I think the intent for the longer fuselage was really to gain some leg room and
possibly add some pitch stability. A lot of the length is added from the rear
cabane back to the tail. So the making it longer for lighter engines idea doesn't
really make sense. I kinda like the looks of the earlier short version,
but I went ahead and used the longer version on mine because I'm kinda long
myself (about 6' 3" actually). I moved my wing back 4" and am really happy with
the balance. As far as the C.G. is concerned we really aren't moving the wing
back, we really are moving the fuselage forward because the C.G. is determined
based on the chord of the wing. Which makes sense to do rather than lengthening
the engine mount. I think this is true because in lengthening the engine
mount by 4" you are only setting that much weight out there 4" more. By moving
the entire fuselage forward (or moving the wing back) 4" you are moving
all of the weight (fuselage structure, landing gear, fuel tank if in the fuselage,
etc.) of the fuselage ahead of the C.G. forward. If I confused you don't
worry because I confuse myself all the time!
As far as the 33% of chord for aft C.G. goes, I think it is very important. However,
I do think the fantastic Pietenpol wing is fairly tolerant of aft C.G.
I watched my airplane fly with a 37% of chord C.G. Kind of a long story but
a test pilot friend wanted to show me that it would fly fine with that far aft
of a C.G. and I guess it did. He said he definitely wouldn't spin it like that
but otherwise it flew fine. Myself, I wouldn't ever spin my Piet, but I guess
others do. Enough rambling!
Hoping to see some of the list guys at Brodhead!
Don Emch
NX899DE
NX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251204#251204
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 02, 2009
From:
Dan Yocum <yocum(at)fnal.gov>
Subject:
Re: Fuselage length
[Let's try this again with a link to the image instead of the image - my
apologies to everyone on 9600 baud modems]
Jack,
Jack Phillips wrote:
> tail). Far easier is to shift the wing aft. Even though moving the wing
> aft tends to move the CG aft as well (just slightly, due to the mass of the
> wing which has moved aft) it moves the acceptable CG range aft and allows
> the CG to fall within the acceptable range. Very few airplane designs can
> be modified in this way - it is one of the great advantages of the Pietenpol
You and others have said in this thread that "it's easy to move the
wing." Please excuse the naivety of the following question but, "How
easy is it?"
I can imagine that the forward bracing struts (ahead of the cabanes)
would have to be lengthened, all the strut attach brackets on the wings
and and fuselage would have to be replaced, and new wires would have to
be built if there's not enough play in the turnbuckles. Then there's
re-routing the fuel and pitot lines and opening the holes ahead of the
pilot's instrument panel for the those support wires...
Or is it easier than what I'm imagining?
The reason I ask is because it appears that N8031 has a CG issue. See
the image and look at the position of the elevator:
http://5n429glenoak.homelinux.net/gallery/airplanes/DSC_4167
Every picture I've seen of her in cruise flight, the elevator is angled
a bit down.
Thanks,
Dan
--
Dan Yocum
Fermilab 630.840.6509
yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Dale Johnson" <ddjohn(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
OSH
Date:
Jul 02, 2009
Dick
I reserved space at OSH.
Dale
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick N.
Sent: 7/1/2009 9:49:22 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: OSH
I waited too long and forgot about the camping reservations thru Bill Rewey. Is
anyone else planning on pre reserving space for camping at OSH?
Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject:
Re: Fuselage length
Date:
Jul 02, 2009
Dan,
Have you run a weight and balance to see where your CG (with you in the
airplane) is with respect to the cord of the wing?
Moving the wing is very simple, if you made the diagonal cabane struts with
some adjustment for length. The rest of the bracing wires have enough
adjustment in the turnbuckles. Like many others on the list, my wing is aft
of vertical by 4". Anticipating that I would have an aft CG problem, I
built my cabane diagonals with adjustment built in.
Jack Phillips
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Yocum
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Fuselage length
[Let's try this again with a link to the image instead of the image - my
apologies to everyone on 9600 baud modems]
Jack,
Jack Phillips wrote:
> tail). Far easier is to shift the wing aft. Even though moving the wing
> aft tends to move the CG aft as well (just slightly, due to the mass of
the
> wing which has moved aft) it moves the acceptable CG range aft and allows
> the CG to fall within the acceptable range. Very few airplane designs can
> be modified in this way - it is one of the great advantages of the
Pietenpol
You and others have said in this thread that "it's easy to move the
wing." Please excuse the naivety of the following question but, "How
easy is it?"
I can imagine that the forward bracing struts (ahead of the cabanes)
would have to be lengthened, all the strut attach brackets on the wings
and and fuselage would have to be replaced, and new wires would have to
be built if there's not enough play in the turnbuckles. Then there's
re-routing the fuel and pitot lines and opening the holes ahead of the
pilot's instrument panel for the those support wires...
Or is it easier than what I'm imagining?
The reason I ask is because it appears that N8031 has a CG issue. See
the image and look at the position of the elevator:
http://5n429glenoak.homelinux.net/gallery/airplanes/DSC_4167
Every picture I've seen of her in cruise flight, the elevator is angled
a bit down.
Thanks,
Dan
--
Dan Yocum
Fermilab 630.840.6509
yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Fuselage length
Date:
Jul 02, 2009
From:
"Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
I have read before that requiring a bit of down elevator in flight is
common among Pietenpols.
http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=47733925?KEY
S
=hansen&flippers?LISTNAME=Pietenpol?HITNUMBER=1?SERIAL=1535591842
4?SHOWB
UTTONS=YES
One other thing to consider is whether the down elevator is required if
you cut the power and glide. Maybe the thrust angle of the engine needs
a bit of adjustment.
Bill C.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
it's alive!
From:
"skellytown flyer" <rhano(at)att.net>
Date:
Jul 02, 2009
Well my Corvair really does run after all. I never tried to start it after bringing
it home from Arizona over 2 years ago.and I guess it had been at least a
year or two before when DJ ran it last.the tank and lines were really stunk up
with soured up gas.I got everything ready today and put some avgas in-opened
the cut-off valve and heard something hitting the floor-looked over and gas was
pouring out of the carb. I took it off and removed the top and cleaned it out
and put it back. finally after several attempts it fired up. the throttle stops
weren't set right and I probably had 1/4 throttle or close.good for getting
the oil pressure and blood pressure up. the tied tail held and I shut it down.
after 3 tries I got the throttle stop set right and it purrs like a kitten.
I always heard the corvair is smooth but never was close to one running on a
plane before.I like it!! now I can't wait to get all the other things sorted out
starting with the cowl. I am not looking forward to that but it has to be done.I
even got the digital panel to work after some messing with the right wires.
I don't like it-doesn't really belong on a Piet but till I fly it some I am
not interested it spending time and money changing anything.but if someone wants
to come to the Texas panhandle and bring good steam gages and swap them out
they are welcome to the digital one.the oil pressure seemed lower than I expected.
I was seeing about 37 lb. at about 1100 RPM or less.who knows how accurate
the digital unit is if it isn't calibrated to the sender.I have a mechanical
pressure gage somewhere I can rig to check that.Raymond
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251228#251228
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Fuselage length
From:
"Will42" <will(at)cctc.net>
Date:
Jul 02, 2009
conceptmodels(at)tds.net wrote:
> Doesn't moving the wing back move the CG forward relative to the
> leading edge?
> Moving the wing back creates a longer nose moment.
> On Jul 1, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Jack Phillips wrote:
>
>
> --
I don't know about the "relative to the leading edge" bit, but if you look at a
weight and balance work sheet, you will see that any weight aft of the datum
line is a + and any weight forward is a -; likewise, any weight moved aft adds
to the + and any weight moved forward adds to the -; assuming that the wing has
weight, and surely it does, then it stands to reason that moving the weight
of the wing aft moves the CG aft by a relative amount. Moving the wing aft will
lighten the tail in flight no doubt, but CG is figured on the ground and level.
Moving the wing back does not necessarily lengthen the nose moment; it depends
on where the datum line is.
Will
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251237#251237
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Keeping the C.G. from getting to far aft
From:
"Will42" <will(at)cctc.net>
Date:
Jul 02, 2009
I don't know who did the weight and balance sheet on your Piet, but if you will
take a look at it, no where on it does it refer to the length of the wing cord,
in fact it does not mention the wing. Weight and balance is determined by weighing
the main gear and nose or tail wheel; using those weights and arms to
determine moments, then adding fuel, oil, pilot, passenger and baggage/freight
weights and arms to determine their moments and then enter all info on the weight
and balance work sheet to determine the CG.
The wing has a center of lift ( typically about 33% of cord) that works with the
CG to produce safe loading conditions but neither the wing nor the wing cord
determines the CG.
Will
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251240#251240
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Gene Rambo" <generambo(at)msn.com>
Subject:
Re: Fuselage length
Date:
Jul 02, 2009
Guys, forget about the datum. You can make the datum anything you want
it to be, and it does not matter. If you want to use all positive
numbers, not negative, make it the tip of your spinner.
Don't even specify a datum and weigh the airplane. You can calculate
the CG as being XX inches aft of the center of the main wheels. (if it
is forward, you have a REAL problem) What you then need to calculate is
where the CG lands on the wing (so you compare the location of the wing
to the CG you just located). This is why most use the leading edge of
the wing as a datum, to make this calculation easier.
Then, express the location of the CG as a % of the chord. Say you find
it is 33% of chord. This is meaningless unless you have published
numbers for the CG limits for your specific airfoil which, for the
Pietenpol is, surprise, unknown. CAM 18 (who remembers this??) gives
the old-time rule of thumb for guessing at a reasonable CG range. Jack
stated it correctly, and I don't have it in front of me, but if it is
roughly around 33%, give or take a few inches, you are probably all
right.
This has become way harder than it should be.
BTW, everything Jack said is correct.
Gene
(ducking for cover)
----- Original Message -----
From: Will42<mailto:will(at)cctc.net>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 8:07 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Fuselage length
>
conceptmodels(at)tds.net wrote:
> Doesn't moving the wing back move the CG forward relative to the
> leading edge?
> Moving the wing back creates a longer nose moment.
> On Jul 1, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Jack Phillips wrote:
>
>
> --
I don't know about the "relative to the leading edge" bit, but if you
look at a weight and balance work sheet, you will see that any weight
aft of the datum line is a + and any weight forward is a -; likewise,
any weight moved aft adds to the + and any weight moved forward adds to
the -; assuming that the wing has weight, and surely it does, then it
stands to reason that moving the weight of the wing aft moves the CG aft
by a relative amount. Moving the wing aft will lighten the tail in
flight no doubt, but CG is figured on the ground and level.
Moving the wing back does not necessarily lengthen the nose moment; it
depends on where the datum line is.
Will
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251237#251237
.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251237#251237>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
on>
________________________________________________________________________________
Gene,
Actually, we do have one published CG limit; in the "Notes" section in the
manual from the Pietenpol family, item 17 (wing struts). The text states
that "not under any condition should this airplane be flown with the CG more
than 20" from the leading edge" (there's your 33%).
Ryan
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Gene Rambo wrote:
> Guys, forget about the datum. You can make the datum anything you want
> it to be, and it does not matter. If you want to use all positive numbers,
> not negative, make it the tip of your spinner.
>
> Don't even specify a datum and weigh the airplane. You can calculate the
> CG as being XX inches aft of the center of the main wheels. (if it is
> forward, you have a REAL problem) What you then need to calculate is where
> the CG lands on the wing (so you compare the location of the wing to the CG
> you just located). This is why most use the leading edge of the wing as a
> datum, to make this calculation easier.
>
> Then, express the location of the CG as a % of the chord. Say you find it
> is 33% of chord. This is meaningless unless you have published numbers for
> the CG limits for your specific airfoil which, for the Pietenpol
> is, surprise, unknown. CAM 18 (who remembers this??) gives the old-time
> rule of thumb for guessing at a reasonable CG range. Jack stated it
> correctly, and I don't have it in front of me, but if it is roughly around
> 33%, give or take a few inches, you are probably all right.
>
> This has become way harder than it should be.
>
> BTW, everything Jack said is correct.
>
> Gene
> (ducking for cover)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Will42
> *To:* pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 02, 2009 8:07 PM
> *Subject:* Pietenpol-List: Re: Fuselage length
>
>
> conceptmodels(at)tds.net wrote:
> > Doesn't moving the wing back move the CG forward relative to the
> > leading edge?
> > Moving the wing back creates a longer nose moment.
> > On Jul 1, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Jack Phillips wrote:
> >
> >
> > --
>
>
> I don't know about the "relative to the leading edge" bit, but if you look
> at a weight and balance work sheet, you will see that any weight aft of the
> datum line is a + and any weight forward is a -; likewise, any weight moved
> aft adds to the + and any weight moved forward adds to the -; assuming that
> the wing has weight, and surely it does, then it stands to reason that
> moving the weight of the wing aft moves the CG aft by a relative amount.
> Moving the wing aft will lighten the tail in flight no doubt, but CG is
> figured on the ground and level.
>
> Moving the wing back does not necessarily lengthen the nose moment; it
> depends on where the datum line is.
>
> Will
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251237#251237
>
>
> http://www.matnbsp; via the Web title=http://forums.matronics.com/href="
> http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> _p; generous bsp; title
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution href="
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution">
> http://www.matronics.com/c================
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Fuselage length
From:
"Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date:
Jul 02, 2009
Thank you Gene! You expressed it better than I could. Knowing where the C.G.
falls on the wing (or what % of chord) is what it's all about. Who cares where
it is according to anything else on the airplane.
Moving the wing back does not move the C.G. back, only moves it forward, at least
for aerodynamic purposes. I suppose as it sits on the ground the C.G. will
get more aft, but for flight purposes we aren't worried about that. What we
really are doing is moving the fuselage forward in relation to the wing. It's
all about the wing. It's all about the wing.
Okay, getting off my soap box now and ducking for cover with Gene!
Don Emch
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251262#251262
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Fuselage length
From:
"K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net>
Date:
Jul 02, 2009
Yep this is making more sense... CG in relation to the wing. I was originally
thinking of overall CG and the effect on it when moving components.
--------
Mark - working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251276#251276
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
From:
Mike Tunnicliffe <zk-owl(at)CLEAR.NET.NZ>
Subject:
Re: buick v8
Thanks, that answers most of my questions.
Regards Mike T.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 12:57 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: buick v8
>
>
> Hello all,
>
> For those who expressed interest in the aluminum buick v-8, I just hung up
> with Steve Cavanagh in Australia who actually built and flew one.
>
> He took it right out of the car without even a rebuild, the only mod was
> an
> enlarged sump. Kept the standard ignition and starter. Bolted a metal
> prop
> from an "aerobatic Cessna 150" right onto the crank. Says the thrust
> bearing is in the middle of the crank. Remembers max rpm as around 2800,
> and got 1,000meters climb. Had over 300 hrs when he sold it four years
> ago,
> he's now 89. Didn't have any trouble. Said it used about 7 gallons per
> hour and probably weighed 300 lbs. Had a 30 gallon tank to keep it fed.
> Said the Piet performed great with the heavy engine. Said he started with
> standard wings then build longer wings and said it "it didn't make a
> difference". Estimates 130hp at 2800
>
> Sounds pretty interesting except for the fuel consumption!
>
> Douwe
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Thanks, this forum has a great helpfull bunch of guys.
regards Mike T.
----- Original Message -----
From: gcardinal
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:Preventing axle rotation Was:Plywoods
Check out how John Dilatush prevented axle rotation on Mountain Piet.
http://www.westcoastpiet.com/images/John%20Dilatush%27s%20Subaru-Powered%
20Pietenpol/DSC00049.JPG
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Tunnicliffe
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Plywoods
Hi, I am using the 1.5 mm okume for sheeting the leading edge of the
wing, I feel it is too weak for any other part of a pietenpol. Okume ply
seems to be used for the structure of several French designs that
require light weight, but of course they would be engineered to take
account of the lower strength of the ply. It is soft and easily dented.
Regards Mike T.
ps. I'm assembling the wooden undercart and would like to fit
brakes, the problem is stopping the axle turning whilst not restricting
the axle movement, I have seen the peg and socket idea but wondered if
there were any alternatives that someone may have come up with?
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Gene Rambo" <generambo(at)msn.com>
Subject:
Re: Fuselage length
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
fair enough. I do not have their building manual, only an old set of
plans. Even this number, though, does not give the CG range, and it is
not clear whether their number is arrived at from actual engineering
calculations based on the airfoil or just from experience. I would
guess the latter. I think Jack McCarthy posted a long, detailed cg
calculation on here long ago and gave a cg range from CAM 18. It should
be easy to find. Also, I will try to get out my CAM and look it up.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Mueller<mailto:rmueller23(at)gmail.com>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 11:04 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Fuselage length
Gene,
Actually, we do have one published CG limit; in the "Notes" section in
the manual from the Pietenpol family, item 17 (wing struts). The text
states that "not under any condition should this airplane be flown with
the CG more than 20" from the leading edge" (there's your 33%).
Ryan
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Gene Rambo
> wrote:
Guys, forget about the datum. You can make the datum anything you
want it to be, and it does not matter. If you want to use all positive
numbers, not negative, make it the tip of your spinner.
Don't even specify a datum and weigh the airplane. You can
calculate the CG as being XX inches aft of the center of the main
wheels. (if it is forward, you have a REAL problem) What you then need
to calculate is where the CG lands on the wing (so you compare the
location of the wing to the CG you just located). This is why most use
the leading edge of the wing as a datum, to make this calculation
easier.
Then, express the location of the CG as a % of the chord. Say you
find it is 33% of chord. This is meaningless unless you have published
numbers for the CG limits for your specific airfoil which, for the
Pietenpol is, surprise, unknown. CAM 18 (who remembers this??) gives
the old-time rule of thumb for guessing at a reasonable CG range. Jack
stated it correctly, and I don't have it in front of me, but if it is
roughly around 33%, give or take a few inches, you are probably all
right.
This has become way harder than it should be.
BTW, everything Jack said is correct.
Gene
(ducking for cover)
----- Original Message -----
From: Will42<mailto:will(at)cctc.net>
To:
pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 8:07 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Fuselage length
>
conceptmodels(at)tds.net<http://tds.net/> wrote:
> Doesn't moving the wing back move the CG forward relative to the
> leading edge?
> Moving the wing back creates a longer nose moment.
> On Jul 1, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Jack Phillips wrote:
>
>
> --
I don't know about the "relative to the leading edge" bit, but if
you look at a weight and balance work sheet, you will see that any
weight aft of the datum line is a + and any weight forward is a -;
likewise, any weight moved aft adds to the + and any weight moved
forward adds to the -; assuming that the wing has weight, and surely it
does, then it stands to reason that moving the weight of the wing aft
moves the CG aft by a relative amount. Moving the wing aft will lighten
the tail in flight no doubt, but CG is figured on the ground and level.
Moving the wing back does not necessarily lengthen the nose
moment; it depends on where the datum line is.
Will
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251237#251237
.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251237#251237>
http://www.matnbsp>; via the Web
title=http://forums.matronics.com/>
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http:/
/forums.matronics.com<http://forums.matronics.com/>
_p; generous bsp;
title=http://www.matronics.com/contribution
ntribution>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c============
=====<http://www.matronics.com/c===========
======>
"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
//www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
a>http://forums.matronics.com>
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
ntribution>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
on>
________________________________________________________________________________
Will,
That's right, weighing the airplane at certain points while it is level is the
only accepted method of finding the C.G. Using the arms for the gear, finding
a datum point, etc., are all required to do this. And as far as I know it is
the only way. But we need to know exactly where the wing is because that determines
our C.G. range. We really don't care where it falls on the fuselage as
long as it falls within the % of chord that we need it to fall into.
I really didn't mean to ruffle feathers and get something started, I just wanted
to try to share some information. Hopefully our discussions helped someone
understand this a little better.
Does anyone know when it will stop raining in NE Ohio? I was planning on flying
this morning!
Don Emch
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251293#251293
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
From:
Lawrence Williams <lnawms(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Wt/Bal
More beating a dead horse...............
-
If you have built your very own Pietenpol and have located your LG where yo
u think it should be, doesn't moving your wing aft to aquire the correct Co
fG put a lot more weight on the tailwheel? Remember that yu're moving the c
enter of mass aft in relation to the LG. It-might be a factor in how tigh
t a turn you could make taxiing and how much strain you put on your back wh
en lifting the tail to turn the plane around as well as how soon the tail c
omes up on T.O.. Seems like the old guys said that an empty Air Camper shou
ld balance on it's mains when the tail is lifted-with the longerons level
..
-
Nice explaination on CG, Don!
-
WOWEE!!! 21 days to go!
-
Larry- xcg, xcmr, epp=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Keeping the C.G. from getting to far aft
From:
"Will42" <will(at)cctc.net>
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
Don; you now have it exactly right. And you didn't ruffle any feathers here.
Will
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251297#251297
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
Subject:
Re: Keeping the C.G. from getting to far aft
From:
Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com>
For anyone that is still confused about W&B after all these discussions I
would highly recommend Bill Rewey's Piet building hints (he probably will be
selling them at Broadhead for $10 I think). The one on W&B is the simplest
and best explanation I have seen and has been flight proven on many Piets.
rick
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Don Emch wrote:
>
> I did a very thorough weight and balance on my airplane. I suggest that
> anyone who does their weight and balance fully understand it before they
> tackle it. I've seen guys on the list try to get a weight and balance
> spread sheet from others who have done theirs so they can plug numbers in.
> Not a good idea on my part. Actually leveling the airplane and weighing at
> measured points (usually landing gear) then finding locations for each arm.
> Then creating your own work sheet is important. Many use arms like the
> center of the seats for passenger and pilot. Not an accurate or good idea.
> Much more accurate to actually weigh the airplane with yourself or a person
> while positioned on the seat and do the math to figure where the arm is
>
> The wing or wing chord itself does not determine the C.G. However if the
> C.G. is behind the C.L. you are going to have serious problem. Therefore
> since the C.L. is determined as a % of the chord we typically use the chord
> as a reference to determine the % for the C.G. Since Pietenpol wings are
> seldom positioned in the same place on each and every one we can't just
> figure where the C.G. is according to the fuselage and gear or weighing
> points. So in the Pietenpol's case it is very important to know where the
> wing is. Knowing what % of the chord that the C.G. of the airplane is, is
> extremely important.
>
> I usually don't pipe up about too many things but a good understanding of
> weight and balance is very important. I apologize for not being able to
> explain all that well but as long as you yourself have a good understanding
> of it is all that matters.
>
> Don Emch
> NX899DE
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251257#251257
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject:
Wt/Bal
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
Hi Larry,
You are exactly right. When I first built my Piet, I did the weighing and
found my CG. Weight on the tailwheel (empty, in 3-pt position) was a nice
light 20 lbs. But the CG was too far aft with respect to the wing cord and
I moved the wing another 2-1/2" aft, putting the CG well within the
acceptable range as a percentage of wing cord, but now the weight on the
tailwheel in the 3 pt position was nearly 30 lbs. With the top longerons
level, the plane will nearly balance. Weight on the tailwheel (empty) with
the longerons level is only a couple of pounds.
Not that this means anything, since with my 200 lb bulk on board, the weight
on the tailwheel is substantial. The extra 5-10 lbs that moving the wing
aft put on the tailwheel is not noticeable compared to the punishment my fat
butt gives it.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Anxiously awaiting passage of the next 19 days so we can get to Brodhead
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lawrence
Williams
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 9:18 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wt/Bal
More beating a dead horse...............
If you have built your very own Pietenpol and have located your LG where you
think it should be, doesn't moving your wing aft to aquire the correct CofG
put a lot more weight on the tailwheel? Remember that yu're moving the
center of mass aft in relation to the LG. It might be a factor in how tight
a turn you could make taxiing and how much strain you put on your back when
lifting the tail to turn the plane around as well as how soon the tail comes
up on T.O.. Seems like the old guys said that an empty Air Camper should
balance on it's mains when the tail is lifted with the longerons level.
Nice explaination on CG, Don!
WOWEE!!! 21 days to go!
Larry xcg, xcmr, epp
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
Subject:
ALittle Help
Pieters,
I'm not very sharp, Pietering or computering. What I need is a bit of help
to get to the archive or somewhere to find as much info on the Riblet
airfoil. As an old Louisiana politician used to ask while running for governor,
" won't ya hep me".
Corky in real hot Louisiana but the tomatoes are abundant and delicious.
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
JulystepsfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
Subject:
Re: Keeping the C.G. from getting to far aft
From:
Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
And for those of us unfortunate souls unable to attend the event, does Bill
Rewey have a website to order his building hints? I am WAYS off from the W&B
(need to glue 2 stricks together first :o) but I am a sponge right now for
learning stuff...
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Rick Holland wrote:
> For anyone that is still confused about W&B after all these discussions I
> would highly recommend Bill Rewey's Piet building hints (he probably will be
> selling them at Broadhead for $10 I think). The one on W&B is the simplest
> and best explanation I have seen and has been flight proven on many Piets.
>
> rick
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Don Emch wrote:
>
>>
>> I did a very thorough weight and balance on my airplane. I suggest that
>> anyone who does their weight and balance fully understand it before they
>> tackle it. I've seen guys on the list try to get a weight and balance
>> spread sheet from others who have done theirs so they can plug numbers in.
>> Not a good idea on my part. Actually leveling the airplane and weighing at
>> measured points (usually landing gear) then finding locations for each arm.
>> Then creating your own work sheet is important. Many use arms like the
>> center of the seats for passenger and pilot. Not an accurate or good idea.
>> Much more accurate to actually weigh the airplane with yourself or a person
>> while positioned on the seat and do the math to figure where the arm is
>>
>> The wing or wing chord itself does not determine the C.G. However if the
>> C.G. is behind the C.L. you are going to have serious problem. Therefore
>> since the C.L. is determined as a % of the chord we typically use the chord
>> as a reference to determine the % for the C.G. Since Pietenpol wings are
>> seldom positioned in the same place on each and every one we can't just
>> figure where the C.G. is according to the fuselage and gear or weighing
>> points. So in the Pietenpol's case it is very important to know where the
>> wing is. Knowing what % of the chord that the C.G. of the airplane is, is
>> extremely important.
>>
>> I usually don't pipe up about too many things but a good understanding of
>> weight and balance is very important. I apologize for not being able to
>> explain all that well but as long as you yourself have a good understanding
>> of it is all that matters.
>>
>> Don Emch
>> NX899DE
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251257#251257
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> ==========
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> le, List Admin.
>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Rick Holland
> Castle Rock, Colorado
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
From:
shad bell <aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: it's alive!
40 psi is pretty good for the corvair.- After our oil wams up to about 20
0 our cruise power gives us about 37psi.- At idle and warm oil we get abo
ut 20psi.- Our oil temp probe is in the bottom of the pan.
-
Shad=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
Subject:
T-88
From:
Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Is T-88 something that I could find locally with some research or is it a
specialty glue that needs mail order? I have wood arriving soon, AND a jig-
more on that when I get the first rib plopped out- (man life is GOOD) so I
don't want to wait for the UPS guy if I can get it locally. Not sure where
to look as Big Box hardware won't have it I'm sure...
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Rod Young <montanarod(at)hotmail.com>
Subject:
ALittle Help
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
Hi Corky
Click on the link below to get to the archives.
http://www.matronics.com/searching/ws_script_short.cgi
Select Pietenpol in the "Select Archive" box
For the "Output Method" - keep things simple and click the 3rd option (All
Msgs=2C No Index)
In the "Search String" box type the word riblett
If this doesn't work for you holler again
Rod
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Date: Fri=2C 3 Jul 2009 12:24:28 -0400
Subject: Pietenpol-List: ALittle Help
Pieters=2C
I'm not very sharp=2C Pietering or computering. What I need is a bit of hel
p to get to the archive or somewhere to find as much info on the Riblet air
foil. As an old Louisiana politician used to ask while running for governor
=2C " won't ya hep me".
Corky in real hot Louisiana but the tomatoes are abundant and delicious.
A Good Credit Score is 70001462804/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.
com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=JulystepsfooterNO62>S
ee yours in just 2 easy steps!
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail=AE has ever-growing storage! Don=92t worry about storage limits.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tuto
rial_Storage_062009
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Rob Stapleton" <foto(at)alaska.net>
Subject:
T-88
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
Aircraft Spruce is where I get mine and it cost $48 per quart.
RS
Rob Stapleton, Photojournalist
Anchorage, AK
(907) 230-9425
KL2AN
Skype:rob.stapleton.jr
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark
Roberts
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 9:22 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: T-88
Is T-88 something that I could find locally with some research or is it
a specialty glue that needs mail order? I have wood arriving soon, AND a
jig- more on that when I get the first rib plopped out- (man life is
GOOD) so I don't want to wait for the UPS guy if I can get it locally.
Not sure where to look as Big Box hardware won't have it I'm sure...
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: T-88
From:
"K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net>
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
Yep, AS&S is where I got mine. Currently $37.85 a quart. Good stuff.
--------
Mark - working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251342#251342
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Jim Quinn" <quinnj(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject:
Re: T-88
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
Mark,
I got mine from Aircraft Spruce but have also found it locally at
Rockler's. I think if you have any woodworking specialty stores in your
area they will have it.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Roberts
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 12:22 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: T-88
Is T-88 something that I could find locally with some research or is
it a specialty glue that needs mail order? I have wood arriving soon,
AND a jig- more on that when I get the first rib plopped out- (man life
is GOOD) so I don't want to wait for the UPS guy if I can get it
locally. Not sure where to look as Big Box hardware won't have it I'm
sure...
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Lagowski Morrow" <jimdeb(at)charter.net>
Subject:
Re: Keeping the C.G. from getting to far aft
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
Mark , I understand Bill does not have website. His phone is
608-833-5839. Address is 3339 Mound view Rd., Verona Wisc. 53593--Jim
Lagowski
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Roberts
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Keeping the C.G. from getting to far
aft
And for those of us unfortunate souls unable to attend the event, does
Bill Rewey have a website to order his building hints? I am WAYS off
from the W&B (need to glue 2 stricks together first :o) but I am a
sponge right now for learning stuff...
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Rick Holland
wrote:
For anyone that is still confused about W&B after all these
discussions I would highly recommend Bill Rewey's Piet building hints
(he probably will be selling them at Broadhead for $10 I think). The one
on W&B is the simplest and best explanation I have seen and has been
flight proven on many Piets.
rick
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Don Emch wrote:
I did a very thorough weight and balance on my airplane. I
suggest that anyone who does their weight and balance fully understand
it before they tackle it. I've seen guys on the list try to get a
weight and balance spread sheet from others who have done theirs so they
can plug numbers in. Not a good idea on my part. Actually leveling the
airplane and weighing at measured points (usually landing gear) then
finding locations for each arm. Then creating your own work sheet is
important. Many use arms like the center of the seats for passenger and
pilot. Not an accurate or good idea. Much more accurate to actually
weigh the airplane with yourself or a person while positioned on the
seat and do the math to figure where the arm is
The wing or wing chord itself does not determine the C.G. However
if the C.G. is behind the C.L. you are going to have serious problem.
Therefore since the C.L. is determined as a % of the chord we typically
use the chord as a reference to determine the % for the C.G. Since
Pietenpol wings are seldom positioned in the same place on each and
every one we can't just figure where the C.G. is according to the
fuselage and gear or weighing points. So in the Pietenpol's case it is
very important to know where the wing is. Knowing what % of the chord
that the C.G. of the airplane is, is extremely important.
I usually don't pipe up about too many things but a good
understanding of weight and balance is very important. I apologize for
not being able to explain all that well but as long as you yourself have
a good understanding of it is all that matters.
Don Emch
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251257#251257
==========
st"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
a>http://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
07/03/09 05:53:00
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Lagowski Morrow" <jimdeb(at)charter.net>
Subject:
Re: T-88
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
It is a specialty glue available from Aircraft Spruce or Wicks--Jim L.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Roberts
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 1:22 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: T-88
Is T-88 something that I could find locally with some research or is
it a specialty glue that needs mail order? I have wood arriving soon,
AND a jig- more on that when I get the first rib plopped out- (man life
is GOOD) so I don't want to wait for the UPS guy if I can get it
locally. Not sure where to look as Big Box hardware won't have it I'm
sure...
Mark
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
07/03/09 05:53:00
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
Subject:
Re: ALittle Help
From:
Ryan Mueller <rmueller23(at)gmail.com>
Corky,
That particular link in might render the search engine unusable for you.
Here is the correct address:
http://www.matronics.com/search/
Otherwise about the same. Select Pietenpol from the dropdown menu; I
personally prefer the "3 frame, index" output method. This will give a you
a
list of subject lines of all pertinent messages, a pane below that where
they will be displayed. If you search for "riblett" you should get about 22
7
or so messages containing that word. Remember, two t's in riblett. :)
Ryan
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Rod Young wrote:
> Hi Corky
> Click on the link below to get to the archives.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/searching/ws_script_short.cgi
>
> Select Pietenpol in the "Select Archive" box
> For the "Output Method" - keep things simple and click the 3rd option (A
ll
> Msgs, No Index)
> In the "Search String" box type the word riblett
>
> If this doesn't work for you holler again
>
>
> *Rod*
>
>
> ------------------------------
> From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
> Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:24:28 -0400
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: ALittle Help
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
> Pieters,
>
> I'm not very sharp, Pietering or computering. What I need is a bit of hel
p
> to get to the archive or somewhere to find as much info on the Riblet
> airfoil. As an old Louisiana politician used to ask while running for
> governor, " won't ya hep me".
>
> Corky in real hot Louisiana but the tomatoes are abundant and delicious.
>
> ------------------------------
> *A Good Credit Score is 70001462804/aol?redir
> http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62
%26bcd=JulystepsfooterNO62>See
> yours in just 2 easy steps!*
>
> *
>
> st">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listronics.comww.matroni
cs.com/contribution
> *
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Hotmail=AE has ever-growing storage! Don=92t worry about storage limits.
Check
> it out.<http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_
WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_062009>
>
> *
>
===========
w.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
===========
===========
com/contribution
===========
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
Subject:
Re: Keeping the C.G. from getting to far aft
From:
Ryan Mueller <rmueller23(at)gmail.com>
Mark,
Bill's info packet is available from him for $20. You should also get a CD
with an audio recording of one of his past Oshkosh forums. Just send payment
and a note to the address Jim listed. Definitely worth the $.
Ryan
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Lagowski Morrow wrote:
> Mark , I understand Bill does not have website. His phone is
> 608-833-5839. Address is 3339 Mound view Rd., Verona Wisc. 53593--Jim
> Lagowski
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Mark Roberts
> *To:* pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Friday, July 03, 2009 12:36 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Keeping the C.G. from getting to far
> aft
>
> And for those of us unfortunate souls unable to attend the event, does Bill
> Rewey have a website to order his building hints? I am WAYS off from the W&B
> (need to glue 2 stricks together first :o) but I am a sponge right now for
> learning stuff...
>
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Rick Holland wrote:
>
>> For anyone that is still confused about W&B after all these discussions I
>> would highly recommend Bill Rewey's Piet building hints (he probably will be
>> selling them at Broadhead for $10 I think). The one on W&B is the simplest
>> and best explanation I have seen and has been flight proven on many Piets.
>>
>> rick
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Don Emch wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I did a very thorough weight and balance on my airplane. I suggest that
>>> anyone who does their weight and balance fully understand it before they
>>> tackle it. I've seen guys on the list try to get a weight and balance
>>> spread sheet from others who have done theirs so they can plug numbers in.
>>> Not a good idea on my part. Actually leveling the airplane and weighing at
>>> measured points (usually landing gear) then finding locations for each arm.
>>> Then creating your own work sheet is important. Many use arms like the
>>> center of the seats for passenger and pilot. Not an accurate or good idea.
>>> Much more accurate to actually weigh the airplane with yourself or a person
>>> while positioned on the seat and do the math to figure where the arm is
>>>
>>> The wing or wing chord itself does not determine the C.G. However if the
>>> C.G. is behind the C.L. you are going to have serious problem. Therefore
>>> since the C.L. is determined as a % of the chord we typically use the chord
>>> as a reference to determine the % for the C.G. Since Pietenpol wings are
>>> seldom positioned in the same place on each and every one we can't just
>>> figure where the C.G. is according to the fuselage and gear or weighing
>>> points. So in the Pietenpol's case it is very important to know where the
>>> wing is. Knowing what % of the chord that the C.G. of the airplane is, is
>>> extremely important.
>>>
>>> I usually don't pipe up about too many things but a good understanding of
>>> weight and balance is very important. I apologize for not being able to
>>> explain all that well but as long as you yourself have a good understanding
>>> of it is all that matters.
>>>
>>> Don Emch
>>> NX899DE
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251257#251257
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ==========
>>> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>>> ==========
>>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>> ==========
>>> le, List Admin.
>>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> ==========
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rick Holland
>> Castle Rock, Colorado
>>
>> *
>>
>> " target="_blank"> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> a> <http://forums.matronics.com>http://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank"> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> *
>>
>>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c*
>
> ------------------------------
> - Release Date: 07/03/09 05:53:00
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Wt/Bal
From:
"Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
Larry and Jack,
I think my tail weighs somewhere around 8-10 lbs. with the plane level with a full
tank. If I lift the tail about a foot higher I need to hang on tight because
it will keep on going till the nose hits the ground if I would let go. Anyway,
I've often wondered if I would have made the cabanes straight and lengthened
the engine mount instead of moving the wing back if it would actually be
too light on the tail and want to tip forward. Anyway, I'm glad I didn't mess
with that stuff and moved the wing.
I'm counting the days too!
Don
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251355#251355
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
Subject:
Re: Wt/Bal
From:
Lloyd Smith <lesmith240(at)gmail.com>
OK, I'm a Piet wannbe builder. I went over to check out Jack's bird a
couple of weekends ago. Quite the contrast with his Piet sitting on the
apron and his buddy's Lancair with the all glass cockpit next door.
Now for the monkey wrench in the cogs. *When shifting the wing*, there wil
l
be a more noticeable shift of CG if the aircraft has a wing tank as opposed
to one with the fuselage tank, especially when full. Now, let's complicate
things further. The plane with the wing tank will notice hardly any trim
change when burning off fuel due to it's (the fuel) CG being so closely
located to the CL. The fuse tank on the other hand will make a much more
noticeable trim (CG) change as it burns off. This is why it's SO important
to work out the most fwd and most aft CG loadings when you finish your
weight and balance.
Since the airfoil is one that Bernard came up with the TLAR engineering
approach (so I've read) and there is no definitive CL location
it makes for an interesting exercise to determine where the CG/CL
relationship should fall. Fortunately there are sufficient examples flying
in all sorts of configurations that we know about where the comfortable CG
range is. Not to mention, the configuration of the airplane lends itself t
o
pretty stable flight.
Keep in mind also, the long fuse version, while tending to being tail heavy
,
will have a longer arm for the elevator to react on to lift the tail. See,
there's not much set in stone on this airplane. But, the man that designed
it did so in a logical fashion so that it is versatile and functional at th
e
same time. We need more people like Mr. Pietenpol today.
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Jack Phillips wrot
e:
> Hi Larry,
>
>
> You are exactly right. When I first built my Piet, I did the weighing an
d
> found my CG. Weight on the tailwheel (empty, in 3-pt position) was a nic
e
> light 20 lbs. But the CG was too far aft with respect to the wing cord a
nd
> I moved the wing another 2-1/2=94 aft, putting the CG well within the
> acceptable range as a percentage of wing cord, but now the weight on the
> tailwheel in the 3 pt position was nearly 30 lbs. With the top longerons
> level, the plane will nearly balance. Weight on the tailwheel (empty) wi
th
> the longerons level is only a couple of pounds.
>
>
> Not that this means anything, since with my 200 lb bulk on board, the
> weight on the tailwheel is substantial. The extra 5-10 lbs that moving t
he
> wing aft put on the tailwheel is not noticeable compared to the punishmen
t
> my fat butt gives it.
>
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> NX899JP
>
> Anxiously awaiting passage of the next 19 days so we can get to Brodhead
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Lawrence
> Williams
> *Sent:* Friday, July 03, 2009 9:18 AM
> *To:* Pietlist
> *Subject:* Pietenpol-List: Wt/Bal
>
>
> More beating a dead horse...............
>
>
> If you have built your very own Pietenpol and have located your LG where
> you think it should be, doesn't moving your wing aft to aquire the correc
t
> CofG put a lot more weight on the tailwheel? Remember that yu're moving t
he
> center of mass aft in relation to the LG. It might be a factor in how tig
ht
> a turn you could make taxiing and how much strain you put on your back wh
en
> lifting the tail to turn the plane around as well as how soon the tail co
mes
> up on T.O.. Seems like the old guys said that an empty Air Camper should
> balance on it's mains when the tail is lifted with the longerons level.
>
>
> Nice explaination on CG, Don!
>
>
> WOWEE!!! 21 days to go!
>
>
> Larry xcg, xcmr, epp
>
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
> *
>
===========
w.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
===========
===========
com/contribution
===========
> *
>
>
--
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists o
r
not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." --British
publisher and writer Ernest Benn (1875-1954)
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
From:
shad bell <aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 27 Msgs - 07/02/09
Tim, Sorry to hear your wife is not feeling well,- I wish her a speedy re
covery.- Also sorry to hear you can't make Brodhead this year.- The ste
ak dinner last year was great, and the advise you have given me the past fe
w months for the power company-has been a great help.- You Texans are O
K in my book, even if I am a Damn Yankee.- Hope to see you flying that Pi
et soon, Infact I also hope to get my airplane done soon, hopefully 2 years
or so.
-
Shad=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Steve Glass <redsglass(at)hotmail.com>
Subject:
buick v8
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
In Australia he was probably using imperial gallons about 20% more than US
gallons. This same engine is in the current range rovers and discovery veh
icles today if interested
Steve in Maine
> Date: Fri=2C 3 Jul 2009 10:07:22 +1200
> From: zk-owl(at)clear.net.nz
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: buick v8
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
nz>
>
> Thanks=2C that answers most of my questions.
> Regards Mike T.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
> To: "pietenpolgroup"
> Sent: Friday=2C July 03=2C 2009 12:57 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: buick v8
>
>
> >
> >
> > Hello all=2C
> >
> > For those who expressed interest in the aluminum buick v-8=2C I just hu
ng up
> > with Steve Cavanagh in Australia who actually built and flew one.
> >
> > He took it right out of the car without even a rebuild=2C the only mod
was
> > an
> > enlarged sump. Kept the standard ignition and starter. Bolted a metal
> > prop
> > from an "aerobatic Cessna 150" right onto the crank. Says the thrust
> > bearing is in the middle of the crank. Remembers max rpm as around 280
0=2C
> > and got 1=2C000meters climb. Had over 300 hrs when he sold it four yea
rs
> > ago=2C
> > he's now 89. Didn't have any trouble. Said it used about 7 gallons pe
r
> > hour and probably weighed 300 lbs. Had a 30 gallon tank to keep it fed
.
> > Said the Piet performed great with the heavy engine. Said he started w
ith
> > standard wings then build longer wings and said it "it didn't make a
> > difference". Estimates 130hp at 2800
> >
> > Sounds pretty interesting except for the fuel consumption!
> >
> > Douwe
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject:
Re: Wt/Bal
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
Don,
A couple of weeks ago I had my wife helping me as I bled the brakes on the
Pietenpol. Because I was stupid and installed the master cylinders in such
a way that any air bubbles have to travel downhill to make it through the
master cylinder, the easiest way to bleed the brakes is to raise the tail as
high as possible and work the bubbles out. Karen had a heck of a time
hanging onto the tailwheel with her arms stretched as high over her head as
she could. We had to go through the procedure about 6 times to finally get
all the bubbles out, and she was not very happy. I wish I had a picture of
it.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Emch
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 3:46 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wt/Bal
Larry and Jack,
I think my tail weighs somewhere around 8-10 lbs. with the plane level with
a full tank. If I lift the tail about a foot higher I need to hang on tight
because it will keep on going till the nose hits the ground if I would let
go. Anyway, I've often wondered if I would have made the cabanes straight
and lengthened the engine mount instead of moving the wing back if it would
actually be too light on the tail and want to tip forward. Anyway, I'm glad
I didn't mess with that stuff and moved the wing.
I'm counting the days too!
Don
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251355#251355
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Dave Abramson" <davea(at)symbolicdisplays.com>
Subject:
Re: Wt/Bal
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
Hello group!
As for me..... I have moved my landing gear forward (wheels) a couple
inches. Building my cabanes STRAIGHT, and will build a longer
engine mount to get the W&B correct....
I will look for a HEAVY engine! I like the ROTEC Radial!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Don Emch
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 12:46 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wt/Bal
Larry and Jack,
I think my tail weighs somewhere around 8-10 lbs. with the plane level with
a full tank. If I lift the tail about a foot higher I need to hang on tight
because it will keep on going till the nose hits the ground if I would let
go. Anyway, I've often wondered if I would have made the cabanes straight
and lengthened the engine mount instead of moving the wing back if it would
actually be too light on the tail and want to tip forward. Anyway, I'm glad
I didn't mess with that stuff and moved the wing.
I'm counting the days too!
Don
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251355#251355
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Keeping the C.G. from getting to far aft
From:
"skellytown flyer" <rhano(at)att.net>
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
The weight and balance is concerning me as I know I have very light tail right
now with the wings off and the engine on.the modified GN-1 I picked up. DJ did
some size changes for his height and I fit pretty good with my long legs.I guess
if I were to build one from scratch I might look into moving the main gear
forward but after completion I'll finally know if it is necessary.I would guess
the main thing if the CG is OK will be to really be careful hitting the brakes.might
even need to do something like the Cessna 140's had moving the wheels
forward but I'm not sure that would be practical with the Cub gear.but I could
probably build new main legs with a forward angle.but that would move wheel
weight forward as well as helping it to be less likely to nose over. maybe it'll
be perfect-I sure hope so.I would rather put the battery under the back seat
or even behind it than angle the cabanes forward or back either one.Raymond
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251383#251383
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
Subject:
Re: Keeping the C.G. from getting to far aft
From:
Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Thanks guys!Will do...
Mark
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Ryan Mueller wrote:
> Mark,
>
> Bill's info packet is available from him for $20. You should also get a CD
> with an audio recording of one of his past Oshkosh forums. Just send payment
> and a note to the address Jim listed. Definitely worth the $.
>
> Ryan
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Lagowski Morrow wrote:
>
>> Mark , I understand Bill does not have website. His phone is
>> 608-833-5839. Address is 3339 Mound view Rd., Verona Wisc. 53593--Jim
>> Lagowski
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Mark Roberts
>> *To:* pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>> *Sent:* Friday, July 03, 2009 12:36 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Keeping the C.G. from getting to far
>> aft
>>
>> And for those of us unfortunate souls unable to attend the event, does
>> Bill Rewey have a website to order his building hints? I am WAYS off from
>> the W&B (need to glue 2 stricks together first :o) but I am a sponge right
>> now for learning stuff...
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Rick Holland wrote:
>>
>>> For anyone that is still confused about W&B after all these discussions I
>>> would highly recommend Bill Rewey's Piet building hints (he probably will be
>>> selling them at Broadhead for $10 I think). The one on W&B is the simplest
>>> and best explanation I have seen and has been flight proven on many Piets.
>>>
>>> rick
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Don Emch wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I did a very thorough weight and balance on my airplane. I suggest that
>>>> anyone who does their weight and balance fully understand it before they
>>>> tackle it. I've seen guys on the list try to get a weight and balance
>>>> spread sheet from others who have done theirs so they can plug numbers in.
>>>> Not a good idea on my part. Actually leveling the airplane and weighing
at
>>>> measured points (usually landing gear) then finding locations for each arm.
>>>> Then creating your own work sheet is important. Many use arms like the
>>>> center of the seats for passenger and pilot. Not an accurate or good idea.
>>>> Much more accurate to actually weigh the airplane with yourself or a person
>>>> while positioned on the seat and do the math to figure where the arm is
>>>>
>>>> The wing or wing chord itself does not determine the C.G. However if
>>>> the C.G. is behind the C.L. you are going to have serious problem.
>>>> Therefore since the C.L. is determined as a % of the chord we typically use
>>>> the chord as a reference to determine the % for the C.G. Since Pietenpol
>>>> wings are seldom positioned in the same place on each and every one we can't
>>>> just figure where the C.G. is according to the fuselage and gear or weighing
>>>> points. So in the Pietenpol's case it is very important to know where the
>>>> wing is. Knowing what % of the chord that the C.G. of the airplane is, is
>>>> extremely important.
>>>>
>>>> I usually don't pipe up about too many things but a good understanding
>>>> of weight and balance is very important. I apologize for not being able to
>>>> explain all that well but as long as you yourself have a good understanding
>>>> of it is all that matters.
>>>>
>>>> Don Emch
>>>> NX899DE
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>
>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251257#251257
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ==========
>>>> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>>>> ==========
>>>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>>> ==========
>>>> le, List Admin.
>>>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>> ==========
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rick Holland
>>> Castle Rock, Colorado
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> " target="_blank"> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>>> a> <http://forums.matronics.com>http://forums.matronics.com
>>> _blank"> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>> *
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c*
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> - Release Date: 07/03/09 05:53:00
>>
>> *
>>
>> " target="_blank"> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> a> <http://forums.matronics.com>http://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank"> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> *
>>
>>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: it's alive!
From:
"skellytown flyer" <rhano(at)att.net>
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
Thanks for the tip-that's what I was hoping for-some real experience numbers. I'm
not too worried. I think the 37 lb. was not running too fast.maybe a thousand-oil
was fairly warm and my probe is in the oil filter housing so most likely
not getting as much heat as it would in the engine.thanks.I haven't changed
it yet but I'm guessing it might be 10/40 or 15/40 weight.no real way of knowing.I
haven't heard from DJ lately.not sure he still has the same E-mail address.but
I'm pressing forward with it.Raymond
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251385#251385
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
Subject:
Re: Wt/Bal
From:
Lloyd Smith <lesmith240(at)gmail.com>
Jack, if you'll be pouring any concrete at the new place, have the truck
driver dump any excess into a bucket with a bent piece of rebar suspended in
it (bent like a Christmas ornament hook, eyelet up). Works great for those
times, mount it on a small dolly and it's easy to move around as well.
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Jack Phillips wrote:
> pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
>
> Don,
>
> A couple of weeks ago I had my wife helping me as I bled the brakes on the
> Pietenpol. Because I was stupid and installed the master cylinders in such
> a way that any air bubbles have to travel downhill to make it through the
> master cylinder, the easiest way to bleed the brakes is to raise the tail
> as
> high as possible and work the bubbles out. Karen had a heck of a time
> hanging onto the tailwheel with her arms stretched as high over her head as
> she could. We had to go through the procedure about 6 times to finally get
> all the bubbles out, and she was not very happy. I wish I had a picture of
> it.
>
>
--
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or
not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." --British
publisher and writer Ernest Benn (1875-1954)
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
Subject:
(no subject)
Would someone give me Walt Evans e mail address please, Thanks
Corky
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
JulystepsfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"ALAN LYSCARS" <alyscars(at)myfairpoint.net>
Subject:
Re: T-88
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
Jamestown Distributors, a boatbuilding supply house in Rhode Island, is
where I buy mine. Closer for fellows in New England. $40/qt kit and
shorter shipping distance/time for me in New Hampshire.
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: Rob Stapleton
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 2:17 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: T-88
Aircraft Spruce is where I get mine and it cost $48 per quart.
RS
Rob Stapleton, Photojournalist
Anchorage, AK
(907) 230-9425
KL2AN
Skype:rob.stapleton.jr
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark
Roberts
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 9:22 AM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: T-88
Is T-88 something that I could find locally with some research or is
it a specialty glue that needs mail order? I have wood arriving soon,
AND a jig- more on that when I get the first rib plopped out- (man life
is GOOD) so I don't want to wait for the UPS guy if I can get it
locally. Not sure where to look as Big Box hardware won't have it I'm
sure...
Mark
- The Pietenpol-List Email Forum - -->
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List -
MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - --> http://forums.matronics.com -
List Contribution Web Site - Thank you for your generous support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin. -->
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
Subject:
Re: T-88
From:
Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
I was wondering if there might be any place around here (Fresno CA) that
would have carried it. I'm only about 4 hours North of the West Coast AC
Spruce location, so it would be here in a couple of days, but I thought I
might shop around and was wondering if you guys had ever found it locally in
some specialty wood shops. I saw on the systemthree.com website that there
is a place about a half hour north of me that is suppose to be a
distributor, so I'll check there Monday.
I'll most likely just buy it from ACS and be done.
Thanks for all the feedback!
Mark
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 10:12 PM, ALAN LYSCARS wrote:
> Jamestown Distributors, a boatbuilding supply house in Rhode Island, is
> where I buy mine. Closer for fellows in New England. $40/qt kit and
> shorter shipping distance/time for me in New Hampshire.
>
> Al
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Rob Stapleton
> *To:* pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Friday, July 03, 2009 2:17 PM
> *Subject:* RE: Pietenpol-List: T-88
>
> Aircraft Spruce is where I get mine and it cost $48 per quart.
>
> RS
>
>
> Rob Stapleton, Photojournalist
>
> Anchorage, AK
>
> (907) 230-9425
>
> KL2AN
>
> Skype:rob.stapleton.jr
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Mark Roberts
> *Sent:* Friday, July 03, 2009 9:22 AM
> *To:* pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Pietenpol-List: T-88
>
>
> Is T-88 something that I could find locally with some research or is it a
> specialty glue that needs mail order? I have wood arriving soon, AND a jig-
> more on that when I get the first rib plopped out- (man life is GOOD) so I
> don't want to wait for the UPS guy if I can get it locally. Not sure where
> to look as Big Box hardware won't have it I'm sure...
>
>
> Mark
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> * - The Pietenpol-List Email Forum -*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> * --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> * - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> * --> http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> * - List Contribution Web Site -*
>
> * Thank you for your generous support!*
>
> * -Matt Dralle, List Admin.*
>
> * --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> **
>
> * *
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject:
Re: T-88
Date:
Jul 03, 2009
If you have a marine supply near, try them.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Roberts
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 10:22 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: T-88
Is T-88 something that I could find locally with some research or is
it a specialty glue that needs mail order?
Mark
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
07/03/09 18:11:00
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
airlion(at)bellsouth.net
Subject:
Wt/Bal
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
Jack, I finally got my cg in limits by moving my wings back 4 inches. It looks
kind of rakish now and the weight came in at 758 lbs. I think you should start
now for Brodhead. He he. I will see you there in my cessna 140. Cheers, Gardiner
Mason
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
>
> Hi Larry,
>
>
>
> You are exactly right. When I first built my Piet, I did the weighing and
> found my CG. Weight on the tailwheel (empty, in 3-pt position) was a nice
> light 20 lbs. But the CG was too far aft with respect to the wing cord and
> I moved the wing another 2-1/2" aft, putting the CG well within the
> acceptable range as a percentage of wing cord, but now the weight on the
> tailwheel in the 3 pt position was nearly 30 lbs. With the top longerons
> level, the plane will nearly balance. Weight on the tailwheel (empty) with
> the longerons level is only a couple of pounds.
>
>
>
> Not that this means anything, since with my 200 lb bulk on board, the weight
> on the tailwheel is substantial. The extra 5-10 lbs that moving the wing
> aft put on the tailwheel is not noticeable compared to the punishment my fat
> butt gives it.
>
>
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> NX899JP
>
> Anxiously awaiting passage of the next 19 days so we can get to Brodhead
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lawrence
> Williams
> Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 9:18 AM
> To: Pietlist
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wt/Bal
>
>
>
>
> More beating a dead horse...............
>
>
>
> If you have built your very own Pietenpol and have located your LG where you
> think it should be, doesn't moving your wing aft to aquire the correct CofG
> put a lot more weight on the tailwheel? Remember that yu're moving the
> center of mass aft in relation to the LG. It might be a factor in how tight
> a turn you could make taxiing and how much strain you put on your back when
> lifting the tail to turn the plane around as well as how soon the tail comes
> up on T.O.. Seems like the old guys said that an empty Air Camper should
> balance on it's mains when the tail is lifted with the longerons level.
>
>
>
> Nice explaination on CG, Don!
>
>
>
> WOWEE!!! 21 days to go!
>
>
>
> Larry xcg, xcmr, epp
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject:
Wt/Bal
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
18 more days.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
airlion(at)bellsouth.net
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 7:56 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Wt/Bal
Jack, I finally got my cg in limits by moving my wings back 4 inches. It
looks kind of rakish now and the weight came in at 758 lbs. I think you
should start now for Brodhead. He he. I will see you there in my cessna 140.
Cheers, Gardiner Mason
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
>
> Hi Larry,
>
>
> You are exactly right. When I first built my Piet, I did the weighing and
> found my CG. Weight on the tailwheel (empty, in 3-pt position) was a nice
> light 20 lbs. But the CG was too far aft with respect to the wing cord
and
> I moved the wing another 2-1/2" aft, putting the CG well within the
> acceptable range as a percentage of wing cord, but now the weight on the
> tailwheel in the 3 pt position was nearly 30 lbs. With the top longerons
> level, the plane will nearly balance. Weight on the tailwheel (empty)
with
> the longerons level is only a couple of pounds.
>
>
> Not that this means anything, since with my 200 lb bulk on board, the
weight
> on the tailwheel is substantial. The extra 5-10 lbs that moving the wing
> aft put on the tailwheel is not noticeable compared to the punishment my
fat
> butt gives it.
>
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> NX899JP
>
> Anxiously awaiting passage of the next 19 days so we can get to Brodhead
>
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lawrence
> Williams
> Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 9:18 AM
> To: Pietlist
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wt/Bal
>
>
> More beating a dead horse...............
>
>
> If you have built your very own Pietenpol and have located your LG where
you
> think it should be, doesn't moving your wing aft to aquire the correct
CofG
> put a lot more weight on the tailwheel? Remember that yu're moving the
> center of mass aft in relation to the LG. It might be a factor in how
tight
> a turn you could make taxiing and how much strain you put on your back
when
> lifting the tail to turn the plane around as well as how soon the tail
comes
> up on T.O.. Seems like the old guys said that an empty Air Camper should
> balance on it's mains when the tail is lifted with the longerons level.
>
>
> Nice explaination on CG, Don!
>
>
> WOWEE!!! 21 days to go!
>
>
> Larry xcg, xcmr, epp
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
From:
johnwoods(at)westnet.com.au
Subject:
Re: Riblett 612 CoG Range
For those who are using the Riblett airfoil, it should be ke pt in mind tha
t the CoG range for the 612 is different to the Pietenpol airfoil.
There are at least three of us using the 612 over here in Australia and I h
ave been advised that Mr Riblett recommends a CoG range of 10.8" to 16.8" f
rom the LE, which is between 18%=C2-and 28% .
Is any one who has=C2-a flying Pietenpol=C2-with the 612 airfoil able t
o =C2-relate th eir experience on this?
JohnW
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
Subject:
Re: Riblett 612 CoG Range
Sir,
Do you have a flying Piet with the 612 airfoil or are you in the building
process?
Corky
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
JulystepsfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
From:
johnwoods(at)westnet.com.au
Subject:
Re: Riblett 612 CoG Range
Corky,
I'm still building and a long way from completion, as work time keeps inter
fering with=C2-building time.
I have built my 612 ribs but have to take a hiatus from building for a few
months.
I posted the co-ordinates for the Riblett 612, 613.5 and Pietenpol sections
a while ago.
They can be found if you do a search in Matronics' Pietenpol list or I can
send to you off list.
Roman Buk olt and Pieti Lowell are two gentlemen who may be able to give yo
u more information on the Riblett airfoil.
JohnW
----- Original Message -----
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Sent: Saturday, 4 July, 2009 9:58:34 PM GMT +08:00 Perth
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett 612 CoG Range
Sir,
Do you have a flying Piet with the 612 airfoil or are you in the building p
rocess?
Corky
A Good Credit Score is 70001367230/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.
com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=JulystepsfooterNO62>S
==============
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Michael Silvius" <silvius(at)gwi.net>
Subject:
Re: T-88
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
Most decent boat builder/marine supply stores carry it. Here on the
right coast Hamilton Marine and West Marine have it.
Michael in Maine
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Roberts
I was wondering if there might be any place around here (Fresno CA)
that would have carried it.
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Michael Silvius" <silvius(at)gwi.net>
Subject:
Re: Keeping the C.G. from getting to far aft
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
Well if you do have to move the gear it should not be to difficult. The way
DJ set that one up with the cradle that holds the gear on the fuse you could
move the whole thing forward if you needed to.
http://www.imagedv.com/aircamper/log/image-pages/06-05-02.htm
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "skellytown flyer" <rhano(at)att.net>
>
> The weight and balance is concerning me as I know I have very light tail
right now with the wings off and the engine on.the modified GN-1 I picked
up. DJ did some size changes for his height and I fit pretty good with my
long legs.I guess if I were to build one from scratch I might look into
moving the main gear forward but after completion I'll finally know if it is
necessary.I would guess the main thing if the CG is OK will be to really be
careful hitting the brakes.might even need to do something like the Cessna
140's had moving the wheels forward but I'm not sure that would be practical
with the Cub gear.but I could probably build new main legs with a forward
angle.but that would move wheel weight forward as well as helping it to be
less likely to nose over. maybe it'll be perfect-I sure hope so.I would
rather put the battery under the back seat or even behind it than angle the
cabanes forward or back either one.Raymond
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
Subject:
Re: T-88
From:
Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
West Marine! We do have one of those in town, so I'll try them. I looked on
their website yesterday and saw a bunch of others, but not T-88... Maybe the
store will stock it and anyway.
Thanks for letting me know that West Marine carries it there. I'll see if
they are open on the 4th of July!
Mark
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Michael Silvius wrote:
> Most decent boat builder/marine supply stores carry it. Here on the right
> coast Hamilton Marine and West Marine have it.
>
> Michael in Maine
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Mark Roberts
>
> I was wondering if there might be any place around here (Fresno CA) that
> would have carried it.
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Michael Silvius" <silvius(at)gwi.net>
Subject:
Re: T-88
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
Mark:
Personally I have always preferred the MAS brand products.
http://www.masepoxies.com
West also carries it. I have used it extensively for over 15 yrs and
have no regrets. One major advantage of the MAS is you do not need to
sand between coats as the slow stuf does not have the amine blush.
http://www.masepoxies.com/public/index.cfm?fuseaction=prodbrws.publicde
tail&productid=69474
I also tends to run a bit thinner than the T88 which I prefer.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Roberts
West Marine! We do have one of those in town, so I'll try them. I
looked on their website yesterday and saw a bunch of others, but not
T-88... Maybe the store will stock it and anyway.
Thanks for letting me know that West Marine carries it there. I'll see
if they are open on the 4th of July!
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
From:
<r.r.hall(at)cox.net>
Subject:
Re: T-88
If there is a Woodcrafters near you they stock it as well, at least here in Virginia.
Rodney Hall
---- Mark Roberts wrote:
> West Marine! We do have one of those in town, so I'll try them. I looked on
> their website yesterday and saw a bunch of others, but not T-88... Maybe the
> store will stock it and anyway.
> Thanks for letting me know that West Marine carries it there. I'll see if
> they are open on the 4th of July!
>
> Mark
>
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Michael Silvius wrote:
>
> > Most decent boat builder/marine supply stores carry it. Here on the right
> > coast Hamilton Marine and West Marine have it.
> >
> > Michael in Maine
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Mark Roberts
> >
> > I was wondering if there might be any place around here (Fresno CA) that
> > would have carried it.
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
Subject:
Re: T-88
From:
Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Thanks Michael. I'll have a look!
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Michael Silvius wrote:
> Mark:
>
> Personally I have always preferred the MAS brand products.
> http://www.masepoxies.com
> West also carries it. I have used it extensively for over 15 yrs and have
> no regrets. One major advantage of the MAS is you do not need to sand
> between coats as the slow stuf does not have the amine blush.
>
> http://www.masepoxies.com/public/index.cfm?fuseaction=prodbrws.publicdetail&productid=69474
> I also tends to run a bit thinner than the T88 which I prefer.
>
> Michael
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Mark Roberts
>
> West Marine! We do have one of those in town, so I'll try them. I looked on
> their website yesterday and saw a bunch of others, but not T-88... Maybe the
> store will stock it and anyway.
> Thanks for letting me know that West Marine carries it there. I'll see if
> they are open on the 4th of July!
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
Subject:
Re: Riblett 612 CoG Range
Thanks for your reply John, Pretty quick all the way from Australia. I'm
just completing the Aeronca T-65 (L-3) and will keep for personal flying but
am preparing to build my 3rd Piet . That is my third start as I did not
complete the second one. Family health prompted me to rid it but all has
worked out so I'll try again. My first Piet 41CC, now owned by Oscar Zuniger of
San Antonio, flew well and I enjoyed flying it but it had one
characteristic I didn't particularly like. When you flared it dropped like a brick.
That's perfectly all right and safe as long as you prepare for it and keep your
head out of your ass. I have had reports about the 612 airfoil that gives
a Piet a little float after round out. That's what I want in my next Piet.
If you can elaborate on this subject further I would sure like to hear from
you. Also I would like those dimensions on both those Ribletts so I can
lay out my rib jig board.
Had a real good Aussie friend once after WWII we were billetted in same
hotel in Tokyo. His job was to entertain Aussie pilots for a fat cat week in
Tokyo. Of course he couldn't let those bloody bastards drink alone. Old
Badger as a result never drew a sober breath the year I knew him and was a
great guy and friend. He was early in the fighter fights in New Guinnie (sp)
Corky
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
JulystepsfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Mid West wood source
From:
"bill.kipp" <bill.kipp(at)comcast.net>
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
I live about 80 miles west of Chicago. Has any builder in the area found a local
source for either spruce or doug fir?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251475#251475
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
John Hofmann <jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.com>
Subject:
Re: Mid West wood source
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
Bill,
McCormick Lumber in Madison, WI stocks rough cut sitka spruce. Call
them ahead to check supply.
http://www.mccormicklumber.com/
-john-
John Hofmann
Vice-President, Information Technology
The Rees Group, Inc.
2810 Crossroads Drive, Ste 3800
Madison, WI 53718
Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150
Fax: 608.443.2474
Email: jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.com
On Jul 4, 2009, at 12:27 PM, bill.kipp wrote:
> >
>
> I live about 80 miles west of Chicago. Has any builder in the area
> found a local source for either spruce or doug fir?
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251475#251475
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
From:
Dan Yocum <yocum(at)fnal.gov>
Subject:
Re: Fuselage length
Jack,
Jack Phillips wrote:
>
> Dan,
>
> Have you run a weight and balance to see where your CG (with you in the
> airplane) is with respect to the cord of the wing?
Not yet - I haven't even laid hands on 'er. The current owner is flying
in for Oshkosh and he'll deliver it to me at the end of the show. When I
get around to it I'll put 'er on the scales and see what she comes out
to be.
>
> Moving the wing is very simple, if you made the diagonal cabane struts with
> some adjustment for length. The rest of the bracing wires have enough
> adjustment in the turnbuckles. Like many others on the list, my wing is aft
> of vertical by 4". Anticipating that I would have an aft CG problem, I
> built my cabane diagonals with adjustment built in.
I noticed that when I was looking at your plane. From the photos I've
seen N8031 doesn't have those adjustments. Maybe that will be something
I can do during the cold winter months...
Thanks for the reply,
Dan
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Yocum
> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:07 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Fuselage length
>
>
> [Let's try this again with a link to the image instead of the image - my
> apologies to everyone on 9600 baud modems]
>
>
> Jack,
>
> Jack Phillips wrote:
>
>> tail). Far easier is to shift the wing aft. Even though moving the wing
>> aft tends to move the CG aft as well (just slightly, due to the mass of
> the
>> wing which has moved aft) it moves the acceptable CG range aft and allows
>> the CG to fall within the acceptable range. Very few airplane designs can
>> be modified in this way - it is one of the great advantages of the
> Pietenpol
>
> You and others have said in this thread that "it's easy to move the
> wing." Please excuse the naivety of the following question but, "How
> easy is it?"
>
> I can imagine that the forward bracing struts (ahead of the cabanes)
> would have to be lengthened, all the strut attach brackets on the wings
> and and fuselage would have to be replaced, and new wires would have to
> be built if there's not enough play in the turnbuckles. Then there's
> re-routing the fuel and pitot lines and opening the holes ahead of the
> pilot's instrument panel for the those support wires...
>
> Or is it easier than what I'm imagining?
>
> The reason I ask is because it appears that N8031 has a CG issue. See
> the image and look at the position of the elevator:
>
> http://5n429glenoak.homelinux.net/gallery/airplanes/DSC_4167
>
> Every picture I've seen of her in cruise flight, the elevator is angled
> a bit down.
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>
> --
> Dan Yocum
> Fermilab 630.840.6509
> yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
> Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Dan Yocum
Fermilab 630.840.6509
yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
From:
Dan Yocum <yocum(at)fnal.gov>
Subject:
Re: Mid West wood source
Bill,
McCormick Lumber in Madison. The info is a bit old but they had
certifiable aircraft spruce, rough cut, with much better prices than AS&S.
I forwarded you an email I got from Alan Abel about their prices from
Jan '08. Not sure what the prices are now-a-days.
Dan
bill.kipp wrote:
>
> I live about 80 miles west of Chicago. Has any builder in the area found a local
source for either spruce or doug fir?
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251475#251475
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Dan Yocum
Fermilab 630.840.6509
yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
Subject:
AIrfoil can of worms?
From:
Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Well, after spending a few hours surfing the achieves related to the 612
verses the regular Piet airfoil, I am left with some questions (and a
headache!)
I downloaded the coordinates I found (at least for the 612) and the original
Piet airfoil compared them in my CAD program. I see a few of you have opted
to use the 612 airfoil on your builds and am curious about the actual
dynamics of the flight characteristics.
After reading the posts, I am curious about the standard Piet airfoil, and
it's performance. I know that building to plans and to the original design
is the best way of getting a good flying plane, but reading the letter
posted from Mr. Riblett got me to thinking about the actual performance. I
read about a sharp stall and such, and I am looking for you guys that are
flying one of these to maybe give your feedback on the airfoil and
it's characteristics. I'd love a gentle flyer and I am not all that crazy
about experimenting with stuff I know so little about, so I am inclined to
stay with the original (especially since I have a jig arriving soon...).
Just curious about the more recent thoughts regarding real world dynamics
from you guys that are flying with the original airfoil...
Hope this isn't redundant or a can of worms...
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"x GOYENI " <goyeni(at)movinet.com.uy>
Subject:
Brodhead/AirVenture
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
Hello everybody,
Finally, I am going to Brodhead with my son Federico.
We are arriving at noon on Friday and stay there until Sunday.
I look forward to meet members of this list and enjoy the friendship and
camaraderie of these events.
Then, the entire week at AirVenture.
See you there.
Juan GOYENI
URUGUAY
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
From:
Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
Re: Mid West wood source
I talked with one of the McCormicks on the phone about three weeks ago. He was
quoting $9 per board foot for pickup at the yard. We were discussing true 1"
thick X 9 in. wide Sitka Spruce, in lengths 16 to 18 feet. One board that width
would work out to $6.75 per linear foot. And you can expect the quality
to be excellent. This yard sells to boat builders and esp. iceboat builders.
We did not discuss shipping, for at that time I intended to be in Madison later
this month to pick it up.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: Dan Yocum <yocum(at)fnal.gov>
>Sent: Jul 4, 2009 3:38 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Mid West wood source
>
>
>Bill,
>
>McCormick Lumber in Madison. The info is a bit old but they had
>certifiable aircraft spruce, rough cut, with much better prices than AS&S.
>
>I forwarded you an email I got from Alan Abel about their prices from
>Jan '08. Not sure what the prices are now-a-days.
>
>Dan
>
>
>bill.kipp wrote:
>>
>> I live about 80 miles west of Chicago. Has any builder in the area found a
local source for either spruce or doug fir?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251475#251475
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>Dan Yocum
>Fermilab 630.840.6509
>yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
>Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
From:
Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
Mark,
Our Piet had what I consider a sharp and unannounced stall. However,
it has an aluminum leading edge wrap rather than the thing plywood as
specified in the plans. When the fabric was shrunk, it pulled the
aluminum down between the ribs in a very ugly fashion. The result is
an even sharper nose than the Piet airfoil normally has.
I added vortex generators and everything changed. The no-power stall
is now about like a Cessna 172's or maybe even gentler. The power-on
stall has noticeable burbling prior to the stall and a fairly gentle
break.
As you can tell from my description, this is an atypical Piet. But,
every datum helps.
Jeff
>...After reading the posts, I am curious about the standard Piet
>airfoil, and it's performance. I know that building to plans and to
>the original design is the best way of getting a good flying plane,
>but reading the letter posted from Mr. Riblett got me to thinking
>about the actual performance. I read about a sharp stall and such,
>and I am looking for you guys that are flying one of these to maybe
>give your feedback on the airfoil and it's characteristics. ...
>
>Mark
--
---
Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
Emory University School of Medicine
Editor-in-Chief
Molecular Vision
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
From:
Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject:
Re: Brodhead/AirVenture
Juan,
That's GREAT! See you there!
Jeff
PS: You may get fewer responses to your email than normal as a lof of
the US Americans are at BBQs today...
>"
>
>
>Hello everybody,
>Finally, I am going to Brodhead with my son Federico.
>We are arriving at noon on Friday and stay there until Sunday.
>I look forward to meet members of this list and enjoy the friendship
>and camaraderie of these events.
>Then, the entire week at AirVenture.
>See you there.
>Juan GOYENI
>URUGUAY
--
---
Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
Emory University School of Medicine
Editor-in-Chief
Molecular Vision
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
From:
Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
Aha! VGs! Jeff, it sounds like you are very happy with their effects. Thus inquiring
minds want to know:
Were the VGs the ones you used the straight little plastic fins (100 to a box),
or were they the truncated "V," perhaps made out of bent aluminum?
How far behind the LE did you place them, and was that according to directions,
or what?
Did you also apply them to any controls, esp. the back of the VStab or near the
LE of the rudder?
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
>Sent: Jul 4, 2009 5:20 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
>
>
>Mark,
>
>Our Piet had what I consider a sharp and unannounced stall. However,
>it has an aluminum leading edge wrap rather than the thing plywood as
>specified in the plans. When the fabric was shrunk, it pulled the
>aluminum down between the ribs in a very ugly fashion. The result is
>an even sharper nose than the Piet airfoil normally has.
>
>I added vortex generators and everything changed. The no-power stall
>is now about like a Cessna 172's or maybe even gentler. The power-on
>stall has noticeable burbling prior to the stall and a fairly gentle
>break.
>
>As you can tell from my description, this is an atypical Piet. But,
>every datum helps.
>
>Jeff
>
>
>>...After reading the posts, I am curious about the standard Piet
>>airfoil, and it's performance. I know that building to plans and to
>>the original design is the best way of getting a good flying plane,
>>but reading the letter posted from Mr. Riblett got me to thinking
>>about the actual performance. I read about a sharp stall and such,
>>and I am looking for you guys that are flying one of these to maybe
>>give your feedback on the airfoil and it's characteristics. ...
>>
>>Mark
>
>--
>---
>
>Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
>Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
>Emory University School of Medicine
>Editor-in-Chief
>Molecular Vision
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Wizzard187(at)aol.com
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
Subject:
Re: Riblett 612 CoG Range
Pieters Is the 612 the what is used on aeronica?
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
JulystepsfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"x GOYENI " <goyeni(at)movinet.com.uy>
Subject:
Brodhead/Airventure
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
It is true Jeff, I did not remember that today is America's Independence
Day.
Congratulations to all Americans from the southern South America.
Thanks Jeff and Tim for your posts.
See you at Brodhead
Juan GOYENI
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
From:
Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Oh Yes! Do tell! :o)
Mark
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Tim Willis wrote:
> timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
>
> Aha! VGs! Jeff, it sounds like you are very happy with their effects.
> Thus inquiring minds want to know:
>
> Were the VGs the ones you used the straight little plastic fins (100 to a
> box), or were they the truncated "V," perhaps made out of bent aluminum?
>
> How far behind the LE did you place them, and was that according to
> directions, or what?
>
> Did you also apply them to any controls, esp. the back of the VStab or near
> the LE of the rudder?
>
> Tim in central TX
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
> >Sent: Jul 4, 2009 5:20 PM
> >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
> >
> >
> >Mark,
> >
> >Our Piet had what I consider a sharp and unannounced stall. However,
> >it has an aluminum leading edge wrap rather than the thing plywood as
> >specified in the plans. When the fabric was shrunk, it pulled the
> >aluminum down between the ribs in a very ugly fashion. The result is
> >an even sharper nose than the Piet airfoil normally has.
> >
> >I added vortex generators and everything changed. The no-power stall
> >is now about like a Cessna 172's or maybe even gentler. The power-on
> >stall has noticeable burbling prior to the stall and a fairly gentle
> >break.
> >
> >As you can tell from my description, this is an atypical Piet. But,
> >every datum helps.
> >
> >Jeff
> >
> >
> >>...After reading the posts, I am curious about the standard Piet
> >>airfoil, and it's performance. I know that building to plans and to
> >>the original design is the best way of getting a good flying plane,
> >>but reading the letter posted from Mr. Riblett got me to thinking
> >>about the actual performance. I read about a sharp stall and such,
> >>and I am looking for you guys that are flying one of these to maybe
> >>give your feedback on the airfoil and it's characteristics. ...
> >>
> >>Mark
> >
> >--
> >---
> >
> >Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
> >Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
> >Emory University School of Medicine
> >Editor-in-Chief
> >Molecular Vision
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
From:
Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Also, just spent the last 2 hours or so creating the 612 rib plot I found
(if the coordinates are correct) into my CAD program and created a rib
template for the 60" profile. Not sure if the plot is indeed the 612, as I
only got the coordinates from a post on this list in the archives and they
said they had found it on another aviation website, so if anyone has a
verifiable set of plots, I'd like to check my work to see if it is indeed a
612.
Regardless, here's a picture of the plot I made... Minus gussets...
Mark
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
> Oh Yes! Do tell! :o)
> Mark
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Tim Willis wrote:
>
>> timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
>>
>> Aha! VGs! Jeff, it sounds like you are very happy with their effects.
>> Thus inquiring minds want to know:
>>
>> Were the VGs the ones you used the straight little plastic fins (100 to a
>> box), or were they the truncated "V," perhaps made out of bent aluminum?
>>
>> How far behind the LE did you place them, and was that according to
>> directions, or what?
>>
>> Did you also apply them to any controls, esp. the back of the VStab or
>> near the LE of the rudder?
>>
>> Tim in central TX
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> >From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
>> >Sent: Jul 4, 2009 5:20 PM
>> >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>> >Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
>> >
>> >
>> >Mark,
>> >
>> >Our Piet had what I consider a sharp and unannounced stall. However,
>> >it has an aluminum leading edge wrap rather than the thing plywood as
>> >specified in the plans. When the fabric was shrunk, it pulled the
>> >aluminum down between the ribs in a very ugly fashion. The result is
>> >an even sharper nose than the Piet airfoil normally has.
>> >
>> >I added vortex generators and everything changed. The no-power stall
>> >is now about like a Cessna 172's or maybe even gentler. The power-on
>> >stall has noticeable burbling prior to the stall and a fairly gentle
>> >break.
>> >
>> >As you can tell from my description, this is an atypical Piet. But,
>> >every datum helps.
>> >
>> >Jeff
>> >
>> >
>> >>...After reading the posts, I am curious about the standard Piet
>> >>airfoil, and it's performance. I know that building to plans and to
>> >>the original design is the best way of getting a good flying plane,
>> >>but reading the letter posted from Mr. Riblett got me to thinking
>> >>about the actual performance. I read about a sharp stall and such,
>> >>and I am looking for you guys that are flying one of these to maybe
>> >>give your feedback on the airfoil and it's characteristics. ...
>> >>
>> >>Mark
>> >
>> >--
>> >---
>> >
>> >Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
>> >Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
>> >Emory University School of Medicine
>> >Editor-in-Chief
>> >Molecular Vision
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
From:
Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
Re: Riblett 612 CoG Range
Riblett airfoils were not used on any of the old classics. The Aeronca used a
NACA 4412 airfoil.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
From: Wizzard187(at)aol.com
Sent: Jul 4, 2009 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett 612 CoG Range
Pieters Is the 612 the what is used on aeronica?
A Good Credit Score is 700 or67230/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=JulystepsfooterNO62>See yours in just 2 easy steps!
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Brodhead/AirVenture
From:
amsafetyc(at)aol.com
Date:
Jul 05, 2009
Welcome Juan
So nice to hear you are planning on joining us. I think you will enjoy the group
and the time spent at Brodhead. This is my third year and I can't wait.
The only problem is that once its over you have to wait an entire year to do it
again.
Safe travels and look forward to meeting you again for the first time.
John Recine
------Original Message------
From: x GOYENI
Sender: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
ReplyTo: Pietenpol builders Board
Sent: Jul 4, 2009 5:56 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead/AirVenture
Hello everybody,
Finally, I am going to Brodhead with my son Federico.
We are arriving at noon on Friday and stay there until Sunday.
I look forward to meet members of this list and enjoy the friendship and
camaraderie of these events.
Then, the entire week at AirVenture.
See you there.
Juan GOYENI
URUGUAY
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
________________________________________________________________________________
Bill,
Just to repeat what others have said, McCormick's would be your best choice. I
was there about a month ago to pick up some 1/8" Okoume plywood for the Piet
and I checked out the sitka spruce at the same time. Very nice boards and they
would work well for you if you're using 3/4" spars.
Paul
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251539#251539
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
From:
"Pieti Lowell" <Lowellcfrank(at)yahoo.com>
Date:
Jul 04, 2009
Mark,
I will talk about my 612 at my Brodhead Form ,with 3 years and a number of engines
on this foil. If you are under 180 Lbs I will give you a demo you will never
forget, The air foil you show is very close to the 612.
Pieti Lowell
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251541#251541
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Date:
Jul 05, 2009
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
Mr. Lowell,
If you have some good info and experience with the 612 foil I sure would
like to hear about it as I will not be at Brodhead to hear you personally.
Would you, if you have the time, give me your message directly on E mail?
Thank you
Corky
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
yExcfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Brodhead/AirVenture
Date:
Jul 05, 2009
From:
helspersew(at)aol.com
Juan,
Good for you that you are able to attend the Pietenpol gathering this year. We
always welcome our South American friends. Last year we had Santiago Morete, from
Santa Rosa Argentina with us. He was able to get several rides in Piets and
other airplanes as well. Make sure and bring with you a DETAILED list of supplies,
hardware, etc. that you need for your project. Virtually anything can be
purchased at Oshkosh. Santiago was able to buy hardware, control cable, headsets,
seat belts etc. while he was there. I will look forward to meeting you and
your son Frederico.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
-----Original Message-----
From: x GOYENI <goyeni(at)movinet.com.uy>
Sent: Sat, Jul 4, 2009 4:56 pm
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead/AirVenture
?
Hello everybody, ?
Finally, I am going to Brodhead with my son Federico.?
We are arriving at noon on Friday and stay there until Sunday.?
I look forward to meet members of this list and enjoy the friendship and camaraderie
of these events.?
Then, the entire week at AirVenture.?
See you there. ?
Juan GOYENI?
URUGUAY ?
?
?
?
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Mid West wood source
From:
"bill.kipp" <bill.kipp(at)comcast.net>
Date:
Jul 05, 2009
Thanks All
I get to Madison fairly often. Should work out great!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251565#251565
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 05, 2009
From:
johnwoods(at)westnet.com.au
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
Mark,
Attached is a copy of the xls file I posted a while ago.
It has the co-ordinates for the Riblett 612 &=C2-613.5 sections as provid
ed by Mr Bokolt together with the Pietenpol sections, as copied from the pl
ans.
I used the 612 co-ordinates to plot and make my ribs.
Still a long way from flying.
The 612 has been sucessfully used on other ultralights and from=C2-Mr Rib
lett's description of it's characteristics he predicted it would be a good
section for the Piet.
I wish I could be at Brodhead to hear Mr Pieti Lowell's forum on the 612's
performance.
JohnW
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Roberts" <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, 5 July, 2009 7:50:46 AM GMT +08:00 Perth
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
Also, just spent the last 2 hours or so creating the 612 rib plot I found (
if the coordinates are correct) into my CAD program and created a rib templ
ate for the 60" profile. Not sure if the plot is indeed the 612, as I only
got the coordinates from a post on this list in the archives and they said
they had found it on another aviation website, so if anyone has a verifiabl
e set of plots, I'd like to check my work to see if it is indeed a 612.
Regardless, here's a picture of the plot I made... Minus gussets...
Mark
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Mark Roberts < mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com > wrot
e:
Oh Yes! Do tell! :o)
Mark
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Tim Willis < timothywillis(at)earthlink.net >
wrote:
net >
Aha! =C2-VGs! =C2-Jeff, it sounds like you are very happy with their ef
fects. =C2-Thus inquiring minds want to know:
Were the VGs the ones you used the straight little plastic fins (100 to a b
ox), or were they the truncated "V," perhaps made out of bent aluminum?
How far behind the LE did you place them, and was that according to directi
ons, or what?
Did you also apply them to any controls, esp. the back of the VStab or near
the LE of the rudder?
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Boatright < jboatri(at)emory.edu >
>Sent: Jul 4, 2009 5:20 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
>
>
>Mark,
>
>Our Piet had what I consider a sharp and unannounced stall. However,
>it has an aluminum leading edge wrap rather than the thing plywood as
>specified in the plans. When the fabric was shrunk, it pulled the
>aluminum down between the ribs in a very ugly fashion. The result is
>an even sharper nose than the Piet airfoil normally has.
>
>I added vortex generators and everything changed. The no-power stall
>is now about like a Cessna 172's or maybe even gentler. The power-on
>stall has noticeable burbling prior to the stall and a fairly gentle
>break.
>
>As you can tell from my description, this is an atypical Piet. But,
>every datum helps.
>
>Jeff
>
>
>>...After reading the posts, I am curious about the standard Piet
>>airfoil, and it's performance. I know that building to plans and to
>>the original design is the best way of getting a good flying plane,
>>but reading the letter posted from Mr. Riblett got me to thinking
>>about the actual performance. I read about a sharp stall and such,
>>and I am looking for you guys that are flying one of these to maybe
>>give your feedback on the airfoil and it's characteristics. ...
>>
>>Mark
>
>--
>---
>
>Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
>Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
>Emory University School of Medicine
>Editor-in-Chief
>Molecular Vision
>
>
>
>
===========
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
===========
http://forums.matronics.com
===========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===========
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 05, 2009
From:
johnwoods(at)westnet.com.au
Subject:
AIrfoil can of worms?
Ooops.. forgot the attachement...
JohnW
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: johnwoods(at)westnet.com.au
Sent: Sunday, 5 July, 2009 8:54:49 PM GMT +08:00 Perth
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
Mark,
Attached is a copy of the xls file I posted a while ago.
It has the co-ordinates for the Riblett 612 &=C2-613.5 sections as provid
ed by Mr Bokolt together with the Pietenpol sections, as copied from the pl
ans.
I used the 612 co-ordinates to plot and make my ribs.
Still a long way from flying.
The 612 has been sucessfully used on other ultralights and from=C2-Mr Rib
lett's description of it's characteristics he predicted it would be a good
section for the Piet.
I wish I could be at Brodhead to hear Mr Pieti Lowell's forum on the 612's
performance.
JohnW
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Roberts" <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, 5 July, 2009 7:50:46 AM GMT +08:00 Perth
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
Also, just spent the last 2 hours or so creating the 612 rib plot I found (
if the coordinates are correct) into my CAD program and created a rib templ
ate for the 60" profile. Not sure if the plot is indeed the 612, as I only
got the coordinates from a post on this list in the archives and they said
they had found it on another aviation website, so if anyone has a verifiabl
e set of plots, I'd like to check my work to see if it is indeed a 612.
Regardless, here's a picture of the plot I made... Minus gussets...
Mark
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Mark Roberts < mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com > wrot
e:
Oh Yes! Do tell! :o)
Mark
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Tim Willis < timothywillis(at)earthlink.net >
wrote:
net >
Aha! =C2-VGs! =C2-Jeff, it sounds like you are very happy with their ef
fects. =C2-Thus inquiring minds want to know:
Were the VGs the ones you used the straight little plastic fins (100 to a b
ox), or were they the truncated "V," perhaps made out of bent aluminum?
How far behind the LE did you place them, and was that according to directi
ons, or what?
Did you also apply them to any controls, esp. the back of the VStab or near
the LE of the rudder?
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Boatright < jboatri(at)emory.edu >
>Sent: Jul 4, 2009 5:20 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
>
>
>Mark,
>
>Our Piet had what I consider a sharp and unannounced stall. However,
>it has an aluminum leading edge wrap rather than the thing plywood as
>specified in the plans. When the fabric was shrunk, it pulled the
>aluminum down between the ribs in a very ugly fashion. The result is
>an even sharper nose than the Piet airfoil normally has.
>
>I added vortex generators and everything changed. The no-power stall
>is now about like a Cessna 172's or maybe even gentler. The power-on
>stall has noticeable burbling prior to the stall and a fairly gentle
>break.
>
>As you can tell from my description, this is an atypical Piet. But,
>every datum helps.
>
>Jeff
>
>
>>...After reading the posts, I am curious about the standard Piet
>>airfoil, and it's performance. I know that building to plans and to
>>the original design is the best way of getting a good flying plane,
>>but reading the letter posted from Mr. Riblett got me to thinking
>>about the actual performance. I read about a sharp stall and such,
>>and I am looking for you guys that are flying one of these to maybe
>>give your feedback on the airfoil and it's characteristics. ...
>>
>>Mark
>
>--
>---
>
>Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
>Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
>Emory University School of Medicine
>Editor-in-Chief
>Molecular Vision
>
>
>
>
===========
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
===========
http://forums.matronics.com
===========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===========
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 05, 2009
From:
johnwoods(at)westnet.com.au
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
Pieti,
With 3 years of flying experience with the 612, would you be able to comment on
the CoG range of this section.
Thanks
JohnW
Perth, W/Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pieti Lowell" <Lowellcfrank(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, 5 July, 2009 11:08:48 AM GMT +08:00 Perth
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
Mark,
I will talk about my 612 at my Brodhead Form ,with 3 years and a number of engines
on this foil. If you are under 180 Lbs I will give you a demo you will never
forget, The air foil you show is very close to the 612.
Pieti Lowell
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251541#251541
________________________________________________________________________________
Tim,
The VGs I installed are plastic fins. I bought them from
http://www.landshorter.com/. I placed them at 10% chord from the
leading edge (6 inches), per the instructions. I bought enough for
wings and control surfaces, but have not installed them yet on the
control surfaces. I have attached a photo of a wing with VGs
installed.
By far the major advantage is that they tame the stall. As noted in
my previous email, it may be that the stall characteristics on our
Piet were different from "stock" - unpredictable, sharp, and with
lots of wing drop - due to a non-stock aluminum leading edge cover
that results in the first five or so inches of the wing being quite
lumpy. With the VGs, the no-power stall is gentle with just a hint of
left wing drop. As soon as back pressure on the stick is released,
the plane is flying again. The power-on stall has plenty of burble
prior to breaking. The break is not bad. I would say that the stalls
are about like a Cessna 172, maybe even less of an event.
I think that the no-power stall speed is lowered from about 40 mph to
about 35 mph - that's with 14 gal fuel, pilot, and passenger in a
Piet with empty weight of 723 lbs. This reduction is a benefit, but
not nearly as noticeable as the effects on stall characteristics.
The second biggest change is that the plane feels like it is much
more "controllable". I put this in quotes as "controllable" isn't
quite the right word, but it will have to do. The plane rides
turbulence better and responds to aileron input in a more positive,
less jittery fashion. This makes flying the plane much more enjoyable.
The climb rate is better. With 14 gal of fuel and just me on board,
the previous best climb rate was about 800 fpm. This is initial climb
to 1000' feet from a field elevation of 940', temperature about 70 F,
humidity about 80%. With VGs, it's over 1000 fpm. We have a pretty
serious climb prop (76x38, semi-scimitar from Cloudcars - some of the
best money I ever spent) and a C-85 for power, but a jump from 800
fpm to over 1000 fpm with the addition of the VGs is really
impressive. (I have seen 1250 fpm climb a couple of times, but I
would not say that that is typical). Climb rates are assessed by
three approaches (at least two simultaneously, and often all three):
a MicroTim digital altimeter set to VSI function
(http://www.microtim.com/), an Anywhere Map ATC GPS with 3D
functionality (http://www.anywheremap.com/atc/), and digital timer
combined with a steam gauge altimeter. The deck angle is not
appreciably higher. Also, I do not think that the take-off run from
standstill to breaking ground is shorter, but I have not measured
this precisely.
I am pretty sure that the optimal glide speed has dropped from 60-65
to 60-55, but I have not figured out a way to really measure this.
Also, on final, holding 50 mph now gives a comfortable and useful
descent rate, though the deck angle is a bit higher than pre-VGs.
Aileron control is strong, not mushy and delayed as in the past, even
down to 40 mph (and maybe lower). Full-deflection slips are very
controllable and a lot of fun. Transition to the flare needs a bit
more attention, but I have not had any trouble with slamming the
plane on even with the much steeper approach angles provided by the
50 mph final. I do not think that groundroll is appreciably shorter.
The Piet just never rolled much after landing.
I have measured airspeeds from WOT all the way down to just
maintaining level flight under conditions and rpms that I previously
ran prior to installing VGs. I cannot detect a difference in airspeed
at any rpm with VGs installed. Top speed is still 95 mph at 2600 rpm.
2100 rpm still keeps me in level flight at 60 mph without being
behind the power curve. All other power settings in between produce
airspeeds as they did pre-VGs.
One issue for Piets if you use the separate VGs rather than the
aluminum fins (which essentially are a pair of VGs attached) is that
the fabric of course dips between ribs, making a shallow trough, and
that made me wonder if that trough is a factor in VG placement. It
works out that four VGs fit between each pair of ribs based on
distance between ribs and the suggested number of VGs for wingspan.
The VGs are to be set at 15 degrees to the slip stream, alternating.
I asked Joa at landshorter.com: Does it matter if the two middle VGs
(middle meaning the two VGs furthest from ribs) are pointing towards
each other or away from each other? Below is a crude diagram to try
to show what I mean. Joa's emphatic response was that the way to
install the VGs is:
| \ / \ / |
the vertical lines represent ribs, the diagonals are VGs, and the
direction of flight is down. There's also an attached image of this
in case the diagram above doesn't display well on your computer.
Also, the instructions from landshorter (and from other VG makers)
suggest using carpet tape (sticky on both sides of tape) for
temporary installation, to allow testing different locations. I did
this and after just two short flights some of the VGs had blown off.
Possibly better-quality carpet tape will work, but what I ended up
doing was sticking small pieces of vinyl tape on either side of the
vertical fin of the VG (that is, across the "feet" of the VG and onto
wing fabric fore and aft). This is A LOT easier than messing with the
carpet tape. The vinyl tape comes in several colors, available at
your local hardware store, and peels off easily if you want to move
the VG. I used white that matches the color of the wing. It's holding
perfectly so far and I may not make the installation any more
permanent than this. Note that I have not flown in the rain, nor
hosed the wing down, so I don't know how waterproof this installation
is.
Overall, I'd say that the VGs are a success. I do not know if there
would be a difference between the store-bought ones and making your
own out of aluminum. Joa at landshorter.com has given excellent
customer service. I also bought their DVDs of Big Rocks and Long
Props (great videos, and take yer mind outta the gutter! >:-} ).
HTH,
Jeff
>
>Aha! VGs! Jeff, it sounds like you are very happy with their
>effects. Thus inquiring minds want to know:
>
>Were the VGs the ones you used the straight little plastic fins (100
>to a box), or were they the truncated "V," perhaps made out of bent
>aluminum?
>
>How far behind the LE did you place them, and was that according to
>directions, or what?
>
>Did you also apply them to any controls, esp. the back of the VStab
>or near the LE of the rudder?
>
>Tim in central TX
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
>>Sent: Jul 4, 2009 5:20 PM
>>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
>>
>>
>>Mark,
>>
>>Our Piet had what I consider a sharp and unannounced stall. However,
>>it has an aluminum leading edge wrap rather than the thing plywood as
>>specified in the plans. When the fabric was shrunk, it pulled the
>>aluminum down between the ribs in a very ugly fashion. The result is
>>an even sharper nose than the Piet airfoil normally has.
>>
>>I added vortex generators and everything changed. The no-power stall
>>is now about like a Cessna 172's or maybe even gentler. The power-on
>>stall has noticeable burbling prior to the stall and a fairly gentle
>>break.
>>
>>As you can tell from my description, this is an atypical Piet. But,
>>every datum helps.
>>
>>Jeff
>>
>>
>>>...After reading the posts, I am curious about the standard Piet
>>>airfoil, and it's performance. I know that building to plans and to
>>>the original design is the best way of getting a good flying plane,
>>>but reading the letter posted from Mr. Riblett got me to thinking
>>>about the actual performance. I read about a sharp stall and such,
>>>and I am looking for you guys that are flying one of these to maybe
>>>give your feedback on the airfoil and it's characteristics. ...
>>>
>>>Mark
>>
>>--
>>---
>>
>>Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
>>Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
>>Emory University School of Medicine
>>Editor-in-Chief
>>Molecular Vision
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
---
Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
Emory University School of Medicine
Editor-in-Chief
Molecular Vision
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
Date:
Jul 05, 2009
Hi John,
Thanks for reposting the spreadsheet with the Riblett numbers - I'm
not very adept at using the archive search function. I'd already
made a jig for the standard airfoil, but now I'm seriously
considering changing.
Like several others, I won't be able to be at Brodhead this year, so
I'd REALLY appreciate a few comments from Mr. Lowell if he's willing
to take the time to answer.
My specific questions are:
Can someone either describe or point me towards a simple explanation
of how to draw out a rib BY HAND (No CAD), from the spreadsheet
numbers? I know how to 'loft' boat ribs, but the numerical data for
boats is in a significantly different form.
Where on the Riblett section (% of Chord, absolute distance, however
you want to describe it) do the spars fall? Same as the std. airfoil
or is there some variation? I assume that the distance between spars
stays as per plans.
Thanks!
Kip Gardner
On Jul 5, 2009, at 9:24 AM, johnwoods(at)westnet.com.au wrote:
>
> Pieti,
>
> With 3 years of flying experience with the 612, would you be able
> to comment on the CoG range of this section.
> Thanks
> JohnW
> Perth, W/Australia
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pieti Lowell" <Lowellcfrank(at)yahoo.com>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Sunday, 5 July, 2009 11:08:48 AM GMT +08:00 Perth
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
>
>
>
> Mark,
> I will talk about my 612 at my Brodhead Form ,with 3 years and a
> number of engines on this foil. If you are under 180 Lbs I will
> give you a demo you will never forget, The air foil you show is
> very close to the 612.
> Pieti Lowell
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251541#251541
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 05, 2009
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
From:
Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Thanks John!! I really appreciate the file. I dug through all of the
archives and didn't see it, but it wasn't until late in my search that I saw
any attachments at all on any post, so I might have overlooked it in my lack
of understanding the archive.
Thanks again! I will check my plot.
Many thanks!!
Mark
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:58 AM, wrote:
> Ooops.. forgot the attachement...
>
>
> JohnW
>
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: johnwoods(at)westnet.com.au
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Sunday, 5 July, 2009 8:54:49 PM GMT +08:00 Perth
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
>
> Mark,
>
>
> Attached is a copy of the xls file I posted a while ago.
>
> It has the co-ordinates for the Riblett 612 & 613.5 sections as provided by
> Mr Bokolt together with the Pietenpol sections, as copied from the plans.
>
>
> I used the 612 co-ordinates to plot and make my ribs.
>
> Still a long way from flying.
>
> The 612 has been sucessfully used on other ultralights and from Mr
> Riblett's description of it's characteristics he predicted it would be a
> good section for the Piet.
>
> I wish I could be at Brodhead to hear Mr Pieti Lowell's forum on the 612's
> performance.
>
>
> JohnW
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Roberts" <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Sunday, 5 July, 2009 7:50:46 AM GMT +08:00 Perth
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
>
> Also, just spent the last 2 hours or so creating the 612 rib plot I found
> (if the coordinates are correct) into my CAD program and created a rib
> template for the 60" profile. Not sure if the plot is indeed the 612, as I
> only got the coordinates from a post on this list in the archives and they
> said they had found it on another aviation website, so if anyone has a
> verifiable set of plots, I'd like to check my work to see if it is indeed a
> 612.
>
> Regardless, here's a picture of the plot I made... Minus gussets...
>
> Mark
>
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
>
>> Oh Yes! Do tell! :o)
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Tim Willis wrote:
>>
>>> timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
>>>
>>> Aha! VGs! Jeff, it sounds like you are very happy with their effects.
>>> Thus inquiring minds want to know:
>>>
>>> Were the VGs the ones you used the straight little plastic fins (100 to a
>>> box), or were they the truncated "V," perhaps made out of bent aluminum?
>>>
>>> How far behind the LE did you place them, and was that according to
>>> directions, or what?
>>>
>>> Did you also apply them to any controls, esp. the back of the VStab or
>>> near the LE of the rudder?
>>>
>>> Tim in central TX
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> >From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
>>> >Sent: Jul 4, 2009 5:20 PM
>>> >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>> >Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Mark,
>>> >
>>> >Our Piet had what I consider a sharp and unannounced stall. However,
>>> >it has an aluminum leading edge wrap rather than the thing plywood as
>>> >specified in the plans. When the fabric was shrunk, it pulled the
>>> >aluminum down between the ribs in a very ugly fashion. The result is
>>> >an even sharper nose than the Piet airfoil normally has.
>>> >
>>> >I added vortex generators and everything changed. The no-power stall
>>> >is now about like a Cessna 172's or maybe even gentler. The power-on
>>> >stall has noticeable burbling prior to the stall and a fairly gentle
>>> >break.
>>> >
>>> >As you can tell from my description, this is an atypical Piet. But,
>>> >every datum helps.
>>> >
>>> >Jeff
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>...After reading the posts, I am curious about the standard Piet
>>> >>airfoil, and it's performance. I know that building to plans and to
>>> >>the original design is the best way of getting a good flying plane,
>>> >>but reading the letter posted from Mr. Riblett got me to thinking
>>> >>about the actual performance. I read about a sharp stall and such,
>>> >>and I am looking for you guys that are flying one of these to maybe
>>> >>give your feedback on the airfoil and it's characteristics. ...
>>> >>
>>> >>Mark
>>> >
>>> >--
>>> >---
>>> >
>>> >Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
>>> >Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
>>> >Emory University School of Medicine
>>> >Editor-in-Chief
>>> >Molecular Vision
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> ==========
>>> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>>> ==========
>>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>> ==========
>>> le, List Admin.
>>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> ==========
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 05, 2009
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
From:
Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Good questions.
Now, does anyone video tape the talks at Broadhead? I would offer to host
the lecture on my website for others to see (I doubt I'd hit my bandwidth
limit) or we could post it on YouTube as a reference for the future
builders...
Thoughts?
Mark
(I'd even provide the camera to one of my West Coast buddies to use and
bring back to our West Coast Piet Shindig in September....)
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Kip and Beth Gardner <
kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> wrote:
> kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net>
>
> Hi John,
>
> Thanks for reposting the spreadsheet with the Riblett numbers - I'm not
> very adept at using the archive search function. I'd already made a jig for
> the standard airfoil, but now I'm seriously considering changing.
>
> Like several others, I won't be able to be at Brodhead this year, so I'd
> REALLY appreciate a few comments from Mr. Lowell if he's willing to take the
> time to answer.
>
> My specific questions are:
>
> Can someone either describe or point me towards a simple explanation of how
> to draw out a rib BY HAND (No CAD), from the spreadsheet numbers? I know
> how to 'loft' boat ribs, but the numerical data for boats is in a
> significantly different form.
>
> Where on the Riblett section (% of Chord, absolute distance, however you
> want to describe it) do the spars fall? Same as the std. airfoil or is
> there some variation? I assume that the distance between spars stays as per
> plans.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kip Gardner
>
>
> On Jul 5, 2009, at 9:24 AM, johnwoods(at)westnet.com.au wrote:
>
>>
>> Pieti,
>>
>> With 3 years of flying experience with the 612, would you be able to
>> comment on the CoG range of this section.
>> Thanks
>> JohnW
>> Perth, W/Australia
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Pieti Lowell" <Lowellcfrank(at)yahoo.com>
>> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>> Sent: Sunday, 5 July, 2009 11:08:48 AM GMT +08:00 Perth
>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
>>
>> Lowellcfrank(at)yahoo.com>
>>
>> Mark,
>> I will talk about my 612 at my Brodhead Form ,with 3 years and a number of
>> engines on this foil. If you are under 180 Lbs I will give you a demo you
>> will never forget, The air foil you show is very close to the 612.
>> Pieti Lowell
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251541#251541
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 05, 2009
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
From:
Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
opps: Brodhead... I know the difference... :o\
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
> Good questions.
> Now, does anyone video tape the talks at Broadhead? I would offer to host
> the lecture on my website for others to see (I doubt I'd hit my bandwidth
> limit) or we could post it on YouTube as a reference for the future
> builders...
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Mark
>
> (I'd even provide the camera to one of my West Coast buddies to use and
> bring back to our West Coast Piet Shindig in September....)
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Kip and Beth Gardner <
> kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net>
>>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> Thanks for reposting the spreadsheet with the Riblett numbers - I'm not
>> very adept at using the archive search function. I'd already made a jig for
>> the standard airfoil, but now I'm seriously considering changing.
>>
>> Like several others, I won't be able to be at Brodhead this year, so I'd
>> REALLY appreciate a few comments from Mr. Lowell if he's willing to take the
>> time to answer.
>>
>> My specific questions are:
>>
>> Can someone either describe or point me towards a simple explanation of
>> how to draw out a rib BY HAND (No CAD), from the spreadsheet numbers? I
>> know how to 'loft' boat ribs, but the numerical data for boats is in a
>> significantly different form.
>>
>> Where on the Riblett section (% of Chord, absolute distance, however you
>> want to describe it) do the spars fall? Same as the std. airfoil or is
>> there some variation? I assume that the distance between spars stays as per
>> plans.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Kip Gardner
>>
>>
>> On Jul 5, 2009, at 9:24 AM, johnwoods(at)westnet.com.au wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Pieti,
>>>
>>> With 3 years of flying experience with the 612, would you be able to
>>> comment on the CoG range of this section.
>>> Thanks
>>> JohnW
>>> Perth, W/Australia
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Pieti Lowell" <Lowellcfrank(at)yahoo.com>
>>> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Sent: Sunday, 5 July, 2009 11:08:48 AM GMT +08:00 Perth
>>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
>>>
>>> Lowellcfrank(at)yahoo.com>
>>>
>>> Mark,
>>> I will talk about my 612 at my Brodhead Form ,with 3 years and a number
>>> of engines on this foil. If you are under 180 Lbs I will give you a demo you
>>> will never forget, The air foil you show is very close to the 612.
>>> Pieti Lowell
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251541#251541
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 05, 2009
From:
Ameet Savant <ameetsavant(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
Kip,
Plot the "chord" column values on the x-axis.
for every x- axis value:
Plot the "above" column values on the positive y axis
Plot the "below" column values on the negative y axis
If you wish to plot to a different size than the 60in shown, use the the % Chord
columns (leftmost three) as they are scaled to one(1) unit scale. All you have
to do is pick the chord length and that becomes your scaling factor.
This reminds me of when I was a boy and was learning drafting. The first thing
I wanted to learn was drafting an airfoil and the drafting process was explained
in this Northop Grumman book/manual about aircraft construction. I drafted
my first full scale aircraft airfoil after reading about it. Since then I have
accepted the fact that a 12in chord is just not going to be enough for a full
scale plane :o), but hey, that is the only size paper I had available then :)
Ameet Savant
Omaha, NE
--- On Sun, 7/5/09, Kip and Beth Gardner wrote:
> Can someone either describe or point me towards a simple
> explanation of how to draw out a rib BY HAND (No CAD), from
> the spreadsheet numbers? I know how to 'loft' boat
> ribs, but the numerical data for boats is in a significantly
> different form.
>
> Kip Gardner
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 05, 2009
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
From:
Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Continuing along the journey of discovery, I checked my airfoil plot from
yesterday against the plot coordinates from John (thanks again!) and found
them to be almost identical. So, I now have a new question about the center
line and it's relation to incidence once on the spar...
The image attached shows the spars are perpendicular to the baseline. The
trailing edge is elevated 1/2" from the baseline. Is this an issue? Or does
the wing mount and attachment work out centerline issues when installed?
Not sure I am clear here, but I am curious about the spars and whether they
should be perpendicular to the median chord line (drawn centered between the
LE and the TE) or if they should be perpendicular to the baseline the plot
was generated from (see the diagram below).
Also, the Full sized Piet Rib Pattern I received does not show a rib riser
on the LE of the front spar, or the TE of the rear spar. I drew this 612 rib
pattern out the same way. I get it that the spar acts as one BIG riser stick
but I still look at it and think one should be there, but I am guessing it
is unnecessary...
Thoughts? I hope to be starting ribs here soon :o)
Mark
PS: Thanks for all of the patience with the questions...
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
> Thanks John!! I really appreciate the file. I dug through all of the
> archives and didn't see it, but it wasn't until late in my search that I saw
> any attachments at all on any post, so I might have overlooked it in my lack
> of understanding the archive.
> Thanks again! I will check my plot.
>
> Many thanks!!
>
> Mark
>
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:58 AM, wrote:
>
>> Ooops.. forgot the attachement...
>>
>>
>>
>> JohnW
>>
>> ----- Forwarded Message -----
>> From: johnwoods(at)westnet.com.au
>> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>> Sent: Sunday, 5 July, 2009 8:54:49 PM GMT +08:00 Perth
>> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
>>
>> Mark,
>>
>>
>>
>> Attached is a copy of the xls file I posted a while ago.
>>
>> It has the co-ordinates for the Riblett 612 & 613.5 sections as provided
>> by Mr Bokolt together with the Pietenpol sections, as copied from the plans.
>>
>>
>>
>> I used the 612 co-ordinates to plot and make my ribs.
>>
>> Still a long way from flying.
>>
>> The 612 has been sucessfully used on other ultralights and from Mr
>> Riblett's description of it's characteristics he predicted it would be a
>> good section for the Piet.
>>
>> I wish I could be at Brodhead to hear Mr Pieti Lowell's forum on the 612's
>> performance.
>>
>>
>>
>> JohnW
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Mark Roberts" <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
>> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>> Sent: Sunday, 5 July, 2009 7:50:46 AM GMT +08:00 Perth
>> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
>>
>> Also, just spent the last 2 hours or so creating the 612 rib plot I found
>> (if the coordinates are correct) into my CAD program and created a rib
>> template for the 60" profile. Not sure if the plot is indeed the 612, as I
>> only got the coordinates from a post on this list in the archives and they
>> said they had found it on another aviation website, so if anyone has a
>> verifiable set of plots, I'd like to check my work to see if it is indeed a
>> 612.
>>
>> Regardless, here's a picture of the plot I made... Minus gussets...
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
>>
>>> Oh Yes! Do tell! :o)
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Tim Willis wrote:
>>>
>>>> timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
>>>>
>>>> Aha! VGs! Jeff, it sounds like you are very happy with their effects.
>>>> Thus inquiring minds want to know:
>>>>
>>>> Were the VGs the ones you used the straight little plastic fins (100 to
>>>> a box), or were they the truncated "V," perhaps made out of bent aluminum?
>>>>
>>>> How far behind the LE did you place them, and was that according to
>>>> directions, or what?
>>>>
>>>> Did you also apply them to any controls, esp. the back of the VStab or
>>>> near the LE of the rudder?
>>>>
>>>> Tim in central TX
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> >From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
>>>> >Sent: Jul 4, 2009 5:20 PM
>>>> >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>>> >Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
>>>> >
>>>> jboatri(at)emory.edu>
>>>> >
>>>> >Mark,
>>>> >
>>>> >Our Piet had what I consider a sharp and unannounced stall. However,
>>>> >it has an aluminum leading edge wrap rather than the thing plywood as
>>>> >specified in the plans. When the fabric was shrunk, it pulled the
>>>> >aluminum down between the ribs in a very ugly fashion. The result is
>>>> >an even sharper nose than the Piet airfoil normally has.
>>>> >
>>>> >I added vortex generators and everything changed. The no-power stall
>>>> >is now about like a Cessna 172's or maybe even gentler. The power-on
>>>> >stall has noticeable burbling prior to the stall and a fairly gentle
>>>> >break.
>>>> >
>>>> >As you can tell from my description, this is an atypical Piet. But,
>>>> >every datum helps.
>>>> >
>>>> >Jeff
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >>...After reading the posts, I am curious about the standard Piet
>>>> >>airfoil, and it's performance. I know that building to plans and to
>>>> >>the original design is the best way of getting a good flying plane,
>>>> >>but reading the letter posted from Mr. Riblett got me to thinking
>>>> >>about the actual performance. I read about a sharp stall and such,
>>>> >>and I am looking for you guys that are flying one of these to maybe
>>>> >>give your feedback on the airfoil and it's characteristics. ...
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Mark
>>>> >
>>>> >--
>>>> >---
>>>> >
>>>> >Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
>>>> >Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
>>>> >Emory University School of Medicine
>>>> >Editor-in-Chief
>>>> >Molecular Vision
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ==========
>>>> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>>>> ==========
>>>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>>> ==========
>>>> le, List Admin.
>>>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>> ==========
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
Date:
Jul 05, 2009
Thanks Ameet,
So if I understand you correctly, the positive and negative values
are the distances, in inches, above or below an arbitrary y-axis at
any given point along the x-axis?
That makes sense, and maybe I'm being dense, but I just want to be
sure I understand what you are describing.
So I guess what's puzzling me is that this airfoil section seems
thicker than the standard Piet airfoil? It looks like the thickness
at the 25% station is 7.130 inches? The thickness of the std. Piet
airfoil is roughly 6.5" at the same point. if I'm figuring this
correctly, then some filler may be necessary above or below the spars?
Regards,
Kip Gardner
On Jul 5, 2009, at 5:33 PM, Ameet Savant wrote:
>
>
>
> Kip,
>
> Plot the "chord" column values on the x-axis.
>
> for every x- axis value:
> Plot the "above" column values on the positive y axis
> Plot the "below" column values on the negative y axis
>
> If you wish to plot to a different size than the 60in shown, use
> the the % Chord columns (leftmost three) as they are scaled to one
> (1) unit scale. All you have to do is pick the chord length and
> that becomes your scaling factor.
>
> This reminds me of when I was a boy and was learning drafting. The
> first thing I wanted to learn was drafting an airfoil and the
> drafting process was explained in this Northop Grumman book/manual
> about aircraft construction. I drafted my first full scale aircraft
> airfoil after reading about it. Since then I have accepted the fact
> that a 12in chord is just not going to be enough for a full scale
> plane :o), but hey, that is the only size paper I had available
> then :)
>
> Ameet Savant
> Omaha, NE
>
> --- On Sun, 7/5/09, Kip and Beth Gardner
> wrote:
>
>> Can someone either describe or point me towards a simple
>> explanation of how to draw out a rib BY HAND (No CAD), from
>> the spreadsheet numbers? I know how to 'loft' boat
>> ribs, but the numerical data for boats is in a significantly
>> different form.
>>
>> Kip Gardner
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 05, 2009
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
From:
Ryan Mueller <rmueller23(at)gmail.com>
Mark,
I would say: turn your energy from plotting Riblett coordinates towards
cutting and gluing wood on the rib jig you are going to recieve. The Riblett
may be a small improvement on the Piet, and I don't question it's
usefulness....but you have a jig coming, and you have a tremendous amount of
enthusiam right now. Channel that towards making solid progress on your
build. The Piet airfoil, designed by an amateur as it was, has been
successfully built and flown by many many people in the past 80 years;
safely at that. Don't overthink this. Just build!
Ryan
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
> Continuing along the journey of discovery, I checked my airfoil plot from
> yesterday against the plot coordinates from John (thanks again!) and found
> them to be almost identical. So, I now have a new question about the center
> line and it's relation to incidence once on the spar...
> The image attached shows the spars are perpendicular to the baseline. The
> trailing edge is elevated 1/2" from the baseline. Is this an issue? Or does
> the wing mount and attachment work out centerline issues when installed?
>
> Not sure I am clear here, but I am curious about the spars and whether they
> should be perpendicular to the median chord line (drawn centered between the
> LE and the TE) or if they should be perpendicular to the baseline the plot
> was generated from (see the diagram below).
>
> Also, the Full sized Piet Rib Pattern I received does not show a rib riser
> on the LE of the front spar, or the TE of the rear spar. I drew this 612 rib
> pattern out the same way. I get it that the spar acts as one BIG riser stick
> but I still look at it and think one should be there, but I am guessing it
> is unnecessary...
>
> Thoughts? I hope to be starting ribs here soon :o)
>
> Mark
>
> PS: Thanks for all of the patience with the questions...
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
>
>> Thanks John!! I really appreciate the file. I dug through all of the
>> archives and didn't see it, but it wasn't until late in my search that I saw
>> any attachments at all on any post, so I might have overlooked it in my lack
>> of understanding the archive.
>> Thanks again! I will check my plot.
>>
>> Many thanks!!
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:58 AM, wrote:
>>
>>> Ooops.. forgot the attachement...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> JohnW
>>>
>>> ----- Forwarded Message -----
>>> From: johnwoods(at)westnet.com.au
>>> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Sent: Sunday, 5 July, 2009 8:54:49 PM GMT +08:00 Perth
>>> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
>>>
>>> Mark,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Attached is a copy of the xls file I posted a while ago.
>>>
>>> It has the co-ordinates for the Riblett 612 & 613.5 sections as provided
>>> by Mr Bokolt together with the Pietenpol sections, as copied from the plans.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I used the 612 co-ordinates to plot and make my ribs.
>>>
>>> Still a long way from flying.
>>>
>>> The 612 has been sucessfully used on other ultralights and from Mr
>>> Riblett's description of it's characteristics he predicted it would be a
>>> good section for the Piet.
>>>
>>> I wish I could be at Brodhead to hear Mr Pieti Lowell's forum on the
>>> 612's performance.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> JohnW
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Mark Roberts" <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
>>> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Sent: Sunday, 5 July, 2009 7:50:46 AM GMT +08:00 Perth
>>> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
>>>
>>> Also, just spent the last 2 hours or so creating the 612 rib plot I found
>>> (if the coordinates are correct) into my CAD program and created a rib
>>> template for the 60" profile. Not sure if the plot is indeed the 612, as I
>>> only got the coordinates from a post on this list in the archives and they
>>> said they had found it on another aviation website, so if anyone has a
>>> verifiable set of plots, I'd like to check my work to see if it is indeed a
>>> 612.
>>>
>>> Regardless, here's a picture of the plot I made... Minus gussets...
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh Yes! Do tell! :o)
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Tim Willis >>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
>>>>>
>>>>> Aha! VGs! Jeff, it sounds like you are very happy with their effects.
>>>>> Thus inquiring minds want to know:
>>>>>
>>>>> Were the VGs the ones you used the straight little plastic fins (100 to
>>>>> a box), or were they the truncated "V," perhaps made out of bent aluminum?
>>>>>
>>>>> How far behind the LE did you place them, and was that according to
>>>>> directions, or what?
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you also apply them to any controls, esp. the back of the VStab or
>>>>> near the LE of the rudder?
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim in central TX
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> >From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
>>>>> >Sent: Jul 4, 2009 5:20 PM
>>>>> >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>>>> >Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
>>>>> >
>>>>> jboatri(at)emory.edu>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Mark,
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Our Piet had what I consider a sharp and unannounced stall. However,
>>>>> >it has an aluminum leading edge wrap rather than the thing plywood as
>>>>> >specified in the plans. When the fabric was shrunk, it pulled the
>>>>> >aluminum down between the ribs in a very ugly fashion. The result is
>>>>> >an even sharper nose than the Piet airfoil normally has.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >I added vortex generators and everything changed. The no-power stall
>>>>> >is now about like a Cessna 172's or maybe even gentler. The power-on
>>>>> >stall has noticeable burbling prior to the stall and a fairly gentle
>>>>> >break.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >As you can tell from my description, this is an atypical Piet. But,
>>>>> >every datum helps.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Jeff
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>...After reading the posts, I am curious about the standard Piet
>>>>> >>airfoil, and it's performance. I know that building to plans and to
>>>>> >>the original design is the best way of getting a good flying plane,
>>>>> >>but reading the letter posted from Mr. Riblett got me to thinking
>>>>> >>about the actual performance. I read about a sharp stall and such,
>>>>> >>and I am looking for you guys that are flying one of these to maybe
>>>>> >>give your feedback on the airfoil and it's characteristics. ...
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>Mark
>>>>> >
>>>>> >--
>>>>> >---
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
>>>>> >Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
>>>>> >Emory University School of Medicine
>>>>> >Editor-in-Chief
>>>>> >Molecular Vision
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ==========
>>>>> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>>>>> ==========
>>>>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>>>> ==========
>>>>> le, List Admin.
>>>>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>>> ==========
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
AMsafetyC(at)aol.com
Date:
Jul 05, 2009
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
Back about 3 years ago and on the verge of starting my build I had a chance
to visit another builder, I marveled at his project and asked many
questions while in the midst of research study and contemplation. During my
conversation with that noted award winning Texas builder I came away with a great
piece of sage wisdom, He said" don't waste you time thinking it, just
start building and stop wasting time. he also said that once you begin the
build it will all make sense" I took those well placed words and followed the
advice of Hans Vandervort, he certainly knew what he was talking about. When
I got home I committed to the build and began now that's not to say I
haven't run into a snag here and there and even the dreaded builders block, but
given a chance you project will speak to you. You just have to listen to
her.
I been building for the last 3 years and there isn't a day I don't do
something to advance my project, knowledge or skill level. I cant think of a
better way to spend the stolen minutes of a work day or the hour and a half
commute or the road trip working on my Piet. She's been a real inspiration
to me
John
In a message dated 7/5/2009 8:06:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rmueller23(at)gmail.com writes:
Mark,
I would say: turn your energy from plotting Riblett coordinates towards
cutting and gluing wood on the rib jig you are going to recieve. The Riblett
may be a small improvement on the Piet, and I don't question it's
usefulness....but you have a jig coming, and you have a tremendous amount of
enthusiam right now. Channel that towards making solid progress on your build.
The
Piet airfoil, designed by an amateur as it was, has been successfully
built and flown by many many people in the past 80 years; safely at that. Don't
overthink this. Just build!
Ryan
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Mark Roberts <_mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com_
(mailto:mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com) > wrote:
Continuing along the journey of discovery, I checked my airfoil plot from
yesterday against the plot coordinates from John (thanks again!) and found
them to be almost identical. So, I now have a new question about the center
line and it's relation to incidence once on the spar...
The image attached shows the spars are perpendicular to the baseline. The
trailing edge is elevated 1/2" from the baseline. Is this an issue? Or does
the wing mount and attachment work out centerline issues when installed?
Not sure I am clear here, but I am curious about the spars and whether
they should be perpendicular to the median chord line (drawn centered between
the LE and the TE) or if they should be perpendicular to the baseline the
plot was generated from (see the diagram below).
Also, the Full sized Piet Rib Pattern I received does not show a rib riser
on the LE of the front spar, or the TE of the rear spar. I drew this 612
rib pattern out the same way. I get it that the spar acts as one BIG riser
stick but I still look at it and think one should be there, but I am
guessing it is unnecessary...
Thoughts? I hope to be starting ribs here soon :o)
Mark
PS: Thanks for all of the patience with the questions...
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Mark Roberts <_mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com_
(mailto:mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com) > wrote:
Thanks John!! I really appreciate the file. I dug through all of the
archives and didn't see it, but it wasn't until late in my search that I saw any
attachments at all on any post, so I might have overlooked it in my lack
of understanding the archive.
Thanks again! I will check my plot.
Many thanks!!
Mark
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:58 AM, <_johnwoods(at)westnet.com.au_
(mailto:johnwoods(at)westnet.com.au) > wrote:
Ooops.. forgot the attachement...
JohnW
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: _johnwoods(at)westnet.com.au_ (mailto:johnwoods(at)westnet.com.au)
Sent: Sunday, 5 July, 2009 8:54:49 PM GMT +08:00 Perth
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
Mark,
Attached is a copy of the xls file I posted a while ago.
It has the co-ordinates for the Riblett 612 & 613.5 sections as provided
by Mr Bokolt together with the Pietenpol sections, as copied from the plans.
I used the 612 co-ordinates to plot and make my ribs.
Still a long way from flying.
The 612 has been sucessfully used on other ultralights and from Mr
Riblett's description of it's characteristics he predicted it would be a good
section for the Piet.
I wish I could be at Brodhead to hear Mr Pieti Lowell's forum on the 612's
performance.
JohnW
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Roberts" <_mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com_
(mailto:mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com) >
Sent: Sunday, 5 July, 2009 7:50:46 AM GMT +08:00 Perth
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
Also, just spent the last 2 hours or so creating the 612 rib plot I found
(if the coordinates are correct) into my CAD program and created a rib
template for the 60" profile. Not sure if the plot is indeed the 612, as I only
got the coordinates from a post on this list in the archives and they said
they had found it on another aviation website, so if anyone has a
verifiable set of plots, I'd like to check my work to see if it is indeed a 612.
Regardless, here's a picture of the plot I made... Minus gussets...
Mark
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Mark Roberts <_mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com_
(mailto:mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com) > wrote:
Oh Yes! Do tell! :o)
Mark
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Tim Willis <_timothywillis(at)earthlink.net_
(mailto:timothywillis(at)earthlink.net) > wrote:
<_timothywillis(at)earthlink.net_ (mailto:timothywillis(at)earthlink.net) >
Aha! VGs! Jeff, it sounds like you are very happy with their effects.
Thus inquiring minds want to know:
Were the VGs the ones you used the straight little plastic fins (100 to a
box), or were they the truncated "V," perhaps made out of bent aluminum?
How far behind the LE did you place them, and was that according to
directions, or what?
Did you also apply them to any controls, esp. the back of the VStab or
near the LE of the rudder?
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Boatright <_jboatri(at)emory.edu_ (mailto:jboatri(at)emory.edu) >
>Sent: Jul 4, 2009 5:20 PM
>To: _pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com_ (mailto:pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com)
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
>
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jeff Boatright <_jboatri(at)emory.edu_
(mailto:jboatri(at)emory.edu) >
>
>Mark,
>
>Our Piet had what I consider a sharp and unannounced stall. However,
>it has an aluminum leading edge wrap rather than the thing plywood as
>specified in the plans. When the fabric was shrunk, it pulled the
>aluminum down between the ribs in a very ugly fashion. The result is
>an even sharper nose than the Piet airfoil normally has.
>
>I added vortex generators and everything changed. The no-power stall
>is now about like a Cessna 172's or maybe even gentler. The power-on
>stall has noticeable burbling prior to the stall and a fairly gentle
>break.
>
>As you can tell from my description, this is an atypical Piet. But,
>every datum helps.
>
>Jeff
>
>
>>...After reading the posts, I am curious about the standard Piet
>>airfoil, and it's performance. I know that building to plans and to
>>the original design is the best way of getting a good flying plane,
>>but reading the letter posted from Mr. Riblett got me to thinking
>>about the actual performance. I read about a sharp stall and such,
>>and I am looking for you guys that are flying one of these to maybe
>>give your feedback on the airfoil and it's characteristics. ...
>>
>>Mark
>
>--
>---
>
>Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
>Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
>Emory University School of Medicine
>Editor-in-Chief
>Molecular Vision
>
>
==========
st" target="_blank">_http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List_
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List)
==========
_http://forums.matronics.com_ (http://forums.matronics.com/)
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">_http://www.matronics.com/contribution_
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
==========
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 05, 2009
Subject:
Brodhead Pietenpol Gathering
From:
steven sadler <steven244sadler(at)gmail.com>
1) I will be attending the Pietenpol gathering this year and I have a bit of
a dumb question. I have searched through the archives and other places and
cannot find a definitive location (other than, obviously Brodhead, WI).
Google maps shows what looks like an airfield just south of Brodhead. Is
this where all the Pietenpol fans will be gathering?
2) Has anyone used the Azusa 4.8 x 8 wheels on their Piet? I have a set with
the 5/8"axles and after reviewing the math with a structural engineer, the
axle seems to be too weak, even with a solid 4130 axle. Even switching out
the bearings and installing 3/4" axles seems a little iffy. Any one with
experience using smaller axles on their Piet?
3) Just for interest, Here is a picture of one of the rudder pedals for my
plane (sitting on the underside of the fuselage for the picture.) The black
strip is carbon fiber. Instead of the steel fuselage cross strap I used
carbon fiber to hold the fuselage bottom together. Ran the carbon fully
across the bottom and wrapped about 6" up the sides.
Steve in Winnipeg (Fuselage framed, controls partially complete, building
landing gear now)
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi Kip,
Yes, that is exactly what I was describing.
Yes, the "12" in the 612 comes from 12% max thickness of the airfoil. That makes
the max thickness around 7.13in. The original airfoil was thinner, an artifact
of the age it was first used. A number of successful airfoils were created
in later years (via experience in racing?) with the 12% (NACA 4412 comes to mind)
max thickness. The idea was to use a thicker spar and consequently a stronger
wing. There are several other benefits (that I don't exactly recall now) that
thicker airfoils provide for slow flying airplanes like the Piet.
As for the construction changes needed for using a thicker airfoil, I would defer
to the experienced people on this list. I seem to recall finding some discussions
in the archives about using a thicker spar directly but then having to
relocate the holes drilled in the spar and changing too much of the design. It
seemed the easier option was to fill the empty space. I do not know much about
this, but I am researching.
Regards,
Ameet
--- On Sun, 7/5/09, Kip and Beth Gardner wrote:
> From: Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Sunday, July 5, 2009, 5:59 PM
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted
> by: Kip and Beth Gardner
>
> Thanks Ameet,
>
> So if I understand you correctly, the positive and negative
> values are the distances, in inches, above or below an
> arbitrary y-axis at any given point along the x-axis?
>
> That makes sense, and maybe I'm being dense, but I just
> want to be sure I understand what you are describing.
>
> So I guess what's puzzling me is that this airfoil section
> seems thicker than the standard Piet airfoil? It looks
> like the thickness at the 25% station is 7.130
> inches?The thickness of the std. Piet
> airfoil is roughly 6.5" at the same point. if I'm
> figuring this correctly, then some filler may be necessary
> above or below the spars?
>
> Regards,
>
> Kip Gardner
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
From:
"Pieti Lowell" <Lowellcfrank(at)yahoo.com>
Date:
Jul 05, 2009
Piet People,612 stuff
I know those of you that won't be at Brodhead would like to have a lot of questions
answered. I think patients will work, as many questions will be asked that
we now don't even have good answers.
But I started with Mr Ribblett in the very early 90s. communicated for a couple
years, he said that there is much better airfoils than the Piet after I sent
him the coordinates. He sent me reams of calculations and curves, and computer
read-outs plus his final thinking. I decided to keep the foil close to looking
like a Piet foil, Ribblitt's second choice. 613.5 his 1St.
I laid the numbers on a layout table and they matched the sent profile, except
for a very slight shrinkage, It was a start.
He suggested I use 33% figure for the CoG to start and let him know what it felt
like. I will need to look over all his letters to check if he changed his thinking.
I constructed the 612 just as I built the Piet foil, but added fillers due to the
added height. But since this foil seemed more efficient I shortened each wing
12". It works very well, so those of you that are going 612 keep it the same
length as the Piet's foil. if you are concerned about hot weather , heavy loads,
altitude or better rate of climb,
If you want to live on the edge shorten the wing for a much faster roll rate, and
a lot of solo. add HP it will perform very quick.
This is an overview , got questions ? will answer the best I know how.
Pieti Lowell
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251678#251678
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
From:
Jim <jimboyer(at)hughes.net>
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
Jim Boyer
Santa Rosa, CA
Pietenpol builder with Corvair
John and Ryan,
You both gave some of the best advice in these two messages. All the time spent
on the internet could have been used building.
Thanks,
Jim
On Jul 5, 2009, AMsafetyC(at)aol.com wrote:
Back about 3 years ago and on the verge of starting my build I had a chance
to visit another builder, I marveled at his project and asked many questions
while in the midst of research study and contemplation. During my conversation
with that noted award winning Texas builder I came away with a great piece
of sage wisdom, He said" don't waste you time thinking it, just start building
and stop wasting time. he also said that once you begin the build it will all
make sense" I took those well placed words and followed the advice of Hans
Vandervort, he certainly knew what he was talking about. When I got home I
committed to the build and began now that's not to say I haven't run into a snag
here and there and even the dreaded builders block, but given a chance you
project will speak to you. You just have to listen to her.
I been building for the last 3 years and there isn't a day I don't do
something to advance my project, knowledge or skill level. I cant think of
a better way to spend the stolen minutes of a work day or the hour and a half
commute or the road trip working on my Piet. She's been a real inspiration to
me
John
In a message dated 7/5/2009 8:06:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rmueller23(at)gmail.com writes:
Mark,
I would say: turn your energy from plotting Riblett
coordinates towards cutting and gluing wood on the rib jig you are going to
recieve. The Riblett may be a small improvement on the Piet, and I don't
question it's usefulness....but you have a jig coming, and you have a
tremendous amount of enthusiam right now. Channel that towards making solid
progress on your build. The Piet airfoil, designed by an amateur as it was,
has been successfully built and flown by many many people in the past 80
years; safely at that. Don't overthink this. Just
build!
Ryan
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Mark Roberts
wrote:
Continuing along the journey of discovery,
I checked my airfoil plot from yesterday against the plot coordinates from
John (thanks again!) and found them to be almost identical. So, I now have
a
new question about the center line and it's relation to incidence once on
the spar...
The image attached shows the spars are perpendicular to the baseline.
The trailing edge is elevated 1/2" from the baseline. Is this an issue? Or
does the wing mount and attachment work out centerline issues when
installed?
Not sure I am clear here, but I am curious about the spars and whether
they should be perpendicular to the median chord line (drawn centered
between the LE and the TE) or if they should be perpendicular to the
baseline the plot was generated from (see the diagram below).
Also, the Full sized Piet Rib Pattern I received does not show a rib
riser on the LE of the front spar, or the TE of the rear spar. I drew this
612 rib pattern out the same way. I get it that the spar acts as one BIG
riser stick but I still look at it and think one should be there, but I am
guessing it is unnecessary...
Thoughts? I hope to be starting ribs here soon :o)
Mark
PS: Thanks for all of the patience with the questions...
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Thanks John!! I really appreciate the file. I dug
through all of the archives and didn't see it, but it wasn't until late in
my search that I saw any attachments at all on any post, so I might have
overlooked it in my lack of understanding the archive.
Thanks again! I will check my plot.
Many thanks!!
Mark
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:58 AM, wrote:
Ooops.. forgot the attachement...
JohnW
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: johnwoods(at)westnet.com.au
Sent: Sunday, 5 July, 2009 8:54:49 PM GMT +08:00 Perth
Subject:
Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
Mark,
Attached is a copy of the xls file I posted a while ago.
It has the co-ordinates for the Riblett 612 & 613.5 sections
as provided by Mr Bokolt together with the Pietenpol sections, as copied
from the plans.
I used the 612 co-ordinates to plot and make my ribs.
Still a long way from flying.
The 612 has been sucessfully used on other ultralights and
from Mr Riblett's description of it's characteristics he predicted
it would be a good section for the Piet.
I wish I could be at Brodhead to hear Mr Pieti Lowell's forum on the
612's performance.
JohnW
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Roberts" <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, 5 July,
2009 7:50:46 AM GMT +08:00 Perth
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil
can of worms?
Also, just spent the last 2 hours or so creating
the 612 rib plot I found (if the coordinates are correct) into my CAD
program and created a rib template for the 60" profile. Not sure if the
plot is indeed the 612, as I only got the coordinates from a post on
this list in the archives and they said they had found it on another
aviation website, so if anyone has a verifiable set of plots, I'd like
to check my work to see if it is indeed a 612.
Regardless, here's a picture of the plot I made... Minus
gussets...
Mark
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Mark Roberts
wrote:
Oh Yes! Do tell! :o)
Mark
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Tim Willis
wrote:
Willis
Aha!
VGs! Jeff, it sounds like you are very happy with their
effects. Thus inquiring minds want to know:
Were the
VGs the ones you used the straight little plastic fins (100 to a
box), or were they the truncated "V," perhaps made out of bent
aluminum?
How far behind the LE did you place them, and was
that according to directions, or what?
Did you also apply
them to any controls, esp. the back of the VStab or near the LE of
the rudder?
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Boatright
>Sent: Jul 4, 2009
5:20 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re:
Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
>
>-->
Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jeff Boatright
>
>Mark,
>
>Our
Piet had what I consider a sharp and unannounced stall.
However,
>it has an aluminum leading edge wrap rather than the
thing plywood as
>specified in the plans. When the fabric was
shrunk, it pulled the
>aluminum down between the ribs in a
very ugly fashion. The result is
>an even sharper nose than
the Piet airfoil normally has.
>
>I added vortex
generators and everything changed. The no-power stall
>is now
about like a Cessna 172's or maybe even gentler. The
power-on
>stall has noticeable burbling prior to the stall and
a fairly gentle
>break.
>
>As you can tell from my
description, this is an atypical Piet. But,
>every datum
helps.
>
>Jeff
>
>
>>...After
reading the posts, I am curious about the standard
Piet
>>airfoil, and it's performance. I know that building
to plans and to
>>the original design is the best way of
getting a good flying plane,
>>but reading the letter
posted from Mr. Riblett got me to thinking
>>about the
actual performance. I read about a sharp stall and
such,
>>and I am looking for you guys that are flying one
of these to maybe
>>give your feedback on the airfoil and
it's characteristics.
...
>>
>>Mark
>
>--
>---
>
>Jeffrey
H. Boatright, Ph.D.
>Associate Professor of
Ophthalmology
>Emory University School of
Medicine
>Editor-in-Chief
>Molecular
Vision
>
>
==========
st"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
le,
List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
===================================
t href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
===================================
ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
===================================
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===================================
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 05, 2009
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
From:
Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Don't get me wrong guys, the only reason I'm thinking instead of building is
I don't have the cash to buy the wood this month... Spent it on plans.
Next month, all of this edumacation gets to work.
Mark
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Jim wrote:
>
>
> Jim Boyer
> Santa Rosa, CA
> Pietenpol builder with Corvair
>
> John and Ryan,
> You both gave some of the best advice in these two messages. All the time
> spent on the internet could have been used building.
> Thanks,
> Jim
>
>
> On Jul 5, 2009, AMsafetyC(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Back about 3 years ago and on the verge of starting my build I had a chance
> to visit another builder, I marveled at his project and asked many
> questions
> while in the midst of research study and contemplation. During my
> conversation
> with that noted award winning Texas builder I came away with a great piece
> of sage wisdom, He said" don't waste you time thinking it, just start
> building
> and stop wasting time. he also said that once you begin the build it will
> all
> make sense" I took those well placed words and followed the advice of Hans
> Vandervort, he certainly knew what he was talking about. When I got home I
> committed to the build and began now that's not to say I haven't run into a
> snag
> here and there and even the dreaded builders block, but given a chance you
> project will speak to you. You just have to listen to her.
>
> I been building for the last 3 years and there isn't a day I don't do
> something to advance my project, knowledge or skill level. I cant think of
> a better way to spend the stolen minutes of a work day or the hour and a
> half
> commute or the road trip working on my Piet. She's been a real inspiration
> to
> me
>
> John
>
>
> In a message dated 7/5/2009 8:06:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> rmueller23(at)gmail.com writes:
>
> Mark,
>
> I would say: turn your energy from plotting Riblett
> coordinates towards cutting and gluing wood on the rib jig you are going
> to
> recieve. The Riblett may be a small improvement on the Piet, and I don't
> question it's usefulness....but you have a jig coming, and you have a
> tremendous amount of enthusiam right now. Channel that towards making
> solid
> progress on your build. The Piet airfoil, designed by an amateur as it
> was,
> has been successfully built and flown by many many people in the past 80
> years; safely at that. Don't overthink this. Just
> build!
>
> Ryan
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Mark Roberts
> wrote:
>
> Continuing along the journey of discovery,
> I checked my airfoil plot from yesterday against the plot coordinates
> from
> John (thanks again!) and found them to be almost identical. So, I now
> have a
> new question about the center line and it's relation to incidence once
> on
> the spar...
>
>
> The image attached shows the spars are perpendicular to the baseline.
> The trailing edge is elevated 1/2" from the baseline. Is this an issue?
> Or
> does the wing mount and attachment work out centerline issues when
> installed?
>
>
> Not sure I am clear here, but I am curious about the spars and whether
> they should be perpendicular to the median chord line (drawn centered
> between the LE and the TE) or if they should be perpendicular to the
> baseline the plot was generated from (see the diagram below).
>
>
> Also, the Full sized Piet Rib Pattern I received does not show a rib
> riser on the LE of the front spar, or the TE of the rear spar. I drew
> this
> 612 rib pattern out the same way. I get it that the spar acts as one BIG
> riser stick but I still look at it and think one should be there, but I
> am
> guessing it is unnecessary...
>
>
> Thoughts? I hope to be starting ribs here soon :o)
>
>
> Mark
>
>
> PS: Thanks for all of the patience with the questions...
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Mark Roberts
> wrote:
>
> Thanks John!! I really appreciate the file. I dug
> through all of the archives and didn't see it, but it wasn't until
> late in
> my search that I saw any attachments at all on any post, so I might
> have
> overlooked it in my lack of understanding the archive.
>
>
> Thanks again! I will check my plot.
>
>
> Many thanks!!
>
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:58 AM, wrote:
>
>
> Ooops.. forgot the attachement...
>
>
> JohnW
>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: johnwoods(at)westnet.com.au
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
> Sent: Sunday, 5 July, 2009 8:54:49 PM GMT +08:00 Perth
> Subject:
> Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
>
>
> Mark,
>
>
> Attached is a copy of the xls file I posted a while ago.
>
> It has the co-ordinates for the Riblett 612 & 613.5 sections
> as provided by Mr Bokolt together with the Pietenpol sections, as
> copied
> from the plans.
>
>
> I used the 612 co-ordinates to plot and make my ribs.
>
> Still a long way from flying.
>
> The 612 has been sucessfully used on other ultralights and
> from Mr Riblett's description of it's characteristics he predicted
> it would be a good section for the Piet.
>
> I wish I could be at Brodhead to hear Mr Pieti Lowell's forum on the
> 612's performance.
>
>
> JohnW
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Roberts" <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Sunday, 5 July,
> 2009 7:50:46 AM GMT +08:00 Perth
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil
> can of worms?
>
> Also, just spent the last 2 hours or so creating
> the 612 rib plot I found (if the coordinates are correct) into my
> CAD
> program and created a rib template for the 60" profile. Not sure if
> the
> plot is indeed the 612, as I only got the coordinates from a post on
> this list in the archives and they said they had found it on another
> aviation website, so if anyone has a verifiable set of plots, I'd
> like
> to check my work to see if it is indeed a 612.
>
>
> Regardless, here's a picture of the plot I made... Minus
> gussets...
>
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Mark Roberts
> wrote:
>
> Oh Yes! Do tell! :o)
>
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Tim Willis
> wrote:
>
> Willis
>
> Aha!
> VGs! Jeff, it sounds like you are very happy with their
> effects. Thus inquiring minds want to know:
>
> Were the
> VGs the ones you used the straight little plastic fins (100 to a
> box), or were they the truncated "V," perhaps made out of bent
> aluminum?
>
> How far behind the LE did you place them, and was
> that according to directions, or what?
>
> Did you also apply
> them to any controls, esp. the back of the VStab or near the LE
> of
> the rudder?
>
> Tim in central TX
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Jeff Boatright
>
> >Sent: Jul 4, 2009
> 5:20 PM
> >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: Re:
> Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
> >
> >-->
> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jeff Boatright <
> jboatri(at)emory.edu>
> >
> >Mark,
> >
> >Our
> Piet had what I consider a sharp and unannounced stall.
> However,
> >it has an aluminum leading edge wrap rather than the
> thing plywood as
> >specified in the plans. When the fabric was
> shrunk, it pulled the
> >aluminum down between the ribs in a
> very ugly fashion. The result is
> >an even sharper nose than
> the Piet airfoil normally has.
> >
> >I added vortex
> generators and everything changed. The no-power stall
> >is now
> about like a Cessna 172's or maybe even gentler. The
> power-on
> >stall has noticeable burbling prior to the stall and
> a fairly gentle
> >break.
> >
> >As you can tell from my
> description, this is an atypical Piet. But,
> >every datum
> helps.
> >
> >Jeff
> >
> >
> >>...After
> reading the posts, I am curious about the standard
> Piet
> >>airfoil, and it's performance. I know that building
> to plans and to
> >>the original design is the best way of
> getting a good flying plane,
> >>but reading the letter
> posted from Mr. Riblett got me to thinking
> >>about the
> actual performance. I read about a sharp stall and
> such,
> >>and I am looking for you guys that are flying one
> of these to maybe
> >>give your feedback on the airfoil and
> it's characteristics.
> ...
> >>
> >>Mark
> >
> >--
> >---
> >
> >Jeffrey
> H. Boatright, Ph.D.
> >Associate Professor of
> Ophthalmology
> >Emory University School of
> Medicine
> >Editor-in-Chief
> >Molecular
> Vision
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ==========
> st"
> target="_blank">
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> ==========
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> le,
> List Admin.
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
> ===================================
> t href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> ===================================
> ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
> ===================================
> tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ===================================
>
>
> Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
From:
Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
Mark,
Your drawing is likely right, and the questions are good ones. This is likely
the most analysis anyone has ever put on placements and angles, etc. on a Piet.
That is not meant to be denigrating. You are being modern; the design is antique.
You are being complex; the design is simple. BP didn't have no stinkin'
CAD ;)
OTOH, you raise a great question about front and rear rib caps. As discussed below,
builders have done them different ways.
RIBS & SPARS: If we are talking about Pietenpol ribs, the ribs are built so that
the spars are parallel. The portion of the ribs at the bottom of the spar is
flat or nearly so, and in assembly the inside surface of the bottom of the rib
is butted up to each spar. You will likely cut the top of your spars at an
angle approximating the angle of the shape of the inside top of the rib. Wedges
may still be involved, to fill a gap, for you don't want to have to slide
the ribs around on the spar during construction, with a nearly interference fit.
The angle of incidence of the wing, shwon on the drawings, at 2 degrees, comes
from the slope of a line across the bottom of the wing as the cabane struts butt
it. Making the rear cabane an inch shorter than the front one gives almost
exactly this measure. However, the real angle of incidence in aero design should
be measured from the chord line, as you rightly refer. If this were a faster
and sleeker plane, esp. a low wing job with root fairings and all that, we
would worry about such distinctions.
RIB CAPS: I was AMAZED to see a few minutes ago that on the ORIGINAL Piet drawings
for the rib (dated 3-3-34) there are NO rib caps at all, front or rear of
either spar. However, I believe everyone builds with several rib caps-- at least
the two inner ones. Somewhere in the Piet drawings I recall, but cannot
now find, an "improved rib drawing." On my ribs there is a front rib cap, as
you call it, for both the front and rear spar. My ribs do NOT have a rear rib
cap. Looking at pictures of other builds, I see that a few guys have only inner
rib caps, while some have a front rib cap, and some apparently have all four
rib caps. IMO, you will need at least the two inner rib caps to have a more
solid build than a pure reliance upon compression struts engenders.
Others should chime in here.
SPARS. Those who have been building alternative ribs-- NACA 2412 or Riblett 612--
have more loft on each rib and could have a taller set of spars. However,
since the spars of the Piet are plenty strong, builders have just been adding
filler strips above the standard spars at each rib location. Lowell Frank and
Roman Bukolt have done it this way, for instance.
Whatever rib jig you use or whatever airfoil is your choice. Decide and then don't
look back.
Think of what changes you need to make for YOUR application. For instance I have
more and heavier steps, more handles, and taller cabanes than I would like,
to adapt to my lack of flexibility. Think it through from end-to-end. Most
changes, however, add weight and complexity, as well as ripple through the design
and build. Then start building, pieces at a time. Study WHILE you BUILD.
I can serve as a negative example; I post as much as I build, but I learn something
every day.
You are bringing an investigative mind and enthusiasm to the project, and you will
have a great plane.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Roberts
Sent: Jul 5, 2009 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
Continuing along the journey of discovery, I checked my airfoil plot from yesterday
against the plot coordinates from John (thanks again!) and found them to
be almost identical. So, I now have a new question about the center line and it's
relation to incidence once on the spar...
The image attached shows the spars are perpendicular to the baseline. The trailing
edge is elevated 1/2" from the baseline. Is this an issue? Or does the wing
mount and attachment work out centerline issues when installed?
Not sure I am clear here, but I am curious about the spars and whether they should
be perpendicular to the median chord line (drawn centered between the LE and
the TE) or if they should be perpendicular to the baseline the plot was generated
from (see the diagram below).
Also, the Full sized Piet Rib Pattern I received does not show a rib riser on the
LE of the front spar, or the TE of the rear spar. I drew this 612 rib pattern
out the same way. I get it that the spar acts as one BIG riser stick but I
still look at it and think one should be there, but I am guessing it is unnecessary...
Thoughts? I hope to be starting ribs here soon :o)
Mark
PS: Thanks for all of the patience with the questions...
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
From:
Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
Mark,
Attaboy. The ribs and empennage don't take much wood or money, or space, but can
move you right along. The metal horns take up little space and not much money
(unless you job out TIG welding, maybe), but can provide a real sense of satisfaction
when done.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Roberts
Sent: Jul 6, 2009 12:58 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
Don't get me wrong guys, the only reason I'm thinking instead of building is I
don't have the cash to buy the wood this month... Spent it on plans.
Next month, all of this edumacation gets to work.
Mark
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Jim wrote:
Jim Boyer
Santa Rosa, CA
Pietenpol builder with Corvair
John and Ryan,
You both gave some of the best advice in these two messages. All the time spent
on the internet could have been used building.
Thanks,
Jim
On Jul 5, 2009, AMsafetyC(at)aol.com wrote:
Back about 3 years ago and on the verge of starting my build I had a chance
to visit another builder, I marveled at his project and asked many questions
while in the midst of research study and contemplation. During my conversation
with that noted award winning Texas builder I came away with a great piece
of sage wisdom, He said" don't waste you time thinking it, just start building
and stop wasting time. he also said that once you begin the build it will all
make sense" I took those well placed words and followed the advice of Hans
Vandervort, he certainly knew what he was talking about. When I got home I
committed to the build and began now that's not to say I haven't run into a snag
here and there and even the dreaded builders block, but given a chance you
project will speak to you. You just have to listen to her.
I been building for the last 3 years and there isn't a day I don't do
something to advance my project, knowledge or skill level. I cant think of
a better way to spend the stolen minutes of a work day or the hour and a half
commute or the road trip working on my Piet. She's been a real inspiration to
me
John
In a message dated 7/5/2009 8:06:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rmueller23(at)gmail.com writes:
Mark,
I would say: turn your energy from plotting Riblett
coordinates towards cutting and gluing wood on the rib jig you are going to
recieve. The Riblett may be a small improvement on the Piet, and I don't
question it's usefulness....but you have a jig coming, and you have a
tremendous amount of enthusiam right now. Channel that towards making solid
progress on your build. The Piet airfoil, designed by an amateur as it was,
has been successfully built and flown by many many people in the past 80
years; safely at that. Don't overthink this. Just
build!
Ryan
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Mark Roberts
wrote:
Continuing along the journey of discovery,
I checked my airfoil plot from yesterday against the plot coordinates from
John (thanks again!) and found them to be almost identical. So, I now have a
new question about the center line and it's relation to incidence once on
the spar...
The image attached shows the spars are perpendicular to the baseline.
The trailing edge is elevated 1/2" from the baseline. Is this an issue? Or
does the wing mount and attachment work out centerline issues when
installed?
Not sure I am clear here, but I am curious about the spars and whether
they should be perpendicular to the median chord line (drawn centered
between the LE and the TE) or if they should be perpendicular to the
baseline the plot was generated from (see the diagram below).
Also, the Full sized Piet Rib Pattern I received does not show a rib
riser on the LE of the front spar, or the TE of the rear spar. I drew this
612 rib pattern out the same way. I get it that the spar acts as one BIG
riser stick but I still look at it and think one should be there, but I am
guessing it is unnecessary...
Thoughts? I hope to be starting ribs here soon :o)
Mark
PS: Thanks for all of the patience with the questions...
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Thanks John!! I really appreciate the file. I dug
through all of the archives and didn't see it, but it wasn't until late in
my search that I saw any attachments at all on any post, so I might have
overlooked it in my lack of understanding the archive.
Thanks again! I will check my plot.
Many thanks!!
Mark
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:58 AM, wrote:
Ooops.. forgot the attachement...
JohnW
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: johnwoods(at)westnet.com.au
Sent: Sunday, 5 July, 2009 8:54:49 PM GMT +08:00 Perth
Subject:
Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
Mark,
Attached is a copy of the xls file I posted a while ago.
It has the co-ordinates for the Riblett 612 & 613.5 sections
as provided by Mr Bokolt together with the Pietenpol sections, as copied
from the plans.
I used the 612 co-ordinates to plot and make my ribs.
Still a long way from flying.
The 612 has been sucessfully used on other ultralights and
from Mr Riblett's description of it's characteristics he predicted
it would be a good section for the Piet.
I wish I could be at Brodhead to hear Mr Pieti Lowell's forum on the
612's performance.
JohnW
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Roberts" <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, 5 July,
2009 7:50:46 AM GMT +08:00 Perth
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil
can of worms?
Also, just spent the last 2 hours or so creating
the 612 rib plot I found (if the coordinates are correct) into my CAD
program and created a rib template for the 60" profile. Not sure if the
plot is indeed the 612, as I only got the coordinates from a post on
this list in the archives and they said they had found it on another
aviation website, so if anyone has a verifiable set of plots, I'd like
to check my work to see if it is indeed a 612.
Regardless, here's a picture of the plot I made... Minus
gussets...
Mark
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Mark Roberts
wrote:
Oh Yes! Do tell! :o)
Mark
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Tim Willis
wrote:
Willis
Aha!
VGs! Jeff, it sounds like you are very happy with their
effects. Thus inquiring minds want to know:
Were the
VGs the ones you used the straight little plastic fins (100 to a
box), or were they the truncated "V," perhaps made out of bent
aluminum?
How far behind the LE did you place them, and was
that according to directions, or what?
Did you also apply
them to any controls, esp. the back of the VStab or near the LE of
the rudder?
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Boatright
>Sent: Jul 4, 2009
5:20 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re:
Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
>
>-->
Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jeff Boatright
>
>Mark,
>
>Our
Piet had what I consider a sharp and unannounced stall.
However,
>it has an aluminum leading edge wrap rather than the
thing plywood as
>specified in the plans. When the fabric was
shrunk, it pulled the
>aluminum down between the ribs in a
very ugly fashion. The result is
>an even sharper nose than
the Piet airfoil normally has.
>
>I added vortex
generators and everything changed. The no-power stall
>is now
about like a Cessna 172's or maybe even gentler. The
power-on
>stall has noticeable burbling prior to the stall and
a fairly gentle
>break.
>
>As you can tell from my
description, this is an atypical Piet. But,
>every datum
helps.
>
>Jeff
>
>
>>...After
reading the posts, I am curious about the standard
Piet
>>airfoil, and it's performance. I know that building
to plans and to
>>the original design is the best way of
getting a good flying plane,
>>but reading the letter
posted from Mr. Riblett got me to thinking
>>about the
actual performance. I read about a sharp stall and
such,
>>and I am looking for you guys that are flying one
of these to maybe
>>give your feedback on the airfoil and
it's characteristics.
...
>>
>>Mark
>
>--
>---
>
>Jeffrey
H. Boatright, Ph.D.
>Associate Professor of
Ophthalmology
>Emory University School of
Medicine
>Editor-in-Chief
>Molecular
Vision
>
>
==========
st"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
le,
List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
==========
t href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
==========
ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
==========
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill.
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
From:
"carson" <carsonvella(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
I'm using the riblett and a built up spar with a top and bottom spruce cap and
1/8 ply with spruce blocking between the caps,I made the spars bigger to fit the
ribs my thinking being that the extra weight in the blocking would be around
the same as putting it at the top as a filler.
I can't see that this would degrade the strength of the spar
Could someone with the knowledge on this, chime in with there thoughts?
Thanks
Carson
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251696#251696
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)comcast.net>
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
Go to Chris Tracy's website www.westcoastpiet.com and look under the
"Construction" page where you will find a couple of good articles on built
up spars.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: "carson" <carsonvella(at)yahoo.com.au>
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 6:06 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
>
> I'm using the riblett and a built up spar with a top and bottom spruce cap
> and 1/8 ply with spruce blocking between the caps,I made the spars bigger
> to fit the ribs my thinking being that the extra weight in the blocking
> would be around the same as putting it at the top as a filler.
> I can't see that this would degrade the strength of the spar
> Could someone with the knowledge on this, chime in with there thoughts?
> Thanks
> Carson
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251696#251696
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
AMsafetyC(at)aol.com
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
Mark,
I don't believe anyone is making accusation but rather offering advice, as
no one wants to see you waste time or loose the great enthusiasm and zeal
you have for the project. As you stated the delay and study is more an
intellectual journey until the budget comes around, then by all means continue
you're research, questions and analysis. Good preparation makes for a good
project.
As I believe I speak for most, don't get too caught up on over thinking the
project. As soon as the Jig and materials arrive its time to put the
research and planning to work.
Good luck and happy building. One warning though, the building process can
become highly addictive.
John
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
yExcfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
From:
"Will42" <will(at)cctc.net>
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
"RIB CAPS: I was AMAZED to see a few minutes ago that on the ORIGINAL Piet drawings
for the rib (dated 3-3-34) there are NO rib caps at all, front or rear of
either spar. However, I believe everyone builds with several rib caps-- at least
the two inner ones. Somewhere in the Piet drawings I recall, but cannot now
find, an "improved rib drawing." On my ribs there is a front rib cap, as you
call it, for both the front and rear spar. My ribs do NOT have a rear rib cap.
Looking at pictures of other builds, I see that a few guys have only inner rib
caps, while some have a front rib cap, and some apparently have all four rib
caps. IMO, you will need at least the two inner rib caps to have a more solid
build than a pure reliance upon compression struts engenders. "
I'm lost as to what you are saying here; did you intend to say inner bracing instead
of caps? In a built-up rib, I can't see how one could have a rib, at all,
without a rib cap strip.
Will
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251711#251711
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
Amen on John's advice, but DON'T stop your mental work. It is a must with
the building. Once building you will do as much building while trying to
sleep at night, if you are like most of us who will admit it. This Piet
building is very addictive. Also, if you begin a Piet, build it at a normal rate
(slow) and finally complete it and best of all fly it, you will have an
equilivant college education of most of today's institutions of higher
learner. When one begins to build a Piet they have no conception as to how many
areas of expertise and allied skills will be involved. Think each problem out
completely before sanding, cutting or glueing. Learning is actually the
correction of mistakes. On a project like this we can't afford to make
unnecessary errors. Pardon my interference and soap boxing but I feel very strong
on this subject.
Corky
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
yExcfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Ed G." <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com>
Subject:
Re: Will..AIrfoil can of worms?
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
Hi Will... The origional plans call for nailing through the top and bottom
cap strips into the to spars to retain the ribs. I'm guessing this practic
e came from WW1 planes which weren't expected to have a very long life span
. Experience shows that over a long period of time the nails have a tendenc
y to work their way out under the fabric and or rust causing problems later
on. So=2C yes=2C the excepted practice has been to add verticles to the ri
b in order to fasten the ribs to the spars. I added just the inner ones and
T-88d them to the spars. Now I wish I had just put a couple nails in each
verticle which would make it easier to make adjustments or even replace a r
ib or a spar in the future. Put in the outer uprights dosen't seem to add a
nything except weight ( my opinion). Hope that helps...Ed G.
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
> From: will(at)cctc.net
> Date: Mon=2C 6 Jul 2009 05:48:35 -0700
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
> "RIB CAPS: I was AMAZED to see a few minutes ago that on the ORIGINAL Pie
t drawings for the rib (dated 3-3-34) there are NO rib caps at all=2C front
or rear of either spar. However=2C I believe everyone builds with several
rib caps-- at least the two inner ones. Somewhere in the Piet drawings I re
call=2C but cannot now find=2C an "improved rib drawing." On my ribs there
is a front rib cap=2C as you call it=2C for both the front and rear spar. M
y ribs do NOT have a rear rib cap. Looking at pictures of other builds=2C I
see that a few guys have only inner rib caps=2C while some have a front ri
b cap=2C and some apparently have all four rib caps. IMO=2C you will need a
t least the two inner rib caps to have a more solid build than a pure relia
nce upon compression struts engenders. "
> I'm lost as to what you are saying here=3B did you intend to say inner br
acing instead of caps? In a built-up rib=2C I can't see how one could have
a rib=2C at all=2C without a rib cap strip.
>
> Will
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251711#251711
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that=92s right for you.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi All,
This is my first post to the list, but many of you seem like old friends
already. I've been subscribed for a couple of years, which is when I got my
2nd set (more about that later) of Pietenpol plans from Don P. Two or three
months ago I decided it was time to stop thinking about it and just start
building. My plan is to not have a plan. That is there is no schedule or
expectation as to when I'll complete this project. As others have said, my
enjoyment will come from building, making big sticks of wood into little
sticks of wood then into airplane parts and finally a flying machine! When
I can afford to buy raw materials, I'll get enough to make something, then
get busy until that part is done. It'll cost more in the end this way, but
that cost will be spread out pretty thin in the end.
About MY Pietenpol: My current thinking about how/what I'll build.
Long fuselage - I'll rake the seat back 2-4" for comfort. I'll know more
after I build a mock-pit. The fuse width will also depend on how I fit into
the plans build mock-up.
3-piece wing, Riblett 63-012 airfoil.
Engine is undecided. Maybe a C-85?
Add-ons: (I know, extra weight)
I'm considering the Keri-Ann Price passenger door to make it more friendly
for those time when I have a companion.
Enough radios to enable me to fly comfortably in today's airspace.
Probably lights - not necessarily so I can fly at night, but to make myself
more visible.
About me. I've been an EAA member since 1969 (in high school). I first
start taking flying lessons the summer between high school and college. But
then I went to college and never finished lessons when life got in the way.
I first got interested in the Piet in '74 and bought a set of plans from
Mr. Pietenpol (that was the first set). At that time I was newly married
and in the Air Force. I figured I'd start building something when I settled
down. During one of my Air Force moves my set of plans was lost. I guess
one moving box was lost, and the only thing that I ever missed was my Piet
plans. To this day I have no idea what else was in that box. With kids on
their own (or nearly so) I finally went to finish my flying lessons, and 36
years after I started, I became a private pilot.
I have a degree in Aerospace Engineering, but have made my career in
software development. I've been writing s/w since '78, soon after I got out
of the service. Being an engineer, I'm always looking at things and
thinking about other ways of making them. So I will make changes from the
Piet plans as I build. I hope my changes will be well thought out and not
arbitrary, and definitely not purely for asthetics. I'm a firm believer in
Frank Lloyd Wright's principal of "Form follows function". I also believe
in the KISS principle. I also expect learn from what others have done in
building their Piets.
My building progress. First of all I'm trying to take lots of pictures and
fully document my build. At some point I'll put a a blog on my website, and
soon I'll post a few pictures here, particularly since there's been such
and active Riblett discussion lately. I finished my rib jig almost 2 months
ago, but have been busy with work and family since then. I had a small
crate of spruce from an abort project long ago (I was going to build a
PDQ-2). The wood has been kept in the crate, and when I opened it up was in
perfect condition. There's more than enough there for all of my ribs. Over
the holiday weekend I finished cutting all of the rib truss pieces, so last
evening I glued up the 1st side of the 1st rib! (Point of reference - I
bought a small supply of T-88 from Woodcraft Supply, a local woodworker's
store.)
Well, that's enough for now. Pictures soon, as well as a slew of questions.
Ken Howe
Beaverton, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: New builder: An Introduction
From:
"K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net>
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
Welcome Ken! Looking forward to hearing about your progress.
--------
Mark - working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251787#251787
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
From:
Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
Yes, they are bracings inherent in the rib itself.
I missed altogether the point that Mark was using a built-up spar. I had in mind
the braces that I did not see on his drawing, at least the way I looked at
it. Thus I was describing not the spar, but the vertical elements-- the braces
of the rib itself. These can vary from two to four braces (depending upon the
builder), with each parallel to a spar. Take a look at the original rib drawing.
No such elements.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: Will42 <will(at)cctc.net>
>Sent: Jul 6, 2009 7:48 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
>
>
>"RIB CAPS: I was AMAZED to see a few minutes ago that on the ORIGINAL Piet drawings
for the rib (dated 3-3-34) there are NO rib caps at all, front or rear of
either spar. However, I believe everyone builds with several rib caps-- at least
the two inner ones. Somewhere in the Piet drawings I recall, but cannot now
find, an "improved rib drawing." On my ribs there is a front rib cap, as you
call it, for both the front and rear spar. My ribs do NOT have a rear rib cap.
Looking at pictures of other builds, I see that a few guys have only inner
rib caps, while some have a front rib cap, and some apparently have all four rib
caps. IMO, you will need at least the two inner rib caps to have a more solid
build than a pure reliance upon compression struts engenders. "
>I'm lost as to what you are saying here; did you intend to say inner bracing instead
of caps? In a built-up rib, I can't see how one could have a rib, at all,
without a rib cap strip.
>
>Will
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251711#251711
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
Subject:
Re: New builder: An Introduction
From:
Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com>
Ken
We are almost carbon copies of each other (except for the being in the
military part). Got my private license in 1968 in high school, got a
Chemical Engineering degree but ended up writing software since 1980 (like
most engineers I know). Started a long fuselage/Corvair Piet three years ago
(would do the 612 airfoil if the wings weren't already built).
Welcome to the Pietenpol clan, sounds like you are well informed and headed
down the right road, and if you can possibly make get yourself to Broadhead
(even if you have to hitchhike). It will be a religious experience, July 24
and 25, you will meet a good number of the people on this newsgroup.
Rick
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Ken Howe <ken@cooper-mtn.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> This is my first post to the list, but many of you seem like old friends
> already. I've been subscribed for a couple of years, which is when I got my
> 2nd set (more about that later) of Pietenpol plans from Don P. Two or three
> months ago I decided it was time to stop thinking about it and just start
> building. My plan is to not have a plan. That is there is no schedule or
> expectation as to when I'll complete this project. As others have said, my
> enjoyment will come from building, making big sticks of wood into little
> sticks of wood then into airplane parts and finally a flying machine! When
> I can afford to buy raw materials, I'll get enough to make something, then
> get busy until that part is done. It'll cost more in the end this way, but
> that cost will be spread out pretty thin in the end.
>
> About MY Pietenpol: My current thinking about how/what I'll build.
> Long fuselage - I'll rake the seat back 2-4" for comfort. I'll know more
> after I build a mock-pit. The fuse width will also depend on how I fit into
> the plans build mock-up.
>
> 3-piece wing, Riblett 63-012 airfoil.
>
> Engine is undecided. Maybe a C-85?
>
> Add-ons: (I know, extra weight)
> I'm considering the Keri-Ann Price passenger door to make it more friendly
> for those time when I have a companion.
>
> Enough radios to enable me to fly comfortably in today's airspace.
>
> Probably lights - not necessarily so I can fly at night, but to make myself
> more visible.
>
> About me. I've been an EAA member since 1969 (in high school). I first
> start taking flying lessons the summer between high school and college. But
> then I went to college and never finished lessons when life got in the way.
> I first got interested in the Piet in '74 and bought a set of plans from
> Mr. Pietenpol (that was the first set). At that time I was newly married
> and in the Air Force. I figured I'd start building something when I settled
> down. During one of my Air Force moves my set of plans was lost. I guess
> one moving box was lost, and the only thing that I ever missed was my Piet
> plans. To this day I have no idea what else was in that box. With kids on
> their own (or nearly so) I finally went to finish my flying lessons, and 36
> years after I started, I became a private pilot.
>
> I have a degree in Aerospace Engineering, but have made my career in
> software development. I've been writing s/w since '78, soon after I got out
> of the service. Being an engineer, I'm always looking at things and
> thinking about other ways of making them. So I will make changes from the
> Piet plans as I build. I hope my changes will be well thought out and not
> arbitrary, and definitely not purely for asthetics. I'm a firm believer in
> Frank Lloyd Wright's principal of "Form follows function". I also believe
> in the KISS principle. I also expect learn from what others have done in
> building their Piets.
>
> My building progress. First of all I'm trying to take lots of pictures and
> fully document my build. At some point I'll put a a blog on my website, and
> soon I'll post a few pictures here, particularly since there's been such
> and active Riblett discussion lately. I finished my rib jig almost 2 months
> ago, but have been busy with work and family since then. I had a small
> crate of spruce from an abort project long ago (I was going to build a
> PDQ-2). The wood has been kept in the crate, and when I opened it up was in
> perfect condition. There's more than enough there for all of my ribs. Over
> the holiday weekend I finished cutting all of the rib truss pieces, so last
> evening I glued up the 1st side of the 1st rib! (Point of reference - I
> bought a small supply of T-88 from Woodcraft Supply, a local woodworker's
> store.)
>
> Well, that's enough for now. Pictures soon, as well as a slew of questions.
>
> Ken Howe
> Beaverton, OR
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
From:
Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
Re: Will..AIrfoil can of worms?
Will and Ed,
You are describing well what I was trying to do poorly.
Ed, you also bring up another point-- fastening the ribs to the spar. You make
a case for not gluing the ribs to the spars.
Some guys are NOT gluing them to the spar, just nailing as you describe. (I think
Mike Cuy might be one of these, using nails as you describe. He also has
glued the ribs to capstrips running parallel to the spars. His ribs are not going
to cock or move in flight.) Chuck Gantzer did not glue his ribs to his spars,
either. Instead the glued small blocks, perhaps pieces of capstrip, to
the inner face of his spars, trapping the ribs with the blocks, so that the ribs
could not move left or right on the spar.
In each case, as you point out, this would make repair or replacement of the ribs
easier.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
From: "Ed G."
Sent: Jul 6, 2009 8:28 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Will..AIrfoil can of worms?
Hi Will... The origional plans call for nailing through the top and bottom cap
strips into the to spars to retain the ribs. I'm guessing this practice came
from WW1 planes which weren't expected to have a very long life span. Experience
shows that over a long period of time the nails have a tendency to work their
way out under the fabric and or rust causing problems later on. So, yes, the
excepted practice has been to add verticles to the rib in order to fasten the
ribs to the spars. I added just the inner ones and T-88d them to the spars.
Now I wish I had just put a couple nails in each verticle which would make it
easier to make adjustments or even replace a rib or a spar in the future. Put
in the outer uprights dosen't seem to add anything except weight ( my opinion).
Hope that helps...Ed G.
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
> From: will(at)cctc.net
> Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 05:48:35 -0700
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
> "RIB CAPS: I was AMAZED to see a few minutes ago that on the ORIGINAL Piet drawings
for the rib (dated 3-3-34) there are NO rib caps at all, front or rear
of either spar. However, I believe everyone builds with several rib caps-- at
least the two inner ones. Somewhere in the Piet drawings I recall, but cannot
now find, an "improved rib drawing." On my ribs there is a front rib cap, as you
call it, for both the front and rear spar. My ribs do NOT have a rear rib cap.
Looking at pictures of other builds, I see that a few guys have only inner
rib caps, while some have a front rib cap, and some apparently have all four
rib caps. IMO, you will need at least the two inner rib caps to have a more solid
build than a pure reliance upon compression struts engenders. "
> I'm lost as to what you are saying here; did you intend to say inner bracing
instead of caps? In a built-up rib, I can't see how one could have a rib, at all,
without a rib cap strip.
>
> Will
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251711#251711
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC thats right for you.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
From:
Tim Willis <timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
I may get this right yet, but maybe not. I have meant the same thing all along,
but used the wrong terminology. Mark's drawing refers to "rib sticks." Yes,
that is what I was writing about, but was not referring to his drawing ("rib
sticks" terminology) when writing. Will and Ed, and my last email on this subject,
refer to them as "rib braces" or rib bracing." Same pieces. Sorry for
any confusion.
The two internal ones should be considered required. Any external ones are optional.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Roberts
Sent: Jul 5, 2009 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
Continuing along the journey of discovery, I checked my airfoil plot from yesterday
against the plot coordinates from John (thanks again!) and found them to
be almost identical. So, I now have a new question about the center line and it's
relation to incidence once on the spar...
The image attached shows the spars are perpendicular to the baseline. The trailing
edge is elevated 1/2" from the baseline. Is this an issue? Or does the wing
mount and attachment work out centerline issues when installed?
Not sure I am clear here, but I am curious about the spars and whether they should
be perpendicular to the median chord line (drawn centered between the LE and
the TE) or if they should be perpendicular to the baseline the plot was generated
from (see the diagram below).
Also, the Full sized Piet Rib Pattern I received does not show a rib riser on the
LE of the front spar, or the TE of the rear spar. I drew this 612 rib pattern
out the same way. I get it that the spar acts as one BIG riser stick but I
still look at it and think one should be there, but I am guessing it is unnecessary...
Thoughts? I hope to be starting ribs here soon :o)
Mark
PS: Thanks for all of the patience with the questions...
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Thanks John!! I really appreciate the file. I dug through all of the archives and
didn't see it, but it wasn't until late in my search that I saw any attachments
at all on any post, so I might have overlooked it in my lack of understanding
the archive.
Thanks again! I will check my plot.
Many thanks!!
Mark
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:58 AM, wrote:
Ooops.. forgot the attachement...
JohnW
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: johnwoods(at)westnet.com.au
Sent: Sunday, 5 July, 2009 8:54:49 PM GMT +08:00 Perth
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
Mark,
Attached is a copy of the xls file I posted a while ago.
It has the co-ordinates for the Riblett 612 & 613.5 sections as provided by Mr
Bokolt together with the Pietenpol sections, as copied from the plans.
I used the 612 co-ordinates to plot and make my ribs.
Still a long way from flying.
The 612 has been sucessfully used on other ultralights and from Mr Riblett's description
of it's characteristics he predicted it would be a good section for
the Piet.
I wish I could be at Brodhead to hear Mr Pieti Lowell's forum on the 612's performance.
JohnW
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Roberts" <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, 5 July, 2009 7:50:46 AM GMT +08:00 Perth
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
Also, just spent the last 2 hours or so creating the 612 rib plot I found (if the
coordinates are correct) into my CAD program and created a rib template for
the 60" profile. Not sure if the plot is indeed the 612, as I only got the coordinates
from a post on this list in the archives and they said they had found
it on another aviation website, so if anyone has a verifiable set of plots,
I'd like to check my work to see if it is indeed a 612.
Regardless, here's a picture of the plot I made... Minus gussets...
Mark
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Oh Yes! Do tell! :o)
Mark
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Tim Willis wrote:
Aha! VGs! Jeff, it sounds like you are very happy with their effects. Thus inquiring
minds want to know:
Were the VGs the ones you used the straight little plastic fins (100 to a box),
or were they the truncated "V," perhaps made out of bent aluminum?
How far behind the LE did you place them, and was that according to directions,
or what?
Did you also apply them to any controls, esp. the back of the VStab or near the
LE of the rudder?
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
>Sent: Jul 4, 2009 5:20 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
>
>
>Mark,
>
>Our Piet had what I consider a sharp and unannounced stall. However,
>it has an aluminum leading edge wrap rather than the thing plywood as
>specified in the plans. When the fabric was shrunk, it pulled the
>aluminum down between the ribs in a very ugly fashion. The result is
>an even sharper nose than the Piet airfoil normally has.
>
>I added vortex generators and everything changed. The no-power stall
>is now about like a Cessna 172's or maybe even gentler. The power-on
>stall has noticeable burbling prior to the stall and a fairly gentle
>break.
>
>As you can tell from my description, this is an atypical Piet. But,
>every datum helps.
>
>Jeff
>
>
>>...After reading the posts, I am curious about the standard Piet
>>airfoil, and it's performance. I know that building to plans and to
>>the original design is the best way of getting a good flying plane,
>>but reading the letter posted from Mr. Riblett got me to thinking
>>about the actual performance. I read about a sharp stall and such,
>>and I am looking for you guys that are flying one of these to maybe
>>give your feedback on the airfoil and it's characteristics. ...
>>
>>Mark
>
>--
>---
>
>Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
>Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
>Emory University School of Medicine
>Editor-in-Chief
>Molecular Vision
>
>
==========
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Brodhead visit - help camping??
From:
"ldmill" <lorin.miller(at)emerson.com>
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
Folks,
I'm heading to Brodhead this year for the first time. I've volunteered to help
haul camping gear and fuel to Oshkosh for those flying over to Oshkosh en-mass.
I'll be bringing up my enclosed 16' toy hauler for this.
Question for you - where is a good place to camp at nearby where I can grab a
shower? I don't want to be too far away as loading the trailer would otherwise
be painful.
Lorin Miller
lorin.miller(at)emerson.com
641-485-0840
Sonex/Waiex ~80% done
Piet next up
Colo, Iowa
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251803#251803
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
From:
Jim <jimboyer(at)hughes.net>
Subject:
Re: New builder: An Introduction
Jim Boyer
Santa Rosa, CA
Pietenpol builder with Corvair
Hi Ken,
Welcome to the Pietenpol web site. My piet is at that point of 90% done but still
90% to do. I have all the wood structure done, all the steel fittings (except
center section cabane fittings) done, landing gear legs done, engine mount
done, instrument panel done but not wired/connected yet.
You will enjoy the building and the questions to ask and things to learn alot (well
except maybe all the blankety steel fittings).
Do come to Brodhead Pietenpol gathering if you can; its great to meet the people
on the web site and actually see the various ways others had done their Piets.
I will be there again this year; met lots of great people and their Piets last
year.
Cheers,
Jim
On Jul 6, 2009, ken@cooper-mtn.com wrote:
Hi All,
This is my first post to the list, but many of you seem like old friends
already. I've been subscribed for a couple of years, which is when I got my
2nd set (more about that later) of Pietenpol plans from Don P. Two or three
months ago I decided it was time to stop thinking about it and just start
building. My plan is to not have a plan. That is there is no schedule or
expectation as to when I'll complete this project. As others have said, my
enjoyment will come from building, making big sticks of wood into little
sticks of wood then into airplane parts and finally a flying machine! When
I can afford to buy raw materials, I'll get enough to make something, then
get busy until that part is done. It'll cost more in the end this way, but
that cost will be spread out pretty thin in the end.
About MY Pietenpol: My current thinking about how/what I'll build.
Long fuselage - I'll rake the seat back 2-4" for comfort. I'll know more
after I build a mock-pit. The fuse width will also depend on how I fit into
the plans build mock-up.
3-piece wing, Riblett 63-012 airfoil.
Engine is undecided. Maybe a C-85?
Add-ons: (I know, extra weight)
I'm considering the Keri-Ann Price passenger door to make it more friendly
for those time when I have a companion.
Enough radios to enable me to fly comfortably in today's airspace.
Probably lights - not necessarily so I can fly at night, but to make myself
more visible.
About me. I've been an EAA member since 1969 (in high school). I first
start taking flying lessons the summer between high school and college. But
then I went to college and never finished lessons when life got in the way.
I first got interested in the Piet in '74 and bought a set of plans from
Mr. Pietenpol (that was the first set). At that time I was newly married
and in the Air Force. I figured I'd start building something when I settled
down. During one of my Air Force moves my set of plans was lost. I guess
one moving box was lost, and the only thing that I ever missed was my Piet
plans. To this day I have no idea what else was in that box. With kids on
their own (or nearly so) I finally went to finish my flying lessons, and 36
years after I started, I became a private pilot.
I have a degree in Aerospace Engineering, but have made my career in
software development. I've been writing s/w since '78, soon after I got out
of the service. Being an engineer, I'm always looking at things and
thinking about other ways of making them. So I will make changes from the
Piet plans as I build. I hope my changes will be well thought out and not
arbitrary, and definitely not purely for asthetics. I'm a firm believer in
Frank Lloyd Wright's principal of "Form follows function". I also believe
in the KISS principle. I also expect learn from what others have done in
building their Piets.
My building progress. First of all I'm trying to take lots of pictures and
fully document my build. At some point I'll put a a blog on my website, and
soon I'll post a few pictures here, particularly since there's been such
and active Riblett discussion lately. I finished my rib jig almost 2 months
ago, but have been busy with work and family since then. I had a small
crate of spruce from an abort project long ago (I was going to build a
PDQ-2). The wood has been kept in the crate, and when I opened it up was in
perfect condition. There's more than enough there for all of my ribs. Over
the holiday weekend I finished cutting all of the rib truss pieces, so last
evening I glued up the 1st side of the 1st rib! (Point of reference - I
bought a small supply of T-88 from Woodcraft Supply, a local woodworker's
store.)
Well, that's enough for now. Pictures soon, as well as a slew of questions.
Ken Howe
Beaverton, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Subject:
Re: New builder: An Introduction
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
Wow Ken! You're on your way!
It seems like many of us follow the same path of plotting and thinking
about it for years before goin for it. Congrats!
Mark
Mark Roberts
On Jul 6, 2009, at 8:56 AM, Ken Howe <ken@cooper-mtn.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> This is my first post to the list, but many of you seem like old
> friends
> already. I've been subscribed for a couple of years, which is when I
> got my
> 2nd set (more about that later) of Pietenpol plans from Don P. Two
> or three
> months ago I decided it was time to stop thinking about it and just
> start
> building. My plan is to not have a plan. That is there is no
> schedule or
> expectation as to when I'll complete this project. As others have
> said, my
> enjoyment will come from building, making big sticks of wood into
> little
> sticks of wood then into airplane parts and finally a flying
> machine! When
> I can afford to buy raw materials, I'll get enough to make
> something, then
> get busy until that part is done. It'll cost more in the end this
> way, but
> that cost will be spread out pretty thin in the end.
>
> About MY Pietenpol: My current thinking about how/what I'll build.
> Long fuselage - I'll rake the seat back 2-4" for comfort. I'll know
> more
> after I build a mock-pit. The fuse width will also depend on how I
> fit into
> the plans build mock-up.
>
> 3-piece wing, Riblett 63-012 airfoil.
>
> Engine is undecided. Maybe a C-85?
>
> Add-ons: (I know, extra weight)
> I'm considering the Keri-Ann Price passenger door to make it more
> friendly
> for those time when I have a companion.
>
> Enough radios to enable me to fly comfortably in today's airspace.
>
> Probably lights - not necessarily so I can fly at night, but to make
> myself
> more visible.
>
> About me. I've been an EAA member since 1969 (in high school). I first
> start taking flying lessons the summer between high school and
> college. But
> then I went to college and never finished lessons when life got in
> the way.
> I first got interested in the Piet in '74 and bought a set of plans
> from
> Mr. Pietenpol (that was the first set). At that time I was newly
> married
> and in the Air Force. I figured I'd start building something when I
> settled
> down. During one of my Air Force moves my set of plans was lost. I
> guess
> one moving box was lost, and the only thing that I ever missed was
> my Piet
> plans. To this day I have no idea what else was in that box. With
> kids on
> their own (or nearly so) I finally went to finish my flying lessons,
> and 36
> years after I started, I became a private pilot.
>
> I have a degree in Aerospace Engineering, but have made my career in
> software development. I've been writing s/w since '78, soon after I
> got out
> of the service. Being an engineer, I'm always looking at things and
> thinking about other ways of making them. So I will make changes
> from the
> Piet plans as I build. I hope my changes will be well thought out
> and not
> arbitrary, and definitely not purely for asthetics. I'm a firm
> believer in
> Frank Lloyd Wright's principal of "Form follows function". I also
> believe
> in the KISS principle. I also expect learn from what others have
> done in
> building their Piets.
>
> My building progress. First of all I'm trying to take lots of
> pictures and
> fully document my build. At some point I'll put a a blog on my
> website, and
> soon I'll post a few pictures here, particularly since there's been
> such
> and active Riblett discussion lately. I finished my rib jig almost 2
> months
> ago, but have been busy with work and family since then. I had a small
> crate of spruce from an abort project long ago (I was going to build a
> PDQ-2). The wood has been kept in the crate, and when I opened it up
> was in
> perfect condition. There's more than enough there for all of my
> ribs. Over
> the holiday weekend I finished cutting all of the rib truss pieces,
> so last
> evening I glued up the 1st side of the 1st rib! (Point of reference
> - I
> bought a small supply of T-88 from Woodcraft Supply, a local
> woodworker's
> store.)
>
> Well, that's enough for now. Pictures soon, as well as a slew of
> questions.
>
> Ken Howe
> Beaverton, OR
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Subject:
Re: New builder: An Introduction
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
Wow Ken! You're on your way!
It seems like many of us follow the same path of plotting and thinking
about it for years before goin for it. Congrats!
Mark
Mark Roberts
On Jul 6, 2009, at 8:56 AM, Ken Howe <ken@cooper-mtn.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> This is my first post to the list, but many of you seem like old
> friends
> already. I've been subscribed for a couple of years, which is when I
> got my
> 2nd set (more about that later) of Pietenpol plans from Don P. Two
> or three
> months ago I decided it was time to stop thinking about it and just
> start
> building. My plan is to not have a plan. That is there is no
> schedule or
> expectation as to when I'll complete this project. As others have
> said, my
> enjoyment will come from building, making big sticks of wood into
> little
> sticks of wood then into airplane parts and finally a flying
> machine! When
> I can afford to buy raw materials, I'll get enough to make
> something, then
> get busy until that part is done. It'll cost more in the end this
> way, but
> that cost will be spread out pretty thin in the end.
>
> About MY Pietenpol: My current thinking about how/what I'll build.
> Long fuselage - I'll rake the seat back 2-4" for comfort. I'll know
> more
> after I build a mock-pit. The fuse width will also depend on how I
> fit into
> the plans build mock-up.
>
> 3-piece wing, Riblett 63-012 airfoil.
>
> Engine is undecided. Maybe a C-85?
>
> Add-ons: (I know, extra weight)
> I'm considering the Keri-Ann Price passenger door to make it more
> friendly
> for those time when I have a companion.
>
> Enough radios to enable me to fly comfortably in today's airspace.
>
> Probably lights - not necessarily so I can fly at night, but to make
> myself
> more visible.
>
> About me. I've been an EAA member since 1969 (in high school). I first
> start taking flying lessons the summer between high school and
> college. But
> then I went to college and never finished lessons when life got in
> the way.
> I first got interested in the Piet in '74 and bought a set of plans
> from
> Mr. Pietenpol (that was the first set). At that time I was newly
> married
> and in the Air Force. I figured I'd start building something when I
> settled
> down. During one of my Air Force moves my set of plans was lost. I
> guess
> one moving box was lost, and the only thing that I ever missed was
> my Piet
> plans. To this day I have no idea what else was in that box. With
> kids on
> their own (or nearly so) I finally went to finish my flying lessons,
> and 36
> years after I started, I became a private pilot.
>
> I have a degree in Aerospace Engineering, but have made my career in
> software development. I've been writing s/w since '78, soon after I
> got out
> of the service. Being an engineer, I'm always looking at things and
> thinking about other ways of making them. So I will make changes
> from the
> Piet plans as I build. I hope my changes will be well thought out
> and not
> arbitrary, and definitely not purely for asthetics. I'm a firm
> believer in
> Frank Lloyd Wright's principal of "Form follows function". I also
> believe
> in the KISS principle. I also expect learn from what others have
> done in
> building their Piets.
>
> My building progress. First of all I'm trying to take lots of
> pictures and
> fully document my build. At some point I'll put a a blog on my
> website, and
> soon I'll post a few pictures here, particularly since there's been
> such
> and active Riblett discussion lately. I finished my rib jig almost 2
> months
> ago, but have been busy with work and family since then. I had a small
> crate of spruce from an abort project long ago (I was going to build a
> PDQ-2). The wood has been kept in the crate, and when I opened it up
> was in
> perfect condition. There's more than enough there for all of my
> ribs. Over
> the holiday weekend I finished cutting all of the rib truss pieces,
> so last
> evening I glued up the 1st side of the 1st rib! (Point of reference
> - I
> bought a small supply of T-88 from Woodcraft Supply, a local
> woodworker's
> store.)
>
> Well, that's enough for now. Pictures soon, as well as a slew of
> questions.
>
> Ken Howe
> Beaverton, OR
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Brodhead visit - help camping??
From:
"ldmill" <lorin.miller(at)emerson.com>
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
Already got a response. Thanks everybody!
Lorin
--------
Lorin Miller
Waiex N81YX
Pietenpol next up
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251813#251813
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
From:
Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Thanks Fellas for all the advice.
I feel as though i've reached my posting limit lately with question :o)
I really do appreciate the advice. The questions regarding airfoil is mainly
due to what I read from Mr. Riblett's explaination of the Piet wing.
Realizing it has been successful over the years with the airfoil Mr. Piet
designed, and that I have a jig arriving soon with that design, it is what i
will be building. I can always build another wing after I am flying this
one.
I guess my interest was to the point of wanting to avoid the sharp stall
characteristics that Jeff referred to in his post, and also attributed to
the metal LE covering. Between his description of the flight
characteristics, and Riblett's comments, I was toying with the idea of
building the 612.
Anyway, thanks for all the feedback. I hope to be making a rib in the next 2
days :o)
Mark
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Tim Willis wrote:
> timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
>
> I may get this right yet, but maybe not. I have meant the same thing all
> along, but used the wrong terminology. Mark's drawing refers to "rib
> sticks." Yes, that is what I was writing about, but was not referring to
> his drawing ("rib sticks" terminology) when writing. Will and Ed, and my
> last email on this subject, refer to them as "rib braces" or rib bracing."
> Same pieces. Sorry for any confusion.
>
> The two internal ones should be considered required. Any external ones are
> optional.
>
> Tim in central TX
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Roberts
> Sent: Jul 5, 2009 5:09 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
>
> Continuing along the journey of discovery, I checked my airfoil plot from
> yesterday against the plot coordinates from John (thanks again!) and found
> them to be almost identical. So, I now have a new question about the center
> line and it's relation to incidence once on the spar...
>
>
> The image attached shows the spars are perpendicular to the baseline. The
> trailing edge is elevated 1/2" from the baseline. Is this an issue? Or does
> the wing mount and attachment work out centerline issues when installed?
>
>
> Not sure I am clear here, but I am curious about the spars and whether they
> should be perpendicular to the median chord line (drawn centered between the
> LE and the TE) or if they should be perpendicular to the baseline the plot
> was generated from (see the diagram below).
>
>
> Also, the Full sized Piet Rib Pattern I received does not show a rib riser
> on the LE of the front spar, or the TE of the rear spar. I drew this 612 rib
> pattern out the same way. I get it that the spar acts as one BIG riser stick
> but I still look at it and think one should be there, but I am guessing it
> is unnecessary...
>
>
> Thoughts? I hope to be starting ribs here soon :o)
>
>
> Mark
>
>
> PS: Thanks for all of the patience with the questions...
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Mark Roberts
> wrote:
>
> Thanks John!! I really appreciate the file. I dug through all of the
> archives and didn't see it, but it wasn't until late in my search that I saw
> any attachments at all on any post, so I might have overlooked it in my lack
> of understanding the archive.
>
>
> Thanks again! I will check my plot.
>
>
> Many thanks!!
>
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:58 AM, wrote:
>
>
> Ooops.. forgot the attachement...
>
> JohnW
>
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: johnwoods(at)westnet.com.au
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
> Sent: Sunday, 5 July, 2009 8:54:49 PM GMT +08:00 Perth
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
>
>
> Mark,
>
> Attached is a copy of the xls file I posted a while ago.
> It has the co-ordinates for the Riblett 612 & 613.5 sections as provided by
> Mr Bokolt together with the Pietenpol sections, as copied from the plans.
>
> I used the 612 co-ordinates to plot and make my ribs.
> Still a long way from flying.
> The 612 has been sucessfully used on other ultralights and from Mr
> Riblett's description of it's characteristics he predicted it would be a
> good section for the Piet.
> I wish I could be at Brodhead to hear Mr Pieti Lowell's forum on the 612's
> performance.
>
> JohnW
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Roberts" <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Sunday, 5 July, 2009 7:50:46 AM GMT +08:00 Perth
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
>
> Also, just spent the last 2 hours or so creating the 612 rib plot I found
> (if the coordinates are correct) into my CAD program and created a rib
> template for the 60" profile. Not sure if the plot is indeed the 612, as I
> only got the coordinates from a post on this list in the archives and they
> said they had found it on another aviation website, so if anyone has a
> verifiable set of plots, I'd like to check my work to see if it is indeed a
> 612.
>
>
> Regardless, here's a picture of the plot I made... Minus gussets...
>
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Mark Roberts
> wrote:
>
> Oh Yes! Do tell! :o)
>
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Tim Willis
> wrote:
>
> timothywillis(at)earthlink.net>
>
> Aha! VGs! Jeff, it sounds like you are very happy with their effects.
> Thus inquiring minds want to know:
>
> Were the VGs the ones you used the straight little plastic fins (100 to a
> box), or were they the truncated "V," perhaps made out of bent aluminum?
>
> How far behind the LE did you place them, and was that according to
> directions, or what?
>
> Did you also apply them to any controls, esp. the back of the VStab or near
> the LE of the rudder?
>
> Tim in central TX
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
> >Sent: Jul 4, 2009 5:20 PM
> >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: AIrfoil can of worms?
> >
> >
> >Mark,
> >
> >Our Piet had what I consider a sharp and unannounced stall. However,
> >it has an aluminum leading edge wrap rather than the thing plywood as
> >specified in the plans. When the fabric was shrunk, it pulled the
> >aluminum down between the ribs in a very ugly fashion. The result is
> >an even sharper nose than the Piet airfoil normally has.
> >
> >I added vortex generators and everything changed. The no-power stall
> >is now about like a Cessna 172's or maybe even gentler. The power-on
> >stall has noticeable burbling prior to the stall and a fairly gentle
> >break.
> >
> >As you can tell from my description, this is an atypical Piet. But,
> >every datum helps.
> >
> >Jeff
> >
> >
> >>...After reading the posts, I am curious about the standard Piet
> >>airfoil, and it's performance. I know that building to plans and to
> >>the original design is the best way of getting a good flying plane,
> >>but reading the letter posted from Mr. Riblett got me to thinking
> >>about the actual performance. I read about a sharp stall and such,
> >>and I am looking for you guys that are flying one of these to maybe
> >>give your feedback on the airfoil and it's characteristics. ...
> >>
> >>Mark
> >
> >--
> >---
> >
> >Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
> >Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
> >Emory University School of Medicine
> >Editor-in-Chief
> >Molecular Vision
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ==========
> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> ==========
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> le, List Admin.
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
John Hofmann <jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.com>
Subject:
Shirts Available
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
Hello Good People!
A couple of weeks ago I put out the idea of doing some 80th
Anniversary shirts and sent a design idea to the list. I had enough
positive feedback to move ahead. Therefore, the Half Fast Aviation Co.
of Hartford, WI, is open for business. So far I have T-Shirts,
sweatshirts, long sleeve Ts and kid size shirts. I will be adding more
products over the next day including women's clothing, mugs and SIGG
water bottles. I have also added a 2009 Brodhead Graphic with a sort
of "fuzzy" retro look.
CafePress will do the printing and distribution. There will be no
shirts available at Brodhead as all business will be conducted online.
This saves me the headache of inventory and eating a bunch of unsold
mediums and smalls. I will post a short message to the list whenever I
add another item.
The url is: http://www.cafepress.com/half_fast/
CafePress has done a real nice job for me in the past. If you have any
requests or graphic suggestions for the future, do not hesitate to say
hey.
TakeCare,
-john-
John Hofmann
Vice-President, Information Technology
The Rees Group, Inc.
2810 Crossroads Drive, Ste 3800
Madison, WI 53718
Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150
Fax: 608.443.2474
Email: jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.com
________________________________________________________________________________
That's a good question. Rebuilt to 1928 specs, or better? Or what?
Also some of the Model A guys might tell you that the 1928 A's were built with
some Model T parts, whereas the 1929-31 models were not. I don't know how much
that affected the 1928 engines.
-----Original Message-----
>From: r.r.hall(at)cox.net
>Sent: Jul 6, 2009 2:57 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: found on craigslist
>
>
>How can a 1928 Flathead be New? :-)
>
>---- ken anderson wrote:
>> http://stlouis.craigslist.org/pts/1252264754.html
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
From:
Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject:
Re: Shirts Available
John,
The shirts look great. At the risk of being a WATB, is there a way to
have Cafe Press include shirts with pockets? I find that t-shirts
with pockets are the Ts I wear the most (gotta put the pencil and
reading glasses somewhere!).
Thanks,
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: found on craigslist
From:
"Will42" <will(at)cctc.net>
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
Having rebuilt more than a few Model A and Model T engines, I can tell you that
there are virtually no interchangeable parts between the two with the exception
of a few bolts. The '28 engine, if original, has a forged steel crankshaft
where the '29-'31's had cast cranks. The forged crank is much stronger and lighter
as well, since it's not as massive; a good choice for a Piet. However who
knows if a rebuilt engine still has the original crank; most likely not. I would
think it wise to gather the parts and rebuild the engine yourself farming
out the machine work as needed. There is about $1,000. in bearing and machine
work in the "A". Parts; I'm not sure about current prices on these, but that much
more should buy whats needed along with an aluminum head. A re-buildable block,
crank, rods and cam shouldn't be more than $500. if that much. So you now
have the $2,500. in an engine that you know what's inside.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251840#251840
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
John Hofmann <jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.com>
Subject:
Re: Shirts Available
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
I wish they did. This is the only flaw I have found with them (so far)
and the other online vendors that have reasonable pricing. Besides,
these shirts are mostly worn when eating fatty foods, partaking of too
much liquor and the telling of lies about love conquests and flying
adventures. Who needs glasses and pencils for that?
John Hofmann
Vice-President, Information Technology
The Rees Group, Inc.
2810 Crossroads Drive, Ste 3800
Madison, WI 53718
Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150
Fax: 608.443.2474
Email: jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.com
On Jul 6, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Jeff Boatright wrote:
> >
>
> John,
>
> The shirts look great. At the risk of being a WATB, is there a way
> to have Cafe Press include shirts with pockets? I find that t-shirts
> with pockets are the Ts I wear the most (gotta put the pencil and
> reading glasses somewhere!).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Skinny axles WAS Brodhead Pietenpol Gathering
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
From:
"Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
Steve,
I think that the 3/4" axles are likely intended for Ultralights.
With the Piet, you are likely looking at an overall weight (plane +
pilot + passenger + fuel) somewhere around 1200 lbs. If (when) you make
a hard landing, you could easily double that loading. And it is likely
that one wheel will hit the ground before the other, so that axle will
be taking the full load (momentarily, at least), which could be around
4-5000 lbs. I don't have my calculator handy, but I think that's a
little more than 660 lbs.
As for the wheels you have, it's hard to say, without seeing them - But
it MAY be possible to bore out a bigger hole, and put a bronze bushing
in place to accept a bigger axle - depends on the geometry of the wheel,
and what it's made of (and a bunch of other stuff).
Bill C.
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of steven
sadler
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead Pietenpol Gathering
The wheel and axle question is a bit of a stumper. I reviewed the yield
(strength before the part takes a permanent bend) strength with a
structural engineer I know. He wasn't familiar with how loads will be
distributed on a cantilevered axle, so we made some assumptions. The
result as I mentioned before is that the smaller axle wouldn't be strong
enough at 5/8" or at 3/4". However, I have seen Aicraft Spruce selling
3/4" axles rated for 660 pounds per wheel (i.e. 1320 lbs total) so I
don't know what to think.
Basically, I am trying to decide whether I can use the wheels I have or
bite the bullet and buy a whole new set of name brand wheels (Cleveland
or ...) with a 1-1/2" axle. I am hoping someone on the list has already
been down this road and has some wisdom to pass along. Since I am
heading down to Brodhead and Oshkosh in a few weeks, I will be buying
some parts, just trying to decide if wheels should be on my shopping
list.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: steven sadler
Sent: Jul 5, 2009 8:26 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead Pietenpol Gathering
2) Has anyone used the Azusa 4.8 x 8 wheels on their Piet? I
have a set with the 5/8"axles and after reviewing the math with a
structural engineer, the axle seems to be too weak, even with a solid
4130 axle. Even switching out the bearings and installing 3/4" axles
seems a little iffy. Any one with experience using smaller axles on
their Piet?
Steve in Winnipeg (Fuselage framed, controls partially complete,
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
From:
Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1(at)gmail.com>
Just did, Thanks!
I forgot they were there due to looking at all of the pictures of finished
piets!
Mark
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:23 AM, gcardinal wrote:
>
> Go to Chris Tracy's website www.westcoastpiet.com and look under the
> "Construction" page where you will find a couple of good articles on built
> up spars.
>
> Greg Cardinal
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "carson" <carsonvella(at)yahoo.com.au>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 6:06 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
>
>
>>
>> I'm using the riblett and a built up spar with a top and bottom spruce cap
>> and 1/8 ply with spruce blocking between the caps,I made the spars bigger to
>> fit the ribs my thinking being that the extra weight in the blocking would
>> be around the same as putting it at the top as a filler.
>> I can't see that this would degrade the strength of the spar
>> Could someone with the knowledge on this, chime in with there thoughts?
>> Thanks
>> Carson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251696#251696
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Dick N." <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject:
Re: New builder: An Introduction
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
Hi Ken
I didn't see if you are planning on attending Brodhead. If so, You can do a
trial fit in my plane and I'll tell you about the mods I made for a
comfortable fit. I'm sure others will do the same.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Howe" <ken@cooper-mtn.com>
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 10:56 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: New builder: An Introduction
Hi All,
This is my first post to the list, but many of you seem like old friends
already. I've been subscribed for a couple of years, which is when I got my
2nd set (more about that later) of Pietenpol plans from Don P. Two or three
months ago I decided it was time to stop thinking about it and just start
building. My plan is to not have a plan. That is there is no schedule or
expectation as to when I'll complete this project. As others have said, my
enjoyment will come from building, making big sticks of wood into little
sticks of wood then into airplane parts and finally a flying machine! When
I can afford to buy raw materials, I'll get enough to make something, then
get busy until that part is done. It'll cost more in the end this way, but
that cost will be spread out pretty thin in the end.
About MY Pietenpol: My current thinking about how/what I'll build.
Long fuselage - I'll rake the seat back 2-4" for comfort. I'll know more
after I build a mock-pit. The fuse width will also depend on how I fit into
the plans build mock-up.
3-piece wing, Riblett 63-012 airfoil.
Engine is undecided. Maybe a C-85?
Add-ons: (I know, extra weight)
I'm considering the Keri-Ann Price passenger door to make it more friendly
for those time when I have a companion.
Enough radios to enable me to fly comfortably in today's airspace.
Probably lights - not necessarily so I can fly at night, but to make myself
more visible.
About me. I've been an EAA member since 1969 (in high school). I first
start taking flying lessons the summer between high school and college. But
then I went to college and never finished lessons when life got in the way.
I first got interested in the Piet in '74 and bought a set of plans from
Mr. Pietenpol (that was the first set). At that time I was newly married
and in the Air Force. I figured I'd start building something when I settled
down. During one of my Air Force moves my set of plans was lost. I guess
one moving box was lost, and the only thing that I ever missed was my Piet
plans. To this day I have no idea what else was in that box. With kids on
their own (or nearly so) I finally went to finish my flying lessons, and 36
years after I started, I became a private pilot.
I have a degree in Aerospace Engineering, but have made my career in
software development. I've been writing s/w since '78, soon after I got out
of the service. Being an engineer, I'm always looking at things and
thinking about other ways of making them. So I will make changes from the
Piet plans as I build. I hope my changes will be well thought out and not
arbitrary, and definitely not purely for asthetics. I'm a firm believer in
Frank Lloyd Wright's principal of "Form follows function". I also believe
in the KISS principle. I also expect learn from what others have done in
building their Piets.
My building progress. First of all I'm trying to take lots of pictures and
fully document my build. At some point I'll put a a blog on my website, and
soon I'll post a few pictures here, particularly since there's been such
and active Riblett discussion lately. I finished my rib jig almost 2 months
ago, but have been busy with work and family since then. I had a small
crate of spruce from an abort project long ago (I was going to build a
PDQ-2). The wood has been kept in the crate, and when I opened it up was in
perfect condition. There's more than enough there for all of my ribs. Over
the holiday weekend I finished cutting all of the rib truss pieces, so last
evening I glued up the 1st side of the 1st rib! (Point of reference - I
bought a small supply of T-88 from Woodcraft Supply, a local woodworker's
store.)
Well, that's enough for now. Pictures soon, as well as a slew of questions.
Ken Howe
Beaverton, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Dick N." <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject:
Re: Brodhead visit - help camping??
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
Reply for Lorin and Steve Sadler
There is camping on the field at Brodhead. There is plenty of camping space.
No electrical hookups or waste dumps. There are are showers available and
some food service. The walk into town is short to McDonalds, Subway and
other places. There is a grocery store and hardware store in town.
Brodhead is a very small town and the airport is to the south of the main
hwy just west of the McDonalds. This is an informal event, they sell
buttons, $5, to help with expenses. There is also a Hatz bi plane flying
on the other end of the field. Also there are some mighty nice planes
making fuel stops on the way to OSH.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "ldmill" <lorin.miller(at)emerson.com>
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 1:08 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead visit - help camping??
>
> Folks,
> I'm heading to Brodhead this year for the first time. I've volunteered to
> help haul camping gear and fuel to Oshkosh for those flying over to
> Oshkosh en-mass. I'll be bringing up my enclosed 16' toy hauler for this.
> Question for you - where is a good place to camp at nearby where I can
> grab a shower? I don't want to be too far away as loading the trailer
> would otherwise be painful.
>
> Lorin Miller
>
> lorin.miller(at)emerson.com
> 641-485-0840
> Sonex/Waiex ~80% done
> Piet next up
> Colo, Iowa
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251803#251803
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
I wish I was going to Brodhead, but it's not going to happen this year.
My wife is out of town, and returning July 24th. She might not
understand if instead of meeting her at PDX that evening I'm half way
across the country looking at old-timey airplanes.
--Ken
Dick N. wrote:
>
> Hi Ken
> I didn't see if you are planning on attending Brodhead. If so, You can
> do a trial fit in my plane and I'll tell you about the mods I made for a
> comfortable fit. I'm sure others will do the same.
> Dick N.
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Howe" <ken@cooper-mtn.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 10:56 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: New builder: An Introduction
>
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> This is my first post to the list, but many of you seem like old friends
> already. I've been subscribed for a couple of years, which is when I got my
> 2nd set (more about that later) of Pietenpol plans from Don P. Two or three
> months ago I decided it was time to stop thinking about it and just start
> building. My plan is to not have a plan. That is there is no schedule or
> expectation as to when I'll complete this project. As others have said, my
> enjoyment will come from building, making big sticks of wood into little
> sticks of wood then into airplane parts and finally a flying machine! When
> I can afford to buy raw materials, I'll get enough to make something, then
> get busy until that part is done. It'll cost more in the end this way, but
> that cost will be spread out pretty thin in the end.
>
> About MY Pietenpol: My current thinking about how/what I'll build.
> Long fuselage - I'll rake the seat back 2-4" for comfort. I'll know more
> after I build a mock-pit. The fuse width will also depend on how I fit into
> the plans build mock-up.
>
> 3-piece wing, Riblett 63-012 airfoil.
>
> Engine is undecided. Maybe a C-85?
>
> Add-ons: (I know, extra weight)
> I'm considering the Keri-Ann Price passenger door to make it more friendly
> for those time when I have a companion.
>
> Enough radios to enable me to fly comfortably in today's airspace.
>
> Probably lights - not necessarily so I can fly at night, but to make myself
> more visible.
>
> About me. I've been an EAA member since 1969 (in high school). I first
> start taking flying lessons the summer between high school and college. But
> then I went to college and never finished lessons when life got in the way.
> I first got interested in the Piet in '74 and bought a set of plans from
> Mr. Pietenpol (that was the first set). At that time I was newly married
> and in the Air Force. I figured I'd start building something when I settled
> down. During one of my Air Force moves my set of plans was lost. I guess
> one moving box was lost, and the only thing that I ever missed was my Piet
> plans. To this day I have no idea what else was in that box. With kids on
> their own (or nearly so) I finally went to finish my flying lessons, and 36
> years after I started, I became a private pilot.
>
> I have a degree in Aerospace Engineering, but have made my career in
> software development. I've been writing s/w since '78, soon after I got out
> of the service. Being an engineer, I'm always looking at things and
> thinking about other ways of making them. So I will make changes from the
> Piet plans as I build. I hope my changes will be well thought out and not
> arbitrary, and definitely not purely for asthetics. I'm a firm believer in
> Frank Lloyd Wright's principal of "Form follows function". I also believe
> in the KISS principle. I also expect learn from what others have done in
> building their Piets.
>
> My building progress. First of all I'm trying to take lots of pictures and
> fully document my build. At some point I'll put a a blog on my website, and
> soon I'll post a few pictures here, particularly since there's been such
> and active Riblett discussion lately. I finished my rib jig almost 2 months
> ago, but have been busy with work and family since then. I had a small
> crate of spruce from an abort project long ago (I was going to build a
> PDQ-2). The wood has been kept in the crate, and when I opened it up was in
> perfect condition. There's more than enough there for all of my ribs. Over
> the holiday weekend I finished cutting all of the rib truss pieces, so last
> evening I glued up the 1st side of the 1st rib! (Point of reference - I
> bought a small supply of T-88 from Woodcraft Supply, a local woodworker's
> store.)
>
> Well, that's enough for now. Pictures soon, as well as a slew of questions.
>
> Ken Howe
> Beaverton, OR
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Mike Simmons <ml.simmons(at)verizon.net>
Subject:
Brodhead camping - reunion newbe
Date:
Jul 06, 2009
I am planning to make it to my first Brodhead reunion fairly late
Friday night/Sat. morning. From searching the archives, sounds like
it's OK to just find a spot to pitch your tent amongst the others and
find the bucket for a donation. Is this still true? Is there any
insight as to where to park or are the instructions pretty clear once
you get there? Any advice on what to do from some of those reunion
veterans out there would be much appreciated
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Jul 07, 2009
From:
Mike Tunnicliffe <zk-owl(at)CLEAR.NET.NZ>
Subject:
Re: Skinny axles WAS Brodhead Pietenpol Gathering
Hi, my 1050 lb gross Jodel D18 has 3/4" axles that have survived my
occasional heavy landings without bending. However it does have
relatively small diameter 5.00 x 5 tyres.
Regards Mike T.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Church
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 7:58 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Skinny axles WAS Brodhead Pietenpol
Gathering
Steve,
I think that the 3/4" axles are likely intended for Ultralights.
With the Piet, you are likely looking at an overall weight (plane +
pilot + passenger + fuel) somewhere around 1200 lbs. If (when) you make
a hard landing, you could easily double that loading. And it is likely
that one wheel will hit the ground before the other, so that axle will
be taking the full load (momentarily, at least), which could be around
4-5000 lbs. I don't have my calculator handy, but I think that's a
little more than 660 lbs.
As for the wheels you have, it's hard to say, without seeing them -
But it MAY be possible to bore out a bigger hole, and put a bronze
bushing in place to accept a bigger axle - depends on the geometry of
the wheel, and what it's made of (and a bunch of other stuff).
Bill C.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of steven
sadler
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 2:15 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead Pietenpol Gathering
The wheel and axle question is a bit of a stumper. I reviewed the
yield (strength before the part takes a permanent bend) strength with a
structural engineer I know. He wasn't familiar with how loads will be
distributed on a cantilevered axle, so we made some assumptions. The
result as I mentioned before is that the smaller axle wouldn't be strong
enough at 5/8" or at 3/4". However, I have seen Aicraft Spruce selling
3/4" axles rated for 660 pounds per wheel (i.e. 1320 lbs total) so I
don't know what to think.
Basically, I am trying to decide whether I can use the wheels I have
or bite the bullet and buy a whole new set of name brand wheels
(Cleveland or ...) with a 1-1/2" axle. I am hoping someone on the list
has already been down this road and has some wisdom to pass along. Since
I am heading down to Brodhead and Oshkosh in a few weeks, I will be
buying some parts, just trying to decide if wheels should be on my
shopping list.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: steven sadler
Sent: Jul 5, 2009 8:26 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead Pietenpol Gathering
2) Has anyone used the Azusa 4.8 x 8 wheels on their Piet? I have a
set with the 5/8"axles and after reviewing the math with a structural
engineer, the axle seems to be too weak, even with a solid 4130 axle.
Even switching out the bearings and installing 3/4" axles seems a little
iffy. Any one with experience using smaller axles on their Piet?
Steve in Winnipeg (Fuselage framed, controls partially complete,
________________________________________________________________________________
As promised, here's a few pictures of my rib building. First of all, I
decided not use use staples or nails for gluing the gussets. Instead I'm
simply using a steel weight to apply the minimum pressure that System
Three says to use with T-88. The weights came from a local scrap yard -
old bolts and sawed up chunks of a 1 3/16" rod. I ran then over a 50
grit belt on my sander to get rid of the rust and make a reasonably flat
surface. To prevent permanently gluing blocks of steel to my ribs I cut
3" squares of 4 mil poly to place over each gusset. The epoxy is
slippery enough that I just tugged this way and that on the weighted
piece of poly until the gusset was just where I wanted it.
The final two shots are my approach to blocking at the trailing edge and
around the front spar. As mentioned on the 'can of worms' thread, the
Riblett section is thicker than the original Piet section. I've decided
size the spars per the plans and use spacer's for the difference. The
rear spar sits directly on the bottom capstrip, and there's a small
space between the top of the spar and the upper strip. The airfoil
section at the front spar location is significantly thicker on the
Riblett, and most of the extra is below the chord line. I've sized a
block to fit under the spar. There will be just a small triangular space
above the spar. I'll fill above both spars with wedges when I fit the
ribs on to the spars. These pictures were taken with the first side
glued up and the rib flipped over and sitting in a simple jig to hold it
securely for gluing the second side. I've also inserted a wedge at the
trailing edge to make that a secure joint.
--Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Brodhead camping - reunion newbe
Date:
Jul 07, 2009
From:
helspersew(at)aol.com
Mike,
That is the beauty of Brodhead. Not much is "clear" when you get there. Just about
any?empty space is good for you to pitch your tent, but I would not recommend
right next to the porta-potties :o). This is a very laid back event. The parking
is not "clear" either. Just pull up next to somebody else and pay the fee
(NOT). The local EAA chapter sells the buttons for the camping fee under the
pavillion there. There are also a few "vendors" that will be hawking a few things
sitting at the picnic tables under the pavillion. One of them will be me,
with my prop-carving CD. I will be running a "show special" of $15.00 per copy
:0)
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Simmons <ml.simmons(at)verizon.net>
Sent: Tue, Jul 7, 2009 12:14 am
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead camping - reunion newbe
?
I am planning to make it to my first Brodhead reunion fairly late Friday night/Sat.
morning. From searching the archives, sounds like it's OK to just find a
spot to pitch your tent amongst the others and find the bucket for a donation.
Is this still true? Is there any insight as to where to park or are the instructions
pretty clear once you get there? Any advice on what to do from some of
those reunion veterans out there would be much appreciated?
?
?
?
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Ryan Mueller <rmueller23(at)gmail.com>
Subject:
Re: Brodhead visit - help camping??
Date:
Jul 07, 2009
Dick,
You mentioned planes making fuel stops on the way to OSH; do we know
for sure that there is or will be fuel this year at Brodhead? I ask
because the last I heard was from a friend that volunteered at the
pancake breakfast towards the latter part of May, and he made a
comment in an email about trying to do Young Eagles at the event with
no fuel on the field. The last mention on the 431 website was of
fencing being installed in May that brings things closer to
operational status, but no mention of when or if they will actually be
back up. I know that was over a month ago, but it may be worth
confirming if they will actually have the new tanks running in time.
Anyone else know any more current news?
Ryan
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 6, 2009, at 9:29 PM, "Dick N." wrote:
> >
>
> Reply for Lorin and Steve Sadler
> There is camping on the field at Brodhead. There is plenty of
> camping space. No electrical hookups or waste dumps. There are are
> showers available and some food service. The walk into town is
> short to McDonalds, Subway and other places. There is a grocery
> store and hardware store in town. Brodhead is a very small town and
> the airport is to the south of the main hwy just west of the
> McDonalds. This is an informal event, they sell buttons, $5, to
> help with expenses. There is also a Hatz bi plane flying on the
> other end of the field. Also there are some mighty nice planes
> making fuel stops on the way to OSH.
> Dick N.
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "ldmill" <lorin.miller(at)emerson.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 1:08 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead visit - help camping??
>
>
>> >
>>
>> Folks,
>> I'm heading to Brodhead this year for the first time. I've
>> volunteered to help haul camping gear and fuel to Oshkosh for those
>> flying over to Oshkosh en-mass. I'll be bringing up my enclosed 16'
>> toy hauler for this.
>> Question for you - where is a good place to camp at nearby where I
>> can grab a shower? I don't want to be too far away as loading the
>> trailer would otherwise be painful.
>>
>> Lorin Miller
>>
>> lorin.miller(at)emerson.com
>> 641-485-0840
>> Sonex/Waiex ~80% done
>> Piet next up
>> Colo, Iowa
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251803#251803
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
Re: Rib construction photos
Date:
Jul 07, 2009
Ken,
Nice pictures of your rib setup.
Your comments raised one question about the Riblett airfoil that I
had not yet been able to ask that maybe you or Mr. Lowell could address.
Mark Roberts mentioned a related issue in one of his posts.
I see that you are setting your ribs relative to the chord line.
This makes sense to me - if I understand things correctly, this sets
the ribs at zero incidence relative to the spars, ands any change in
incidence would then be set by adjusting the struts. Are you also
then setting your spars at 90 degrees to the chord line? Again, I
assume you would because that would make the most sense.
Thanks!
Kip Gardner
On Jul 7, 2009, at 4:56 AM, Ken Howe wrote:
> As promised, here's a few pictures of my rib building. First of
> all, I decided not use use staples or nails for gluing the gussets.
> Instead I'm simply using a steel weight to apply the minimum
> pressure that System Three says to use with T-88. The weights came
> from a local scrap yard - old bolts and sawed up chunks of a 1
> 3/16" rod. I ran then over a 50 grit belt on my sander to get rid
> of the rust and make a reasonably flat surface. To prevent
> permanently gluing blocks of steel to my ribs I cut 3" squares of 4
> mil poly to place over each gusset. The epoxy is slippery enough
> that I just tugged this way and that on the weighted piece of poly
> until the gusset was just where I wanted it.
>
> The final two shots are my approach to blocking at the trailing
> edge and around the front spar. As mentioned on the 'can of worms'
> thread, the Riblett section is thicker than the original Piet
> section. I've decided size the spars per the plans and use spacer's
> for the difference. The rear spar sits directly on the bottom
> capstrip, and there's a small space between the top of the spar and
> the upper strip. The airfoil section at the front spar location is
> significantly thicker on the Riblett, and most of the extra is
> below the chord line. I've sized a block to fit under the spar.
> There will be just a small triangular space above the spar. I'll
> fill above both spars with wedges when I fit the ribs on to the
> spars. These pictures were taken with the first side glued up and
> the rib flipped over and sitting in a simple jig to hold it
> securely for gluing the second side. I've also inserted a wedge at
> the trailing edge to make that a secure joint.
>
> --Ken<1st Rib-0003-20090705.jpg><1st Rib-0005-20090705.jpg><1st
> Rib-0006-20090705.jpg><1st Rib-0008-20090706.jpg><1st
> Rib-0009-20090706.jpg>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
AMsafetyC(at)aol.com
Date:
Jul 07, 2009
Subject:
Re: New builder: An Introduction
Ken,
Sounds perfect, no reason not to start as soon as possible and avoid the
rush, as you get more and more into your project and the addiction grows, you
will more than likely get her upset with you anyway so you might as well
start early, you can start now and come to Brodhead or start later and miss
Brodhead, the end result is youre gonna get her upset with you anyway. No
woman is that understanding
John
**************Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL Personals.
(http://personals.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntuslove00000003)
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Skinny axles WAS Brodhead Pietenpol Gathering
Date:
Jul 07, 2009
From:
hvandervoo(at)aol.com
I use 3/4" Matco axles (4140) with 6" Matco wheels on my Pietenpol successfully.
Had some rough landings, no bending (so far)
Please note during most "hard" landings (with forward speed) a lot of weight is
still carried by the wing.
A "hard" landing without forward speed is a......not something you walk away from.
Only at stand still you will see full load on the wheel, this is the "static load"
The dynamic load or kinematic load of these wheels is usually much higher, on the
6" Matco it is 2000 Lbs (per wheel)
Hans van der Voort
Pietenpol NX15KV
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Church <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
Sent: Mon, Jul 6, 2009 2:58 pm
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Skinny axles WAS Brodhead Pietenpol Gathering
Steve,
?
I think?that the 3/4" axles are likely intended for Ultralights.
With the Piet, you are likely looking at an overall weight (plane + pilot + passenger
+ fuel) somewhere around 1200 lbs. If (when) you make a hard landing, you
could easily double that loading. And it is likely that one wheel will hit
the ground before the other, so that axle will be taking the full load (momentarily,
at least), which could be around 4-5000 lbs. I don't have my calculator
handy, but I think that's a little more than 660 lbs.
?
As for the wheels you have, it's hard to say, without seeing them - But it MAY
be possible to bore out a bigger hole, and put a bronze bushing in place?to accept
a bigger axle - depends on the geometry of the wheel, and what it's made
of (and a bunch of other stuff).
?
Bill C.
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of steven sadler
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead Pietenpol Gathering
The wheel and axle question is a bit of a stumper. I reviewed the yield (strength
before the part takes a permanent bend) strength with a structural engineer
I know. He wasn't familiar with how loads will be distributed on a cantilevered
axle, so we made some assumptions. The result as I mentioned before is that
the smaller axle wouldn't be strong enough at 5/8" or at 3/4". However, I have
seen Aicraft Spruce selling 3/4" axles rated for 660 pounds per wheel (i.e.
1320 lbs total) so I don't know what to think.
?
Basically, I am trying to decide whether?I can use the wheels I have or bite the
bullet and buy a whole new set of name brand wheels (Cleveland or ...) with
a 1-1/2" axle. I am hoping someone on the list has already been down this road
and has some wisdom to pass along. Since I am heading down to Brodhead and Oshkosh
in a few weeks, I will be buying some parts, just trying to decide if wheels
should be on my shopping list.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: steven sadler
Sent: Jul 5, 2009 8:26 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead Pietenpol Gathering
2) Has anyone used the Azusa 4.8 x 8 wheels on their Piet? I have a set with the
5/8"axles and after reviewing the math with a structural engineer, the axle
seems to be too weak, even with a solid 4130 axle. Even switching out the bearings
and installing 3/4" axles seems a little iffy. Any one with experience using
smaller axles on their Piet?
Steve in Winnipeg (Fuselage framed, controls partially complete,
________________________________________________________________________________
Yes, I've laid out my spars perpendicular to the chord line. I looked at
setting them relative to a base line drawn tangent to the lowest points
fore and aft, but it's only a couple degrees difference if you look at
the drawing the Mark posted. I'll adjust the strut lengths to set the
angle of incidence.
--Ken
Kip and Beth Gardner wrote:
>
>
> Ken,
>
> Nice pictures of your rib setup.
>
> Your comments raised one question about the Riblett airfoil that I had
> not yet been able to ask that maybe you or Mr. Lowell could address.
>
> Mark Roberts mentioned a related issue in one of his posts.
>
> I see that you are setting your ribs relative to the chord line. This
> makes sense to me - if I understand things correctly, this sets the
> ribs at zero incidence relative to the spars, ands any change in
> incidence would then be set by adjusting the struts. Are you also then
> setting your spars at 90 degrees to the chord line? Again, I assume you
> would because that would make the most sense.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kip Gardner
>
>
> On Jul 7, 2009, at 4:56 AM, Ken Howe wrote:
>
>> As promised, here's a few pictures of my rib building. First of all, I
>> decided not use use staples or nails for gluing the gussets. Instead
>> I'm simply using a steel weight to apply the minimum pressure that
>> System Three says to use with T-88. The weights came from a local
>> scrap yard - old bolts and sawed up chunks of a 1 3/16" rod. I ran
>> then over a 50 grit belt on my sander to get rid of the rust and make
>> a reasonably flat surface. To prevent permanently gluing blocks of
>> steel to my ribs I cut 3" squares of 4 mil poly to place over each
>> gusset. The epoxy is slippery enough that I just tugged this way and
>> that on the weighted piece of poly until the gusset was just where I
>> wanted it.
>>
>> The final two shots are my approach to blocking at the trailing edge
>> and around the front spar. As mentioned on the 'can of worms' thread,
>> the Riblett section is thicker than the original Piet section. I've
>> decided size the spars per the plans and use spacer's for the
>> difference. The rear spar sits directly on the bottom capstrip, and
>> there's a small space between the top of the spar and the upper strip.
>> The airfoil section at the front spar location is significantly
>> thicker on the Riblett, and most of the extra is below the chord line.
>> I've sized a block to fit under the spar. There will be just a small
>> triangular space above the spar. I'll fill above both spars with
>> wedges when I fit the ribs on to the spars. These pictures were taken
>> with the first side glued up and the rib flipped over and sitting in a
>> simple jig to hold it securely for gluing the second side. I've also
>> inserted a wedge at the trailing edge to make that a secure joint.
>>
>> --Ken<1st Rib-0003-20090705.jpg><1st Rib-0005-20090705.jpg><1st
>> Rib-0006-20090705.jpg><1st Rib-0008-20090706.jpg><1st
>> Rib-0009-20090706.jpg>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Skinny axles WAS Brodhead Pietenpol Gathering
Date:
Jul 07, 2009
From:
"Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
Well, 3/4" seems pretty small for a cantilevered axle that will be
loaded as you say.
That isn't to say that the axles cannot handle the load.
BUT... it all depends on a few things:
1. The material the axle is made of. (higher strength materials can
carry a higher load - heat treatment can be used to increase strength of
some materials as well)
2. The configuration of the gear. (how far out on the axle the wheel
is situated - the closer to the axle mounting point, the higher load it
will be able to carry, due to smaller bending moment)
3. The WIDTH of the wheel. (the narrower the wheel, the less bending
moment will be imposed on the axle)
All other things being equal, increasing the axle diameter from solid
5/8" to solid 3/4" will result in a strength increase of 44%. Moving up
to solid 7/8" diameter will practically double the strength of the 5/8"
diameter.
Bill C.
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike
Tunnicliffe
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Skinny axles WAS Brodhead Pietenpol
Gathering
Hi, my 1050 lb gross Jodel D18 has 3/4" axles that have survived my
occasional heavy landings without bending. However it does have
relatively small diameter 5.00 x 5 tyres.
Regards Mike T.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
From:
"Pieti Lowell" <Lowellcfrank(at)yahoo.com>
Date:
Jul 07, 2009
H. Riblett's Notes to Me 12/27/91. Ref: GA 3OU-612.
Cord, no flaps, 15%,
CoG-28% , Center Line of pressure-18". Max, 30%, 16"=24".
I can bring much of his notes and calculations to Brodhead for all to ponder, and
copy if you have a copier available.
Much of his stuff also covers the GA3OU-613.5, And others.
Foe those of you that like to crunch numbers He sent me a basket full.
Pieti Lowell
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251926#251926
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Richard Schreiber" <lmforge(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
motor mounts
Date:
Jul 07, 2009
I have a question about the lower motor mount fittings that are bolted to the lower
fuselage longerons. On the original plans, Bernard shows two small tabs that
are bent at right angles to the fitting. These are the tabs that rest against
the firewall. My question is how necessary are they structurally? I have some
photos of finished Piets where they are not there, some where the tabs are
there, but butt welded instead of screwed into the longeron as Bernard shows.
If the upper tab is screwed in place. it will interfere with the upper cross bolt.
The lower tab screw will be very close to the bottom of the longeron. On the
original plans, Bernard must have used wood screws to attach the tabs. It appears
that on the original, these tabs did not add anything structurally, but
actually weakened the structure. I realize that welding the left and right halves
of the lower fittings together at the tabs would be better, but is it really
necessary?
I have attached a drawing showing the fiiting.
Thanks,
Rick Schreiber
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Skinny axles WAS Brodhead Pietenpol Gathering
Date:
Jul 07, 2009
From:
"Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
Valid points, Hans.
My example of one wheel being subjected to 4-5000 lbs was perhaps a bit
"extreme".
The point I was trying to make was that if an axle is rated for 660 lbs
(each), and the plane weighs 1200 lbs, the axles would be close to their
rated strength, just sitting on the ground, which hardly seems
sufficient. Just taxiing over some bumps could exceed the rated
strength, as would some rough landings, I'm sure. We do not know whether
this "rated strength" includes a reasonable factor of safety (one would
hope so).
I don't know the specifics of the Matco axles, but they are likely heat
treated for added strength.
Bill C.
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
hvandervoo(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Skinny axles WAS Brodhead Pietenpol
Gathering
I use 3/4" Matco axles (4140) with 6" Matco wheels on my Pietenpol
successfully.
Had some rough landings, no bending (so far)
Please note during most "hard" landings (with forward speed) a lot of
weight is still carried by the wing.
A "hard" landing without forward speed is a......not something you walk
away from.
Only at stand still you will see full load on the wheel, this is the
"static load"
The dynamic load or kinematic load of these wheels is usually much
higher, on the 6" Matco it is 2000 Lbs (per wheel)
Hans van der Voort
Pietenpol NX15KV
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Rib construction photos
From:
"K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net>
Date:
Jul 07, 2009
I think each of us build these things slightly different. It is always interesting
to inspect other peoples process or technique. When I see some sort of difference
it makes me say, "wow, that's a cool way to do that"... and I often
wonder, "did I do that right?" I may post a few pics of mine later just to get
some eyeballs on them. I'm nearly 100% certain that mine are just fine. They
may not be just like others, but they were built to the plans and should work
fine.
I was sanding several of my ribs last night in preparation for urethane coating
when I started to notice that each one is a separate work of art. I cut the
gussets in batches, and they were all built in the same jig... so they are nearly
identical... but to the builder there are noticeable characteristics that
start to become more evident after handling a part so many times.
Great looking work Ken!
--------
Mark - working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251937#251937
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Skinny axles WAS Brodhead Pietenpol Gathering
Date:
Jul 07, 2009
From:
hvandervoo(at)aol.com
Bill,
I admit that my Pietenpol has been self certified to gross weight of 1150 Lbs
Tailwheel taking care of some of that, I stay well clear of the static load number
Based on the Matco published dynamic load and the static load I would guess their
safety design?factor is well over 3.
Hans van der Voort
Pietenpol NX15KV
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Church <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
Sent: Tue, Jul 7, 2009 10:11 am
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Skinny axles WAS Brodhead Pietenpol Gathering
Valid points, Hans.
?
My example of one wheel being subjected to 4-5000 lbs was perhaps a bit "extreme".
The point I was trying to make was that if an axle is rated for 660 lbs (each),
and the plane weighs 1200 lbs, the axles would be close to their rated strength,
just sitting on the ground, which hardly seems sufficient. Just taxiing over
some bumps could exceed the rated strength, as would some rough landings, I'm
sure. We do not know whether this "rated strength" includes a reasonable factor
of safety (one would hope so).
I don't know the specifics of the Matco axles, but they are likely heat treated
for added strength.
?
Bill C.
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of hvandervoo(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Skinny axles WAS Brodhead Pietenpol Gathering
I use 3/4" Matco axles (4140) with 6" Matco wheels on my Pietenpol successfully.
Had some rough landings, no bending (so far)
Please note during most "hard" landings (with forward speed) a lot of weight is
still carried by the wing.
A "hard" landing without forward speed is a......not something you walk away from.
Only at stand still you will see full load on the wheel, this is the "static load"
The dynamic load or kinematic load of these wheels is usually much higher, on the
6" Matco it is 2000 Lbs (per wheel)
Hans van der Voort
Pietenpol NX15KV
?
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Dick N." <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject:
Re: Brodhead visit - help camping??
Date:
Jul 07, 2009
Thanks for bringing that up, Ryan. I don't know anything current about fuel
at Brodhead.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Mueller" <rmueller23(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 6:43 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead visit - help camping??
>
> Dick,
>
> You mentioned planes making fuel stops on the way to OSH; do we know for
> sure that there is or will be fuel this year at Brodhead? I ask because
> the last I heard was from a friend that volunteered at the pancake
> breakfast towards the latter part of May, and he made a comment in an
> email about trying to do Young Eagles at the event with no fuel on the
> field. The last mention on the 431 website was of fencing being installed
> in May that brings things closer to operational status, but no mention of
> when or if they will actually be back up. I know that was over a month
> ago, but it may be worth confirming if they will actually have the new
> tanks running in time. Anyone else know any more current news?
>
> Ryan
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 6, 2009, at 9:29 PM, "Dick N." wrote:
>
>> >
>>
>> Reply for Lorin and Steve Sadler
>> There is camping on the field at Brodhead. There is plenty of camping
>> space. No electrical hookups or waste dumps. There are are showers
>> available and some food service. The walk into town is short to
>> McDonalds, Subway and other places. There is a grocery store and
>> hardware store in town. Brodhead is a very small town and the airport
>> is to the south of the main hwy just west of the McDonalds. This is an
>> informal event, they sell buttons, $5, to help with expenses. There is
>> also a Hatz bi plane flying on the other end of the field. Also there
>> are some mighty nice planes making fuel stops on the way to OSH.
>> Dick N.
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "ldmill" <lorin.miller(at)emerson.com>
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 1:08 PM
>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead visit - help camping??
>>
>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> Folks,
>>> I'm heading to Brodhead this year for the first time. I've volunteered
>>> to help haul camping gear and fuel to Oshkosh for those flying over to
>>> Oshkosh en-mass. I'll be bringing up my enclosed 16' toy hauler for
>>> this.
>>> Question for you - where is a good place to camp at nearby where I can
>>> grab a shower? I don't want to be too far away as loading the trailer
>>> would otherwise be painful.
>>>
>>> Lorin Miller
>>>
>>> lorin.miller(at)emerson.com
>>> 641-485-0840
>>> Sonex/Waiex ~80% done
>>> Piet next up
>>> Colo, Iowa
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251803#251803
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: New builder: An Introduction
From:
"K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net>
Date:
Jul 07, 2009
Alright John... let's not get Ken started on the wrong foot... errr, wing... whatever.
Some of our wives actually LIKE our airplanes. Mine is genuinely looking
forward to Brodhead. She also wants to help, specifically on the engine
rebuild, and is looking forward to a ride one day.
I know it's hard to believe... but I'm sure there are others out there. Maybe
mine will grow tired of the idea at some point, but she was on board at the beginning
and I'll hold her to it if necessary. So far, she's enjoying the adventure
too. Hamburgers, drawings, beer, tools, airplanes, hamburgers, sawdust,
beer, fly-ins, hamburgers, beer, airplane rides, pancakes, airports, hot dogs,
beer... what's not to like?
--------
Mark - working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251943#251943
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: New builder: An Introduction
From:
amsafetyc(at)aol.com
Date:
Jul 07, 2009
Did you say beer?
John
------Original Message------
From: Mark Chunard
Sender: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
ReplyTo: Pietenpol builders Board
Sent: Jul 7, 2009 11:59 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: New builder: An Introduction
Alright John... let's not get Ken started on the wrong foot... errr, wing... whatever.
Some of our wives actually LIKE our airplanes. Mine is genuinely looking
forward to Brodhead. She also wants to help, specifically on the engine
rebuild, and is looking forward to a ride one day.
I know it's hard to believe... but I'm sure there are others out there. Maybe
mine will grow tired of the idea at some point, but she was on board at the beginning
and I'll hold her to it if necessary. So far, she's enjoying the adventure
too. Hamburgers, drawings, beer, tools, airplanes, hamburgers, sawdust,
beer, fly-ins, hamburgers, beer, airplane rides, pancakes, airports, hot dogs,
beer... what's not to like?
--------
Mark - working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251943#251943
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Ed G." <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com>
Subject:
motor mounts
Date:
Jul 07, 2009
I can't believe the time I spent on those lower mounts. I think I ended up
making them three times. The tabs are there to help support the weight of t
he motor without putting all that shear/shock load on the bolts against the
wood so the tabs are a good thing. I origionally welded the tabs together
because I didn't want to drill all those screw holes in that area but got s
o much weld shrinkage that they wouldn't fit over the fuselage without grin
ding away a bunch of wood which I didn't want to do. So I made the next set
one gauge heavier and longer to get an extra bolt through the longeron and
bent the tabs but didn't put screws in them. Then there wasn't enough room
to get sheet metal firewall material between the motor mount and the brack
et so I made another set with 1/4" longer motor mount tabs. I'm not saying
my way is the best way I'm just trying to point out some of the pitfalls to
look out for and maybe save you some time. Ed G.
From: lmforge(at)earthlink.net
Subject: Pietenpol-List: motor mounts
Date: Tue=2C 7 Jul 2009 09:47:15 -0500
I have a question about the lower motor mount fittings that are bolted to t
he lower fuselage longerons. On the original plans=2C Bernard shows two sma
ll tabs that are bent at right angles to the fitting. These are the tabs th
at rest against the firewall. My question is how necessary are they structu
rally? I have some photos of finished Piets where they are not there=2C som
e where the tabs are there=2C but butt welded instead of screwed into the l
ongeron as Bernard shows.
If the upper tab is screwed in place. it will interfere with the upper cros
s bolt. The lower tab screw will be very close to the bottom of the longero
n. On the original plans=2C Bernard must have used wood screws to attach th
e tabs. It appears that on the original=2C these tabs did not add anything
structurally=2C but actually weakened the structure. I realize that welding
the left and right halves of the lower fittings together at the tabs would
be better=2C but is it really necessary?
I have attached a drawing showing the fiiting.
Thanks=2C
Rick Schreiber
_________________________________________________________________
Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that=92s right for you.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Date:
Jul 07, 2009
Subject:
Re: AIrfoil can of worms?
Mr lowell, I appreciate the material sent but I'm a bit slow. Could you
explain a little more in detail those numbers and %s.
Thank you
Corky
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
yExcfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Roman Bukolt <conceptmodels(at)tds.net>
Subject:
Re: Brodhead camping - reunion newbe
Date:
Jul 07, 2009
Here's photo of Brodhead looking north. During the Pietenpol event
only the 09-27 runway is open. That's the tan line just above the
upper group of parked planes. There are two other runways which are
closed ( the big X pattern), This pic was taken during the annual
Midwest Antique Airplane Fly-in. Camping is long that clump of tree
on the left and that area on th right close to the road where you see
the group of buildings. All the buiildings in the center are hangars.
All the ground activities tke place in that area of buildings along
the road on the right.
The city of Brodhead can be seen just above the horizontal strut of
Bill Rewey's Pietenpol.
Jul 7 2009, at 12:14 AM, Mike Simmons wrote:
> >
>
> I am planning to make it to my first Brodhead reunion fairly late
> Friday night/Sat. morning. From searching the archives, sounds like
> it's OK to just find a spot to pitch your tent amongst the others
> and find the bucket for a donation. Is this still true? Is there any
> insight as to where to park or are the instructions pretty clear
> once you get there? Any advice on what to do from some of those
> reunion veterans out there would be much appreciated
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Roman Bukolt <conceptmodels(at)tds.net>
Subject:
Re: New builder: An Introduction
Date:
Jul 07, 2009
Bill Rewey has a widely known reputation for giving rides to wives of
Piet builders.
At the end of their flight, with a wide grin on their faces, the
common first comment they make is, "When are you going to finish
yours, Dear?" So look for Bill's "Navy" Piet.
On Jul 7, 2009, at 10:59 AM, K5YAC wrote:
>
> Alright John... let's not get Ken started on the wrong foot... errr,
> wing... whatever. Some of our wives actually LIKE our airplanes.
> Mine is genuinely looking forward to Brodhead. She also wants to
> help, specifically on the engine rebuild, and is looking forward to
> a ride one day.
>
> I know it's hard to believe... but I'm sure there are others out
> there. Maybe mine will grow tired of the idea at some point, but
> she was on board at the beginning and I'll hold her to it if
> necessary. So far, she's enjoying the adventure too. Hamburgers,
> drawings, beer, tools, airplanes, hamburgers, sawdust, beer, fly-
> ins, hamburgers, beer, airplane rides, pancakes, airports, hot dogs,
> beer... what's not to like?
>
> --------
> Mark - working on wings
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251943#251943
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: motor mounts
Date:
Jul 07, 2009
From:
hvandervoo(at)aol.com
Rick,
I would and did use the tabs, but did not use the screws through them.
These bottom fittings are almost always in compression, in other words; the weight
of the Engine is pushing it against the Firewall.
The tabs take a lot of?load away from the cross bolts, I recommend you leave them
in place but you can omit the screws.
Hans van der Voort
Pietenpol NX15KV
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Schreiber <lmforge(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Tue, Jul 7, 2009 9:47 am
Subject: Pietenpol-List: motor mounts
I have a question about the lower motor mount fittings that are bolted to the lower
fuselage longerons. On the original plans, Bernard shows two small tabs that
are bent at right angles to the fitting. These are the tabs that rest against
the firewall. My question is how necessary are they structurally? I have some
photos of finished Piets where they are not there, some where the tabs are
there, but butt welded instead of screwed into the longeron as Bernard shows.
?
If the upper tab is screwed in place. it will interfere with the upper cross bolt.
The lower tab screw will be very close to the bottom of the longeron. On the
original plans, Bernard must have used wood screws to attach the tabs. It appears
that on the original, these tabs did not add anything structurally, but
actually weakened the structure. I realize that welding the left and right halves
of the lower fittings together at the tabs would be better, but is it really
necessary?
?
