Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-jz
January 10, 2011 - January 16, 2011
anywhere I am so I don't have to deal with any landing trafic when my crank
snaps again!-Just kiddin ya Randy, get her bolted back togeather and get
her to Brodhead this year, We plan on being there.-Shadp.s. Load up you
Continental Moter Co. flying freaks, and let us unarmed Corvair flying rebe
ls have it!
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Charvet <bencharvet(at)gmail.com> |
I'm thinking of replacing my bungees with springs like you have. Did
you make the spring struts yourself, or buy them ready made?
Ben Charvet
NX866BC
On 1/10/2011 5:09 PM, TOM STINEMETZE wrote:
> *Well it's kind of bittersweet since I already know that this set of
> landing gear will have to be rebuilt before the plane gets to move
> much. BUT it's still a grand feeling to have N328X up on its gear at
> last. There is just something about being able to swing a leg up and
> sit with your back firmly settled into the seat and everything
> pointing UP! Now I can start installing a lot of those things that
> have been occupying shelf space and looking for a home.*
> **
> *My wife had to call me in to supper several times before I could
> bring myself to vacate that seat. A'course some of the was due to the
> fact that I couldn't figure out what to grab to get me standing back
> up again.*
> **
> *Ken Perkins hubs and spring shocks; spokes from Buchanans; 19"
> aluminum rims from a local cycle shop; weldable axles from AS&S; brake
> calipers from surplus Honda Shadow; brake disks my design from a local
> machine shop; brake brackets from my son in CA. Truely a "melting
> pot" project. Oh, and my own ugly welding on everything.*
> **
> *Tom Stinemetze*
> *N328X*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Strut Fork End |
I understand the concern. What I don't understand are the ratings for the forks.
If the turnbuckle assembly is rated at 4600#, then every component that makes
up that assembly must be able to handle 4600#. ( Even the brass barrel...which
surprises me. We should use brass bolts everywhere...) According to an earlier
post I submitted, Jack Phillips calculated a 4G fitting load of 3200#.
The 5/16" threaded turnbuckle fork is rated at 4600#, why the need to use something
that is twice as much? (The 7/16" Piper fork)
I don't see a need to use a fitting with twice the load capability over a 4600#
fitting.
Having said all that, there must be reasons everyone uses the Piper fork...I just
don't understand why...because that is just what is used?
As I said there are larger forks...the -80 are rated at 8000#.
I'm not trying to give anyone a hard time here, just trying to understand the logic.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gliderx5(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut) |
I actually tried to determine these numbers a while back and put them on my
web site at http://home.comcast.net/~mmorrison123/wing_loads.html . It's p
robably a goofy thing to read, but I tried to include the effect of an elli
ptical lift distribution, which is what you have with a rectangular wing. A
djusting my numbers up for a 1200 lb airplane at 4 Gs I get about 1760 lbs
on the strut ends. Should be a little more on the front, and a little less
on the rear.
Malcolm Morrison
http://home.comcast.net/~mmorrison123.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 1:09:25 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
Michael, how are you arriving at 1200 lbs per strut at 4 G=99s?
I could see that if your struts were vertical (in line with the lift load).
They are not, and since they are at an angle from the horizontal, each str
ut will see a load equal to the lift load at that point divided by the sine
of the angle. For most Pietenpols, the angle is about 30=C2=B0 and the sin
e of 30=C2=B0 is .50, so if all four struts are carrying a quarter of the t
otal load (they=99re not =93 the front struts tend to carry mor
e than the rears, due to the position of the center of pressure, and the pr
essure distribution curve), and the total load is 4800 lbs, each strut is c
arrying 1200/.5 or 2400 lbs.
Without knowing the pressure distribution on the wing, I would assume for s
afety=99s sake that the front struts are carrying 2/3 of the load and
the rear struts only 1/3. If that is the case, then the load at each front
strut fitting on the wing at 4 g=99s with a 1200 lb gross weight wou
ld be 2/3 (2400) or 1600 lbs. This is assuming that each wing panel is gene
rating half the lift or 2400 lbs, and the centersection is adding nothing,
so again this is a conservative assumption. If the lift load at the front s
trut is 1600 lbs, the load in the strut itself will be twice that (if the a
ngle is 30=C2=B0) or 3200 lbs. Quite a bit different than the 1200 lbs you
were calculating.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP =9CIcarus Plummet=9D
Raleigh , NC
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-lis
t-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Perez
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 11:43 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
I am trying to figure out bolt hole edge spacing for my aluminum wing strut
s. These struts are the small struts from Carlson Aircraft. Doing the math,
from the info. at the site, I get a wall thickness of the strut at .119".
Since the bolt would have to pull through both walls, that number is now .2
38".
I am going to assume that my plane's weight will be 1000# and my weight wil
l be 200#. (I am 165# actually) for total weight of 1200#.
The plans show using a 5/16" bolt. (.3125") 2X bolt diameter minus 1/2 of a
bolt diameter yields a hole edge spacing of .625 - .15625 = .46875"
.46875 X .238 (strut wall thickness) = .1115625 square inches.
.1115625 X 11637 (SHEAR listed on the website for the small strut) = 1298
lbs.
My 1200# plane at 4Gs is 4800#. Each lift strut will see about 1200 lbs eac
h. (?)
My aluminum struts with the 2 diameter bolt edge spacing should be able to
handle 1298 lbs each...which is good for a 1200# plane at 4Gs.
If I use an edge spacing of 1/2" even, then the new number is 1384# per str
ut.
Thanks for any help advice.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
=================
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | V Groah <vgroah(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Strut Fork End |
When in doubt error on the safe side. Your life hangs on those small fitti
ngs. Yes they are expensive=2C we just bought a set last month for our cu
b struts for our piet. Is you life worth a few hundred dollars? Vic in Tu
lare.
> Date: Mon=2C 10 Jan 2011 17:29:07 -0800
> From: speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing Strut Fork End
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
.net>
>
> I understand the concern. What I don't understand are the ratings for the
forks. If the turnbuckle assembly is rated at 4600#=2C then every componen
t that makes up that assembly must be able to handle 4600#. ( Even the bras
s barrel...which surprises me. We should use brass bolts everywhere...) Acc
ording to an earlier post I submitted=2C Jack Phillips calculated a 4G fitt
ing load of 3200#.
>
> The 5/16" threaded turnbuckle fork is rated at 4600#=2C why the need to u
se something that is twice as much? (The 7/16" Piper fork)
>
> I don't see a need to use a fitting with twice the load capability over a
4600# fitting.
>
> Having said all that=2C there must be reasons everyone uses the Piper for
k...I just don't understand why...because that is just what is used?
>
> As I said there are larger forks...the -80 are rated at 8000#.
>
> I'm not trying to give anyone a hard time here=2C just trying to understa
nd the logic.
>
> Michael Perez
> Karetaker Aero
> www.karetakeraero.com
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Strut Fork End |
Remember, that 3200 lbs I calculated had NO safety factor in it. That
means, if you hit a 4 G bump in turbulance and you're flying at gross
weight, you can expect complete failure instantly.
Nobody designs a critical component with no safety factor. There are places
to cut costs, and there are places to be very conservative. This is not a
place to take risks. Even though you fly in Ohio and fields for forced
landings are plentiful, they do no good if you are plunging to earth in your
fuselage, looking up at your wing fluttering down lazily above you, due to
cheap fittings letting go.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Perez
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing Strut Fork End
I understand the concern. What I don't understand are the ratings for the
forks. If the turnbuckle assembly is rated at 4600#, then every component
that makes up that assembly must be able to handle 4600#. ( Even the brass
barrel...which surprises me. We should use brass bolts everywhere...)
According to an earlier post I submitted, Jack Phillips calculated a 4G
fitting load of 3200#.
The 5/16" threaded turnbuckle fork is rated at 4600#, why the need to use
something that is twice as much? (The 7/16" Piper fork)
I don't see a need to use a fitting with twice the load capability over a
4600# fitting.
Having said all that, there must be reasons everyone uses the Piper fork...I
just don't understand why...because that is just what is used?
As I said there are larger forks...the -80 are rated at 8000#.
I'm not trying to give anyone a hard time here, just trying to understand
the logic.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
I used the attached design for mine using die springs that can be ordered
online. Remember to pre-load the spring by half and inch or so.
rick
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Ben Charvet wrote:
> I'm thinking of replacing my bungees with springs like you have. Did you
> make the spring struts yourself, or buy them ready made?
>
> Ben Charvet
> NX866BC
>
> On 1/10/2011 5:09 PM, TOM STINEMETZE wrote:
>
> *Well it's kind of bittersweet since I already know that this set of
> landing gear will have to be rebuilt before the plane gets to move much.
> BUT it's still a grand feeling to have N328X up on its gear at last. There
> is just something about being able to swing a leg up and sit with your back
> firmly settled into the seat and everything pointing UP! Now I can start
> installing a lot of those things that have been occupying shelf space and
> looking for a home.*
> **
> *My wife had to call me in to supper several times before I could bring
> myself to vacate that seat. A'course some of the was due to the fact that I
> couldn't figure out what to grab to get me standing back up again.*
> **
> *Ken Perkins hubs and spring shocks; spokes from Buchanans; 19" aluminum
> rims from a local cycle shop; weldable axles from AS&S; brake calipers from
> surplus Honda Shadow; brake disks my design from a local machine shop; brake
> brackets from my son in CA. Truely a "melting pot" project. Oh, and my own
> ugly welding on everything.*
> **
> *Tom Stinemetze*
> *N328X*
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut) |
What in your math is different then Jack's 3200? Your numbers are quite different?
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
--- On Mon, 1/10/11, gliderx5(at)comcast.net wrote:
> From: gliderx5(at)comcast.net <gliderx5(at)comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Monday, January 10, 2011, 8:43 PM
> #yiv909872567 p
> {margin:0;}I
> actually tried to determine these numbers a while back and
> put them on my web site at
> http://home.comcast.net/~mmorrison123/wing_loads.html
> . It's probably a goofy thing to read, but I tried
> to include the effect of an elliptical lift distribution,
> which is what you have with a rectangular wing.
> Adjusting my numbers up for a 1200 lb airplane at 4 Gs I get
> about 1760 lbs on the strut ends. Should be a little
> more on the front, and a little less on the rear.
>
> Malcolm Morrison
> http://home.comcast.net/~mmorrison123.html
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jack Phillips"
>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 1:09:25 PM
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math
> (alum.wing strut)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael,
> how are you arriving at 1200 lbs
> per strut at 4 Gs?
>
>
>
> I could
> see that if your struts were
> vertical (in line with the lift load). They are not,
> and since they are at an
> angle from the horizontal, each strut will see a load equal
> to the lift load at
> that point divided by the sine of the angle. For most
> Pietenpols, the angle is
> about 30 and the sine of 30 is .50, so if all four
> struts are carrying a
> quarter of the total load (theyre not the front
> struts tend to
> carry more than the rears, due to the position of the
> center of pressure, and
> the pressure distribution curve), and the total load is
> 4800 lbs, each strut is
> carrying 1200/.5 or 2400 lbs.
>
>
>
> Without
> knowing the pressure distribution
> on the wing, I would assume for safetys sake that the
> front struts are
> carrying 2/3 of the load and the rear struts only
> 1/3. If that is the case,
> then the load at each front strut fitting on the wing at 4
> gs with a
> 1200 lb gross weight would be 2/3 (2400) or 1600 lbs.
> This is assuming that
> each wing panel is generating half the lift or 2400 lbs,
> and the centersection
> is adding nothing, so again this is a conservative
> assumption. If the lift
> load at the front strut is 1600 lbs, the load in the strut
> itself will be twice
> that (if the angle is 30) or 3200 lbs. Quite a bit
> different than the 1200
> lbs you were calculating.
>
>
>
> Jack
> Phillips
>
> NX899JP
> Icarus Plummet
>
> Raleigh,
> NC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Michael Perez
>
> Sent: Monday,
> January 10, 2011
> 11:43 AM
>
> To:
> pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
> Subject:
> Pietenpol-List: Please
> Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am trying to
> figure out bolt hole edge spacing for
> my aluminum wing struts. These struts are the small
> struts from Carlson
> Aircraft. Doing the math, from the info. at the
> site, I get a wall
> thickness of the strut at .119". Since the
> bolt would have to pull
> through both walls, that number is now .238".
>
>
>
> I am going to assume that my plane's weight will be
> 1000# and my weight will
> be 200#. (I am 165# actually) for total weight of 1200#.
>
>
>
> The plans show using a 5/16" bolt.
> (.3125") 2X bolt diameter
> minus 1/2 of a bolt diameter yields a hole edge spacing
> of .625 -
> .15625 = .46875"
>
>
>
> .46875 X .238 (strut wall thickness) = .1115625 square
> inches.
>
>
>
> .1115625 X 11637 (SHEAR listed on the website for the
> small strut) = 1298
> lbs.
>
>
>
> My 1200# plane at 4Gs is 4800#. Each lift strut will see
> about 1200 lbs each.
> (?)
>
>
>
> My aluminum struts with the 2 diameter bolt edge spacing
> should be able to
> handle 1298 lbs each...which is good for a 1200# plane at
> 4Gs.
>
>
>
> If I use an edge spacing of 1/2" even, then the new
> number is 1384# per
> strut.
>
>
>
> Thanks for any help advice.
>
>
>
> Michael Perez
>
> Karetaker Aero
>
> www.karetakeraero.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Strut Fork End |
I understand what everyone is saying...stop screwing around and use what is known
to work. But No one has explained why the fittings I propose are not a good
substitute. If the strength is there, then why not? I don't believe that even
the -80 fittings, (8000# rating) are not good enough. What if there were another
fork available, rated at say, 5000# and it was called a wing strut fork...would
any one have an issue then?
Again, sorry for the rant.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
--- On Mon, 1/10/11, Jack Phillips wrote:
> From: Jack Phillips <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing Strut Fork End
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Monday, January 10, 2011, 9:00 PM
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted
> by: "Jack Phillips"
>
> Remember, that 3200 lbs I calculated had NO safety factor
> in it. That
> means, if you hit a 4 G bump in turbulance and you're
> flying at gross
> weight, you can expect complete failure instantly.
>
> Nobody designs a critical component with no safety
> factor. There are places
> to cut costs, and there are places to be very
> conservative. This is not a
> place to take risks. Even though you fly in Ohio and
> fields for forced
> landings are plentiful, they do no good if you are plunging
> to earth in your
> fuselage, looking up at your wing fluttering down lazily
> above you, due to
> cheap fittings letting go.
>
> Jack Phillips
> NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
> Raleigh, NC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Michael
> Perez
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 8:29 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing Strut Fork End
>
>
>
> I understand the concern. What I don't understand are the
> ratings for the
> forks. If the turnbuckle assembly is rated at 4600#, then
> every component
> that makes up that assembly must be able to handle 4600#. (
> Even the brass
> barrel...which surprises me. We should use brass bolts
> everywhere...)
> According to an earlier post I submitted, Jack Phillips
> calculated a 4G
> fitting load of 3200#.
>
> The 5/16" threaded turnbuckle fork is rated at 4600#, why
> the need to use
> something that is twice as much? (The 7/16" Piper fork)
>
> I don't see a need to use a fitting with twice the load
> capability over a
> 4600# fitting.
>
> Having said all that, there must be reasons everyone uses
> the Piper fork...I
> just don't understand why...because that is just what is
> used?
>
> As I said there are larger forks...the -80 are rated at
> 8000#.
>
> I'm not trying to give anyone a hard time here, just trying
> to understand
> the logic.
>
> Michael Perez
> Karetaker Aero
> www.karetakeraero.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack" <jack(at)textors.com> |
Rick,
You mentioned pre-load=85do you mean compress the spring =BD inch when
assembled? For my springs that would be a bunch of pressure.
Thanks,
Jack
DSM
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Holland
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: LG at last
I used the attached design for mine using die springs that can be
ordered
online. Remember to pre-load the spring by half and inch or so.
rick
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Ben Charvet
wrote:
I'm thinking of replacing my bungees with springs like you have. Did
you
make the spring struts yourself, or buy them ready made?
Ben Charvet
NX866BC
On 1/10/2011 5:09 PM, TOM STINEMETZE wrote:
Well it's kind of bittersweet since I already know that this set of
landing
gear will have to be rebuilt before the plane gets to move much. BUT
it's
still a grand feeling to have N328X up on its gear at last. There is
just
something about being able to swing a leg up and sit with your back
firmly
settled into the seat and everything pointing UP! Now I can start
installing a lot of those things that have been occupying shelf space
and
looking for a home.
My wife had to call me in to supper several times before I could bring
myself to vacate that seat. A'course some of the was due to the fact
that I
couldn't figure out what to grab to get me standing back up again.
Ken Perkins hubs and spring shocks; spokes from Buchanans; 19" aluminum
rims
from a local cycle shop; weldable axles from AS&S; brake calipers from
surplus Honda Shadow; brake disks my design from a local machine shop;
brake
brackets from my son in CA. Truely a "melting pot" project. Oh, and my
own
ugly welding on everything.
Tom Stinemetze
N328X
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Strut Fork End |
The cub forks I have, cheap from ebay by the way, do
not have any narrow shaft between the threaded portion
and the head. We all are concentrating on tension but
what about compression? With even a slight misalignment
that narrow shaft is more prone to bend under G loads.
And we are not working to 10 to the fifth decimal points
here are we so there are misalignments. And not necessarily
in the strut assembly itself.
Clif
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to
add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
> I understand what everyone is saying...stop screwing around and use what
> is known to work. But No one has explained why the fittings I propose are
> not a good substitute. > Again, sorry for the rant.
>
> Michael Perez
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing Strut Fork End |
| From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
Michael,
Did you read Jack's post?
He clearly stated that the forces he referred to, for a 4G loading, did NOT include
any Factor of Safety. For an item such as this, where a failure would be
catastrophic (i.e. you, as pilot, along with any passenger will most likely die
as a result of failure) it would be prudent to allow a Factor of Safety of 3.
That means that you figure out the maximum loading likely to occur during normal
use, and then multiply by the Factor of Safety. This is to account for things
as manufacturing errors, or hidden flaws in the materials, or sudden, unexpected
excessive forces, etc. So, in this case, the calculated maximum load is
3200 lb - multiplied by the Factor of Safety, will give you a Design load of
about 10,000 lb.
Does that count as an explanation?
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326434#326434
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "kevinpurtee" <kevin.purtee(at)us.army.mil> |
I used Hans' spring design verbatim. Simple and easy to fabricate. Works well
on mine and I think he's happy with his. His drawings should be in the archives.
Gravity does the pre-loading:).
Kevin
--------
Kevin "Axel" Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326438#326438
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Corvair Challenges and 5th Bearing |
| From: | "kevinpurtee" <kevin.purtee(at)us.army.mil> |
It's all good!
Rick - I got the heads done by a shop in Houston. He was recommended by the local
CORSA tech counselor. Don't think Falcon was even part of the vocabulary
way back then. Are they the shop of choice, now?
Kevin
--------
Kevin "Axel" Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326440#326440
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gliderx5(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut) |
It has to do with the distribution of lift. More lift is generated from the
inboard section of the wing than the outboard sections. As a result there
is less torque upward on the outer wing panels than if the lift was equal a
ll of the way across the wing. This means that there is less force imposed
on the lift strut. Let me caution you a little in that I am a software engi
neer with great interest in aviation, NOT a mechanical or aerospace enginee
r, so I could be full of crap! But, I have friends that are aeronautical en
gineers and I have run this by them. Someone could argue the numbers, but i
t should be very close.
Malcolm Morrison
http://home.comcast.net/~mmorrison123/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Perez" <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 9:38:03 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
et>
What in your math is different then Jack's 3200? Your numbers are quite dif
ferent?
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
--- On Mon, 1/10/11, gliderx5(at)comcast.net wrote:
> From: gliderx5(at)comcast.net <gliderx5(at)comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Monday, January 10, 2011, 8:43 PM
> #yiv909872567 p
> {margin:0;}I
> actually tried to determine these numbers a while back and
> put them on my web site at
> http://home.comcast.net/~mmorrison123/wing_loads.html
> . It's probably a goofy thing to read, but I tried
> to include the effect of an elliptical lift distribution,
> which is what you have with a rectangular wing.
> Adjusting my numbers up for a 1200 lb airplane at 4 Gs I get
> about 1760 lbs on the strut ends. Should be a little
> more on the front, and a little less on the rear.
>
> Malcolm Morrison
> http://home.comcast.net/~mmorrison123.html
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jack Phillips"
>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 1:09:25 PM
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math
> (alum.wing strut)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael,
> how are you arriving at 1200 lbs
> per strut at 4 G=99s?
>
>
>
> I could
> see that if your struts were
> vertical (in line with the lift load). They are not,
> and since they are at an
> angle from the horizontal, each strut will see a load equal
> to the lift load at
> that point divided by the sine of the angle. For most
> Pietenpols, the angle is
> about 30=C2=B0 and the sine of 30=C2=B0 is .50, so if all four
> struts are carrying a
> quarter of the total load (they=99re not =93 the front
> struts tend to
> carry more than the rears, due to the position of the
> center of pressure, and
> the pressure distribution curve), and the total load is
> 4800 lbs, each strut is
> carrying 1200/.5 or 2400 lbs.
>
>
>
> Without
> knowing the pressure distribution
> on the wing, I would assume for safety=99s sake that the
> front struts are
> carrying 2/3 of the load and the rear struts only
> 1/3. If that is the case,
> then the load at each front strut fitting on the wing at 4
> g=99s with a
> 1200 lb gross weight would be 2/3 (2400) or 1600 lbs.
> This is assuming that
> each wing panel is generating half the lift or 2400 lbs,
> and the centersection
> is adding nothing, so again this is a conservative
> assumption. If the lift
> load at the front strut is 1600 lbs, the load in the strut
> itself will be twice
> that (if the angle is 30=C2=B0) or 3200 lbs. Quite a bit
> different than the 1200
> lbs you were calculating.
>
>
>
> Jack
> Phillips
>
> NX899JP
> =9CIcarus Plummet=9D
>
> Raleigh,
> NC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Michael Perez
>
> Sent: Monday,
> January 10, 2011
> 11:43 AM
>
> To:
> pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
> Subject:
> Pietenpol-List: Please
> Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am trying to
> figure out bolt hole edge spacing for
> my aluminum wing struts. These struts are the small
> struts from Carlson
> Aircraft. Doing the math, from the info. at the
> site, I get a wall
> thickness of the strut at .119". Since the
> bolt would have to pull
> through both walls, that number is now .238".
>
>
>
> I am going to assume that my plane's weight will be
> 1000# and my weight will
> be 200#. (I am 165# actually) for total weight of 1200#.
>
>
>
> The plans show using a 5/16" bolt.
> (.3125") 2X bolt diameter
> minus 1/2 of a bolt diameter yields a hole edge spacing
> of .625 -
> .15625 = .46875"
>
>
>
> .46875 X .238 (strut wall thickness) = .1115625 square
> inches.
>
>
>
> .1115625 X 11637 (SHEAR listed on the website for the
> small strut) = 1298
> lbs.
>
>
>
> My 1200# plane at 4Gs is 4800#. Each lift strut will see
> about 1200 lbs each.
> (?)
>
>
>
> My aluminum struts with the 2 diameter bolt edge spacing
> should be able to
> handle 1298 lbs each...which is good for a 1200# plane at
> 4Gs.
>
>
>
> If I use an edge spacing of 1/2" even, then the new
> number is 1384# per
> strut.
>
>
>
> Thanks for any help advice.
>
>
>
> Michael Perez
>
> Karetaker Aero
>
> www.karetakeraero.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ernie Moreno" <ewmoreno(at)minetfiber.com> |
Had a conversation with my steel tube supplier today. For the record, my
supplier is Tube Service in Portland Or. They advised me that there is
4130 Chromoly Steel available US made. It is available through a company
called Wesco (is somewhere in Southern Calif.) and from Plymouth (in
Arizona). From past experience I know that Plymouth does aluminium
tubing also. My supplier agreed to replace all the Chinese tubing with
made in USA tubing for no change in price. A great company. For the
record I and four other individuals are building full size DH-2's. Using
the basic Pietenpol specs on the gear, Ken Perkins hubs, 21"wheels with
21x3.25 tires.
Ernie Moreno
Piet 2431
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut) |
Attached is the lift distribution chart for hershey bar wings in the
aspect ratio
range of the Piet wing. From this you can deduce that there is only a
small
portion of the lift supported by the cabanes. Therefore, the majority of
lift is handled by the struts. It's all in the archives, back there
somewhere. :-)
Also, my understanding is that one designs and builds to a safety factor
of 1.5. So if an AC is placarded at 4G then it will go to 6 before
failure.
Clif
It has to do with the distribution of lift. More lift is generated
from the inboard section of the wing than the outboard sections. As a
result there is less torque upward on the outer wing panels than if the
lift was equal all of the way across the wing. This means that there is
less force imposed on the lift strut. Malcolm Morrison
http://home.comcast.net/~mmorrison123/
What in your math is different then Jack's 3200? Your numbers are
quite different?
Michael Perez
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut) |
This is spanwise lift. What I was trying to approximate is the
chordwise
pressure distribution ' that will determine how much load is carried
by the
front strut compared to the rear strut. Since the center of pressure is
located very close to the center of gravity (and hopefully a little bit
forward of it, unless the plane is too tail-heavy), it is loacted very
close
to the front spar, which means the front spar carries the lion=92s share
of
the lift load. My guess was that it carrries 2/3 of the load and the
rear
spars only 1/3, but this is only a GUESS. It may be carrying much more
of
the load than that. It might be carrying =BE of the load.
Because you don=92t know, you look at what has worked in the past. If
you
were a real aircraft factory, the prudent thing to do would be to build
the
plane with turnbuckle fittings, and then intentionally load it until it
breaks and see what that value was. Then divide that value by 1.5 and
call
that your max safe G load.
In Michael=92s case, the best thing to do is to build his plane with the
cheap
fittings, then load it to gross weight and subject it to maneuvers which
induce 6 G=92s and see if he dies in the test. If he doesn=92t die,
then it was
OK.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP =93Icarus Plummet=94
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clif
Dawson
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 4:35 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
Attached is the lift distribution chart for hershey bar wings in the
aspect
ratio
range of the Piet wing. From this you can deduce that there is only a
small
portion of the lift supported by the cabanes. Therefore, the majority of
lift is handled by the struts. It's all in the archives, back there
somewhere. :-)
Also, my understanding is that one designs and builds to a safety factor
of 1.5. So if an AC is placarded at 4G then it will go to 6 before
failure.
Clif
It has to do with the distribution of lift. More lift is generated from
the
inboard section of the wing than the outboard sections. As a result
there
is less torque upward on the outer wing panels than if the lift was
equal
all of the way across the wing. This means that there is less force
imposed
on the lift strut. Malcolm Morrison
http://home.comcast.net/~mmorrison123/
What in your math is different then Jack's 3200? Your numbers are quite
different?
Michael Perez
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing Strut Fork End |
| From: | helspersew(at)aol.com |
Michael,
If you are hell-bent on trying them, then do so. Nobody is going to stop yo
u, and you can prove us all wrong.....................until the end.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Mon, Jan 10, 2011 8:50 pm
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing Strut Fork End
et>
I understand what everyone is saying...stop screwing around and use what is
nown to work. But No one has explained why the fittings I propose are not a
ood substitute. If the strength is there, then why not? I don't believe tha
t
ven the -80 fittings, (8000# rating) are not good enough. What if there wer
e
nother fork available, rated at say, 5000# and it was called a wing strut
ork...would any one have an issue then?
Again, sorry for the rant.
ichael Perez
aretaker Aero
ww.karetakeraero.com
-- On Mon, 1/10/11, Jack Phillips wrote:
> From: Jack Phillips <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing Strut Fork End
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Monday, January 10, 2011, 9:00 PM
--> Pietenpol-List message posted
by: "Jack Phillips"
Remember, that 3200 lbs I calculated had NO safety factor
in it. That
means, if you hit a 4 G bump in turbulance and you're
flying at gross
weight, you can expect complete failure instantly.
Nobody designs a critical component with no safety
factor. There are places
to cut costs, and there are places to be very
conservative. This is not a
place to take risks. Even though you fly in Ohio and
fields for forced
landings are plentiful, they do no good if you are plunging
to earth in your
fuselage, looking up at your wing fluttering down lazily
above you, due to
cheap fittings letting go.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]
On Behalf Of Michael
Perez
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 8:29 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing Strut Fork End
I understand the concern. What I don't understand are the
ratings for the
forks. If the turnbuckle assembly is rated at 4600#, then
every component
that makes up that assembly must be able to handle 4600#. (
Even the brass
barrel...which surprises me. We should use brass bolts
everywhere...)
According to an earlier post I submitted, Jack Phillips
calculated a 4G
fitting load of 3200#.
The 5/16" threaded turnbuckle fork is rated at 4600#, why
the need to use
something that is twice as much? (The 7/16" Piper fork)
I don't see a need to use a fitting with twice the load
capability over a
4600# fitting.
Having said all that, there must be reasons everyone uses
the Piper fork...I
just don't understand why...because that is just what is
used?
As I said there are larger forks...the -80 are rated at
8000#.
I'm not trying to give anyone a hard time here, just trying
to understand
the logic.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
Email Forum -
FAQ,
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt
Dralle, List Admin.
-========================
-= - The Pietenpol-List Email Forum -
-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
-= Photoshare, and much much more:
-
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
-
-========================
-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-= Same great content also available via the 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
-========================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | EDWARD BARCHIK <EBARCHIK(at)berwicksd.org> |
Rick, This is a woodshop class. The students are 3rd and 4th year students,
Juniors and Seniors. We hope to complete project in spring 2012. Ed
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [owner-pietenpol-list-serve
r(at)matronics.com] on behalf of Rick Holland [at7000ft(at)gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tail wheel
That's the same one I have Charles. Used with a used J3 two piece leaf spri
ng I got off ebay.
rick
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Charles Campbell > wrote:
Rick, what model Matco tailwheel did you use? I am thinking about a Matco
WHLT-6. The specs say it has an operating load of 450#.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland<mailto:at7000ft(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tail wheel
I used a Matco, much lighter and cheaper than a Scott:
http://www.matcomfg.com/TailWheelAssemblies-tp2-13.html
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Earnest Bunbury > wrote:
We've used both a Maule and a Scott, both 6-in., full-swivel, steerable, wi
th detent. The Scott came with the plane and was a bit squirrelly. The Maul
e was a gift from one of the guys at the field. It works "better" but both
of them are heavy and way over-engineered for the purpose. If you're going
with a new set-up, I would buy the lightest that can handle the load or bui
ld from scratch. There are some cool solutions out there, some of which are
shown at westcoastpiet, as Kevin mentioned.
What sort of class are the kids in? Is this a shop class or an aviation-ori
ented class?
Good luck and keep us updated!
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com<http://forums.matronics.com>
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
Email secured by Check Point
________________________________
This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of th
e individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information
that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product
. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any u
se, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strict
ly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, notify us
immediately by telephone and (i) destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii
) delete this message immediately if this is an electronic communication.
Thank you. Berwick Area School District
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack" <jack(at)textors.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Strut Fork End |
Just to be sure what we are discussing, the AN 665-80RA (picture is a 21) is
a no-no for wing struts.
Jack
DSM
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
helspersew(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 6:25 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing Strut Fork End
Michael,
If you are hell-bent on trying them, then do so. Nobody is going to stop
you, and you can prove us all wrong.....................until the end.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Mon, Jan 10, 2011 8:50 pm
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing Strut Fork End
I understand what everyone is saying...stop screwing around and use what is
known to work. But No one has explained why the fittings I propose are not a
good substitute. If the strength is there, then why not? I don't believe
that
even the -80 fittings, (8000# rating) are not good enough. What if there
were
another fork available, rated at say, 5000# and it was called a wing strut
fork...would any one have an issue then?
Again, sorry for the rant.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com <http://www.karetakeraero.com/>
--- On Mon, 1/10/11, Jack Phillips wrote:
> From: Jack Phillips <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing Strut Fork End
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Monday, January 10, 2011, 9:00 PM
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted
> by: "Jack Phillips"
>
> Remember, that 3200 lbs I calculated had NO safety factor
> in it. That
> means, if you hit a 4 G bump in turbulance and you're
> flying at gross
> weight, you can expect complete failure instantly.
>
> Nobody designs a critical component with no safety
> factor. There are places
> to cut costs, and there are places to be very
> conservative. This is not a
> place to take risks. Even though you fly in Ohio and
> fields for forced
> landings are plentiful, they do no good if you are plunging
> to earth in your
> fuselage, looking up at your wing fluttering down lazily
> above you, due to
> cheap fittings letting go.
>
> Jack Phillips
> NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
> Raleigh, NC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
]
> On Behalf Of Michael
> Perez
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 8:29 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing Strut Fork End
>
>
>
> I understand the concern. What I don't understand are the
> ratings for the
> forks. If the turnbuckle assembly is rated at 4600#, then
> every component
> that makes up that assembly must be able to handle 4600#. (
> Even the brass
> barrel...which surprises me. We should use brass bolts
> everywhere...)
> According to an earlier post I submitted, Jack Phillips
> calculated a 4G
> fitting load of 3200#.
>
> The 5/16" threaded turnbuckle fork is rated at 4600#, why
> the need to use
> something that is twice as much? (The 7/16" Piper fork)
>
> I don't see a need to use a fitting with twice the load
> capability over a
> 4600# fitting.
>
> Having said all that, there must be reasons everyone uses
> the Piper fork...I
> just don't understand why...because that is just what is
> used?
>
> As I said there are larger forks...the -80 are rated at
> 8000#.
>
> I'm not trying to give anyone a hard time here, just trying
> to understand
> the logic.
>
> Michael Perez
> Karetaker Aero
> www.karetakeraero.com <http://www.karetakeraero.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
p://forums.matronics.com
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pineymb" <airltd(at)mts.net> |
The setup I used was a Matco tailwheel AS&S PN# 06-01615 and single leaf spring
PN# 06-14500. Untested but I think will work fine and relatively inexpensive.
--------
Adrian M
Winnipeg, MB
Canada
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326471#326471
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dscn0057_988.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc00081_959.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Strut Fork End |
Ah, yeah, I read all posts related to my original question. This safety factor
of 3, is that a standard factor or a number you came up with Bill?
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut) |
Thanks Cliff. My understanding as with you, (and I BELIEVE the way things a
re designed here at work) is to use a safety factor of 1.5. That is why I q
uestioned the factor of 3 posted earlier.
Using my original post and Jack P's calculated 3200# with a safety factor o
f 1.5 that would be 4800#.
Anyone know of a Pietenpol seeing 6 Gs?
Michael Perez
=0AKaretaker Aero
=0Awww.karetakeraero.com
--- On Tue, 1/11/11, Clif Dawson wrote:
From: Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 4:34 AM
=EF=BB=0A=0A =0A#yiv805611046 P {=0AMARGIN:0px;}=0A=0A=0AAttached is the
lift distribution chart for hershey bar =0Awings in the aspect ratio=0Aran
ge of the Piet wing. From this you can deduce that =0Athere is only a small
=0Aportion of the lift supported by the cabanes. Therefore, =0Athe majority
of=0Alift is handled by the struts. It's all in the archives, =0Aback ther
e somewhere. :-)=0A=C2-=0AAlso, my understanding is that one designs and
builds to a =0Asafety factor=0Aof 1.5. So if an AC is placarded at 4G then
it will go to =0A6 before failure.=0A=C2-=0AClif=0A=0A
=0A It has to do =0A with the distribution of lift.=C2- More lift is ge
nerated from the inboard =0A section of the wing than the outboard section
s.=C2- As a result there is =0A less torque upward on the outer wing pan
els than if the lift was equal all of =0A the way across the wing.=C2- T
his means that there is less force imposed on =0A the lift strut.=C2- Ma
lcolm Morrison
http://home.comcast.net/~mmorrison123/
=0A What in your =0A math is different then Jack's 3200? Your numbers are
quite =0A different?
Michael Perez
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Strut Fork End |
Negative. Turnbuckle assemblies.The -46 are rated at 4600#, the -61 at 6100# and
the -80 at 8000#. Each component in those assemblies must be rated at least
as good as the entire assembly. So the AN 161 forks, the -80 are rated to 8000#.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Strut Fork End |
I see the points of a few on this list and laugh at some of the others, but
I appreciate those who take the time to explain their points of view and t
ake the time to listen to mine. I may ask around here at work and what peop
le think. If I find any good intell. along the way, I'll post it.
By the way, anyone know what the Piper forks are rated at? What material? I
could not find anything on them.-
Michael Perez
=0AKaretaker Aero
=0Awww.karetakeraero.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing Strut Fork End |
| From: | Ryan Mueller <rmueller23(at)gmail.com> |
It has been explained to you why you should use purpose built wing struts
forks. Use the right tool for the right job. And you use the right tool for
the right job because you want to go out and safely fly and enjoy your
airplane without having to be concerned about ending up as a smoking hole in
the ground, leaving your wife a widower and your children fatherless.....or
god forbid hurt anyone else. Any obsession with making your Piet the
"snowflakiest" of them all should not trump safety.
Just do it right.....so we can drop this discussion already. :)
Ryan
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Michael Perez wrote:
> speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
>
> I'm not trying to give anyone a hard time here, just trying to understand
> the logic.
>
> Michael Perez
> Karetaker Aero
> www.karetakeraero.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "TOM STINEMETZE" <TOMS(at)mcpcity.com> |
Ben:
I purchased the spring struts with springs from Ken Perkins in Olathe, KS.
They came with the fork made up on one end. You adjust to the length
needed and make your own fork on the opposite end. Takes a mighty good
vice or other type of compressive device to squeeze the die springs
sufficiently to assemble them. I could not tell that they compressed at
all with me sitting in the plane and no engine on the front.
Tom
N328X
>>> Ben Charvet 1/10/2011 7:07 PM >>>
I'm thinking of replacing my bungees with springs like you have. Did you
make the spring struts yourself, or buy them ready made?
Ben Charvet
NX866BC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing Strut Fork End |
| From: | Ryan Mueller <rmueller23(at)gmail.com> |
Give Wag-Aero a call, they manufacture them:
http://www.wagaero.com/contact.html
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Michael Perez wrote:
> I see the points of a few on this list and laugh at some of the others, but
> I appreciate those who take the time to explain their points of view and
> take the time to listen to mine. I may ask around here at work and what
> people think. If I find any good intell. along the way, I'll post it.
>
> By the way, anyone know what the Piper forks are rated at? What material? I
> could not find anything on them.
>
> Michael Perez
> Karetaker Aero
> www.karetakeraero.com
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Strut Fork End |
While we're on this topic, does anyone know of a way to make wooden lift
struts adjustable? I'm going to make mine from some # of laminations,
with at least one layer of carbon fiber strands within the full strut,
and probably cross-wise layerings for extra reinforcement at the ends
(still figuring out the details, but similar to what Jim Markle did on
his cabana struts). =46rom the images I've found on various people's
sites so far, it looks like the only option for adjustment would be to
remake the terminal fittings, and I imagine there's a practical length
limit with regard to twisting loads (?) on those. If adjustment is
difficult or impossible (short of making new struts), I'd think I'd want
to put this off until just about everything else is completed and I'm
working on the initial rigging of the completed wings?
Any comments? Thanks!
Kip Gardner
On Jan 11, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Ryan Mueller wrote:
> Give Wag-Aero a call, they manufacture them:
>
> http://www.wagaero.com/contact.html
>
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Michael Perez
wrote:
> I see the points of a few on this list and laugh at some of the
others, but I appreciate those who take the time to explain their points
of view and take the time to listen to mine. I may ask around here at
work and what people think. If I find any good intell. along the way,
I'll post it.
>
> By the way, anyone know what the Piper forks are rated at? What
material? I could not find anything on them.
>
> Michael Perez
> Karetaker Aero
> www.karetakeraero.com
>
>
>
>
> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing Strut Fork End |
| From: | hvandervoo(at)aol.com |
There are 3 factors that decide selection of the Fork-end of the main strut
:
1) tension load, easily understood and both J-3 fork end and a Turnbuckle s
tyle fork can handle the required load.
2) compression load, often over looked but flying in turbulence often exper
ienced, J-3 fork can handle this, Turnbuckle style can not.
Remember that turnbuckles are designed for cable use, no compression loads
there.
3) overlooked even more often is thread strength, diameter & length.
For a steel fork end to work as designed the diameter should be same a as t
he height of the nut insert (nut part to be of the same material)
In other words a 5/16 Fork tread needs to have 5/16 nut height, if you tap
in to the strut your tread dept needs to be at least 5/16.
Note: nut/ strut threads of the same steel material, more length is always
better, rolled threads are better than cut/ tapped threads.
I use the J-3 style fork end with steel struts and the weld-in treaded purp
ose build nut insert.
Now if you choose to use aluminum struts and tap your own treads be aware t
hat aluminum has a lower tensile strength than steel.
So compensate by tapping a deep/ long thread in to the best aluminum you ca
n get.
Your fork tread might not be long enough.
You might need to consider a steel insert.
Turnbuckles assemblies with brass center piece use the same principle, the
tread depth is much longer ( 6-8 X ) than the diameter of the tread.
I did not sleep in a Holiday-inn express last night, but am a mechanical en
gineer by profession
Hans
NX15KV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DOMIT" <rx7_ragtop(at)yahoo.com> |
VERY COOL! What are you powering them with? How far along are you? Got pics?
I'm currently messing with plans (with a highly qualified professional doing all
the real brain-work... I just throw ideas at him and see what sticks!) for
a 75% scale Albatros. Current plan is to use a Model A (or B) with some "power
enhancement" (Not just a stock engine!) for power.
--------
Brad "DOMIT" Smith
First rule of ground school: This is the ground... don't hit it going fast.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326503#326503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | hvandervoo(at)aol.com |
You need to preload a little, 1/2 - 1/4 inch
Or landing gear will be ratteling in the breeze up there.
Hans
NX15KV
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack <jack(at)textors.com>
Sent: Mon, Jan 10, 2011 9:33 pm
Subject: RE: Re: Pietenpol-List: LG at last
Rick,
You mentioned pre-loaddo you mean compress the spring =C2=BD inch
when assembled? For my springs that would be a bunch of pressure.
Thanks,
Jack
DSM
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-lis
t-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Holland
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: LG at last
I used the attached design for mine using die springs that can be ordered o
nline. Remember to pre-load the spring by half and inch or so.
rick
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Ben Charvet wrote:
I'm thinking of replacing my bungees with springs like you have. Did you m
ake the spring struts yourself, or buy them ready made?
Ben Charvet
NX866BC
On 1/10/2011 5:09 PM, TOM STINEMETZE wrote:
Well it's kind of bittersweet since I already know that this set of landing
gear will have to be rebuilt before the plane gets to move much. BUT it's
still a grand feeling to have N328X up on its gear at last. There is just
something about being able to swing a leg up and sit with your back firmly
settled into the seat and everything pointing UP! Now I can start install
ing a lot of those things that have been occupying shelf space and looking
for a home.
My wife had to call me in to supper several times before I could bring myse
lf to vacate that seat. A'course some of the was due to the fact that I co
uldn't figure out what to grab to get me standing back up again.
Ken Perkins hubs and spring shocks; spokes from Buchanans; 19" aluminum rim
s from a local cycle shop; weldable axles from AS&S; brake calipers from su
rplus Honda Shadow; brake disks my design from a local machine shop; brake
brackets from my son in CA. Truely a "melting pot" project. Oh, and my ow
n ugly welding on everything.
Tom Stinemetze
N328X
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
-= - The Pietenpol-List Email Forum -
-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
-= Photoshare, and much much more:
-
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
-
-========================
-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-= Same great content also available via the 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
-========================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
This last issue of the BPA (Brodhead Pietenpol Association) newsletter was
excellent. Not only was William Wynn's article great, but Frank Pavliga's
was excellent too as he brings us through the evolution of 899FP with three
different engines, very insightful!!
Let's all support the BPA's efforts and simply join up and get ALL the great
articles throughout the year.
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | shad bell <aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair Valve issue |
Kevin, Check the intake valves for lead build up, (it might help)-we have
had this a couple times with 100 LL.- We were able to lap the valve with
out pulling the head, thru the spark plug hole.- Just need to pull the va
lve keeper off and get some valve compound.- Are you still planning on go
ing to Brodhead this year?- Looking forward to meeting the Mighty Axle Pu
rtee, and his Fat Bottom Girl.
-
Shad
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com> |
Looks great Tom... maybe a tad taller than mine. What a great feeling for you!
I've come very close to pulling my bungees and replacing with springs. But,
I think I finally found a way to get the bungees tight enough with a come-along...
and lots of cussing.
Don Emch
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326509#326509
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Hole Depth for Piper fork |
Since I will be welding my steel straps onto my landing gear fittings, I need to
pre-drill the hole for the wing strut fork. How deep from the edge of the fitting
does the hole need to be so that the Piper fork will fit? I assume the standard
2X bolt diameter will work, but I want to be sure prior to drilling and
welding.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Dever <chiefpepperhead(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut) |
The center of pressure moves quite a bit with angle of attack also. At a 0
or slightly negative angle of attack the load may approach 50/50 and at a
high angle of attack may approach 95% being carried by the front spar. Cen
ter of pressure movement varies with airfoil shape too. Too many variables
for me to fool with.
Doug Dever
In beautiful Stow Ohio
From: pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
Date: Tue=2C 11 Jan 2011 07:06:54 -0500
This is spanwise lift. What I was trying to approximate is the chordwise p
ressure distribution ' that will determine how much load is carried by th
e front strut compared to the rear strut. Since the center of pressure is
located very close to the center of gravity (and hopefully a little bit for
ward of it=2C unless the plane is too tail-heavy)=2C it is loacted very clo
se to the front spar=2C which means the front spar carries the lion=92s sha
re of the lift load. My guess was that it carrries 2/3 of the load and the
rear spars only 1/3=2C but this is only a GUESS. It may be carrying much
more of the load than that. It might be carrying =BE of the load.
Because you don=92t know=2C you look at what has worked in the past. If yo
u were a real aircraft factory=2C the prudent thing to do would be to build
the plane with turnbuckle fittings=2C and then intentionally load it until
it breaks and see what that value was. Then divide that value by 1.5 and
call that your max safe G load.
In Michael=92s case=2C the best thing to do is to build his plane with the
cheap fittings=2C then load it to gross weight and subject it to maneuvers
which induce 6 G=92s and see if he dies in the test. If he doesn=92t die
=2C then it was OK.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP =93Icarus Plummet=94
Raleigh=2C NC
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-lis
t-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clif Dawson
Sent: Tuesday=2C January 11=2C 2011 4:35 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
Attached is the lift distribution chart for hershey bar wings in the aspect
ratio
range of the Piet wing. From this you can deduce that there is only a small
portion of the lift supported by the cabanes. Therefore=2C the majority of
lift is handled by the struts. It's all in the archives=2C back there somew
here. :-)
Also=2C my understanding is that one designs and builds to a safety factor
of 1.5. So if an AC is placarded at 4G then it will go to 6 before failure.
Clif
It has to do with the distribution of lift. More lift is generated from th
e inboard section of the wing than the outboard sections. As a result ther
e is less torque upward on the outer wing panels than if the lift was equal
all of the way across the wing. This means that there is less force impos
ed on the lift strut. Malcolm Morrison
http://home.comcast.net/~mmorrison123/
What in your math is different then Jack's 3200? Your numbers are quite dif
ferent?
Michael Perez
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AMsafetyC(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Strut Fork End |
When you find that out I would like to know all the details and pics, I
already have my wooden struts and have been trying to come up with an
attachment method or design that's going to be safe and work well. So please share
your results.
Thanks
John
In a message dated 1/11/2011 9:59:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net writes:
While we're on this topic, does anyone know of a way to make wooden lift
struts adjustable? I'm going to make mine from some # of laminations, with
at least one layer of carbon fiber strands within the full strut, and
probably cross-wise layerings for extra reinforcement at the ends (still
figuring out the details, but similar to what Jim Markle did on his cabana
struts). From the images I've found on various people's sites so far, it looks
like the only option for adjustment would be to remake the terminal fittings,
and I imagine there's a practical length limit with regard to twisting
loads (?) on those. If adjustment is difficult or impossible (short of making
new struts), I'd think I'd want to put this off until just about everything
else is completed and I'm working on the initial rigging of the completed
wings?
Any comments? Thanks!
Kip Gardner
On Jan 11, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Ryan Mueller wrote:
Give Wag-Aero a call, they manufacture them:
_http://www.wagaero.com/contact.html_ (http://www.wagaero.com/contact.html)
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Michael Perez <_speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net_
(mailto:speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net) > wrote:
I see the points of a few on this list and laugh at some of the
others, but I appreciate those who take the time to explain their points of view
and take the time to listen to mine. I may ask around here at work and what
people think. If I find any good intell. along the way, I'll post it.
By the way, anyone know what the Piper forks are rated at? What material?
I could not find anything on them.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
_www.karetakeraero.com_ (http://www.karetakeraero.com/)
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
_tp://forums.matronics.com_ (tp://forums.matronics.com/)
_blank">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/contribution
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
I'm pretty sure that my last tubing from Aircraft Spruce said "Germany" on
it.
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Dever <chiefpepperhead(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Strut Fork End |
I Have to agree w/everyone here. There has to ba a reason those lift forks
are a lot more expensive that turnbarrel forks. My guess is they are a lo
t stronger in more ways than one.
Doug Dever
In beautiful Stow Ohio
Date: Tue=2C 11 Jan 2011 08:05:58 -0600
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing Strut Fork End
From: rmueller23(at)gmail.com
It has been explained to you why you should use purpose built wing struts f
orks. Use the right tool for the right job. And you use the right tool for
the right job because you want to go out and safely fly and enjoy your airp
lane without having to be concerned about ending up as a smoking hole in th
e ground=2C leaving your wife a widower and your children fatherless.....or
god forbid hurt anyone else. Any obsession with making your Piet the "snow
flakiest" of them all should not trump safety.
Just do it right.....so we can drop this discussion already. :)
Ryan
On Mon=2C Jan 10=2C 2011 at 7:29 PM=2C Michael Perez <speedbrake@sbcglobal.
net> wrote:
et>
I'm not trying to give anyone a hard time here=2C just trying to understand
the logic.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
http://forums.matronics.com
le=2C List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Strut Fork End |
Thank you sir.- The compression factor is a very good point. I do not ful
ly understand how a steel fitting can be good in tension and not in compres
sion, but I accept it. I understand rolled -V- cut on the threads. Fully aw
are of the differences between steel and aluminum tensile strength.
My original thought was the fact that these fittings were rated as high as
8000#. It does not matter if they are plastic, paper, cut or rolled threads
, tiny or huge, they are rated as designed to handle 8000#. (tension) No id
ea how they handle compression and I don't understand how tension and compr
ession differ from a fittings point of view. (metallurgy I imagine)
I plan to use my aluminum struts with- threaded aluminum inserts. (7050 o
r 7075 aluminum.)- Since I will have a steel fitting threaded into said a
luminum, I am curious if I need to be concerned with dis-similar metal corr
osion and IF so, how to prevent it?
These inserts will be threaded deep enough to accept the entire length of t
he fork and the struts themselves cut to a length to keep as much of the fo
rk threaded as possible.
I thank you for your educated explanation.
Michael Perez
=0AKaretaker Aero
=0Awww.karetakeraero.com
--- On Tue, 1/11/11, hvandervoo(at)aol.com wrote:
From: hvandervoo(at)aol.com <hvandervoo(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing Strut Fork End
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 10:10 AM
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AThere are 3 factors that decide selection of the Fork-end of
the main strut:=0A=0A=0A-=0A=0A=0A1) tension load, easily understood and
both J-3 fork end and a Turnbuckle style fork can handle the required load
.=0A=0A=0A-=0A=0A=0A2) compression load, often over looked but flying-i
n turbulence often experienced, J-3 fork can handle this, Turnbuckle style
can not.=0A=0A=0ARemember that turnbuckles are designed-for cable use, no
compression loads there.=0A=0A=0A-=0A=0A=0A3) overlooked even more often
is thread strength, diameter & length.=0A=0A=0AFor a steel fork end to wor
k as designed the diameter should be same a as the-height of the nut inse
rt-(nut part to be of the same material)
=0A=0A=0A=0AIn other words a 5/16 Fork tread needs to have 5/16 nut height,
if you tap in to the strut your tread dept needs to be at least 5/16.=0A
=0A=0ANote: nut/ strut threads-of the same steel material,- more length
is always better, rolled threads are better than cut/ tapped threads.=0A
=0A=0A-=0A=0A=0AI use the J-3 style fork end with steel struts and the we
ld-in treaded purpose build nut insert.=0A=0A=0A-=0A=0A=0ANow if you choo
se to use aluminum struts and tap your own treads be aware that aluminum ha
s a lower tensile strength than steel.=0A=0A=0ASo compensate by tapping a d
eep/ long thread in to the best aluminum you can get.=0A=0A=0AYour fork tre
ad might not be long enough.=0A=0A=0AYou might need to consider a steel ins
ert.=0A=0A=0A-=0A=0A=0ATurnbuckles assemblies-with brass center piece u
se the same principle, the tread depth is much longer ( 6-8 X ) than the di
ameter of the tread.=0A=0A=0A-=0A=0A=0AI did not sleep in a Holiday-inn e
xpress last night, but am a mechanical engineer by profession=0A=0A=0A-
=0A=0A=0AHans=0A=0A=0A-=0A=0A=0ANX15KV=0A=0A=0A-=0A=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | EDWARD BARCHIK <EBARCHIK(at)berwicksd.org> |
Thanks Adrian, kids love the project.
________________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]
on behalf of pineymb [airltd(at)mts.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 8:03 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tail wheel
The setup I used was a Matco tailwheel AS&S PN# 06-01615 and single leaf spring
PN# 06-14500. Untested but I think will work fine and relatively inexpensive.
--------
Adrian M
Winnipeg, MB
Canada
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326471#326471
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dscn0057_988.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc00081_959.jpg
Email secured by Check Point
________________________________
This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual
or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure
under applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, notify us immediately by telephone
and (i) destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message immediately
if this is an electronic communication.
Thank you. Berwick Area School District
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lawrence Williams <lnawms(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | wing strut fork ends |
You guys are really killing me here. I'm about ready to push my Piet out of the
hangar and burn it.
I used Gorilla glue, brazed fittings, coated wood pieces that contact the
covering with spar varnish, didn't calculate where my wheels are located based
on anything more scientific than where the oldtimers said they should be and now
I find out that my struts have never been through the spanwise distribution load
calculations!!!! Will it never end?? Thank goodness I didn't use a Corvair
engine.
How can I feel safe now that all these questions are unanswered? I never had the
internet to tell me where holes should be drilled or what size cable to use or
which side of a bulkhead a brace should be glued to. The only guidelines I ever
had was looking at other (unsafe??) examples at Brodhead each summer and talking
to their builders. How could I have been so gullible as to think that they were
trained and seasoned engineers. I was so naiveto have followed their advice and
now I am paying the price with nightmares and self-doubt.
Should I douse the airframe with 100LL or diesel fuel?? Maybe auto gas....or
wood alcohol? I do have kerosene and some Coleman fuel, too. Help, I can't make
a decision like this without input.
Then there are the environmental issues to consider prior to the bonfire. What
will the down-wind damage be to the Ivory Billed Woodpecker habitat when my
Polyfiber (gasp!) system carbonizes? Should I remove the tires before I light
the thing off? It's all just too horrible to consider.
Thankful to still be alive-
Larry
ps. I'm a quivering basket case but my Air Camper is performing like none of
this matters. Is there a message there?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Strut Fork End |
If I may, could it be as simple as welding a threaded boss onto or between
a couple steel plates. These plates then bolt to the strut and the strut fo
rk threads into the boss? Some type of transition piece to get you from woo
d to steel for the fork.
Michael Perez
=0AKaretaker Aero
=0Awww.karetakeraero.com
--- On Tue, 1/11/11, AMsafetyC(at)aol.com wrote:
From: AMsafetyC(at)aol.com <AMsafetyC(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing Strut Fork End
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 10:49 AM
=0A=0A =0A=0AWhen you find that out I would like to know all the details an
d pics, I =0Aalready have my wooden struts and have been trying to come up
with an attachment =0Amethod or design that's going to be safe and work wel
l. So please share your =0Aresults.=0A-=0AThanks=0A-=0AJohn-=0A-=0A
=0AIn a message dated 1/11/2011 9:59:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, =0Akipa
ndbeth(at)earthlink.net writes:=0AWhile =0A we're on this topic, does anyone
know of a way to make wooden lift struts =0A adjustable? I'm going to make
mine from some # of -laminations, with at =0A least one layer of carbon
fiber strands within the full strut, and probably =0A cross-wise layering
s for extra reinforcement at the ends (still figuring out =0A the details,
but similar to what Jim Markle did on his cabana struts). =0A -From the
images I've found on various people's sites so far, it looks =0A like the
only option for adjustment would be to remake the terminal fittings, =0A
and I imagine there's a practical length limit with regard to twisting load
s =0A (?) on those. -If adjustment is difficult or impossible (short of
making =0A new struts), I'd think I'd want to put this off until just abou
t everything =0A else is completed and I'm working on the initial rigging
of the completed =0A wings? =0A
=0A Any comments? -Thanks!=0A
=0A Kip Gardner=0A
=0A
=0A =0A =0A On Jan 11, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Ryan Mueller wrote:
=0A Give Wag-Aero a call, they manufacture them: =0A
=0A http://www.wagaero.com/contact.html
=0A On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Michael Perez =0A wrote:
=0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A
=0A =0A =0A I =0A
see the points of a few on this list and laugh at some of the =0A
others, but I appreciate those who take the time to explain
=0A their points of view and take the time to listen to mi
ne. I =0A may ask around here at work and what people thin
k. If I find =0A any good intell. along the way, I'll post
it.
By the =0A way, anyone know what the Piper forks are rated
at? What =0A material? I could not find anything on them.
-
=0A
Michael Perez
Karetaker =0A Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
=0A =0A =0A
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/con
tribution
t href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Strut Fork End |
That would probably do it. It would have to be designed so the
threaded end of the fork would not need a 'relief' hole drilled into
the end of the strut to accommodate adjustments, or you create a
pocket for rot to develop in, no matter how well you seal it. Also,
the end grain of the strut would need to be exposed for inspection
purposes, for the same reason.
On Jan 11, 2011, at 12:04 PM, Michael Perez wrote:
> If I may, could it be as simple as welding a threaded boss onto or
> between a couple steel plates. These plates then bolt to the strut
> and the strut fork threads into the boss? Some type of transition
> piece to get you from wood to steel for the fork.
>
> Michael Perez
> Karetaker Aero
> www.karetakeraero.com
>
> --- On Tue, 1/11/11, AMsafetyC(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> From: AMsafetyC(at)aol.com <AMsafetyC(at)aol.com>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing Strut Fork End
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 10:49 AM
>
> When you find that out I would like to know all the details and
> pics, I already have my wooden struts and have been trying to come
> up with an attachment method or design that's going to be safe and
> work well. So please share your results.
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
> In a message dated 1/11/2011 9:59:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net
> writes:
> While we're on this topic, does anyone know of a way to make wooden
> lift struts adjustable? I'm going to make mine from some # of
> laminations, with at least one layer of carbon fiber strands within
> the full strut, and probably cross-wise layerings for extra
> reinforcement at the ends (still figuring out the details, but
> similar to what Jim Markle did on his cabana struts). >From the
> images I've found on various people's sites so far, it looks like
> the only option for adjustment would be to remake the terminal
> fittings, and I imagine there's a practical length limit with regard
> to twisting loads (?) on those. If adjustment is difficult or
> impossible (short of making new struts), I'd think I'd want to put
> this off until just about everything else is completed and I'm
> working on the initial rigging of the completed wings?
>
> Any comments? Thanks!
>
> Kip Gardner
>
>
> On Jan 11, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Ryan Mueller wrote:
>
>> Give Wag-Aero a call, they manufacture them:
>>
>> http://www.wagaero.com/contact.html
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Michael Perez > > wrote:
>> I see the points of a few on this list and laugh at some of the
>> others, but I appreciate those who take the time to explain their
>> points of view and take the time to listen to mine. I may ask
>> around here at work and what people think. If I find any good
>> intell. along the way, I'll post it.
>>
>> By the way, anyone know what the Piper forks are rated at? What
>> material? I could not find anything on them.
>>
>> Michael Perez
>> Karetaker Aero
>> www.karetakeraero.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">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/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
> ===================================
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigw" target="_blank" href="http://forums.matronics.com
> ">http://forums.mat
> =========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ray Krause" <raykrause(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut) |
As a non-engineer builder, if the lift struts require a rod end that
will withstand 8000 lbs, or even 4000, I have a hard time imagining that
those little attach plates made out of 12 g steel and held to the
fuselage longerons by 3 or 4 3/16th in bolts would withstand that
weight. My common sense make me nervous, but it seems to work?
Just a comment.
Thanks and fly SAFELY,
Ray Krause
Waiex 51YX, Jabiru 3300 (1197), Sensenich wood prop, AeroCarb (#2 needle
modified), Dynon D-180, Garmin SL 30 NavCom, Garmin 327 transponder,
Garmin Aera 560, nav and strobe lights: 236 hrs., building a Sky
Scout.... slowly.
----- Original Message -----
From: Clif Dawson
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 1:34 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
Attached is the lift distribution chart for hershey bar wings in the
aspect ratio
range of the Piet wing. From this you can deduce that there is only a
small
portion of the lift supported by the cabanes. Therefore, the majority
of
lift is handled by the struts. It's all in the archives, back there
somewhere. :-)
Also, my understanding is that one designs and builds to a safety
factor
of 1.5. So if an AC is placarded at 4G then it will go to 6 before
failure.
Clif
It has to do with the distribution of lift. More lift is generated
from the inboard section of the wing than the outboard sections. As a
result there is less torque upward on the outer wing panels than if the
lift was equal all of the way across the wing. This means that there is
less force imposed on the lift strut. Malcolm Morrison
http://home.comcast.net/~mmorrison123/
What in your math is different then Jack's 3200? Your numbers are
quite different?
Michael Perez
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut) |
I have drilled so many 3/16" holes I have 3/16" on the brain. I, of course,
meant 3/32" cables.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
>
>
> ALWAYS use what the plans call out.... :-)
>
> I probably used 3/16....
>
> jm
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Charles Campbell <cncampbell(at)windstream.net>
>>Sent: Jan 10, 2011 2:37 PM
>>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
>>
>>
>>
>>My plans call for 3/16" diagonal/xbracing wires.
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
>>To:
>>Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 3:01 PM
>>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So Jack (or anyone for that matter),
>>>
>>> How much (if any) of that load would you expect to be carried by those
>>> 1/8" diagonal/Xbracing wires between the lift struts?
>>>
>>> Any of it?
>>>
>>> JM
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>
>>> From: Jack Phillips
>>>
>>> Sent: Jan 10, 2011 12:09 PM
>>>
>>> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>>
>>> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Michael, how are you arriving at 1200 lbs
>>> per strut at 4 Gs?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I could see that if your struts were
>>> vertical (in line with the lift load). They are not, and since they are
>>> at an
>>> angle from the horizontal, each strut will see a load equal to the lift
>>> load at
>>> that point divided by the sine of the angle. For most Pietenpols, the
>>> angle is
>>> about 30 and the sine of 30 is .50, so if all four struts are carrying
>>> a
>>> quarter of the total load (theyre not the front struts tend to
>>> carry more than the rears, due to the position of the center of
>>> pressure,
>>> and
>>> the pressure distribution curve), and the total load is 4800 lbs, each
>>> strut is
>>> carrying 1200/.5 or 2400 lbs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Without knowing the pressure distribution
>>> on the wing, I would assume for safetys sake that the front struts are
>>> carrying 2/3 of the load and the rear struts only 1/3. If that is the
>>> case,
>>> then the load at each front strut fitting on the wing at 4 gs with a
>>> 1200 lb gross weight would be 2/3 (2400) or 1600 lbs. This is assuming
>>> that
>>> each wing panel is generating half the lift or 2400 lbs, and the
>>> centersection
>>> is adding nothing, so again this is a conservative assumption. If the
>>> lift
>>> load at the front strut is 1600 lbs, the load in the strut itself will
>>> be
>>> twice
>>> that (if the angle is 30) or 3200 lbs. Quite a bit different than the
>>> 1200
>>> lbs you were calculating.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jack Phillips
>>>
>>> NX899JP Icarus Plummet
>>>
>>> Raleigh, NC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From:
>>> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]
>>> On Behalf Of Michael Perez
>>>
>>> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011
>>> 11:43 AM
>>>
>>> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>>
>>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Please
>>> Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am trying to figure out bolt hole edge spacing for
>>> my aluminum wing struts. These struts are the small struts from Carlson
>>> Aircraft. Doing the math, from the info. at the site, I get a wall
>>> thickness of the strut at .119". Since the bolt would have to pull
>>> through both walls, that number is now .238".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am going to assume that my plane's weight will be 1000# and my weight
>>> will
>>> be 200#. (I am 165# actually) for total weight of 1200#.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The plans show using a 5/16" bolt. (.3125") 2X bolt diameter
>>> minus 1/2 of a bolt diameter yields a hole edge spacing of .625 -
>>> .15625 = .46875"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> .46875 X .238 (strut wall thickness) = .1115625 square inches.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> .1115625 X 11637 (SHEAR listed on the website for the small strut) =
>>> 1298
>>> lbs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My 1200# plane at 4Gs is 4800#. Each lift strut will see about 1200 lbs
>>> each.
>>> (?)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My aluminum struts with the 2 diameter bolt edge spacing should be able
>>> to
>>> handle 1298 lbs each...which is good for a 1200# plane at 4Gs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If I use an edge spacing of 1/2" even, then the new number is 1384# per
>>> strut.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for any help advice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Michael Perez
>>>
>>> Karetaker Aero
>>>
>>> www.karetakeraero.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KM Heide CPO/FAAOP <kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: wing strut fork ends |
Larry, Larry, Larry...
You made my day and year with your post! Never laughed so hard in a long time.
I agree with everything you say!!!
KMHeide
Fargo, ND
--- On Tue, 1/11/11, Lawrence Williams wrote:
> From: Lawrence Williams <lnawms(at)yahoo.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: wing strut fork ends
> To: "Pietlist"
> Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 10:47 AM
> You
> guys are really killing me here. I'm about ready to push
> my Piet out of the hangar and burn it.
>
> I used Gorilla glue, brazed fittings, coated wood pieces
> that contact the covering with spar varnish, didn't
> calculate where my wheels are located based on anything more
> scientific than where the oldtimers said they should be and
> now I find out that my struts have never been through the
> spanwise distribution load calculations!!!! Will it never
> end?? Thank goodness I didn't use a Corvair engine.
>
> How can I feel safe now that all these questions are
> unanswered? I never had the internet to tell me where holes
> should be drilled or what size cable to use or which side of
> a bulkhead a brace should be glued to. The only guidelines I
> ever had was looking at other (unsafe??) examples at
> Brodhead each summer and talking to their builders. How
> could I have been so gullible as to think that they were
> trained and seasoned engineers. I was so naive to have
> followed their advice and now I am paying the price with
> nightmares and self-doubt.
>
> Should I douse the airframe with 100LL or diesel fuel??
> Maybe auto gas....or wood alcohol? I do have kerosene and
> some Coleman fuel, too. Help, I can't make a decision
> like this without input.
>
> Then there are the environmental issues to consider prior
> to the bonfire. What will the down-wind damage be to the
> Ivory Billed Woodpecker habitat when my Polyfiber (gasp!)
> system carbonizes? Should I remove the tires before I light
> the thing off? It's all just too horrible to consider.
>
> Thankful to still be alive-
>
> Larry
>
> ps. I'm a quivering basket case but my Air Camper is
> performing like none of this matters. Is there a message
> there?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Corvair Challenges and 5th Bearing |
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
Yes Kevin, Mark from Falcon is one of the guys that hangs with WW at
AirVenture. Does great work including heavier steel valve seat inserts that
he designed.
rick
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 9:16 PM, kevinpurtee wrote:
> kevin.purtee(at)us.army.mil>
>
> It's all good!
>
> Rick - I got the heads done by a shop in Houston. He was recommended by
> the local CORSA tech counselor. Don't think Falcon was even part of the
> vocabulary way back then. Are they the shop of choice, now?
>
> Kevin
>
> --------
> Kevin "Axel" Purtee
> NX899KP
> Austin/Georgetown, TX
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326440#326440
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
Wow, 4 DH-2s, neat aircraft, what engines are you planning on using?
rick
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Ernie Moreno wrote:
> Had a conversation with my steel tube supplier today. For the record, my
> supplier is Tube Service in Portland Or. They advised me that there is 4130
> Chromoly Steel available US made. It is available through a company called
> Wesco (is somewhere in Southern Calif.) and from Plymouth (in Arizona). From
> past experience I know that Plymouth does aluminium tubing also. My
> supplier agreed to replace all the Chinese tubing with made in USA tubing
> for no change in price. A great company. For the record I and four other
> individuals are building full size DH-2's. Using the basic Pietenpol specs
> on the gear, Ken Perkins hubs, 21"wheels with 21x3.25 tires.
>
> Ernie Moreno
> Piet 2431
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair Challenges and 5th Bearing |
Falcon is the only Head man that WW recomends.
----- Original Message -----
From: "kevinpurtee" <kevin.purtee(at)us.army.mil>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 11:16 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Corvair Challenges and 5th Bearing
>
>
> It's all good!
>
> Rick - I got the heads done by a shop in Houston. He was recommended by
> the local CORSA tech counselor. Don't think Falcon was even part of the
> vocabulary way back then. Are they the shop of choice, now?
>
> Kevin
>
> --------
> Kevin "Axel" Purtee
> NX899KP
> Austin/Georgetown, TX
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326440#326440
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | airlion <airlion(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: wing strut fork ends |
----- Original Message ----
From: KM Heide CPO/FAAOP <kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Tue, January 11, 2011 12:53:06 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: wing strut fork ends
Larry, Larry, Larry...
You made my day and year with your post! Never laughed so hard in a long time.
I
agree with everything you say!!!
KMHeide
Fargo, ND
--- On Tue, 1/11/11, Lawrence Williams wrote:
> From: Lawrence Williams <lnawms(at)yahoo.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: wing strut fork ends
> To: "Pietlist"
> Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 10:47 AM
> You
> guys are really killing me here. I'm about ready to push
> my Piet out of the hangar and burn it.
>
> I used Gorilla glue, brazed fittings, coated wood pieces
> that contact the covering with spar varnish, didn't
> calculate where my wheels are located based on anything more
> scientific than where the oldtimers said they should be and
> now I find out that my struts have never been through the
> spanwise distribution load calculations!!!! Will it never
> end?? Thank goodness I didn't use a Corvair engine.
>
> How can I feel safe now that all these questions are
> unanswered? I never had the internet to tell me where holes
> should be drilled or what size cable to use or which side of
> a bulkhead a brace should be glued to. The only guidelines I
> ever had was looking at other (unsafe??) examples at
> Brodhead each summer and talking to their builders. How
> could I have been so gullible as to think that they were
> trained and seasoned engineers. I was so naive to have
> followed their advice and now I am paying the price with
> nightmares and self-doubt.
>
> Should I douse the airframe with 100LL or diesel fuel??
> Maybe auto gas....or wood alcohol? I do have kerosene and
> some Coleman fuel, too. Help, I can't make a decision
> like this without input.
>
> Then there are the environmental issues to consider prior
> to the bonfire. What will the down-wind damage be to the
> Ivory Billed Woodpecker habitat when my Polyfiber (gasp!)
> system carbonizes? Should I remove the tires before I light
> the thing off? It's all just too horrible to consider.
>
> Thankful to still be alive-
>
> Larry
>
> ps. I'm a quivering basket case but my Air Camper is
> performing like none of this matters. Is there a message
> there?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut) |
EF Bruhn's book "Analysis and Design of Aircraft Structures" would
disagree with your statement that more lift is generated from the
inboard section than the outboard sections. That would be true if the
wing is tapered, but I'm looking at a diagram of a rectangular wing with
spars of equal depth the entire length and the diagram of airload shows
the same load on the tip as on the root.
----- Original Message -----
From: gliderx5(at)comcast.net
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
It has to do with the distribution of lift. More lift is generated
from the inboard section of the wing than the outboard sections. As a
result there is less torque upward on the outer wing panels than if the
lift was equal all of the way across the wing. This means that there is
less force imposed on the lift strut. Let me caution you a little in
that I am a software engineer with great interest in aviation, NOT a
mechanical or aerospace engineer, so I could be full of crap! But, I
have friends that are aeronautical engineers and I have run this by
them. Someone could argue the numbers, but it should be very close.
Malcolm Morrison
http://home.comcast.net/~mmorrison123/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Perez" <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 9:38:03 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
What in your math is different then Jack's 3200? Your numbers are
quite different?
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
--- On Mon, 1/10/11, gliderx5(at)comcast.net
wrote:
> From: gliderx5(at)comcast.net <gliderx5(at)comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Monday, January 10, 2011, 8:43 PM
> #yiv909872567 p
> {margin:0;}I
> actually tried to determine these numbers a while back and
> put them on my web site at
> http://home.comcast.net/~mmorrison123/wing_loads.html
> . It's probably a goofy thing to read, but I tried
> to include the effect of an elliptical lift distribution,
> which is what you have with a rectangular wing.
> Adjusting my numbers up for a 1200 lb airplane at 4 Gs I get
> about 1760 lbs on the strut ends. Should be a little
> more on the front, and a little less on the rear.
>
> Malcolm Morrison
> http://home.comcast.net/~mmorrison123.html
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jack Phillips"
>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 1:09:25 PM
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math
> (alum.wing strut)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael,
> how are you arriving at 1200 lbs
> per strut at 4 G=99s?
>
>
>
> I could
> see that if your struts were
> vertical (in line with the lift load). They are not,
> and since they are at an
> angle from the horizontal, each strut will see a load equal
> to the lift load at
> that point divided by the sine of the angle. For most
> Pietenpols, the angle is
> about 30=C2=B0 and the sine of 30=C2=B0 is .50, so if all four
> struts are carrying a
> quarter of the total load (they=99re not =93 the front
> struts tend to
> carry more than the rears, due to the position of the
> center of pressure, and
> the pressure distribution curve), and the total load is
> 4800 lbs, each strut is
> carrying 1200/.5 or 2400 lbs.
>
>
>
> Without
> knowing the pressure distribution
> on the wing, I would assume for safety=99s sake that the
> front struts are
> carrying 2/3 of the load and the rear struts only
> 1/3. If that is the case,
> then the load at each front strut fitting on the wing at 4
> g=99s with a
> 1200 lb gross weight would be 2/3 (2400) or 1600 lbs.
> This is assuming that
> each wing panel is generating half the lift or 2400 lbs,
> and the centersection
> is adding nothing, so again this is a conservative
> assumption. If the lift
> load at the front strut is 1600 lbs, the load in the strut
> itself will be twice
> that (if the angle is 30=C2=B0) or 3200 lbs. Quite a bit
> different than the 1200
> lbs you were calculating.
>
>
>
> Jack
> Phillips
>
> NX899JP
> =9CIcarus Plummet=9D
>
> Raleigh,
> NC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Michael Perez
>
> Sent: Monday,
> January 10, 2011
> 11:43 AM
>
> To:
> pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
> Subject:
> Pietenpol-List: Please
> Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am trying to
> figure out bolt hole edge spacing for
> my aluminum wing struts. These struts are the small
> struts from Carlson
> Aircraft. Doing the math, from the info. at the
> site, I get a wall
> thickness of the strut at .119". Since the
> bolt would have to pull
> through both walls, that number is now .238".
>
>
>
> I am going to assume that my plane's weight will be
> 1000# and my weight will
> be 200#. (I am 165# actually) for total weight of 1200#.
>
>
>
> The plans show using a 5/16" bolt.
> (.3125") 2X bolt diameter
> minus 1/2 of a bolt diameter yields a hole edge spacing
> of .625 -
> .15625 = .46875"
>
>
>
> .46875 X .238 (strut wall thickness) = .1115625 square
> inches.
>
>
>
> .1115625 X 11637 (SHEAR listed on the website for the
> small strut) = 1298
> lbs.
>
>
>
> My 1200# plane at 4Gs is 4800#. Each lift strut will see
> about 1200 lbs each.
> (?)
>
>
>
> My aluminum struts with the 2 diameter bolt edge spacing
> should be able to
> handle 1298 lbs each...which is good for a 1200# plane at
> 4Gs.
>
>
>
> If I use an edge spacing of 1/2" even, then the new
> number is 1384# per
> strut.
>
>
>
> Thanks for any help advice.
>
>
>
> Michael Perez
>
> Karetaker Aero
>
> www.karetakeraero.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
&==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
I know, could possibly rent a automotive valve spring compressor. The 1/2"
figure is just what I needed, obviously the amount depends on the stiffness
of the springs you use and the weight that's on the mains.
rick
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Jack wrote:
> Rick,
>
> You mentioned pre-load=85do you mean compress the spring =BD inch when
> assembled? For my springs that would be a bunch of pressure.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jack
>
> DSM
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Rick Holland
> *Sent:* Monday, January 10, 2011 8:08 PM
> *To:* pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: LG at last
>
>
> I used the attached design for mine using die springs that can be ordered
> online. Remember to pre-load the spring by half and inch or so.
>
> rick
>
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Ben Charvet wrote
:
>
> I'm thinking of replacing my bungees with springs like you have. Did you
> make the spring struts yourself, or buy them ready made?
>
> Ben Charvet
> NX866BC
>
>
> On 1/10/2011 5:09 PM, TOM STINEMETZE wrote:
>
> *Well it's kind of bittersweet since I already know that this set of
> landing gear will have to be rebuilt before the plane gets to move much.
> BUT it's still a grand feeling to have N328X up on its gear at last. The
re
> is just something about being able to swing a leg up and sit with your ba
ck
> firmly settled into the seat and everything pointing UP! Now I can start
> installing a lot of those things that have been occupying shelf space and
> looking for a home.*
>
>
> *My wife had to call me in to supper several times before I could bring
> myself to vacate that seat. A'course some of the was due to the fact tha
t I
> couldn't figure out what to grab to get me standing back up again.*
>
>
> *Ken Perkins hubs and spring shocks; spokes from Buchanans; 19" aluminum
> rims from a local cycle shop; weldable axles from AS&S; brake calipers fr
om
> surplus Honda Shadow; brake disks my design from a local machine shop; br
ake
> brackets from my son in CA. Truely a "melting pot" project. Oh, and my
own
> ugly welding on everything.*
>
>
> *Tom Stinemetze*
>
> *N328X*
>
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List*
>
> *tp://forums.matronics.com*
>
> *_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
>
> --
> Rick Holland
> Castle Rock, Colorado
>
> "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
>
> *
>
===========
>
===========
===========
===========
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net> |
I agree... I really liked this issue. Plan to reread it in a day or so because
I know there is stuff that I missed... lots of info.
--------
Mark Chouinard
Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326538#326538
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut) |
Michael, I don't want to see even 4 Gs.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Perez
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
Thanks Cliff. My understanding as with you, (and I BELIEVE the
way things are designed here at work) is to use a safety factor of 1.5.
That is why I questioned the factor of 3 posted earlier.
Using my original post and Jack P's calculated 3200# with a
safety factor of 1.5 that would be 4800#.
Anyone know of a Pietenpol seeing 6 Gs?
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
--- On Tue, 1/11/11, Clif Dawson wrote:
From: Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math (alum.wing
strut)
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 4:34 AM
=EF=BB
Attached is the lift distribution chart for hershey bar wings
in the aspect ratio
range of the Piet wing. From this you can deduce that there is
only a small
portion of the lift supported by the cabanes. Therefore, the
majority of
lift is handled by the struts. It's all in the archives, back
there somewhere. :-)
Also, my understanding is that one designs and builds to a
safety factor
of 1.5. So if an AC is placarded at 4G then it will go to 6
before failure.
Clif
It has to do with the distribution of lift. More lift is
generated from the inboard section of the wing than the outboard
sections. As a result there is less torque upward on the outer wing
panels than if the lift was equal all of the way across the wing. This
means that there is less force imposed on the lift strut. Malcolm
Morrison
http://home.comcast.net/~mmorrison123/
What in your math is different then Jack's 3200? Your
numbers are quite different?
Michael Perez
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Hole Depth for Piper fork |
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
I would wait till I had the fork to make sure. My hole centers are 5/8" from
the outer edge to fit the forks I bought from ACS.
rick
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Michael Perez wrote:
> Since I will be welding my steel straps onto my landing gear fittings, I
> need to pre-drill the hole for the wing strut fork. How deep from the edge
> of the fitting does the hole need to be so that the Piper fork will fit? I
> assume the standard 2X bolt diameter will work, but I want to be sure prior
> to drilling and welding.
>
> Michael Perez
> Karetaker Aero
> www.karetakeraero.com
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
Wish you would have been my wood shop teacher back in the 60s. All I got out
of my wood shop class was a lousy walnut knife rack. With all the metal
cutting/grinding/welding work (and some sheet metal/rivet work) needed on a
Piet I would think the project would overlap nicely with metal shop also.
rick
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 5:34 AM, EDWARD BARCHIK wrote:
> Rick, This is a woodshop class. The students are 3rd and 4th year
> students, Juniors and Seniors. We hope to complete project in spring 2012.
> Ed
> ------------------------------
> *From:* owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [
> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] on behalf of Rick Holland [
> at7000ft(at)gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, January 10, 2011 6:40 PM
>
> *To:* pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tail wheel
>
> That's the same one I have Charles. Used with a used J3 two piece leaf
> spring I got off ebay.
>
> rick
>
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Charles Campbell <
> cncampbell(at)windstream.net> wrote:
>
>> Rick, what model Matco tailwheel did you use? I am thinking about a
>> Matco WHLT-6. The specs say it has an operating load of 450#.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Rick Holland
>> *To:* pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>> *Sent:* Monday, January 10, 2011 4:09 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tail wheel
>>
>> I used a Matco, much lighter and cheaper than a Scott:
>>
>> http://www.matcomfg.com/TailWheelAssemblies-tp2-13.html
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Earnest Bunbury > > wrote:
>>
>>> We've used both a Maule and a Scott, both 6-in., full-swivel, steerable,
>>> with detent. The Scott came with the plane and was a bit squirrelly. The
>>> Maule was a gift from one of the guys at the field. It works "better" but
>>> both of them are heavy and way over-engineered for the purpose. If you're
>>> going with a new set-up, I would buy the lightest that can handle the load
>>> or build from scratch. There are some cool solutions out there, some of
>>> which are shown at westcoastpiet, as Kevin mentioned.
>>>
>>> What sort of class are the kids in? Is this a shop class or an
>>> aviation-oriented class?
>>>
>>> Good luck and keep us updated!
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rick Holland
>> Castle Rock, Colorado
>>
>> "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
>>
>> *
>>
>> 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*
>>
>> *
>>
>> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> *
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Rick Holland
> Castle Rock, Colorado
>
> "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
>
> *
>
> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> *
>
>
> Email secured by Check Point
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
> the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and
> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may constitute as attorney
> work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication
> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
> notify us immediately by telephone and (i) destroy this message if a
> facsimile or (ii) delete this message immediately if this is an electronic
> communication.
>
> Thank you. Berwick Area School District
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: wing strut fork ends |
| From: | "DOMIT" <rx7_ragtop(at)yahoo.com> |
Just build it like the plans!
(Since I'm doing my own plans I can do that, right?) :P
--------
Brad "DOMIT" Smith
First rule of ground school: This is the ground... don't hit it going fast.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326545#326545
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: wing strut fork ends |
I like your style, Lawrence.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Williams
To: Pietlist
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 11:47 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: wing strut fork ends
You guys are really killing me here. I'm about ready to push my Piet
out of the hangar and burn it.
I used Gorilla glue, brazed fittings, coated wood pieces that contact
the covering with spar varnish, didn't calculate where my wheels are
located based on anything more scientific than where the oldtimers said
they should be and now I find out that my struts have never been through
the spanwise distribution load calculations!!!! Will it never end??
Thank goodness I didn't use a Corvair engine.
How can I feel safe now that all these questions are unanswered? I
never had the internet to tell me where holes should be drilled or what
size cable to use or which side of a bulkhead a brace should be glued
to. The only guidelines I ever had was looking at other (unsafe??)
examples at Brodhead each summer and talking to their builders. How
could I have been so gullible as to think that they were trained and
seasoned engineers. I was so naive to have followed their advice and now
I am paying the price with nightmares and self-doubt.
Should I douse the airframe with 100LL or diesel fuel?? Maybe auto
gas....or wood alcohol? I do have kerosene and some Coleman fuel, too.
Help, I can't make a decision like this without input.
Then there are the environmental issues to consider prior to the
bonfire. What will the down-wind damage be to the Ivory Billed
Woodpecker habitat when my Polyfiber (gasp!) system carbonizes? Should I
remove the tires before I light the thing off? It's all just too
horrible to consider.
Thankful to still be alive-
Larry
ps. I'm a quivering basket case but my Air Camper is performing like
none of this matters. Is there a message there?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV10-List: Airfoil Drag Video... |
| From: | "DOMIT" <rx7_ragtop(at)yahoo.com> |
[quote="Michael Perez"]GREAT! I need some air foil shaped cable, (at no extra $$
the standard cable) and some air foil shaped spokes...or maybe I should just
trash my brand new wheels altogether...
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
> [b]
Not that I would suggest using such a thing... but they do make flat blade spokes
for racing bicycles. :P
--------
Brad "DOMIT" Smith
First rule of ground school: This is the ground... don't hit it going fast.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326546#326546
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Wing Strut Fork End Concerns |
| From: | "BYD" <billsayre(at)ymail.com> |
I heard a story that Im hoping someone can verify that would help in the Wing Strut
Fork End concerns. To convince those arguing about struts, brackets and
fittings, Bernard removed the struts from one of his planes and flew it around
the patch once to prove what he designed was sufficient. It was emphasized that
this was done on a calm day and with a solid wing.
Anyone one else ever hear this story?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326549#326549
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net> |
Hmm, well then something doesn't jive. Either AS&S isn't getting their tubing
from Dillsburg, or Dillsburg isn't getting his tubing from China. I hope the
latter is true, but it could also explain why he is the cheapest in the business.
I'm about ready to build the kiddo a go-kart out of this crap and plunk down
the money for the good stuff, which I thought I was getting.
I'll look at my material to see if there are any markings that indicate origin.
I'll compare it to the stuff that I get from AS&S as well. I can say this...
in comparison to a few pieces of 4130 that we have at work, the tubing I got
from Dillsburg looks like gas pipe. The material at work is from Jorgensen...
the surfaces (especially inside) are very smooth and shiny. Not the case with
the Dillsburg tubing. In all fairness, I haven't taken the time to cut and
clean a piece up, but I think I might do that this evening and bring it in tomorrow.
Aww, the heck with it, I'm calling Vogelsong...
Yep, I spoke to his secretary and she confirmed it... Chinese tubing. She also
told me that his son (mentioned in another thread) no longer works for him.
I said, "Imagine that." She came right out and said it... he really doesn't care
anymore. People have tried to talk to him, but he makes it clear to them
that he is in charge and the place will be run the way he wants. I can somewhat
understand that, but at some point it will be run into the ground.
Jorgensen says no way on Chinese tube... 70%-80% of their 4130 tubing is domestic,
but some comes from England, Germany or other European locations. I'll be
checking with Trident, AS&S and others just out of curiosity. The Jorgensen
rep did tell me to look closely at the line marking and that it should state not
only what type and dimension, but what mill it was run at as well as what ATSM
standard it meets. He also said that we could line up tubing from 5 different
vendors and that all of them would look slightly different as far as finish,
so that is no way to compare. The only way to know for sure is to take samples
to Sherry Labs (local) and have them test it. I could probably reorder
the entire batch from a reputible outfit for less.
--------
Mark Chouinard
Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326552#326552
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hole Depth for Piper fork |
Copy Rick thanks.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
--- On Tue, 1/11/11, Rick Holland wrote:
From: Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Hole Depth for Piper fork
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 1:31 PM
I would wait till I had the fork to make sure. My hole centers are 5/8" from the
outer edge to fit the forks I bought from ACS.
rick
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Michael Perez wrote:
Since I will be welding my steel straps onto my landing gear fittings, I need to
pre-drill the hole for the wing strut fork. How deep from the edge of the fitting
does the hole need to be so that the Piper fork will fit? I assume the standard
2X bolt diameter will work, but I want to be sure prior to drilling and
welding.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: wing strut fork ends |
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
And don't forget to remove and cut sections out of your engine mount, gear,
cabanes, struts, etc. and have the steel tested to make sure it's not made
in China (may have a high lead content like those kid toys last year). Then
roll your project out to the driveway and burn it, for your own good. (But
do get an EPA and local fire department permit first).
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Lawrence Williams wrote:
> You guys are really killing me here. I'm about ready to push my Piet out of
> the hangar and burn it.
>
> I used Gorilla glue, brazed fittings, coated wood pieces that contact the
> covering with spar varnish, didn't calculate where my wheels are located
> based on anything more scientific than where the oldtimers said they should
> be and now I find out that my struts have never been through the spanwise
> distribution load calculations!!!! Will it never end?? Thank goodness I
> didn't use a Corvair engine.
>
> How can I feel safe now that all these questions are unanswered? I never
> had the internet to tell me where holes should be drilled or what size cable
> to use or which side of a bulkhead a brace should be glued to. The only
> guidelines I ever had was looking at other (unsafe??) examples at Brodhead
> each summer and talking to their builders. How could I have been so gullible
> as to think that they were trained and seasoned engineers. I was so naive to
> have followed their advice and now I am paying the price with nightmares and
> self-doubt.
>
> Should I douse the airframe with 100LL or diesel fuel?? Maybe auto
> gas....or wood alcohol? I do have kerosene and some Coleman fuel, too. Help,
> I can't make a decision like this without input.
>
> Then there are the environmental issues to consider prior to the bonfire.
> What will the down-wind damage be to the Ivory Billed Woodpecker habitat
> when my Polyfiber (gasp!) system carbonizes? Should I remove the tires
> before I light the thing off? It's all just too horrible to consider.
>
> Thankful to still be alive-
>
> Larry
>
> ps. I'm a quivering basket case but my Air Camper is performing like none
> of this matters. Is there a message there?
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing Strut Fork End Concerns |
| From: | Ryan Mueller <rmueller23(at)gmail.com> |
Strong wing or not, it's not a cantilever wing.....you must have wing
struts.
Ryan
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 1:00 PM, BYD wrote:
>
> I heard a story that I=92m hoping someone can verify that would help in t
he
> Wing Strut Fork End concerns. To convince those arguing about struts,
> brackets and fittings, Bernard removed the struts from one of his planes
and
> flew it around the patch once to prove what he designed was sufficient.
It
> was emphasized that this was done on a calm day and with a solid wing.
>
> Anyone one else ever hear this story?
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326549#326549
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kenneth Bickers <bickers.ken(at)gmail.com> |
I received a shipment of 4130 steel last week from Aircraft Spruce. I
didn't read the printing on every tube and piece of sheet, but "Germany" was
printed on the ones that I did inspect. Cheers, Ken
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 12:07 PM, K5YAC wrote:
>
> Hmm, well then something doesn't jive. Either AS&S isn't getting their
> tubing from Dillsburg, or Dillsburg isn't getting his tubing from China. I
> hope the latter is true, but it could also explain why he is the cheapest in
> the business. I'm about ready to build the kiddo a go-kart out of this crap
> and plunk down the money for the good stuff, which I thought I was getting.
>
> I'll look at my material to see if there are any markings that indicate
> origin. I'll compare it to the stuff that I get from AS&S as well. I can
> say this... in comparison to a few pieces of 4130 that we have at work, the
> tubing I got from Dillsburg looks like gas pipe. The material at work is
> from Jorgensen... the surfaces (especially inside) are very smooth and
> shiny. Not the case with the Dillsburg tubing. In all fairness, I haven't
> taken the time to cut and clean a piece up, but I think I might do that this
> evening and bring it in tomorrow.
>
> Aww, the heck with it, I'm calling Vogelsong...
>
> Yep, I spoke to his secretary and she confirmed it... Chinese tubing. She
> also told me that his son (mentioned in another thread) no longer works for
> him. I said, "Imagine that." She came right out and said it... he really
> doesn't care anymore. People have tried to talk to him, but he makes it
> clear to them that he is in charge and the place will be run the way he
> wants. I can somewhat understand that, but at some point it will be run
> into the ground.
>
> Jorgensen says no way on Chinese tube... 70%-80% of their 4130 tubing is
> domestic, but some comes from England, Germany or other European locations.
> I'll be checking with Trident, AS&S and others just out of curiosity. The
> Jorgensen rep did tell me to look closely at the line marking and that it
> should state not only what type and dimension, but what mill it was run at
> as well as what ATSM standard it meets. He also said that we could line up
> tubing from 5 different vendors and that all of them would look slightly
> different as far as finish, so that is no way to compare. The only way to
> know for sure is to take samples to Sherry Labs (local) and have them test
> it. I could probably reorder the entire batch from a reputible outfit for
> less.
>
> --------
> Mark Chouinard
> Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326552#326552
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Dever <chiefpepperhead(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Strut Fork End |
You could always cadmium plate them that is what is done to bolts and seapl
ane fittings.
Doug Dever
In beautiful Stow Ohio
Date: Tue=2C 11 Jan 2011 07:53:49 -0800
From: speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing Strut Fork End
Thank you sir. The compression factor is a very good point. I do not fully
understand how a steel fitting can be good in tension and not in compressi
on=2C but I accept it. I understand rolled -V- cut on the threads. Fully aw
are of the differences between steel and aluminum tensile strength.
My original thought was the fact that these fittings were rated as high as
8000#. It does not matter if they are plastic=2C paper=2C cut or rolled thr
eads=2C tiny or huge=2C they are rated as designed to handle 8000#. (tensio
n) No idea how they handle compression and I don't understand how tension a
nd compression differ from a fittings point of view. (metallurgy I imagine)
I plan to use my aluminum struts with threaded aluminum inserts. (7050 or
7075 aluminum.) Since I will have a steel fitting threaded into said alumi
num=2C I am curious if I need to be concerned with dis-similar metal corros
ion and IF so=2C how to prevent it?
These inserts will be threaded deep enough to accept the entire length of t
he fork and the struts themselves cut to a length to keep as much of the fo
rk threaded as possible.
I thank you for your educated explanation.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
--- On Tue=2C 1/11/11=2C hvandervoo(at)aol.com wrote:
From: hvandervoo(at)aol.com <hvandervoo(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing Strut Fork End
Date: Tuesday=2C January 11=2C 2011=2C 10:10 AM
There are 3 factors that decide selection of the Fork-end of the main strut
:
1) tension load=2C easily understood and both J-3 fork end and a Turnbuckle
style fork can handle the required load.
2) compression load=2C often over looked but flying in turbulence often exp
erienced=2C J-3 fork can handle this=2C Turnbuckle style can not.
Remember that turnbuckles are designed for cable use=2C no compression load
s there.
3) overlooked even more often is thread strength=2C diameter & length.
For a steel fork end to work as designed the diameter should be same a as t
he height of the nut insert (nut part to be of the same material)
In other words a 5/16 Fork tread needs to have 5/16 nut height=2C if you ta
p in to the strut your tread dept needs to be at least 5/16.
Note: nut/ strut threads of the same steel material=2C more length is alwa
ys better=2C rolled threads are better than cut/ tapped threads.
I use the J-3 style fork end with steel struts and the weld-in treaded purp
ose build nut insert.
Now if you choose to use aluminum struts and tap your own treads be aware t
hat aluminum has a lower tensile strength than steel.
So compensate by tapping a deep/ long thread in to the best aluminum you ca
n get.
Your fork tread might not be long enough.
You might need to consider a steel insert.
Turnbuckles assemblies with brass center piece use the same principle=2C th
e tread depth is much longer ( 6-8 X ) than the diameter of the tread.
I did not sleep in a Holiday-inn express last night=2C but am a mechanical
engineer by profession
Hans
NX15KV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Dever <chiefpepperhead(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut) |
As I understand aerodynamics and lift (limited) the lift pattern or distrib
ution on a hershey bar wing is eliptical which means there is not as much l
ift generated at the tips. This is also why washout is not needed=2C altho
ugh many put some in. This would also imply that there is not as much lif
t generated at the root either. This would mean that most of the lift would
be generated in the middle 80% (paredo principle anyone.) From a design s
implification standpoint to figure span loading (when designing spar streng
th) The lift is considered equal along the span. We atmospheric guys desig
n to yeild strength. The Space shuttle is the only thing I know of designe
d to ultimate strength. In other words we are all splitting hairs as this
is not Rocket science. The darn thing has flown for 80+years. Don't mess
with a good thing. It works. Unless=2C of course you are an aeronautical
engineer. Then go for it.
Doug Dever
In beautiful Stow Ohio
From: cncampbell(at)windstream.net
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
Date: Tue=2C 11 Jan 2011 13:19:27 -0500
EF Bruhn's book "Analysis and Design of Aircraft Structures" would disagree
with your statement that more lift is generated from the inboard section t
han the outboard sections. That would be true if the wing is tapered=2C bu
t I'm looking at a diagram of a rectangular wing with spars of equal depth
the entire length and the diagram of airload shows the same load on the tip
as on the root.
----- Original Message -----
From: gliderx5(at)comcast.net
Sent: Monday=2C January 10=2C 2011 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
It has to do with the distribution of lift. More lift is generated from th
e inboard section of the wing than the outboard sections. As a result ther
e is less torque upward on the outer wing panels than if the lift was equal
all of the way across the wing. This means that there is less force impos
ed on the lift strut. Let me caution you a little in that I am a software
engineer with great interest in aviation=2C NOT a mechanical or aerospace e
ngineer=2C so I could be full of crap! But=2C I have friends that are aero
nautical engineers and I have run this by them. Someone could argue the n
umbers=2C but it should be very close.
Malcolm Morrison
http://home.comcast.net/~mmorrison123/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Perez" <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Monday=2C January 10=2C 2011 9:38:03 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
et>
What in your math is different then Jack's 3200? Your numbers are quite dif
ferent?
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
--- On Mon=2C 1/10/11=2C gliderx5(at)comcast.net wrote:
> From: gliderx5(at)comcast.net <gliderx5(at)comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Monday=2C January 10=2C 2011=2C 8:43 PM
> #yiv909872567 p
> {margin:0=3B}I
> actually tried to determine these numbers a while back and
> put them on my web site at
> http://home.comcast.net/~mmorrison123/wing_loads.html
> . It's probably a goofy thing to read=2C but I tried
> to include the effect of an elliptical lift distribution=2C
> which is what you have with a rectangular wing.
> Adjusting my numbers up for a 1200 lb airplane at 4 Gs I get
> about 1760 lbs on the strut ends. Should be a little
> more on the front=2C and a little less on the rear.
>
> Malcolm Morrison
> http://home.comcast.net/~mmorrison123.html
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jack Phillips"
>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Monday=2C January 10=2C 2011 1:09:25 PM
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math
> (alum.wing strut)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael=2C
> how are you arriving at 1200 lbs
> per strut at 4 G=92s?
>
>
>
> I could
> see that if your struts were
> vertical (in line with the lift load). They are not=2C
> and since they are at an
> angle from the horizontal=2C each strut will see a load equal
> to the lift load at
> that point divided by the sine of the angle. For most
> Pietenpols=2C the angle is
> about 30=B0 and the sine of 30=B0 is .50=2C so if all four
> struts are carrying a
> quarter of the total load (they=92re not ' the front
> struts tend to
> carry more than the rears=2C due to the position of the
> center of pressure=2C and
> the pressure distribution curve)=2C and the total load is
> 4800 lbs=2C each strut is
> carrying 1200/.5 or 2400 lbs.
>
>
>
> Without
> knowing the pressure distribution
> on the wing=2C I would assume for safety=92s sake that the
> front struts are
> carrying 2/3 of the load and the rear struts only
> 1/3. If that is the case=2C
> then the load at each front strut fitting on the wing at 4
> g=92s with a
> 1200 lb gross weight would be 2/3 (2400) or 1600 lbs.
> This is assuming that
> each wing panel is generating half the lift or 2400 lbs=2C
> and the centersection
> is adding nothing=2C so again this is a conservative
> assumption. If the lift
> load at the front strut is 1600 lbs=2C the load in the strut
> itself will be twice
> that (if the angle is 30=B0) or 3200 lbs. Quite a bit
> different than the 1200
> lbs you were calculating.
>
>
>
> Jack
> Phillips
>
> NX899JP
> =93Icarus Plummet=94
>
> Raleigh=2C
> NC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Michael Perez
>
> Sent: Monday=2C
> January 10=2C 2011
> 11:43 AM
>
> To:
> pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
> Subject:
> Pietenpol-List: Please
> Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am trying to
> figure out bolt hole edge spacing for
> my aluminum wing struts. These struts are the small
> struts from Carlson
> Aircraft. Doing the math=2C from the info. at the
> site=2C I get a wall
> thickness of the strut at .119". Since the
> bolt would have to pull
> through both walls=2C that number is now .238".
>
>
>
> I am going to assume that my plane's weight will be
> 1000# and my weight will
> be 200#. (I am 165# actually) for total weight of 1200#.
>
>
>
> The plans show using a 5/16" bolt.
> (.3125") 2X bolt diameter
> minus 1/2 of a bolt diameter yields a hole edge spacing
> of .625 -
> .15625 = .46875"
>
>
>
> .46875 X .238 (strut wall thickness) = .1115625 square
> inches.
>
>
>
> .1115625 X 11637 (SHEAR listed on the website for the
> small strut) = 1298
> lbs.
>
>
>
> My 1200# plane at 4Gs is 4800#. Each lift strut will see
> about 1200 lbs each.
> (?)
>
>
>
> My aluminum struts with the 2 diameter bolt edge spacing
> should be able to
> handle 1298 lbs each...which is good for a 1200# plane at
> 4Gs.
>
>
>
> If I use an edge spacing of 1/2" even=2C then the new
> number is 1384# per
> strut.
>
>
>
> Thanks for any help advice.
>
>
>
> Michael Perez
>
> Karetaker Aero
>
> www.karetakeraero.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
&==
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing Strut Fork End Concerns |
| From: | "BYD" <billsayre(at)ymail.com> |
Okay Ryan, I'll put you down as a no.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326575#326575
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing Strut Fork End Concerns |
| From: | "DOMIT" <rx7_ragtop(at)yahoo.com> |
Be sure someone gets a video for YouTube if you try it.
(That counts as a no)
--------
Brad "DOMIT" Smith
First rule of ground school: This is the ground... don't hit it going fast.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326578#326578
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | shad bell <aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com> |
Man oh man, I ordered about $200-$300 of dillsburg tubing last year for my
Jungster, I have been working on my cabanes and using 40 year old streamlin
ed tubing made by Sumerhill (I think is the name on the tubing) made in the
USA.- I am a litle leary now of using any of the round stock-from Dill
sburg-for a flying machine, I guess I will have to do some experimenting
on it.
Shad
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: wing strut fork ends |
| From: | "gtche98" <gtche98(at)gmail.com> |
Larry - Burning it would be environmentally disastrous. I have a much better solution.
Just send me your address and I will come and take it off your hands
and you will never have to worry about it again! :)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326581#326581
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing Strut Fork End |
| From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
Michael wrote:
"Ah, yeah, I read all posts related to my original question. This safety factor
of 3, is that a standard factor or a number you came up with Bill?"
and
"I see the points of a few on this list and laugh at some of the others, but ..."
I guess I must be one of the ones whose points you laugh at.
Whatever...
In response to your question, the FS of 3 is based on general engineering practice.
I am a mechanical engineer, but not an aeronautical engineer, and have never claimed
to be one, so I did a little research today, and have discovered that it
is standard practice in aircraft design to use a Factor of safety of 1.5. This
seems a little counter-intuitive, since the Factor of Safety used for aircraft
design is half of that used in general practice, and only about one seventh
that used for elevator cables (the things used to move people up and down in
buildings, not the things at the back of the airplane). However, it has become
a standard practice, because weight saving is critical for an aircraft to work.
In order to be able to design inside this restrictive envelope, the aircraft
has to operate within certain well-defined parameters (max speed, load, maneuvers,
etc.). Additionally, the materials and practices used for aircraft manufacture
are subject to stringent qualifications and standards (e.g. AN hardware,
AC 43.13-1B, etc.). And finally, the actual aircraft are inspected more carefully
and regularly than ordinary equipment.
So, the short answer is that for aircraft design, the accepted minimum Factor of
Safety is 1.5. And the limit load for normal aircraft use is +4g, which can
be reached by recovering from a dive. Maybe not an activity that is planned, but
conceivable that it could occur during normal flight. So the design load is
then 6g. The Piper wing strut fittings may actually be slightly stronger than
that required for this specific purpose, since the Piper struts have only one
connection point at the bottom (Vee struts), but, as Jack explained, the front
struts carry the larger portion of the load anyway. Since these fittings are
readily available, and designed for this very purpose (wing strut fitting for
an aircraft of similar size and function), why not use them? From the Aircraft
Spruce website, the largest turnbuckle fork they list 161-80RS, which is rated
for 8000 lb, the price is about $40. The Piper fork is about $85. $45 difference
x 4 pcs = less than $200 "savings". Is it really worth it?
It's been said that an engineer is someone that calculates to five decimal places,
and then multiplies the final answer by 2. I guess that's me.
I'd hate to see someone suffer for the sake of saving a few dollars.
I'll shut up now.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326594#326594
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Charvet <bencharvet(at)gmail.com> |
Do you have any contact info for Ken? I noticed that Wag-Aero has
struts for around $289, but I'd rather give Ken the business.
Ben
On 1/11/2011 9:14 AM, TOM STINEMETZE wrote:
> *Ben:*
> **
> *I purchased the spring struts with springs from Ken Perkins in
> Olathe, KS. They came with the fork made up on one end. You adjust
> to the length needed and make your own fork on the opposite end.
> Takes a mighty good vice or other type of compressive device to
> squeeze the die springs sufficiently to assemble them. I could not
> tell that they compressed at all with me sitting in the plane and no
> engine on the front.*
> **
> *Tom*
> *N328X*
>
>
> >>> Ben Charvet 1/10/2011 7:07 PM >>>
> I'm thinking of replacing my bungees with springs like you have. Did
> you make the spring struts yourself, or buy them ready made?
>
> Ben Charvet
> NX866BC
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gliderx5(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut) |
There's a book by Skip Smith, "An Illustrated Guide to Aerodymanics" that d
oes a really great job of explaining lift and lift distribution. Here's a l
ink to the spanwise lift distrubution section. http://books.google.com/book
s?id=C8ZUBjtLXjEC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=spanwise+lift+distribution&so
urce=bl&ots=x-LHifhUYr&sig=fXe6_WzRfZekRoefbiyBFgd8EGg&hl=en&ei=C
PosTfD6IMOblgfJ18CMCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=
0CD0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=spanwise%20lift%20distribution&f=false . The
book has lots of pictures for people like me! Skip is a member of out local
EAA chapter and a really great guy. Everyone should have this book.
Malcolm Morrison
http://home.comcast.net/~mmorrison123/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 1:19:27 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
=EF=BB
EF Bruhn's book "Analysis and Design of Aircraft Structures" would disagree
with your statement that more lift is generated from the inboard section t
han the outboard sections. That would be true if the wing is tapered, but I
'm looking at a diagram of a rectangular wing with spars of equal depth the
entire length and the diagram of airload shows the same load on the tip as
on the root.
----- Original Message -----
From: gliderx5(at)comcast.net
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
It has to do with the distribution of lift. More lift is generated from the
inboard section of the wing than the outboard sections. As a result there
is less torque upward on the outer wing panels than if the lift was equal a
ll of the way across the wing. This means that there is less force imposed
on the lift strut. Let me caution you a little in that I am a software engi
neer with great interest in aviation, NOT a mechanical or aerospace enginee
r, so I could be full of crap! But, I have friends that are aeronautical en
gineers and I have run this by them. Someone could argue the numbers, but i
t should be very close.
Malcolm Morrison
http://home.comcast.net/~mmorrison123/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Perez" <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 9:38:03 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
et>
What in your math is different then Jack's 3200? Your numbers are quite dif
ferent?
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
--- On Mon, 1/10/11, gliderx5(at)comcast.net wrote:
> From: gliderx5(at)comcast.net <gliderx5(at)comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Monday, January 10, 2011, 8:43 PM
> #yiv909872567 p
> {margin:0;}I
> actually tried to determine these numbers a while back and
> put them on my web site at
> http://home.comcast.net/~mmorrison123/wing_loads.html
> . It's probably a goofy thing to read, but I tried
> to include the effect of an elliptical lift distribution,
> which is what you have with a rectangular wing.
> Adjusting my numbers up for a 1200 lb airplane at 4 Gs I get
> about 1760 lbs on the strut ends. Should be a little
> more on the front, and a little less on the rear.
>
> Malcolm Morrison
> http://home.comcast.net/~mmorrison123.html
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jack Phillips"
>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 1:09:25 PM
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Please Check My Math
> (alum.wing strut)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael,
> how are you arriving at 1200 lbs
> per strut at 4 G=99s?
>
>
>
> I could
> see that if your struts were
> vertical (in line with the lift load). They are not,
> and since they are at an
> angle from the horizontal, each strut will see a load equal
> to the lift load at
> that point divided by the sine of the angle. For most
> Pietenpols, the angle is
> about 30=C2=B0 and the sine of 30=C2=B0 is .50, so if all four
> struts are carrying a
> quarter of the total load (they=99re not =93 the front
> struts tend to
> carry more than the rears, due to the position of the
> center of pressure, and
> the pressure distribution curve), and the total load is
> 4800 lbs, each strut is
> carrying 1200/.5 or 2400 lbs.
>
>
>
> Without
> knowing the pressure distribution
> on the wing, I would assume for safety=99s sake that the
> front struts are
> carrying 2/3 of the load and the rear struts only
> 1/3. If that is the case,
> then the load at each front strut fitting on the wing at 4
> g=99s with a
> 1200 lb gross weight would be 2/3 (2400) or 1600 lbs.
> This is assuming that
> each wing panel is generating half the lift or 2400 lbs,
> and the centersection
> is adding nothing, so again this is a conservative
> assumption. If the lift
> load at the front strut is 1600 lbs, the load in the strut
> itself will be twice
> that (if the angle is 30=C2=B0) or 3200 lbs. Quite a bit
> different than the 1200
> lbs you were calculating.
>
>
>
> Jack
> Phillips
>
> NX899JP
> =9CIcarus Plummet=9D
>
> Raleigh,
> NC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Michael Perez
>
> Sent: Monday,
> January 10, 2011
> 11:43 AM
>
> To:
> pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
> Subject:
> Pietenpol-List: Please
> Check My Math (alum.wing strut)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am trying to
> figure out bolt hole edge spacing for
> my aluminum wing struts. These struts are the small
> struts from Carlson
> Aircraft. Doing the math, from the info. at the
> site, I get a wall
> thickness of the strut at .119". Since the
> bolt would have to pull
> through both walls, that number is now .238".
>
>
>
> I am going to assume that my plane's weight will be
> 1000# and my weight will
> be 200#. (I am 165# actually) for total weight of 1200#.
>
>
>
> The plans show using a 5/16" bolt.
> (.3125") 2X bolt diameter
> minus 1/2 of a bolt diameter yields a hole edge spacing
> of .625 -
> .15625 = .46875"
>
>
>
> .46875 X .238 (strut wall thickness) = .1115625 square
> inches.
>
>
>
> .1115625 X 11637 (SHEAR listed on the website for the
> small strut) = 1298
> lbs.
>
>
>
> My 1200# plane at 4Gs is 4800#. Each lift strut will see
> about 1200 lbs each.
> (?)
>
>
>
> My aluminum struts with the 2 diameter bolt edge spacing
> should be able to
> handle 1298 lbs each...which is good for a 1200# plane at
> 4Gs.
>
>
>
> If I use an edge spacing of 1/2" even, then the new
> number is 1384# per
> strut.
>
>
>
> Thanks for any help advice.
>
>
>
> Michael Perez
>
> Karetaker Aero
>
> www.karetakeraero.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
&===
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c _
-========================
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing Strut Fork End |
If I may, I'll add my $.02. My disclaimer: I do have an aerospace engineering degree,
but that was > 35 years ago, and I have not worked as an aero engineer
(I got into computer software early on.)
In dealing with aircraft structures you need to take into account both limit and
ultimate loads, since our safety factor is a relatively slim 1.5. So the 4g
we've been referencing here is the limit load to design to. At any load up to
the point, everything in the structure must be able to withstand it without any
permanent deformation (i.e. nothing can bend and take a permanent set.) The
structure will bend and flex, but once you're back on the ground everything will
spring back to the way it was.
Now take all those loads you've calculated, multiply 'em by 1.5. Now every bit
of the structure has to withstand those loads without failing, but they may take
a permanent bend. Where this is important on our Piet's is that the difference
in load between the yield point of wood and its breaking point is less than
a factor of 1.5. So if your structure (such as wood struts) just meets the design
limit loads, it's likely to break before reaching the ultimate loads. For
most metals that we'll use, the difference between yield and breaking is greater
than 1.5, so so can design to the 4g. I don't imagine many of us would intentionally
stress a Pietenpol to 4g's, but as Bill said, various maneuvers could
put you up there.
Again, as Bill and Jack have mentioned, the front spar will carry more load than
the rear, particularly at high angles of attack. And, if you ever hit those
4g's it will be at a high angle of attack. If you want to really get into the
math, there was a good series of articles on stress analysis of a strut braced
rectangular wing (Baby Ace) in Sport Aviation, Nov. & Dec. 1963, and Sept. 1965.
(No, I'm not that old, but I do have a reprint of the articles in an old EAA
publication, "Design, vol. 3".
Another factor to consider is the category of the airplane. From what I remember
(don't have any of my old texts on hand) normal category aircraft are designed
to a limit load of 3.8g. Utility aircraft (Cessna 150/152 are I believe in
the utility category, as is the Bonanza and others) are designed to 4g, and aerobatic
aircraft to 6g. (Although most aerobatic aircraft are now designed and
flown to loads well above 6g. The RedBull racers have pulled over 12g momentarily!)
Ken
On Jan 11, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Bill Church wrote:
>
> Michael wrote:
> "Ah, yeah, I read all posts related to my original question. This safety factor
of 3, is that a standard factor or a number you came up with Bill?"
> and
> "I see the points of a few on this list and laugh at some of the others, but
..."
>
> I guess I must be one of the ones whose points you laugh at.
> Whatever...
>
> In response to your question, the FS of 3 is based on general engineering practice.
> I am a mechanical engineer, but not an aeronautical engineer, and have never
claimed to be one, so I did a little research today, and have discovered that
it is standard practice in aircraft design to use a Factor of safety of 1.5. This
seems a little counter-intuitive, since the Factor of Safety used for aircraft
design is half of that used in general practice, and only about one seventh
that used for elevator cables (the things used to move people up and down in
buildings, not the things at the back of the airplane). However, it has become
a standard practice, because weight saving is critical for an aircraft to work.
In order to be able to design inside this restrictive envelope, the aircraft
has to operate within certain well-defined parameters (max speed, load, maneuvers,
etc.). Additionally, the materials and practices used for aircraft manufacture
are subject to stringent qualifications and standards (e.g. AN hardware,
AC 43.13-1B, etc.). And finally, the actual airc!
> raft are inspected more carefully and regularly than ordinary equipment.
> So, the short answer is that for aircraft design, the accepted minimum Factor
of Safety is 1.5. And the limit load for normal aircraft use is +4g, which can
be reached by recovering from a dive. Maybe not an activity that is planned,
but conceivable that it could occur during normal flight. So the design load
is then 6g. The Piper wing strut fittings may actually be slightly stronger than
that required for this specific purpose, since the Piper struts have only one
connection point at the bottom (Vee struts), but, as Jack explained, the front
struts carry the larger portion of the load anyway. Since these fittings are
readily available, and designed for this very purpose (wing strut fitting for
an aircraft of similar size and function), why not use them? From the Aircraft
Spruce website, the largest turnbuckle fork they list 161-80RS, which is rated
for 8000 lb, the price is about $40. The Piper fork is about $85. $45 difference
x 4 pcs = less than $200 "savings". Is it real!
> ly worth it?
> It's been said that an engineer is someone that calculates to five decimal places,
and then multiplies the final answer by 2. I guess that's me.
> I'd hate to see someone suffer for the sake of saving a few dollars.
> I'll shut up now.
>
> Bill C.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326594#326594
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting |
For whomever it was asking, here is a simple drawing of a simple idea. There is
a lot of room for change and improvement here, this was what I came up with right
off the bat.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "blue213" <lmarion1(at)comcast.net> |
Flyboy wrote:
> I'm a new guy, woodshop teacher, building a Piet with 12 students. Our fuselage
is making progress. What tailwheel is recommended for the Piet. We plan on
using 600-6 tires and springs instead of bungee cords. Would appreciate any
help possible. Flyboy from Berwick PA
Hey Teach,
can you hit
enter every
once in a
while? :D
--------
Blue
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326621#326621
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Strut Fork End |
The article Ken mentions is located on Chris Tracy's website here:
http://www.westcoastpiet.com/construction.htm
Greg C.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Howe" <ken@cooper-mtn.com>
>
If you want to really get into the math, there was a good series of
articles on stress analysis of a strut braced rectangular wing (Baby Ace) in
Sport Aviation, Nov. & Dec. 1963, and Sept. 1965. (No, I'm not that old, but
I do have a reprint of the articles in an old EAA publication, "Design, vol.
3".
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ernie Moreno" <ewmoreno(at)minetfiber.com> |
Actually, we are building 5 DH-2's. Our first choice at this point is a
2276VW with a 2.5x1 belt redrive from Valley Engineering. This combo
allows the use of 96x63 prop. This combo when tested gave 620 lbs. of
statc thrust. I know it is not the same in the air, but I think that it
will provide enough thrust to move 1000 gross aircraft through the air.
Wing area is 256 square feet. Empty weight that I am shooting for is 690
to 710 lbs. It will carry approximately 15 gallons of fuel with up to a
250 lbs. pilot. There are some pictures of the project on EAA 292
chapter website.
Ernie Moreno
Noon Patrol Builder Group
Piet 2431
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: steel
Wow, 4 DH-2s, neat aircraft, what engines are you planning on using?
rick
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Ernie Moreno
wrote:
Had a conversation with my steel tube supplier today. For the
record, my supplier is Tube Service in Portland Or. They advised me that
there is 4130 Chromoly Steel available US made. It is available through
a company called Wesco (is somewhere in Southern Calif.) and from
Plymouth (in Arizona). From past experience I know that Plymouth does
aluminium tubing also. My supplier agreed to replace all the Chinese
tubing with made in USA tubing for no change in price. A great company.
For the record I and four other individuals are building full size
DH-2's. Using the basic Pietenpol specs on the gear, Ken Perkins hubs,
21"wheels with 21x3.25 tires.
Ernie Moreno
Piet 2431
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
01/11/11
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ernie Moreno" <ewmoreno(at)minetfiber.com> |
I note that tubing from the USA and Germany have a oily black look to them
inside and out. the Chinese 4130 tubing has gray sandy look to it. On the
lathe it does not cut smooth. It has a ASTM number as well as the dimensions
on the tube but only on one end. It came with paperwork that said it matched
the Mil Spec and ASTM standards.
Ernie Moreno
Piet 2431
----- Original Message -----
From: "K5YAC" <hangar10(at)cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 11:07 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: 4130 tubing
>
> Hmm, well then something doesn't jive. Either AS&S isn't getting their
> tubing from Dillsburg, or Dillsburg isn't getting his tubing from China.
> I hope the latter is true, but it could also explain why he is the
> cheapest in the business. I'm about ready to build the kiddo a go-kart
> out of this crap and plunk down the money for the good stuff, which I
> thought I was getting.
>
> I'll look at my material to see if there are any markings that indicate
> origin. I'll compare it to the stuff that I get from AS&S as well. I can
> say this... in comparison to a few pieces of 4130 that we have at work,
> the tubing I got from Dillsburg looks like gas pipe. The material at work
> is from Jorgensen... the surfaces (especially inside) are very smooth and
> shiny. Not the case with the Dillsburg tubing. In all fairness, I
> haven't taken the time to cut and clean a piece up, but I think I might do
> that this evening and bring it in tomorrow.
>
> Aww, the heck with it, I'm calling Vogelsong...
>
> Yep, I spoke to his secretary and she confirmed it... Chinese tubing. She
> also told me that his son (mentioned in another thread) no longer works
> for him. I said, "Imagine that." She came right out and said it... he
> really doesn't care anymore. People have tried to talk to him, but he
> makes it clear to them that he is in charge and the place will be run the
> way he wants. I can somewhat understand that, but at some point it will
> be run into the ground.
>
> Jorgensen says no way on Chinese tube... 70%-80% of their 4130 tubing is
> domestic, but some comes from England, Germany or other European
> locations. I'll be checking with Trident, AS&S and others just out of
> curiosity. The Jorgensen rep did tell me to look closely at the line
> marking and that it should state not only what type and dimension, but
> what mill it was run at as well as what ATSM standard it meets. He also
> said that we could line up tubing from 5 different vendors and that all of
> them would look slightly different as far as finish, so that is no way to
> compare. The only way to know for sure is to take samples to Sherry Labs
> (local) and have them test it. I could probably reorder the entire batch
> from a reputible outfit for less.
>
> --------
> Mark Chouinard
> Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326552#326552
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Piet2112" <curtdm(at)gmail.com> |
The tubing I got from AS&S was from both Benteler (Germany) and Plymouth Tube
ProMoly (US).
Curt Merdan
Flower Mound, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326628#326628
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TOM MICHELLE BRANT <tmbrant(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting |
should work - I may steal the idea myself - thanks for sharing.
Tom B.
Date: Tue=2C 11 Jan 2011 18:05:11 -0800
From: speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting
For whomever it was asking=2C here is a simple drawing of a simple idea. Th
ere is a lot of room for change and improvement here=2C this was what I cam
e up with right off the bat.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting |
Thanks Michael, good start!
KIp Gardner
On Jan 11, 2011, at 9:05 PM, Michael Perez wrote:
> For whomever it was asking, here is a simple drawing of a simple
> idea. There is a lot of room for change and improvement here, this
> was what I came up with right off the bat.
>
> Michael Perez
> Karetaker Aero
> www.karetakeraero.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting |
| From: | "DOMIT" <rx7_ragtop(at)yahoo.com> |
Nice! I might steal that for the project I'm involved with.
--------
Brad "DOMIT" Smith
First rule of ground school: This is the ground... don't hit it going fast.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326632#326632
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut) |
Yes, but I was replying to the message referenced from
Malcolm. And the whole thing started with Michael's
question regarding the lift strut forces. So both this chart
and the info your guessing at, which would have to come
from research info on the Bernard airfoil, are important.
We don't have the airfoil info, only that from similiar ones
like the Jenny's. The rear strut is actually quite far forward
Making it relatively close to the center of pressure. With
the allowable CG being between 15" and 20" then we
can assume the CP to fall near the center of that range.
The front strut is 7" from the LE making it 10 to 11"
ahead of the CP. The rear spar is 36" from the LE making
it 18 to 19" from the CP so the front spar takes between
10/19ths to 11/18ths of the load. Two thirds is 66% and
11/18ths is 0.62, pretty close to 2/3rds. So, Jack, using
your guess provides a bit of safety factor. Pretty good
guesstimating. :-)
Clif
"Education: the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty."
- Mark Twain, writer and humorist
My guess was that it carrries 2/3 of the load and the rear spars only
1/3, but this is only a GUESS. It may be carrying much more of the load
than that. It might be carrying =BE of the load.
In Michael's case, the best thing to do is to build his plane with the
cheap fittings, then load it to gross weight and subject it to maneuvers
which induce 6 G's and see if he dies in the test. If he doesn't die,
then it was OK.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Owen Davies <owen5819(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting |
I'd give some thought to plating each side of the strut with plywood and
moving the bolts further up. As it is drawn, the end-most bolt almost
surely would rip out the moment it took any stress. The basic concept
looks good, though.
(No doubt you guys knew all that, of course, but just in case....)
Owen
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing Strut Fork End |
| From: | "DOMIT" <rx7_ragtop(at)yahoo.com> |
ken(at)cooper-mtn.com wrote:
> Another factor to consider is the category of the airplane. From what I remember
(don't have any of my old texts on hand) normal category aircraft are designed
to a limit load of 3.8g. Utility aircraft (Cessna 150/152 are I believe in
the utility category, as is the Bonanza and others) are designed to 4g, and
aerobatic aircraft to 6g. (Although most aerobatic aircraft are now designed and
flown to loads well above 6g. The RedBull racers have pulled over 12g momentarily!)
>
> Ken
>
> On Jan 11, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Bill Church wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Correction: The 150/152 are in the "Oh my GOD that's ugly" catagory. They
don't have to worry about air loads, they don't fly by aerodynamic laws. They're
so ugly they repel the earth.
> > Michael wrote:
> > "Ah, yeah, I read all posts related to my original question. This safety factor
of 3, is that a standard factor or a number you came up with Bill?"
> > and
> > "I see the points of a few on this list and laugh at some of the others, but
..."
> >
> > I guess I must be one of the ones whose points you laugh at.
> > Whatever...
> >
> > In response to your question, the FS of 3 is based on general engineering
practice.
> > I am a mechanical engineer, but not an aeronautical engineer, and have never
claimed to be one, so I did a little research today, and have discovered that
it is standard practice in aircraft design to use a Factor of safety of 1.5.
This seems a little counter-intuitive, since the Factor of Safety used for aircraft
design is half of that used in general practice, and only about one seventh
that used for elevator cables (the things used to move people up and down
in buildings, not the things at the back of the airplane). However, it has become
a standard practice, because weight saving is critical for an aircraft to
work. In order to be able to design inside this restrictive envelope, the aircraft
has to operate within certain well-defined parameters (max speed, load,
maneuvers, etc.). Additionally, the materials and practices used for aircraft
manufacture are subject to stringent qualifications and standards (e.g. AN hardware,
AC 43.13-1B, etc.). And finally, the actual airc!
> > raft are inspected more carefully and regularly than ordinary equipment.
> > So, the short answer is that for aircraft design, the accepted minimum Factor
of Safety is 1.5. And the limit load for normal aircraft use is +4g, which
can be reached by recovering from a dive. Maybe not an activity that is planned,
but conceivable that it could occur during normal flight. So the design load
is then 6g. The Piper wing strut fittings may actually be slightly stronger
than that required for this specific purpose, since the Piper struts have only
one connection point at the bottom (Vee struts), but, as Jack explained, the
front struts carry the larger portion of the load anyway. Since these fittings
are readily available, and designed for this very purpose (wing strut fitting
for an aircraft of similar size and function), why not use them? From the Aircraft
Spruce website, the largest turnbuckle fork they list 161-80RS, which is
rated for 8000 lb, the price is about $40. The Piper fork is about $85. $45
difference x 4 pcs = less than $200 "savings". Is it real!
> > ly worth it?
> > It's been said that an engineer is someone that calculates to five decimal
places, and then multiplies the final answer by 2. I guess that's me.
> > I'd hate to see someone suffer for the sake of saving a few dollars.
> > I'll shut up now.
> >
> > Bill C.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326594#326594
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
:P
--------
Brad "DOMIT" Smith
First rule of ground school: This is the ground... don't hit it going fast.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326633#326633
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "amsafetyc(at)aol.com" <amsafetyc(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting |
Which is the reason for embedded metal at each end and midway not halfway
points able to hold thru bolting with less chance of tearing out. Taking
advantage of experienced builder comments on setting up a vibration at jury
strut location half way rather than a sorta midway offset position.
Its that safety thing in me that says a little metalic insurance is not a
bad thing even with a nominal weight penalty its peace of mind assurance.
John
Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless
-----Original message-----
From: Owen Davies <owen5819(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Wed, Jan 12, 2011 04:22:17 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting
I'd give some thought to plating each side of the strut with plywood and
moving the bolts further up. As it is drawn, the end-most bolt almost
surely would rip out the moment it took any stress. The basic concept
looks good, though.
(No doubt you guys knew all that, of course, but just in case....)
Owen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Owen Davies <owen5819(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting |
On 1/11/2011 11:36 PM, amsafetyc(at)aol.com wrote:
> Which is the reason for embedded metal at each end and midway not
> halfway points able to hold thru bolting with less chance of tearing
> out. Taking advantage of experienced builder comments on setting up a
> vibration at jury strut location half way rather than a sorta midway
> offset position.
Sorry, I must have missed something in the drawing.
Owen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bubbleboy" <scott.dawson3(at)bigpond.com> |
I would love to join...if it was more join friendly for international people!
Why cant they accept Paypal? Everyone else does. An international draft costs twice
what the subscription is!
Ok...my whinge over for the day!
Scotty 8)
--------
Scotty
Tamworth, Australia
Building a Corvair Powered Pietenpol Air Camper
www.scottyspietenpol.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326642#326642
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV10-List: Airfoil Drag Video... |
| From: | "GliderMike" <glidermikeg(at)yahoo.com> |
Cover the wheels to eliminate the drag from the spokes. It works wonders on reducing
the drag. Most difficult thing about a cover, is doing a clean attachment
that is also easy to remove and put back on. I have a cover for the rear
wheel on one of my bicycles, and one side had a drum brake on it. It was difficult
to get the drum off to be able to R&R the cover on that side. The covered
wheels are more in keeping with "The Look" anyway. Makes it even more of a
chick magnet. I'm so far from the time I will need to be thinking about wheels,
I'm not concerned about the engineering to do the wheel covers yet. I was
going to have some wood for ribs ordered by now, but someone ran a red light,
totaled my car, and kept on going, which sort of put a crunch in the finances
again. I think I was lucky on the deal, cause they hit me probably doing 40 to
50 mph, at my door, and I never showed any signs of bruises or neck pain or
any other problems. The police found the car, but no occupants. The people in
the car that hit me didn't come out as well as I did, as there were 2 serious
dents in the windshield from the inside. The police said they were surprised
the people didn't end up in the hospital.
--------
HOMEBUILDER
Will WORK for Spruce
Long flights, smooth air, and soft landings,
GliderMike, aka Mike Glasgow
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326645#326645
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut) |
No. If you look at the chart I sent the left end is the ROOT end at the
fuselage. The air flowing over the wing is
also flowing outwards on the bottom and inwards on the
top which is where tip votices come from. The air gets
to the tip, flows out from underneath, rolls over the top
and spirals rearwards. It's actualy doing this a little bit
all the way along but nothing like at the tip. So some of
the lift near and at the tip is compromised.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF54SvC5ZAs
Clif
This would also imply that there is not as much lift generated at the
root either. This would mean that most of the lift would be generated in
the middle 80% (paredo principle anyone.) Doug Dever
In beautiful Stow Ohio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "amsafetyc(at)aol.com" <amsafetyc(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting |
That wasn't in the drawing just something I decided to do as a safety
precaution
John
Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless
-----Original message-----
From: Owen Davies <owen5819(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Wed, Jan 12, 2011 05:10:15 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting
On 1/11/2011 11:36 PM, amsafetyc(at)aol.com wrote:
> Which is the reason for embedded metal at each end and midway not
> halfway points able to hold thru bolting with less chance of tearing
> out. Taking advantage of experienced builder comments on setting up a
> vibration at jury strut location half way rather than a sorta midway
> offset position.
Sorry, I must have missed something in the drawing.
Owen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting |
In response to some of the comments re the bolt pattern, embedded
steel, etc. Michael said this was a preliminary drawing and I take it
as such, but the concept is sound, I think.
As for embedding steel in the wood strut, unless you were going to do
that the entire length of the strut and use only the steel for
attachment, what would be the point? Would not short lengths of steel
be as prone to tear-out as the bolts? You could epoxy them in I
suppose, but I've never been that impressed with the bonding strength
of epoxy to steel. If you went with full length steel, what's the
point to wood struts except appearance?
As I stated in my original post asking bout this option, I'm making
laminated struts with embedded carbon fiber running the length of the
strut and additional fiber running 90 degrees to that at the ends. Of
course there will be jury struts. Laminations will probably be done
with West System epoxy. Does anyone find fault with that approach?
KIp Gardner
On Jan 11, 2011, at 9:05 PM, Michael Perez wrote:
> For whomever it was asking, here is a simple drawing of a simple
> idea. There is a lot of room for change and improvement here, this
> was what I came up with right off the bat.
>
> Michael Perez
> Karetaker Aero
> www.karetakeraero.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "TOM STINEMETZE" <TOMS(at)mcpcity.com> |
Ben:
Here is what you are looking for: This should be permanently posted
somewhere - EVERYBODY should visit with Ken at least once.
Ken Perkins 1480 Martway Olathe, Ks. 66061 (913) 764 6949 kenandvernaperkin
s(at)sbcglobal.net
Tom
>>> Ben Charvet 1/11/2011 6:20 PM >>>
Do you have any contact info for Ken? I noticed that Wag-Aero has struts
for around $289, but I'd rather give Ken the business.
Ben
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting |
| From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
Kip wrote:
"If you went with full length steel, what's the point to wood struts except appearance?"
Well, IS there another reason to go with wood struts, other than appearance?
Don't get me wrong, I really like the look of wood struts, and I have an idea that
I think will work, but need to prove it out before sharing it with everyone.
I just don't know of a reason why anyone would use wood struts rather than
steel, other than for appearance.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326666#326666
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net> |
I don't see the need for all the discussion about wing-strut adjustment
forks. Bernie's plans don't show any adjustment forks in the wing
struts. He just put the wing in the position he wanted it, measured the
distance between the attachment bolts at each end, and cut the strut to
the proper length and installed it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gboothe5" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting |
Is it not possible to just copy what has been successfully used already?
Gary Boothe
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Church
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 7:00 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting
Kip wrote:
"If you went with full length steel, what's the point to wood struts except
appearance?"
Well, IS there another reason to go with wood struts, other than appearance?
Don't get me wrong, I really like the look of wood struts, and I have an
idea that I think will work, but need to prove it out before sharing it with
everyone. I just don't know of a reason why anyone would use wood struts
rather than steel, other than for appearance.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326666#326666
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting |
Why not just glue 1/16" plywood on metal struts if appearance is all you're
interested in?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 9:59 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting
>
>
> Kip wrote:
> "If you went with full length steel, what's the point to wood struts
> except appearance?"
>
> Well, IS there another reason to go with wood struts, other than
> appearance?
> Don't get me wrong, I really like the look of wood struts, and I have an
> idea that I think will work, but need to prove it out before sharing it
> with everyone. I just don't know of a reason why anyone would use wood
> struts rather than steel, other than for appearance.
>
> Bill C.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326666#326666
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net> |
You are correct Charles. However, those "as drawn" struts are steel and hav
e re-enforcing washers welded around the bolt holes. The hole is set back 3
/4" from the end. (Which you may already know.)- My first issue is my alu
minum struts. I can mount the strut as drawn, but in that fashion, the alum
inum will not be strong enough.- I need to find another means to do so an
d as most, I figured I would make it adjustable for dihedral, or other twea
king.
-
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
Some people (like me) added an adjustable fork on the bottom of the rear
flying strut allowing minor adjustments for washout or to just equalize
incidence on both sides. (Of course without any adjustment you can remake
strut end fittings if adjustment is needed).
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Charles Campbell wrote:
> I don't see the need for all the discussion about wing-strut adjustment
> forks. Bernie's plans don't show any adjustment forks in the wing struts.
> He just put the wing in the position he wanted it, measured the distance
> between the attachment bolts at each end, and cut the strut to the proper
> length and installed it.
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting |
| From: | Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
No Charles, you missed my point, appearance is not just what I'm interested in,
although it is a factor. I want to use wood struts, not just have the appearance
of wood, and I like laminations both for appearance and because they are
stronger and it's easier to get a uniform final product. I generally don't like
metal, it gives me the heebie jeebies to work with. I know it's unavoidable
in building an airplane, but I like and prefer working with wood where possible.
Gary, there are scant examples of wood struts on Piets out there, and none that
I've seen that I'm entirely happy with.
KIp Gardner
On Jan 12, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Charles Campbell wrote:
>
> Why not just glue 1/16" plywood on metal struts if appearance is all you're interested
in?
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 9:59 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting
>
>
>>
>> Kip wrote:
>> "If you went with full length steel, what's the point to wood struts except
appearance?"
>>
>> Well, IS there another reason to go with wood struts, other than appearance?
>> Don't get me wrong, I really like the look of wood struts, and I have an idea
that I think will work, but need to prove it out before sharing it with everyone.
I just don't know of a reason why anyone would use wood struts rather than
steel, other than for appearance.
>>
>> Bill C.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326666#326666
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AMsafetyC(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting |
Not proposing to get involved within a contest of urination and whom can
higher on the fire hydrant,
I am using laminated wooden struts with steel embedded at what I alone
considered critical points. Not that it matters much however when you add a
piece of steel that is glued in with epoxy. I like the appearance of wood over
full steel along with the cost of the laminated wood over aluminum so
wood appeals to my aesthetic, economical and style needs as a slave to
fashion. The embedded steel is 8 inches long and will be thru bolted at the top
before being bolted to the mounting as such, will reduce the likelihood of
splitting out at the mounting point closer to the end of the strut. Now
because I prefer the look of wood in this application, the lamination is of
whit ash and black walnut which matches all of the other outside wooden style
components. For which I was sharing what I was doing as opposed to looking
for conscious opinion of approval.
So the point is, I like it, the metal extends bell above the attachment
point and the thru bolting adds a margin of safety, which in my own mind
reduces the remote possibility of breaking out holes at the lower end mounting
point. This is all designed to provide me, piece of mind. Ultimately its my
airplane, my decision and obviously I really have no particular bent on
arguing the point, however if I get into a situation where the airframe is
being stressed in excess of the tear out of 8 inches of steel thru bolted to
wooden struts at 2 locations with appropriately sized AN bolts and nuts,
than I have much bigger issues to contend with; for which aluminum struts,
carbon fiber, full length embedded metal or and any other strut material
combination cannot and or will not provide any better of a solution.
Of course ruling out the possibility of missing the trap on the 4 wire
and bolting to a missed trap go around. Fortunately I have yet to do that so
am feeling rather confident in my strut plans.
John
In a message dated 1/12/2011 10:02:14 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
billspiet(at)sympatico.ca writes:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Bill Church"
Kip wrote:
"If you went with full length steel, what's the point to wood struts
except appearance?"
Well, IS there another reason to go with wood struts, other than
appearance?
Don't get me wrong, I really like the look of wood struts, and I have an
idea that I think will work, but need to prove it out before sharing it with
everyone. I just don't know of a reason why anyone would use wood struts
rather than steel, other than for appearance.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326666#326666
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting |
| From: | gboothe5(at)comcast.net |
Douwe, John Greenlee, and, more recently, the notorius Axel Purtee, just to name
a few, all have functioning attachments for wood struts. Since I'm not educated
enough to figure out such things, I'll just copy what's already flying, but
will be interested in seeing what you come up with.
Gary
Sent on the Sprint Now Network from my BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net>
Sender: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:38:28
Wood Wing Strut Fitting
No Charles, you missed my point, appearance is not just what I'm interested in,
although it is a factor. I want to use wood struts, not just have the appearance
of wood, and I like laminations both for appearance and because they are
stronger and it's easier to get a uniform final product. I generally don't like
metal, it gives me the heebie jeebies to work with. I know it's unavoidable
in building an airplane, but I like and prefer working with wood where possible.
Gary, there are scant examples of wood struts on Piets out there, and none that
I've seen that I'm entirely happy with.
KIp Gardner
On Jan 12, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Charles Campbell wrote:
>
> Why not just glue 1/16" plywood on metal struts if appearance is all you're interested
in?
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 9:59 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting
>
>
>>
>> Kip wrote:
>> "If you went with full length steel, what's the point to wood struts except
appearance?"
>>
>> Well, IS there another reason to go with wood struts, other than appearance?
>> Don't get me wrong, I really like the look of wood struts, and I have an idea
that I think will work, but need to prove it out before sharing it with everyone.
I just don't know of a reason why anyone would use wood struts rather than
steel, other than for appearance.
>>
>> Bill C.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326666#326666
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting |
| From: | "Piet2112" <curtdm(at)gmail.com> |
Michael,
Here are some photos of Kevin Purtee's Fat Bottom Girl that may help.
Curt Merdan
Flower Mound, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326700#326700
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/100_1161_113.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/100_1160_203.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/100_1145_100.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Please Check My Math (alum.wing strut) |
| From: | "Dennis Vetter" <minimax103(at)hotmail.com> |
I've heard several times that on a pietenpol the front and rear spars and stuts
carry about the same load. :? [/b]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326701#326701
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net> |
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Complexity
Some people (like me) added an adjustable fork on the bottom of the
rear flying strut allowing minor adjustments for washout or to just
equalize incidence on both sides. (Of course without any adjustment you
can remake strut end fittings if adjustment is needed).
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Charles Campbell
wrote:
I don't see the need for all the discussion about wing-strut
adjustment forks. Bernie's plans don't show any adjustment forks in the
wing struts. He just put the wing in the position he wanted it,
measured the distance between the attachment bolts at each end, and cut
the strut to the proper length and installed it.
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting |
| From: | Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
Thanks Curt!
Kip G.
On Jan 12, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Piet2112 wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> Here are some photos of Kevin Purtee's Fat Bottom Girl that may help.
>
> Curt Merdan
> Flower Mound, TX
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326700#326700
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/100_1161_113.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/100_1160_203.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/100_1145_100.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Acceptable tolerances |
| From: | "Kringle" <Mrkringles(at)msn.com> |
When working with the wood portion of a Pietenpol, what are the acceptable tolerances?
I've always heard;
Home builder 1/4 inch
Cabinet maker 1/8
Furniture Builder 1/16
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326719#326719
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting |
| From: | "DOMIT" <rx7_ragtop(at)yahoo.com> |
I have seen that aircraft in person, and I can absolutely assure you that the pics
do NOT do it justice. It is a beautiful airplane!
--------
Brad "DOMIT" Smith
First rule of ground school: This is the ground... don't hit it going fast.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326720#326720
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Acceptable tolerances |
All I can tell you is that when I was working on the F-16 Fighting Falcon
design back in the mid '70's, the standard tolerance was +/- .030". Tight
tolerances were +/- .010" and required considerable justification. If such
tolerances are good enough for a supersonic jet fighter, they should be
sufficient for a Pietenpol.
Acceptable tolerances are whatever you accept, depending on the materials in
question. If using T-88, a gap in the joint of up to 1/32" is acceptable.
If using Resorcinol, that is unacceptable and will produce a very weak
joint.
The tolerance also depends on the measurement in question. For example, in
making fittings, I would try to make them as accurate as possible and threw
some out that were off by .020" in hole position. But when rigging the
wings on my Pietenpol, I got the distance from wingtip to tailpost to be
within about 1/16" of each other and was delighted to have it that close.
Just remember that building an airplane is largely a series of alignment
exercises. The more accurately you make the individual components, the
easier the alignment will be.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kringle
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:22 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Acceptable tolerances
When working with the wood portion of a Pietenpol, what are the acceptable
tolerances? I've always heard;
Home builder 1/4 inch
Cabinet maker 1/8
Furniture Builder 1/16
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326719#326719
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KM Heide CPO/FAAOP <kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Acceptable tolerances |
Pietenpol builder 1/32"
--- On Wed, 1/12/11, Kringle wrote:
> From: Kringle <Mrkringles(at)msn.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Acceptable tolerances
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 12:22 PM
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted
> by: "Kringle"
>
> When working with the wood portion of a Pietenpol, what are
> the acceptable tolerances? I've always heard;
>
> Home builder 1/4 inch
> Cabinet maker 1/8
> Furniture Builder 1/16
>
> --------
> John
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326719#326719
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Acceptable tolerances |
Jack, I once (a long time ago) took an aeronautical drafting course and our
drafting had to be +/- 0.040 inch. That's a bit closer than most of the
Pietenpol drawings.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:50 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Acceptable tolerances
>
>
>
> All I can tell you is that when I was working on the F-16 Fighting Falcon
> design back in the mid '70's, the standard tolerance was +/- .030". Tight
> tolerances were +/- .010" and required considerable justification. If
> such
> tolerances are good enough for a supersonic jet fighter, they should be
> sufficient for a Pietenpol.
>
> Acceptable tolerances are whatever you accept, depending on the materials
> in
> question. If using T-88, a gap in the joint of up to 1/32" is acceptable.
> If using Resorcinol, that is unacceptable and will produce a very weak
> joint.
>
> The tolerance also depends on the measurement in question. For example,
> in
> making fittings, I would try to make them as accurate as possible and
> threw
> some out that were off by .020" in hole position. But when rigging the
> wings on my Pietenpol, I got the distance from wingtip to tailpost to be
> within about 1/16" of each other and was delighted to have it that close.
>
> Just remember that building an airplane is largely a series of alignment
> exercises. The more accurately you make the individual components, the
> easier the alignment will be.
>
> Jack Phillips
> NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
> Raleigh, NC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kringle
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:22 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Acceptable tolerances
>
>
> When working with the wood portion of a Pietenpol, what are the acceptable
> tolerances? I've always heard;
>
> Home builder 1/4 inch
> Cabinet maker 1/8
> Furniture Builder 1/16
>
> --------
> John
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326719#326719
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net> |
I know the PA22/20 that I rebuilt back in the 80's had an adjustable
fitting on the rear struts. Had to use them when cranking in the
washout in the wing tips.
----- Original Message -----
From: Charles Campbell
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Complexity
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Complexity
Some people (like me) added an adjustable fork on the bottom of the
rear flying strut allowing minor adjustments for washout or to just
equalize incidence on both sides. (Of course without any adjustment you
can remake strut end fittings if adjustment is needed).
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Charles Campbell
wrote:
I don't see the need for all the discussion about wing-strut
adjustment forks. Bernie's plans don't show any adjustment forks in the
wing struts. He just put the wing in the position he wanted it,
measured the distance between the attachment bolts at each end, and cut
the strut to the proper length and installed it.
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Acceptable tolerances |
| From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
I don't think there can be one general tolerance for everything on the whole project.
The fuselage could be plus or minus a half inch (in length or width) and it wouldn't
really make a difference. But if your top cross pieces were 1/8" longer
or shorter than the bottom cross pieces, then your fuselage wouldn't be "square",
as it needs to be. Similarly, if the rib profile is out by 1/8", it could
potentially affect the aerodynamics of the wing. On the other hand, if the chord
of the wing ended up 1/4" big or small, the difference wouldn't be noticeable.
Or if the wingspan was 2" longer than expected, it would likely have no ill
effects.
The more accurately that the parts are made, the better they will all fit together,
and the happier you'll be.
More important than dimensional accuracy is dimensional consistency.
Additionally, keeping things square (where they are supposed to be square) and
symmetrical is extremely important.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326746#326746
________________________________________________________________________________
I believe it's time for a fresh thread.......... Could those of you with
trim systems "flying and not" please post pics of your trim tab, and
your trim adjustment mechanism in the cockpit. Thanks.
Brian
SLC-UT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Perez <speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Acceptable tolerances |
To expand a little on that...most of the machining jobs I have done for work had
a tolerance of about .010". As noted, it all depended on the material and the
parts function. If one part needed to fit within another, they would specify,
say, +.010, -.005...to avoid binding of the two parts.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
--- On Wed, 1/12/11, Jack Phillips wrote:
> From: Jack Phillips <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Acceptable tolerances
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 1:50 PM
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted
> by: "Jack Phillips"
>
>
> All I can tell you is that when I was working on the F-16
> Fighting Falcon
> design back in the mid '70's, the standard tolerance was
> +/- .030". Tight
> tolerances were +/- .010" and required considerable
> justification. If such
> tolerances are good enough for a supersonic jet fighter,
> they should be
> sufficient for a Pietenpol.
>
> Acceptable tolerances are whatever you accept, depending on
> the materials in
> question. If using T-88, a gap in the joint of up to
> 1/32" is acceptable.
> If using Resorcinol, that is unacceptable and will produce
> a very weak
> joint.
>
> The tolerance also depends on the measurement in
> question. For example, in
> making fittings, I would try to make them as accurate as
> possible and threw
> some out that were off by .020" in hole position. But
> when rigging the
> wings on my Pietenpol, I got the distance from wingtip to
> tailpost to be
> within about 1/16" of each other and was delighted to have
> it that close.
>
> Just remember that building an airplane is largely a series
> of alignment
> exercises. The more accurately you make the
> individual components, the
> easier the alignment will be.
>
> Jack Phillips
> NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
> Raleigh, NC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Kringle
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:22 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Acceptable tolerances
>
>
> When working with the wood portion of a Pietenpol, what are
> the acceptable
> tolerances? I've always heard;
>
> Home builder 1/4 inch
> Cabinet maker 1/8
> Furniture Builder 1/16
>
> --------
> John
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326719#326719
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Trim set ups |
| From: | helspersew(at)aol.com |
My airplane is flying, and I really like Jack Phillip's trim system. Mine w
orks OK, but if I had seen his first I would have gone in more of that dire
ction.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
-----Original Message-----
From: brian.e.jardine <brian.e.jardine@l-3com.com>
Sent: Wed, Jan 12, 2011 4:45 pm
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Trim set ups
I believe it=99s time for a fresh thread.
Could those of you with trim systems =9Cflying and not=9D plea
se post pics of your trim tab, and your trim adjustment mechanism in the co
ckpit. Thanks.
Brian
SLC-UT
-= - The Pietenpol-List Email Forum -
-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
-= Photoshare, and much much more:
-
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
-
-========================
-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-= Same great content also available via the 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
-========================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Corvair Valve issue |
| From: | "kevinpurtee" <kevin.purtee(at)us.army.mil> |
Hi Shad - I will certainly try that before I yank the head! I've run 100LL through
the motor exclusively.
Forgive a dumb question, please: pull the plug, remove the valve keeper, push the
valve into the cylinder a little bit, apply the valve compound around the seat
(with what?), then move the valve against the seat in a circle? You know
a lot more about mechanicin' than I do.
I have every intention of making Brodhead. The only thing that would screw it
up is work, but hopefully it'll happen. Going to do my best.
Thanks,
Kevin
--------
Kevin "Axel" Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326769#326769
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tdudley(at)umn.edu" <tdudley(at)umn.edu> |
I started building this fall and have the ribs almost done (5 left) and finished
rabbetting the wood for the tail-section this past weekend. I've been a bit
worried about welding and the metal parts since I've no real experience in this.
My wife showed me a flyer for a community-ed class called "Intro to Welding".
Figured it would be something to at least try. Last evening I went to the
first class and struck up a conversation with the instructor, a professional
blacksmith who works out of his own shop. I could hardly believe it when I
found out he lives a block away and I've been passing his house every day for
the last 3 years without knowing. I can hardly believe my luck--I will only have
to walk down the street to get help with the metal fittings!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326771#326771
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: definition of UHMW for Ray |
| From: | "tdudley(at)umn.edu" <tdudley(at)umn.edu> |
UHMW polyethylene is used in total knee and hip replacements. I've put a bit of
those parts together over the last few years.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326772#326772
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ray Krause" <raykrause(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: definition of UHMW for Ray |
Thanks! When I use it, I will keep some for my hip replacement. What
tolerances do I need to meet for that?
Ray Krause
----- Original Message -----
From: <tdudley(at)umn.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 4:53 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: definition of UHMW for Ray
>
> UHMW polyethylene is used in total knee and hip replacements. I've put a
> bit of those parts together over the last few years.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326772#326772
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: What luck . . . |
| From: | gboothe5(at)comcast.net |
Tdudley,
You are indeed lucky! And I predict that, of all the new skills many of us have
to accomplish, you will most enjoy overcoming your welding deficiencies! It's
a great feeling to look proudly on your own work, even if it isn't perfect.
Happy building,
Gary Boothe
------Original Message------
From: tdudley(at)umn.edu
Sender: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
ReplyTo: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: What luck . . .
Sent: Jan 12, 2011 4:46 PM
I started building this fall and have the ribs almost done (5 left) and finished
rabbetting the wood for the tail-section this past weekend. I've been a bit
worried about welding and the metal parts since I've no real experience in this.
My wife showed me a flyer for a community-ed class called "Intro to Welding".
Figured it would be something to at least try. Last evening I went to the
first class and struck up a conversation with the instructor, a professional
blacksmith who works out of his own shop. I could hardly believe it when I
found out he lives a block away and I've been passing his house every day for
the last 3 years without knowing. I can hardly believe my luck--I will only have
to walk down the street to get help with the metal fittings!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326771#326771
Sent on the Sprint Now Network from my BlackBerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Corvair Valve issue |
| From: | "skellytown flyer" <skellflyer1(at)yahoo.com> |
another thing that could possibly break it up is to try and press the valve in
against the spring and let it snap shut a few times. I believe the aircraft mechanics
do that at times on aircraft engines.not sure just how to accomplish it
on a corvair because I'm sure there isn't a whole lot of stem height above the
spring but there should be a way to rig something to do it. I think I might
try that first just to avoid leaving any compound in the chamber.Raymond
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326775#326775
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Trim set ups |
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
RWxlY3RyaWMgdHJpbSBvbiBhIFBpZXQ/IFlvdSBtdXN0IGJlIGtpZGRpbmchCgoKCk9uIFdlZCwg
SmFuIDEyLCAyMDExIGF0IDM6MjIgUE0sIDxicmlhbi5lLmphcmRpbmVAbC0zY29tLmNvbT4gd3Jv
dGU6Cgo+IEkgYmVsaWV2ZSBpdJJzIHRpbWUgZm9yIGEgZnJlc2ggdGhyZWFkhYWFLiBDb3VsZCB0
aG9zZSBvZiB5b3Ugd2l0aCB0cmltCj4gc3lzdGVtcyCTZmx5aW5nIGFuZCBub3SUICBwbGVhc2Ug
cG9zdCBwaWNzIG9mIHlvdXIgdHJpbSB0YWIsIGFuZCB5b3VyIHRyaW0KPiBhZGp1c3RtZW50IG1l
Y2hhbmlzbSBpbiB0aGUgY29ja3BpdC4gIFRoYW5rcy4KPgo+Cj4KPgo+Cj4gQnJpYW4KPgo+IFNM
Qy1VVAo+Cj4gKgo+Cj4gXy09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09
PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0KPiBfLT0gICAgICAgICAgLSBUaGUgUGlldGVucG9sLUxpc3Qg
RW1haWwgRm9ydW0gLQo+IF8tPSBVc2UgdGhlIE1hdHJvbmljcyBMaXN0IEZlYXR1cmVzIE5hdmln
YXRvciB0byBicm93c2UKPiBfLT0gdGhlIG1hbnkgTGlzdCB1dGlsaXRpZXMgc3VjaCBhcyBMaXN0
IFVuL1N1YnNjcmlwdGlvbiwKPiBfLT0gQXJjaGl2ZSBTZWFyY2ggJiBEb3dubG9hZCwgNy1EYXkg
QnJvd3NlLCBDaGF0LCBGQVEsCj4gXy09IFBob3Rvc2hhcmUsIGFuZCBtdWNoIG11Y2ggbW9yZToK
PiBfLT0KPiBfLT0gICAtLT4gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tL05hdmlnYXRvcj9QaWV0
ZW5wb2wtTGlzdAo+IF8tPQo+IF8tPT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09
PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09Cj4gXy09ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgLSBNQVRST05JQ1Mg
V0VCIEZPUlVNUyAtCj4gXy09IFNhbWUgZ3JlYXQgY29udGVudCBhbHNvIGF2YWlsYWJsZSB2aWEg
dGhlIFdlYiBGb3J1bXMhCj4gXy09Cj4gXy09ICAgLS0+IGh0dHA6Ly9mb3J1bXMubWF0cm9uaWNz
LmNvbQo+IF8tPQo+IF8tPT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09
PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09Cj4gXy09ICAgICAgICAgICAgIC0gTGlzdCBDb250cmlidXRpb24g
V2ViIFNpdGUgLQo+IF8tPSAgVGhhbmsgeW91IGZvciB5b3VyIGdlbmVyb3VzIHN1cHBvcnQhCj4g
Xy09ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgLU1hdHQgRHJhbGxlLCBMaXN0IEFkbWlu
Lgo+IF8tPSAgIC0tPiBodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20vY29udHJpYnV0aW9uCj4gXy09
PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09
PT0KPiAqCj4KPgoKCi0tIApSaWNrIEhvbGxhbmQKQ2FzdGxlIFJvY2ssIENvbG9yYWRvCgoiTG9n
aWMgaXMgYSB3cmVhdGggb2YgcHJldHR5IGZsb3dlcnMsIHRoYXQgc21lbGwgYmFkIgo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Trim set ups |
Now I seen ever-thang! Seriously, it makes sense if you have an
electrical system already (like a crank-snappin' Corvair), and if it
weighs less than the mechanical alternatives.
How about some details? I kind of like it.
Kip G.
On Jan 12, 2011, at 9:11 PM, Rick Holland wrote:
> Electric trim on a Piet? You must be kidding!
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:22 PM, <brian.e.jardine@l-3com.com> wrote:
> I believe it=92s time for a fresh thread=85=85=85. Could those of you
with
> trim systems =93flying and not=94 please post pics of your trim tab,
> and your trim adjustment mechanism in the cockpit. Thanks.
>
>
> Brian
>
> SLC-UT
>
>
> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
> --
> Rick Holland
> Castle Rock, Colorado
>
> "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Trim set ups |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________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How about this idea? |
| From: | "kevinpurtee" <kevin.purtee(at)us.army.mil> |
It's all gotta be aircraft grade, so 4130 and spruce.
--------
Kevin "Axel" Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326800#326800
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting |
You mean like these two? The first flew for many
years didn't it? There was an article way back then
on the construction of these struts. Wood is just
as much an engineering material as steel, aluminum,
carbon fiber or anything else. You just have to
work within it's strengths. Which means you have
to know them. In this case it's "shear parallel to the
grain" in the chart I've sent. Bolts in wood tend to
pull a plug the width of the bolt out. This means
you have two surfaces to calculate for. This means
that if you have a bolt 1" from the end of a board
and it's 1" thick you have 1X1+1X1 surface area.
In Sitka that means it will take 2,240 lb to pull
that bolt out, West. Hem.=2,340 lb and DG fir,
only 2,280.
If you're going to be doing your own thing with wood
then please cut+paste this chart and use it.
It always seems incredible to me that we trust ourselves
to wood spars without a thought but can't get heads
around anything else made of it. :-)
Clif
IT COULDN'T BE DONE, BY EDGAR A. GUEST
SOMEBODY SAID THAT IT COULDN'T BE DONE,
BUT HE WITH A CHUCKLE REPLIED
THAT "MAYBE IT COULDN'T," BUT HE WOULD BE ONE
WHO WOULDN'T SAY SO TILL HE'D TRIED.
SO HE BUCKLED RIGHT IN WITH A TRACE OF A GRIN,
AND IF HE WORRIED, HE CERTAINLY HID IT.
HE STARTED TO SING AS HE TACKLED THE THING
THAT COULDN'T BE DONE, AND HE DID IT.
SOMEBODY SCOFFED: "OH, YOU'LL NEVER DO THAT;
AT LEAST NO ONE EVER HAS DONE IT";
BUT HE TOOK OFF HIS COAT AND HE TOOK OFF HIS HAT,
AND THE FIRST THING HE KNEW HE'D BEGUN IT.
WITH A LIFT OF HIS CHIN AND A BIT OF A GRIN,
WITHOUT ANY DOUBTING OR QUIT IT,
HE STARTED TO SING AS HE TACKLED THE THING
THAT COULD'T BE DONE AND HE DID IT.
THERE ARE THOUSANDS TO TELL YOU IT CANNOT BE DONE,
THERE ARE THOUSANDS TO PROPHESY FAILURE;
THERE ARE THOUSANDS TO POINT OUT TO YOU ONE BY ONE
THE DANGERS THAT WAIT TO ASSAIL YOU.
BUT JUST BUCKLE IN WITH A BIT OF A GRIN,
JUST TAKE OFF YOUR COAT AND GO TO IT;
JUST START TO SING AS YOU TACKLE THE THING
THAT "CANNOT BE DONE," AND YOU'LL DO IT.
>
> Is it not possible to just copy what has been successfully used already?
>
> Gary Boothe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kimball Isaac <kim.integrity(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting |
Hey Clif
I know its late and I'm rubbing my eyes but are those horner wingtips on
N3513 if so do they really make a difference?
Kim
On 12/01/2011 8:09 PM, Clif Dawson wrote:
> You mean like these two? The first flew for many
> years didn't it? There was an article way back then
> on the construction of these struts. Wood is just
> as much an engineering material as steel, aluminum,
> carbon fiber or anything else. You just have to
> work within it's strengths. Which means you have
> to know them. In this case it's "shear parallel to the
> grain" in the chart I've sent. Bolts in wood tend to
> pull a plug the width of the bolt out. This means
> you have two surfaces to calculate for. This means
> that if you have a bolt 1" from the end of a board
> and it's 1" thick you have 1X1+1X1 surface area.
> In Sitka that means it will take 2,240 lb to pull
> that bolt out, West. Hem.=2,340 lb and DG fir,
> only 2,280.
>
> If you're going to be doing your own thing with wood
> then please cut+paste this chart and use it.
>
> It always seems incredible to me that we trust ourselves
> to wood spars without a thought but can't get heads
> around anything else made of it. :-)
>
> Clif
>
> IT COULDN'T BE DONE, BY EDGAR A. GUEST
>
>
> SOMEBODY SAID THAT IT COULDN'T BE DONE,
>
> BUT HE WITH A CHUCKLE REPLIED
>
> THAT "MAYBE IT COULDN'T," BUT HE WOULD BE ONE
>
> WHO WOULDN'T SAY SO TILL HE'D TRIED.
>
> SO HE BUCKLED RIGHT IN WITH A TRACE OF A GRIN,
>
> AND IF HE WORRIED, HE CERTAINLY HID IT.
>
> HE STARTED TO SING AS HE TACKLED THE THING
>
> THAT COULDN'T BE DONE, AND HE DID IT.
>
>
> SOMEBODY SCOFFED: "OH, YOU'LL NEVER DO THAT;
>
> AT LEAST NO ONE EVER HAS DONE IT";
>
> BUT HE TOOK OFF HIS COAT AND HE TOOK OFF HIS HAT,
>
> AND THE FIRST THING HE KNEW HE'D BEGUN IT.
>
> WITH A LIFT OF HIS CHIN AND A BIT OF A GRIN,
>
> WITHOUT ANY DOUBTING OR QUIT IT,
>
> HE STARTED TO SING AS HE TACKLED THE THING
>
> THAT COULD'T BE DONE AND HE DID IT.
>
>
> THERE ARE THOUSANDS TO TELL YOU IT CANNOT BE DONE,
>
> THERE ARE THOUSANDS TO PROPHESY FAILURE;
>
> THERE ARE THOUSANDS TO POINT OUT TO YOU ONE BY ONE
>
> THE DANGERS THAT WAIT TO ASSAIL YOU.
>
> BUT JUST BUCKLE IN WITH A BIT OF A GRIN,
>
> JUST TAKE OFF YOUR COAT AND GO TO IT;
>
> JUST START TO SING AS YOU TACKLE THE THING
>
> THAT "CANNOT BE DONE," AND YOU'LL DO IT.
>
>
>>
>> Is it not possible to just copy what has been successfully used already?
>>
>> Gary Boothe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting |
I just found the March 1970 Sport Flying mag with the
article on this plane. It's Clyde Buckley's. It appears
that the tip bows have been left off leaving a flat tip.
There's no plate there. I've never liked those things.
I think they're supremely ugly and I notice nobody
is using them. There are other things that are, like
drooped tips and winglets. It makes me wonder why.
Even flat tips like these look, to me anyway, kind of
sawed off, unfinished.
Oh, by the way, has anyone ever heard of "cellulose
reinforced lignin composite"?
Clif
>
> Hey Clif
> I know its late and I'm rubbing my eyes but are those horner wingtips on
> N3513 if so do they really make a difference?
> Kim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack" <jack(at)textors.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Trim set ups |
Rick,
I too have considered this type setup. A concern was the differential
pressure on the elevators since they are not connected. Would like to hear
from any flying examples.
Jack
DSM
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Holland
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 8:12 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Trim set ups
Electric trim on a Piet? You must be kidding!
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:22 PM, <brian.e.jardine@l-3com.com> wrote:
I believe it's time for a fresh thread.... Could those of you with trim
systems "flying and not" please post pics of your trim tab, and your trim
adjustment mechanism in the cockpit. Thanks.
Brian
SLC-UT
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
G'day, Pieters;
I've been out of pocket for a week and a half on a dive trip to
Bonaire, but arrived back home to find my BPA Newsletter. I am
extremely embarrassed that Doc ran a picture of Ernie Moreno's
airplane not with Ernie in it, but instead with ME in the cockpit,
grinning like an idiot. Sorry, Ernie... but in fact, sitting in the
cockpit of Ernie's airplane that day sometime in 2001 was what
set me on the path to loving Piets and eventually owning one.
I have not read my Newsletter yet... only looked at the pictures...
like a child with a coloring book. It's always a good day when I
find my Newsletter in the mailbox!
And to second what Clif said and wrote, I have heard it said that
"those who say it can't be done should stay out of the way of those
who are doing it." I am fortunate to know a couple of you who are
exactly the type who get it done.
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
San Antonio, TX
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | wood struts and a question |
For all you guys flying with Continentals, a question.
I=92m in the midst of the new cowling and would appreciated any input
regarding engine access doors etc. What has worked, what was
unnecessary
and what do you wish you had done?
Re the wood strut thing. There are many Piets which have flown for many
years with wood lift and cabane struts. The two highest time ones I
know of
from the eighties and ninties were Alan Weise=92s famous plane which
ended up
with over 1,000 hrs on it, and Will Graf=92s Ford powered Piet which
flew for
years.
My wood struts came through the ground- loop- flip- over- incident very
well
and are unharmed.
Mine are built like Axels in that a strip of =BC=94 ply is sandwiched
between
two pieces of doug fir. Technically however, if the chosen wood is spar
material, laminations shouldn=92t be needed as wood is already a
laminate,
except for peace of mind about hidden flaws.
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | wood struts and a question |
Give yourself plenty of room to remove the oil cap/dipstick. I wish my
cowling wasn=92t quite as tight around that
Jack Phillips
NX899JP =93Icarus Plummet=94
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Douwe
Blumberg
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 9:03 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: wood struts and a question
For all you guys flying with Continentals, a question.
I=92m in the midst of the new cowling and would appreciated any input
regarding engine access doors etc. What has worked, what was
unnecessary
and what do you wish you had done?
Re the wood strut thing. There are many Piets which have flown for many
years with wood lift and cabane struts. The two highest time ones I
know of
from the eighties and ninties were Alan Weise=92s famous plane which
ended up
with over 1,000 hrs on it, and Will Graf=92s Ford powered Piet which
flew for
years.
My wood struts came through the ground- loop- flip- over- incident very
well
and are unharmed.
Mine are built like Axels in that a strip of =BC=94 ply is sandwiched
between
two pieces of doug fir. Technically however, if the chosen wood is spar
material, laminations shouldn=92t be needed as wood is already a
laminate,
except for peace of mind about hidden flaws.
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Trim set ups |
| From: | "kevinpurtee" <kevin.purtee(at)us.army.mil> |
Certainly more elegant then the bungee cord wrapped around the stick in the front
seat:)
Sure has been easy and trouble-free, though.
--------
Kevin "Axel" Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326870#326870
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Trim set ups |
| From: | "kevinpurtee" <kevin.purtee(at)us.army.mil> |
Hey Rick, now you gotta come up with an emergency procedure for runaway trim!:)
--------
Kevin "Axel" Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326871#326871
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting |
| From: | Kimball Isaac <kim.integrity(at)gmail.com> |
"cellulose reinforced lignin composite"
I've heard its good choice of material in piet building. Makes it easier to
appear "period correct" than some of the other composites ;-) Incidentally
its my first choice for my project
Kim
On 2011-01-12 11:33 PM, "Clif Dawson" wrote:
>
>
> I just found the March 1970 Sport Flying mag with the
> article on this plane. It's Clyde Buckley's. It appears
> that the tip bows have been left off leaving a flat tip.
> There's no plate there. I've never liked those things.
> I think they're supremely ugly and I notice nobody
> is using them. There are other things that are, like
> drooped tips and winglets. It makes me wonder why.
>
> Even flat tips like these look, to me anyway, kind of
> sawed off, unfinished.
>
> Oh, by the way, has anyone ever heard of "cellulose
> reinforced lignin composite"?
>
> Clif
>
>
>>
>> Hey Clif
>> I know its late and I'm rubbing my eyes but are those horner wingtips on
N3513 if so do they really make a difference?
>> Kim
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bender" <jfaith(at)solairusaviation.com> |
It looks like the rudder bar travel is about 3 inches by the dimensions on the
plans.....am i wrong ?
jeff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326882#326882
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Krzciok <mjkrzciok(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | User fees 2011 - USA - OT |
Attached is the NATA position on aviation user fees and a sample letter you
can =0Asend to your Congressman if so inclined.- I'm sure AOPA and EAA h
ave similar =0Apositions.=0A=0AMike=0A=0A-=0A____________________________
____=0AThis email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and in
tended =0Asolely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are a
ddressed. This =0Amessage may contain confidential information and is inten
ded only for the =0Aindividual named. If you are not the named addressee yo
u should not disseminate, =0Adistribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify
the sender immediately by e-mail =0Aif you have received this e-mail by mis
take and delete this e-mail from your =0Asystem. If you are not the intende
d recipient you are notified that disclosing, =0Acopying, distributing or t
aking any action in reliance on the contents of this =0Ainformation is stri
ctly prohibited.=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bender" <jfaith(at)solairusaviation.com> |
that is ... three..maybe three and a half inches in each direction from center..
jeff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326896#326896
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: wood struts and a question |
The cowling takes a lot of abuse in the propwash and is prone to "oil
canning" which leads to cracks, loose rivets, chafing, etc...
Beading near the edges will help stiffen the cowling and it will look
great.
Jacks comment about oil dipstick access is right on.
Greg C.
----- Original Message -----
From: Douwe Blumberg
To: pietenpolgroup
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 8:02 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: wood struts and a question
For all you guys flying with Continentals, a question.
I'm in the midst of the new cowling and would appreciated any input
regarding engine access doors etc. What has worked, what was
unnecessary and what do you wish you had done?
Re the wood strut thing. There are many Piets which have flown for
many years with wood lift and cabane struts. The two highest time ones
I know of from the eighties and ninties were Alan Weise's famous plane
which ended up with over 1,000 hrs on it, and Will Graf's Ford powered
Piet which flew for years.
My wood struts came through the ground- loop- flip- over- incident
very well and are unharmed.
Mine are built like Axels in that a strip of =BC" ply is sandwiched
between two pieces of doug fir. Technically however, if the chosen wood
is spar material, laminations shouldn't be needed as wood is already a
laminate, except for peace of mind about hidden flaws.
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
Mine moves 5 1/4" stop to stop measured at the end. This moves the rudder
side to side to within about an inch from touching the elevators.
rick
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 9:06 AM, bender wrote:
> jfaith(at)solairusaviation.com>
>
> It looks like the rudder bar travel is about 3 inches by the dimensions on
> the plans.....am i wrong ?
>
> jeff
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326882#326882
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: wood struts and a question |
| From: | "bradandlinda tds.net" <bradandlinda(at)tds.net> |
Dear Douwe, I have a Cont A-65 on my Aircamper NX29NX. The cowling is
basically a J-3 cowling. I think it looks good and works well. Be sure to
have an easy access for the oil dipstick, oil quick drain, and the
gasolator drain. You can pull up NX29NX and see how it looks. Brad
Williams "Oh For Piet's Sake"
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Greg Cardinal wrot
e:
> The cowling takes a lot of abuse in the propwash and is prone to "oil
> canning" which leads to cracks, loose rivets, chafing, etc...
>
> Beading near the edges will help stiffen the cowling and it will look
> great.
>
> Jacks comment about oil dipstick access is right on.
>
> Greg C.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Douwe Blumberg
> *To:* pietenpolgroup
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 13, 2011 8:02 AM
> *Subject:* Pietenpol-List: wood struts and a question
>
> For all you guys flying with Continentals, a question.
>
>
> I=92m in the midst of the new cowling and would appreciated any input
> regarding engine access doors etc. What has worked, what was unnecessary
> and what do you wish you had done?
>
>
> Re the wood strut thing. There are many Piets which have flown for many
> years with wood lift and cabane struts. The two highest time ones I know
of
> from the eighties and ninties were Alan Weise=92s famous plane which ende
d up
> with over 1,000 hrs on it, and Will Graf=92s Ford powered Piet which flew
for
> years.
>
>
> My wood struts came through the ground- loop- flip- over- incident very
> well and are unharmed.
>
>
> Mine are built like Axels in that a strip of =BC=94 ply is sandwiched bet
ween
> two pieces of doug fir. Technically however, if the chosen wood is spar
> material, laminations shouldn=92t be needed as wood is already a laminate
,
> except for peace of mind about hidden flaws.
>
>
> Douwe
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
*
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Trim set ups |
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
Yup, crank snapping/valve eatin corvair. Tain't cheap though:
http://www.rayallencompany.com/products/trimsystems.html
Just a big RC-type servo and an up/down switch with a high tech looking
digital position readout. It actually fits totally within the flipper with
no bulges poking out of the fabric (see attached). Yes you will really
impress your buds at Brodhead by being the first to show up with an electri
c
trim Piet.
rick
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Kip and Beth Gardner <
kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> wrote:
> Now I seen ever-thang! Seriously, it makes sense if you have an electric
al
> system already (like a crank-snappin' Corvair), and if it weighs less tha
n
> the mechanical alternatives.
>
> How about some details? I kind of like it.
>
> Kip G.
>
> On Jan 12, 2011, at 9:11 PM, Rick Holland wrote:
>
> Electric trim on a Piet? You must be kidding!
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:22 PM, <brian.e.jardine@l-3com.com> wrote:
>
>> I believe it=92s time for a fresh thread=85=85=85. Could those of you wi
th trim
>> systems =93flying and not=94 please post pics of your trim tab, and you
r trim
>> adjustment mechanism in the cockpit. Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> SLC-UT
>>
>> *
>>
>> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> *
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Rick Holland
> Castle Rock, Colorado
>
> "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
>
>
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Trim set ups |
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
Actually Kevin I view the elec trim as a redundant elevator control. Back in
the old days, in addition to practicing engine out emergencies, I used to
have my advanced students attempt aileron and elevator out emergency
approaches, only rudder and elevator trim.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 8:01 AM, kevinpurtee wrote:
> kevin.purtee(at)us.army.mil>
>
> Hey Rick, now you gotta come up with an emergency procedure for runaway
> trim!:)
>
> --------
> Kevin "Axel" Purtee
> NX899KP
> Austin/Georgetown, TX
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326871#326871
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Adjustable Wood Wing Strut Fitting |
| From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
If you're an EAA member, you can get free access to scanned copies of all the old
Sport Aviation magazines. N3513 was featured in an article in July 1969, written
by the original builder. In the article, there is a bit about the struts
- apparently 1/4" ply sandwiched between two layers of 3/8" Douglas Fir. Also,
the strut fittings were made of .065 4130 steel, with steel bushings through
the wood at each bolt location.
Gotta agree whole-heartedly with Clif on the wingtip thing. The plans-built tips
are elegant. I have not seen a variation that looks anywhere nearly as good.
In looking through old magazine and newsletter articles I recall seeing references
to builders installing spill plates - back in the sixties, I think (and
seem to think that even BHP tried them), but the trend died - thankfully. I don't
think any performance improvements were detected.
Bill C.
> I just found the March 1970 Sport Flying mag with the
> article on this plane. It's Clyde Buckley's. It appears
> that the tip bows have been left off leaving a flat tip.
> There's no plate there. I've never liked those things.
> I think they're supremely ugly and I notice nobody
> is using them. There are other things that are, like
> drooped tips and winglets. It makes me wonder why.
>
> Even flat tips like these look, to me anyway, kind of
> sawed off, unfinished.
>
> Clif
>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326920#326920
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Nosebowl question. |
| From: | Ken Chambers <ken.riffic(at)gmail.com> |
The photo of the Canadian Goose in the discussion on wood struts reminded me
to ask this question:
How did he make the nosebowl?
Can't tell from the photos. Maybe someone who saw it up close knows?
Ken, who just bought some a-65 pistons on ebay.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: runway length? |
| From: | "Kringle" <Mrkringles(at)msn.com> |
No one spoke of width. If laying out a runway how wide would you make it?
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326929#326929
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Trim set ups |
Rick, one question. Is the trim tab on only the right elevator or is
there one on both? I guess that if it's only on the one side there
would be feedback through the cables to the other side.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Trim set ups
Yup, crank snapping/valve eatin corvair. Tain't cheap though:
http://www.rayallencompany.com/products/trimsystems.html
Just a big RC-type servo and an up/down switch with a high tech
looking digital position readout. It actually fits totally within the
flipper with no bulges poking out of the fabric (see attached). Yes you
will really impress your buds at Brodhead by being the first to show up
with an electric trim Piet.
rick
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Kip and Beth Gardner
wrote:
Now I seen ever-thang! Seriously, it makes sense if you have an
electrical system already (like a crank-snappin' Corvair), and if it
weighs less than the mechanical alternatives.
How about some details? I kind of like it.
Kip G.
On Jan 12, 2011, at 9:11 PM, Rick Holland wrote:
Electric trim on a Piet? You must be kidding!
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:22 PM, <brian.e.jardine@l-3com.com>
wrote:
I believe it=92s time for a fresh thread=85=85=85. Could those
of you with trim systems =93flying and not=94 please post pics of your
trim tab, and your trim adjustment mechanism in the cockpit. Thanks.
Brian
SLC-UT
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Engelkenjohn" <mushface1(at)gmail.com> |
That split gear looks great Tom! How did you get clearance on the
fuselage ends? I have seen a forked landing gear, and one where the
tubing was cut and a longer piece welded alongside for clearance.
Dennis Engelkenjohn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bender" <jfaith(at)solairusaviation.com> |
so that's almost 3 inches each way.... thanks Rick
jeff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326938#326938
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "TOM STINEMETZE" <TOMS(at)mcpcity.com> |
Dennis:
Not sure I understand your question. If you are asking how I got the
spring struts to miss each other where they cross, this was done by
welding a tab to the back side of the axle on one side and to the front
side of the axle on the other. This took some jiggin up, tacking,
breaking off, retacking, cursing, etc. before I got it done. Attached are
a couple of photos showing the upper left and lower right attachment
points. The other side would be opposite.
Tom
N328X
>>> "Dennis Engelkenjohn" 1/13/2011 4:02 PM >>>
That split gear looks great Tom! How did you get clearance on the fuselage
ends? I have seen a forked landing gear, and one where the tubing was cut
and a longer piece welded alongside for clearance.
Dennis Engelkenjohn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KM Heide CPO/FAAOP <kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nosebowl question. |
I was at Brodhead that year and beleive it was a deep sided long cooking pan which
started out behind the prop. This laid the foundation ofr the rest of the
cowling...
KMHeide
Fargo, ND
--- On Thu, 1/13/11, Ken Chambers wrote:
> From: Ken Chambers <ken.riffic(at)gmail.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Nosebowl question.
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Thursday, January 13, 2011, 2:09 PM
>
> The photo of the Canadian Goose in the discussion on
> wood struts reminded me to ask this question:
> How did he make the
> nosebowl?
> Can't tell from the photos. Maybe someone
> who saw it up close knows?
>
> Ken, who just bought some a-65 pistons on
> ebay.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Nosebowl question. |
| From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
Back to the original question...
I spoke with the builder when he was at Brodhead, and I recall him saying that
it was fiberglass. I believe he built up a mould and made it himself.
Bill, who doesn't have any A-65 pistons in the mail, or on my desk, or at all,
for that matter.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326947#326947
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: runway length? |
| From: | "Kringle" <Mrkringles(at)msn.com> |
And if I build it, will they come?
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326948#326948
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | shad bell <aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair Valve issue |
OK, here is the procedure in a nutshell, pull the valve cover,pull the spar
k plug, remove the rocker arms on affected cylinder, then remove the valve
keepers.- I tied a string around the valve stem just as insurance so it d
id not fall down in the cylinder.- Now use a long (6 inch) q-tip or simil
ar to apply valve compound to the valve (push the valve in to the cyl just
enough to see it through the spark plug hole.)- Now pull the valve into t
he seat.--To get-enough pressure on the valve (pushing outward), I us
ed a clean piece of 3/16 or so nylon clothes-line-about 4 ft long, and sh
oved it through the spark plug hole, and pull the prop thru untill you feel
the piston push the rope against the top of the combustion chamber. Now ro
tate the valve around and around untill it feels clean and smooth.- You m
ight have to repeat a couple times to get a good seal.- To clean excess c
ompound out of the cylinder I used the clean rope.- Back off the piston b
y
rotating the prop back, push the valve into the cyl just about 1/2 in or s
o, and try to pinch the rope between the valve, and the seat by pulling the
valve toward the seat (rope between them) then simply spin the valve by ha
nd and the compound will wipe off on the rope.- Remove the rope re-assemb
le and wa-la.- Now some notes, 1st if you can, take a compression reading
with a differential pressure gauge (aviation style)before you dissasemble
anything, this will help you narrow which valve is loaded up (exaust or int
ake), this will also tell you if it is fixed when you are done.-Next you
will have to deflate your lifters before reinstalling the push rods and roc
ker arms, this will be nessasary to get your valves adjusted properly when
you put it all back togeather.- If you need any other help just send me a
n e-mail, I will help if I can.- I had a bad compression check a couple y
ears back, 55/80psi, when I was done it was 79/80 and that was a cold
engine, so this should help if it is lead on the valve.
-
-
Shad
P.S.this works on a cont. or lycoming as well, actually eaiser because they
have 2, bigger spark plug holes.
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Engelkenjohn" <mushface1(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks Tom. You understood it exactly right. I moved my axle forward
slightly and am working on doing what you did. The forward axle
complicates things somewhat. Did you have to move the vertical bolts,
the ones which go through the ash crossmember on the bottom of the
fuselage toward the center any more or was the location all right as per
the plans. The bolts to which I am referring are the two in the bottom
picture with the bolt heads down and the nuts in the inside of the
fuselage.
Thanks for the pictures by the way. They were very helpful.
Dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com> |
Just thought I'd post a few pictures of the skis that I've borrowed from Frank
Pavliga. Eventually I plan to build my own. I'll post the very amateurish sketch
that I made too. Every Piet pilot should have the opportunity to lower their
cold tolerance by flying on skis!
Don Emch
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326953#326953
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/ski_5_144.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/ski_4_325.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/ski_3_136.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/ski_2_985.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/ski_1_478.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ski pictures |
| From: | "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com> |
Here is the sketch I made. Kind of simple, hope it makes sense. I made the tail
ski after spending a couple of winters dragging the tailwheel through the snow.
It is much smoother now with the tail ski.
Don Emch
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326954#326954
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/ski_sketch_560.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Nosebowl question. |
| From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
Ken,
You're thinking of Greg Cardinal and Dale Johnson's Piet. and I think it actually
started out as a LID for a cooking pan. Still has the vents, to let out the
steam.
http://www.westcoastpiet.com/images/Greg%20and%20Dale/images/IMG_0424.JPG
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326955#326955
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ski pictures |
| From: | "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com> |
By the way, I had the bungees off for replacement when the pictures were taken.
The skis are rigged as per the AC43.13 manual.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326956#326956
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: runway length? |
| From: | "Jerry Dotson" <jdotson(at)centurylink.net> |
My runway is 40 feet wide and is adequate. One of the guys that flies in a J-3
complains about it being narrow. He has a little one of a kind bipe that he won't
fly here because of the narrow runway. I have no problem with it.
--------
Jerry Dotson
59 Daniel Johnson Rd
Baker, FL 32531
Started building NX510JD July, 2009
wing, tailfeathers done, fuselage rolling
using Lycoming O-235
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326958#326958
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Nosebowl question. |
| From: | Ken Chambers <ken.riffic(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks KM
I'm not too familiar with big pans so I can't picture one so curvy on the
bottom, which I guess would be the front of the nosebowl?
Ken
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 4:57 PM, KM Heide CPO/FAAOP wrote:
> kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com>
>
> I was at Brodhead that year and beleive it was a deep sided long cooking
> pan which started out behind the prop. This laid the foundation ofr the rest
> of the cowling...
>
> KMHeide
> Fargo, ND
>
>
> --- On Thu, 1/13/11, Ken Chambers wrote:
>
> > From: Ken Chambers <ken.riffic(at)gmail.com>
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Nosebowl question.
> > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> > Date: Thursday, January 13, 2011, 2:09 PM
> >
> > The photo of the Canadian Goose in the discussion on
> > wood struts reminded me to ask this question:
> > How did he make the
> > nosebowl?
> > Can't tell from the photos. Maybe someone
> > who saw it up close knows?
> >
> > Ken, who just bought some a-65 pistons on
> > ebay.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
Ken Chambers
512-796-1798
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick N" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ski pictures |
Thanks Don, for the ski pics. I've been meaning to build a pair, but
haven't gotten to it. I'm planning on using a pair of water skiis.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 5:37 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Ski pictures
>
> Just thought I'd post a few pictures of the skis that I've borrowed from
> Frank Pavliga. Eventually I plan to build my own. I'll post the very
> amateurish sketch that I made too. Every Piet pilot should have the
> opportunity to lower their cold tolerance by flying on skis!
>
> Don Emch
> NX899DE
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326953#326953
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/ski_5_144.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/ski_4_325.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/ski_3_136.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/ski_2_985.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/ski_1_478.jpg
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Nosebowl question. |
Made a mold of a St. Lawrence Beluga.
Gotta use local resources.
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Chambers
How did he make the nosebowl?
Can't tell from the photos. Maybe someone who saw it up close knows?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Nosebowl question. |
| From: | Ken Chambers <ken.riffic(at)gmail.com> |
I'm sensing a subtle undercurrent here, a hint of disrespect for the Goose's
nosebowl.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Clif Dawson wrote:
> Made a mold of a St. Lawrence Beluga.
>
> Gotta use local resources.
>
> Clif
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Ken Chambers
>
> How did he make the nosebowl?
> Can't tell from the photos. Maybe someone who saw it up close knows?
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Ken Chambers
512-796-1798
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Trim set ups |
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
Just on the right side. The elevators are independent but are rigidly
attached to each other via the bellcrank. A force on one side will be
transferred to the other.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Charles Campbell wrote:
> Rick, one question. Is the trim tab on only the right elevator or is
> there one on both? I guess that if it's only on the one side there would
be
> feedback through the cables to the other side.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Rick Holland
> *To:* pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 13, 2011 1:34 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Trim set ups
>
> Yup, crank snapping/valve eatin corvair. Tain't cheap though:
>
> http://www.rayallencompany.com/products/trimsystems.html
>
> Just a big RC-type servo and an up/down switch with a high tech looking
> digital position readout. It actually fits totally within the flipper wit
h
> no bulges poking out of the fabric (see attached). Yes you will really
> impress your buds at Brodhead by being the first to show up with an elect
ric
> trim Piet.
>
> rick
>
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Kip and Beth Gardner <
> kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Now I seen ever-thang! Seriously, it makes sense if you have an
>> electrical system already (like a crank-snappin' Corvair), and if it wei
ghs
>> less than the mechanical alternatives.
>>
>> How about some details? I kind of like it.
>>
>> Kip G.
>>
>> On Jan 12, 2011, at 9:11 PM, Rick Holland wrote:
>>
>> Electric trim on a Piet? You must be kidding!
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:22 PM, <brian.e.jardine@l-3com.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I believe it=92s time for a fresh thread=85=85=85. Could those of you
with
>>> trim systems =93flying and not=94 please post pics of your trim tab, a
nd your
>>> trim adjustment mechanism in the cockpit. Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Brian
>>>
>>> SLC-UT
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rick Holland
>> Castle Rock, Colorado
>>
>> "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
>>
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> *
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Rick Holland
> Castle Rock, Colorado
>
> "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: runway length? |
| From: | "Kringle" <Mrkringles(at)msn.com> |
May I ask what is along side your runway?
If I build it, it will have corn, beans, or wheat next to it. I also have enough
land to make a parking area and have camping sites.
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326990#326990
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Campbell" <cncampbell(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: runway length? |
The wider you make it, the more you gotta mow!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kringle" <Mrkringles(at)msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 4:43 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: runway length?
>
> No one spoke of width. If laying out a runway how wide would you make it?
>
> --------
> John
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326929#326929
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: runway length? |
| From: | "Jerry Dotson" <jdotson(at)centurylink.net> |
Re: May I ask what is along side your runway?
I grow Pensacola Bahia grass for hay. Just before cutting it will be near knee
high. It will stain your prop if you get out in the field. If I didn't have to
do the mowing of the runway I would make it 60 feet wide but it takes near an
hour every 4 or 5 days in the good growing season to mow it.
--------
Jerry Dotson
59 Daniel Johnson Rd
Baker, FL 32531
Started building NX510JD July, 2009
wing, tailfeathers done, fuselage rolling
using Lycoming O-235
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326994#326994
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Continental cowling question |
I will echo what others have said... make the access hole for your
oil fill/dipstick plenty large. Mine is a bit of a pain to get my
hand on and I can't make it larger without cutting a stiffener/doubler
inside the cowling. Other than that, I would suggest making it as
easy as possible to remove either the top or bottom half of the cowling,
or both. It will encourage thorough inspections if you can open the
cowling without having to remove a bunch of fasteners or accessories.
You need to get to the oil screen regularly and that's on the rear of
the engine and is safetied, for example.
Sorry to mix subjects here, but our runway at San Geronimo is 40' wide,
paved, with clear shoulders at least that wide on both sides. I have
never felt crowded landing there and have never run off the pavement
when I use it. I prefer to land on the grass area ahead of the paved
runway instead. Photo of our field is at http://www.airnav.com/airport/8T8
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
San Antonio, TX
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "TOM STINEMETZE" <TOMS(at)mcpcity.com> |
Dennis:
With the axles in the "Hoopman drawings" location I did not have to change
the bolt pattern at all. However when I do the next set with the axles
moved forward I may have to relocate at least one bolt. Note on the plans
that it shows an alternate hole location on one of the fuselage plates for
that very reason. This is so the lug you weld to the fuselage plate does
not interfere with the attachment bolt.
I am seriously thinking of a redesign similar to what Chuck Gantzer used
which might help with the lug location problem. Follow the attached link
and scroll down to the bottom of the page. And, Good Luck!
http://nx770cg.com/Fuselage.html
Tom
N328X
>>> "Dennis Engelkenjohn" 1/13/2011 5:30 PM >>>
Did you have to move the vertical bolts, the ones which go through the ash
crossmember on the bottom of the fuselage toward the center any more or
was the location all right as per the plans.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bender" <jfaith(at)solairusaviation.com> |
Hey Guys... are the Forest Lovely radiators one row or two row radiators..?
Jeff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327011#327011
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Extra wing width |
| From: | "integritywood" <kim.integrity(at)gmail.com> |
Good Morning
In your PP (pietenpol preamble) Mike you suggested one mod if any being wider
wing. I plan to make my center section 3 ft wide and an extra foot on each wing.
Would you just add say a foot and one more rib on the end or would the wing
strut attach point also need to move out I'm leaning toward I-beam spar with
1/4 birch ply and doug fir caps so should be a strong spar. Just wondering what
you or anyone thinks for that matter.
Thanks in advance for any advice. I make no promises to take all of it but let
it suffice to say it will likely weigh heavily in my decision.
Kim
Thinking of getting one of my old corvair pistons cleaned up for a paperweight.
--------
"She is about as hot as you'll ever find a plane and I'll bet that 10 years
from now the design will be pretty warm still." B. H. Pietenpol
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327024#327024
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "899PM" <rockriverrifle(at)hotmail.com> |
Jeff,
I will measure mine tonite for a comparison if you still need it. I have a wider
fuse(2") and made the rudder bar a little wider, so will measure it at print
dim.
--------
PAPA MIKE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327027#327027
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Extra wing width |
Kim,
I made my centersection 3' wide, which required modifying the cabane
strut
attach fittings (not a big deal - just something to think about, and it
allows for a larger fuel tank in the centersection). I would agree that
adding a foot to each wing is probably a good thing, but there are some
things that should be considered.
1. I would move the lift strut attach points outboard so the struts
continue to hit the middle of the spars. This keeps the lift pretty
much
centered on the struts and reduces bending stress in the spars.
2. If you make the wings longer, you might seriously consider adding a
third or even a fourth bay of drag wires and compression struts. The
drag
wire angles involved with the standard Pietenpol wing are more acute
than
any other airplane I know, and this tends to really increase the loads
in
the cables. Most airplanes have the drag wires cross the anti-drag
wires at
pretty close to a 90=B0 angle, but the Pietenpol tends to cross at more
like a
45=B0 angle. Making the bays longer just exarcerbates this.
Other than that, I can=92t think of any problems that making the wings a
foot
longer would cause.
Good luck!
Jack Phillips
NX899JP =93Icarus Plummet=94
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
integritywood
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 12:24 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Extra wing width
Good Morning
In your PP (pietenpol preamble) Mike you suggested one mod if any being
wider wing. I plan to make my center section 3 ft wide and an extra foot
on
each wing. Would you just add say a foot and one more rib on the end or
would the wing strut attach point also need to move out I'm leaning
toward
I-beam spar with 1/4 birch ply and doug fir caps so should be a strong
spar.
Just wondering what you or anyone thinks for that matter.
Thanks in advance for any advice. I make no promises to take all of it
but
let it suffice to say it will likely weigh heavily in my decision.
Kim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gcardinal(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Extra wing width |
Kim,
Do not base your spar web and cap dimensions on guesses, assumptions or oth
ers opinions.
Go here:=C2- http://westcoastpiet.com/images/Construction/I%20Beam%20Anal
ysis.pdf =C2-and do your own caculations.
Cheers,
Greg C.
----- Original Message -----
From: "integritywood" <kim.integrity(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 11:23:52 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Extra wing width
com>
Good Morning
In your =C2-PP (pietenpol preamble) Mike you suggested one mod if any bei
ng wider wing. I plan to make my center section 3 ft wide and an extra foot
on each wing. Would you just add say a foot and one more rib on the end or
would the wing strut attach point also need to move out I'm leaning toward
I-beam spar with 1/4 birch ply and doug fir caps so should be a strong spa
r. Just wondering what you or anyone thinks for that matter.
Thanks in advance for any advice. I make no promises to take all of it but
let it suffice to say it will likely weigh heavily in my decision.
Kim
Thinking of getting one of my old corvair pistons cleaned up for a paperwei
ght.
--------
"She is about as hot as you'll ever find a plane and I'll bet that 10
years from now the design will be pretty warm still." =C2-B. H. Piet
enpol
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327024#327024
===========
===========
MS -
===========
e -
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2--Matt Dralle, List Admin.
===========
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Wing Center Section |
| From: | "Kringle" <Mrkringles(at)msn.com> |
I'm progressing well on my ribs (one a day) and am thinking about building the
wing center section next. Can anyone direct me to a sight that has some good
pictures of this part being built?
Thanks
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327044#327044
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Extra wing width |
| From: | Kimball Isaac <kim.integrity(at)gmail.com> |
Just a question then what would I use for weight on front spar is 2/3of
gross x 4g a good figure
Kim
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: runway length? |
| From: | Wizzard187 <wizzard187(at)aol.com> |
Get a 7 ft disk mower and a 70 hp tractor and you can mow it in 2 hours an
d does a great job. Ken in Ice cold Iowa (my problem is pocket gopher
s)
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Campbell <cncampbell(at)windstream.net>
Sent: Fri, Jan 14, 2011 5:47 am
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: runway length?
tream.net>
The wider you make it, the more you gotta mow!
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kringle" <Mrkringles(at)msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 4:43 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: runway length?
>
> No one spoke of width. If laying out a runway how wide would you make it
?
>
> --------
> John
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=326929#326929
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
========================
============
========================
============
========================
============
========================
============
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Piet on Barnstormers |
| From: | "Jerry Dotson" <jdotson(at)centurylink.net> |
There is a Pietenpol project,36 hours on William Wynn Corvair
$6000 just added this afternoon
--------
Jerry Dotson
59 Daniel Johnson Rd
Baker, FL 32531
Started building NX510JD July, 2009
wing, tailfeathers done, fuselage rolling
using Lycoming O-235
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327053#327053
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ski pictures |
| From: | "pineymb" <airltd(at)mts.net> |
Check out this Piet on a set of Federal skis at Gimli on Lake Winnipeg.
I believe this is one of the oldest Piets still flying on a regular bases. Thinking
it was built around 1935.
--------
Adrian M
Winnipeg, MB
Canada
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327061#327061
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/imgp1415_213.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ski pictures |
| From: | "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com> |
The bottoms are birch, I believe. The doubler added to the top is oak though.
Don Emch
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327067#327067
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: runway length? |
Sounds like you need 22" rims with 3.50 tires. :-)
Just roll right over the little buggers, AND their holes!
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: Wizzard187
Ken in Ice cold Iowa (my problem is pocket gophers)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Billy McCaskill" <billmz(at)cox.net> |
Mine was really late arriving at my house also, I just received it Wednesday afternoon.
I had even emailed Doc and Dee last week to see if my copy had been
mailed, and they assured me that it had been mailed. USPS is notorious for being
very slow after the holidays...
--------
Billy McCaskill
Urbana, IL
tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327079#327079
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing Center Section |
| From: | "Billy McCaskill" <billmz(at)cox.net> |
www.westcoastpiet.com should provide a lot of usable information if you poke around a bit.
--------
Billy McCaskill
Urbana, IL
tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327080#327080
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clif Dawson" <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Ski pictures |
http://wwwapps2.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/ccarcs/aspscripts/en/current.asp
That's Shawn Wolk's plane. It's had it's very own TV debut
as a stand in for a WW-1 plane.
The oldest continuously registered aircraft in Canada
is CF-AOG, John Howroyd's Piet on Vancouver Island.
Every time you turn around another accomplished Piet
turns up. :-)
Clif
> I believe this is one of the oldest Piets still flying on a regular bases.
> Thinking it was built around 1935.
>
> --------
> Adrian M
> Winnipeg, MB
> Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
Though I cannot say for sure, I am fairly confident that the Forrest Lovely
rad is (was, he won't make 'em anymore) a double row as it was close to four
inches thick.
I have a brass three row rad for sale which I bought from Lowell Frank for
extra cooling which has never been used, it anyone is interested. I have a
Continental now so don't need it, but it sure should cool anything out
there.
Thanks all for the input re cowling access, it's all pretty much as I though
and I will lean heavily on your advice as this cowl progresses.
Had great progress this week, have the cowling and grill hanging from the
airframe and it positioned perfectly around the engine and seems really nice
and secure. I've split the cowling so it divides top and bottom using piano
hinges. Designed and build a really cool 1930's looking grill that looks
like it came off an old Jaguar or something for the front, and that'll split
across the prop as well so this should all be pretty easy to remove.
Wings done, gotta plumb the new engine and finish the installation, rebuild
my axle/wheel/brake set up, recover the fuselage, repaint the fuselage and
possibly enlarge my fuel tank a bit. Doubt we'll be ready for Brodhead with
all the work I have, but I'm over the self-imposed deadline thing. My only
deadline is to 'touch the Piet every day" and when I do that, I find it
moves forward slowly but surely.
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bentoncountycable.net> |
Douwe, Any chance of some photos??
Gene In Beautiful Western Tennessee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com> |
It sounds like it's moving right along Douwe. I remember the changes you wanted
to make to the brakes, but I forget, you are keeping the wood gear, right?
Don Emch
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327099#327099
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ski pictures |
| From: | "pineymb" <airltd(at)mts.net> |
I stand corrected
--------
Adrian M
Winnipeg, MB
Canada
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327103#327103
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | axle travel distance |
Hey,
Not sure if you guys with split axles can help, but anybody with a straight
axle gear.
I'm making a retaining/safety loop to keep the axle down and our of the
fuselage (and my big wheels out of the lift struts) in case of bungee
breakage and want to know what is a good maximum amount of vertical travel
to allow the axle.
I like my bungees pretty tight. It looks to me like 3" should do?
Especially if the loop is well padded to absorb any shock if it does hit.
Thanks,
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: axle travel distance |
| From: | "Jerry Dotson" <jdotson(at)centurylink.net> |
Douwe mine are 4" but that is adjustable by adding a spacer or washers. I have
a nut on the 1/2" anti-rotation pins. I have no Piet flying experience so take
what I did like a grain of salt or hill of beans. I have not built the struts
yet and may have to take some travel out of it.
--------
Jerry Dotson
59 Daniel Johnson Rd
Baker, FL 32531
Started building NX510JD July, 2009
wing, tailfeathers done, fuselage rolling
using Lycoming O-235
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327123#327123
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "899PM" <rockriverrifle(at)hotmail.com> |
Jeff,
My travel on a 23" rudder bar is 5 1/4" stop to stop.
--------
PAPA MIKE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327142#327142
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Do back seat backs need to be glued? |
| From: | John Kuhfahl <kuhlcouper(at)gmail.com> |
Hi, John here. I am new to list--looks great!
I am restoring a Piet built in the 70's--having a ball and will have lots of
questions.
Can I screw the seat backs rather than glue as I found them? A lot easier
access.
Thanks in advance.
BTW I am an A&P and specialize in Continental engines.
--
John Kuhfahl, Lt Col USAF (Ret),
PresIident, KUHLCOUPER LLC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Do back seat backs need to be glued? |
Hi John,
I believe some have cut access doors in that rear panel, but it provides
shear strength, and should therefore be glued.
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(23 ribs down.)
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Kuhfahl
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:52 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Do back seat backs need to be glued?
Hi, John here. I am new to list--looks great!
I am restoring a Piet built in the 70's--having a ball and will have lots of
questions.
Can I screw the seat backs rather than glue as I found them? A lot easier
access.
Thanks in advance.
BTW I am an A&P and specialize in Continental engines.
--
John Kuhfahl, Lt Col USAF (Ret),
PresIident, KUHLCOUPER LLC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: axle travel distance |
| From: | helspersew(at)aol.com |
Hi Douwe,
My safety cables are set up to allow about 3" of travel. I also have nuts o
n the end of my anti-axle rotation tubes for redundancy. How are you going
to pad the loop?
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
-----Original Message-----
From: Douwe Blumberg <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Sat, Jan 15, 2011 12:27 pm
Subject: Pietenpol-List: axle travel distance
Hey,
Not sure if you guys with split axles can help, but anybody with a straight
axle gear
I=99m making a retaining/safety loop to keep the axle down and our of
the fuselage (and my big wheels out of the lift struts) in case of bungee
breakage and want to know what is a good maximum amount of vertical travel
to allow the axle.
I like my bungees pretty tight. It looks to me like 3=9D should do?
Especially if the loop is well padded to absorb any shock if it does hit.
Thanks,
Douwe
-= - The Pietenpol-List Email Forum -
-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
-= Photoshare, and much much more:
-
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
-
-========================
-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-= Same great content also available via the 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
-========================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dortch, Steven D MAJ NG NG FORSCOM" <steven.d.dortch(at)us.army.mil> |
| Subject: | Re: Do back seat backs need to be glued? |
Wow what a tiny world. John, I have been lurking this list for several years. I
would like to get a Piet someday. Oscar is the one who hooked me.
Where did you get the piet? and how is the Ercoupe doing (for the listers John
did a beautiful restoration of an Ercoupe and has piddled around with several
other older planes.)
Welcome to the list.
Blue Skies,
Steve (Stuck in Basra, Iraq) D
----- Original Message -----
From: John Kuhfahl <kuhlcouper(at)gmail.com>
Date: Sunday, January 16, 2011 4:04
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Do back seat backs need to be glued?
> Hi, John here. I am new to list--looks great!
> I am restoring a Piet built in the 70's--having a ball and will
> have lots of
> questions.
> Can I screw the seat backs rather than glue as I found them? A lot
> easieraccess.
> Thanks in advance.
> BTW I am an A&P and specialize in Continental engines.
>
> --
> John Kuhfahl, Lt Col USAF (Ret),
> PresIident, KUHLCOUPER LLC
January 10, 2011 - January 16, 2011
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-jz