people
building the long (172") version no axle placement info is provided with the
supplemental plans. Most people just assume it is placed the same a shown on
the original Ford plans, at least until they read several of the postings on
the subject the last few days. To give us a ballpark idea how about doing an
FAA standard 180 lb. pilot (and maybe even 2 180 lb occupants) calculation for
axle placement for the long fuselage with everything else "per the plans" (10
gal. wing tank, wing in standard position, corvair engine, etc.?) I would be
interested in seeing how far off it is from the short fuselage position.
RH
Christian Bobka wrote:
Kirk,
First, let me recommend to you and everybody else we fly balance ships. Who
cares what the FAA says about 180 lb people. You are flying the plane and
it should balance with you in it.
Second, I recommend using something other than the wing leading edge as the
datum. It does not make any sense to do so. If you are moving the wing
around, then you are moving around the datum . The whole IDEA of the datum
is that it is a PLACE THAT DOES NOT MOVE. It is by definition, a fixed
reference point. I was at a loss as to what to use until some others
mentioned using the bolt on the left side were the front cabane attaches to
the fuselage. It seems that people will stretch and shorten the fuselage,
shift the wing forward and aft but this point seems to not get tampered
with. So let us use it going forth. If people give me good numbers, I will
calculate W and Balance for them if they think they can't do it. I agreee
that the Leading edge of the wing eventually becomes important because we
need to make sure the CG is within the fore and aft limits of the airfoil
but we can work that into the calculations later.
I suggest that you look in the archives under the discussions on axle
placement where one puts the axle at some angle forward from the vetical of
about 12-16 degrees with the angle measured at the longitudinal and vertical
CG point on the side of the fuselage. I forget what the number is and I
loaned the book out on it last night so I can't look it up. You will need
to compute the exact point on the aircraft where the CG is when looking at
it from the side. This means longitudinal (how far back from the bolt) and
vertical or up from the floor (Of course the aircraft is level
longitudinally and laterally). You are familiar with the longitudinal CG
but the vertical CG is new for most and this can be computed through a
method Hank Jarrett posted last week and I posted through Jim Markle where
he put it up at:
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID185
In short, yes, if you move the wing back, the axle needs to be moved back
too.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Huizenga" <Kirk.Huizenga(at)moundsviewschools.org>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Chris,
Thanks for the research. I have one question that I hope will be simply
answered. The question is what affect shifting the wing back would have on
the proper placement of the axle.
Example: For W&B reasons, one shifts the wing back 4in. In theory, this
doesn't change the CG much at all, but the center of lift changes enough to
allow for us that don't fit the FAA 180lb profile to fit leading edge datum
CG limits. Should this also cause a move rearward of the axle?
Thanks for your input
Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: progress report |
Larry,
Is John Ficklen on this list ? Do you have his e-mail ? I need to send him
an infomation list to fill out on his Piet. Anyone that I missed, please
e-mail me direct, so I can send you the Pietenpol 'Infomation List' to fill out.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables. |
In a message dated 1/22/04 8:35:58 PM Central Standard Time,
horzpool(at)goldengate.net writes:
<< Hey Bert
My opinion is the wires should have a twang. Harmonics are good indication
of tension. If you give them all the same sound your rig will be all equal.
Dick >>
That's how I did it. Not too tight, though. I put an inspection hole to be
able to adjust the turnbuckles, if needed. So far, after about 100 hrs, not
needed. They also need something to prevent chafe where they touch in the
middle of the 'X'. While we're on this subject, my drag / anti-drag cables
touched a few of the ribs. I notched the stick for clearance, and added support
on
the oposite side. Did this happen to any others ? The wing on Doug Bryant's
plane was the same way.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables. |
Dale and I had some rib / wire interference. We did the same thing you did,
notch the rib and
add a doubler.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables.
>
> In a message dated 1/22/04 8:35:58 PM Central Standard Time,
> horzpool(at)goldengate.net writes:
>
> << Hey Bert
> My opinion is the wires should have a twang. Harmonics are good
indication
> of tension. If you give them all the same sound your rig will be all
equal.
> Dick >>
>
> That's how I did it. Not too tight, though. I put an inspection hole to
be
> able to adjust the turnbuckles, if needed. So far, after about 100 hrs,
not
> needed. They also need something to prevent chafe where they touch in the
> middle of the 'X'. While we're on this subject, my drag / anti-drag
cables
> touched a few of the ribs. I notched the stick for clearance, and added
support on
> the oposite side. Did this happen to any others ? The wing on Doug
Bryant's
> plane was the same way.
>
> Chuck G.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables. |
In a message dated 1/22/04 6:32:13 PM Central Standard Time, djv(at)imagedv.com
writes:
<< I am debating whether or not to use cables and turnbuckles or steel rod
with fork ends. >>
D.J.,
The steel rods would be required to have rolled threads, and built to
specific lengths. Probably end up being similar costs to the cables / turnbuckles.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables. |
In a message dated 1/22/04 5:53:01 PM Central Standard Time,
bconoly(at)earthlink.net writes:
<< As I stand here with fabric and Polyfiber Chemicals in hand I do wonder: >>
Bert,
I'll bet you also wonder if you should cover up such beautiful artwork !!!
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Shawn Wolk ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Shawn Wolk
Lists: Pietenpol-List
Subject: Pietenpol on skis
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/shawnwolk@sprint.ca.01.22.2004/index.html
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
Available!
| Subject: | Re: [ Shawn Wolk ] : New Email List Photo Share |
Available!
Check out the tail feathers.
Clif
> A new Email List Photo Share is available:
>
> Poster: Shawn Wolk
> >
>
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/shawnwolk@sprint.ca.01.22.2004/index.htm
l
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables. |
On the rib/wire business, I also encountered the problem while building 41CC.
This time I will leave my ribs unattached, install wires and fittings, bring
up to tension,THEN move the ribs a skosh here and there for clearance before
glueing, skrewing or nailing. I hope it works easier. Same difference just
sorta working backwards
Corky in La/ with a new walking cane suffering HLS.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick and Marge Gillespie" <margdick(at)peganet.com> |
| Subject: | Piet tube fuse available |
Piet long tubular fuse available with formers, floor boards, 2 sticks with torque
tube, rudder pedals and miscellaneous. $1500.00. Also available 2 Lyc.
0-145 65 HP, prop and eng. mts. For details call: Lloyd Moore
239/693-2605.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables. |
Corky,
Good to see you back up and talking and walking, even with a cane.
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables.
On the rib/wire business, I also encountered the problem while building 41CC.
This time I will leave my ribs unattached, install wires and fittings, bring
up to tension,THEN move the ribs a skosh here and there for clearance before glueing,
skrewing or nailing. I hope it works easier. Same difference just sorta
working backwards
Corky in La/ with a new walking cane suffering HLS.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables. |
Good idea Corky,
Which ribs are affected during the thighting of the cables? I have not
started the ribs yet, but something to place in my notes to save time later.
Greg Menoche
Delaware
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Piet tube fuse available |
Lloyd,
Where is area code 239?
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | popsicle sticks and tramelling |
Did what Corky is planning to do on his new wings---run the X-cables in the
wings then take most the slack out then slightly reposition the ribs to
clear the trusswork of affected ribs. I then squared up the spars to each
other with small nails pounded into the tops of the spars at each of the
four ends to measure each dimension as I tightened and keep them equal
(=square wing/parallel spars) Ended up gluing and nailing the ribs to the
spars while I could still slide the ribs left and right. After cured I
checked the tramell and snugged up the cables and safety wired
them. Where they cross over each other I slit some small aquarium hose or
clear tygon tube from Home Depot about an inch long. I slid those over
each cable where they crossed to protect them from chaffing each other and
used two small tie wraps to snug up the whole intersection against
vibration. In moving the very few ribs that are in your way, I only moved
them enough to just clear the ribs--then glued in some dry popsicle sticks
to the flat of the truss that came closest to touching the cable for added
protection. (similar to the doubler idea)
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
"Pietenpol-List Digest List"
| Subject: | Re: Axle Dissertation |
My understanding is that the location of the axle is determined by the
location of the CG, both in height above and distance behind the axle. The
relationship between the location of the CG and the axle effects the balance
between a minimum longitudinal moment required during braking (needed to
apply brakes and not nose over) and an instability in the vertical axis
while on the ground (the propensity for a tail dragger to ground loop).
It's the relationship between the axle and the CG which matters, not the
axle and the wing. Since moving the wing back 4" only changes the CG
position a fraction of an inch, would it really be necessary to change the
axle location because of the new wing location?
Or, is it the fact that the 4" wing relcation is in response to a 4"
movement of the CG. Movement of the wing would then be an indicator of a CG
movement. With this said, I agree with DJ in the solution of moving the
engine forward for a tail heavy (or pilot heavy) Piet, which keeps the CG in
the same spot and the geometry between the CG and the axle (and also the CG
and the tail volume) the same.
Then again, I've not heard of any that have moved the wing back and found
they had control problems because of it.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables. |
Greg,
Go ahead and string your ribs on the spars and position according to plans.
Small nail in each will hold until you find which ones to move. It's all so
very slight and not enough to spoil that FC-10 airfoil
Corky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Cahoon @ Aircraft Engravers" <wayne(at)engravers.net> |
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
,
| Subject: | Fuel Cap Engraving, Labeling, Indentifying |
Have your Fuel Caps engraved, it's permanent and easy to read. Aircraft Engravers
has been engraving fuel caps for over 14 years.
You can see our web page at http://engravers.net/aircraft/fuel_caps.htm
Other types of engraving jobs can be viewed at http://engravers.net/main/ac_products.htm
There are a few sets of loaner fuel caps for the more common styles if your tanks
are wet.
FREE shipping by USPS Priority mail for all fuel cap engraving orders in the month
of February.
Wayne Cahoon
Aircraft Engravers
(860) 653-2780
(860) 653-7324 Fax
http://engravers.net/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: popsicle sticks and tramelling |
Mike,
I like the antichafe part. Tygon is teflon and should last forever. I
don't know about the aquarium hose though. I would rather know there are no
nicks or wearing of the wire crossing point especially if I can't see it.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: popsicle sticks and tramelling
>
>
> Did what Corky is planning to do on his new wings---run the X-cables in
the
> wings then take most the slack out then slightly reposition the ribs to
> clear the trusswork of affected ribs. I then squared up the spars to each
> other with small nails pounded into the tops of the spars at each of the
> four ends to measure each dimension as I tightened and keep them equal
> (=square wing/parallel spars) Ended up gluing and nailing the ribs to the
> spars while I could still slide the ribs left and right. After cured I
> checked the tramell and snugged up the cables and safety wired
> them. Where they cross over each other I slit some small aquarium hose
or
> clear tygon tube from Home Depot about an inch long. I slid those over
> each cable where they crossed to protect them from chaffing each other and
> used two small tie wraps to snug up the whole intersection against
> vibration. In moving the very few ribs that are in your way, I only
moved
> them enough to just clear the ribs--then glued in some dry popsicle sticks
> to the flat of the truss that came closest to touching the cable for added
> protection. (similar to the doubler idea)
>
> Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables. |
Believe it or not, the MacWhyte wires, when they were made here, had cut
threads.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables.
>
>
> In a message dated 1/22/04 6:32:13 PM Central Standard Time,
djv(at)imagedv.com
> writes:
>
> << I am debating whether or not to use cables and turnbuckles or steel rod
> with fork ends. >>
>
> D.J.,
> The steel rods would be required to have rolled threads, and built to
> specific lengths. Probably end up being similar costs to the cables /
turnbuckles.
>
> Chuck G.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
<4010208B.1000503(at)speedtrail.net> <003d01c3e132$4f351880$2cc5fea9@home>
<00b401c3e13f$3e5edf20$d401a8c0@Alex> <001501c3e147$aab879d0$0300a8c0@pc40332>
<016201c3e164$0336ad40$d401a8c0@Alex>
| Subject: | Re: Axle Dissertation |
And greg meant to add that theirs is a bone stock long fuselage 170+"
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: Alex Sloan
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Greg,
Thanks. I will add that to my growing file of useful info on things to do to
mine when the appropriate time comes.
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Cardinal
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Dale Johnson and I are building a long fuselage, A-65 powered with original
style gear. The axle on ours is 19" aft of the firewall. We have not taxied yet
but it does look right.
Cabanes are slanted back about 3 inches.
Greg Cardinal in Minneapolis (-10 F this morning)
----- Original Message -----
From: Alex Sloan
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Walt,
How far is your axle from your firewall? I ask as I am building the long
fuselage. I extended my engine mount 2" from the firewall. I will be using
the Corvair engine.
I am a long way from building the gear but assimilating as much info as this
old brain can hold.
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
I built the long fuselage with an A65 (mount extented about 1 3/4" to anticipate
my bodily weight of 215") And had to move the wing back (sorry, body
forward) 3 inches.
I used the split gear plans supplied. 14 gallon nose tank and 10 gal center
tank (usually run empty).
Had read an article by a "seat of the pants guy" who said something like
" if you can hold the plane on the mains with the tail up without a problem
on rollout, then the CG can't be far off.
When doing takeoff roll, no problem getting up on the mains, and after
a wheel landing, I can keep it on the mains for quite a while till it's quite
slow. Not like the tail slams to the ground.
If the wheel location was too far forward, wouldn't it show up in the rollout?
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Good points Christian, and your datum point does sound logical. For people
building the long (172") version no axle placement info is provided with
the supplemental plans. Most people just assume it is placed the same a shown
on the original Ford plans, at least until they read several of the postings
on the subject the last few days. To give us a ballpark idea how about doing an
FAA standard 180 lb. pilot (and maybe even 2 180 lb occupants) calculation for
axle placement for the long fuselage with everything else "per the plans" (10
gal. wing tank, wing in standard position, corvair engine, etc.?) I would be
interested in seeing how far off it is from the short fuselage position.
RH
Christian Bobka wrote:
Kirk,
First, let me recommend to you and everybody else we fly balance ships. Who
cares what the FAA says about 180 lb people. You are flying the plane and
it should balance with you in it.
Second, I recommend using something other than the wing leading edge as the
datum. It does not make any sense to do so. If you are moving the wing
around, then you are moving around the datum . The whole IDEA of the datum
is that it is a PLACE THAT DOES NOT MOVE. It is by definition, a fixed
reference point. I was at a loss as to what to use until some others
mentioned using the bolt on the left side were the front cabane attaches to
the fuselage. It seems that people will stretch and shorten the fuselage,
shift the wing forward and aft but this point seems to not get tampered
with. So let us use it going forth. If people give me good numbers, I will
calculate W and Balance for them if they think they can't do it. I agreee
that the Leading edge of the wing eventually becomes important because we
need to make sure the CG is within the fore and aft limits of the airfoil
but we can work that into the calculations later.
I suggest that you look in the archives under the discussions on axle
placement where one puts the axle at some angle forward from the vetical of
about 12-16 degrees with the angle measured at the longitudinal and vertical
CG point on the side of the fuselage. I forget what the number is and I
loaned the book out on it last night so I can't look it up. You will need
to compute the exact point on the aircraft where the CG is when looking at
it from the side. This means longitudinal (how far back from the bolt) and
vertical or up from the floor (Of course the aircraft is level
longitudinally and laterally). You are familiar with the longitudinal CG
but the vertical CG is new for most and this can be computed through a
method Hank Jarrett posted last week and I posted through Jim Markle where
he put it up at:
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID185
In short, yes, if you move the wing back, the axle needs to be moved back
too.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Huizenga" <Kirk.Huizenga(at)moundsviewschools.org>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Chris,
Thanks for the research. I have one question that I hope will be simply
answered. The question is what affect shifting the wing back would have on
the proper placement of the axle.
Example: For W&B reasons, one shifts the wing back 4in. In theory, this
doesn't change the CG much at all, but the center of lift changes enough to
allow for us that don't fit the FAA 180lb profile to fit leading edge datum
CG limits. Should this also cause a move rearward of the axle?
Thanks for your input
Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: popsicle sticks and tramelling |
My mentor is from the old school,,,whenever wires cross, he taught me to use
rib stitch cord,,,make about 4 turns around the "X", but not tight, now you
change direction and circle around between the two wires about 3 or 4 times
to make a "standoff" between the two cables. Winds up looking like a tight
hangmans knot with two loops. Now if the slack was right in the beginning,
when you pull the whole thing tight, It all goes tight. Tie it off with a
double knot, and a little varnish on the assy and you're done. It's
authentic to the 20's.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: popsicle sticks and tramelling
>
> Did what Corky is planning to do on his new wings---run the X-cables in
the
> wings then take most the slack out then slightly reposition the ribs to
> clear the trusswork of affected ribs. I then squared up the spars to each
> other with small nails pounded into the tops of the spars at each of the
> four ends to measure each dimension as I tightened and keep them equal
> (=square wing/parallel spars) Ended up gluing and nailing the ribs to the
> spars while I could still slide the ribs left and right. After cured I
> checked the tramell and snugged up the cables and safety wired
> them. Where they cross over each other I slit some small aquarium hose
or
> clear tygon tube from Home Depot about an inch long. I slid those over
> each cable where they crossed to protect them from chaffing each other and
> used two small tie wraps to snug up the whole intersection against
> vibration. In moving the very few ribs that are in your way, I only
moved
> them enough to just clear the ribs--then glued in some dry popsicle sticks
> to the flat of the truss that came closest to touching the cable for added
> protection. (similar to the doubler idea)
>
> Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bert Conoly" <bconoly(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: popsicle sticks and tramelling |
Walt. Thats what I did but I cheated and stuck a little square of rubber
motorcycle tube between them before I laced it all together. Seemed to work
well
BC.
----- Original Message -----
From: "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: popsicle sticks and tramelling
>
> My mentor is from the old school,,,whenever wires cross, he taught me to
use
> rib stitch cord,,,make about 4 turns around the "X", but not tight, now
you
> change direction and circle around between the two wires about 3 or 4
times
> to make a "standoff" between the two cables. Winds up looking like a tight
> hangmans knot with two loops. Now if the slack was right in the
beginning,
> when you pull the whole thing tight, It all goes tight. Tie it off with a
> double knot, and a little varnish on the assy and you're done. It's
> authentic to the 20's.
> walt evans
> NX140DL
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 2:36 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: popsicle sticks and tramelling
>
>
>
> >
> > Did what Corky is planning to do on his new wings---run the X-cables in
> the
> > wings then take most the slack out then slightly reposition the ribs to
> > clear the trusswork of affected ribs. I then squared up the spars to
each
> > other with small nails pounded into the tops of the spars at each of the
> > four ends to measure each dimension as I tightened and keep them equal
> > (=square wing/parallel spars) Ended up gluing and nailing the ribs to
the
> > spars while I could still slide the ribs left and right. After cured I
> > checked the tramell and snugged up the cables and safety wired
> > them. Where they cross over each other I slit some small aquarium hose
> or
> > clear tygon tube from Home Depot about an inch long. I slid those over
> > each cable where they crossed to protect them from chaffing each other
and
> > used two small tie wraps to snug up the whole intersection against
> > vibration. In moving the very few ribs that are in your way, I only
> moved
> > them enough to just clear the ribs--then glued in some dry popsicle
sticks
> > to the flat of the truss that came closest to touching the cable for
added
> > protection. (similar to the doubler idea)
> >
> > Mike C.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Here is the man to do the inspections in MN |
IT'S OFFICIAL: EAA'S JOE NORRIS IS FIRST AUTHORIZE AB-DAR
January 23, 2004 - History was made Thursday morning when the first amateur-built
designated airworthiness representative (AB-DAR) was officially and fully
authorized to perform homebuilt aircraft inspections on behalf of the FAA.
Suitably, the first AB-DAR hails from EAA: Joe Norris, senior aviation information
specialist. Joe received his final orientation via telephone interview Thursday
from the principal inspector at Minneapolis (MSP) Manufacturing Inspection
District Office (MIDO).
EAA worked extensively with FAA over the past several years to develop the
AB-DAR program to help alleviate a growing backlog of inspection requests from
amateur-built aircraft builders. EAA facilitated recruiting more than 60 AB-DAR
candidates, and also played a key role in developing the required training
course and materials.
David R. Smith, an Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI-Manufacturing) working
out of MSP MIDO, gave Norris the orientation, the last required step in the AB-DAR
approval process. MSP MIDO Office Manager Andrew B. Lown signed Norris' DAR
certificate and letter of authorization.
"Now that all the steps are completed, Dave Smith will be sending me the
appropriate paperwork that I'll need when I certificate an amateur-built aircraft,"
Norris said. "I will then work with Dave on scheduling certifications that
he (or his office) would like me to handle."
Builders who wish to contact the MSP MIDO can call 612/713-4366. Builders
can contact the MIDO to request the Amateur-Built Certification Packet, which
will include all the applicable forms and FAA advisory circulars.
The first AB-DAR course will take place on January 27-29 at the FAA Academy
in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Conducted by the Transportation Safety Institute
(TSI), 18 AB-DAR appointees are scheduled to attend. Another course is scheduled
for June 8-10, 2004. Officials are also considering adding another course
date between January and June.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: popsicle sticks and tramelling |
Another time-honored method of protecting cross wire bracing from
chafing is to place a micarta disc approximately one inch in diameter
between the wires where they cross. This disc is usually about 1/16"
thick and has some holes drilled in it beside the wires. Then rib lacing
cord is threaded through these holes and around the wires to hold the
disc in position. The whole thing is then coated with orange shellac.
I have seen this method used on DeHavilland Moths, etc. and used it
on my Pietenpol for the cabane wires and the wire bracing between
the lift struts. It would be fine for drag/antidrag wires, also. (I used
1/8"
cable with turnbuckles for all such bracing; turnbuckles were not very
expensive in the late 1960's when I bought mine.)
Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN in freezing Alberta)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Axle Dissertation |
But if you make the engine forward, the tail volume requirement will change.
Moving the engine forward would destabilize in the vertical axis due to the
increased vertical surface area forward of the CG. This needs to be
countered with more of the quantity (surface area of the what is added
forward of the CG) x (mean distance forward of the CG the area is added)
added aft of the CG.
For instance, you move the firewall forward by 4" and then you build a cowl
for the A-65 forward of that. The A-65 on a motor mount is lonbger than the
Ford Model A installation. The end result is that you add about 8" more
length forward of the CG. This is 24" high so 192 sq in is added, say, an
average 38" forward of the CG. So you have to add 192 x 38 = 7296 cu. in.
aft of the CG. I am not looking at drawings, just throwing numbers out for
an example. So you add more vertical stabilizer area 130" aft of the CG to
counter. The amount to add is 7296/130 = 56 sq in. You would have to add
2" to the chord of the 30" high vertical stabilizer to counter the added
destabilizing area up front. And this weighs something 130" aft of the CG,
which has a large effect on CG etc etc
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Axle Dissertation
>
>
> My understanding is that the location of the axle is determined by the
> location of the CG, both in height above and distance behind the axle.
The
> relationship between the location of the CG and the axle effects the
balance
> between a minimum longitudinal moment required during braking (needed to
> apply brakes and not nose over) and an instability in the vertical axis
> while on the ground (the propensity for a tail dragger to ground loop).
> It's the relationship between the axle and the CG which matters, not the
> axle and the wing. Since moving the wing back 4" only changes the CG
> position a fraction of an inch, would it really be necessary to change the
> axle location because of the new wing location?
>
> Or, is it the fact that the 4" wing relcation is in response to a 4"
> movement of the CG. Movement of the wing would then be an indicator of a
CG
> movement. With this said, I agree with DJ in the solution of moving the
> engine forward for a tail heavy (or pilot heavy) Piet, which keeps the CG
in
> the same spot and the geometry between the CG and the axle (and also the
CG
> and the tail volume) the same.
>
> Then again, I've not heard of any that have moved the wing back and found
> they had control problems because of it.
>
>
> Robert Haines
> Du Quoin, Illinois
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
<4010208B.1000503(at)speedtrail.net> <003d01c3e132$4f351880$2cc5fea9@home>
| Subject: | Re: Axle Dissertation |
"If the wheel location was too far forward, wouldn't it show up in the rollout?"
Walt,
Why have you been asking for instructions on how to land, then?
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
I built the long fuselage with an A65 (mount extented about 1 3/4" to anticipate
my bodily weight of 215") And had to move the wing back (sorry, body forward)
3 inches.
I used the split gear plans supplied. 14 gallon nose tank and 10 gal center
tank (usually run empty).
Had read an article by a "seat of the pants guy" who said something like " if
you can hold the plane on the mains with the tail up without a problem on rollout,
then the CG can't be far off.
When doing takeoff roll, no problem getting up on the mains, and after a wheel
landing, I can keep it on the mains for quite a while till it's quite slow.
Not like the tail slams to the ground.
If the wheel location was too far forward, wouldn't it show up in the rollout?
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Good points Christian, and your datum point does sound logical. For people
building the long (172") version no axle placement info is provided with the supplemental
plans. Most people just assume it is placed the same a shown on the
original Ford plans, at least until they read several of the postings on the
subject the last few days. To give us a ballpark idea how about doing an FAA
standard 180 lb. pilot (and maybe even 2 180 lb occupants) calculation for axle
placement for the long fuselage with everything else "per the plans" (10 gal.
wing tank, wing in standard position, corvair engine, etc.?) I would be interested
in seeing how far off it is from the short fuselage position.
RH
Christian Bobka wrote:
Kirk,
First, let me recommend to you and everybody else we fly balance ships. Who
cares what the FAA says about 180 lb people. You are flying the plane and
it should balance with you in it.
Second, I recommend using something other than the wing leading edge as the
datum. It does not make any sense to do so. If you are moving the wing
around, then you are moving around the datum . The whole IDEA of the datum
is that it is a PLACE THAT DOES NOT MOVE. It is by definition, a fixed
reference point. I was at a loss as to what to use until some others
mentioned using the bolt on the left side were the front cabane attaches to
the fuselage. It seems that people will stretch and shorten the fuselage,
shift the wing forward and aft but this point seems to not get tampered
with. So let us use it going forth. If people give me good numbers, I will
calculate W and Balance for them if they think they can't do it. I agreee
that the Leading edge of the wing eventually becomes important because we
need to make sure the CG is within the fore and aft limits of the airfoil
but we can work that into the calculations later.
I suggest that you look in the archives under the discussions on axle
placement where one puts the axle at some angle forward from the vetical of
about 12-16 degrees with the angle measured at the longitudinal and vertical
CG point on the side of the fuselage. I forget what the number is and I
loaned the book out on it last night so I can't look it up. You will need
to compute the exact point on the aircraft where the CG is when looking at
it from the side. This means longitudinal (how far back from the bolt) and
vertical or up from the floor (Of course the aircraft is level
longitudinally and laterally). You are familiar with the longitudinal CG
but the vertical CG is new for most and this can be computed through a
method Hank Jarrett posted last week and I posted through Jim Markle where
he put it up at:
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID185
In short, yes, if you move the wing back, the axle needs to be moved back
too.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Huizenga" <Kirk.Huizenga(at)moundsviewschools.org>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Chris,
Thanks for the research. I have one question that I hope will be simply
answered. The question is what affect shifting the wing back would have on
the proper placement of the axle.
Example: For W&B reasons, one shifts the wing back 4in. In theory, this
doesn't change the CG much at all, but the center of lift changes enough to
allow for us that don't fit the FAA 180lb profile to fit leading edge datum
CG limits. Should this also cause a move rearward of the axle?
Thanks for your input
Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
<4010208B.1000503(at)speedtrail.net>
| Subject: | Re: Axle Dissertation |
Rick,
I would like to see the numbers too but I need some actual wieghts of a ship on
the scales with good measurement data on seat location, fuel location, etc.
If you do a weighing with the plane empty, then adding fuel, then oil, then pilot,
then passenger then bags, you can calculate the exact postion inches from
the datum of each thing you add so that you have really good numbers. We need
some really good numbers.
By late spring, I should have participated in Greg and Dales' Piet W and B as well
as Dick Navratil's so I will have good data.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Good points Christian, and your datum point does sound logical. For people building
the long (172") version no axle placement info is provided with the supplemental
plans. Most people just assume it is placed the same a shown on the
original Ford plans, at least until they read several of the postings on the subject
the last few days. To give us a ballpark idea how about doing an FAA standard
180 lb. pilot (and maybe even 2 180 lb occupants) calculation for axle
placement for the long fuselage with everything else "per the plans" (10 gal.
wing tank, wing in standard position, corvair engine, etc.?) I would be interested
in seeing how far off it is from the short fuselage position.
RH
Christian Bobka wrote:
Kirk,
First, let me recommend to you and everybody else we fly balance ships. Who
cares what the FAA says about 180 lb people. You are flying the plane and
it should balance with you in it.
Second, I recommend using something other than the wing leading edge as the
datum. It does not make any sense to do so. If you are moving the wing
around, then you are moving around the datum . The whole IDEA of the datum
is that it is a PLACE THAT DOES NOT MOVE. It is by definition, a fixed
reference point. I was at a loss as to what to use until some others
mentioned using the bolt on the left side were the front cabane attaches to
the fuselage. It seems that people will stretch and shorten the fuselage,
shift the wing forward and aft but this point seems to not get tampered
with. So let us use it going forth. If people give me good numbers, I will
calculate W and Balance for them if they think they can't do it. I agreee
that the Leading edge of the wing eventually becomes important because we
need to make sure the CG is within the fore and aft limits of the airfoil
but we can work that into the calculations later.
I suggest that you look in the archives under the discussions on axle
placement where one puts the axle at some angle forward from the vetical of
about 12-16 degrees with the angle measured at the longitudinal and vertical
CG point on the side of the fuselage. I forget what the number is and I
loaned the book out on it last night so I can't look it up. You will need
to compute the exact point on the aircraft where the CG is when looking at
it from the side. This means longitudinal (how far back from the bolt) and
vertical or up from the floor (Of course the aircraft is level
longitudinally and laterally). You are familiar with the longitudinal CG
but the vertical CG is new for most and this can be computed through a
method Hank Jarrett posted last week and I posted through Jim Markle where
he put it up at:
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID185
In short, yes, if you move the wing back, the axle needs to be moved back
too.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Huizenga" <Kirk.Huizenga(at)moundsviewschools.org>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Chris,
Thanks for the research. I have one question that I hope will be simply
answered. The question is what affect shifting the wing back would have on
the proper placement of the axle.
Example: For W&B reasons, one shifts the wing back 4in. In theory, this
doesn't change the CG much at all, but the center of lift changes enough to
allow for us that don't fit the FAA 180lb profile to fit leading edge datum
CG limits. Should this also cause a move rearward of the axle?
Thanks for your input
Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brants" <tmbrant(at)usfamily.net> |
| Subject: | building to build |
Man, now that the tail section is getting completed it's really starting to get
even more fun... Building something from plans out of God given materials can't
be beat! I haven't flown a plane for over two months and frankly don't miss
it much.. I'm having too much fun working on the Piet. I took the advice of
some who've said, "build to build, don't build to fly" and "spend some time on
it each day". It's amazing the momentum you can build when you just spend some
amount of time on your project each day, even if it's just studying the plans
to see how to make your next move.
I find it motivational to set small goals... I set the goal of completing the
'end spinach' over the winter... certainly not difficult to achieve if you get
at it each day. By spring I should be able to get to finishing up the odds
and ends of the fuselage over the summer and then get at making the center section
and ribs... I really wasn't looking forward to starting the wing but after
seeing Dick Navratrils project(s) I see just how fun it looks to build. He's
even said that the building of the wing goes by way too fast.
I say all of this for those who need some encouragement, motivation or just want
to read something that's more personal and less technical. The people on this
list make it a phenomenal tool! Thanks for all the discussion on the horizontal
stab.
Sorry for the ramblings but it's nearly 2:00 am and I can't get my mind off of
the piet.
Ain't building great!
Tom Brant
Brooklyn Park, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
Want to see a Piet on floats? Go here
http://www.paf-flugmodelle.de/index.htm?/Webseiten/videos.htm
:-) :-) :-)
Clif
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
dGhhdCB3YXMgcHJldHR5IGNvb2wNCg0KREogVmVnaA0KTjc0RFYNCk1lc2EsIEFaDQp3d3cuaW1h
Z2Vkdi5jb20vYWlyY2FtcGVyDQoNCg0KDQotDQoNCiAgLS0tLS0gT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZSAt
LS0tLSANCiAgRnJvbTogQ2xpZiBEYXdzb24gDQogIFRvOiBwaWV0ZW5wb2wtbGlzdEBtYXRyb25p
Y3MuY29tIA0KICBTZW50OiBTYXR1cmRheSwgSmFudWFyeSAyNCwgMjAwNCAxOjU0IEFNDQogIFN1
YmplY3Q6IFBpZXRlbnBvbC1MaXN0OiBmbG9hdHMNCg0KDQogIFdhbnQgdG8gc2VlIGEgUGlldCBv
biBmbG9hdHM/ICBHbyBoZXJlDQoNCiAgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5wYWYtZmx1Z21vZGVsbGUuZGUvaW5k
ZXguaHRtPy9XZWJzZWl0ZW4vdmlkZW9zLmh0bQ0KDQogIDotKSA6LSkgOi0pDQoNCiAgQ2xpZg==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)speedtrail.net> |
Netscape/7.1 (ax)
| Subject: | Re: popsicle sticks and tramelling |
<000e01c3e231$00f77c80$4d2226d0@grhans>
Hell, gold bricks were'nt very expensive back in the 60s either.
RH
> (I used
>1/8"
>cable with turnbuckles for all such bracing; turnbuckles were not very
>expensive in the late 1960's when I bought mine.)
>
>Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN in freezing Alberta)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
<4010208B.1000503(at)speedtrail.net> <003d01c3e132$4f351880$2cc5fea9@home>
<005d01c3e23b$fdd13540$0101a8c0@domain>
| Subject: | Re: Axle Dissertation |
What does that mean?
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Bobka
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 12:36 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
"If the wheel location was too far forward, wouldn't it show up in the rollout?"
Walt,
Why have you been asking for instructions on how to land, then?
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
I built the long fuselage with an A65 (mount extented about 1 3/4" to anticipate
my bodily weight of 215") And had to move the wing back (sorry, body forward)
3 inches.
I used the split gear plans supplied. 14 gallon nose tank and 10 gal center
tank (usually run empty).
Had read an article by a "seat of the pants guy" who said something like "
if you can hold the plane on the mains with the tail up without a problem on
rollout, then the CG can't be far off.
When doing takeoff roll, no problem getting up on the mains, and after a wheel
landing, I can keep it on the mains for quite a while till it's quite slow.
Not like the tail slams to the ground.
If the wheel location was too far forward, wouldn't it show up in the rollout?
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Good points Christian, and your datum point does sound logical. For people
building the long (172") version no axle placement info is provided with the
supplemental plans. Most people just assume it is placed the same a shown on
the original Ford plans, at least until they read several of the postings on the
subject the last few days. To give us a ballpark idea how about doing an FAA
standard 180 lb. pilot (and maybe even 2 180 lb occupants) calculation for axle
placement for the long fuselage with everything else "per the plans" (10 gal.
wing tank, wing in standard position, corvair engine, etc.?) I would be interested
in seeing how far off it is from the short fuselage position.
RH
Christian Bobka wrote:
Kirk,
First, let me recommend to you and everybody else we fly balance ships. Who
cares what the FAA says about 180 lb people. You are flying the plane and
it should balance with you in it.
Second, I recommend using something other than the wing leading edge as the
datum. It does not make any sense to do so. If you are moving the wing
around, then you are moving around the datum . The whole IDEA of the datum
is that it is a PLACE THAT DOES NOT MOVE. It is by definition, a fixed
reference point. I was at a loss as to what to use until some others
mentioned using the bolt on the left side were the front cabane attaches to
the fuselage. It seems that people will stretch and shorten the fuselage,
shift the wing forward and aft but this point seems to not get tampered
with. So let us use it going forth. If people give me good numbers, I will
calculate W and Balance for them if they think they can't do it. I agreee
that the Leading edge of the wing eventually becomes important because we
need to make sure the CG is within the fore and aft limits of the airfoil
but we can work that into the calculations later.
I suggest that you look in the archives under the discussions on axle
placement where one puts the axle at some angle forward from the vetical of
about 12-16 degrees with the angle measured at the longitudinal and vertical
CG point on the side of the fuselage. I forget what the number is and I
loaned the book out on it last night so I can't look it up. You will need
to compute the exact point on the aircraft where the CG is when looking at
it from the side. This means longitudinal (how far back from the bolt) and
vertical or up from the floor (Of course the aircraft is level
longitudinally and laterally). You are familiar with the longitudinal CG
but the vertical CG is new for most and this can be computed through a
method Hank Jarrett posted last week and I posted through Jim Markle where
he put it up at:
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID185
In short, yes, if you move the wing back, the axle needs to be moved back
too.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Huizenga" <Kirk.Huizenga(at)moundsviewschools.org>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Chris,
Thanks for the research. I have one question that I hope will be simply
answered. The question is what affect shifting the wing back would have on
the proper placement of the axle.
Example: For W&B reasons, one shifts the wing back 4in. In theory, this
doesn't change the CG much at all, but the center of lift changes enough to
allow for us that don't fit the FAA 180lb profile to fit leading edge datum
CG limits. Should this also cause a move rearward of the axle?
Thanks for your input
Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
Chris,
Since the subject of tail volume has come up in the recent e-mails, I thought that
this might be interesting.
When I first started my Piet in '95 using the long fuselage, I was concerned about
the small vertical fin and rudder. I then computed both the vertical and
horizontal tail volumes using the formulas quoted by David Thurston in his book
"Design for Flying"
These calculations showed that the tail volumes of the Pietenpol are woefully short
of modern standards. The Piet vertical tail volume came out to .1389 and
a modern standard is .30. The horizontal tail volume was .31389 vs. .55
All this adds to the difficulty in increasing the nose moment of a Pietenpol when
mounting a lighter engine such as an A65 or Corvair to the plane to maintain
W&B.
Since a Model A powered Pietenpol is notoriously known to be slightly tail heavy,
I thought it was worth considering using a more powerful engine that is heavier
and has more horsepower. This both corrects to tail heavy condition without
moving the wing back and also keeps from aggravating the tail volume problem.
My solution using the turbocharged Subaru engine seems to have worked to solve
both problems, although the plane doesn't slip as well as one using a lighter
engine and longer nose moment.
Cordially,
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
"pietenpol"
John,
You have to remember that the tail volume is necessitated by the pitching moment
of the airfoil. As pitching moment increases, tail volume must increase. If
there is zero pitching moment, you don't even need a tail, like the flying wings.
So the piet's airfoil must fall somewhere between what is common today
and a zero pitching moment airfoil.
It flies ok so it must have enough TV.
Also, if the tails are bigger, more CG range may be available. This is important
for a four seater where it has to remain in balance without the use of ballast
when only a pilot is aboard with full fuel vs. all four seats filled, full
bags, and as much fuel as possible to bring the ship up to gross weight.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: John Dilatush
To: Christian Bobka
Cc: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 10:12 AM
Subject: Tail Volume
Chris,
Since the subject of tail volume has come up in the recent e-mails, I thought
that this might be interesting.
When I first started my Piet in '95 using the long fuselage, I was concerned
about the small vertical fin and rudder. I then computed both the vertical and
horizontal tail volumes using the formulas quoted by David Thurston in his book
"Design for Flying"
These calculations showed that the tail volumes of the Pietenpol are woefully
short of modern standards. The Piet vertical tail volume came out to .1389 and
a modern standard is .30. The horizontal tail volume was .31389 vs. .55
All this adds to the difficulty in increasing the nose moment of a Pietenpol
when mounting a lighter engine such as an A65 or Corvair to the plane to maintain
W&B.
Since a Model A powered Pietenpol is notoriously known to be slightly tail heavy,
I thought it was worth considering using a more powerful engine that is heavier
and has more horsepower. This both corrects to tail heavy condition without
moving the wing back and also keeps from aggravating the tail volume problem.
My solution using the turbocharged Subaru engine seems to have worked to solve
both problems, although the plane doesn't slip as well as one using a lighter
engine and longer nose moment.
Cordially,
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Cutting plywood |
<003901c3dd1a$20f6cfc0$2cc5fea9@home>
If you are talking about sheets of ply, and need to use the table saw,
get a Freud 71/4" narrow kerf finishing blade. They are cheap, cut
perfectly with no tearing, and are also perfect for cutting strips for
wing ribs, etc, and the blade is 1/16th thick, so every two cuts saves
1/8". If you cut lots of strips from wide boards, as I do, you save
huge amounts of wood. Any narrow cutting use a band saw with a fine
blade.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables. |
You may want to look at West Marine, they have the wire, turnbuckles
etc, all in stainless steel, and good prices. They also have delrin
pulleys for controls, bearingless no maintenance.
Rcaprd(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 1/22/04 6:32:13 PM Central Standard Time, djv(at)imagedv.com
> writes:
>
> << I am debating whether or not to use cables and turnbuckles or steel rod
> with fork ends. >>
>
> D.J.,
> The steel rods would be required to have rolled threads, and built to
> specific lengths. Probably end up being similar costs to the cables / turnbuckles.
>
> Chuck G.
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Deon Engelmann" <engelmannd(at)icon.co.za> |
Hi all
I been lurking on the list for quit some time and really like the way
this list works, its like coming home to family and hearing all the
things that happened today.
The reason that I'm writing is that I started making my rib jig, then
went to the archive and read up on it. Very confusing.
Does anyone have an accurate cad drawing for a rib with 1" holes for the
spars?
I want to make a three piece wing with 1" routed spars
Thanx
Deon Engelmann
EAA322 Midrand # SA12055
Pretoria
South Africa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Picture Posting Issue Resolved... |
Well, you guys aren't going to believe what the problem was... A number of
people complained that the pictures they posted never showed up on the
List, while others seemed to not have any problems...
So first some theory on how my list filtering works. I wrote a filtering
program that every single new post gets screened through before its passed
onto the actual email List. This filter looks for all kinds of bogus
things that spammers and other unscrupulous emailers send out these
days. It also filters out messages posted with enclosure types like .bat,
.exe, .src which usually always contain a virus of some sort. Its also a
place where I can easily and quickly add a filter if someone starts posting
a bunch of offensive messages to the list just to annoy everyone.
Anyway, way back when, there was a real problem with people posting that
bogus JATO urban legion about "the guy that put JATO engines on his 57
Chevy" or whatever. When ever that message would get reposted, a bunch of
people would post back bitching about how many times they'd already seen
that story and stop posting it and it wasn't related to blaa-list, etc,
etc, etc... You get the picture...
So, I just put in a filter entry in to filter out any message that
contained the string "jato". Worked great, well, until recently when I
started letting enclosures through on the Tailwind-List and
Pietenpol-List. Turns out that a great number of pictures (jpg's) when
MIME encoded have this four letter string, "jato" in them!
So, I've just removed the JATO filter and things seem to be going through
great now. I guess I don't have to remind everyone to not post the JATO
Chevy story, now, do I...? ;-)
Party on!
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "hjarrett" <hjarrett(at)hroads.net> |
<4010208B.1000503(at)speedtrail.net> <003d01c3e132$4f351880$2cc5fea9@home>
<005d01c3e23b$fdd13540$0101a8c0@domain> <001c01c3e291$43706300$2cc5fea9@home>
| Subject: | Re: Axle Dissertation |
If the mains are too far forward the tail will drop too quick on roll out and will
be difficult to lift in the first of the take off roll.
Hank
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
What does that mean?
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Bobka
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 12:36 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
"If the wheel location was too far forward, wouldn't it show up in the rollout?"
Walt,
Why have you been asking for instructions on how to land, then?
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
I built the long fuselage with an A65 (mount extented about 1 3/4" to anticipate
my bodily weight of 215") And had to move the wing back (sorry, body
forward) 3 inches.
I used the split gear plans supplied. 14 gallon nose tank and 10 gal center
tank (usually run empty).
Had read an article by a "seat of the pants guy" who said something like
" if you can hold the plane on the mains with the tail up without a problem on
rollout, then the CG can't be far off.
When doing takeoff roll, no problem getting up on the mains, and after a
wheel landing, I can keep it on the mains for quite a while till it's quite slow.
Not like the tail slams to the ground.
If the wheel location was too far forward, wouldn't it show up in the rollout?
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Good points Christian, and your datum point does sound logical. For people
building the long (172") version no axle placement info is provided with the
supplemental plans. Most people just assume it is placed the same a shown on
the original Ford plans, at least until they read several of the postings on
the subject the last few days. To give us a ballpark idea how about doing an
FAA standard 180 lb. pilot (and maybe even 2 180 lb occupants) calculation for
axle placement for the long fuselage with everything else "per the plans" (10
gal. wing tank, wing in standard position, corvair engine, etc.?) I would be
interested in seeing how far off it is from the short fuselage position.
RH
Christian Bobka wrote:
Kirk,
First, let me recommend to you and everybody else we fly balance ships. Who
cares what the FAA says about 180 lb people. You are flying the plane and
it should balance with you in it.
Second, I recommend using something other than the wing leading edge as the
datum. It does not make any sense to do so. If you are moving the wing
around, then you are moving around the datum . The whole IDEA of the datum
is that it is a PLACE THAT DOES NOT MOVE. It is by definition, a fixed
reference point. I was at a loss as to what to use until some others
mentioned using the bolt on the left side were the front cabane attaches to
the fuselage. It seems that people will stretch and shorten the fuselage,
shift the wing forward and aft but this point seems to not get tampered
with. So let us use it going forth. If people give me good numbers, I will
calculate W and Balance for them if they think they can't do it. I agreee
that the Leading edge of the wing eventually becomes important because we
need to make sure the CG is within the fore and aft limits of the airfoil
but we can work that into the calculations later.
I suggest that you look in the archives under the discussions on axle
placement where one puts the axle at some angle forward from the vetical of
about 12-16 degrees with the angle measured at the longitudinal and vertical
CG point on the side of the fuselage. I forget what the number is and I
loaned the book out on it last night so I can't look it up. You will need
to compute the exact point on the aircraft where the CG is when looking at
it from the side. This means longitudinal (how far back from the bolt) and
vertical or up from the floor (Of course the aircraft is level
longitudinally and laterally). You are familiar with the longitudinal CG
but the vertical CG is new for most and this can be computed through a
method Hank Jarrett posted last week and I posted through Jim Markle where
he put it up at:
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID185
In short, yes, if you move the wing back, the axle needs to be moved back
too.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Huizenga" <Kirk.Huizenga(at)moundsviewschools.org>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Chris,
Thanks for the research. I have one question that I hope will be simply
answered. The question is what affect shifting the wing back would have on
the proper placement of the axle.
Example: For W&B reasons, one shifts the wing back 4in. In theory, this
doesn't change the CG much at all, but the center of lift changes enough to
allow for us that don't fit the FAA 180lb profile to fit leading edge datum
CG limits. Should this also cause a move rearward of the axle?
Thanks for your input
Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Fw: Emailing: Jim and Bill over Dallas 1915 |
Ok Matt, I'll try it to see if pictures are making it through the server now......
A old friend of mine is taking a PhotoShop class at a local college....and he is
WELL aware of my passion for Piets.....
This picture is 1915 Dallas....I won't tell him it's a few years too early for
a Piet!
Jim in far north Dallas.....
The title he put on the postcard: Hail the ancient aviators!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables. |
Corky, glad to hear your back.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 20 Msgs - 01/23/04 |
Exactly what you just illustrated happens when you allow the CG to move aft
4" (due to a tail heavy craft or a tail heavy pilot) and counter that with a
4" aft movement of the wing. Of course the fuselage remains the same, but
the CG is now further aft of that fuselage, there is then more surface ahead
of the CG, there is less surface aft, and the moment arm of the tail is
shortened by 4". On top of that, the CG to wheel base geometry is now
different.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
P.S. - If the problem is a heavy pilot, move the pilot forward.
> From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Axle Dissertation
>
>
> But if you make the engine forward, the tail volume requirement will
change.
> Moving the engine forward would destabilize in the vertical axis due to
the
> increased vertical surface area forward of the CG. This needs to be
> countered with more of the quantity (surface area of the what is added
> forward of the CG) x (mean distance forward of the CG the area is added)
> added aft of the CG.
>
> For instance, you move the firewall forward by 4" and then you build a
cowl
> for the A-65 forward of that. The A-65 on a motor mount is lonbger than
the
> Ford Model A installation. The end result is that you add about 8" more
> length forward of the CG. This is 24" high so 192 sq in is added, say,
an
> average 38" forward of the CG. So you have to add 192 x 38 = 7296 cu. in.
> aft of the CG. I am not looking at drawings, just throwing numbers out
for
> an example. So you add more vertical stabilizer area 130" aft of the CG
to
> counter. The amount to add is 7296/130 = 56 sq in. You would have to
add
> 2" to the chord of the 30" high vertical stabilizer to counter the added
> destabilizing area up front. And this weighs something 130" aft of the
CG,
> which has a large effect on CG etc etc
>
> Chris Bobka
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Emailing: Jim and Bill over Dallas 1915 |
In a message dated 1/24/04 2:09:29 PM Central Standard Time,
jim_markle(at)mindspring.com writes:
<< This picture is 1915 Dallas....I won't tell him it's a few years too early
for a Piet! >>
I didn't get any picture.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 1/24/04 11:22:51 AM Central Standard Time,
bobka(at)compuserve.com writes:
<< So the piet's airfoil must fall somewhere between what is common today and
a zero pitching moment airfoil.
>>
The Pietenpol, as well as any undercambered airfoil, has a lot of negative
pitching moment (nose down). I believe this is why the Piet is somewhat
tolorant of an aft C.G. That's the thing I've always been curious about, is why
Pietenpols are more forgiving for an aft C.G. condition. B.H.P called out 1/3
(33.3%) of the chord, as the aft limit. I've never seen, or heard of any other
plane with the aft C.G. limit that far back. Most designs call out no more
than 30% of the chord for the aft limit, but they are not undercambered.
(Tailwind calls out 28% as the aft C.G. limit). I think this is because an
undercambered airfoil has such a high negative pitching moment, that it is more
forgiving of an aft C.G. I've tried unsuccessfully to find the aft C.G. limit
of
planes like the Jenny, but it is a Biplane - difficult to compare. Another
design that has an undercambered airfoil is the Ryan Navion. Does anyone have
the
C.G. range of the Ryan Navion, or any other plane that has an undercambered
airfoil ?
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
Chuck,
Excellent observation. I have no data on the Navion but will look later.
The Type Certificate Data Sheets are available on the FAA website.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tail Volume
>
>
> In a message dated 1/24/04 11:22:51 AM Central Standard Time,
> bobka(at)compuserve.com writes:
>
> << So the piet's airfoil must fall somewhere between what is common today
and
> a zero pitching moment airfoil.
> >>
>
> The Pietenpol, as well as any undercambered airfoil, has a lot of negative
> pitching moment (nose down). I believe this is why the Piet is somewhat
> tolorant of an aft C.G. That's the thing I've always been curious about,
is why
> Pietenpols are more forgiving for an aft C.G. condition. B.H.P called out
1/3
> (33.3%) of the chord, as the aft limit. I've never seen, or heard of any
other
> plane with the aft C.G. limit that far back. Most designs call out no
more
> than 30% of the chord for the aft limit, but they are not undercambered.
> (Tailwind calls out 28% as the aft C.G. limit). I think this is because
an
> undercambered airfoil has such a high negative pitching moment, that it is
more
> forgiving of an aft C.G. I've tried unsuccessfully to find the aft C.G.
limit of
> planes like the Jenny, but it is a Biplane - difficult to compare.
Another
> design that has an undercambered airfoil is the Ryan Navion. Does anyone
have the
> C.G. range of the Ryan Navion, or any other plane that has an
undercambered
> airfoil ?
>
> Chuck Gantzer
> NX770CG
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Conkling" <hpvs(at)southwind.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail Volume & aft CG |
All the indoor flying models for the kids doing Science Olympiad have aft
CG -- some of them even have the CG aft of the wing -- it works for them
'cause of massive tail volume (a long tail boom and area equal to 50% of the
wing area) and the same airfoil as the wing (a lifting tail vs "flat
plate").
Mike C.
Pretty Prairie, KS
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tail Volume
>
> In a message dated 1/24/04 11:22:51 AM Central Standard Time,
> bobka(at)compuserve.com writes:
>
> << So the piet's airfoil must fall somewhere between what is common today
and
> a zero pitching moment airfoil.
> >>
>
> The Pietenpol, as well as any undercambered airfoil, has a lot of negative
> pitching moment (nose down). I believe this is why the Piet is somewhat
> tolorant of an aft C.G. That's the thing I've always been curious about,
is why
> Pietenpols are more forgiving for an aft C.G. condition. B.H.P called out
1/3
> (33.3%) of the chord, as the aft limit. I've never seen, or heard of any
other
> plane with the aft C.G. limit that far back. Most designs call out no
more
> than 30% of the chord for the aft limit, but they are not undercambered.
> (Tailwind calls out 28% as the aft C.G. limit). I think this is because
an
> undercambered airfoil has such a high negative pitching moment, that it is
more
> forgiving of an aft C.G. I've tried unsuccessfully to find the aft C.G.
limit of
> planes like the Jenny, but it is a Biplane - difficult to compare.
Another
> design that has an undercambered airfoil is the Ryan Navion. Does anyone
have the
> C.G. range of the Ryan Navion, or any other plane that has an
undercambered
> airfoil ?
>
> Chuck Gantzer
> NX770CG
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: popsicle sticks and tramelling |
Michael,
Great info for those of us who have to build the wings. Keep the tips
coming.
'Question, on your video tape you mention "dead soft stainless " for the
firewall. I have made inquires with sheet metal men, aircraft mechanics and
fellow homebuilders and no one can answer, what it is or where may I get
"dead soft stainless". Can you give me a number associated with it? Such
as 2024-T3 is the aluminum in my RV aircraft. The stainless should have a
designator for ordering purpose.
Thanks.
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: popsicle sticks and tramelling
>
> Did what Corky is planning to do on his new wings---run the X-cables in
the
> wings then take most the slack out then slightly reposition the ribs to
> clear the trusswork of affected ribs. I then squared up the spars to each
> other with small nails pounded into the tops of the spars at each of the
> four ends to measure each dimension as I tightened and keep them equal
> (=square wing/parallel spars) Ended up gluing and nailing the ribs to the
> spars while I could still slide the ribs left and right. After cured I
> checked the tramell and snugged up the cables and safety wired
> them. Where they cross over each other I slit some small aquarium hose
or
> clear tygon tube from Home Depot about an inch long. I slid those over
> each cable where they crossed to protect them from chaffing each other and
> used two small tie wraps to snug up the whole intersection against
> vibration. In moving the very few ribs that are in your way, I only
moved
> them enough to just clear the ribs--then glued in some dry popsicle sticks
> to the flat of the truss that came closest to touching the cable for added
> protection. (similar to the doubler idea)
>
> Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail Volume & aft CG |
Don't forget the Bleriot
Clif
>
> All the indoor flying models for the kids doing Science Olympiad have aft
> CG -- some of them even have the CG aft of the wing -- it works for them
> 'cause of massive tail volume (a long tail boom and area equal to 50% of
the
> wing area) and the same airfoil as the wing (a lifting tail vs "flat
> plate").
>
> Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 1/24/04 1:25:14 PM Central Standard Time,
engelmannd(at)icon.co.za writes:
<< Does anyone have an accurate cad drawing for a rib with 1" holes for the
spars?
I want to make a three piece wing with 1" routed spars >>
Deon,
If you just measure out the dimensions listed on the plans, then blend in the
place on the top where there is a little dip, you'll be just fine to build
the ribs to this shape.
Chuck Gantzer
Wichita KS
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Seattle visit next week...... |
Clif Dawson and I are going to the Boeing Museum (I know it's not called that but
that's where it is and I don't remember the correct name and I'm too lazy right
now to investigate) next Sunday, Feb 1. One of the Concords is there along
with the rest of the really cool stuff they already have.....excellent aviation
museum.
So this is an inviation for anyone in the area so inclined.....to join us......
I arrive at SEATAC around 10:45 and will go directly to the museum to meet Clif......
Jim in Plano
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Seattle visit next week...... |
Don't miss "The Red Barn". This is Boeing's original building. It has been restored
and is attached to the main museum building.
I was there last October and all of the really cool stuff is located there.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Markle
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 9:40 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Seattle visit next week......
Clif Dawson and I are going to the Boeing Museum (I know it's not called that
but that's where it is and I don't remember the correct name and I'm too lazy
right now to investigate) next Sunday, Feb 1. One of the Concords is there along
with the rest of the really cool stuff they already have.....excellent aviation
museum.
So this is an inviation for anyone in the area so inclined.....to join us......
I arrive at SEATAC around 10:45 and will go directly to the museum to meet Clif......
Jim in Plano
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | about a different type of flying |
Don't know if anyone's seen this link. Cam on the mars rover that you can pan
around and zoom. Need quicktime though.
http://www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen3/f2_mars.html
walt evans
NX140DL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Deon Engelmann" <engelmannd(at)icon.co.za> |
Hi
Here are some pics of my rib jig.
The paper will be removed and the rib redrawn on the jig when completed
Please give comments and critique as needed.
Thanx
Deon Engelmann
EAA322 Midrand # SA12055
Pretoria
South Africa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andimaxd(at)aol.com |
Deon:
Make sure that, when you finish your jig, all of the ribs will be identical.
On mine, the outside cannot move and everything is pinned up against it from
the inside. This produces identical ribs. The cams are not bottomed out.
The holes are offset and will turn farther if the wood happens to be a little
narrower, or not as far if the strips are a little wider. Then secured with the
wing-nuts. There will be some variance in the cap strips and some of them
are more flexible than others. From the look of your jig right now, it looks
like if some of the strips bend easier than others, the curves on the bottom and
top of your ribs may change from rib to rib. But that's your call, this is
what makes homebuilding so much fun.
You have drawn in uprights on both sides of the spars. You don't really need
this, you only need them on the inboard sides of your spars; you will put in
compression X-bracing wires inside the wing which will force the spars
together. If you feel you must put them (the uprights) in anyway, wait until you
have glued the ribs to the spars or you will have a very difficult time sliding
them on to the spars. If you put them on last you will have a much tighter
fit/and less cursing !!
I used wax paper and scotch tape to keep the glue off of the jig. If you
could make the jig out of Plexiglas you wouldn't need anything as the glue would
not stick. I could not find anything thick enough made out of plastic that
was large enough and affordable. I have read where others have and said it
worked quite well.
Let me know if you have any other questions or don't understand my view point
on something.
You better get to bed boy, isn't it like 11:30 p.m. there?
md
PS Did you get those pics of my plane, what do you think?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "PHILIP HUMPHREY" <phil.humphrey(at)btopenworld.com> |
Hi,
There was a UK homebuilt with a 16% thick gottingen 535 wing section -
heavily undercambered - it's CofG range was 25% - 35% and it needed a
tailplane incidence of +3 degrees. Didn't go very fast!
Phil Humphrey
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
>............. Does anyone have the C.G. range of the Ryan Navion, or any
other plane that has an undercambered
> airfoil ?
>
> Chuck Gantzer
> NX770CG
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Seattle visit next week...... |
If that is the one at Paine field, then don't miss the Me-262 hangar,
they are building 5 exact flying replica ME-262s. It's a great tour.
#1 has flown, but had a minor accident involving the landing gear, is
probably ready to re-commence with testing. Dave Rowe
January 13, 2004 - January 25, 2004
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-dq