Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-em
May 23, 2005 - June 24, 2005
2:40 was flown in five flights this morning and afternoon. Wind was 1/2 to full
quartering right headwind at a steady 10 kts. Field conditions were dry grass.
Location was Stanton Field, near Northfield, Minnesota. The ship has spoked
motorcycle wheels and tyres rolling on bronze bushings with no brakes and
a tail skid. A straight axle and wrapped bungies provided suspension. The first
flight was 45 minutes, second flight was about 20 minutes, third flight was
about 25 minutes, fourth flight was 25 minutes and the fifth flight was 45 minutes.
A few years ago I wrote a long dissertation on how to select the proper axle location
with the 1929 style wooden gear legs installed on the long "Corvair" fuselage.
I was right on the money in the analysis because at the aft CG loading
that we had, the ship would perform flawlessly on the grass. Travelling 90
degrees to the 10 knot wind, I could turn into the wind by stick aft, windward
rudder, and a burst of power and I could turn away from the wind by stick forward,
lee rudder, and a burst of power. I was comfortable taxiing next to buildings
and other aircraft with very little practice.
I weigh 220 lbs and Greg computed that we needed 100 lbs of ballast in the forward
bag compartment (aft of firewall above passenger's feet) to get loaded CG
at .5" forward of arbitrary aft CG limit (greg will have to give you the datum
and the CG range, etc.)
The ship is powered by an A-65 freshly overhauled with a homemade wood prop that
was made using a duplicating machine copying an old Sensenich W72C42 blade from
about 50 years ago.
The motor mount as originally made had TONS of down thrust and TONS of right thrust
welded into it: like 1" in each direction over the length of the crank.
The angle would be arctan(1/24) . This looked so far out that spools were fabricated
and used to shim the motor back until it had "a little" right thrust and
"a little" down thrust.
On takeoff, a pronounced and uncomfortable tendency to turn left was observed which
required a constant input of 1/2 right rudder at cruise settings and 3/4
right rudder at full power and climb speed. To let up on the rudder would invite
a rapid yaw induced roll to the left. This kept me making almost all the
turns into the rudder (to the right for those of you in Rio Linda). The aircraft
is equipped with the highly calibrated Johnson wind vane type of airspeed
indicator and it showed about 35-40 mph in the climb and about 55-60 flat out.
The engine rpm in a moderate climb was 2100 indicated and the flat out rpm
in level flight was 2220 rpm. The tach has not been calibrated. The rpms sounded
right for 2150 or so in cruise and 2300 rpm (the correct number we want)
level flat out. The left turning tendency is mitigated when power is brought
back to idle. This fact identifies the problem to be a deficiency of right thrust
at the motor mount and/or left offset of the vertical stabiliser. The aircraft
flew well in the 1900 rpm range. I did not feel that much was gained by
running the power up above 2100 rpm.
Anyway, Greg and Dale's initial fix for this vicious left turning tendency will
be first to offest the vertical stabiliser to the left to the maximum degree
we can move it which is about 5/8" at the leading edge of the vertical stab.
This fix will be instituted prior to the next flight. Then the spool spacer on
the motor mount will be adjusted to take out the rest of the left turning tendency
that we find remaining. Those of you still building, plan to allow for
adjustment at the vertical stabiliser leading edge, a little to the right and
a whole lot to the left.
The A-65 equipped Piet is said to have increased vertical surface forward of the
CG which offsets vertical surface aft of the CG. This is destabilizing in the
vertical axis and appeares to be present with the aircraft reluctant to return
to straight ahead after a yaw is induced. I will investigate this characteristic
after the aircraf tis trimmed for hands and feet free flight. I would
recommend that future Piet builders who plan to use an A-65 increase the size
of their vertical stabilizer to help offset the increased vertical area forward
of the CG with the A-65 installations. A little extra way aft has quite an
effect.....
Another tendency the ship displayed was a severe nosedropping tendency. This required
a tiring constant pull on the stick of more than 6 lbs or so. Lettin
go of the stick would hang me on the straps as the nose pitched over.
This could be attributed to engine downthrust or to aerodynamics and needed further
investigation. I found that the pull on the stick was independent of thrust
produced. It is an aerodynamic issue that needs to be cured by either lowering
the leading edge of the horizontal stabiliser or raising its trailing edge.
This is difficult to do in practise as the Vi Kapler rudder hinges are reluctant
to move up or down the rudder spar. Again, current builders, allow for
the ability to raise or lower the leading edge of the horizontal stab by using
shims at the forward attach point only. You may also need a space to exist
between the bottom of the vertical stabilser and the centerline of the horizontal
stab to allow for a slot where vertical positioning of the horizontal stab
can be made. Just give some thought as to how you will allow the leading edge
to be raised or lowered 1/2" or maybe even more after the ship is asssembled.
Knowing that we had 100 lbs of ballast in the forward bag compartment, we removed
40 lbs of it and that relieved maybe 1/4 of the 6 lb pull on the stick. Greg
was concerned that would put the ship aft of the arbitrary CG aft limit. However,
poweroff stalls were performed both with 100 lbs and 60 lbs of ballast
and in both cases the ship had no difficulty in lowering the nose to unstalled
flight upon the slightest easing of aft stick pressure. When the stick was
held full aft, gingerly use of the rudder could hold the ship in a falling leaf
but you had to stay right on it with a good horizon.
There was also a left wing heaviness that was mostly mitigated by shortening the
left front strut by 1-1/2 turns and lengthening the right front strut by the
same amount.
As test flights go, the ship was moderately difficult to fly as it needed continuous
substantial input in all three axes, gobs of right rudder, a lot of aft
stick, and a bit of right stick. I tried taking pictures but gave up after three
because I could not take pictures and fly at the same time.
We will work through each item until the ship flies properly. Ideas, comments,
and insights are welcome.
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gene Hubbard <enhubbard(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rear lower seatbelt attach advice |
Rick,
It's one of the things that I worried about for a long time too. No
real suggestions on the plans. I glued (T-88) a piece of longeron
material above the real longeron behind the seat and mounted a 1 x .090
steel strap to that. I think I used two AN4 bolts with flat heads and
Tinnerman washers. I bent a tab on the front of the strap for the 5/16"
hole to hold the seat belt tab. I also put a hole in the back of the
strap for a cable to the tailpost, but haven't run the cable (and may
never). I didn't feel good about drilling through the longeron itself,
but since the Piet has about twice the beef in the longerons as any
comperable plane, I wouldn't expect it to be a problem.
I'm finally running out of excuses not to cover mine. The last
remaining excuses have to do with how much electrical wiring to do (a la
Bengalis) before covering it all over. I finally have to make decisions
about starter, generator, avionics, and so forth.
Gene Hubbard
San Diego
Rick Holland wrote:
> Have gone through the archieves looking for advice on rear lower
> seatbelt attachment and would like some advice. Sounds like most
> people just drill a 5/16" hole in the bottom longerons with 1/8" ply
> on both sides. Just want to make sure I am not weakening the longerons
> with these big holes. Also, which is better, drilling the holes
> horizontal or vertical? I believe Mike Cuy mentioned on his video that
> he just glued a and gusseted a block to the longerons and bolted the
> belts to that.
>
> Figured I would consult the GN-1 plans for some guidance and couldn't
> find a thing about it.
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Lyscars" <alyscars(at)maine.rr.com> |
Fellows,
Can anyone break down the individual part numbers for the AN 130-167 turnbuckle?
Alan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au> |
Alan,
Check out http://www.cpc-world.com >Aircraft
Systems > Controls and Brakes. I did a complete list of all the items I
needed for my control parts order. It may be of some help.
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi, Australia
http://www.cpc-world.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alan Lyscars
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Turnbuckles
Fellows,
Can anyone break down the individual part numbers for the AN 130-167
turnbuckle?
Alan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Lyscars" <alyscars(at)maine.rr.com> |
Peter,
Thanks for that Tip 'O The Day.
Alan
Alan,
Check out http://www.cpc-world.com >Aircraft Systems > Controls and Brakes. I did a complete list of all the items I needed for my control parts order. It may be of some help.
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi, Australia
http://www.cpc-world.com
Fellows,
Can anyone break down the individual part numbers for the AN 130-167 turnbuckle?
Alan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Gene's seat belt attach advice |
96be47(at)mail.gmail.com>
1.96 DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_XX Date: is 96 hours or more after Received: date
Rick---though you've already gotten some very good input on your question,
if it is any comfort, I did my attach
anchor method just like Gene Hubbard although used a poplar wood block
about 2"x 3" glued above the lower longeron
with 1/8" piece of ply glued over that block and the longeron, drilled thru
and anchored the JC Whitney airline-type buckles
to that. I can tell you that after encountering severe hot weather
turbulence around Chicago enroute to Wisconsin
that they held me fine thru what I'm sure was negative g turbulence. The
only problem I really had was keeping my
hand gripped to the stick. Solution---just grab the stick a little lower:)
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TRichmo9(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 5/16/05 6:31:30 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
wacopitts(at)yahoo.com writes:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Galen Hutcheson
Dave, I am building box-like spars. They will have
1/2" by 1" spruce top and bottom beams with a 1/8"
birch plywood sandwich. They will have 1/2" by 1"
spruce diagonals and uprights at each rib location
(the diagonals will be similar to the pattern used in
the ribs). My spars will be 3/4" wide by 4 1/4" high
when completed. The will be lighter but should be as
strong as solid routed spars. I have built some test
sections and I am very impressed with the strength of
this type of spar. The three foot center section just
allows you to have a larger fuel tank in the upper
wing. I see no reason you can't build a 1" wide
box-spar. Perhaps you could build a test section and
evaluate it for strength.
Doc
> >
> > Guys, I'm getting ready to start my wings and I'm
> looking for suggestions.
> > My spars are built with a one inch wide opening
> per the plans but the
> > supplemental plans for the 3 piece wing call for
> 3/4" spar material. I see
> > no reason to not use 1" material except the price.
> Aircraft Spruce wants
> > about 600.00 for the spar material and before I
> fork out that kind of
> > money
> > I wanted to see if that's the best way to go. It
> seems like a shame to pay
> > for all that spruce and then route almost half of
> it out. Has anyone done
> > a
> > laminated plywood spar? Seems like it would
> certainly be strong enough.
> > Also, is there any advantage/disadvantage to
> widening the center section?
> > Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.
> > Thanks, Dave
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system
> (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release
> Date: 2/14/2005
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
i copyed the plans and they look pretty good they will cost you 11 dollars
if you want a set ,my address is rt2 box 263 cleveland oklahoma 74020
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TRichmo9(at)aol.com |
if anyone wants a set of the plans i have and i havent e mailed you they are
11 dollars.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Esslinger" <aquanaut(at)indy.rr.com> |
Doc, Thanks for the info. I'm leaning toward the built up spar you
described. I know that's how they build them in the Quickie's. How did you
do your testing?
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
TRichmo9(at)aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 11:27 AM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Spars
In a message dated 5/16/05 6:31:30 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
wacopitts(at)yahoo.com writes:
Dave, I am building box-like spars. They will have
1/2" by 1" spruce top and bottom beams with a 1/8"
birch plywood sandwich. They will have 1/2" by 1"
spruce diagonals and uprights at each rib location
(the diagonals will be similar to the pattern used in
the ribs). My spars will be 3/4" wide by 4 1/4" high
when completed. The will be lighter but should be as
strong as solid routed spars. I have built some test
sections and I am very impressed with the strength of
this type of spar. The three foot center section just
allows you to have a larger fuel tank in the upper
wing. I see no reason you can't build a 1" wide
box-spar. Perhaps you could build a test section and
evaluate it for strength.
Doc
> >
> > Guys, I'm getting ready to start my wings and I'm
> looking for suggestions.
> > My spars are built with a one inch wide opening
> per the plans but the
> > supplemental plans for the 3 piece wing call for
> 3/4" spar material. I see
> > no reason to not use 1" material except the price.
> Aircraft Spruce wants
> > about 600.00 for the spar material and before I
> fork out that kind of
> > money
> > I wanted to see if that's the best way to go. It
> seems like a shame to pay
> > for all that spruce and then route almost half of
> it out. Has anyone done
> > a
> > laminated plywood spar? Seems like it would
> certainly be strong enough.
> > Also, is there any advantage/disadvantage to
> widening the center section?
> > Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.
> > Thanks, Dave
> > ---
> (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Date: 2/14/2005
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail =========================e the es Day
--> ======================================================
i copyed the plans and they look pretty good they will cost you 11 dollars
if you want a set ,my address is rt2 box 263 cleveland oklahoma 74020
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lynn Knoll" <dknoll(at)cox.net> |
Please explain how you can legally sell a set of Piet plans for $11.00
----- Original Message -----
From: TRichmo9(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 11:31 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: plans
if anyone wants a set of the plans i have and i havent e mailed you they are
11 dollars.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TRichmo9(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 5/25/05 1:35:57 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
dknoll(at)cox.net writes:
Please explain how you can legally sell a set of Piet plans for $11.00
----- Original Message -----
From: _TRichmo9(at)aol.com_ (mailto:TRichmo9(at)aol.com)
Subject: Pietenpol-List: plans
if anyone wants a set of the plans i have and i havent e mailed you they are
11 dollars.
number one theres no name or trademark of any kind on these drawings ,number
2 im not selling anything for profit that's my cost to copy and mail them ,
im just trying to help some guys on the list who want them, as a matter of
fact no where on them does it say they are pietenpol plans and it does say,
this information is to be used for research data only no aircraft construction
can take place using this information as shown .
tom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TRichmo9(at)aol.com |
well im getting emails on the legal end of selling the plans i have im not
selling them . but i did get an email from someone who offered to scan them
and put them on a disc for me ,if you read this email me so we can get it done
then i can email the drawings to everyone free.
tom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Gow" <rgow(at)avionicsdesign.ca> |
Same thing as selling them. The are not your intellectual property to
distribute.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
TRichmo9(at)aol.com
Sent: May 25, 2005 3:37 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: plans
well im getting emails on the legal end of selling the plans i have im
not selling them . but i did get an email from someone who offered to scan
them and put them on a disc for me ,if you read this email me so we can get
it done then i can email the drawings to everyone free.
tom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Cosentino <ccosenti(at)cisco.com> |
Are these the plans from this magazine (Sport Aviation)?:
Article:
I Beam/Solid Wing Spar Design
Magazine: SA1961 April - pgs 38
If so, you can order them from EAA.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005, 3:36:44 PM, TRichmo9(at)aol.com wrote:
Tac> well im getting emails on the legal end of selling the
Tac> plans i have im not selling them . but i did get an email from
Tac> someone who offered to scan them and put them on a disc for me
Tac> ,if you read this email me so we can get it done then i can
Tac> email the drawings to everyone
Tac> free. tom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike McCarty" <mmccarty(at)zianet.com> |
I think a few people are confused. Tom wasn't offering up a full set of Piet plans,
but a
copy of plans for a box spar and quick connects.
-Mac
----- Original Message -----
From: Lynn Knoll
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: plans
Please explain how you can legally sell a set of Piet plans for $11.00
----- Original Message -----
From: TRichmo9(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 11:31 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: plans
if anyone wants a set of the plans i have and i havent e mailed you they are
11 dollars.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Lyscars" <alyscars(at)maine.rr.com> |
Tom,
I'd like a set. Please send me mailing info.
Alan
Portland, Maine
----- Original Message -----
From: TRichmo9(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 12:31 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: plans
if anyone wants a set of the plans i have and i havent e mailed you they are
11 dollars.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TRichmo9(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 5/25/05 3:36:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
rgow(at)avionicsdesign.ca writes:
Same thing as selling them. The are not your intellectual property to
distribute.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of TRichmo9(at)aol.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: plans
well im getting emails on the legal end of selling the plans i have im not
selling them . but i did get an email from someone who offered to scan them
and put them on a disc for me ,if you read this email me so we can get it done
then i can email the drawings to everyone free.
tohave it your way i will give them away then and
everyone i give them to can give someone else a set and we will still all have
them. except for you
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TRichmo9(at)aol.com |
im going out in the morning and getting a new scanner, ill scan these
drawings off in sections and email them out
tom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Bacon <gbacon67(at)direcway.com> |
report
| Subject: | more than what greg said: Pietenpol first flight |
report
Chris,
Thanks for sharing the first flight with us. I almost felt like I was in the cockpit
with you. Great job!
Greg Bacon
Prairie Home, MO
www.g-c.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Bobka
; Peter Denny ; Norm Tesmar ; Dan Carroll ; Greg ; Dale Johnson ; Gary Steadman
Subject: Pietenpol-List: more than what greg said: Pietenpol first flight report
Greg likes to underestimate the situation...
The first flight report of the Pietenpol is as follows:
2:40 was flown in five flights this morning and afternoon. Wind was 1/2 to full
quartering right headwind at a steady 10 kts. Field conditions were dry grass.
Location was Stanton Field, near Northfield, Minnesota. The ship has spoked
motorcycle wheels and tyres rolling on bronze bushings with no brakes and
a tail skid. A straight axle and wrapped bungies provided suspension. The first
flight was 45 minutes, second flight was about 20 minutes, third flight was
about 25 minutes, fourth flight was 25 minutes and the fifth flight was 45 minutes.
A few years ago I wrote a long dissertation on how to select the proper axle location
with the 1929 style wooden gear legs installed on the long "Corvair" fuselage.
I was right on the money in the analysis because at the aft CG loading
that we had, the ship would perform flawlessly on the grass. Travelling 90
degrees to the 10 knot wind, I could turn into the wind by stick aft, windward
rudder, and a burst of power and I could turn away from the wind by stick forward,
lee rudder, and a burst of power. I was comfortable taxiing next to buildings
and other aircraft with very little practice.
I weigh 220 lbs and Greg computed that we needed 100 lbs of ballast in the forward
bag compartment (aft of firewall above passenger's feet) to get loaded CG
at .5" forward of arbitrary aft CG limit (greg will have to give you the datum
and the CG range, etc.)
The ship is powered by an A-65 freshly overhauled with a homemade wood prop that
was made using a duplicating machine copying an old Sensenich W72C42 blade from
about 50 years ago.
The motor mount as originally made had TONS of down thrust and TONS of right thrust
welded into it: like 1" in each direction over the length of the crank.
The angle would be arctan(1/24) . This looked so far out that spools were fabricated
and used to shim the motor back until it had "a little" right thrust and
"a little" down thrust.
On takeoff, a pronounced and uncomfortable tendency to turn left was observed which
required a constant input of 1/2 right rudder at cruise settings and 3/4
right rudder at full power and climb speed. To let up on the rudder would invite
a rapid yaw induced roll to the left. This kept me making almost all the
turns into the rudder (to the right for those of you in Rio Linda). The aircraft
is equipped with the highly calibrated Johnson wind vane type of airspeed
indicator and it showed about 35-40 mph in the climb and about 55-60 flat out.
The engine rpm in a moderate climb was 2100 indicated and the flat out rpm
in level flight was 2220 rpm. The tach has not been calibrated. The rpms sounded
right for 2150 or so in cruise and 2300 rpm (the correct number we want)
level flat out. The left turning tendency is mitigated when power is brought
back to idle. This fact identifies the problem to be a deficiency of right thrust
at the motor mount and/or left offset of the vertical stabiliser. The aircraft
flew well in the 1900 rpm range. I did not feel that much was gained by
running the power up above 2100 rpm.
Anyway, Greg and Dale's initial fix for this vicious left turning tendency will
be first to offest the vertical stabiliser to the left to the maximum degree
we can move it which is about 5/8" at the leading edge of the vertical stab.
This fix will be instituted prior to the next flight. Then the spool spacer on
the motor mount will be adjusted to take out the rest of the left turning tendency
that we find remaining. Those of you still building, plan to allow for
adjustment at the vertical stabiliser leading edge, a little to the right and
a whole lot to the left.
The A-65 equipped Piet is said to have increased vertical surface forward of the
CG which offsets vertical surface aft of the CG. This is destabilizing in the
vertical axis and appeares to be present with the aircraft reluctant to return
to straight ahead after a yaw is induced. I will investigate this characteristic
after the aircraf tis trimmed for hands and feet free flight. I would
recommend that future Piet builders who plan to use an A-65 increase the size
of their vertical stabilizer to help offset the increased vertical area forward
of the CG with the A-65 installations. A little extra way aft has quite an
effect.....
Another tendency the ship displayed was a severe nosedropping tendency. This required
a tiring constant pull on the stick of more than 6 lbs or so. Lettin
go of the stick would hang me on the straps as the nose pitched over.
This could be attributed to engine downthrust or to aerodynamics and needed further
investigation. I found that the pull on the stick was independent of thrust
produced. It is an aerodynamic issue that needs to be cured by either lowering
the leading edge of the horizontal stabiliser or raising its trailing edge.
This is difficult to do in practise as the Vi Kapler rudder hinges are reluctant
to move up or down the rudder spar. Again, current builders, allow for
the ability to raise or lower the leading edge of the horizontal stab by using
shims at the forward attach point only. You may also need a space to exist
between the bottom of the vertical stabilser and the centerline of the horizontal
stab to allow for a slot where vertical positioning of the horizontal stab
can be made. Just give some thought as to how you will allow the leading edge
to be raised or lowered 1/2" or maybe even more after the ship is asssembled.
Knowing that we had 100 lbs of ballast in the forward bag compartment, we removed
40 lbs of it and that relieved maybe 1/4 of the 6 lb pull on the stick. Greg
was concerned that would put the ship aft of the arbitrary CG aft limit. However,
poweroff stalls were performed both with 100 lbs and 60 lbs of ballast
and in both cases the ship had no difficulty in lowering the nose to unstalled
flight upon the slightest easing of aft stick pressure. When the stick was
held full aft, gingerly use of the rudder could hold the ship in a falling leaf
but you had to stay right on it with a good horizon.
There was also a left wing heaviness that was mostly mitigated by shortening the
left front strut by 1-1/2 turns and lengthening the right front strut by the
same amount.
As test flights go, the ship was moderately difficult to fly as it needed continuous
substantial input in all three axes, gobs of right rudder, a lot of aft
stick, and a bit of right stick. I tried taking pictures but gave up after three
because I could not take pictures and fly at the same time.
We will work through each item until the ship flies properly. Ideas, comments,
and insights are welcome.
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: more than what greg said: Pietenpol first flight report |
Greg and everyone else,
I had meant to write, "There was also a left wing heaviness that was mostly mitigated
by shortening the left rear strut by 1-1/2 turns and lengthening the right
rear strut by the same amount."
I had my struts mixed up on paper buyt not in my feeble mind.
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Bacon
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 5:27 PM
Subject: Fw: Pietenpol-List: more than what greg said: Pietenpol first flight
report
Chris,
Thanks for sharing the first flight with us. I almost felt like I was in the
cockpit with you. Great job!
Greg Bacon
Prairie Home, MO
www.g-c.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Bobka
To: Pietenpol ; Flitzer ; Alan James ; Pete Gavin ; Paul Shenton ; Steve Bryan
; Peter Denny ; Norm Tesmar ; Dan Carroll ; Greg ; Dale Johnson ; Gary Steadman
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 2:02 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: more than what greg said: Pietenpol first flight report
Greg likes to underestimate the situation...
The first flight report of the Pietenpol is as follows:
2:40 was flown in five flights this morning and afternoon. Wind was 1/2 to full
quartering right headwind at a steady 10 kts. Field conditions were dry grass.
Location was Stanton Field, near Northfield, Minnesota. The ship has spoked
motorcycle wheels and tyres rolling on bronze bushings with no brakes and
a tail skid. A straight axle and wrapped bungies provided suspension. The
first flight was 45 minutes, second flight was about 20 minutes, third flight
was about 25 minutes, fourth flight was 25 minutes and the fifth flight was 45
minutes.
A few years ago I wrote a long dissertation on how to select the proper axle
location with the 1929 style wooden gear legs installed on the long "Corvair"
fuselage. I was right on the money in the analysis because at the aft CG loading
that we had, the ship would perform flawlessly on the grass. Travelling 90
degrees to the 10 knot wind, I could turn into the wind by stick aft, windward
rudder, and a burst of power and I could turn away from the wind by stick forward,
lee rudder, and a burst of power. I was comfortable taxiing next to buildings
and other aircraft with very little practice.
I weigh 220 lbs and Greg computed that we needed 100 lbs of ballast in the forward
bag compartment (aft of firewall above passenger's feet) to get loaded CG
at .5" forward of arbitrary aft CG limit (greg will have to give you the datum
and the CG range, etc.)
The ship is powered by an A-65 freshly overhauled with a homemade wood prop that
was made using a duplicating machine copying an old Sensenich W72C42 blade
from about 50 years ago.
The motor mount as originally made had TONS of down thrust and TONS of right
thrust welded into it: like 1" in each direction over the length of the crank.
The angle would be arctan(1/24) . This looked so far out that spools were fabricated
and used to shim the motor back until it had "a little" right thrust
and "a little" down thrust.
On takeoff, a pronounced and uncomfortable tendency to turn left was observed
which required a constant input of 1/2 right rudder at cruise settings and 3/4
right rudder at full power and climb speed. To let up on the rudder would
invite a rapid yaw induced roll to the left. This kept me making almost all the
turns into the rudder (to the right for those of you in Rio Linda). The aircraft
is equipped with the highly calibrated Johnson wind vane type of airspeed
indicator and it showed about 35-40 mph in the climb and about 55-60 flat out.
The engine rpm in a moderate climb was 2100 indicated and the flat out rpm
in level flight was 2220 rpm. The tach has not been calibrated. The rpms sounded
right for 2150 or so in cruise and 2300 rpm (the correct number we want)
level flat out. The left turning tendency is mitigated when power is brought
back to idle. This fact identifies the problem to be a deficiency of right
thrust at the motor mount and/or left offset of the vertical stabiliser. The
aircraft flew well in the 1900 rpm range. I did not feel that much was gained
by running the power up above 2100 rpm.
Anyway, Greg and Dale's initial fix for this vicious left turning tendency will
be first to offest the vertical stabiliser to the left to the maximum degree
we can move it which is about 5/8" at the leading edge of the vertical stab.
This fix will be instituted prior to the next flight. Then the spool spacer
on the motor mount will be adjusted to take out the rest of the left turning
tendency that we find remaining. Those of you still building, plan to allow for
adjustment at the vertical stabiliser leading edge, a little to the right and
a whole lot to the left.
The A-65 equipped Piet is said to have increased vertical surface forward of
the CG which offsets vertical surface aft of the CG. This is destabilizing in
the vertical axis and appeares to be present with the aircraft reluctant to return
to straight ahead after a yaw is induced. I will investigate this characteristic
after the aircraf tis trimmed for hands and feet free flight. I would
recommend that future Piet builders who plan to use an A-65 increase the size
of their vertical stabilizer to help offset the increased vertical area forward
of the CG with the A-65 installations. A little extra way aft has quite
an effect.....
Another tendency the ship displayed was a severe nosedropping tendency. This
required a tiring constant pull on the stick of more than 6 lbs or so. Lettin
go of the stick would hang me on the straps as the nose pitched over.
This could be attributed to engine downthrust or to aerodynamics and needed further
investigation. I found that the pull on the stick was independent of thrust
produced. It is an aerodynamic issue that needs to be cured by either lowering
the leading edge of the horizontal stabiliser or raising its trailing
edge. This is difficult to do in practise as the Vi Kapler rudder hinges are
reluctant to move up or down the rudder spar. Again, current builders, allow
for the ability to raise or lower the leading edge of the horizontal stab by using
shims at the forward attach point only. You may also need a space to exist
between the bottom of the vertical stabilser and the centerline of the horizontal
stab to allow for a slot where vertical positioning of the horizontal
stab can be made. Just give some thought as to how you will allow the leading
edge to be raised or lowered 1/2" or maybe even more after the ship is asssembled.
Knowing that we had 100 lbs of ballast in the forward bag compartment, we removed
40 lbs of it and that relieved maybe 1/4 of the 6 lb pull on the stick.
Greg was concerned that would put the ship aft of the arbitrary CG aft limit.
However, poweroff stalls were performed both with 100 lbs and 60 lbs of ballast
and in both cases the ship had no difficulty in lowering the nose to unstalled
flight upon the slightest easing of aft stick pressure. When the stick was
held full aft, gingerly use of the rudder could hold the ship in a falling leaf
but you had to stay right on it with a good horizon.
There was also a left wing heaviness that was mostly mitigated by shortening
the left front strut by 1-1/2 turns and lengthening the right front strut by the
same amount.
As test flights go, the ship was moderately difficult to fly as it needed continuous
substantial input in all three axes, gobs of right rudder, a lot of aft
stick, and a bit of right stick. I tried taking pictures but gave up after
three because I could not take pictures and fly at the same time.
We will work through each item until the ship flies properly. Ideas, comments,
and insights are welcome.
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
The Copyright has long run out on the Aircamper. Note there is on copyright
on the magizines the EAA puts out. Anyone can sale them for what they can.
Thats how someone can share them. Now new work is another story.
Howdy
________________________________________________________________________________
;
| From: | Galen Hutcheson <wacopitts(at)yahoo.com> |
Dave, I'm still in the process of testing (need more
weights to complete the tests). My wings will have a
5' span between struts (2-bay biplane-JN-4 design). I
made an "A" frame with the 5' section being the cross
member and just started attaching weights to the
center point (CG) of the spar. Up to 100lbs and no
problems. I will test them in sheer (flat side down)
to test the drag/anti-drag strength. The weights I'm
using came from a weight machine I bought salvage from
our local metal scrap yard. I attach a 1/8" cable to
the center of the spar/beam with a braided loop on
both ends and hang the weights with a "come-along".
The weights have a piece of cable threaded through
them to hold them together. These type weights give
me a fairly accurate measurement of the amount of
weight I am using. The Piet spars are longer spans,
but you should be able to test them the same way.
Best wishes,
Doc
--- Dave Esslinger wrote:
> Doc, Thanks for the info. I'm leaning toward the
> built up spar you
> described. I know that's how they build them in the
> Quickie's. How did you
> do your testing?
> Dave
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > browse
> > Subscriptions page,
> > FAQ,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> mobile phone.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
> =========================e the es Day
> -->
>
======================================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> i copyed the plans and they look pretty good they
> will cost you 11 dollars
> if you want a set ,my address is rt2 box 263
> cleveland oklahoma 74020
> ---
> (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Date: 2/14/2005
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
NX18235 is displaying a significant nose-down pitching tendency. Approximately
6 pounds of aft stick force is required to maintain level flight.
Has anyone corrected a pitching tendency by simply adjusting the forward stabilizer
bracing cables?
Shimming the stabilizer at this point in the game would require a significant amount
of work.
Greg Cardinal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TRichmo9(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Pitch Trimming |
In a message dated 5/25/05 9:43:19 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com writes:
NX18235 is displaying a significant nose-down pitching tendency.
Approximately 6 pounds of aft stick force is required to maintain level flight.
Has anyone corrected a pitching tendency by simply adjusting the forward
stabilizer bracing cables?
Shimming the stabilizer at this point in the game would require a
significant amount of work.
Greg Cardinal
greg i think the work on your plane is awsome the seats are a work of art
and the wood work is top notch . tom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gene Hubbard <enhubbard(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pitch Trimming |
Another standard approach is to put a fixed trim tab on the elevator.
Bend the tab down to make the elevator go up and relieve the stick
force. I'm not sure I could deal with the aesthetics of a warped
stabilizer. But that might just be me. I wonder how much it would take...
Gene
gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com wrote:
> NX18235 is displaying a significant nose-down pitching tendency.
> Approximately 6 pounds of aft stick force is required to maintain
> level flight.
> Has anyone corrected a pitching tendency by simply adjusting the
> forward stabilizer bracing cables?
>
> Shimming the stabilizer at this point in the game would require a
> significant amount of work.
>
> Greg Cardinal
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pitch Trimming |
In a message dated 5/25/2005 9:43:19 PM Central Standard Time,
gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com writes:
NX18235 is displaying a significant nose-down pitching tendency.
Approximately 6 pounds of aft stick force is required to maintain level flight.
Has anyone corrected a pitching tendency by simply adjusting the forward
stabilizer bracing cables?
Shimming the stabilizer at this point in the game would require a significant
amount of work.
Greg Cardinal
Greg,
A big Congratulations to you and Dale for the completion of your plane !!
And Chris B. for doing the first flights, with a very informative report of
the first flights.
Adjusting the leading edge of the horiz stab down, does indeed help the
nose down pitch tendency. I adjusted mine down on three different occasions,
lengthening the top turnbuckles by 2 turns, and tightening the bottom ones by
2 turns. Each time it helped, but didn't cure it. Standing in front of the
plane, you could see the leading edge of the stab, how it curved down on each
side. I finally added a fixed trim tab on the elevators (flippers). I made
it from balsa wood, blending the trailing edge of the flippers into the trim
tabs. Each is about 5" long, and have a chord of about 2" and angled down about
10=BA. Initially, I tested the positon of the trim tab holding it on with duct
tape. When I was satisfied with the placement, I used fabric & paint for the
final install. With these trim tabs, I was able to remove all the leading
edge down adjustments of the horiz stab, and now the stab is straight. I could
take some pictures of it if you're interested.
I believe some of the pitch down tendency when you pull power, can be
attributed to the drag of the landing gear. Does it climb with full power,=20and
no back pressure on the stick ? I would also suggest you check the symatry
again, as well as wing washout - doesn't take much time.
Chuck Gantzer
Wichita KS
NX770CG
Short Fuselage, Continental A65, engine mount with 1/8" right thrust and
plans amount of down thrust - built 8" longer than plans (with heavier wall
tubing), no ballast, no vertical stab offset, 630 lbs. empty weight. I weigh
210
lbs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pitch Trimming |
Chuck,
It requires the same back pressure on the stick whether power at full or at idle
and at all airspeeds (hi and low alpha), both with full or idle power. In other
words, the pitchdown tendency is independent of the power and the angle of
attack of the wing.
Greg and Dick Navratil had a conference call this evening and we determined that
we are operation at very close to the same CG which is about 19-20" aft of the
leading edge of the wing. What about with your ship?
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 11:57 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pitch Trimming
In a message dated 5/25/2005 9:43:19 PM Central Standard Time, gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com
writes:
NX18235 is displaying a significant nose-down pitching tendency. Approximately
6 pounds of aft stick force is required to maintain level flight.
Has anyone corrected a pitching tendency by simply adjusting the forward stabilizer
bracing cables?
Shimming the stabilizer at this point in the game would require a significant
amount of work.
Greg Cardinal
Greg,
A big Congratulations to you and Dale for the completion of your plane !!
And Chris B. for doing the first flights, with a very informative report of the
first flights.
Adjusting the leading edge of the horiz stab down, does indeed help the
nose down pitch tendency. I adjusted mine down on three different occasions,
lengthening the top turnbuckles by 2 turns, and tightening the bottom ones by
2 turns. Each time it helped, but didn't cure it. Standing in front of the
plane, you could see the leading edge of the stab, how it curved down on each
side. I finally added a fixed trim tab on the elevators (flippers). I made it
from balsa wood, blending the trailing edge of the flippers into the trim tabs.
Each is about 5" long, and have a chord of about 2" and angled down about
10=BA. Initially, I tested the positon of the trim tab holding it on with duct
tape. When I was satisfied with the placement, I used fabric & paint for the
final install. With these trim tabs, I was able to remove all the leading
edge down adjustments of the horiz stab, and now the stab is straight. I could
take some pictures of it if you're interested.
I believe some of the pitch down tendency when you pull power, can be attributed
to the drag of the landing gear. Does it climb with full power, and no
back pressure on the stick ? I would also suggest you check the symatry again,
as well as wing washout - doesn't take much time.
Chuck Gantzer
Wichita KS
NX770CG
Short Fuselage, Continental A65, engine mount with 1/8" right thrust and plans
amount of down thrust - built 8" longer than plans (with heavier wall tubing),
no ballast, no vertical stab offset, 630 lbs. empty weight. I weigh 210
lbs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
Play with this for a while boys;
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/Part5/Standards/549/sub-b.htm#549.109
Also in combo with 111 right below it.
The Vimy is now in Toronto! Now that's one huge Pietenpol!
Clif, controls almost done;
http://clifdawson.ca/Pietenpol4.html
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, half as much worth doing
as simply messing about in airplanes! ( Wind In The Willows )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FTLovley(at)AOL.COM |
| Subject: | Re: Pitch Trimming |
Chris...be really carefull while flying a Continental powered Pietenpol with
its extra forward side area while having a CG at 20 inches aft of the leading
edge. It will probably fly just fine, but if you spin it , you will be in
deep do-do. They are even worse if the landing gear V's are covered with fabric,
increasing the forward area. Also, be careful slipping the airplane close to
the ground, as they can sometimes take extra time to recover. I've been away
from the Piets for a while, but my memory is still good, and I learned some
of this stuff the hard way. I had 1000 hours in Pietenpols before I was old
enough to vote, but that was back when I was bullet proof and invisible. Fly
Safe...
Forrest Lovley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | flying at 19 or 20" of aft CG |
Starts getting light in the nose at about 20" aft CG and I have to hold
forward
stick at 21". The stab should be in line with the top longerons. You
should not
have to mess with that. Something doesn't add up.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | flying at 19 or 20" of aft CG |
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip(at)alarismed.com> |
I agree with you, Mike. My Piet has the long fuselage, 65 Continental,
wire wheels. At CG 20" aft of the LE, I have to hold a little forward
stick, even with full nose down trim. I will shim the leading edge of
the stabilizer up a little more when I finish the rebuild.
Jack Phillips
-----Original Message-----
Starts getting light in the nose at about 20" aft CG and I have to
hold
forward
stick at 21". The stab should be in line with the top longerons. You
should not
have to mess with that. Something doesn't add up.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net> |
| Subject: | Re: flying at 19 or 20" of aft CG |
Flying on the back edge of CG limit is an invitation to a tail heavy
(non-recoverable) stall. Most everyone should have to hold a little nose
down/stick forward pressure at 20" aft loaded CG, but if normally operating
in the back side of the CG envelope while still below gross limit, I think
any builder should consider moving around some heavy stuff inside the plane
to get their loaded CG forward to 15"-17" aft of LE wing.. It's common in
a lot of other homebuilts to build a "pocket" somewhere forward or aft to
hold extra bags of lead shot. The pilot determines when they need to add
more shot when flying alone or with a non-standard load. All Longezes,
Variezes and Cozys have a pocket in the nose to add lead shot so a
lightweight pilot cannot get into a tail heavy (repeat repeat
NON-RECOVERABLE) stall.
Gordon Bowen -Homer Alaska
Cozy IV N64CY
Osprey II N64SY
Pietenpol N-1033B
" But such is the constitution of my mind I cannot avoid forming an
opinion", John Adams
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip(at)alarismed.com>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: flying at 19 or 20" of aft CG
>
> I agree with you, Mike. My Piet has the long fuselage, 65 Continental,
> wire wheels. At CG 20" aft of the LE, I have to hold a little forward
> stick, even with full nose down trim. I will shim the leading edge of
> the stabilizer up a little more when I finish the rebuild.
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
> Starts getting light in the nose at about 20" aft CG and I have to
> hold
> forward
> stick at 21". The stab should be in line with the top longerons. You
>
> should not
> have to mess with that. Something doesn't add up.
>
> Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | flying at 19 or 20" of aft CG |
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip(at)alarismed.com> |
I agree Gordon. However, extensive stalls (I have not spun it, yet)
show the plane recovers quickly and easily. I have read that
undercambered wings like the Pietenpol can be flown at further aft cg's
than more "normal" airfoils. My centersection fuel tank does not change
the CG much as fuel burns off, but what change there is tends to move
the CG forward. I don't think a pilot that weighs more than my 200 lbs
should fly it without adding ballast in the baggage compartment.
After the rebuild the CG situation should be much improved. My new axle
is 8 lbs heavier than the original, and I am using the BHP coil spring
tailwheel design in place of the leafspring type I had before, which
saves a whopping 1-1/2 lbs at the tail. Both should help shift the CG
forward a bit.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gordon
Bowen
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: flying at 19 or 20" of aft CG
Flying on the back edge of CG limit is an invitation to a tail heavy
(non-recoverable) stall. Most everyone should have to hold a little
nose
down/stick forward pressure at 20" aft loaded CG, but if normally
operating
in the back side of the CG envelope while still below gross limit, I
think
any builder should consider moving around some heavy stuff inside the
plane
to get their loaded CG forward to 15"-17" aft of LE wing.. It's common
in
a lot of other homebuilts to build a "pocket" somewhere forward or aft
to
hold extra bags of lead shot. The pilot determines when they need to
add
more shot when flying alone or with a non-standard load. All Longezes,
Variezes and Cozys have a pocket in the nose to add lead shot so a
lightweight pilot cannot get into a tail heavy (repeat repeat
NON-RECOVERABLE) stall.
Gordon Bowen -Homer Alaska
Cozy IV N64CY
Osprey II N64SY
Pietenpol N-1033B
" But such is the constitution of my mind I cannot avoid forming an
opinion", John Adams
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip(at)alarismed.com>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: flying at 19 or 20" of aft CG
>
> I agree with you, Mike. My Piet has the long fuselage, 65
Continental,
> wire wheels. At CG 20" aft of the LE, I have to hold a little forward
> stick, even with full nose down trim. I will shim the leading edge of
> the stabilizer up a little more when I finish the rebuild.
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
> Starts getting light in the nose at about 20" aft CG and I have to
> hold
> forward
> stick at 21". The stab should be in line with the top longerons.
You
>
> should not
> have to mess with that. Something doesn't add up.
>
> Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Dave asked-
>How did you do your testing?
There is another (simple) methodology on my website, at
http://www.flysquirrel.net/wing/spartest.html
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GCARDINAL(at)mn.rr.com |
| Subject: | Re: Pitch Trimming |
Chuck,
Changing power does not affect the nose down tendency. It is something
aerodynamic.
Please send picture of your trim tab.
Thanks, Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 11:57 pm
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pitch Trimming
> Adjusting the leading edge of the horiz stab down, does
> indeed help the
> nose down pitch tendency. I adjusted mine down on three different
> occasions,
> lengthening the top turnbuckles by 2 turns, and tightening the
> bottom ones by
> 2 turns. Each time it helped, but didn't cure it. Standing in
> front of the
> plane, you could see the leading edge of the stab, how it curved
> down on each
> side. I finally added a fixed trim tab on the elevators
> (flippers). I made
> it from balsa wood, blending the trailing edge of the flippers
> into the trim
> tabs. Each is about 5" long, and have a chord of about 2" and
> angled down about
> 10. Initially, I tested the positon of the trim tab holding it
> on with duct
> tape. When I was satisfied with the placement, I used fabric &
> paint for the
> final install. With these trim tabs, I was able to remove all the
> leading
> edge down adjustments of the horiz stab, and now the stab is
> straight. I could
> take some pictures of it if you're interested.
> I believe some of the pitch down tendency when you pull power,
> can be
> attributed to the drag of the landing gear. Does it climb with
> full power, and
> no back pressure on the stick ? I would also suggest you check
> the symatry
> again, as well as wing washout - doesn't take much time.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed G." <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pitch Trimming |
Hi Everyone...If my waneing memory serves me right Corky posted that on his
test flights that he had to twist the leading edge of his Stabilizer down
three times until he cured his nose down tendency...Now Greg is haveing a
similar problem and Chuck comes back and says that he had to add a trim tab
for the same reason...I havent installed my lower rudder hinge yet so there
is still time to ask a question that I really struggled with when building
my Horiz. Stab....I built my stab. with the center line parralell to the
upper longerons because that is what some trusted people on the list said it
should be...Reading the plans carefully shows that the leading edge should
be up more than 1/16" beacuse; The trailing edge member is 1" thick and the
narrow section where the 3/16" plywood sits is 5/8" ( the plywood sits flush
with the 1")...The center beam is 3/4" thick with 3/16" ply top and bottom;
3/4' + 3/16"+ 3/16" = 1 1/8" ....Divideing by two to get the center line =
9/16" at the center beam and 1/2' at the trailing edge. this would put the
center beam's C/L 1/16" higher than the trailing edge and the leading edge
slightly higher yet...Sooo...if you build to the plans the the stabilizer's
C/L is NOT parallel to the upper longeron but raised at the front...So my
question is; Did Corky, Chuck and Greg build theirs to the plans or did they
build them parallel to the longerons?? This will help those of us who are
still building get a better idea of what the incidence should be...If theirs
were parallel maybe we should build in adjustments to drop ours even more if
needed and if they built theirs to the plans we might be okay....
thanks in advance...Ed Grentzer assembleing
my engine and fuel system
>From: GCARDINAL(at)mn.rr.com
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pitch Trimming
>Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 15:54:40 -0500
>
>
>Chuck,
>Changing power does not affect the nose down tendency. It is something
>aerodynamic.
>Please send picture of your trim tab.
>
>Thanks, Greg
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
>Date: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 11:57 pm
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pitch Trimming
> > Adjusting the leading edge of the horiz stab down, does
> > indeed help the
> > nose down pitch tendency. I adjusted mine down on three different
> > occasions,
> > lengthening the top turnbuckles by 2 turns, and tightening the
> > bottom ones by
> > 2 turns. Each time it helped, but didn't cure it. Standing in
> > front of the
> > plane, you could see the leading edge of the stab, how it curved
> > down on each
> > side. I finally added a fixed trim tab on the elevators
> > (flippers). I made
> > it from balsa wood, blending the trailing edge of the flippers
> > into the trim
> > tabs. Each is about 5" long, and have a chord of about 2" and
> > angled down about
> > 10. Initially, I tested the positon of the trim tab holding it
> > on with duct
> > tape. When I was satisfied with the placement, I used fabric &
> > paint for the
> > final install. With these trim tabs, I was able to remove all the
> > leading
> > edge down adjustments of the horiz stab, and now the stab is
> > straight. I could
> > take some pictures of it if you're interested.
> > I believe some of the pitch down tendency when you pull power,
> > can be
> > attributed to the drag of the landing gear. Does it climb with
> > full power, and
> > no back pressure on the stick ? I would also suggest you check
> > the symatry
> > again, as well as wing washout - doesn't take much time.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pitch Trimming |
It seems to me you have some aerodynamic stuff going on here. I have to
assume Greg & Dale built the fwd cabane struts 1" longer than the aft ones.=20
This sets the wing at approximately 3=BA positive incidence. That's according
to
plans...no matter if they are all lengthened a couple of inches. However, if
there is a great deal of washout in both wings, this will cause a nose down
tendency. Also, if the wing is not square with the fuse, it will cause a roll
tendency, especially with too much washout...that's why I suggested
re-checking symmetry and washout. Rig the wing by measuring from the exact=20same
spot of
each wing tip, to a point in the center of the fuselage (aft edge of turtle
deck), just ahead of the leading edge of the horiz / vert stab. Make a dot
with a sharpie pen, to measure to. In fact, I do it from two different points
on
the wing - one at the outboard trailing edge of the wing, ahead of the
aileron, and another time at the inboard end of the aileron, trailing edge of the
wing. Not the aileron, but the wing. Two people with a tape measure stretched
tight, and it only takes a couple of minutes. Record your measurements on the
sketch of a plan view of the plane. To check for washout, level the
longerons for & aft and left & right, and use a 4 foot level (confirm the level
reads
the same both sides up) at a point on the bottom of the rib, just outboard of
the cabane struts. Note the gap at the fwd end of the level. Measure again
at the lift strut attachment, then again at the tip rib. Record all these
measurements. Very little washout is all you need - maybe 1/8" at the very=20most.
Just so you err on the side of washout, and it's the same amount on both
sides. Sit down and study the measurements. If you have to change the symmetry,
it will change the washout also. You will have to loosen all the lift strut
bolts, cabane strut bolts, and jury strut bolts to change the symmetry. Then
you have to re-check and re-adjust the washout. Record every measurement, date
& time, you take. I think your gremlins are in the rigging. Check it all,
and chase 'em out !!
The other things that inherently cause nose down pitch is the pendulum
effect of parasitic drag, the negative pitching moment of an undercambered
airfoil, and the actual mass of the flippers being behind the hinge line.
Adjusting the leading edge of the stab down maybe 2 or 3 turns on the
turnbuckles, and go fly. You can even raise the trailing edge up about one=20or
two turns on the turnbuckles. This is an effective method to trim the nose=20up,
but you need to use small increments between flights.
How far back is the wing from vertical ? I think you should take
advantage of the unique design feature of the Pietenpol, in that you can move your
wing aft, to bring the CG forward to a safer range. It would likely require
making some new cables, but re-terminate the long ones, to use them on the short
side. Like others have said to guard against an aft CG...it just simply
gives me the Hiebie Jiebies !!
Adding ballast also gives me the Hiebie Jiebies - that's why I made the
engine mount on my plane so long. My wing is 3 1/2" aft of vertical, and with
my 210 - 215 lbs. of fat butt in there, the C.G. is just under 20" aft of
Leading Edge of the wing, even with Zero fuel in both tanks. The Hard Line, No
More Aft C.G. is 20" aft of Leading Edge - No Excuses !!
Adding ballast in the front seat does very little to effect the CG. I
doubt if 100 lbs would move it more than 1/8" forward. If you can't possibly
move the wing aft, and you don't want to build a new engine mount, cowling,=20and
everything else, here is one suggestion:
Cast a couple of long Lead ingots (using shotgun shot) to fit the outer
diameter of the lower tubes on the engine mount. Use thin rubber strips to=20isolate
them from the steel tubes, and isolate some type of clamp, to keep from
scratching the paint off the engine mount. This could possibly even reduce=20the
vibration of the engine from being transmitted to the fuselage. Another option
is using a metal prop.
Greg - I'll get a couple of low resolution pictures of my trim tabs
tomorrow, and post them to the group. I'm very satisfied with these trim tabs,
because they work well holding the nose up aerodynamically, as opposed to a=20bunji
chord method of pulling on the top elevator cable. And like I said, I was
able to re-adjust the horizontal stabilizer back to neutral and flat. I
couldn't shim the aft edge of the horizontal stab up, because my ship was complete
and flying, and I already had the lower rudder hinge located.
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
I spent 45 minutes playing in the pattern this evening, shooting
landings. I used an abbreviated pattern, but still got up to over 600' agl=20on
downwind, turn base early, pull power to 1500 and let the nose drop to maintain
65
mph. On base leg, I pull power almost all the way to idle and slip it down=20past
the cones at the beginning of the runway to about 10', but I maintained above
65 mph the whole way down. Very steep decent. My landing gear Vee's are NOT
covered. Easily comes out of the slip, align right up with the runway, and
it bleeds of speed like she had a drag chute !! Before anyone ever tries this
so close to the ground, you need a properly rigged ship, and become VERY
familiar with your ship at 2500 or 3000 agl.
I was also practicing a unique takeoff. Clear the runway, hold brakes
tight, full power, smoke ON, lots of forward stick, lift the tail off the ground
before beginning to roll, drag the brakes for the first 50 feet so the tail
wouldn't come back down, then let 'er go !! Ya can't practice this one from
2500' agl :)
Two hot air balloons took off about 100 feet from my hanger.
What an Excellent evening !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Gene's seat belt attach advice |
Thank you Mike. I like the idea of not drilling a 5/16" hole through the
bottom longerons.
Rick H
On 6/25/05, Michael D Cuy wrote:
>
> Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
>
> Rick---though you've already gotten some very good input on your question,
> if it is any comfort, I did my attach
> anchor method just like Gene Hubbard although used a poplar wood block
> about 2"x 3" glued above the lower longeron
> with 1/8" piece of ply glued over that block and the longeron, drilled
> thru
> and anchored the JC Whitney airline-type buckles
> to that. I can tell you that after encountering severe hot weather
> turbulence around Chicago enroute to Wisconsin
> that they held me fine thru what I'm sure was negative g turbulence. The
> only problem I really had was keeping my
> hand gripped to the stick. Solution---just grab the stick a little lower:)
>
> Mike C.
>
>
>
>
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | UPDATE - don't grab your hot exhaust! |
great news!! my hand has healed faster than you can believe!! It's simply amazing.
I have full range of motion and am able to use my hand about 90% to it's
capacity. It's only been a little under a week.
The key to it all is the burn cream the hospital gave me. Amazing stuff! My blisters
shrunk up and were almost non-existant by yesterday. I still have no feeling
in the affected area but overall it's looking very good. I was off the
pain killers the 2nd day. (good too cause now I have some extras )
I'm so relieved because the thought of not being able to use my right hand for
a couple weeks was killing me.
DJ (yeehaw) Vegh
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: UPDATE - don't grab your hot exhaust! |
Sure would like to know the name of that cream.
It's good to hear of your speedy recovery.
Corky
________________________________________________________________________________
;
| From: | Matt Keyes <keyesmp(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 24 Msgs - 05/25/05 |
Everyone,
What are the dates on the Brodhead Fly-In this year. I need to make sure I requested
the right days off work.
Thanks,
Matt Keyes
Richland Center, WI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pitch Trimming |
thanks forrest.
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: <FTLovley(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pitch Trimming
>
> Chris...be really carefull while flying a Continental powered Pietenpol
with
> its extra forward side area while having a CG at 20 inches aft of the
leading
> edge. It will probably fly just fine, but if you spin it , you will be in
> deep do-do. They are even worse if the landing gear V's are covered with
fabric,
> increasing the forward area. Also, be careful slipping the airplane close
to
> the ground, as they can sometimes take extra time to recover. I've been
away
> from the Piets for a while, but my memory is still good, and I learned
some
> of this stuff the hard way. I had 1000 hours in Pietenpols before I was
old
> enough to vote, but that was back when I was bullet proof and invisible.
Fly
> Safe...
> Forrest Lovley
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UPDATE - don't grab your hot exhaust! |
silver sulfadiazine (aka Silvadene) It works wonders!!! if any of you ever
get a burn, go see your doc and have him/her give you the stuff.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: UPDATE - don't grab your hot exhaust!
Sure would like to know the name of that cream.
It's good to hear of your speedy recovery.
Corky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gene Hubbard <enhubbard(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rear lower seatbelt attach advice |
You will be--just keep plugging away at it. I made a battery box this
evening and attached it. I have a list of things to do before covering,
but I keep adding to it...
Gene
Rick Holland wrote:
> Thanks Gene, wish I was as far along as you so I could worry about
> electrical stuff.
>
> Rick H
>
>
> --
> Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
Any reason, other than cost, not to buy the 3/4 width spruce spars from
Aircraft Spruce and make your ribs accordingly?
Ken in Austin, slowly building the turtle deck and instrument panels.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Oscar Zuniga
Subject: Pietenpol-List: spar testing
Dave asked-
>How did you do your testing?
There is another (simple) methodology on my website, at
http://www.flysquirrel.net/wing/spartest.html
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: spar testing |
In a message dated 5/29/2005 9:18:38 PM Central Standard Time,
ken@prototype-ideas.com writes:
Any reason, other than cost, not to buy the 3/4 width spruce spars from
Aircraft Spruce and make your ribs accordingly?
Ken in Austin, slowly building the turtle deck and instrument panels.
Ken,
Quarter sawn Spruce is the preferred type of aircraft wood, and is what all
other types are judged from. Cost is the only reason that alternatives have
been used. If you do use spruce, some of the cost is returned in dividends
through a lighter airframe, and as far as any type of built up spar, time is saved.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wizzard187(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: flying at 19 or 20" of aft CG |
Pieters, I am putting a cont 75 on my piet but am solving the CG problem
with a Beech Roby mechanical verible pitch prop that weighs 27 pounds on
the nose and a WWII centrifical crank starter mounted on the back of my cont
-9 that weighs about 30 pounds. This offsets my 220 pounds in the back
seat. These are goodies that I found in the Aero Mart at Os Gosh. I don't
know if it will all work but sure having fun building it. I bought the
engine 30 years ago for $30.00 off a air boat and hoped they put good engines
on
airboats back then but am now getting the crank and cam reground . So if
you ever see a piet with a maple crank sticking out the side it will probably
be mine. This two year project is going on five. I just turned 70 so got
to hurry.
Ken Conrad is Sunny Iowa
________________________________________________________________________________
;
| From: | Galen Hutcheson <wacopitts(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Aircraft Plywood |
Hi Pieters,
I have an oppertunity to buy 10 sheets (4'X 8') of
3/32" 45 degree mahagony aircraft plywood for a real
bargin. To get the low price I have to buy the whole
10 sheets. I can buy them for $125 per sheet if I buy
all 10. They sell for $194.95 per sheet in Aircraft
Spruce in the catalog I have. I only need 5 sheets
and would like to sell the other sheets at my cost
plus shipping. This is great plywood for box spars or
many other applications. I will have to know if
anyone is interested very soon as the guy who has them
is getting ready to advertise them and I think they
will sell pretty quickly. I have not seen the plywood
as yet, but will go and inspect them if there are any
who interested in buying them. I will need to sell 5
sheets and will cut them if needed to help on shipping
if the buyer wants me to. Please let me know soon.
Thanks.
Doc
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
;
| From: | Galen Hutcheson <wacopitts(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Plywood |
I forgot to mention that when I go and inspect the
plywood, I can take some pics and will email the pics
to anyone interested. I will also try to barter a
even lower price if I can find buyers for the 5 sheets
I don't need. This is a great price on this plywood
and I am excited about finding it. As I stated, I
will sell it for the actual cost of the plywood plus
whatever the shipping costs are (we have UPS and
Fedex). If you are close, then driving here to pick
them up would save by not having to ship. Again,
thanks and happy holiday.
Doc
--- Galen Hutcheson wrote:
> Hutcheson
>
> Hi Pieters,
>
> I have an oppertunity to buy 10 sheets (4'X 8') of
> 3/32" 45 degree mahagony aircraft plywood for a real
> bargin. To get the low price I have to buy the
> whole
> 10 sheets. I can buy them for $125 per sheet if I
> buy
> all 10. They sell for $194.95 per sheet in Aircraft
> Spruce in the catalog I have. I only need 5 sheets
> and would like to sell the other sheets at my cost
> plus shipping. This is great plywood for box spars
> or
> many other applications. I will have to know if
> anyone is interested very soon as the guy who has
> them
> is getting ready to advertise them and I think they
> will sell pretty quickly. I have not seen the
> plywood
> as yet, but will go and inspect them if there are
> any
> who interested in buying them. I will need to sell
> 5
> sheets and will cut them if needed to help on
> shipping
> if the buyer wants me to. Please let me know soon.
> Thanks.
>
> Doc
>
>
>
> __________________________________
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Tailwheel control schemes |
After reading many archive messages about tailwheel control setup it appears
that many people have seen a need to make the tailwheel control less
sensitive than the rudder control. I am assuming I will want this also so I
figure its easier to build it in now that later. Have seen many ingenious
methods to do this but the 'Hanging two tubes off the bellcrank tube' method
in the attached photo seems to be the cleanest I have found so far. And by
placing multiple tabs or holes in the hanging tubes the sensitivity can be
easily changed. (Sorry I don't know the name of the builder to give him
credit).
Opinions?
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, CO
(Density altitude up to 8356 ft. currently, and its not even hot yet!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Removing cadnium coating |
Need to weld a couple AN7 bolt heads to a 4130 strap for my tailwheel
attachment. Other than sanding or wire brushing to remove the cadmium from
the bolts is their anything else I should do to ensure all the cadmuim is
removed. I know it is bad stuff to get hot.
Thanks
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Vought" <carbarvo(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Latex paint for homebuilts |
Can anyone out there advise me on how to contact Kirk Hulzenga? He wrote a paper
on the subject and was referenced in The Winter 2003 SAA (p. 6) but his website
appears to be inactive....Carl Vought
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | tailskid/brakes/asphalt |
I am building a brakeless, skid equipped Piet. But now I'm thinking that sometimes
I might want to be able to use a hardtop runway. I also know this is almost
impossible with a skid, yet i want to do everything I can to save weight back
there.
So my question is this.
what if I put brakes on, but instead of a tailwheel, put a longish
rubber keel on the shoe of the tailskid. Wouldn't this tend to keep the tail straight,
and resist sideskidding as much or more than a tailwheel? I can then
use the brakes and blasting the rudder for steering.
This is all armchair theorizing and I would appreciate any comments from people
who actually have experience to speak from.
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net> |
| Subject: | Re: tailskid/brakes/asphalt |
RE: Brakes in General. On N1033B I have 1941 vintage drum brakes with dual pull
cables on the stick. Been looking at nifty disc brakes and wheels that come
on 2 wheel drive ATV's front axles, has anybody tried these? Suppose one could
find a dead ATV somehere in a junk yard. Secondly, regarding tail wheels,
I've found, if you get off the hard tarmac and taxi in the grass, the tailwheel
assembly is a heck of a good brake, at least in FL sandy grass. With a loaded
wt of about 70 lbs on the tailwheel with my weight in pilot's seat, the little
tailwheel cuts into the grass/sand and requires engine thrust to keep moving.
On hard tarmac, existing brakes do basically nothing. Expect a skid plate
would be like throwing out a sea anchor.
Gordon Bowen
----- Original Message -----
From: Douwe Blumberg
To: pietenpolgroup
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 5:17 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: tailskid/brakes/asphalt
I am building a brakeless, skid equipped Piet. But now I'm thinking that sometimes
I might want to be able to use a hardtop runway. I also know this is almost
impossible with a skid, yet i want to do everything I can to save weight
back there.
So my question is this.
what if I put brakes on, but instead of a tailwheel, put a longish
rubber keel on the shoe of the tailskid. Wouldn't this tend to keep the tail
straight, and resist sideskidding as much or more than a tailwheel? I can then
use the brakes and blasting the rudder for steering.
This is all armchair theorizing and I would appreciate any comments from people
who actually have experience to speak from.
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
;
| From: | Galen Hutcheson <wacopitts(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Plywood |
Chris, I'm in Harrison, Arkansas. That is in the
north part of the state. We are about 30 miles south
of Branson, MO.
Galen
--- Christian Bobka wrote:
> Bobka"
>
> Galen,
>
> Where are you located or where is the wood?
>
> Chris
>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________
> site
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > browse
> > > > Subscriptions page,
> > > > FAQ,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> site
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > browse
> > > Subscriptions page,
> > > FAQ,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: flying at 19 or 20" of aft CG |
Ken,
where in IA are you located?
Chris
Minneapolis
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Wizzard187(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: flying at 19 or 20" of aft CG
Pieters, I am putting a cont 75 on my piet but am solving the CG problem with
a Beech Roby mechanical verible pitch prop that weighs 27 pounds on the
nose and a WWII centrifical crank starter mounted on the back of my cont -9
that weighs about 30 pounds. This offsets my 220 pounds in the back seat.
These are goodies that I found in the Aero Mart at Os Gosh. I don't know if
it will all work but sure having fun building it. I bought the engine 30
years ago for $30.00 off a air boat and hoped they put good engines on airboats
back then but am now getting the crank and cam reground . So if you ever see
a piet with a maple crank sticking out the side it will probably be mine. This
two year project is going on five. I just turned 70 so got to hurry.
Ken Conrad is Sunny Iowa
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Latex paint for homebuilts |
In a message dated 5/30/2005 7:35:42 PM Central Standard Time,
carbarvo(at)knology.net writes:
Can anyone out there advise me on how to contact Kirk Hulzenga?
Carl,
I have a Kirk Huizenga e-mail address at KirkHuizenga(at)Moundsviewschools.com
Him and Bryan Eastep are from St. Paul MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: tailskid/brakes/asphalt |
<00f401c5657f$b0186d50$4ca470d1@defaultcomp>
I would think you'd want a material that would wear reasonably well on gritty
tarmac. Rubber probably wouldn't last long. How about UHMW plastic. That's
Ultra High Molecular Weight polyethylene that comes in sheets and blocks.
http://www.leevalley.com/hardware/page.aspx?c1&p32045&cat3,43576,43581
Or how about a tiny wheel in the middle of the skid. there is a precedent for that
with snow skis that surround the wheel so the plane can be used on snow and
pavement.
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: Gordon Bowen
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: tailskid/brakes/asphalt
RE: Brakes in General. On N1033B I have 1941 vintage drum brakes with dual pull
cables on the stick. Been looking at nifty disc brakes and wheels that come
on 2 wheel drive ATV's front axles, has anybody tried these? Suppose one could
find a dead ATV somehere in a junk yard. Secondly, regarding tail wheels,
I've found, if you get off the hard tarmac and taxi in the grass, the tailwheel
assembly is a heck of a good brake, at least in FL sandy grass. With a loaded
wt of about 70 lbs on the tailwheel with my weight in pilot's seat, the
little tailwheel cuts into the grass/sand and requires engine thrust to keep moving.
On hard tarmac, existing brakes do basically nothing. Expect a skid plate
would be like throwing out a sea anchor.
Gordon Bowen
----- Original Message -----
From: Douwe Blumberg
To: pietenpolgroup
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 5:17 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: tailskid/brakes/asphalt
I am building a brakeless, skid equipped Piet. But now I'm thinking that sometimes
I might want to be able to use a hardtop runway. I also know this is
almost impossible with a skid, yet i want to do everything I can to save weight
back there.
So my question is this.
what if I put brakes on, but instead of a tailwheel, put a longish
rubber keel on the shoe of the tailskid. Wouldn't this tend to keep the tail
straight, and resist sideskidding as much or more than a tailwheel? I can
then use the brakes and blasting the rudder for steering.
This is all armchair theorizing and I would appreciate any comments from people
who actually have experience to speak from.
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 24 Msgs - 05/25/05 |
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip(at)alarismed.com> |
I hope it will be July 23-24, since that is when I will be there
(weather permitting)
Jack Phillips
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Keyes
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 24 Msgs - 05/25/05
Everyone,
What are the dates on the Brodhead Fly-In this year. I need to make
sure I requested the right days off work.
Thanks,
Matt Keyes
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Latex paint for homebuilts |
Carl asks about latex paint (Kirk Huizenga's testing on samples). There are
any number of websites and webpages devoted to different techniques for
using latex paint on fabric. Here's one of many:
http://hammer.prohosting.com/~ragwings/main.html and go to the link that
says "Jerry Bunner's paint method".
One thing I would NOT do, that is mentioned on this page, is to apply "Son
of a Gun" protectant on the paint. Reference Corky's (and others') comments
on the use of silicone products on paint and other surfaces... not a good
idea.
One other latex paint site recommends the use of windshield washer fluid as
a thinner for the latex paint. This fluid contains ammonia and also a small
amount of detergent... and both of those things, along with the Floetrol,
are supposed to help the paint flow into a smooth finish.
The article referenced in the earlier email reached the conclusion that it
is not necessary to use black latex as the first coat for blocking the sun's
UV... just about all the latex house paints of all colors have the same
effect. However, black latex is much easier to cover and hide with lighter
colors than conventional paints if you are dead set on using the black.
Disclaimer: I have no personal experience with these methods or materials.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
Anyone going to Bartlesville this weekend? Chuck? Doc?
I may have time while I'm in Tulsa this weekend to come on up (sure would like
to!)
Doc, if you come over and want to bring the plywood, I can take it back to Dallas
on Sunday if that might save some mileage for someone.
=93Started=94 my tailwheel training this weekend with some dual time in a BT-15
Vultee (WWII trainer). First time with a radial engine and first time in a tailwheel
plane...it was neat.
JM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: tailskid/brakes/asphalt |
In a message dated 5/30/2005 8:02:22 PM Central Standard Time,
douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net writes:
I am building a brakeless, skid equipped Piet. But now I'm thinking that
sometimes I might want to be able to use a hardtop runway. I also know this is
almost impossible with a skid, yet i want to do everything I can to save weight
back there.
So my question is this.
what if I put brakes on, but instead of a tailwheel, put a longish
rubber keel on the shoe of the tailskid. Wouldn't this tend to keep the tail
straight, and resist sideskidding as much or more than a tailwheel? I can
then use the brakes and blasting the rudder for steering.
This is all armchair theorizing and I would appreciate any comments from
people who actually have experience to speak from.
Douwe
Douwe,
Your thoughts on saving weight in the tail are Right On. I originally built
mine with no brakes, and a plans type skid, except made the bottom of the skid
flat steel, without the fin sticking down...that would really gouge the
asphalt. It would be fine, if the plane ONLY used grass. I tried several mods
on
the skid, because it still made tracks in the grass, made marks on the
asphalt...and the scraping noise drowned out the engine !! I once tried a nylon
roller, but it only lasted a couple of flights. It would jam up, and rub a flat
spot. I think a rubber pad, like a piece of an auto tire, wouldn't last
long, and would not resist a cross wind. It still amazes me how well the tail
skid behaves in the grass, yet get it on hard surface and it's like trying to
drive on wet ice, especially without brakes. Even a blast of power could not
overcome a crosswind...and then you're going even faster, too. Several times I
had to let it slow to a stop, pointing in the wrong direction, get out, and
move the tail to the desired direction, climb back in, and try it again !! Oh,
well...it gave the onlookers something to chuckle at !! I then installed
brakes, and could manage it on hard surface, but at a VERY SLOW walking speed.
I
flew 'er to Brodhead & Oshkosh '03 in that configuration. I almost lost it on
several occasions while taxiing, at various airports. On hard surface
landing roll out with the tail down, if there is a crosswind, full rudder
deflection still isn't enough. Then I would stab a brake, and the tail would come
up
and scare the Ba Jiebies out of me !! One time I went off the runway, and
almost took out a light. Now I have good working brakes & tailwheel...problems
solved !!
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
Yesterday did the 'Grand Tour' lap around Wichita !! Over a 2 1/2 hour
flight !! Way cool !! This is my 4th summer flying my plane, and I like 'er more
every time we go up !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Biplane Fly In |
In a message dated 5/31/2005 11:46:16 AM Central Standard Time,
jim_markle(at)mindspring.com writes:
Anyone going to Bartlesville this weekend? Chuck? Doc?
Jim,
I'm glad you let me know about that one !! I'll be there, weather
permitting. Last year, I flew down there and back, for the fall EAA fly in. Well
within Piet Range.
Have fun with your tailwheel training !!
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Latex paint for homebuilts |
Oscar and all,
Dont count on windshield wash solvent to have ammonia in it. I ( my
company) used to manufacture this product and we made it to many different
specifications, depending on seasons and customer specs. The only things
you can count on to be there are water, blue or red dye and some amount of
methenol.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Latex paint for homebuilts
>
>
> Carl asks about latex paint (Kirk Huizenga's testing on samples). There
> are any number of websites and webpages devoted to different techniques
> for using latex paint on fabric. Here's one of many:
>
> http://hammer.prohosting.com/~ragwings/main.html and go to the link that
> says "Jerry Bunner's paint method".
>
> One thing I would NOT do, that is mentioned on this page, is to apply "Son
> of a Gun" protectant on the paint. Reference Corky's (and others')
> comments on the use of silicone products on paint and other surfaces...
> not a good idea.
>
> One other latex paint site recommends the use of windshield washer fluid
> as a thinner for the latex paint. This fluid contains ammonia and also a
> small amount of detergent... and both of those things, along with the
> Floetrol, are supposed to help the paint flow into a smooth finish.
>
> The article referenced in the earlier email reached the conclusion that it
> is not necessary to use black latex as the first coat for blocking the
> sun's UV... just about all the latex house paints of all colors have the
> same effect. However, black latex is much easier to cover and hide with
> lighter colors than conventional paints if you are dead set on using the
> black.
>
> Disclaimer: I have no personal experience with these methods or materials.
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
I just got my copy of June 2005 Sport Aviation today and found a letter in the
Members Forum, pages 71-72, titled Are Grass Routes Dead. I think is well worth
reading. It goes back to the discussion a few weeks ago on EAA. There is
also a very good response by Scott Spangler, the mag editor.
Dick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
"Paul Shenton" ,
"Pete Gavin" ,
"Flitzer"
| Subject: | Second Pilot report |
There is a lot of good news to report on Greg and Dale's Pietenpol. This past
weekend, we took Chuck Gantzer's and other folks' from around the world advice
and changed the attack angle of the stabiliser by loosening up the front top
turnbuckles by two turns and tightening the two lower front turnbuckles two turns.
This had the effect of increasing the attack angle of the stabiliser making
it more agressive in holding the nose up. At 2000 rpm or so, the pitch is
now in trim in level cruising flight with no forward or aft pressure required
to hold a constant altitude/attitude. At cruising speed, if you increase the
power above 2000 rpm, the nose goes up. If you pull the power to an amount less
than 2000 rpm, the nose will drop. It is obvious from this that the center
of thrust is not colocated with the center of drag, the C of T being below the
C of D.
I identify this as a negative side effect of lengthening the cabane struts and
adding dihedral. The induced and parasitic drag of the wing is a large component
of the total drag of the ship. As the wing is moved higher and higher above
the fuselage, it moves the center of drag up. We are trying to move the C
of T and the C of D closer together, not farther apart. Ideally, they would be
colocated. I would recommend that if you plan to raise the wing an inch or
more from stock location, then raise the thrust line by a like amount to keep
the C of D and C of T relationship intact.
I have recommended to Dale and Greg that they remove the dihedral to help lower
the center of drag. If the tips are 2" higher than the root, it has the undesireable
effect of raising the wing an average of yet another inch.
As for power setting in cruise, the airplane seems to be very comfortable at 2000
rpm.
The way the power setting effects pitch could be worrisome for a first time flyer
as a departure stall could easily occur unless briefed of the phenomenon ahead
of time. You could "fly the ship off the ground" only to experience a nose
up movement due to the low thrust line that could put you right into a low altitude
stall. Dick Navratil warned me of this as it has bitten him more than
once but he also said that once you know what to do, it is easy to handle, and
that is what I have found. I fly the initial climb out right where the red
turns to white on the Johnson airspeen indicator. This is backed up by the site
picture of the top of the J-3 style eyebrows being held right on the horizon.
At 2000 rpm, right rudder pedal deflection of about 1/2" to 1" is still required
to hold the ball centered. A little left wing heaviness was still being experienced
early in the day. In addition, it also seemed that whenever a upward
vertical gust was encountered, it was always the right wing that raised up and
not the left. Over the course of the day, the right rear strut was lengthened
a total of two turns on top of adjustments made the previous weekend.
After the above adjustments to the stabiliser and the wing strut, if power is removed
to about 13-1500 rpm in order to approximate a zero thrust glide, and with
hands off the stick, the nose will drop and stay dropped as speed is gained.
It does not appear to try to recover or raise the nose without adding power
to get some thrust acting to pitch the nose up. This is at least to the speed
that I have tested it to which is 80 mph as indicated on the Johnson airspeed
indicator. In addition, with power at this 13-1500 rpm setting, the aircraft
would not need any rudder input nor would it need any roll input. I am pretty
sure that the wing heaviness is now fully corrected. It is difficult to
separate rudder and roll inputs as they are so related but I think that doing
the neutral thrust glides helps to iron this out.
We have taken all the shims out of the motor mount on its right side but it is
apparent that we still need more right thrust to get rid of the remaining right
rudder that must be held at cruise. The next change to be made will be to add
1/8" shims at top left and bottom left. We are almost to the point where the
cowling does not fit anymore! Believe me when they tell you how much right
thrust you need. It will be a lot!
I also tried a few power-on (2000 rpm) and -off (idle) full rudder side slips while
at altitude to see how the ship would recover. Initial recovery technique
was by removing my foot completely from the fully displaced rudder. She would
slowly return to normal attitude and would positively do so. Of course, this
is still tainted in the power-on condition by the need for yet more right
thrust. As Forrest said, she may be loathe to recover briskly unless postive
input is made. Power-on recovery was a lot better than power-off. She has so
much drag on final that pulling the power to idle and pointing agressively down
will give a good rate of descent at a constant airspeed so slips to landing
should not be often necessary.
The final item to mention is that the motor feels like it is trying to tumble a
bunch of rocks in a rock tumbler. The ship sports a homemade propeller that
Dale made. The prop is copied from an old Sensenich 7242 prop and turns 2200
rpm flat out level. I have a spare Sensenich W70DK-42 with only 20 hours on it
since new about 4 years ago that we will try out. This will enable us to determine
whether the homemade prop is out of balance and whether it should be reshaped
to get more RPM. Like his nose bowl, the leading edge on Dale's creation
is rather blunt. Rounding the leading edge more may give us the needed 100
rpm to make rated power. The W70DK42 propeller is normally used on an A-75
powered Taylorcraft. I have a few other props to try out and once the best is
found, we will have Dale consider another winter prop project.
Total time now is 6:28 up from 3:40 the previous week.
Flitzer los!
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
"Flitzer" ,
"Pete Gavin" ,
"Paul Shenton"
| Subject: | Second Flight Report Addendum |
As an addendum, I would like to add that the ship is still being flown with 60
lbs ballast in the aft of the firewall baggage compartment which puts the C of
G at 19.5" aft of the LE versus an aftmost universily accepted limit of 20".
Weather conditions were perfect: light and variable winds with 75 degree sunshine
and good thermal activity.
Flitzer los!
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
Dick, What is a Grass Route?
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 11:40 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: EAA
I just got my copy of June 2005 Sport Aviation today and found a letter in the
Members Forum, pages 71-72, titled Are Grass Routes Dead. I think is well
worth reading. It goes back to the discussion a few weeks ago on EAA. There
is also a very good response by Scott Spangler, the mag editor.
Dick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | flight testing Greg/Dale's plane |
Chris wrote-
>changed the attack angle of the stabiliser by loosening up the front top
>turnbuckles by two turns and tightening the two lower front turnbuckles
>two turns. This had the effect of increasing the attack angle of the
>stabiliser
>making it more agressive in holding the nose up.
Wait. Wouldn't this *lower* the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer?
That would indeed have the effect of making the nose go up.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: flight testing Greg/Dale's plane |
The stabilizer is already pushing down so
lowering the LE would, indeed,
change the angle of incidence and increase
the angle of attack.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: flight testing
Greg/Dale's plane
> "Oscar Zuniga"
>
> Chris wrote-
>
>>changed the attack angle of the stabiliser
>>by loosening up the front top
>>turnbuckles by two turns and tightening the
>>two lower front turnbuckles
>>two turns. This had the effect of
>>increasing the attack angle of the
>>stabiliser
>>making it more agressive in holding the
>>nose up.
>
> Wait. Wouldn't this *lower* the leading
> edge of the horizontal stabilizer? That
> would indeed have the effect of making the
> nose go up.
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
> Forum -
> Navigator to browse
> Subscriptions page,
> Browse, Chat, FAQ,
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
"Flitzer"
| Subject: | Why lower the leading edge of the stabiliser? |
Oscar Oscar Oscar,
Stand off of the LEFT wing tip about 30 feet and look at the airplane. It
should have the nose left and the tail right. From this perspective, the
pitching moment of the airfoil would be anticlockwise. In other words, the
center of pressure, defined as the point under the wing's airfoil where all
the air can be assumed to act, is aft of the center of gravity, the point at
which all the mass can be assumed to be positioned. If the center of
gravity is positioned at 19.5" aft of the leading edge and the center of
pressure is located at the 25% or the 1/4 chord point, as it is on most
airfoils, then a rotation is set up where the wing wants to flip nose over
and over. We see this when the wing comes off of our Sleek Streak rubber
powered 25 cent model that we flew as kids. The wing flips over and over on
the way down.
Therefore, the stabiliser acts downward to counter this rotation. Acting
downward means that it acts as an inverted wing. Lowering the leading edge
of the stabiliser works to increase ITS angle of attack, giving it more bite
into the air helping to force the tail down. We, in effect, "washed in" the
stabiliser.
Taking it further, assume a ship that looks like a Piet weighs 1000 lbs
loaded to fly. At our flight speed, the pitching moment of this ship's
airfoil is rather large requiring a 100 pound aerodynamic downforce at the
tail to keep the nose from tucking under. The wing now has to lift not only
the 1000 pound weight of the ship but also needs to "lift" against the 100
pound downforce of the stabiliser. Therefore, the wing is providing 1100
pounds of lift to fly a 1000 pound airplane. Lift is not free and the two
penalties are imposed is in the form of additional parasite drag due to the
wing being sized to carry 1100 pounds instead of 1000 pounds and, more
importantly and more significantly, the induced drag is commensurate with
1200 pounds of lift not 1000 pounds of lift like you might think. Wait,
1200 pounds? That is 20% higher induced drag than one would think! Yes,
1200 pounds because you are producing 1100 pounds worth of induced drag at
the wing and 100 pounds worth of induced drag at the stabiliser. Induce
drag is induced drag, it results whether the lift vector is up or down and
they do not cancel each other out!
The reason Burt Rutan revived the concept of the canard is so that both
airfoils are working the same way and not against each other. Put the tail
in the front and now it can lift to hold the nose up. If the ship wieghs
1000 lbs, now you can have the wing holding up 900 pounds and the canard
holding up the 100 pound pitching moment yielding a total induced drag
commensurate with 1000 pounds of lift, the ships weight, which is 5/6 of the
case of the tail mounted stabiliser, a significant drag reduction. The wing
area can be now be reduced as it only holds up 900 pounds vice 1100 pounds,
saving weight, which reduces the induced drag, increases the range and/or
payload, etc..
Flitzer los!
Chris
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: flight testing Greg/Dale's plane
>
> Chris wrote-
>
> >changed the attack angle of the stabiliser by loosening up the front top
> >turnbuckles by two turns and tightening the two lower front turnbuckles
> >two turns. This had the effect of increasing the attack angle of the
> >stabiliser
> >making it more agressive in holding the nose up.
>
> Wait. Wouldn't this *lower* the leading edge of the horizontal
stabilizer?
> That would indeed have the effect of making the nose go up.
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
"Pietenpol"
<00d501c56666$03bb48b0$0201a8c0@north>
<000b01c56689$d8d07520$b8c98056@v3> <004901c566b3$c3ab74e0$0201a8c0@north>
<003201c566b7$a9b84000$c4563bcb@morty>
| Subject: | Re: [Flitzer-Builders] Second Pilot report |
Mark,
We will test your concept in due time and after the left turning tendency is removed.
The problem is that we are at some physical limits as far as the airframe
is concerned. I am afraid that if I add more downthrust now, then at 2000
rpm in cruise, the nose will want to take on a nose down attitude due to the
additional downthrust. This would normally be countered by lowering the leading
edge of the horizontal stabiliser which we can't lower much more by twisting
the LE unless we do a bunch of work at the tail. There is no provision for
shimming or unshimming the horizontal stabiliser as there is on the Flitzer.
As the stabiliser sits on the longeron, lowering the stabiliser front attach point
is not an option. We would instead have to raise the rear spar of the stabiliser.
Doing this would require a reposition of the rudder hinge that is on
the tail post or that is on the rudder which would be difficult. Eventually,
these fixes will need to be incorporated. But that is what winter is for!
We are in flying season now!
Flitzer los!
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Crawford
To: Flitzer-Builders(at)yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Flitzer-Builders] Second Pilot report
I'm no expert on this matter, but in model aircraft (R/C and free flight) if
the aircraft is climbing a lot with the increasing of power (esp, if tailplane
and wing incidence has been addressed) it normally indicates a need for more
engine downthrust.
Just my 2 cents - don't kill yourself on my advice :P
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Bobka
To: Flitzer-Builders(at)yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Flitzer-Builders] Second Pilot report
Lynn,
I agree. The enlargement of the vertical stabiliser was recommended in the
first pilot report. A bigger rudder to match was not mentioned by me, though,
but would be commensurate. The fixed portion is the part that is undersized
(undersised?), though, so that should be emphasised.
Bernard Pietenpol did not have any dihedral in any of his ships, like Lindbergh's
NYP or the original Monocoupe/Monoprep, all contemporaries. Many of the
builders think the wing looks like it sags to the point of being drooped at
the tips so they insist on having dihedral. If it were up to me, I would build
it with zero dihedral as it looks the period amd it is what the designer wanted.
Greg is adamant on keeping the tips up. Sad.
Thanks for the input. I will send it on to Greg and Dale. Financially, it
would not be much to effect a change in the verticals. It is merely the price
of the wood, fabric, and paint and the time to do the work. All the fitting
could be retained. This might be 100 dollars/50 pounds. No reinspection needed
under the current rules! At the same time, a shim under the rear spar of
the horizontal stabiliser could be accomodated to make the corrections more permanemt.
Again, no reinspection needed under the current rules! Move to the
US!
Cheers,
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Lynn Williams
To: Flitzer-Builders(at)yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 4:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Flitzer-Builders] Second Pilot report
Chris,
Regarding some of the trimming problems, as yaw and roll are connected, and
these to dihedral effect, since you cannot and need not increase dihedral without
further centre-of-drag issues, then the best solution to some of the wayward
characteristics might be an enlarged fin and rudder with zero dihedral.
Although that may not be really practical from a financial point of view, it would
at least mean that the offset-thrust could be minimised, so the cowling need
not be re-made.
Lynn
----- Original Message -----
From: walter mitchell
To: Flitzer-Builders(at)yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 7:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Flitzer-Builders] Second Pilot report
A caution for those of us who would casually modify a proven design!
-Von Schneer
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Bobka
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com ; Paul Shenton ; Pete Gavin ; Flitzer
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 10:54 PM
Subject: [Flitzer-Builders] Second Pilot report
There is a lot of good news to report on Greg and Dale's Pietenpol.
This past weekend, we took Chuck Gantzer's and other folks' from around the world
advice and changed the attack angle of the stabiliser by loosening up the
front top turnbuckles by two turns and tightening the two lower front turnbuckles
two turns. This had the effect of increasing the attack angle of the stabiliser
making it more agressive in holding the nose up. At 2000 rpm or so, the
pitch is now in trim in level cruising flight with no forward or aft pressure
required to hold a constant altitude/attitude. At cruising speed, if you increase
the power above 2000 rpm, the nose goes up. If you pull the power to an
amount less than 2000 rpm, the nose will drop. It is obvious from this that
the center of thrust is not colocated with the center of drag, the C of T being
below the C of D.
I identify this as a negative side effect of lengthening the cabane struts
and adding dihedral. The induced and parasitic drag of the wing is a large
component of the total drag of the ship. As the wing is moved higher and
higher above the fuselage, it moves the center of drag up. We are trying to move
the C of T and the C of D closer together, not farther apart. Ideally, they
would be colocated. I would recommend that if you plan to raise the wing an
inch or more from stock location, then raise the thrust line by a like amount
to keep the C of D and C of T relationship intact.
I have recommended to Dale and Greg that they remove the dihedral to
help lower the center of drag. If the tips are 2" higher than the root, it has
the undesireable effect of raising the wing an average of yet another inch.
As for power setting in cruise, the airplane seems to be very comfortable
at 2000 rpm.
The way the power setting effects pitch could be worrisome for a first
time flyer as a departure stall could easily occur unless briefed of the phenomenon
ahead of time. You could "fly the ship off the ground" only to experience
a nose up movement due to the low thrust line that could put you right into
a low altitude stall. Dick Navratil warned me of this as it has bitten him
more than once but he also said that once you know what to do, it is easy to
handle, and that is what I have found. I fly the initial climb out right where
the red turns to white on the Johnson airspeen indicator. This is backed up
by the site picture of the top of the J-3 style eyebrows being held right on
the horizon.
At 2000 rpm, right rudder pedal deflection of about 1/2" to 1" is still
required to hold the ball centered. A little left wing heaviness was still
being experienced early in the day. In addition, it also seemed that whenever
a upward vertical gust was encountered, it was always the right wing that raised
up and not the left. Over the course of the day, the right rear strut was
lengthened a total of two turns on top of adjustments made the previous weekend.
After the above adjustments to the stabiliser and the wing strut, if
power is removed to about 13-1500 rpm in order to approximate a zero thrust glide,
and with hands off the stick, the nose will drop and stay dropped as speed
is gained. It does not appear to try to recover or raise the nose without adding
power to get some thrust acting to pitch the nose up. This is at least
to the speed that I have tested it to which is 80 mph as indicated on the Johnson
airspeed indicator. In addition, with power at this 13-1500 rpm setting,
the aircraft would not need any rudder input nor would it need any roll input.
I am pretty sure that the wing heaviness is now fully corrected. It is difficult
to separate rudder and roll inputs as they are so related but I think that
doing the neutral thrust glides helps to iron this out.
We have taken all the shims out of the motor mount on its right side
but it is apparent that we still need more right thrust to get rid of the remaining
right rudder that must be held at cruise. The next change to be made will
be to add 1/8" shims at top left and bottom left. We are almost to the point
where the cowling does not fit anymore! Believe me when they tell you how
much right thrust you need. It will be a lot!
I also tried a few power-on (2000 rpm) and -off (idle) full rudder side
slips while at altitude to see how the ship would recover. Initial recovery
technique was by removing my foot completely from the fully displaced rudder.
She would slowly return to normal attitude and would positively do so. Of
course, this is still tainted in the power-on condition by the need for yet more
right thrust. As Forrest said, she may be loathe to recover briskly unless
postive input is made. Power-on recovery was a lot better than power-off.
She has so much drag on final that pulling the power to idle and pointing agressively
down will give a good rate of descent at a constant airspeed so slips
to landing should not be often necessary.
The final item to mention is that the motor feels like it is trying to
tumble a bunch of rocks in a rock tumbler. The ship sports a homemade propeller
that Dale made. The prop is copied from an old Sensenich 7242 prop and turns
2200 rpm flat out level. I have a spare Sensenich W70DK-42 with only 20
hours on it since new about 4 years ago that we will try out. This will enable
us to determine whether the homemade prop is out of balance and whether it should
be reshaped to get more RPM. Like his nose bowl, the leading edge on Dale's
creation is rather blunt. Rounding the leading edge more may give us the
needed 100 rpm to make rated power. The W70DK42 propeller is normally used on
an A-75 powered Taylorcraft. I have a few other props to try out and once the
best is found, we will have Dale consider another winter prop project.
Total time now is 6:28 up from 3:40 the previous week.
Flitzer los!
Chris
For Flitzer FAQs and much more, visit the Flitzer Sportflug Verein (Flitzer Sport Flying Association) site at http://www.av8rblake.com/flitzer/
For Flitzer FAQs and much more, visit the Flitzer Sportflug Verein (Flitzer Sport Flying Association) site at http://www.av8rblake.com/flitzer/
For Flitzer FAQs and much more, visit the Flitzer Sportflug Verein (Flitzer Sport Flying Association) site at http://www.av8rblake.com/flitzer/
For Flitzer FAQs and much more, visit the Flitzer Sportflug Verein (Flitzer Sport Flying Association) site at http://www.av8rblake.com/flitzer/
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Flitzer-Builders/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Flitzer-Builders-unsubscribe(at)yahoogroups.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Second pilot report comments |
Chris,
Regarding some of the trimming problems, as yaw and roll are connected, and these
to dihedral effect, since you cannot and need not increase dihedral without
further centre-of-drag issues, then the best solution to some of the wayward
characteristics might be an enlarged fin and rudder with zero dihedral. Although
that may not be really practical from a financial point of view, it would at
least mean that the offset-thrust could be minimised, so the cowling need not
be re-made.
Lynn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | More comments on second pilot report |
Lynn,
I agree. The enlargement of the vertical stabiliser was recommended in the first
pilot report. A bigger rudder to match was not mentioned by me, though, but
would be commensurate. The fixed portion is the part that is undersized (undersised?),
though, so that should be emphasised.
Bernard Pietenpol did not have any dihedral in any of his ships, like Lindbergh's
NYP or the original Monocoupe/Monoprep, all contemporaries. Many of the builders
think the wing looks like it sags to the point of being drooped at the
tips so they insist on having dihedral. If it were up to me, I would build it
with zero dihedral as it looks the period amd it is what the designer wanted.
Greg is adamant on keeping the tips up. Sad.
Thanks for the input. I will send it on to Greg and Dale. Financially, it would
not be much to effect a change in the verticals. It is merely the price of
the wood, fabric, and paint and the time to do the work. All the fitting could
be retained. This might be 100 dollars/50 pounds. No reinspection needed
under the current rules! At the same time, a shim under the rear spar of the
horizontal stabiliser could be accomodated to make the corrections more permanemt.
Again, no reinspection needed under the current rules! Move to the US!
Cheers,
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | More comments from a noted European aircraft designer |
In Greg's position, I'd zero-out the dihedral and build a 'false leading edge'
extension onto the fin, keeping the rudder as is, or maybe adding a fixed rudder
tab, to provide a bit moe bite perhaps. The 'false leading edge' would be fitted
temporarily, but of course, very carefully and safely so it doesn't come
adrift, and see what happens to the handling.
Ultimately a new fin could be fabricated as you've suggested, which would still
convey the character of the Pietenpol. I think the 'drooping' effect created
by the zero dihedral wing, while not uncommon among straight winged biplanes,
parasols, an high-wingers, is partly due to the airfoil section which near the
tip, due to the high undercamber and parallel chord with a squarish tip, creates
a 'downswept' effect from some angles.
I don't see anything wrong with this, which is anyway redolent of so many classic
types from that era, the Ryan NYP, Brougham, and American Eagle being excellent
examples.
Cheers,
Lynn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
sure makes it easier to pee in a bottle by steering with your feet while
your hands
are busy. Beats stopping for fuel when you don't have to on an x-country
and wasting 45 minutes:)
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | flight testing Greg/Dale's plane |
Chris (and others)- thanks for the explanation; perfectly clear! I guess
what threw me off was the notion that the tailplane is acting as an inverted
wing to provide downforce to the tail, thus in fact lowering the leading
edge (relative to terra firma) INCREASES the angle of attack of the
horizontal stabilizer. Got it!
Funny thing is, I guess I'll be facing this same issue once 41CC is back in
the air. Corky had fitted both a fixed elevator trim tab and an adjustable
bungee around the control stick to apply variable back pressure to the stick
while in level cruise, it requiring steady back pressure to keep the nose up
in cruise. I can also shim the engine to adjust the thrustline (it's off
the mount at the moment). To my knowledge though, the HS is presently
rigged straight and level, so I can still add the two turns or so on the
turnbuckles at the HS to 'wash it in' as you've done on Greg/Dale's plane,
as a first step.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Final comments to Mark Crawford the Aussie's post at the |
bottom
Mark,
Maybe there is a reason WHY the rudder in the plans is longer than the tail post
plus the horizontal stabiliser thickness plus the vertical stabiliser height.
As Greg pointed out to me the other day, there is room AVAILABLE for a shim
if only the lower rudder hinge could be easily repositioned.
Mark, In many ways I agree with your statement. The ship originally was short
nosed and made for the heavy Model A Ford, then adapted to a Corvair and a small
Continental which messes up the vertical surface area proportions with those
motors' lighter weight and needed extended nose. Then people got bigger so
they can't get in and out so they raised the wing and shifted it aft and added
a flop for access, and then the ship needed the axle moved to make it handle
on the ground, and then the aft shifted wing, gear, payload, and resulting CG
upsets the tail moment arm (tail volume if you will) of the stabilisers so they
are undersized now and effectively getting smaller as time goes on.
Then the plane is yet heavier with the three piece wing which causes it to cruise
it at a higher angle of attack which increases the pitching moment which calls
for a bigger horizontal stabiliser that nobody is willing to give it.
For these reasons, although I appreciate the Peitenpol design for what it was and
is, it has lost its attractiveness for my purposes although it can get the
builder in the air cheaply, and probably the cheapest, if that is where he wants
to be. And I don't blame him for wanting to be there but the choice should
be rethought. Palns are virtually free and so is the advice which is worth what
you pay for it.
It took I few years for me to make the realiasation that too many changes have
made the design get to the point where it should be redesigned from a clean sheet
of paper, sized and proportioned to be of utmost utility in the future. They
are barely true Pietenpols anymore and all the accomodations and bandaids
speak of this and detract from the excellence of the no longer adequate original.
That is why I have become such a proponent of Lynn William's Staaken Flitzer line
as the aircraft fit today's people, use today's available and reliable motors
(does not the Ferdinand Porche flat four date to 1914 or something like that?
So much for today's motors) like the mere 50 year old Corvair, Rotec R2800,
Aerovee, etc,, yet look REALLY good and period, fly well, and can be constructed
using the same EXACT traditional methods as the Pietenpol and just as inexpensively.
We have it all in the Flitzer line including the cult status the Pietenpol
enjoys. We just need to get the word out.
Much fame could be had (and maybe some money, Gary) if a gifted designer took all
the old classics and made them again viable by upsizing them 10-15% or even
20% and adding 75 years of design experience to economise on the structure while
preserving the ORIGINAL construction methods and handling: Buhl Bull Pup,
Long Longster, Georgias Special, Pietenpol Camper and Scout, Heath Baby Bullet
and Parasol, American Eaglet, Church Midwing, Chilton DW1, UT-1, Urbitis' ships,
and the list goes on and on. Just look at original editions of the Flying
and Glider Manual (not the chopped up EAA editions that are missing half of
the original content). The demand is there but nobody with the ability has stepped
up to the plate except Lynn and he is overwhelmed. I wish I had the ability
but lack the schooling and the process is yet still mystifying to me. For
all the books I have, a hands on, start to finish design has never been put
in book form to the extent that I believe necessary for me to be able to copy
the technique and eventually be able to do it on my own. Hiscocks or Pazmany
come closest but use sheet metal as the medium which is personally undesireable
. This book form analysis would have to include flight testing and retrospective
design analysis as a result of the corrections made in the field as a result
of flight testing. I am truly jealous of the engineer's abilities! It
seems that there is a plethora of magazine articles or series of articles that
nibble at the design process yet never stick to it through to the end. It is
apparent that few individuals possess the designer's ability.
Piper figured it out as 10 years after the J-3 Cub, they upsized it to the PA-18
Super Cub, and that was after upsizing it to the J-5 and PA-12 and PA-14.
I could imagine that the 1929 Piet with a Model A motor and one piece wing built
to the Hoopman plans (really! yeah right) and flown by a 150 pound pilot flies
as sweet as can be. But that design is no longer realistic for today's sized
people.
Mike, don't pee on yourself. And don't forget to zip and don;t get Roscoe caught
in the zipper. Guys, don't shake his hand after he climbs out of his ship
and don't drink any Mountain Dew he may offer you. Uric acid eats at the wood
so be careful of structural deterioration... Inspect and rinse often.
I am not advocating building a GN-1.....
Flitzer los!
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Crawford
To: Flitzer-Builders(at)yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Flitzer-Builders] Second Pilot report
What a bloody stupid design! Adjusting of tailplane incidence is a pretty important
thing -esp. when homebuilt aircraft are concerned (diff materials, workmanship,
quality, accuracy, engines, etc). As I said "I'm no expert" but at least
the Flitzer has a pretty simple method of adjustment.
Good to hear that the original problems have at least been reduced. At least
the Piet is a tried and true design - even without the adjustable tailplane.
We are getting into our winter now, so have fun in the sun you dogs :P
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Ruse <steve(at)wotelectronics.com> |
| Subject: | Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
report
I am replacing the cub-style fuel guage rod in my plane, and would like to
re-coat the cork while I have it out. There are a few chips in the existing
varnish, and I want to make sure it doesn't start absorbing fuel and sink
in-flight, as I've been told this can happen.
Thanks,
Steve Ruse
N6383J - KFTW
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip(at)alarismed.com> |
I coated mine with Stit's Epoxy Varnish, as I've found that stuff to be
as near bulletproof as any coating I've seen
Jack Phillips
I am replacing the cub-style fuel guage rod in my plane, and would like
to
re-coat the cork while I have it out. There are a few chips in the
existing
varnish, and I want to make sure it doesn't start absorbing fuel and
sink
in-flight, as I've been told this can happen.
Thanks,
Steve Ruse
N6383J - KFTW
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
Steve-- upon the advice of my IA and several restoration guys at our
airport, I dipped
my cork in a can of shellac, let it dry and repeated this about 4
times. No chips or
troubles (like not floating) in almost 7 years of using avgas and a rare
dose of autofuel.
I did re-coat the cork about 2 years ago just to make sure she had a good
seal. Shellac
is light too--epoxies can become heavy I think. Let's hear what the
other experts might
have to say though before you take my word:)
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | offset thrust line |
As a bit of a support to what Chris said about engine thrustline and how it
affects handling and feel, here's a snip from a post from William Wynne on
this subject. It originally related to where to set the Corvair engine in
the Piet, but the comments are general as well.
=================
Reply from WW:
My Pietenpol had the short 1933 fuselage. The cabane struts were vertical.
The empty weight of the plane was 732lbs., measured on electronic scales. It
had a full electrical system, brakes, tailwheel, etc. The distance from the
firewall to the rear bolt hole was 15". If you are building a newer
fuselage, this will be several inches less. I highly recommend the longer
fuselage. When my plane was painted orange, the thrust line was in the stock
location. When it was blue and silver, I built a new mount which moved the
thrust line up to be in line with the top longeron. It flew slightly better
that way, and I think it looked a lot better... build the motor mount to
give you the correct CG with an appropriately weighted pilot in his seat. We
set this perfectly when I built the second motor mount. With a 150lb. pilot,
the CG was at 15"; with a 300lb. pilot, the CG was at 20". The axels were at
the leading edge of the wing. The plane had excellent ground handling and
flew well.
==================
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Carb heat on the Piet |
Oscar writes:
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
> Chris- is this Greg and Dale's Piet (see photo)? If so, I'd like to know
> how the carb heat is working on it. My rebuilt exhaust stacks will be
> similar to this and I'm curious to know how well theirs works.
I meant to talk of this in the second pilot report. I get about a 20 rpm drop
when the carb heat is turned on so I would deem it inadequate in its present configuration.
I just looked at Bingelis' Firewall Forward, around pages 109 plus
or minus a few, and he is silent on the minimum rpm drop. My Cessna 140 gives
a 100 rpm drop at 1700 rpm. My Continental books all do not indicate a drop
required.
The way Greg and Dale's ship is set up, there is no "scooping" effect of the ram
air to force it through the heat muff which is stuffed with springs or something
to increase the surface area that the air can whip around as it warms up.
Without the scoop, it is only a suction effort of the motor to get air through
the muff. This suction effort, therfore, can suck through any other leaks
and cracks in the system, diluting the heating effect of what comes through the
muff. I believe that there should be positive, above ambient pressure in the
airbox whether the heat is on or off. This can only come with some attempt
at ram effect which exists with every small factory ship I can think of, most
taking the air pressure from the upper, pressurised plenum of the pressure cowl.
Look at the SIZE muff of what a Piper Cub or Taylorcraft has and use it as a guide. I also recommend a review of carb ice at William Wynne's Corvair site as he and Grace are now the authority on this subject since his accident. Call the hangar and talk to Grace, she will get all the answers. The website is www.flycorvair.com/carbice.html Read this all the way through noting the comments in the final paragraphs.
The current FAA approved operating manual, Form X30012, for the A, C and O-200
series from Continental reads, "The correct way to use carburetor heat is to
first apply full heat to remove any ice that has formed. Determine the minimum
amount of heat required to prevent ice forming, each time removing any ice that
has formed by applying full heat." It also states to use heat full on during
all ground operations as ice easily forms on the ground with the engine idling
with dire results upon takeoff. The carb heat should be on full "until the
throttle is advanced for the take-off run" which is when cold air is selected....
FAR 23.1093, advisory to us homebuilders, reads:
Sec. 23.1093
Induction system icing protection.
(a) Reciprocating engines. Each reciprocating engine air induction system must
have means to prevent and eliminate icing. Unless this is done by other means,
it must be shown that, in air free of visible moisture at a temperature of 30=B0
F.--
(1) Each airplane with sea level engines using conventional venturi carburetors
has a preheater that can provide a heat rise of 90=B0 F. with the engines at
75 percent of maximum continuous power;
The preceding applies to our carburated ships
Some irrelevent stuff omitted in this spot
(4) Each airplane with a sea level engine(s) using a fuel metering device tending
to prevent icing has a sheltered alternate source of air with a preheat of
not less than 60=B0F with the engines at 75 percent of maximum continuous power;
The preceding would apply to an Aerocarb or Ellsion equipped injected ship
(5) Each airplane with sea level or altitude engine(s) using fuel injection systems
having metering component on which impact ice may accumulate has a preheater
capable of providing a heat rise of 75=B0 F. with the engine is operating
at 75 percent of its maximum continuous power; and
(6) Each airplane with sea level or altitude engine(s) using fuel injection systems
not having fuel metering components projecting into the airstream on which
ice may form, and introducing fuel into the air induction system downstream
of any components or other obstruction on which ice produced by fuel evaporation
may form, has a sheltered alternate source of air with a preheat of not less
than 60=B0F with the engines at 75 percent of maximum continuous power.
The preceding applies to fuel injected ships
It appears that you would need a 90 degree rise on a a 30 degree day. Unfortunately,
they just tell what you need to have rather than the means to get there.
I am amazed that Bingelis is silent as well. How can he write abook called
Firewall Forward and not talk of such a value or goal to design to? It has to
be in there but I must not be seeing it.
Flitzer los!
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | flight testing Greg/Dale's plane |
| From: | "Textor, Jack" <jtextor(at)thepalmergroup.com> |
All,
Has anyone constructed a Piet with a "flying tail"? In my model days I
built several Sig Cadet Seniors. A great trainer, high wing, lot's of
dihedral, 80" wings. After the first one I built some airfoil into the
horizontal stabalizer and converted to conventional gear. It really
improved the flight characteristics.
Jack Textor
Des Moines
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John E. Joyce" <jayejay(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Tailwheel control schemes |
Hi Rick:
Would like to see the pick of the tailwheel modification but get only a
thumbnail when trying to open with Windows XP and MS Picture It. A
repost would be appreciated. Thanks.
John Joyce
9 Sylvia Road
North Reading, MA 01864
978.664.3578
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Holland
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Tailwheel control schemes
After reading many archive messages about tailwheel control setup it
appears that many people have seen a need to make the tailwheel control
less sensitive than the rudder control. I am assuming I will want this
also so I figure its easier to build it in now that later. Have seen
many ingenious methods to do this but the 'Hanging two tubes off the
bellcrank tube' method in the attached photo seems to be the cleanest I
have found so far. And by placing multiple tabs or holes in the hanging
tubes the sensitivity can be easily changed. (Sorry I don't know the
name of the builder to give him credit).
Opinions?
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, CO
(Density altitude up to 8356 ft. currently, and its not even hot yet!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)AOL.COM |
Pieters
Are any you list regulars making plans to attend the SAA weekend, June 10,
11 12 at Urbana, Ill? It is not an advertised event. Membership is priced on
voluntary contributions. Of course you have to pay for the meals being served.
Should be a nice experience. Paul is trying to make SAA what EAA was about
55to 60. We are thinking about it but can't plan that far ahead.
Corky and Isabelle
________________________________________________________________________________
;
| From: | Larry Nelson <lnelson208(at)yahoo.com> |
If the WX allows me to fly, I will be there in Bonanza
V-35B N2980A, camping by my plane. Pietenpol N444MH
will have to stay home.
--- Isablcorky(at)aol.com wrote:
> Pieters
>
> Are any you list regulars making plans to attend the
> SAA weekend, June 10,
> 11 12 at Urbana, Ill? It is not an advertised event.
> Membership is priced on
> voluntary contributions. Of course you have to pay
> for the meals being served.
> Should be a nice experience. Paul is trying to make
> SAA what EAA was about
> 55to 60. We are thinking about it but can't plan
> that far ahead.
>
> Corky and Isabelle
>
Larry Nelson
Springfield, MO
Beechcraft Bonanza V-35B N2980A
Pietenpol Air Camper N444MH
1963 GMC 4106-1618
SV/ Spirit of America
ARS WB0JOT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lynn Knoll" <dknoll(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Grove Wheels/Brakes |
It's shopping time for wheels, brakes, tires, & master cylinders and there is a
large price savings with Grove's.
What advice can you all give?
________________________________________________________________________________
;
| From: | Galen Hutcheson <wacopitts(at)yahoo.com> |
Half gallon milk jugs work great! Make sure the
bottom of the bottle is pointed downward (or put the
plane in a dive) to prevent having to fly around until
your pants dry. :)
Doc
--- Michael D Cuy wrote:
>
>
> sure makes it easier to pee in a bottle by steering
> with your feet while
> your hands
> are busy. Beats stopping for fuel when you don't
> have to on an x-country
> and wasting 45 minutes:)
>
> Mike C.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
Corky,
I went two years ago. Might make it depending on what the airline wants to do
with me.
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 5:54 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Urbana
Pieters
Are any you list regulars making plans to attend the SAA weekend, June 10, 11
12 at Urbana, Ill? It is not an advertised event. Membership is priced on voluntary
contributions. Of course you have to pay for the meals being served. Should
be a nice experience. Paul is trying to make SAA what EAA was about 55to
60. We are thinking about it but can't plan that far ahead.
Corky and Isabelle
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
In a message dated 6/1/2005 2:15:40 PM Central Standard Time,
steve(at)wotelectronics.com writes:
I am replacing the cub-style fuel guage rod in my plane, and would like to
re-coat the cork while I have it out. There are a few chips in the existing
varnish, and I want to make sure it doesn't start absorbing fuel and sink
in-flight, as I've been told this can happen.
Steve,
I built both my tanks using fiberglass and Polyester Resin (auto body stuff).
Problem is that any alcohol in the fuel could soften up the resin. For this
reason, I coated my float with polyester resin to fuel proof it, as well as
use it as a monitor for any softening effect of accidental alcohol in the fuel.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Second Pilot report |
Chris,
You have posted some very informative info for all to see !!
Just a little note:
you said -
This had the effect of increasing the attack angle of the stabiliser making
it more agressive in holding the nose up.
To be specific, the angle of incidence is the angle between the Mean
Aerodynamic Chord of the airfoil and the longitude line, or 'Thrust Line' of the
airframe. Thus, lowering the leading edge of the stabilizer, Decreases the angle
of Incidence of the stab. This also decreases the angle of attack of the
stab, thus pushing down on the tail - thus Increasing the Angle of Attack of the
Wing. Angle of Attack is the angle between the MAC and the Relative Wind.
2000 rpm cruise is a pretty good range, and is the same as on my plane. A
difference in just 100 rpm effects pitch attitude for reasons you stated. This
is a typical Pietenpol Characteristic. Some of these things you just have to
accept as design characteristics, such as the Straight Wing as opposed to
Dihedral. I prefer straight wing, as designed. Neutral Thrust Glide sounds like
you have most of the wing heavy, and pitch problems worked out. Right Rudder
in cruise is due to torque, and if you adjust it out by shimming the engine
mount, it will probably show up in another way. Nothing is free. I just rest
my right foot on the rudder bar, and live with it. Hardly noticeable in
cruise, until I lift my foot off the rudder bar, causing a left yaw.
you said -
She has so much drag on final that pulling the power to idle and pointing
agressively down will give a good rate of descent at a constant airspeed so slips
to landing should not be often necessary.
This is true, but it's a good thing to practice, to prepare for squeezing
into a very short landing field, in case of an emergency.
If the engine mount was long enough to get rid of that 60 lbs of ballast, the
ship will handle MUCH better !!
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
"Paul Shenton"
| Subject: | We mean the same thing |
Chuck,
We are both trying to say the same thing. If you are the stab and you were having
a good day and were talking to the engineer who was designing you, you might
suggest to him that he use an airfoil shape and have the airfoil inverted as
it would then have the greatest effect. The stab holds the nose up by it providing
lift DOWN. Just as I increase the angle of attack of the big wing by
raising its leading edge, I increase the angle of attack of the stabilizer by
lowering its leading edge.
Look at an old Fleet and you will see exactly what not to do. Look at a handful
of Waco Model 10s that were lucky enough to come with an airfoil shaped stab
and you will see exactly what to do.
Formal definitions aside, this is was it going on with all the lifties....and now
Oscar has a grasp on a concept new to him.
As for the 60 pounds of ballast, Greg and I plan a reweigh so that we can determine
a couple of things not done the first time around (when I was not there although
Greg is a big proponent of this). We will run ship level tail up weight
numbers with occupants in one then both cockpits in order to determine the
true CG of each seat with a live person in the seat(s) rather than estimating
the position of the CG of each occupant. This should dial in some really good
numbers to make sure we are not penalising ourselves by assuming a too far aft
position of the occupant's own CG.
Likewise, we will run weight numbers with the aircraft in a taildown position with
one then both seats occupied by the same "dummies" and, after noting the angle
the ship sits at, we can run a little math that will enable us to determine
the true vertical CG of the ship. This final exercise is all to widen the
knowledge base of the user group.
Cheers,
Chris,
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 12:51 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Second Pilot report
Chris,
You have posted some very informative info for all to see !!
Just a little note:
you said -
This had the effect of increasing the attack angle of the stabiliser making it
more agressive in holding the nose up.
To be specific, the angle of incidence is the angle between the Mean Aerodynamic
Chord of the airfoil and the longitude line, or 'Thrust Line' of the airframe.
Thus, lowering the leading edge of the stabilizer, Decreases the angle
of Incidence of the stab. This also decreases the angle of attack of the stab,
thus pushing down on the tail - thus Increasing the Angle of Attack of the Wing.
Angle of Attack is the angle between the MAC and the Relative Wind.
2000 rpm cruise is a pretty good range, and is the same as on my plane. A difference
in just 100 rpm effects pitch attitude for reasons you stated. This
is a typical Pietenpol Characteristic. Some of these things you just have to
accept as design characteristics, such as the Straight Wing as opposed to Dihedral.
I prefer straight wing, as designed. Neutral Thrust Glide sounds like
you have most of the wing heavy, and pitch problems worked out. Right Rudder
in cruise is due to torque, and if you adjust it out by shimming the engine mount,
it will probably show up in another way. Nothing is free. I just rest my
right foot on the rudder bar, and live with it. Hardly noticeable in cruise,
until I lift my foot off the rudder bar, causing a left yaw.
you said -
She has so much drag on final that pulling the power to idle and pointing agressively
down will give a good rate of descent at a constant airspeed so slips
to landing should not be often necessary.
This is true, but it's a good thing to practice, to prepare for squeezing into
a very short landing field, in case of an emergency.
If the engine mount was long enough to get rid of that 60 lbs of ballast, the
ship will handle MUCH better !!
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
Don't use shellac with auto fuel containing alcohol. Shellac is made by
dissolving shellac flakes in ethanol or, in inferior products, methanol.
An interesting point. Shellac, properly prepared, has superior water
vapour resistance, above that of varnishes, epoxies, etc. and has been
used as an undercoat for fine varnish finishes for centuries.
http://antiquerestorers.com/Articles/jeff/shellac.htm
Clif
PS, More shellac stuff just for you, Mike; :-) :-) :-)
http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/4264/
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cork float fuel-proof varnish?
>
. Shellac
> is light too--epoxies can become heavy I think. Let's hear what the
> other experts might
> have to say though before you take my word:)
>
> Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grove Wheels/Brakes |
I have them and love 'em! Havent flown with them yet but they are of very high
quality. Basically a Cleveland in sheeps clothing. I don't think you'll be
dissappointed.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Lynn Knoll
To: pietenpol list
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 5:36 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Grove Wheels/Brakes
It's shopping time for wheels, brakes, tires, & master cylinders and there is
a large price savings with Grove's.
What advice can you all give?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | FAR which authorizes and A&P to do a condition inspection |
m>
Guys---I've looked at parts 91 and 43 Appendix D and can't specifically
pinpoint where it says that an
A&P is authorized to sign off an experimental aircraft for a condition
inspection. There are many
references to a homebuilt that is licensed under the light sport aircraft
category, but not just plain old
vanilla homebuilt. Can any of you find this needle in the haystack ?
thank you,
Mike C. in Ohio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark <aerialphotos(at)dp.net> |
inspection
| Subject: | Re: FAR which authorizes and A&P to do a condition |
inspection
Michael D Cuy wrote:
>
>
> Guys---I've looked at parts 91 and 43 Appendix D and can't
> specifically pinpoint where it says that an
> A&P is authorized to sign off an experimental aircraft for a condition
> inspection. There are many
> references to a homebuilt that is licensed under the light sport
> aircraft category, but not just plain old
> vanilla homebuilt. Can any of you find this needle in the haystack ?
>
> thank you,
>
> Mike C. in Ohio
>
I am really not sure that there is much to gain by getting a fat
ultralight certified Experimental LSA. In fact it might have some real
pitfalls especially if looked at it in the light that no history is out
there on how things should be handled, (with experimental you have a
history on which to base decisions) you could be the one that gets to
set that precedent. As far as operation as long as the aircraft meets
LSA operational limitations, its my impression that its LSA an thats all
you need.
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FAR which authorizes and A&P to do a condition inspection |
Part 43. It is there
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark" <aerialphotos(at)dp.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: FAR which authorizes and A&P to do a condition
inspection
>
> Michael D Cuy wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Guys---I've looked at parts 91 and 43 Appendix D and can't
> > specifically pinpoint where it says that an
> > A&P is authorized to sign off an experimental aircraft for a condition
> > inspection. There are many
> > references to a homebuilt that is licensed under the light sport
> > aircraft category, but not just plain old
> > vanilla homebuilt. Can any of you find this needle in the haystack ?
> >
> > thank you,
> >
> > Mike C. in Ohio
> >
> I am really not sure that there is much to gain by getting a fat
> ultralight certified Experimental LSA. In fact it might have some real
> pitfalls especially if looked at it in the light that no history is out
> there on how things should be handled, (with experimental you have a
> history on which to base decisions) you could be the one that gets to
> set that precedent. As far as operation as long as the aircraft meets
> LSA operational limitations, its my impression that its LSA an thats all
> you need.
>
> Mark
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
condition inspection
| Subject: | Re: FAR which authorizes and A&P to do a |
condition inspection
| From: | John Hofmann <jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.com> |
Mikee!
It has been awhile since I have done this one but here goes. My FARS may be
a little old but I think I got it right. Anyone feel free to correct me if I
am off base:
FAR Part 43.1(b) specifically excludes experimental aircraft. It reads,
"This part does not apply to any aircraft for which an experimental
airworthiness certificate has been issued, unless a different kind of
airworthiness certificate had previously been issued for that aircraft."
FAR 91.409(c)(1) exempts experimentally certificated aircraft from the
normal inspection rules. The legal authority and basis to require an annual
"Condition Inspection" is found in 14 CFR part 91.319(e), whereby the FAA
Administrator (in this case, the certificating inspector) may issue any
"additional limitations the Administrator considers necessary" to the
aircraft's airworthiness certificate (Operating limitations) when the
aircraft receives a special airworthiness certificate.
This usually reads something like "No person shall operate this aircraft
unless within the preceding 12 calendar months it has had a condition
inspection performed in accordance with the scope and detail of appendix D
to part 43, or other FAA-approved programs, and found to be in a condition
for safe operation. This inspection will be recorded in the aircraft
maintenance records."
I used to do a lot of condition inspections of experimental aircraft after
they changed hands. Is this for the Corby?
-john-
>
> Michael D Cuy wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Guys---I've looked at parts 91 and 43 Appendix D and can't
>> specifically pinpoint where it says that an
>> A&P is authorized to sign off an experimental aircraft for a condition
>> inspection. There are many
>> references to a homebuilt that is licensed under the light sport
>> aircraft category, but not just plain old
>> vanilla homebuilt. Can any of you find this needle in the haystack ?
>>
>> thank you,
>>
>> Mike C. in Ohio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
n
| Subject: | there is no FAR which authorizes and A&P to do a conditioninspectio |
n
John-- you are right on. Part 43 does not apply to Experimental
aircraft--it says it right up front.
Where I found them was in my operating limitations issued with the
airworthiness cert. of the aircraft.
thank you !
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | FAR which authorizes and A&P to do a condition inspection |
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip(at)alarismed.com> |
I've looked all through Part 43 and cannot find it. There are
references to Light Sport Aircraft, but not Experimentals where it
explicitly says who is authorized to perform Condition Inspections. I
believe John Hoffmann is correct on this. I'll look at the
Airworthiness Certificate for my Pietenpol when I get home tonight.
Jack Phillips
Part 43. It is there
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark" <aerialphotos(at)dp.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: FAR which authorizes and A&P to do a
condition
inspection
Michael D Cuy wrote:
Guys---I've looked at parts 91 and 43 Appendix D and can't
specifically pinpoint where it says that an
A&P is authorized to sign off an experimental aircraft for a condition
inspection. There are many
references to a homebuilt that is licensed under the light sport
aircraft category, but not just plain old
vanilla homebuilt. Can any of you find this needle in the haystack ?
thank you,
Mike C. in Ohio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | my MIDO Chief friend confirms John H.'s response is correct |
m>
John, Guys-- here is the word from my local FAA guy.....and Champ owner
Mike,
There is not a reg that specifically says what you are looking for, however
it is captured in your operating limitations which is part of the
airworthiness certificated. I'm in Chicago right now, I'll be back in the
office tomorrow if you would like to discuss in more detail. Our new
number is ....
________________________________________________________________________________
;
| From: | Brad Smith <rx7_ragtop(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 25 Msgs - 06/01/05 |
Answered in line below...
>Mark, In many ways I agree with your statement. The
>ship originally
>was short
>nosed and made for the heavy Model A Ford, then
>adapted to a Corvair
>and a small
>Continental which messes up the vertical surface area
>proportions with
>those
>motors' lighter weight and needed extended nose.
>Then people got
>bigger so
>they can't get in and out so they raised the wing and
>shifted it aft
>and added
>a flop for access, and then the ship needed the axle
>moved to make it
>handle
>on the ground, and then the aft shifted wing, gear,
>payload, and
>resulting CG
>upsets the tail moment arm (tail volume if you will)
>of the stabilisers
>so they
>are undersized now and effectively getting smaller as
>time goes on.
This is my "beef" with the Piet. I dearly love this
design, but at 250# I'm really too heavy for it as it
was originally conceived, except perhaps as a single
seat bird.
>Then the plane is yet heavier with the three piece
>wing which causes it
>to cruise
>it at a higher angle of attack which increases the
>pitching moment
>which calls
>for a bigger horizontal stabiliser that nobody is
>willing to give it.
Hmmm... very good points.
>For these reasons, although I appreciate the
>Peitenpol design for what
>it was and
>is, it has lost its attractiveness for my purposes
>although it can get
>the
>builder in the air cheaply, and probably the
>cheapest, if that is where
>he wants
>to be. And I don't blame him for wanting to be there
>but the choice
>should
>be rethought. Palns are virtually free and so is the
>advice which is
>worth what
>you pay for it.
I would probably disagree on the cheapest, but
certainly it ranks right up there with the best of
them.
>It took I few years for me to make the realiasation
>that too many
>changes have
>made the design get to the point where it should be
>redesigned from a
>clean sheet
>of paper, sized and proportioned to be of utmost
>utility in the future.
>They
>are barely true Pietenpols anymore and all the
>accomodations and
>bandaids
>speak of this and detract from the excellence of the
>no longer adequate
>original.
Agreed!
>That is why I have become such a proponent of Lynn
>William's Staaken
>Flitzer line
>as the aircraft fit today's people, use today's
>available and reliable
>motors
>(does not the Ferdinand Porche flat four date to 1914
>or something like
>that?
>So much for today's motors) like the mere 50 year old
>Corvair, Rotec
>R2800,
>Aerovee, etc,, yet look REALLY good and period, fly
>well, and can be
>constructed
>using the same EXACT traditional methods as the
>Pietenpol and just as
>inexpensively.
>We have it all in the Flitzer line including the cult
>status the
>Pietenpol
>enjoys. We just need to get the word out.
Ok... so the word is now out... I've never heard of
these aircraft. Feel free to contact me off line with
more info.
>Much fame could be had (and maybe some money, Gary)
>if a gifted
>designer took all
>the old classics and made them again viable by
>upsizing them 10-15% or
>even
>20% and adding 75 years of design experience to
>economise on the
>structure while
>preserving the ORIGINAL construction methods and
>handling: Buhl Bull
>Pup,
>Long Longster, Georgias Special, Pietenpol Camper and
>Scout, Heath Baby
>Bullet
>and Parasol, American Eaglet, Church Midwing, Chilton
>DW1, UT-1,
>Urbitis' ships,
>and the list goes on and on.
Roger Mann does semi-modern wooden versions of some of
those. Loehle does a parasol also in wood. Graham
Lee just released plans for the Heath in aluminum
tube/pop rivet construction like his Nieuports (I have
both the Heath and Nieuport 11 plans.)
>Just look at original editions of the
>Flying
>and Glider Manual (not the chopped up EAA editions
>that are missing
>half of
>the original content). The demand is there but
>nobody with the ability
>has stepped
>up to the plate except Lynn and he is overwhelmed. I
>wish I had the
>ability
>but lack the schooling and the process is yet still
>mystifying to me.
It is daunting for certain.
>For
>all the books I have, a hands on, start to finish
>design has never been
>put
>in book form to the extent that I believe necessary
>for me to be able
>to copy
>the technique and eventually be able to do it on my
>own. Hiscocks or
>Pazmany
>come closest but use sheet metal as the medium which
>is personally
>undesireable. This book form analysis would have to
> include flight testing and
>retrospective
>design analysis as a result of the corrections made
>in the field as a
>result
>of flight testing. I am truly jealous of the
>engineer's abilities!
I can recommend the Beaujon ultralight book for a good
resource. Best $35 I ever spent on aviation related
stuff. (Well, except for the "introductory flight"
that got me hooked I guess.)
>It
>seems that there is a plethora of magazine articles
>or series of
>articles that
>nibble at the design process yet never stick to it
>through to the end.
>It is
>apparent that few individuals possess the designer's
>ability.
There are a lot of details involved, and a change
often has a domino effect, setting off waves of other
required changes to make the first one viable.
>I could imagine that the 1929 Piet with a Model A
>motor and one piece
>wing built
>to the Hoopman plans (really! yeah right) and flown
>by a 150 pound
>pilot flies
>as sweet as can be. But that design is no longer
>realistic for today's
>sized
>people.
>I am not advocating building a GN-1.....
Not a bad design, but not what I want either.
Brad
Flitzer los!
Chris
__________________________________
http://discover.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Ruse <steve(at)wotelectronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
report
I found some shellac last night, but didn't buy any yet because I
noticed one of
the solvents is ethanol. I'm still undecided as to weather or not I'll use
Mogas in the future, so I didn't buy the shellac yet, in case I run into a
batch of Mogas with Ethanol (which I believe is a bad thing for other reasons,
if I recall correctly).
Chuck brings up a great point though, I hadn't considered the resin
used to make
my fiberglass tank. I need to test it for "ethanol resistance" before I
continue thinking about Mogas. I guess that holds true for all fuel system
components though.
Someone on another forum suggested clear fingernail polish. Might be worth
putting some dried samples in fuel to test?
Thanks for the tips everyone!
Steve Ruse
N6383J - KFTW
Quoting Michael D Cuy :
>
>
> Steve-- upon the advice of my IA and several restoration guys at our
> airport, I dipped
> my cork in a can of shellac, let it dry and repeated this about 4
> times. No chips or
> troubles (like not floating) in almost 7 years of using avgas and a rare
> dose of autofuel.
> I did re-coat the cork about 2 years ago just to make sure she had a good
> seal. Shellac
> is light too--epoxies can become heavy I think. Let's hear what the
> other experts might
> have to say though before you take my word:)
>
> Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
Some years back a friend of mine , who is now flying a Fisher Celebrity,
made me a float out of Stainless steel wire put thru a ping pong ball.
The ball was then sealed with epoxy.
When I completed the Piet he made me another. So they have both been both
autogas and 100LL for years, with no ill effects.
I can post a photo , and find out the epoxy type, if anyone is interested.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Ruse" <steve(at)wotelectronics.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cork float fuel-proof varnish?
>
> I am replacing the cub-style fuel guage rod in my plane, and would like to
> re-coat the cork while I have it out. There are a few chips in the
existing
> varnish, and I want to make sure it doesn't start absorbing fuel and sink
> in-flight, as I've been told this can happen.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve Ruse
> N6383J - KFTW
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
what about fabricating a float from thin brass sheet?
I was thinking of buying some .020" brass sheet from the hobby store and
soldering up a simple cylinder and then soldering the cyclinder to a piece
of music wire run through it.
Guaranteed to work with any type of fuel for many decades.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Ruse" <steve(at)wotelectronics.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cork float fuel-proof varnish?
>
> I found some shellac last night, but didn't buy any yet because I
> noticed one of
> the solvents is ethanol. I'm still undecided as to weather or not I'll
use
> Mogas in the future, so I didn't buy the shellac yet, in case I run into a
> batch of Mogas with Ethanol (which I believe is a bad thing for other
reasons,
> if I recall correctly).
>
> Chuck brings up a great point though, I hadn't considered the resin
> used to make
> my fiberglass tank. I need to test it for "ethanol resistance" before I
> continue thinking about Mogas. I guess that holds true for all fuel
system
> components though.
>
> Someone on another forum suggested clear fingernail polish. Might be
worth
> putting some dried samples in fuel to test?
>
> Thanks for the tips everyone!
>
> Steve Ruse
> N6383J - KFTW
>
> Quoting Michael D Cuy :
>
> >
> >
> > Steve-- upon the advice of my IA and several restoration guys at our
> > airport, I dipped
> > my cork in a can of shellac, let it dry and repeated this about 4
> > times. No chips or
> > troubles (like not floating) in almost 7 years of using avgas and a rare
> > dose of autofuel.
> > I did re-coat the cork about 2 years ago just to make sure she had a
good
> > seal. Shellac
> > is light too--epoxies can become heavy I think. Let's hear what the
> > other experts might
> > have to say though before you take my word:)
> >
> > Mike C.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Celebrity - was Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
off topic, but how does he like that Celebrity? my dad has one that is
about 85% complete.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
> Some years back a friend of mine , who is now flying a Fisher Celebrity,
> made me a float out of Stainless steel wire put thru a ping pong ball.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Ruse <steve(at)wotelectronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
report
I'd like to know the epoxy type, and see a picture if you have any.
Thanks Walt!
Steve Ruse
N6383J - KFTW
Quoting walt evans :
>
> Some years back a friend of mine , who is now flying a Fisher Celebrity,
> made me a float out of Stainless steel wire put thru a ping pong ball.
> The ball was then sealed with epoxy.
> When I completed the Piet he made me another. So they have both been both
> autogas and 100LL for years, with no ill effects.
> I can post a photo , and find out the epoxy type, if anyone is interested.
> walt evans
> NX140DL
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Ruse" <steve(at)wotelectronics.com>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 1:15 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cork float fuel-proof varnish?
>
>
>
>>
>> I am replacing the cub-style fuel guage rod in my plane, and would like to
>> re-coat the cork while I have it out. There are a few chips in the
> existing
>> varnish, and I want to make sure it doesn't start absorbing fuel and sink
>> in-flight, as I've been told this can happen.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Steve Ruse
>> N6383J - KFTW
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
If you made you fiberglass tank out of epoxy resin or Derakane epoxy based
vinyl ester resin, you shouldn't have any problem with Mogas with ethanol or
methanol. But if you made it out of polyester resin, it depends on the type
of polyester. Some boat fuel tanks are out of polyester and the type makes
for better fuel resist. Most all canard pusher Rutanesque type planes have
epoxy based fiberglass tanks, many guys run Mogas all the time for their
o-200's and 235's, and have not reported problems after a 30 year history.
Mogas will discolor the tank, but not dissolve. Biggest problem with Mogas
is it varies with season and with location across the country. Also Mogas
with alcohols will have an afffect on the gasketing.
Gordon Bowen -Homer Alaska
Cozy IV N64CY
Osprey II N64SY
Pietenpol N-1033B
" But such is the constitution of my mind I cannot avoid forming an
opinion", John Adams
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Ruse" <steve(at)wotelectronics.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cork float fuel-proof varnish?
>
> I found some shellac last night, but didn't buy any yet because I
> noticed one of
> the solvents is ethanol. I'm still undecided as to weather or not I'll
use
> Mogas in the future, so I didn't buy the shellac yet, in case I run into a
> batch of Mogas with Ethanol (which I believe is a bad thing for other
reasons,
> if I recall correctly).
>
> Chuck brings up a great point though, I hadn't considered the resin
> used to make
> my fiberglass tank. I need to test it for "ethanol resistance" before I
> continue thinking about Mogas. I guess that holds true for all fuel
system
> components though.
>
> Someone on another forum suggested clear fingernail polish. Might be
worth
> putting some dried samples in fuel to test?
>
> Thanks for the tips everyone!
>
> Steve Ruse
> N6383J - KFTW
>
> Quoting Michael D Cuy :
>
> >
> >
> > Steve-- upon the advice of my IA and several restoration guys at our
> > airport, I dipped
> > my cork in a can of shellac, let it dry and repeated this about 4
> > times. No chips or
> > troubles (like not floating) in almost 7 years of using avgas and a rare
> > dose of autofuel.
> > I did re-coat the cork about 2 years ago just to make sure she had a
good
> > seal. Shellac
> > is light too--epoxies can become heavy I think. Let's hear what the
> > other experts might
> > have to say though before you take my word:)
> >
> > Mike C.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
Steve,
I've told this story before but I'll repeat it once again. While restoring a
1926 Dodge Bros Touring car I had need to seal some pin holes in the fuel
tank. I ordered a quart of tank sealer from Bill Hirsch in N.J.. It worked well.
When I arrived at your present stage with 41CC I tried shellac and it didn't
prove satisfactory. Suddenly I remembered the can of sealer left over
sitting on the dusty shelf. I rolled the wired cork several times, vised the wire
and went to bed. Next day dry and hard. Never found any trouble. This could
handle car gas safely as that is what it was designed for. 311CC is corked,
wired and coated likewise.
Send me your mailing address and I will ship you a small quantity adequate
for your cork.
Corky in Louisiana
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
John,
If it is a riddle maybe I'll send you a colored picture.
Corky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Rambo" <GeneRambo(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
the standard thing for cork floats is plain old fashion shellac. It is fuel proof.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com<mailto:Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 12:12 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cork float fuel-proof varnish?
In a message dated 6/1/2005 2:15:40 PM Central Standard Time, steve(at)wotelectronics.com writes:
I am replacing the cub-style fuel guage rod in my plane, and would like to
re-coat the cork while I have it out. There are a few chips in the existing
varnish, and I want to make sure it doesn't start absorbing fuel and sink
in-flight, as I've been told this can happen.
Steve,
I built both my tanks using fiberglass and Polyester Resin (auto body stuff).
Problem is that any alcohol in the fuel could soften up the resin. For this
reason, I coated my float with polyester resin to fuel proof it, as well as use
it as a monitor for any softening effect of accidental alcohol in the fuel.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark <aerialphotos(at)dp.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
Gordon Bowen wrote:
>
>If you made you fiberglass tank out of epoxy resin or Derakane epoxy based
>vinyl ester resin, you shouldn't have any problem with Mogas with ethanol or
>methanol. But if you made it out of polyester resin, it depends on the type
>of polyester. Some boat fuel tanks are out of polyester and the type makes
>for better fuel resist. Most all canard pusher Rutanesque type planes have
>epoxy based fiberglass tanks, many guys run Mogas all the time for their
>o-200's and 235's, and have not reported problems after a 30 year history.
>Mogas will discolor the tank, but not dissolve. Biggest problem with Mogas
>is it varies with season and with location across the country. Also Mogas
>with alcohols will have an afffect on the gasketing.
>Gordon Bowen -Homer Alaska
>Cozy IV N64CY
>Osprey II N64SY
>Pietenpol N-1033B
>" But such is the constitution of my mind I cannot avoid forming an
>opinion", John Adams
>
>
>
The alcohol in gas may also work on some fuel lines, but the kicker is
now that the mo gas companies no longer have to tell you when its in the
gas. It used to be labeled as containing alcohol, but no longer. Most
mogas now has some.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike McCarty" <mmccarty(at)zianet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cork float fuel-proof varnish? |
> what about fabricating a float from thin brass sheet?
>
> I was thinking of buying some .020" brass sheet from the hobby store and
> soldering up a simple cylinder and then soldering the cyclinder to a piece
> of music wire run through it.
Or just use a brass float from some old junk car or lawnmower carburetor...
-Mac
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
<011201c56666$70879c00$0201a8c0@north>
A very low track between two radio beacons. :-)
Clif
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: EAA
Dick, What is a Grass Route?
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
________________________________________________________________________________
ETAtAhUAxB5AWScWmBBJNRc9JpeLM4yIyJACFGuJYz9cdwXsntBD4Xj1Rzg7fBbD
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
| Subject: | Fuel gauge float |
I work at a Co. that runs about 40 vehicles out of our location. While
walking past the shop one day I looked into the mechanics trash barrel
and found a discarded fuel sending unite. It had a plastic float, still
in perfect shape inspite of being in auto gas for a long time. It's now
in a Pietenpol fuel tank. I don't know,but these floats may be
available new threw Auto Zone etc. Check dumpsters behind auto repair
shops, or ask your auto mechanic friends to save you the next one he
replaces. Leon S. In Kansas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | ping pong ball float |
Here's some pics of the ping pong float.
And a response from the guy who made it,,,,, The wire (stainless steel, I think)
is .062"
Walt and all,
I too am still using the ping pong float in both my Celebrity, and Baby Ace.
I tried to shellac a cork float but it is a real mess. There's no telling when
the thing will deteriorate and you get all kinds of crumbs and stuff in the gas.
I assembled the ping pong ball float with "JB Weld". This type of epoxy is fuel
proof. Don't use any 5 minute or 15 minute type epoxies. I know that JB weld
works so I wouldn't take a chance using anything else!
Somebody used TWO ping pong balls to give more buoyancy. I guess it depends on
the length and gauge of the indicator rod that you use.
Bob Cook
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rhartwig11(at)juno.com |
Mark,
You wrote, "I am really not sure that there is much to gain by getting a
fat ultralight certified Experimental LSA...........................As
far as operation as long as the aircraft meets LSA operational
limitations, its my impression that its LSA an thats all you need."
An airplane must have an N number in order to be operated as an LSA. A
"fat" ultralight has to have an N number to be legally flown.
Dick H.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: We mean the same thing |
Chris and the rest,
Howdy... it has been a long time since I have posted. I am going thru some
custody issues with the kids and haven't had a lot of time for Piet stuff.
Anyway... I have been lurking.
This topic is one I have thought about in the past. On my Piet, I plan to
extend the nose way out sorta like Chuck did to accommodate my A75 Continental.
I have talked with several Continental guys like Chuck, Bob Siebert, and
others. I think they all ended up lowering the horiz stab leading edge. Your
discussion about the airfoil shapes got me to thinking.... perhaps I will ad some
airfoil shaped strips on the underside of my horiz stab surfaces before
cover. I just wonder how much of an effect this would give. Since they are
already built, its not too feasible to increase their size. But the airfoil shapes
could be added and not really affect the "looks" of the airplane. What to you
guys think?
Terry B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Our grass, quiet, but diverse airfield |
Never know what you're gonna see!
Today they dragged out the Helo , and after hours of setup, went for a flight.
walt evans
NX140DL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark <aerialphotos(at)dp.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fat ultralights |
rhartwig11(at)juno.com wrote:
>
>Mark,
>You wrote, "I am really not sure that there is much to gain by getting a
>fat ultralight certified Experimental LSA...........................As
>far as operation as long as the aircraft meets LSA operational
>limitations, its my impression that its LSA an thats all you need."
>
>An airplane must have an N number in order to be operated as an LSA. A
>"fat" ultralight has to have an N number to be legally flown.
>Dick H.
>
>
>Dick
>
I have done a little research and doing some additional work with AOPA
today as to what the differences might be. I should hear back early
next week for sure but here is the understanding now. With an E-LSA the
51% rule is not a factor. I understand some builders are actually
selling the product as an E-LSA when its nearly complete or has been
totally completed and then had say the wings removed for the final
builder to assemble the brand new airplane. The S-LSA has some
advantages, but also some extra hoops for the manufacturer to jump through.
In reality there is no such thing is a fat ultralight, though the phrase
has existed for many years. Its either 254 or less to be classified as
an air vehicle, or its an airplane. Now few realize that when they get
into one that 255, they are not going to get violated for flying an
overweight ultralight. They are going to get violated for every
violation that applies to airplanes until the inspector gets tired of
writing. No N number, No Airworthiness Certificate, No inspection, ect
until they don't want to bother with more of the paper work. Now that a
new and cheaper way of compliance is in place, expect a push to find a
few examples and trips to remote strips to find the airplanes and have
the owners prove compliance.
Just for my own enquiring mind, I wonder how many of you Piet builders
would still be building your own airplane IF you had the option of
buying a Piet already built by a factory at a reasonable price brand
new? Many of you I am sure would rather build anyway. I personally
would rather fly, if it was an option. In fact if money was no option I
would buy one and build one while I flew one, but then thats just me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LAWRENCE WILLIAMS" <lnawms(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Stabilizer incidence |
I just got back and have been wading through several days worth of posts. Interesting
to note the comments about the stab incidence and various "fixes" as well
as the standard aerodynamics 101 explanations.
I noticed as a kid that some old, slow free-flight models, especially the ones
with undercambered airfoils had LIFTING stabs. Sort of goes against what we claim
to be gospel in today's world. The reasoning was that with CG could be moved
further aft and not be burdened by stalls, snap-rolls and possible resulting
spins. So, how might this apply to our Piets? They are slow and have an ubdercambered
wing also.
Take a look at inflight photos of Piets and notice that many of them have a drooping
elevator! I know mine does and I have seen some others in the Brodhead pattern
that do also.
One other extreme example is the Bleriot Monoplane that has an undercambered stab.
Let's not be too hasty in having new builders camber their stabs either on top
or on the bottom. Remember all this website does is exchange ideas and, even though
they might sound logical, it's not the poster that has his butt on the line
when it's time to go.......
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stabilizer incidence |
Welcome back, Larry.
The suggestion is not to build in any stabilizer incidence. Just build in a
way to adjust the incidence later if needed. Simple to do by adding shims above
and below
the stabilizer. You would then be free to rearrange the shims without
affecting the fin location. If the fin remains in the same location then the
rudder hinges won't be affected.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: LAWRENCE WILLIAMS
To: Pietenpol-List Digest Server
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 2:54 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Stabilizer incidence
I just got back and have been wading through several days worth of posts. Interesting
to note the comments about the stab incidence and various "fixes" as
well as the standard aerodynamics 101 explanations.
I noticed as a kid that some old, slow free-flight models, especially the ones
with undercambered airfoils had LIFTING stabs. Sort of goes against what we
claim to be gospel in today's world. The reasoning was that with CG could be
moved further aft and not be burdened by stalls, snap-rolls and possible resulting
spins. So, how might this apply to our Piets? They are slow and have an ubdercambered
wing also.
Take a look at inflight photos of Piets and notice that many of them have a drooping
elevator! I know mine does and I have seen some others in the Brodhead
pattern that do also.
One other extreme example is the Bleriot Monoplane that has an undercambered
stab.
Let's not be too hasty in having new builders camber their stabs either on top
or on the bottom. Remember all this website does is exchange ideas and, even
though they might sound logical, it's not the poster that has his butt on the
line when it's time to go.......
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Tailwheel placement |
Hey guys, I am using a two leaf leaf spring and a Matco tailwheel and was
wondering where the best position for the tailwheel was. The plans-built
tailwheel show the wheel center maybe three or four inches forward of the
back end of the fuselage. With the leaf spring setup the wheel center will
end up around 12" behind the rear end of the fuselage. Naturally this is a
negative as far as adding to tail heavyness but doesn't a longer wheelbase
(distance from main gear to tailwheel) improve ground handling stability?
Most factory taildraggers are setup this way for some reason (Cubs, 140s,
180s, etc).
Thanks
--
Rick Holland
Ribs, tailfeathers, center section done, fuselage ready for gear now.
________________________________________________________________________________
;
| From: | Galen Hutcheson <wacopitts(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tailwheel placement |
Rick, short wheel-based tail-draggers are more
difficult to handle on the ground, ie. the Pitts as an
example. The further the tailwheel is from the main
gear the better it will handle. The Pietenpol has a
pretty short fuselage so I would vote on the 12" aft
position. Just my opinion.
Doc
--- Rick Holland wrote:
> Hey guys, I am using a two leaf leaf spring and a
> Matco tailwheel and was
> wondering where the best position for the tailwheel
> was. The plans-built
> tailwheel show the wheel center maybe three or four
> inches forward of the
> back end of the fuselage. With the leaf spring setup
> the wheel center will
> end up around 12" behind the rear end of the
> fuselage. Naturally this is a
> negative as far as adding to tail heavyness but
> doesn't a longer wheelbase
> (distance from main gear to tailwheel) improve
> ground handling stability?
> Most factory taildraggers are setup this way for
> some reason (Cubs, 140s,
> 180s, etc).
>
> Thanks
>
>
> --
> Rick Holland
> Ribs, tailfeathers, center section done, fuselage
> ready for gear now.
>
__________________________________
http://discover.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Stabilizer incidence |
In a message dated 6/5/2005 2:56:37 PM Central Standard Time, lnawms(at)msn.com
writes:
Take a look at inflight photos of Piets and notice that many of them have a
drooping elevator! I know mine does and I have seen some others in the Brodhead
pattern that do also.
Hi Larry !! Good to hear from you.
My plane fly's straight level flight, with the elevator (flippers)
slightly low. I noticed this same thing in one of the pictures that Corky sent
me
of his first plane (NX41CC) in flight. I can turn around and watch, and if I
pull back on the stick to make the flippers in line with the stab, it pitches
up to a very nose up attitude. This is kind of baffling. It's one of the
reasons I installed trim tabs on the flippers, and took ALL the negative incidence
out of the stab. I think the weight of the flippers being behind the hinge
(no mass balance) is at least some of the reason for it. It still fly's
straight & level with the drooping flippers, though. It's in trim at 1850 to 1900
rpm indicated, but my tach reads 100 rpm to low, compared to an electronic hand
held tach. If I add 100 rpm she climbs, and if I pull 100 rpm out, she
descends and picks up speed.
Those early planes, like the Bleriot Monoplane, are the only planes I
know of with an undercambered stabilizer. It seems they carry a portion of the
weight with the stab, so the C of G can be farther aft and it would also be
much more induced drag than later designs. Just think what would happen if the
stab would stall...the nose will pitch up abruptly past the Critical Angle of
Attack, and stall the main wing.
Chuck G.
It was an absolutely beautiful evening to fly. Clear blue sky, light south
wind, mid 80's. I did the River Run, then over an hour of slow flight at about
50 mph, with the power pulled back to 1700 rpm indicated, then did a Smokin'
Fly By at Beech Field. It's amazing how just put put putting around the sky
can clear all the cob webs out of my brain !!
________________________________________________________________________________
ETAuAhUAp5+Mo+97d6IDyo3sh2B2JezqONUCFQC3shLAbPXw9zEo2sX9sVOjie1RSA==
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
| Subject: | Tail wheel placement |
I'm using the 2 leaf set up also,.I set it as far forward as possible.
It sets about 6' behind the fus. tail post insted of 12". or the stocl
location. (which sets slightly foreward of the tail post) I also went
with the "homebuiler tail wheel' as seen in the supply catalogs, with
the hard rubber wheel. It is lighter than the Matco. To further lighten
the tail, I replaced the 6" wheel with a 4"er, saving around another
pound. It may have even been 1 1/2 lb. I did add extensions to the
steering arms to lessen the rudder bar authority over the tail wheel.
Unfortunately that added extra weight back there. Leon S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stabilizer incidence |
I'd expect just about every Piete that is being flown at or near the back edge
of acceptable CG limits (about 20" aft of LE wing) would need to have a little
lift developed by the horizonal stab and the elevator. Drooping elevator would
change the "airfoil" shape of the combo H.stab/elevator, therefore develop
lift, and lots of unnecessary drag. No lift coming from tail plane, nose pitches
up because of where the weight is vs the center of lift on the wing. Putting
incidence in H.stab, would only make permanent the drag. Still think the
best move is to have normally loaded CG somewhere more forward, ca. 16". Allowing
for fat pilots like me to shift the CG back to close to aft limit, when needed,
but only when needed. The only way to move "normally loaded", CG forward
is to put weight out in the engine area, much forward of the empty CG, thus
minimal additional drag, ie. a battery or a chuck of lead attached to the engine
mounts. OR move the wing further back during the building process.
Gordon Bowen
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Stabilizer incidence
In a message dated 6/5/2005 2:56:37 PM Central Standard Time, lnawms(at)msn.com
writes:
Take a look at inflight photos of Piets and notice that many of them have a
drooping elevator! I know mine does and I have seen some others in the Brodhead
pattern that do also.
Hi Larry !! Good to hear from you.
My plane fly's straight level flight, with the elevator (flippers) slightly
low. I noticed this same thing in one of the pictures that Corky sent me of
his first plane (NX41CC) in flight. I can turn around and watch, and if I pull
back on the stick to make the flippers in line with the stab, it pitches up
to a very nose up attitude. This is kind of baffling. It's one of the reasons
I installed trim tabs on the flippers, and took ALL the negative incidence
out of the stab. I think the weight of the flippers being behind the hinge (no
mass balance) is at least some of the reason for it. It still fly's straight
& level with the drooping flippers, though. It's in trim at 1850 to 1900 rpm
indicated, but my tach reads 100 rpm to low, compared to an electronic hand
held tach. If I add 100 rpm she climbs, and if I pull 100 rpm out, she descends
and picks up speed.
Those early planes, like the Bleriot Monoplane, are the only planes I know
of with an undercambered stabilizer. It seems they carry a portion of the weight
with the stab, so the C of G can be farther aft and it would also be much
more induced drag than later designs. Just think what would happen if the stab
would stall...the nose will pitch up abruptly past the Critical Angle of Attack,
and stall the main wing.
Chuck G.
It was an absolutely beautiful evening to fly. Clear blue sky, light south wind,
mid 80's. I did the River Run, then over an hour of slow flight at about
50 mph, with the power pulled back to 1700 rpm indicated, then did a Smokin'
Fly By at Beech Field. It's amazing how just put put putting around the sky can
clear all the cob webs out of my brain !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Vought" <carbarvo(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tailwheel placement |
I'm replacing the tailwheel on my Piete for two reasons: 1) it adds too much
weight in the wrong place and 2) it places the tailwheel under the rudder.
I figure on a hard landing, there's a good chance of it damaging the rudder.
The tailwheel I plan to use will be forward of the rudder, as in the
original drawings. Make sense???....Carl Vought
----- Original Message -----
From: "Galen Hutcheson" <wacopitts(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Tailwheel placement
>
> Rick, short wheel-based tail-draggers are more
> difficult to handle on the ground, ie. the Pitts as an
> example. The further the tailwheel is from the main
> gear the better it will handle. The Pietenpol has a
> pretty short fuselage so I would vote on the 12" aft
> position. Just my opinion.
>
> Doc
>
> --- Rick Holland wrote:
>
> > Hey guys, I am using a two leaf leaf spring and a
> > Matco tailwheel and was
> > wondering where the best position for the tailwheel
> > was. The plans-built
> > tailwheel show the wheel center maybe three or four
> > inches forward of the
> > back end of the fuselage. With the leaf spring setup
> > the wheel center will
> > end up around 12" behind the rear end of the
> > fuselage. Naturally this is a
> > negative as far as adding to tail heavyness but
> > doesn't a longer wheelbase
> > (distance from main gear to tailwheel) improve
> > ground handling stability?
> > Most factory taildraggers are setup this way for
> > some reason (Cubs, 140s,
> > 180s, etc).
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > --
> > Rick Holland
> > Ribs, tailfeathers, center section done, fuselage
> > ready for gear now.
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> http://discover.yahoo.com/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Lyscars" <alyscars(at)maine.rr.com> |
FYI:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd1&item4554489017&category26441&sspagenameWDVW
Alan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wizzard187(at)AOL.COM |
| Subject: | Re: Stabilizer incidence |
Pieters, Back in the sixtys I built a casssutt and had a lot of forward
stick pressure on the first flight and I am sure I raised the leading edge
to correct it. Now that was forty years ago but I am sure this is what I did.
Now this is a mid wing and I am sure I set the hort. streight with the
thrust line. Ken Conrad in hot iowa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tailwheel placement |
Carl
I did the same thing last winter. I removed the sinle leaf spring and Matco
tailwheel and built a V type assy with a extra light wheel from a dolly.
When I weighed them side by side, I had saved 3 lb. Then I had to consider
what to remove on the nose, 3 lb at the tail equals 12 lb at the firewall.
The most obvious thing was the 25 lb battery on the firewall. But I
installed a belly strobe and the battery also is a backup for the GPS and
VHF. Soooo, I considered very carefully till the weather suddenly got nice
and I put it all back together the way it was. Maybe next year.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Vought" <carbarvo(at)knology.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Tailwheel placement
>
> I'm replacing the tailwheel on my Piete for two reasons: 1) it adds too
> much
> weight in the wrong place and 2) it places the tailwheel under the
> rudder.
> I figure on a hard landing, there's a good chance of it damaging the
> rudder.
> The tailwheel I plan to use will be forward of the rudder, as in the
> original drawings. Make sense???....Carl Vought
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Galen Hutcheson" <wacopitts(at)yahoo.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 12:49 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Tailwheel placement
>
>
>
>>
>> Rick, short wheel-based tail-draggers are more
>> difficult to handle on the ground, ie. the Pitts as an
>> example. The further the tailwheel is from the main
>> gear the better it will handle. The Pietenpol has a
>> pretty short fuselage so I would vote on the 12" aft
>> position. Just my opinion.
>>
>> Doc
>>
>> --- Rick Holland wrote:
>>
>> > Hey guys, I am using a two leaf leaf spring and a
>> > Matco tailwheel and was
>> > wondering where the best position for the tailwheel
>> > was. The plans-built
>> > tailwheel show the wheel center maybe three or four
>> > inches forward of the
>> > back end of the fuselage. With the leaf spring setup
>> > the wheel center will
>> > end up around 12" behind the rear end of the
>> > fuselage. Naturally this is a
>> > negative as far as adding to tail heavyness but
>> > doesn't a longer wheelbase
>> > (distance from main gear to tailwheel) improve
>> > ground handling stability?
>> > Most factory taildraggers are setup this way for
>> > some reason (Cubs, 140s,
>> > 180s, etc).
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Rick Holland
>> > Ribs, tailfeathers, center section done, fuselage
>> > ready for gear now.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________
>> http://discover.yahoo.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Stabilizer incidence |
In a message dated 6/6/2005 8:58:40 AM Central Standard Time,
jim_markle(at)mindspring.com writes:
Maybe mounting your new camera setup pointing aft would tell some interesting
tales.....I plan on doing a little flying with a camera pointed outboard
along the ailerons so I can get an idea about deflection, etc....
Maybe some video of your tail (your AIRPLANE'S tail, that is...) would answer
some questions...
JM
Hey Jim, great idea !! I have video pointing aft, from both sides of the
cockpit, watching the smoke trail. Ya can't really see the position of the
flippers very well, because of the angle of the camera, but it does appear to be
slightly down, and I didn't note how much fuel was onboard when I did those
flights. I will do several more flights, paying particular attention to the
camera angle, and fuel onbd / C.G. location. One thing I've learned from all these
flights with the video camera mounted, is that in normal bumps of turbulence,
the camera exaggerates the movements. Quite often, it looks like I'm
bouncing all over the place...on second thought, maybe I am, and I'm just used
to it.
It's very challenging to shoot good video while flying the plane trying to
keep the subject in the viewfinder. I have to slip & skid circling a target,
causing the ball to bounce back & fourth (the one on the panel). I have some
really great video of three hot air balloons landing, and deflating. I circled
them for about 15 minutes during their operation, with the camera pointing
out the left side. I still have to do a flight with the camera pointing
directly at the instrument panel. I'm splicing and editing all this video, to
give
the impression of many cameras mounted on the airframe. I'm really learning a
lot, about what it takes to get good in flight video. It's looking pretty
good, but I've been having problems with the video editing program (Pinnacle
Studio 9). I've been in contact with them, and I have to un-install, and
re-install it. That's a scary thought, because I don't want to loose any of the
many
hours of video I have on the computer. I still haven't got any of the video's
to a finished point yet, but I do some stuff to them almost every day.
They're all looking pretty good, though...if I can just get this editing program
to
do the stuff I tell it to do !!
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Stabilizer incidence |
OK, so now we have cameras. Next step is to tape bits of yarn all over the
tail, particularly the rudder, fin and fuselage to show the vertical flow.
Taping to the stab and elevator for horizontal flow and possibly any stagnant
areas on the bottom.
Don't forget to have a few guys standing around in white lab coats with clip
boards, horn rim glasses and those plastic pen thingies in their pockets. :-) :-)
Clif
Maybe some video of your tail (your AIRPLANE'S tail, that is...) would answer
some questions...
JM
Hey Jim, great idea !! I have video pointing aft, from both sides of the cockpit,
watching the smoke trail. Ya can't really see the position of the flippers
very well, because of the angle of the camera, but it does appear to be slightly
down, and I didn't note how much fuel was onboard when I did those flights.
I will do several more flights, paying particular attention to the camera
angle, and fuel onbd / C.G. location. One thing I've learned from all these
flights with the video camera mounted, is that in normal bumps of turbulence,
the camera exaggerates the movements. Quite often, it looks like I'm bouncing
all over the place...on second thought, maybe I am, and I'm just used to it.
It's very challenging to shoot good video while flying the plane trying to keep
the subject in the viewfinder. I have to slip & skid circling a target, causing
the ball to bounce back & fourth (the one on the panel). I have some really
great video of three hot air balloons landing, and deflating. I circled
them for about 15 minutes during their operation, with the camera pointing out
the left side. I still have to do a flight with the camera pointing directly
at the instrument panel. I'm splicing and editing all this video, to give the
impression of many cameras mounted on the airframe. I'm really learning a
lot, about what it takes to get good in flight video. It's looking pretty good,
but I've been having problems with the video editing program (Pinnacle Studio
9). I've been in contact with them, and I have to un-install, and re-install
it. That's a scary thought, because I don't want to loose any of the many
hours of video I have on the computer. I still haven't got any of the video's
to a finished point yet, but I do some stuff to them almost every day. They're
all looking pretty good, though...if I can just get this editing program to
do the stuff I tell it to do !!
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Conkling" <hpvs(at)southwind.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stabilizer incidence |
You might try a couple Mylar strips (old cassette??? ;-) attached to the
wing T.E. to show how much of a "downwash" you're getting from the wing --
if they are just long enough to just miss the Stab. L.E. you'll have an idea
what angle of attack it's working at. Roll them up & tape them to the
center section till you get to the "Test Area".
Mike C. (I'm not a test engineer, but I've played one at work! ;-)
Pretty Prairie, KS
----- Original Message -----
From: Clif Dawson
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 1:55 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Stabilizer incidence
OK, so now we have cameras. Next step is to tape bits of yarn all over the
tail, particularly the rudder, fin and fuselage to show the vertical flow.
Taping to the stab and elevator for horizontal flow and possibly any
stagnant
areas on the bottom.
Don't forget to have a few guys standing around in white lab coats with
clip
boards, horn rim glasses and those plastic pen thingies in their pockets.
:-) :-)
Clif
Maybe some video of your tail (your AIRPLANE'S tail, that is...) would
answer some questions...
JM
Hey Jim, great idea !! I have video pointing aft, from both sides of
the cockpit, watching the smoke trail. Ya can't really see the position of
the flippers very well, because of the angle of the camera, but it does
appear to be slightly down, and I didn't note how much fuel was onboard when
I did those flights. I will do several more flights, paying particular
attention to the camera angle, and fuel onbd / C.G. location. One thing
I've learned from all these flights with the video camera mounted, is that
in normal bumps of turbulence, the camera exaggerates the movements. Quite
often, it looks like I'm bouncing all over the place...on second thought,
maybe I am, and I'm just used to it. It's very challenging to shoot good
video while flying the plane trying to keep the subject in the viewfinder.
I have to slip & skid circling a target, causing the ball to bounce back &
fourth (the one on the panel). I have some really great video of three hot
air balloons landing, and deflating. I circled them for about 15 minutes
during their operation, with the camera pointing out the left side. I still
have to do a flight with the camera pointing directly at the instrument
panel. I'm splicing and editing all this video, to give the impression of
many cameras mounted on the airframe. I'm really learning a lot, about what
it takes to get good in flight video. It's looking pretty good, but I've
been having problems with the video editing program (Pinnacle Studio 9).
I've been in contact with them, and I have to un-install, and re-install it.
That's a scary thought, because I don't want to loose any of the many hours
of video I have on the computer. I still haven't got any of the video's to
a finished point yet, but I do some stuff to them almost every day. They're
all looking pretty good, though...if I can just get this editing program to
do the stuff I tell it to do !!
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Krzes" <jkrzes(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Video while flying |
>From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
> It's very challenging to shoot good video while flying the plane trying
>to
>keep the subject in the viewfinder.
Gotta smile at this. Long time ago as a student pilot planning a cross
country into a strange airfield, I figured I'd take a pair of binoculars and
scope out the field layout on the way in. Well, I found out that you (or at
least I), cannot fly a plane while looking through binoculars. I was good
practice for recovery from unusal attitudes. Maybe not that bad, but I
quickly abandoned that idea. Looking back, that was a pretty stupid idea
anyway cause inbound to an airfield is the LAST place you want to fly with
tunnel vision!
Joe
PS - I was 17 or 18 at the time and full of stupid ideas. Now my ideas are
still stupid, just more expensive.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
awsonaviation>
Mike C. in KS---I've got a white lab coat if they need one to borrow and
some pocket protectors from the geek engineer types here......
(I refuse to wear one).
Mike C. in OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Video while flying |
| From: | harvey.rule(at)bell.ca |
FILETIME=[5D8470B0:01C56B7A]
Ya want to try flying in with fogged goggles;now that can be exciting
too!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Joe
Krzes
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Video while flying
>From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
> It's very challenging to shoot good video while flying the plane
trying
>to
>keep the subject in the viewfinder.
Gotta smile at this. Long time ago as a student pilot planning a cross
country into a strange airfield, I figured I'd take a pair of binoculars
and
scope out the field layout on the way in. Well, I found out that you
(or at
least I), cannot fly a plane while looking through binoculars. I was
good
practice for recovery from unusal attitudes. Maybe not that bad, but I
quickly abandoned that idea. Looking back, that was a pretty stupid
idea
anyway cause inbound to an airfield is the LAST place you want to fly
with
tunnel vision!
Joe
PS - I was 17 or 18 at the time and full of stupid ideas. Now my ideas
are
still stupid, just more expensive.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | rib set and jig on ebay |
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=4555025956&category=26439&sspagename=WDVW
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Stabilizer incidence |
Hey !!
You guys are coming up with some great ideas !! Cassette tapes...I still
have some old 8 track tapes !! I'll be back up in the Test Bed at the end of
the week, after this next front goes through. I don't have any lab coats, or
pocket protectors...I wear old tee shirts, and make notes on my hand...that way
my notes can't blow away !!
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Video while flying |
In a message dated 6/7/2005 9:07:39 AM Central Standard Time,
jkrzes(at)hotmail.com writes:
Joe
PS - I was 17 or 18 at the time and full of stupid ideas. Now my ideas are
still stupid, just more expensive.
Sounds like a fertile mind to me !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Video while flying |
In a message dated 6/7/2005 11:05:21 AM Central Standard Time,
harvey.rule(at)bell.ca writes:
Ya want to try flying in with fogged goggles;now that can be exciting
too!
Divers always spit in their goggles and rub it around to prevent fogging.
However, I don't think they chew tobacco...
________________________________________________________________________________
;
| From: | Kent Hallsten <pietbuilder(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Selling my ribs, and plans |
Hi Everyone,
It has been quite a while since I have been on the
forum. I see all familiar names and am happy you guys
are going strong.
I am selling my ribs and rib jig on eBay. I see Mike
already posted the link. Thanks Mike.
Last January, 2004 my wife was diagnosed with Ovarian
Cancer and our family life took a tailspin. Eventually
she pulled through with a magnificent Doctor, great
attitude, and all of us pulling and praying for her.
We are fine now but during this past year and a half I
lost my desire to build, and found myself spending
more time messing around with my other passion,
motorcycles. It seemed more satisfying to work on a
bike than my plane, I can't figure that out but I'm
running with it. I'm selling the woodworking stuff and
also my Piet blueprints. I'll have the prints on eBay
later this week.
Good luck to you all, keep building, keep flying.
Kent Hallsten
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Ruse <steve(at)wotelectronics.com> |
report
The more reading I do, the more I see GN-1s and Pietenpols with claimed cruise
speeds of 70, 80, & 90+ MPH. My GN-1 with an A-75 cruises at about 65mph at
2,200 RPM. Going to 2,400 or so will net me maybe an additional 5mph. Nowhere
near the 80+ MPH I see some people claiming. Now I understand I'm in a
Pietenpol, and getting somewhere fast is not a concern, but I'm wondering if
other people's numbers are real, or if the prop (or some other factor) is
making my plane slow.
The prop on my plane is a fancy Prince "Q-tip" composite/wood prop, I don't know
the exact numbers, but I am trying to get them from Prince. The previous owner
told me this is a climb prop, and the plane came with an extra prop that he
said was more of a cruise prop, and would give maybe 70mph.
Is the prop I'm using possibly slowing me down? The plane is right at 600lbs,
I'm only ~170lbs, and the airfoil is the original Pietenpol airfoil. I see
some people claiming 80-85mph in GN-1s with A-65s. The higher cruise RPM of my
A-75 should give me an advantage over them. What am I missing? Should I
really expect to get 80+mph in cruise?
Thanks!
Steve Ruse
N6383J - KFTW
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Video while flying |
Stupidity is sometimes only in the mind of the beholder.
The Wrights were a couple of stupid bicycle diddlers that
didn't know you needed suspenders to hold everything up.
Then there was Edyson, Bell, Watt, etc. All stupid time
and money wasters.
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Video while flying
Sounds like a fertile mind to me !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Video while flying |
| From: | harvey.rule(at)bell.ca |
FILETIME=[2757AF40:01C56C18]
Thank God for diddlers and money waisters!
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clif Dawson
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Video while flying
Stupidity is sometimes only in the mind of the beholder.
The Wrights were a couple of stupid bicycle diddlers that
didn't know you needed suspenders to hold everything up.
Then there was Edyson, Bell, Watt, etc. All stupid time
and money wasters.
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Video while flying
Sounds like a fertile mind to me !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | wanted-- wire wheel Continental powered Piet |
c56abb$ca4b7aa0$7281d618@knology.net>
Guys-- a local IA is looking to buy one. Any out there--lemmie know.
thank you,
Mike C.
He's open to GN-1's as well if not too heavy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Cruise speed... |
Steve-- Lonnie Prince should have a sticker or embossed serial no. on your
prop which
has within its contents the length and pitch of your prop. It should be on
the hub area
on the height of the hub sides. I can get you his home phone offline if
you like.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip(at)alarismed.com> |
That's about what I see with mine. 65 - 70 mph with a 65 Continental
and a Sensenich 72 x 42 prop. A lot depends on your airspeed indicator,
and whether or not you have a real static port or just leave the
instruments open to ambient in the cockpit. Try to check your speed by
timing it both ways over a known distance, or use a GPS.
Jack Phillips, PE
Sr. Manager, Disposables Product Development
Clinical Technologies and Services
Cardinal Health
Creedmoor, NC
(919) 528-5212
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve
Ruse
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cruise speed...
The more reading I do, the more I see GN-1s and Pietenpols with claimed
cruise
speeds of 70, 80, & 90+ MPH. My GN-1 with an A-75 cruises at about
65mph at
2,200 RPM. Going to 2,400 or so will net me maybe an additional 5mph.
Nowhere
near the 80+ MPH I see some people claiming. Now I understand I'm in a
Pietenpol, and getting somewhere fast is not a concern, but I'm
wondering if
other people's numbers are real, or if the prop (or some other factor)
is
making my plane slow.
The prop on my plane is a fancy Prince "Q-tip" composite/wood prop, I
don't know
the exact numbers, but I am trying to get them from Prince. The
previous owner
told me this is a climb prop, and the plane came with an extra prop that
he
said was more of a cruise prop, and would give maybe 70mph.
Is the prop I'm using possibly slowing me down? The plane is right at
600lbs,
I'm only ~170lbs, and the airfoil is the original Pietenpol airfoil. I
see
some people claiming 80-85mph in GN-1s with A-65s. The higher cruise RPM
of my
A-75 should give me an advantage over them. What am I missing? Should
I
really expect to get 80+mph in cruise?
Thanks!
Steve Ruse
N6383J - KFTW
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Cruise speed... |
Pieters and interesters,
The way I see it there are only two ways to get a Piet over 70 mph, lie
about it or straight down.
Someone in Louisiana
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Ruse <steve(at)wotelectronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cruise speed... |
report
Thanks Mike,
I was just going to contact Prince and see what the specifics were for this
serial number. I didn't think that the length and pitch would actually
be part
of the serial number. Makes sense though. I'll have to check the numbers
tonight, and do the math that Fred was talking about.
I'm guessing that higher drag planes like Pietenpols typically see
greater prop
slip numbers than a plane with more "average" drag? I'd be interested in
hearing the cruise speeds that some people are getting with 65-85 horsepower,
particularly if you are getting greater than 80MPH cruise.
I'm going to make a ~600SM trip in my GN-1 this weekend (weather permitting),
should be fun. I'm going to Odessa (KODO), and when I called to inquire about
hangar space there, they told me there was a Pietenpol on field there. Any
chance that person is on the list?
Thanks for the help,
Steve Ruse
N6383J - KFTW
Quoting Michael D Cuy :
>
>
> Steve-- Lonnie Prince should have a sticker or embossed serial no. on your
> prop which
> has within its contents the length and pitch of your prop. It should be on
> the hub area
> on the height of the hub sides. I can get you his home phone offline if
> you like.
>
> Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cruise speed... |
Third way, put on a diff type of NACA wing design, like any old Piper or Aeronca
high winger (they're laying around hangers/garages in airports all across America),
that undercambered original Piete wing design may have a tad more drag
than needed for the amount of lift created. You can pick these old wings up
for a lot cheaper than you can build them, rebuild and recover. Kick up the HP
to 100+ and then lie about getting 100kts (instead of true 90) out of your modified
Piete. Purist need not apply.
Gordon Bowen
----- Original Message -----
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 6:10 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cruise speed...
Pieters and interesters,
The way I see it there are only two ways to get a Piet over 70 mph, lie about
it or straight down.
Someone in Louisiana
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shawn Wolk" <shawnwolk(at)sprint.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Cruise Speed |
I was getting 76 mph with a Sensenich Wood prop that limited rpm to 2200 flat
out with an A-65. Now I still get 76 mph with a two blade warp drive pitched
to throttle back to 2250 rpm and better fuel economy. My ASI reads high. These
numbers are based on many tests using a GPS in 4 directions.
Shawn Wolk
C-FRAZ Pietenpol Aircamper
C-GZOT Skyhopper 2
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cruise Speed |
| From: | harvey.rule(at)bell.ca |
FILETIME=[05BA0460:01C56C44]
Is that a ground adjustible prop?If it is you may want to check the
stems for cracks.Ground adjustable props don't do very well with direct
drive engines.Something to do with the torgue at the stems being
excessive.
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Shawn
Wolk
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Cruise Speed
I was getting 76 mph with a Sensenich Wood prop that limited rpm to
2200 flat out with an A-65. Now I still get 76 mph with a two blade warp
drive pitched to throttle back to 2250 rpm and better fuel economy. My
ASI reads high. These numbers are based on many tests using a GPS in 4
directions.
Shawn Wolk
C-FRAZ Pietenpol Aircamper
C-GZOT Skyhopper 2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stabilizer incidence |
Larry,
Good to here from you.
You wrote:
Take a look at inflight photos of Piets and notice that many of them have a drooping
elevator! I know mine does and I have seen some others in the Brodhead pattern
that do also
The reason for the drooped elevator on the Piet is that it weighs something and
gravity pulls down on it. You could call it "gravitational" trimming. If the
elevator control system had a counterweight in it that counterbalanced the weight
of the elevators, the droop would not exist and the ship would fly with
more noseup tendency.
To put it another way, if you flew your ship inverted, the elevator would still
droop.
The Sleek Streak that I still have from 40 years ago shows a distinct leading edge
low position for the horizontal stab. I do not think that it is a lifting
stab.
See a classic book called "Aero Science of Free Flight" by Charles Hampson Grant available for about 10 bucks on ebay or www.bookfinder.com for discussion of lifting stabs and an otherwise unsurpassed discussion on empirically determining flight characteristics.
You wrote:
One other extreme example is the Bleriot Monoplane that has an undercambered stab.
Early designers had erroneously assumed that both surfaces lifted. That was my
elusion to the early Fleet biplanes having the camber on the top of the stabiliser
in one of the flight reports. A handful of Waco Model 10s, mostly those
destined for seaplane use, used in inverted camber airfoil on the stab to increase
effectiveness.
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: LAWRENCE WILLIAMS
To: Pietenpol-List Digest Server
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 2:54 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Stabilizer incidence
I just got back and have been wading through several days worth of posts. Interesting
to note the comments about the stab incidence and various "fixes" as
well as the standard aerodynamics 101 explanations.
I noticed as a kid that some old, slow free-flight models, especially the ones
with undercambered airfoils had LIFTING stabs. Sort of goes against what we
claim to be gospel in today's world. The reasoning was that with CG could be
moved further aft and not be burdened by stalls, snap-rolls and possible resulting
spins. So, how might this apply to our Piets? They are slow and have an ubdercambered
wing also.
Take a look at inflight photos of Piets and notice that many of them have a drooping
elevator! I know mine does and I have seen some others in the Brodhead
pattern that do also.
One other extreme example is the Bleriot Monoplane that has an undercambered
stab.
Let's not be too hasty in having new builders camber their stabs either on top
or on the bottom. Remember all this website does is exchange ideas and, even
though they might sound logical, it's not the poster that has his butt on the
line when it's time to go.......
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stabilizer incidence |
Here are two images of the Fleet Model 2 showing the horizontal stab with the camber
on the top! It would have performed beter if they had flipped it over!
Also note the different incidence angles of the wings in the photo which does not
appear in the drawing. This could be an error in repair of the fuselage at
sme point or it could be the way it really was....
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 12:29 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Stabilizer incidence
In a message dated 6/5/2005 2:56:37 PM Central Standard Time, lnawms(at)msn.com
writes:
Take a look at inflight photos of Piets and notice that many of them have a
drooping elevator! I know mine does and I have seen some others in the Brodhead
pattern that do also.
Hi Larry !! Good to hear from you.
My plane fly's straight level flight, with the elevator (flippers) slightly
low. I noticed this same thing in one of the pictures that Corky sent me of
his first plane (NX41CC) in flight. I can turn around and watch, and if I pull
back on the stick to make the flippers in line with the stab, it pitches up
to a very nose up attitude. This is kind of baffling. It's one of the reasons
I installed trim tabs on the flippers, and took ALL the negative incidence
out of the stab. I think the weight of the flippers being behind the hinge (no
mass balance) is at least some of the reason for it. It still fly's straight
& level with the drooping flippers, though. It's in trim at 1850 to 1900 rpm
indicated, but my tach reads 100 rpm to low, compared to an electronic hand
held tach. If I add 100 rpm she climbs, and if I pull 100 rpm out, she descends
and picks up speed.
Those early planes, like the Bleriot Monoplane, are the only planes I know
of with an undercambered stabilizer. It seems they carry a portion of the weight
with the stab, so the C of G can be farther aft and it would also be much
more induced drag than later designs. Just think what would happen if the stab
would stall...the nose will pitch up abruptly past the Critical Angle of Attack,
and stall the main wing.
Chuck G.
It was an absolutely beautiful evening to fly. Clear blue sky, light south wind,
mid 80's. I did the River Run, then over an hour of slow flight at about
50 mph, with the power pulled back to 1700 rpm indicated, then did a Smokin'
Fly By at Beech Field. It's amazing how just put put putting around the sky can
clear all the cob webs out of my brain !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stabilizer incidence |
Do not confuse center of lift with pitching moment.....
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Gordon Bowen
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Stabilizer incidence
I'd expect just about every Piete that is being flown at or near the back edge
of acceptable CG limits (about 20" aft of LE wing) would need to have a little
lift developed by the horizonal stab and the elevator. Drooping elevator would
change the "airfoil" shape of the combo H.stab/elevator, therefore develop
lift, and lots of unnecessary drag. No lift coming from tail plane, nose pitches
up because of where the weight is vs the center of lift on the wing. Putting
incidence in H.stab, would only make permanent the drag. Still think the
best move is to have normally loaded CG somewhere more forward, ca. 16". Allowing
for fat pilots like me to shift the CG back to close to aft limit, when
needed, but only when needed. The only way to move "normally loaded", CG forward
is to put weight out in the engine area, much forward of the empty CG, thus
minimal additional drag, ie. a battery or a chuck of lead attached to the engine
mounts. OR move the wing further back during the building process.
Gordon Bowen
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Stabilizer incidence
In a message dated 6/5/2005 2:56:37 PM Central Standard Time, lnawms(at)msn.com
writes:
Take a look at inflight photos of Piets and notice that many of them have
a drooping elevator! I know mine does and I have seen some others in the Brodhead
pattern that do also.
Hi Larry !! Good to hear from you.
My plane fly's straight level flight, with the elevator (flippers) slightly
low. I noticed this same thing in one of the pictures that Corky sent me
of his first plane (NX41CC) in flight. I can turn around and watch, and if I
pull back on the stick to make the flippers in line with the stab, it pitches
up to a very nose up attitude. This is kind of baffling. It's one of the reasons
I installed trim tabs on the flippers, and took ALL the negative incidence
out of the stab. I think the weight of the flippers being behind the hinge
(no mass balance) is at least some of the reason for it. It still fly's straight
& level with the drooping flippers, though. It's in trim at 1850 to 1900
rpm indicated, but my tach reads 100 rpm to low, compared to an electronic hand
held tach. If I add 100 rpm she climbs, and if I pull 100 rpm out, she descends
and picks up speed.
Those early planes, like the Bleriot Monoplane, are the only planes I know
of with an undercambered stabilizer. It seems they carry a portion of the
weight with the stab, so the C of G can be farther aft and it would also be much
more induced drag than later designs. Just think what would happen if the
stab would stall...the nose will pitch up abruptly past the Critical Angle of
Attack, and stall the main wing.
Chuck G.
It was an absolutely beautiful evening to fly. Clear blue sky, light south
wind, mid 80's. I did the River Run, then over an hour of slow flight at about
50 mph, with the power pulled back to 1700 rpm indicated, then did a Smokin'
Fly By at Beech Field. It's amazing how just put put putting around the sky
can clear all the cob webs out of my brain !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cruise speed... |
Steve,
I had posted my speeds after adding dihedral to the wings. ( that probably
didn't affect speed though) . At full throttle with an A65 and a sensinech
prop of 72x42, I indicated well over 90. But checking with a GPS in four
directions the actual was 86/87.
Try nosing down slightly to get the wing up on step ( that's what I call it)
You'll seem like you are in a gentle dive, but you'll actually not loose
altitude.
Also I find that even in straight and level flight, a slight touch on the
right rudder will give you a few more knots
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Ruse" <steve(at)wotelectronics.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cruise speed...
>
> The more reading I do, the more I see GN-1s and Pietenpols with claimed
cruise
> speeds of 70, 80, & 90+ MPH. My GN-1 with an A-75 cruises at about 65mph
at
> 2,200 RPM. Going to 2,400 or so will net me maybe an additional 5mph.
Nowhere
> near the 80+ MPH I see some people claiming. Now I understand I'm in a
> Pietenpol, and getting somewhere fast is not a concern, but I'm wondering
if
> other people's numbers are real, or if the prop (or some other factor) is
> making my plane slow.
>
> The prop on my plane is a fancy Prince "Q-tip" composite/wood prop, I
don't know
> the exact numbers, but I am trying to get them from Prince. The previous
owner
> told me this is a climb prop, and the plane came with an extra prop that
he
> said was more of a cruise prop, and would give maybe 70mph.
>
> Is the prop I'm using possibly slowing me down? The plane is right at
600lbs,
> I'm only ~170lbs, and the airfoil is the original Pietenpol airfoil. I
see
> some people claiming 80-85mph in GN-1s with A-65s. The higher cruise RPM
of my
> A-75 should give me an advantage over them. What am I missing? Should I
> really expect to get 80+mph in cruise?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Steve Ruse
> N6383J - KFTW
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
Steve-- I'm running the same engine (65 Continental) as Walt Evans and the
same prop length and pitch
72"x42P and verified by opposing gps runs at 2150 rpm, I'm seeing 70-71 mph
cruise and about 85-87 mph
at full throttle. (where I had the throttle set when the Fisk controller
near Oshkosh said "black and white high wing,
keep up your speed.")
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | harvey.rule(at)bell.ca |
FILETIME=[184E1760:01C56C58]
Does anybody know what prop you would use for an 80hp Franklin(wood
prop)?At this time I am using a metal prop and it has been suggested to
me to switch to a wood prop to save the engine in case of a tip
forward.I am no where near flying situation as yet.I finished putting
the tail back together and I have yet to install the wings.It needs carb
heat,seat belts,jury struts,controls moved to the left side and a few
other alligators which havn't shown their ugly head as yet.I'm looking
forward to assembling it and finishing her off.She is a real beauty and
when I'm finished I'll post some pictures.
-----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: cruise speeds
Steve-- I'm running the same engine (65 Continental) as Walt Evans and
the
same prop length and pitch
72"x42P and verified by opposing gps runs at 2150 rpm, I'm seeing 70-71
mph
cruise and about 85-87 mph
at full throttle. (where I had the throttle set when the Fisk
controller
near Oshkosh said "black and white high wing,
keep up your speed.")
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Ruse <steve(at)wotelectronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: cruise speeds |
report
Thanks Mike,
At what RPM do you cruise? How long are your take-off rolls, and what do you
climb at (FPM)? Also, what static RPM do you normally see?
Thanks!
Steve
Quoting Michael D Cuy :
>
>
> Steve-- I'm running the same engine (65 Continental) as Walt Evans and the
> same prop length and pitch
> 72"x42P and verified by opposing gps runs at 2150 rpm, I'm seeing 70-71 mph
> cruise and about 85-87 mph
> at full throttle. (where I had the throttle set when the Fisk controller
> near Oshkosh said "black and white high wing,
> keep up your speed.")
>
> Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cruise speed... |
In a message dated 6/8/2005 8:52:45 AM Central Standard Time,
jphillip(at)alarismed.com writes:
That's about what I see with mine. 65 - 70 mph with a 65 Continental
and a Sensenich 72 x 42 prop. A lot depends on your airspeed indicator,
and whether or not you have a real static port or just leave the
instruments open to ambient in the cockpit. Try to check your speed by
timing it both ways over a known distance, or use a GPS.
Steve,
I have a similar set up as Jack, but mine is a short fuselage, with similar
performance. After adding the fairings to the gear legs, and jury struts, the
speed increased only slightly...a couple of mph. Another way I like to check
airspeed, is to fly the same speed as traffic on the turnpike. The speed
limit is 70, so I figure traffic is going to be between 70 and 75. I like to try
to keep the shadow of my plane, right on the pavement just ahead of, and
keeping track with a chosen vehicle. It's a lot more difficult than you would
think, and I often wonder what is going through the driver's mind, when he / she
sees a big shadow on the road up ahead !!
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bike.mike" <bike.mike(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cruise speed... |
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
[snip]
I often wonder what is going through the driver's mind, when he / she sees a
big shadow on the road up ahead !!
Someone I won't name was flying an Aeronca Champ over oil country in Califonia,
trying to keep the shadow on an oil tanker. On a whim, out on a private, paved,
oil company haul road, "someone" did a touch and go in front of the tanker,
leaving the wheels on the road for several hundred feet. "Someone" then flew
straight away, hoping the driver didn't get a look at the 3" N-numbers. "Someone"
wonders, every now and then, if that driver still tells the story in some
bar in Kern county.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shawn Wolk" <shawnwolk(at)sprint.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Re: Cruise Speed |
Now don't paint all ground adjustable props with the same brush. At our field
there are many small continentals and Lycomings up to 0-320 using Warp Drives
and no one has had any problems.
There has been a report that I've seen about a Rotax 912S about hub cracking.
The Rotax 912S has high compression and I don't believe it was the 'HP' hub.
The Warp drive with the 'HP' hub is a solid very nicely machined item. I won't
comment on other ground adjustable props. Only that I am very happy with the
Warp Drive and have a 2-blade for the Pietenpol (hand propping...a must) and
a 3-blade for my Skyhopper 2.
I haven't mentioned the take off roll in the previous post because I've never
really measured it. Its fairly short, and of course is slightly extended with
a full fuel load or carrying passengers. On a smooth grass runway (home field)
or a paved strip. It's kind of fun to do a sprayplane style T/O and hold the
stick forward to build up speed. When the stick is pulled back at climb speed
it really hops off and climbs.
I have the A-65 powered Piet set up for 2250-2275 static. She will go to about
2375 flat out, so I commonly throttle back for economy. Again this provided
76 mph at 2250-2275 rpm.
When I had the Piet on floats. I pitched the prop for 2425 static. It would
go up to 2525 in level flight. Throttling just a wee bit back to about 2350 gave
me 72 mph. I left the prop in this position for 1 flight after returning the
Piet to wheels. It was the same top speed 72 mph at the same rpm. But did it
climb. Surprised the %&$# out of me. I have found that the current static pitch
provided a good balance of climb and speed for me.
Shawn Wolk
C-FRAZ Pietenpol Aircamper
C-GZOT Skyhopper 2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jdavis2a(at)wmconnect.com |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Re: Cruise Speed |
I must agree on the Warp Drive prop. I have approx 180 hours on my Corvair
powered Piet, hand proping, with zero problems and very good performance. The
prop is a 70 inch with HP hub and blades. I also like being able to adjust
the prop for the kind of performance you need.
Have a great day, JIM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | golfing and touch and goes |
My buddy from work and I were golfing one summer and when we were teeing
off on No. 7 I told him that this
would be a perfect place to land the plane or to do a touch and go. That
winter, when all the golfers where home
by the fire, I did a touch (no, someone) did a touch and go on that
fairway. It was nice and firm-- I could have done
a full stop but thought better of it, not wanting to be on the 6 o'clock news.
Someone in the midwest:))
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Gow" <rgow(at)avionicsdesign.ca> |
Well I used to do the same thing with my chief on skis. Get about 20 feet
above Lake Simcoe (Ontario) with the sun behind you, slow down and put the
shadow the airplane right over a sled. It was funny to see the rider
looking around to see what was causing the shadow. The sun is low enough in
the winter that you can be far enough back that he cant see you without
turning right around. Slide back a few yards to give him some light then
sneak back up again. Repeat until bored.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of bike.mike
Sent: June 8, 2005 6:54 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cruise speed...
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
[snip]
I often wonder what is going through the driver's mind, when he / she
sees a big shadow on the road up ahead !!
Someone I won't name was flying an Aeronca Champ over oil country in
Califonia, trying to keep the shadow on an oil tanker. On a whim, out on a
private, paved, oil company haul road, "someone" did a touch and go in front
of the tanker, leaving the wheels on the road for several hundred feet.
"Someone" then flew straight away, hoping the driver didn't get a look at
the 3" N-numbers. "Someone" wonders, every now and then, if that driver
still tells the story in some bar in Kern county.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: golfing and touch and goes |
Wow, just like Howard Hughes used to do with his Sikorsky, (you did see the
movie didn't you?).
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/Sikorsky/Aero24G4.jpg
According to the book he landed an S-38 on a golf course in Bevery Hills and
couldn't take off the next day so he had the Sikorsky taken apart and hauled
back to the airport to be put back together. So its a good thing you didn't
do a full stop Mike.
Rick H
On 6/9/05, Michael D Cuy wrote:
>
> My buddy from work and I were golfing one summer and when we were teeing
> off on No. 7 I told him that this
> would be a perfect place to land the plane or to do a touch and go. That
> winter, when all the golfers where home
> by the fire, I did a touch (no, *someone) *did a touch and go on that
> fairway. It was nice and firm-- I could have done
> a full stop but thought better of it, not wanting to be on the 6 o'clock
> news.
>
> Someone in the midwest:))
>
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Rambo" <GeneRambo(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead dates |
I am sure it has been on here and I have missed it. What are the dates of this
year's Brodhead Piet fly-in?
Gene.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Re: Cruise Speed |
| From: | harvey.rule(at)bell.ca |
FILETIME=[3F9F6910:01C56CFB]
All I'm saying is I know of at least 3 pilots who had problems and
didn't know about it till they took their props off and checked them
out.Just a word of warning.
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Jdavis2a(at)wmconnect.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: RE: Re: Cruise Speed
I must agree on the Warp Drive prop. I have approx 180 hours on my
Corvair powered Piet, hand proping, with zero problems and very good
performance. The prop is a 70 inch with HP hub and blades. I also like
being able to adjust the prop for the kind of performance you need.
Have a great day, JIM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Need some answers |
Pieters,
Would appreciate the answers to the following questions:
1 How many lbs can an empty, sealed gallon milk jug support in fresh water?
2 In salt water?
3 In bayou water?
All based on 231 cu in vessel
Thanks
Someone still in Louisiana
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Need some answers |
Corky,
A cubic foot of water is about 64#, and 1728 cubic inches. Therefore 231/1728
0.134 cubic feet. OR about 8.5#/gallon for water. So..........amount of
weight supported by plastic gallon jug is 8.5# minus the weight of jug. OR about
8#'s per jug. Salt water weights more per gallon than fresh water but not
much, and it depends on the salinity of the water, same for bayou water, it
depends on the saltyness. But, except for the Great Salt Lake, the salt content
is not over 2%. This can get more accurate, how precise do you need this?
You planning on making a float plane out of the Piete?
Gordon Bowen
----- Original Message -----
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 6:19 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Need some answers
Pieters,
Would appreciate the answers to the following questions:
1 How many lbs can an empty, sealed gallon milk jug support in fresh water?
2 In salt water?
3 In bayou water?
All based on 231 cu in vessel
Thanks
Someone still in Louisiana
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Need some answers |
OR, you should be able to do it the Thomas Edison way. He didn't like figuring,
but did it the common sense way.
1 fill the jug with water and weigh it. That's how much it will support for neutral
bouancy.
2 fill it with salt water and weigh it.. ditto
3 fill it with bayou water ( without getting croc bit) ditto
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 9:19 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Need some answers
Pieters,
Would appreciate the answers to the following questions:
1 How many lbs can an empty, sealed gallon milk jug support in fresh water?
2 In salt water?
3 In bayou water?
All based on 231 cu in vessel
Thanks
Someone still in Louisiana
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Norman Stapelberg" <norshel(at)mweb.co.za> |
| Subject: | Re: Cruise Speed |
Check your prop carefully as I had a ground adjustable let go late down
wind, my test pilot made it back to terafirma in one piece, wish the
same could said for my plane. Attached is a pic of the hub.
I get a cruise of 70mph at 2200rpm and a climb of 500 fpm at 60 mph out
with an 0-235 100hp, fitted with a Sensenich 72 dia 50 pitch metal
certified. Note the climb is done with a 95kg (210 lbs) pilot and a 75kg
(165lbs) Pax with 75lt (16.5gal) fuel out of a field based at 5340 ASL.
The density altitude sits anywhere from around 7000ft.
Norman Stapelberg
ZS-VJA Pietenpol Aircamper
South Africa
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Shawn
Wolk
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Cruise Speed
I was getting 76 mph with a Sensenich Wood prop that limited rpm to
2200 flat out with an A-65. Now I still get 76 mph with a two blade warp
drive pitched to throttle back to 2250 rpm and better fuel economy. My
ASI reads high. These numbers are based on many tests using a GPS in 4
directions.
Shawn Wolk
C-FRAZ Pietenpol Aircamper
C-GZOT Skyhopper 2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead dates |
July 22, 23 & 24
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Rambo
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead dates
I am sure it has been on here and I have missed it. What are the dates of this
year's Brodhead Piet fly-in?
Gene.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cruise Speed |
Everyone please be careful when using some of these ground-adjustable props.
I lost a good friend in an ultralight accident when his ground adjustable
prop came off the back end of his Rans. When the prop departed, it impacted
the tail boom which caused the boom to fail. He and his passenger were both
killed upon impact. There was nothing they could have done.
It turns out that one of the prop bolts had broken, which lead to the rapid
failure of the remaining bolts. The bolts provided by the prop manufacturer
were NOT AN-grade. Yes, my friend should have known better, but so should a
manufacturer. The theory is that after loosening and re-tightening the bolts
several times to adjust the prop, they evenutally became elongated and
weakened.
So, please be careful with ground-adjustable props. Be careful with all
props for that matter.
-Wayne
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cruise Speed |
| From: | harvey.rule(at)bell.ca |
FILETIME=[42FA9200:01C56DAB]
When I was changing my engine on my N3 Pup from a Rotax 503 with reduction drive
to a =BD VW the folks at Perceptor warned me that a ground adjustable prop was
not a good thing to have on a direct drive engine due to the torgue at the
root of the prop.For warned is for armed.
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of N925WB1(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Cruise Speed
Everyone please be careful when using some of these ground-adjustable props. I
lost a good friend in an ultralight accident when his ground adjustable prop
came off the back end of his Rans. When the prop departed, it impacted the tail
boom which caused the boom to fail. He and his passenger were both killed
upon impact. There was nothing they could have done.
It turns out that one of the prop bolts had broken, which lead to the rapid failure
of the remaining bolts. The bolts provided by the prop manufacturer were
NOT AN-grade. Yes, my friend should have known better, but so should a manufacturer.
The theory is that after loosening and re-tightening the bolts several
times to adjust the prop, they evenutally became elongated and weakened.
So, please be careful with ground-adjustable props. Be careful with all props
for that matter.
-Wayne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
<004101c56db3$9a8295b0$6401a8c0@FAMILY>
| Subject: | Re: long overwater flight to Belize ? |
Well, I've done it again....cc'd ALL with a personal note intended for Clif...I'm
such an idiot....
Sorry folks....
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: long overwater flight to Belize ? |
dawsonaviation><004101c56db3$9a8295b0$6401a8c0@FAMILY>
Jim-- we still love you.
Mikee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Another question |
Pieters,
If I were flying along at 2000 ft in my Piet and suddenly my engine failed
completely:
How much distance horizontally could I expect to travel at a decend of 55mph
IAS?
Still in Louisiana
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Another question |
| From: | harvey.rule(at)bell.ca |
FILETIME=[5BF013E0:01C56DD1]
That would depend on your head winds wouldn't it?
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Another question
Pieters,
If I were flying along at 2000 ft in my Piet and suddenly my engine
failed completely:
How much distance horizontally could I expect to travel at a decend of
55mph IAS?
Still in Louisiana
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Wood Pietenpol cabane struts |
| From: | "Egan, John" <jegan(at)kcc.com> |
FILETIME=[9864C320:01C56DD1]
Would anyone like to comment on the use of wood struts at the center
section of the wing (vertical struts from fuselage to the center wing
section)? Would ash work well for this, or an ash/plywood lamination,
or an ash to ash lamination to change the grain direction. I'm thinking
that the "originals" didn't use wood to keep the weight down. I'd like
to go with a Corvair to power this. Wood is easy for me to use as
opposed to fabricating from steel or aluminum, and I like the look of
wood.
I recently found this web site, this is my first discussion, and I hope
to accelerate my build with your help.
This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only and may contain privileged,
confidential, or proprietary information that is exempt from disclosure
under law. If you have received this message in error, please inform us promptly
by reply e-mail, then delete the e-mail and destroy any printed copy.
Thank you.
==============================================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Another question |
About 400 yards ... with the wind.
Seriously, a Piet with no engine is going to come down at about 1200 fpm, so
you are looking at less than 2 minutes, so I would figure about a mile and a
half.
When I had a partial engine failure in mine last November, the engine was
putting out about 1300 RPM and I was coming down at 400 fpm. I was only
about 1,000' AGL when it happened so I was on the ground 2-1/2 minutes
after. I covered about 3 miles.
Jack Phillips
(Hoping to get NX899JP back to the airport tomorrow)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Another question
Pieters,
If I were flying along at 2000 ft in my Piet and suddenly my engine failed
completely:
How much distance horizontally could I expect to travel at a decend of 55mph
IAS?
Still in Louisiana
________________________________________________________________________________
;
| From: | Galen Hutcheson <wacopitts(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wood Pietenpol cabane struts |
Wood is a good material to make the cabane struts
from. The cabanes don't carry as much weight as you
might think. The Curtiss Jenny used non-laminated
spruce for all struts (and there are many) and that is
what I am using for my project. Some have even used
wood laminations for the lift struts, but most use
metal. Many Piets I've seen have wooden cabane struts,
some laminated, some not. I hope this helps and want
to welcome you to the group.
Doc
--- "Egan, John" wrote:
>
>
> Would anyone like to comment on the use of wood
> struts at the center
> section of the wing (vertical struts from fuselage
> to the center wing
> section)? Would ash work well for this, or an
> ash/plywood lamination,
> or an ash to ash lamination to change the grain
> direction. I'm thinking
> that the "originals" didn't use wood to keep the
> weight down. I'd like
> to go with a Corvair to power this. Wood is easy
> for me to use as
> opposed to fabricating from steel or aluminum, and I
> like the look of
> wood.
>
> I recently found this web site, this is my first
> discussion, and I hope
> to accelerate my build with your help.
>
>
> This e-mail is intended for the use of the
> addressee(s) only and may contain privileged,
> confidential, or proprietary information that is
> exempt from disclosure under law. If you have
> received this message in error, please inform us
> promptly by reply e-mail, then delete the e-mail and
> destroy any printed copy. Thank you.
>
==============================================================================
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
http://discover.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wood Pietenpol cabane struts |
John,
Sorry, Don't know anything about wooden cabane struts, but welcome to the
group.
You'll never regret building a Pietenpol. Ask any "old timer" at any
obscure airport, and they all know a Piet.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Egan, John" <jegan(at)kcc.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wood Pietenpol cabane struts
>
> Would anyone like to comment on the use of wood struts at the center
> section of the wing (vertical struts from fuselage to the center wing
> section)? Would ash work well for this, or an ash/plywood lamination,
> or an ash to ash lamination to change the grain direction. I'm thinking
> that the "originals" didn't use wood to keep the weight down. I'd like
> to go with a Corvair to power this. Wood is easy for me to use as
> opposed to fabricating from steel or aluminum, and I like the look of
> wood.
>
> I recently found this web site, this is my first discussion, and I hope
> to accelerate my build with your help.
>
----
> This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only and may
contain privileged, confidential, or proprietary information that is exempt
from disclosure under law. If you have received this message in error,
please inform us promptly by reply e-mail, then delete the e-mail and
destroy any printed copy. Thank you.
>
============================================================================
==
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wood Pietenpol cabane struts |
John
I am using wood cabane struts on my new Piet. They are 2 plys of Douglas
Fir with a 1/8" piece of plywood in center. On the ends of the cabanes I am
using 4"x3/4" stainless steel to re-enforce the bolt holes.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Egan, John" <jegan(at)kcc.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wood Pietenpol cabane struts
>
> Would anyone like to comment on the use of wood struts at the center
> section of the wing (vertical struts from fuselage to the center wing
> section)? Would ash work well for this, or an ash/plywood lamination,
> or an ash to ash lamination to change the grain direction. I'm thinking
> that the "originals" didn't use wood to keep the weight down. I'd like
> to go with a Corvair to power this. Wood is easy for me to use as
> opposed to fabricating from steel or aluminum, and I like the look of
> wood.
>
> I recently found this web site, this is my first discussion, and I hope
> to accelerate my build with your help.
>
> This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only and may
> contain privileged, confidential, or proprietary information that is
> exempt from disclosure under law. If you have received this message in
> error, please inform us promptly by reply e-mail, then delete the e-mail
> and destroy any printed copy. Thank you.
> ==============================================================================
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: long overwater flight to Belize ? |
<007101c56d7d$0f44e4c0$7b0d5018@dawsonaviation>
<004101c56db3$9a8295b0$6401a8c0@FAMILY>
I'm just trying to keep you out of trouble ol' buddy.
I guess I'll have to send coachwhipping next.
Guaranteed to keep at least one of you out of trouble.
You'll be the consumate sky sailor soon. :-)
Grass Router in Vancouver.
Def: grass router- woodworkers lawnmower.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Markle
Sloshing sealer, knot tying, spar reinforcing pieces, wooden hand made clamps
(which I saw a luthier use on TV recently), etc, etc, etc.....seems like everytime
I see your name on an email I end up with a NEW HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Bellcrank neutral postion question |
What angle should the bellcrank be at with neutral elevators? I found one
archive message mentioning that his was 25 degrees from vertical with the
top towards the front.
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bellcrank neutral postion question |
The bellcrank, or walking beam, on NX18235 is vertical when the elevators are aligned
with the stabilizer.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 4:44 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bellcrank neutral postion question
What angle should the bellcrank be at with neutral elevators? I found one archive
message mentioning that his was 25 degrees from vertical with the top towards
the front.
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bellcrank neutral postion question |
Mine also.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Bellcrank neutral postion question
The bellcrank, or walking beam, on NX18235 is vertical when the elevators are
aligned with the stabilizer.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 4:44 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bellcrank neutral postion question
What angle should the bellcrank be at with neutral elevators? I found one archive
message mentioning that his was 25 degrees from vertical with the top towards
the front.
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
Well, there has been storms all thru south central Kansas all week - No Fly
Zone. As Mike C. says "Even the birds were walking". There has been several
tornado's touch down, but no damage...that's why they call this area of the
country 'Tornado Alley'. They show up every spring and fall. I'm still looking
forward to seeing one. I have seen lots of storms in the distance, though.
One time it looked like a solid wall about a mile high, and ten miles
long...awesome sight !! There has been some local flash floods. When the good
weather
shows up it makes up for the harsh stuff. Many times it's Severe Clear, with
about a million miles visibility !! C'mon good weather !!
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Chuck,
Please post your iten from Wichita to Brodhead.
Corky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harvey Rule <harvey.rule(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Wood Pietenpol cabane struts |
C-IOVC got her wings put back on today.Formally known as C-GOVC.Thanks
to some great guys at the Redeau Valley
RAA club.We had a flyin and afterwards even as hot as it was Bill Reed
sez lets put those wings on.We were also visited
buy another Piet from Carp.I had a great opertunity to see what one
looks like in operating form.Looking forward to completion.
>
>John,
>Sorry, Don't know anything about wooden cabane struts, but welcome to the
>group.
>You'll never regret building a Pietenpol. Ask any "old timer" at any
>obscure airport, and they all know a Piet.
>walt evans
>NX140DL
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Egan, John" <jegan(at)kcc.com>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 10:32 AM
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wood Pietenpol cabane struts
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Would anyone like to comment on the use of wood struts at the center
>>section of the wing (vertical struts from fuselage to the center wing
>>section)? Would ash work well for this, or an ash/plywood lamination,
>>or an ash to ash lamination to change the grain direction. I'm thinking
>>that the "originals" didn't use wood to keep the weight down. I'd like
>>to go with a Corvair to power this. Wood is easy for me to use as
>>opposed to fabricating from steel or aluminum, and I like the look of
>>wood.
>>
>>I recently found this web site, this is my first discussion, and I hope
>>to accelerate my build with your help.
>>
>>
>>
>----
>
>
>>This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only and may
>>
>>
>contain privileged, confidential, or proprietary information that is exempt
>from disclosure under law. If you have received this message in error,
>please inform us promptly by reply e-mail, then delete the e-mail and
>destroy any printed copy. Thank you.
>
>
>============================================================================
>==
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Wood Pietenpol cabane struts |
Wood they what? ;o) Sorry, couldn't resist ;o) Hey, if you want the look
of wood but you have metal struts, you can paint them to look like wood to
maybe a "six foot test" (get any closer than six feet and you can tell
they're fake). That's what the EAA292 guys did with their Nieuport
replicas. Check the series of three pictures partway down, here:
http://www.eaa292.org/noon_patrol/may_02.html
And if you keep looking at the other pictures on that page, you'll see that
the Nieuport replicas use rudder bars, just like Piets...
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | from 115 inches of snow to 90+ and high humidity |
Chuck-- I feel for you and the non-friendly weather you've been
having. We have had over a week of really hot
days and high humidity. Memorial Day weekend was really the last nice
weather we've had. Really unusual for
us to be this hot in June.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | from 115 inches of snow to 90+ and high humidity |
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip(at)alarismed.com> |
Wait till we try to fly to Brodhead. There will probably be monsoons.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP is back together and at the airport. Should fly this week.
Chuck-- I feel for you and the non-friendly weather you've been
having. We have had over a week of really hot
days and high humidity. Memorial Day weekend was really the last nice
weather we've had. Really unusual for
us to be this hot in June.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | from 115 inches of snow to 90+ and highhumidity |
m>
For Brodhead, it seems like it is either picture perfect, or hazy, hot,
humid, and stormy.
I'm hoping for picture perfect !
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 6/12/2005 3:50:55 PM Central Standard Time,
Isablcorky(at)aol.com writes:
Chuck,
Please post your iten from Wichita to Brodhead.
Corky
Hi Corky and all !!
Preliminary Itinerary:
It looks like I'll be departing Cook Airfield on Wednesday, July 20, in the
early morning...say around 10:30 am. I've never flown up around the North side
of Kansas City, so I'll pick up a precise heading of anywhere between 360=BA
and 020=BA. Maintain that course till I have to go pee...probably 2 or 3 hours.
Find some fuel & services, show all the locals my plane, and tell them where
I'm coming from and going...that takes about 1 1/2 hours. If the winds are
strong out of the South, I might be up into Iowa, before I get 'er to turn right.
I met a gal on the Internet that lives in Sioux City Iowa, and I plan on
stopping there and meet her. If things go well, I might not even make it to
Brodhead, or I might have a passenger with me !! Hummm...I'll have to figure out
how to strap the cargo on the belly of the plane. I'll have a cell phone with
me, and if Corky is agreeable, I could let him know of my whereabouts.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
Last year, it was Picture Perfect !! I missed Saturday evening dinner,
giving rides. Couldn't help it...the Sky was calling me !! After dark, Banjo
Larry was pickin' & grinnin' at the camp fire, along with some juce harps. He
flew a Starduster II in to Brodhead, and gave me a ride, and introduced me to
Aerobatics !! Way Cool !!
Does anyone know if the Hatz are going to be there again this year ?
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
Chuck
If you want to take a bit of a detour on the way to Broadhead, come up to MSP on
the way. I have a space in the hangar and a spare room at the house. I'll also
be ready to continue on down to Broadhead also.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: No Fly Zone
In a message dated 6/12/2005 3:50:55 PM Central Standard Time, Isablcorky(at)aol.com
writes:
Chuck,
Please post your iten from Wichita to Brodhead.
Corky
Hi Corky and all !!
Preliminary Itinerary:
It looks like I'll be departing Cook Airfield on Wednesday, July 20, in the early
morning...say around 10:30 am. I've never flown up around the North side
of Kansas City, so I'll pick up a precise heading of anywhere between 360=BA
and 020=BA. Maintain that course till I have to go pee...probably 2 or 3 hours.
Find some fuel & services, show all the locals my plane, and tell them where
I'm coming from and going...that takes about 1 1/2 hours. If the winds are
strong out of the South, I might be up into Iowa, before I get 'er to turn right.
I met a gal on the Internet that lives in Sioux City Iowa, and I plan on
stopping there and meet her. If things go well, I might not even make it to
Brodhead, or I might have a passenger with me !! Hummm...I'll have to figure
out how to strap the cargo on the belly of the plane. I'll have a cell phone
with me, and if Corky is agreeable, I could let him know of my whereabouts.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "clem" <clam(at)snap.net.nz> |
Two of us are travelling to the United States in July/August 2005. We land in
New York and intend to visit Rhinebeck, Brodhead and Oshkosh. We would like to
purchase a car somewhere near New York. Can someone suggest or advise where
to start looking for one and the approximate cost we would be looking at. The
car would need to be reliable to travel from Oshkosh onto Los Angeles (our road
trip).
Regards
Clem Boyd
Christchurch
New Zealand
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Pieters,
Pending any objections from the list I accept the challenge and will post a
daily sheet of Gantzer "happenings". Not sure I'll be able to present those
Iowa "incidents" in written form
The Louisiana Editor. Go Tulane Go
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
Preliminary Itinerary:
It looks like I'll be departing Cook Airfield on Wednesday, July 20, in the early
morning...say around 10:30 am. I've never flown up around the North side
of Kansas City, so I'll pick up a precise heading of anywhere between 360=BA
and 020=BA. Maintain that course till I have to go pee...probably 2 or 3 hours.
Find some fuel & services, show all the locals my plane, and tell them where
I'm coming from and going...that takes about 1 1/2 hours. If the winds are
strong out of the South, I might be up into Iowa, before I get 'er to turn right.
I met a gal on the Internet that lives in Sioux City Iowa, and I plan on
stopping there and meet her. If things go well, I might not even make it to
Brodhead, or I might have a passenger with me !! Hummm...I'll have to figure
out how to strap the cargo on the belly of the plane.
Don't even! It would be much more fun for her if you let her sit up in the front
seat........
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Dallas" <bec176(at)msn.com> |
Yes the Hatz will be there again this year.
Jim Dallas
>From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
>Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 01:11:29 EDT
>
>Last year, it was Picture Perfect !! I missed Saturday evening dinner,
>giving rides. Couldn't help it...the Sky was calling me !! After dark,
>Banjo
>Larry was pickin' & grinnin' at the camp fire, along with some juce harps.
>He
>flew a Starduster II in to Brodhead, and gave me a ride, and introduced me
>to
>Aerobatics !! Way Cool !!
>Does anyone know if the Hatz are going to be there again this year ?
>
>Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | blugoos1(at)direcway.com |
| Subject: | Gallon miilk container |
Corky: Fresh water: 7.5 lbs
Salt water: 8.3
Bayou water:800.0
Note: These numbers are only approsimates. Jim Cooper
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Visiting USA |
Clem
Buying a car here can be a real pain. You will have to get insurance and all.
Why not think about renting? There are some really good deals with unlimited
mileage, then you dont have to worry about selling when you are done and insurance
is covered. In most states here if you are caught driving without insurance
your in big trouble.
To answer your primary question, a good dependable car can be purchased for very
little $1000-2000 and up, depending on what you want. The route you describe
is a total of about 3000 miles without side trips. I think that you would be
able to rent for $200 per week.
Hope to see you at Broadhead.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: clem
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 2:37 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Visiting USA
Two of us are travelling to the United States in July/August 2005. We land in
New York and intend to visit Rhinebeck, Brodhead and Oshkosh. We would like
to purchase a car somewhere near New York. Can someone suggest or advise where
to start looking for one and the approximate cost we would be looking at.
The car would need to be reliable to travel from Oshkosh onto Los Angeles (our
road trip).
Regards
Clem Boyd
Christchurch
New Zealand
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Visiting USA |
www.expedia.com comes up with $1200-$1300 for two weeks, one way rental, unlimited mileage, pickup at JFK in NY and return to LAX.
That's for a nice, new premium/luxury car. Not a bad way to go......
Two of us are travelling to the United States in July/August 2005. We land
in New York and intend to visit Rhinebeck, Brodhead and Oshkosh. We would
like to purchase a car somewhere near New York. Can someone suggest or advise
where to start looking for one and the approximate cost we would be looking at.
The car would need to be reliable to travel from Oshkosh onto Los Angeles
(our road trip).
Regards
Clem Boyd
Christchurch
New Zealand
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rod wooller" <rodwooller(at)hotmail.com> |
Clem,
In 2003 I was holidaying in New York and did a side trip to Brodhead.
NY to Milwaukee return flight: USD272.04 (includes taxes and service fees)
Budget rental car from Milwaukee for 3 days: USD177.29 (includes the lot)
Brodhead fly-in: priceless!
Cheers,
Rod Wooller
West Australia (ex Auckland)
>From: "clem" <clam(at)snap.net.nz>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Visiting USA
>Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:37:40 +1200
>
>Two of us are travelling to the United States in July/August 2005. We land
>in New York and intend to visit Rhinebeck, Brodhead and Oshkosh. We would
>like to purchase a car somewhere near New York. Can someone suggest or
>advise where to start looking for one and the approximate cost we would be
>looking at. The car would need to be reliable to travel from Oshkosh onto
>Los Angeles (our road trip).
>
>Regards
>Clem Boyd
>Christchurch
>New Zealand
________________________________________________________________________________