Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-pe
January 20, 2016 - March 10, 2016
>> Thanks! Had to get Avare, as Garmin Pilot has proprietary
>> interface. I have the WiFi add on, but still no joy. Will try
>> port change.
>>
>> On Jan 20, 2016 9:52 AM, "bdewenter" > > wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> This thread is a bit off topic, but I wanted to pass along my
>> experience with getting the Stratux ADS-B traffic to display
>> within Avare on my Android tablet (finally had a reason to
>> buy one!)
>>
>> Avare requires an add-on app for ADS-B. I needed to
>> configure the add on app to use WIFI (not Bluetooth) and to
>> use port 4000 (not the default of something like 4221).
>>
>> >From inside my house I was getting traffic alerts (so far
>> only commercial airliners) showing up about 30 NM away.
>> Pretty cool and fun to watch.
>> also, my digital receiver antenna(s) are fully retracted.
>>
>> --------
>> Bob 'Early Builder' Dewenter
>> Dayton OH
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452129#452129
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> br> fts!)
>> r> > w.buildersbooks.com <http://w.buildersbooks.com>"
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
>> <http://www.buildersbooks.com>
>> rel="noreferrer"
>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> ==========
>> br> enpol-List" rel="noreferrer"
>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> rel="noreferrer"
>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Marcus Zechini <marcus.zechini(at)gmail.com> |
Nice stop!
On Jan 20, 2016 1:42 PM, "Richard Schreiber" wrote:
> I was aware you were at VPZ, but forgot. The staff here made sure I knew
> that they had talked to you.
> Rick
>
> On 1/20/2016 12:01 PM, Marcus Zechini wrote:
>
> Thanks! While I don't use in the Piet, the Piet did spend a night in
> Valparaiso hangar last summer on way to Brodhead!
> On Jan 20, 2016 12:58 PM, "Richard Schreiber"
> wrote:
>
>> Marcus,
>> With Avare you actually need two apps. The Avare mapping program and the
>> Avare I/O add-on connection app. Start up the I/O app, select WiFi
>> connection then enter 4000 for the port. Next click on listen. If all is
>> right with the world you should immediately see your are connected then a
>> stream of date being displayed. Once you have this, then launch Avare. One
>> more thing to be aware of with Stratux is if you have multiple navigation
>> programs on your device, make sure you completely close down the app before
>> switching to another app. This is especially true with the I/O app Avare
>> uses. The reason for this is once your are connected and listening to
>> Stratux on port 4000, that port is locked with a handshake to the Stratux.
>> That handshake needs to be shut down before you can re-link with another
>> app on the same port.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Rick Schreiber
>> Valparaiso, IN
>>
>> On 1/20/2016 11:14 AM, Marcus Zechini wrote:
>>
>> Thanks! Had to get Avare, as Garmin Pilot has proprietary interface. I
>> have the WiFi add on, but still no joy. Will try port change.
>> On Jan 20, 2016 9:52 AM, "bdewenter" wrote:
>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> This thread is a bit off topic, but I wanted to pass along my experience
>>> with getting the Stratux ADS-B traffic to display within Avare on my
>>> Android tablet (finally had a reason to buy one!)
>>>
>>> Avare requires an add-on app for ADS-B. I needed to configure the add
>>> on app to use WIFI (not Bluetooth) and to use port 4000 (not the default of
>>> something like 4221).
>>>
>>> >From inside my house I was getting traffic alerts (so far only
>>> commercial airliners) showing up about 30 NM away. Pretty cool and fun to
>>> watch.
>>> also, my digital receiver antenna(s) are fully retracted.
>>>
>>> --------
>>> Bob 'Early Builder' Dewenter
>>> Dayton OH
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452129#452129
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ==========
>>> br> fts!)
>>> r> > w.buildersbooks.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">
>>> www.buildersbooks.com
>>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>> ==========
>>> br> enpol-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">
>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>>> ==========
>>> FORUMS -
>>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>>> ==========
>>> b Site -
>>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> ==========
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | gussets grain orientation - empenage (rudder,fin,elevator,stabilizator) |
| From: | "Hyvris (Petr Ludera)" <hyvris(at)gmail.com> |
Hello everyone,
this is my first post to the list, Im Pietenpol builder from Czech republic
(central europe). This list is so perfect, too much informations at one
place!
I have a little problem. Now i start to build empenage sections. Just
drawed full scale plans. And now my question. Which orientation of grain at
gussets on empenage is correct? In original plans i didnt find any word
about it... At attachment is part of original plans, if someone could draw
the grain directions i will be very happy :-))
Thanks a lot,
Petr Ludera
Czech republic
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | larharris2 Harris <larharris2(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | gussets grain orientation - empenage (rudder,fin,elevator,stabilizator) |
Welcome=2C Petr.
Maybe others will disagree=2C but I did not care about direction of grain i
n the gussets. Gusset material is plywood. Interior layers of the ply will
have grain direction 90 degrees to the surface ply. I tried to cut my gusse
ts to make the best use of my material=2C with the least waste.
Lorenzo
Date: Sat=2C 23 Jan 2016 15:34:14 +0100
Subject: Pietenpol-List: gussets grain orientation - empenage (rudder=2Cfin
=2Celevator=2Cstabilizator)
From: hyvris(at)gmail.com
Hello everyone=2C
this is my first post to the list=2C Im Pietenpol builder from Czech republ
ic (central europe). This list is so perfect=2C too much informations at on
e place!
I have a little problem. Now i start to build empenage sections. Just drawe
d full scale plans. And now my question. Which orientation of grain at guss
ets on empenage is correct? In original plans i didnt find any word about i
t... At attachment is part of original plans=2C if someone could draw the g
rain directions i will be very happy :-))
Thanks a lot=2C
Petr Ludera
Czech republic
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: gussets grain orientation - empenage (rudder,fin,elevator,stabilizator) |
| From: | vic groah <vicgroah(at)gmail.com> |
I agree with Lorenzo, the gain orientation is not a major issue with ply,
You are to be complimented on your care for doing things correctly. Keep
up the good work. Vic
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 8:29 AM, larharris2 Harris
wrote:
> Welcome, Petr.
> Maybe others will disagree, but I did not care about direction of grain in
> the gussets. Gusset material is plywood. Interior layers of the ply will
> have grain direction 90 degrees to the surface ply. I tried to cut my
> gussets to make the best use of my material, with the least waste.
>
> Lorenzo
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 15:34:14 +0100
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: gussets grain orientation - empenage
> (rudder,fin,elevator,stabilizator)
> From: hyvris(at)gmail.com
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> this is my first post to the list, Im Pietenpol builder from Czech
> republic (central europe). This list is so perfect, too much informations
> at one place!
>
>
> I have a little problem. Now i start to build empenage sections. Just
> drawed full scale plans. And now my question. Which orientation of grain at
> gussets on empenage is correct? In original plans i didnt find any word
> about it... At attachment is part of original plans, if someone could draw
> the grain directions i will be very happy :-))
>
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Petr Ludera
> Czech republic
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ray Krause <raykrause(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: gussets grain orientation - empenage (rudder,fin,elevator,stabilizator) |
I did the same. Just use good aircraft/marine three ply plywood and cut with
out regard for the grain. Life is simple!
Ray Krause
Building SkyScout
Sent from my iPad
> On Jan 23, 2016, at 8:29 AM, larharris2 Harris wrote:
>
> Welcome, Petr.
> Maybe others will disagree, but I did not care about direction of grain in
the gussets. Gusset material is plywood. Interior layers of the ply will ha
ve grain direction 90 degrees to the surface ply. I tried to cut my gussets t
o make the best use of my material, with the least waste.
>
> Lorenzo
>
>
> Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 15:34:14 +0100
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: gussets grain orientation - empenage (rudder,fin,
elevator,stabilizator)
> From: hyvris(at)gmail.com
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> this is my first post to the list, Im Pietenpol builder from Czech republi
c (central europe). This list is so perfect, too much informations at one pl
ace!
>
>
> I have a little problem. Now i start to build empenage sections. Just draw
ed full scale plans. And now my question. Which orientation of grain at guss
ets on empenage is correct? In original plans i didnt find any word about it
... At attachment is part of original plans, if someone could draw the grain
directions i will be very happy :-))
>
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Petr Ludera
> Czech republic
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: gussets grain orientation - empenage (rudder,fin,elevator,s |
| From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
I have seen gussets made by cutting discs of plywood and then either cutting the
disc into quarter-rounds or half-rounds as necessary to gusset the joint. I
thought it looked very much nicer than angled pieces, although I will grant that
it adds nothing structurally except weight. I just thought it looked nice,
especially if the gusset is cut from a color of wood that contrasts with the
framing members.
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452228#452228
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fairfield, Mike" <MFairfield(at)hewitt.ca> |
| Subject: | Gusset plywood grain orientation |
Good afternoon everyone,
This is my first post as well. I am just starting to build
a Pietenpol, long fuselage and a three piece wing. I'm not trying to be s
mart or rude, but don't you think that since plywood usually has an odd num
ber of plies (3, 5, 7, etc.) that it would be a good idea to have that extr
a ply holding things together by having the grain running perpendicular to
the axis or line of separation?
I have been a VERY meticulous (commonly known as anal) mech
anic for over thirty-five years, and I tend to study things too much before
going ahead, but the above idea just seemed to make sense to me. Please f
eel free to disagree with me. I said I am meticulous, however meticulous d
oesn't always mean right.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call.
Thanks, Mike.
Mike Fairfield
Technical Specialist
Hewitt Equipment Limited
Heavy Equipment Division
61 Jean-Proulx
Hull ,Quebec
Canada J8Z 1W2
Tel: 819-770-1601 Ext. 4873
Cell: 819-598-3561
mfairfield(at)hewitt.ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gusset plywood grain orientation |
| From: | Scott Knowlton <flyingscott_k(at)hotmail.com> |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Boatright, Jeffrey" <jeffboatright(at)emory.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Gusset plywood grain orientation |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fairfield, Mike" <MFairfield(at)hewitt.ca> |
| Subject: | Gusset plywood grain orientation |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________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gusset plywood grain orientation |
| From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Disclaimer: I am not a structural engineer but I think you could spend a lot of
time analyzing the forces on each joint that you're going to apply gussets to,
optimize the direction of the grain of the plywood gusset, and not improve the
competency of the wood structure of an Air Camper perceptibly.
Picture a side view of one of the fuselage sides. At any given framing member
intersection there are verticals and there are diagonals intersecting the upper
and lower longerons. Are you going to optimize the gusset grain direction for
the vertical, the horizontal, or the diagonal? Each of them has forces acting
on it. One might argue that without analyzing the forces at each connection
to determine which is the greatest, the best compromise might be to orient
the grain at 45 degrees.
The point is, the gusset prevents the connection from rotating such that it stresses
the glue joints. The 3-ply gusset material just needs to be stiff enough
to keep from buckling as the connection attempts to rotate, and since the structure
is triangulated into a truss with diagonals, not a lot of rotation can
ever actually occur. This is one of those details that people can over-think.
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452243#452243
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gusset plywood grain orientation |
| From: | "tools" <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com> |
To add just one more view point from a different perspective...
There's not one joint in the structure that will care about the orientation of
the gussets to well beyond design limits.
At some point joints will fail. I've seen, inspected, dismantled and repaired
ALL of the joints associated with the landing gear attach points AFTER they had
all been ripped apart due to ground loops and hard landings. Even in those
well beyond design limit incidences not ONE gusset failed. Even the ones that
were very poorly glued and fitted. They ALL pushed the failure point outside
of their confines, which is to say at the point immediately outside of the gusseted
area, the naked longeron.
Caveat, wood fuse, wood gear. Both epoxy and resorcinol.
Furthermore, I've repaired a number of wing ribs damaged by wing tip contact with
the ground during a ground loop at high speed, again, not one gusset failure.
Each failure was immediately adjacent, but outside, of the gusset. Similar
failure points had the gussets oriented both possible ways. In one rib, I discovered
a couple joints were missing opposing gussets, and the failure still
occurred outside the (one half) gusseted area.
Even further furthermore, also repaired and inspected a broken horiz stab that
hit the ground during a ground loop. The front spar broke very close to but outside
of the center gusset. It had a compression failure. The most clear example
I've ever seen. The point is here, I believe the compression failure is
more of a elastic/plastic deformation issue, whereas many of the others very
well might have been in the brittle fracture domain, hit so hard so fast as to
basically just shatter. No matter the type of failure, the gussets seemed to
hold regardless.
As these were were beyond design limit failures, the forces coming at them were
quite random, some aligned with where forces should come from, others not. Not
one single gusset failed.
As mentioned the quality of the joint matters more than gusset ply/grain orientation.
Still, wouldn't try my hardest to go against the grain of common sense,
but basically, it won't matter. But even in the quality of the joint, there
is forgiveness. Do your level best, have someone you trust mentor you to some
degree, and press on.
In all of this, joints beyond the failures, many which I had to cut apart to get
to a good point to scarf longerons, none showed any signs of any compromise
what so ever. And they clearly had to take some high loads after the adjacent
joint failed.
Tools
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452245#452245
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gusset plywood grain orientation |
| From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Thanks, Tools, but I'll go one step further. I spent quite a bit of time repairing damage and upgrading things on 41CC after the nose-over incident when the landing gear broke a weld and collapsed in a precautionary landing. I saw damage in various places outside of gusseted areas and in one case, at a joint where there were no gussets. The vertical load of the fuel tank support straps on a fuselage crossmember that had triangular wedge 'buttresses' but no gussets pulled that member off the verticals by shearing at the glue line. You can see the crossmember that I'm talking about here: http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/repairs/Image-10.JPG , and note that there were no gusset plates on those joints. Those joints were completely redone in the repairs.
There were various other areas that needed attention, but NONE at a gusseted connection.
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452246#452246
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gusset plywood grain orientation |
| From: | "tools" <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com> |
One more thing... It's a good question! I always figured it should matter a lot,
before I've seen what I've seen. Now I just worry about different but similar
things!
Fixing broke off gear on a metal fuse plane now, whole new set of things that make
you go HMMM?!
Tools
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452251#452251
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Gusset plywood grain orientation |
When we built the Big Piets, we cut out about 5000 gussets at one time to
build the 6 sets of wings. We forgot to sand the 4'x8' sheet of plywood
before we starting making our cuts, resulting in sanding all of the small
pieces of wood by hand. (It's been 7 years now, and my fingerprints have
still not grown back) ;-)
Barry NX973BP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of tools
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 5:11 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Gusset plywood grain orientation
One more thing... It's a good question! I always figured it should matter a
lot, before I've seen what I've seen. Now I just worry about different but
similar things!
Fixing broke off gear on a metal fuse plane now, whole new set of things
that make you go HMMM?!
Tools
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452251#452251
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gusset plywood grain orientation |
| From: | "hyvris" <hyvris(at)gmail.com> |
Hello everyone,
thanks a lot for reply. I also ask my builder inspector for help. In this case
is difficult to find correct solution. Because the direction of forces and their
values are unknown. And that is important for correct vector analyse. Maybe
some inspiration on another comparable wooden aircraft could be helpfull.
Petr
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452295#452295
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gusset plywood grain orientation |
| From: | "Charles N. Campbell" <charlescampbell1924(at)gmail.com> |
Just arrange the gussets to use the least material, cut them out, and glue
them on and quit worrying about grain direction. You're building an
over-engineered Pietenpol Aircamper which will not come apart in the air
because you will only be going 70 MPH. If something breaks, you probably
won't even know it until the next annual inspection. Just don't make this
project anymore complicated then it is and BUILD!!!!! Chuck
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:38 AM, hyvris wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> thanks a lot for reply. I also ask my builder inspector for help. In this
> case is difficult to find correct solution. Because the direction of forces
> and their values are unknown. And that is important for correct vector
> analyse. Maybe some inspiration on another comparable wooden aircraft could
> be helpfull.
>
>
> Petr
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452295#452295
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 2016 West Coast Piet Gathering |
| From: | "AircamperN11MS" <Scott.liefeld(at)lacity.org> |
Hi pieters,
Attached is the flier for the 2016 Left Coast Piet Gathering. Hope you folks can
attend this great event.
Cheers,
--------
Scott Liefeld
Flying N11MS since March 1972
Steel Tube
C-85-12
Wire Wheels
Brodhead in 1996
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452313#452313
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/west_coast_piet_gathering_2016_376.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 2016 West Coast Piet Gathering |
| From: | "aerocarjake" <flight.jake(at)gmail.com> |
Sounds fun.... My Piet has a ways to go before I can fly down but I am looking
fwd to the day when I will....!!!!!
--------
Jake Schultz - curator,
Newport Way Air Museum (OK, it's just my home)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452374#452374
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 2016 West Coast Piet Gathering |
| From: | vic groah <vicgroah(at)gmail.com> |
builders are always welcome, drive in and join us, there are some great
guys and gals and nice planes. hope to see you there Vic 414mv
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 3:29 PM, aerocarjake wrote:
> >
>
> Sounds fun.... My Piet has a ways to go before I can fly down but I am
> looking fwd to the day when I will....!!!!!
>
> --------
> Jake Schultz - curator,
> Newport Way Air Museum (OK, it's just my home)
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452374#452374
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 2016 West Coast Piet Gathering |
| From: | "AircamperN11MS" <Scott.liefeld(at)lacity.org> |
Okay, I can't resist.
Hey, it's Jake, from state farm.
Enough of that. Like Vic says. You don't need your plane to attend. In fact if
you come down I will take you up in mine provided that you can get in it. I
have a door for the front seat and have taken some pretty big people up. it
would be great to be able to shake your hand.
Think about it. It will be a great weekend. Some of us arrive on Friday.
--------
Scott Liefeld
Flying N11MS since March 1972
Steel Tube
C-85-12
Wire Wheels
Brodhead in 1996
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452386#452386
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 2016 West Coast Piet Gathering |
| From: | "aerocarjake" <flight.jake(at)gmail.com> |
Wearing black cargo pants (couldn't resist)
Would be fun to drive down and meet you all - yet I may be in Wisconsin during
that time in June...?!?!?
Picked up a new 4amp battery for my Milwaukee M12 drill and a wood blank for my
throttle knob. "Doing something on the plane every day"
--------
Jake Schultz - curator,
Newport Way Air Museum (OK, it's just my home)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452395#452395
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 2016 West Coast Piet Gathering |
| From: | "aerocarjake" <flight.jake(at)gmail.com> |
Wearing black cargo pants (couldn't resist)
Would be fun to drive down and meet you all - yet I may be in Wisconsin during
that time in June...?!?!?
Picked up a new 4amp battery for my Milwaukee M12 drill and a wood blank for my
throttle knob. "Doing something on the plane every day"
--------
Jake Schultz - curator,
Newport Way Air Museum (OK, it's just my home)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452396#452396
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 2016 West Coast Piet Gathering |
| From: | "AircamperN11MS" <Scott.liefeld(at)lacity.org> |
I'm sure that if I had a round engine that you would be all over it. Keep us in
mind should you find some free time.
I do find myself in Chehalis about three times a year on business. In fact I"ll
be there Feb, 8th and 9th. We fly into portland so I never make it up to where
you are. Wish I could though.
--------
Scott Liefeld
Flying N11MS since March 1972
Steel Tube
C-85-12
Wire Wheels
Brodhead in 1996
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452397#452397
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 2016 West Coast Piet Gathering |
| From: | "aerocarjake" <flight.jake(at)gmail.com> |
Will indeed keep it in mind if I can make it work.......
--------
Jake Schultz - curator,
Newport Way Air Museum (OK, it's just my home)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452408#452408
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "oldbird" <semihoksay(at)gmail.com> |
Hi all
can you help me with down and right thrust of a Continental A65-8 engine?
I realize I cannot change them after the mount is finished.
Thanks in advance
Happy landings
Semih
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452412#452412
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steven Dortch <steven.d.dortch(at)gmail.com> |
My understanding is that some adjustment can be done with washers and the
mounts. Just not much.
I don't think mine has much adjustment.
Blue Skies,
Steve D
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:11 PM, oldbird wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> can you help me with down and right thrust of a Continental A65-8 engine?
> I realize I cannot change them after the mount is finished.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Happy landings
>
> Semih
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452412#452412
>
>
--
Blue Skies,
Steve D
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "AircamperN11MS" <Scott.liefeld(at)lacity.org> |
Semih,
I have a C-85-12 cont. on my plane and my thrust line is straight ahead. No offset.
It seems to work out just fine for me.
--------
Scott Liefeld
Flying N11MS since March 1972
Steel Tube
C-85-12
Wire Wheels
Brodhead in 1996
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452415#452415
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | OT Aeronca Champ for sale |
| From: | Steven Dortch <steven.d.dortch(at)gmail.com> |
Guys, my 85 YO buddy is giving up flying due to medical problems.
He is selling his 1947 7AC Champ (named Skeeter) with a strong 65 hp
continental. New Garmin 720 com with intercom. $20,000 firm.
Extra engine parts and prop included.
Mechanically excellent LSA.
I personally flew this plane last month and it is a delight to fly. I wish
I could buy it, but the timing is not good.
If you are serious email me off list and I will put you in contact.
Blue Skies,
Steve D.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
Hi Everyone,
After 8.5 years, I'm finally in the home stretch of finishing my RV-10 and
am already having a wandering eye with regards to the next project. I've
pretty much settled on the Piet as something barebones simple, slow, and a
nostalgic reflection of a different era. It's completely the anti-10. It
will be a good project to work on with idle hands.
I've found the Piet website and it looks like there are multiple sections
of the plans available for sale (Link
<http://www.pietenpolaircraftcompany.com/purchase-pietenpol-air-camper-plans-and-aircraft-kits>).
I'm also getting ready to place and order with Spruce and thought I might
go ahead and order the plans from them.
Here's my question:
It looks like the plans are $250 on the Piet site for product 8; and it
apparently includes everything.
The plans on the Spruce site are also $250, but there isn't a clear
description of what's included.
Are the two $250 plan packages the same? If so, I'll just order them from
Spruce now to get the ball rolling.
Thanks for your help,
Phil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Semih; since the list has been pretty quiet, I don't feel bad posting a rather
lengthy response. This is copied from something that I sent to another builder
who is considering using an O200.
First, I will grant you (and it's important to note) that the weight, CG, and physical
configuration of my airframe and engine will by definition of "homebuilt"
and "experimental" be different from yours, so anything that works on my airplane
may not work on yours, for obvious reasons. Perhaps more subtly, even
if our airplanes were quite similar in their major aspects, slight differences
in construction and rigging could make mine *aerodynamically* different from
yours so the fine points of trim and rigging that make mine fly straight and
level may not apply to yours. In that light, I offer my further comments and
observations.
With the 3.5 degree downthrust and thrustline offset that are now set on my engine
and airframe, in level cruise and with the stick held firmly to keep the airplane
steady in roll and pitch, if I remove my feet from the rudder pedals the
airplane will yaw gently to the left. I didn't want to believe it after I
had made the tweaks and shims and adjustments that I did, but it's true and I've
demonstrated it time and time again in the smooth calmness of morning air.
In the more usual conditions that I fly (bumps and less than smooth air), it's
far less noticeable but still there. My airplane cannot be flown with feet
off the rudder pedals and still maintain heading. The prop hub is not perfectly
centered in the opening in the engine cowl opening anymore, but the airplane
flies straighter and I'm OK with that. It all adds character, and I don't mean
just to the airplane.
In the pitch axis, you can only guess at what to set the downthrust for the way
you will "mostly" fly the airplane because (for example), with just me in the
airplane and full fuel in the tank, I need to hold back stick for about the first
hour or 90 minutes of flight. As fuel burns off, the need for back stick
reduces but in any case the back pressure is never really enough for me to wish
I had elevator trim. In fact, the snugness in my palm adds a bit of steadiness
to things. The downfall comes if I need to let go of the stick to do anything,
in which case the nose will drop and I'll see increasing airspeed pretty
quickly until I grab the stick again, but it's not instant and it's not frightening.
It is, however, unstoppable without the use of hands or the fumbling
of knees against the stick ;o) As fuel burns off this tendency decreases until
at some point, in smooth air and in level flight, I can let go of the stick
for perhaps 10 seconds at a time without altitude going nuts. I can't ask more
of the airplane than that.
My airplane is pretty stable in roll but if something starts happening in one of
the other axes, roll is quite willing to go along with the game and pretty soon
none of them are behaving. Pick up an errant wing with rudder and just move
on.
Now back to yaw, since that is usually what we're trying to correct with thrustline
offset. Right now I have a bent aluminum trim tab on the trailing edge of
my rudder, about 2/3 of the way down from the top. It is 3" tall and stands
away from the rudder 2". Its trailing edge is deflected 1" to port off the axis
of the rudder... in other words, it is bent at an angle of 30 degrees to port.
Standing behind the airplane, that is to the left. Without this trim tab
the yawing tendency with feet off the pedals is about 40-50% more than it is
with the tab, so as much as I would have liked to have taken it off and left
it off, flight testing showed noticeable improvement with it so I left it on.
A kludge, an admission of failure, a sign that things are not as they should
be. A necessary evil in my case, but not necessarily in yours.
The leading edge of my vertical stabilizer is offset 1/4" to the left (port side)
from perfectly in line with the axis of the fuselage. I would have offset
it more than that in order to correct the yawing tendency without the use of the
bent metal trim tab but since the tailpost remains fixed as I force the nose
of the VS over, the wood and glue joints are all stressed and I didn't like
that so I left it at what I felt comfortable with. It helped get me to where
the stability is now, but it obviously adds trim drag and if you can keep your
VS aligned with the airframe and make the yaw correction using thrustline offset,
I think you would be better off.
So now to summarize, I have three kludges all slapped together on my airplane to
get the tail to swing to port (rotate the airplane clockwise) and thus get the
nose to swing to starboard (rotate the airplane clockwise). Without them,
and with feet off the rudder bar, my airplane will yaw to port and rotate the
airplane counter-clockwise as I watch the compass heading count down from 360
like the Dow Jones on a bad day ;o) I have a bent trim tab on the rudder, I have
offset in my vertical stabilizer, and I have engine mount shims. You can
do better by building in some thrustline offset and if you do, you might be able
to eliminate one, two, or all of these kludges.
Now, should you find some shimming to be necessary to correct yaw or pitch trim
at your engine mounts after you complete and test-fly the airplane, do not spend
the $11.50 that Aircraft Spruce wants for each of their P/N 21530 engine mount
washers for Continentals. And by all means do NOT use standard AN970-6 large
flat washers for this duty... they are too thin and they will cup when you
tighten down the nuts. Don't ask me how I know this ;o) If you need washers
that are perfectly suited for this application, get McMaster-Carr item no. 92140A118
black oxided steel washers, $12.36 for a 10-pack, and you will be happy.
I wouldn't be surprised if you can't find them in Istanbul, but you get the
idea. By the way, several cruise lines have just taken all Turkish ports off
their Mediterranean cruise itineraries. It's a shame.
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452430#452430
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Plans source... |
| From: | "Charles N. Campbell" <charlescampbell1924(at)gmail.com> |
I don't know how much the plans cost now, but I bought mine from the
Pietenpols about 5 years ago and they cost, I think, $75. I would check
them first before paying $250. Chuck
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Phillip Perry
wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> After 8.5 years, I'm finally in the home stretch of finishing my RV-10 and
> am already having a wandering eye with regards to the next project. I've
> pretty much settled on the Piet as something barebones simple, slow, and a
> nostalgic reflection of a different era. It's completely the anti-10. It
> will be a good project to work on with idle hands.
>
> I've found the Piet website and it looks like there are multiple sections
> of the plans available for sale (Link
> <http://www.pietenpolaircraftcompany.com/purchase-pietenpol-air-camper-plans-and-aircraft-kits>).
> I'm also getting ready to place and order with Spruce and thought I might
> go ahead and order the plans from them.
>
> Here's my question:
>
> It looks like the plans are $250 on the Piet site for product 8; and it
> apparently includes everything.
>
> The plans on the Spruce site are also $250, but there isn't a clear
> description of what's included.
>
> Are the two $250 plan packages the same? If so, I'll just order them from
> Spruce now to get the ball rolling.
>
> Thanks for your help,
> Phil
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Philips" <jack(at)bedfordlandings.com> |
Welcome, Phil!
I thought I recognized your name from the RV-10 List. You and I are
doing it in reverse =93 you built an RV-10 first, then a
Pietenpol. I built a Pietenpol first (see photo), then started an RV-10
project (which I=99m about half through, but still plugging away).
As for your question, the usual answer in aviation homebuilding applies:
It Depends.
The PietenpolAircraftCompany website is the one you want to order plans
from. It is being run by Andrew Pietenpol, grandson of Bernard H.
Pietenpol. Prices have gone up, but it looks like he=99s offering
comprehensive packages. The reason I say it depends is because package
#8, which includes everything they=99ve got, allows for
construction of several variants, such as wood strut straight axle
landing gear (which I built, without such a plan supplement, but with
much wailing and gnashing of teeth). If you know which variant you want
to build you could just choose the plans you need without buying a bunch
of things you won=99t need. Another example is, if you are using
a Model A Ford or a Corvair, buying the plans for a Continental A65
mount doesn=99t make much sense.
Where are you located?
Jack Phillips
NX899JP Pietenpol Air Camper
RV-10 project, #40610
Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phillip
Perry
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 10:04 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Plans source...
Hi Everyone,
After 8.5 years, I'm finally in the home stretch of finishing my RV-10
and am already having a wandering eye with regards to the next project.
I've pretty much settled on the Piet as something barebones simple,
slow, and a nostalgic reflection of a different era. It's completely
the anti-10. It will be a good project to work on with idle hands.
I've found the Piet website and it looks like there are multiple
sections of the plans available for sale (Link
<http://www.pietenpolaircraftcompany.com/purchase-pietenpol-air-camper-pl
ans-and-aircraft-kits> ). I'm also getting ready to place and order
with Spruce and thought I might go ahead and order the plans from them.
Here's my question:
It looks like the plans are $250 on the Piet site for product 8; and it
apparently includes everything.
The plans on the Spruce site are also $250, but there isn't a clear
description of what's included.
Are the two $250 plan packages the same? If so, I'll just order them
from Spruce now to get the ball rolling.
Thanks for your help,
Phil
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Plans source... |
| From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Phil; where are you located? You might have a builder nearby who can spread his/her
plans out on the workbench so you can see what they look like before you
jump in. I have almost everything that the Pietenpol Family website offers,
I paid a little less than what they're asking for them now, but it's been worth
it to me to have the original plans, the supplement with the Corvair and Continental
information, the 3-piece wing supplement, and the builder's manual with
commentary and FAQ.
I have no idea what Spruce offers for the same price, but most of us on the list
have bought our plans from the Pietenpol family out of a bit of pride in saying
that both the airplane, the family, and the plans are still around after 85-90
years. Not to disparage Jim & Nancy Irwin, but it's just a different nostalgia
to say you bought your plans from the Pietenpol family.
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452444#452444
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Plans source... |
Thanks everyone. I'll just pickup the plans from the family instead of 'hid
ing them inside a AS&S order from my wife. :)
Along the line of plans and getting started, what is the consensus for relia
ble high-quality wood? We have a local high-end hard wood supplier here in t
own but I don't know if they'd be more affordable or even predicable with re
gards to aviation quality products. I need to get that sorted out and deci
de if local vs mail-order is best for me.
Oscar and Jack, I'm located in McGregor, Texas at KPWG (just west of Waco by
10-12 miles). The RV-10 is finally getting close to the end. I'm riggin
g it now and tying up loose ends. There's a good chance that it will fly th
is summer. I'll put around 100 hours on it first and then send it to the p
aint shop after the bugs have been shaken out.
Here's a couple of photos of the project. After the -10, which we will lov
e traveling in, you can see why the simplistic desire to build a minimalist P
iet is so attractive. It's the perfect evening flight airplane while the s
un goes down.
Thanks for the help everyone,
Phil
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 30, 2016, at 11:41 AM, taildrags wrote:
>
>
> Phil; where are you located? You might have a builder nearby who can spre
ad his/her plans out on the workbench so you can see what they look like bef
ore you jump in. I have almost everything that the Pietenpol Family website
offers, I paid a little less than what they're asking for them now, but it'
s been worth it to me to have the original plans, the supplement with the Co
rvair and Continental information, the 3-piece wing supplement, and the buil
der's manual with commentary and FAQ.
>
> I have no idea what Spruce offers for the same price, but most of us on th
e list have bought our plans from the Pietenpol family out of a bit of pride
in saying that both the airplane, the family, and the plans are still aroun
d after 85-90 years. Not to disparage Jim & Nancy Irwin, but it's just a di
fferent nostalgia to say you bought your plans from the Pietenpol family.
>
> --------
> Oscar Zuniga
> Medford, OR
> Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
> A75 power
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452444#452444
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ray Krause <raykrause(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Plans source... |
Hey, I only have the right side of that panel in my Piet SkyScout!
Ray Krause
Sent from my iPad
> On Jan 30, 2016, at 11:01 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>
> Thanks everyone. I'll just pickup the plans from the family instead of 'hiding
them inside a AS&S order from my wife. :)
>
> Along the line of plans and getting started, what is the consensus for reliable
high-quality wood? We have a local high-end hard wood supplier here in town
but I don't know if they'd be more affordable or even predicable with regards
to aviation quality products. I need to get that sorted out and decide if
local vs mail-order is best for me.
>
> Oscar and Jack, I'm located in McGregor, Texas at KPWG (just west of Waco by
10-12 miles). The RV-10 is finally getting close to the end. I'm rigging it
now and tying up loose ends. There's a good chance that it will fly this summer.
I'll put around 100 hours on it first and then send it to the paint shop
after the bugs have been shaken out.
>
> Here's a couple of photos of the project. After the -10, which we will love
traveling in, you can see why the simplistic desire to build a minimalist Piet
is so attractive. It's the perfect evening flight airplane while the sun
goes down.
>
> Thanks for the help everyone,
> Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jan 30, 2016, at 11:41 AM, taildrags wrote:
>>
>>
>> Phil; where are you located? You might have a builder nearby who can spread
his/her plans out on the workbench so you can see what they look like before
you jump in. I have almost everything that the Pietenpol Family website offers,
I paid a little less than what they're asking for them now, but it's been worth
it to me to have the original plans, the supplement with the Corvair and
Continental information, the 3-piece wing supplement, and the builder's manual
with commentary and FAQ.
>>
>> I have no idea what Spruce offers for the same price, but most of us on the
list have bought our plans from the Pietenpol family out of a bit of pride in
saying that both the airplane, the family, and the plans are still around after
85-90 years. Not to disparage Jim & Nancy Irwin, but it's just a different
nostalgia to say you bought your plans from the Pietenpol family.
>>
>> --------
>> Oscar Zuniga
>> Medford, OR
>> Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
>> A75 power
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452444#452444
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ===================================
> ===================================
> ===================================
> ===================================
> ===================================
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Plans source... |
| From: | "tools" <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com> |
As for wood, aircraft spruce is dead reliable, quality, not necessarily what you
order, but expensive.
I REALLY like mccormicks lumber in Madison wi. They carry very nice Sitka for
ice boat builders. I have not bought a bad piece of wood,from them yet.
In your neck of the woods you could call Alamo hardwoods in San Antonio. One of
the finest wod suppliers I've ever seen. They might carry or be able to get
Sitka.
Are you able to deal with rough sawn wood?
Tools
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452449#452449
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Plans source... |
| From: | "tkreiner" <tkreiner(at)gmail.com> |
If you're going to OSH for Airventure this year, you might consider an early arrival,
and spend the two days or so immediately prior by going to Broadhead, as
you'll be able to meet up with many other builders, and maybe catch a ride in
a Piet.
Depending on your timing, McCormicks Lumber is indirectly between the two venues.
The weekend in Brodhead is well worth the time spent...
--------
Tom Kreiner
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452450#452450
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Plans source... |
| From: | John Cox <rv10pro(at)gmail.com> |
I second this recommendation. It totally change my OSH experience. Though
it rained like Oregon the dinner by the EAA chapter was Great!
John Cox - Oregon
On Jan 30, 2016 14:53, "tkreiner" wrote:
>
> If you're going to OSH for Airventure this year, you might consider an
> early arrival, and spend the two days or so immediately prior by going to
> Broadhead, as you'll be able to meet up with many other builders, and maybe
> catch a ride in a Piet.
>
> Depending on your timing, McCormicks Lumber is indirectly between the two
> venues.
>
> The weekend in Brodhead is well worth the time spent...
>
> --------
> Tom Kreiner
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452450#452450
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Plans source... |
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
Hey John! It seems there are a few of us who have a foot in both worlds.
The lead on the weekend before Oshkosh is great, thank you!
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 4:59 PM, John Cox wrote:
> I second this recommendation. It totally change my OSH experience. Though
> it rained like Oregon the dinner by the EAA chapter was Great!
>
> John Cox - Oregon
> On Jan 30, 2016 14:53, "tkreiner" wrote:
>
>>
>> If you're going to OSH for Airventure this year, you might consider an
>> early arrival, and spend the two days or so immediately prior by going to
>> Broadhead, as you'll be able to meet up with many other builders, and maybe
>> catch a ride in a Piet.
>>
>> Depending on your timing, McCormicks Lumber is indirectly between the two
>> venues.
>>
>> The weekend in Brodhead is well worth the time spent...
>>
>> --------
>> Tom Kreiner
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452450#452450
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> br> fts!)
>> r> > w.buildersbooks.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">
>> www.buildersbooks.com
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> ==========
>> br> enpol-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glen Schweizer <glenschweizer(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Plans source... |
Hey John. I'm in Hubbard, building the Aerial (biplane version). Where are y
ou? Glen
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 30, 2016, at 2:59 PM, John Cox wrote:
>
> I second this recommendation. It totally change my OSH experience. Though
it rained like Oregon the dinner by the EAA chapter was Great!
>
> John Cox - Oregon
>
>> On Jan 30, 2016 14:53, "tkreiner" wrote:
>>
>> If you're going to OSH for Airventure this year, you might consider an ea
rly arrival, and spend the two days or so immediately prior by going to Broa
dhead, as you'll be able to meet up with many other builders, and maybe catc
h a ride in a Piet.
>>
>> Depending on your timing, McCormicks Lumber is indirectly between the two
venues.
>>
>> The weekend in Brodhead is well worth the time spent...
>>
>> --------
>> Tom Kreiner
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452450#452450
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> br> fts!)
>> r> > w.buildersbooks.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.builde
rsbooks.com
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> ==========
>> br> enpol-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n
>> ==========
==========================
==========================
==========================
==========================
==========================
==========================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Plans source... |
| From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Phil; you are about two hours away from one of the best Piet building resources
in the state of Texas. Kevin Purtee is down in the San Marcos area and he is
rebuilding his beautiful Air Camper, "Fat Bottom Girl". Kevin and Shelley are
an inspiration to Piet builders and pilots and have hosted a "Corvair College"
in San Marcos several times now. They will be hosting another one April 1-3
down there, but don't think you need to consider the Corvair to visit with Kevin.
It would be worth your time to go look at Kevin's airplane and visit with
him and Shelley.
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452459#452459
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gusset plywood grain orientation |
| From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Hey nightmare-
I've seen pictures of your woodwork and unless I'm mistaken, a lot of your gussets
are at 206 degrees. You'd better check them, and you might have to pop some
of them off and rotate them 180 degrees to get them correct.
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452481#452481
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "AircamperN11MS" <Scott.liefeld(at)lacity.org> |
Great, detailed response Oscar.
Thank you for helping him out.
Cheers,
--------
Scott Liefeld
Flying N11MS since March 1972
Steel Tube
C-85-12
Wire Wheels
Brodhead in 1996
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452568#452568
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MacBook Pro <dboarder(at)internode.on.net> |
Hi. My name is David and I have been a lurker of this site for almost
two years, during which time I have purchased plans, collected materials
and completed the wing ribs. I live in Launceston, Tasmania, Australia.
I have browsed the forum archives extensively (it=92s not the easiest
database to search).
I greatly appreciate the sage advice shared by those who frequent the
site.
I am working with Douglas fir (we call it Oregon pine) and have found
four Model A Ford engines from which I should be able to make one really
good one. In Australia spruce boards and Corvair engines are as scarce
as rocking-horse manure.
I have some questions: Firstly, the wing rib plans show extra sticks in
the two end ribs. There are no gussets shown for some of the joins. I=92ve
put them in but am interested to know what others have done.
Secondly, I am interested in how others have actually attached the
leading edge ply covering. Am I correct in thinking this is just glued
and chamfered to take out sharp edges?
Thirdly, the trailing edge gives two alternatives, top and bottom
plates or tongue and groove. Either one better than the other?
Lastly, I seem to recollect that some posters have recommended not
gluing the ribs to the spars (in case of having to replace them at some
stage) and I note that the plans only mentioning nailing. Glue and nail
or nail only? I plan to varnish the ribs soon and don=92t want to get
varnish where it may stop glue from =91taking=92.
Cheers from =91way Down Under=92.
David Boarder
Pietenpol-list(at)matrionics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Johnson <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au> |
David,
Welcome.
On my first Piet I used a full rib sized gusset. I used Jim Wills (UK) plan
s and that is what they called for. The second on just had the usual gussets
.
The leading edge was covered and chamfered as you suggest.
I used top and bottom gussets on the trailing edge.
After I had everything levelled on the wings, I glued the ribs to the spar.
I have a couple of web sites for both Piets, http://www.cpc-world.com and h
ttp://repiet.cpc-world.com.
I am just getting all the paperwork sorted for the second one and have upda
ted the web site quite extensively.
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi Australia
From: <owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com> on behalf of MacBook Pro
Date: Thursday, 4 February 2016 at 9:30 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: New member
Hi. My name is David and I have been a lurker of this site for almost two
years, during which time I have purchased plans, collected materials and com
pleted the wing ribs. I live in Launceston, Tasmania, Australia. I have brow
sed the forum archives extensively (it=99s not the easiest database to searc
h).
I greatly appreciate the sage advice shared by those who frequent the site.
I am working with Douglas fir (we call it Oregon pine) and have found four
Model A Ford engines from which I should be able to make one really good one
. In Australia spruce boards and Corvair engines are as scarce as rocking-ho
rse manure.
I have some questions: Firstly, the wing rib plans show extra sticks in the
two end ribs. There are no gussets shown for some of the joins. I=99ve put
them in but am interested to know what others have done.
Secondly, I am interested in how others have actually attached the leading
edge ply covering. Am I correct in thinking this is just glued and chamfered
to take out sharp edges?
Thirdly, the trailing edge gives two alternatives, top and bottom plates o
r tongue and groove. Either one better than the other?
Lastly, I seem to recollect that some posters have recommended not gluing t
he ribs to the spars (in case of having to replace them at some stage) and I
note that the plans only mentioning nailing. Glue and nail or nail only? I
plan to varnish the ribs soon and don=99t want to get varnish where it may s
top glue from =98taking=99.
Cheers from =98way Down Under=99.
David Boarder
Pietenpol-list(at)matrionics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "aviken" <aviken(at)windstream.net> |
Hi David. My advice may be about as helpful and rocking horse manure but here
goes. first of all welcome to the crazy world of Pietenpol , you will probably
love it. I am kind of a strange builder, I try not to stress over the
little un-important details, especially if it is going to slow me down for no
good reason (damn the torpedoes full speed ahead ) as one of our American naval
commanders once said. I simply glued the leading edge down to the nose piece
then took a 7 inch sanding disk and sanded it to a feather edge. I guess if
you are a good hand and have a good routing table you could inlet it into the
leading edge but it wasn't worth it to me. As for the trailing edge, I chose
to use little 3 inch tear drop gussets top and bottom glued and clamped.
I believe the tongue and groove method is the best looking but I doubt if it is
any stronger and it is more time consuming.
As for the ribs to spar, I just nailed them like the plans show, you won't
go far wrong to follow the plans. I have been building 2 years 3 months and I
hope to fly this spring. I don't wont to be building 10 years and be too old
and crippled up to fly when it is done . I may not have a show stopper but I
am building a flyer I hope. :)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452595#452595
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "CatDesigns" <CatDesigns(at)att.net> |
Welcome David
Q1: Yes, put gussets on all joints. The joints will be very weak without
them and would likely break with just the vibration.
Q2: Gluing and chamfering is the easiest. I cut a recess into the leading
edge using a table saw. Someplace I have a drawing of how I cut the leading
edge.
Q3: I used the tongue and groove method. Very easy. Looks good too.
Q4: I glued the ribs to the wing spar because I was concerned with the
nails backing out over time. See I had heard that Aeronca's have had trouble
with nails backing out and people have had to put access panels in the
wings to fix them. That being said, I now say nail them on after someone I
know damaged a spar in his Air Camper and was able to slide out the bad one
and slide in a new one all because he only nail the ribs on.
My wing building pictures
http://westcoastpiet.com/images/Chris_Tracy/Index.html
You're not the only Tasmanian Pietenpol.
Chris
Sacramento, CA
WestcoastPiet.com
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of MacBook Pro
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 2:30 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: New member
Hi. My name is David and I have been a lurker of this site for almost two
years, during which time I have purchased plans, collected materials and
completed the wing ribs. I live in Launceston, Tasmania, Australia. I have
browsed the forum archives extensively (it's not the easiest database to
search).
I greatly appreciate the sage advice shared by those who frequent the site.
I am working with Douglas fir (we call it Oregon pine) and have found four
Model A Ford engines from which I should be able to make one really good
one. In Australia spruce boards and Corvair engines are as scarce as
rocking-horse manure.
I have some questions: Firstly, the wing rib plans show extra sticks in the
two end ribs. There are no gussets shown for some of the joins. I've put
them in but am interested to know what others have done.
Secondly, I am interested in how others have actually attached the leading
edge ply covering. Am I correct in thinking this is just glued and chamfered
to take out sharp edges?
Thirdly, the trailing edge gives two alternatives, top and bottom plates or
tongue and groove. Either one better than the other?
Lastly, I seem to recollect that some posters have recommended not gluing
the ribs to the spars (in case of having to replace them at some stage) and
I note that the plans only mentioning nailing. Glue and nail or nail only? I
plan to varnish the ribs soon and don't want to get varnish where it may
stop glue from 'taking'.
Cheers from 'way Down Under'.
David Boarder
Pietenpol-list(at)matrionics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles N. Campbell" <charlescampbell1924(at)gmail.com> |
Also, I highly recommend building the wing up side down. That way gravity
will pull the ribs down so that the lower stringer of the rib(s) is firmly
against the spars. Chuck
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:22 AM, CatDesigns wrote:
> Welcome David
>
>
> Q1: Yes, put gussets on all joints. The joints will be very weak without
> them and would likely break with just the vibration.
>
>
> Q2: Gluing and chamfering is the easiest. I cut a recess into the leadin
g
> edge using a table saw. Someplace I have a drawing of how I cut the leadi
ng
> edge.
>
>
> Q3: I used the tongue and groove method. Very easy. Looks good too.
>
>
> Q4: I glued the ribs to the wing spar because I was concerned with the
> nails backing out over time. See I had heard that Aeronca=99s have
had
> trouble with nails backing out and people have had to put access panels
in
> the wings to fix them. That being said, I now say nail them on after
> someone I know damaged a spar in his Air Camper and was able to slide ou
t
> the bad one and slide in a new one all because he only nail the ribs on.
>
>
> My wing building pictures
> http://westcoastpiet.com/images/Chris_Tracy/Index.html
>
>
> You=99re not the only Tasmanian Pietenpol.
>
>
> Chris
>
> Sacramento, CA
>
> WestcoastPiet.com
>
>
> *From:* owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *MacBook Pro
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 3, 2016 2:30 PM
> *To:* pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Pietenpol-List: New member
>
>
> Hi. My name is David and I have been a lurker of this site for almost tw
o
> years, during which time I have purchased plans, collected materials and
> completed the wing ribs. I live in Launceston, Tasmania, Australia. I hav
e
> browsed the forum archives extensively (it=99s not the easiest data
base to
> search).
>
> I greatly appreciate the sage advice shared by those who frequent the sit
e.
>
> I am working with Douglas fir (we call it Oregon pine) and have found fou
r
> Model A Ford engines from which I should be able to make one really good
> one. In Australia spruce boards and Corvair engines are as scarce as
> rocking-horse manure.
>
> I have some questions: Firstly, the wing rib plans show extra sticks in
> the two end ribs. There are no gussets shown for some of the joins. I
=99ve
> put them in but am interested to know what others have done.
>
> Secondly, I am interested in how others have actually attached the leadin
g
> edge ply covering. Am I correct in thinking this is just glued and
> chamfered to take out sharp edges?
>
> Thirdly, the trailing edge gives two alternatives, top and bottom plates
> or tongue and groove. Either one better than the other?
>
> Lastly, I seem to recollect that some posters have recommended not gluing
> the ribs to the spars (in case of having to replace them at some stage) a
nd
> I note that the plans only mentioning nailing. Glue and nail or nail only
?
> I plan to varnish the ribs soon and don=99t want to get varnish whe
re it may
> stop glue from =98taking=99.
>
> Cheers from =98way Down Under=99.
>
> David Boarder
>
>
> Pietenpol-list(at)matrionics.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | spoke wheel covers on Spirit of St' Louis |
| From: | "wheelharp" <wheelharp(at)gmail.com> |
I recently watched Jimmy Stewart's Spirit of St. Louis movie (great movie with
a very good build sequence by the way) and never noticed the wheel covers before
then. They appear to be laced together with some type of wrap going around
the tire. I know there has been discussion in the past about smooth tires for
Piets, and I wonder if this was a common wheel/tire practice back in the day?
I guess the tire "wrap", whatever it is, would be more aggravation and probably
money than just forking over $$$ from smooth tires from Coker tire. I doubt
they would take too many paved landings either. I personally don't care if my
tires are smooth or not....just an observation :)
--------
Jon Jones
Ironton, MO
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452609#452609
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/sosl_tire_878.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
If you lace the ribs like the covering method calls for, I wouldn't think the ribs
are going anywhere, nailed or glued.
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452611#452611
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clif Dawson" <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: spoke wheel covers on Spirit of St' Louis |
Here's a pic of aluminum wheel cover attachment on a previous Ryan.
I like this one.
Clif
Did you know that no man, or woman for that matter, has ever
gone into a hardware store wanting a drill bit.
What they really wanted was a hole.
> I recently watched Jimmy Stewart's Spirit of St. Louis movie (great movie
> with a very good build sequence by the way) and never noticed the wheel
> covers before then. They appear to be laced together with some type of
> wrap going around the tire. > --------
> Jon Jones
> Ironton, MO
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/sosl_tire_878.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Going rate for heads |
| From: | "bdewenter" <anonymouse(at)woh.rr.com> |
All,
If any of you have recently paid or been quoted for the cost of a complete head
job (any source) what is / are the going rates?
Bob
--------
Bob 'Early Builder' Dewenter
Dayton OH
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452621#452621
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: spoke wheel covers on Spirit of St' Louis |
| From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
Here's a photo I found, of the wheel covers on the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome's Spirit
replica that recently took to the skies. I believe a flat ring of rubber
is prepared with grommets, and then bonded to the sidewall of the tire. This,
then creates a flange to attach the covering fabric to. I believe this is the
way it was done on the original. Pretty neat.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452622#452622
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/ssl_wheel_128.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: spoke wheel covers on Spirit of St' Louis |
| From: | "wheelharp" <wheelharp(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks for additional info guys!
--------
Jon Jones
Ironton, MO
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452624#452624
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Going rate for heads |
| From: | "tools" <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com> |
Uh... Need some details!
Airplane or car engine?
"Normal" engine or vintage, rare?
Standard job or performance? Upgrades? Modernization like installing hardened
seats?
Assume you mean something for a plane, so not talking pull and replace as wee are
we?
I know you said complete, but we don't know what's worn. You may or may not even
need valve guides replaced, refurbished.
Tools
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452627#452627
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: spoke wheel covers on Spirit of St' Louis |
| From: | Steven Dortch <steven.d.dortch(at)gmail.com> |
OH! I like that look. Could even be used to disguise motorcycle mag wheels.
Blue Skies,
Steve D
On Feb 5, 2016 1:39 AM, "Clif Dawson" wrote:
> Here's a pic of aluminum wheel cover attachment on a previous Ryan.
> I like this one.
>
> Clif
> Did you know that no man, or woman for that matter, has ever
> gone into a hardware store wanting a drill bit.
> What they really wanted was a hole.
>
>
> I recently watched Jimmy Stewart's Spirit of St. Louis movie (great movie
>> with a very good build sequence by the way) and never noticed the wheel
>> covers before then. They appear to be laced together with some type of wrap
>> going around the tire. > --------
>> Jon Jones
>> Ironton, MO
>> Attachments:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com//files/sosl_tire_878.jpg
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clif Dawson" <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: spoke wheel covers on Spirit of St' Louis |
I forgot to mention that the same ones on the Ryan at the
Boeng museum have a riveted seam to make it conicle
that's hard to see here. It didn't detract from the look, to
me anyway.
Clif
1. There are two kinds of people in this world:
1)Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
OH! I like that look. Could even be used to disguise motorcycle mag
wheels.
Blue Skies,
Steve D
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Pietenpol on floats ? |
| From: | "piperj3" <rmilkie51(at)gmail.com> |
Hi.
Would anyone know the owner of a yellow piet with green tail on yellow full lotus
floats ?
I'd like to talk with the owner about doing the same thing.
Thanks
Bob
715-851-9441[/b]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452654#452654
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Control Stick Movements |
| From: | "tonyp51qa" <tonyp51qa(at)gmail.com> |
I have the torque tube, control sticks and the rudder bar installed. I am concerned
with the movement of my {PILOTS} stick fore and aft {elevator}. And especially
left and right{ailerons}. I need to know the degree of deflection of elevator
in degrees [up and down]. I also need to know how much stick deflection
is needed to move my ailerons. Since my Piet is built per plans, the control rod
that ties the two sticks together has caused a lesser movement going to the
left.{this control rod hits the seat back "V" cutout} This limits the stick deflection
going fully to the left}. My control stick also hits the seat back
at 24 degrees and goes back 30 plus degrees. At present I do not have any cables
installed yet. Thank You!
Tony
--------
Tony Crawford
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452656#452656
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: gussets grain orientation - empenage (rudder,fin,elevator,st |
| From: | "Pocono John" <tinmotion(at)yahoo.com> |
If you don't have them, try to get copies of Tony Bingelis books, especially "Sportplane
Construction and Techniques", and "The Sportplane Builder". He addresses
many issues, including gussets.
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452680#452680
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gusset plywood grain orientation |
| From: | "Pocono John" <tinmotion(at)yahoo.com> |
Wonder what Tony Bingelis has to say. My books are in the garage at the moment,
but I find many answers in his books.
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452682#452682
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "CatDesigns" <CatDesigns(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Pietenpol on floats ? |
Its Shawn Wolk (CF-RAZ).
http://www.westcoastpiet.com/images/Shawn%20Wolk%20CF-RAZ/pictures.htm
I believe it's one of the oldest flying Pietenpols. Originally built in 37
if I recall correctly and it was in a movie once.
Shawn talking about his floats in the list archives
http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=34082464?KEYS=wol
k_&_floats?LISTNAME=Pietenpol?HITNUMBER=6?SERIAL=1053364489?SHOWBUTTONS=YES
you could always take a shot that his email address hasn't changed.
Chris
Sacramento, CA
WestcoastPiet.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of piperj3
Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2016 9:11 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol on floats ?
Hi.
Would anyone know the owner of a yellow piet with green tail on yellow full
lotus floats ?
I'd like to talk with the owner about doing the same thing.
Thanks
Bob
715-851-9441[/b]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452654#452654
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "CatDesigns" <CatDesigns(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Control Stick Movements |
Does this discussion help?
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=416457
The deflections mentioned sound about right. Somewhere I have another
sketch of the deflections but I can't find it right now.
Chris
Sacramento, CA
WestcoastPiet.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of tonyp51qa
Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2016 4:21 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Control Stick Movements
I have the torque tube, control sticks and the rudder bar installed. I am
concerned with the movement of my {PILOTS} stick fore and aft {elevator}.
And especially left and right{ailerons}. I need to know the degree of
deflection of elevator in degrees [up and down]. I also need to know how
much stick deflection is needed to move my ailerons. Since my Piet is built
per plans, the control rod that ties the two sticks together has caused a
lesser movement going to the left.{this control rod hits the seat back "V"
cutout} This limits the stick deflection going fully to the left}. My
control stick also hits the seat back at 24 degrees and goes back 30 plus
degrees. At present I do not have any cables installed yet. Thank You!
Tony
--------
Tony Crawford
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452656#452656
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "CatDesigns" <CatDesigns(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Control Stick Movements |
One thing you can do to gain a little more left stick is to flatten the end
of the connector tubing off center. This will allow you to bias the tubing
closer to the centerline of the sticks. I have heard that it will hit your
leg before it hits the V-brace.
Chris
Sacramento, CA
WestcoastPiet.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of tonyp51qa
Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2016 4:21 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Control Stick Movements
I have the torque tube, control sticks and the rudder bar installed. I am
concerned with the movement of my {PILOTS} stick fore and aft {elevator}.
And especially left and right{ailerons}. I need to know the degree of
deflection of elevator in degrees [up and down]. I also need to know how
much stick deflection is needed to move my ailerons. Since my Piet is built
per plans, the control rod that ties the two sticks together has caused a
lesser movement going to the left.{this control rod hits the seat back "V"
cutout} This limits the stick deflection going fully to the left}. My
control stick also hits the seat back at 24 degrees and goes back 30 plus
degrees. At present I do not have any cables installed yet. Thank You!
Tony
--------
Tony Crawford
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452656#452656
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "CatDesigns" <CatDesigns(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Control Stick Movements |
Mike Cuy shows 10-inch up and 7.5-inch down elevator movement.
http://westcoastpiet.com/images/Mike_Cuy/Image/Piet%20elevator%20travel%20sk
etch.jpg
Chris
Sacramento, CA
WestcoastPiet.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of tonyp51qa
Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2016 4:21 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Control Stick Movements
I have the torque tube, control sticks and the rudder bar installed. I am
concerned with the movement of my {PILOTS} stick fore and aft {elevator}.
And especially left and right{ailerons}. I need to know the degree of
deflection of elevator in degrees [up and down]. I also need to know how
much stick deflection is needed to move my ailerons. Since my Piet is built
per plans, the control rod that ties the two sticks together has caused a
lesser movement going to the left.{this control rod hits the seat back "V"
cutout} This limits the stick deflection going fully to the left}. My
control stick also hits the seat back at 24 degrees and goes back 30 plus
degrees. At present I do not have any cables installed yet. Thank You!
Tony
--------
Tony Crawford
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452656#452656
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ray Krause <raykrause(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Control Stick Movements |
Chris,
Is the angle measured from the top of the wing as "level"?
Thanks,
Ray Krause
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 7, 2016, at 3:53 PM, CatDesigns wrote:
>
>
> Does this discussion help?
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=416457
>
> The deflections mentioned sound about right. Somewhere I have another
> sketch of the deflections but I can't find it right now.
>
> Chris
> Sacramento, CA
> WestcoastPiet.com
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of tonyp51qa
> Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2016 4:21 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Control Stick Movements
>
>
> I have the torque tube, control sticks and the rudder bar installed. I am
> concerned with the movement of my {PILOTS} stick fore and aft {elevator}.
> And especially left and right{ailerons}. I need to know the degree of
> deflection of elevator in degrees [up and down]. I also need to know how
> much stick deflection is needed to move my ailerons. Since my Piet is built
> per plans, the control rod that ties the two sticks together has caused a
> lesser movement going to the left.{this control rod hits the seat back "V"
> cutout} This limits the stick deflection going fully to the left}. My
> control stick also hits the seat back at 24 degrees and goes back 30 plus
> degrees. At present I do not have any cables installed yet. Thank You!
>
> Tony
>
> --------
> Tony Crawford
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452656#452656
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Corvair College 36 - San Marcos, TX, 1-3 April 2016 |
| From: | "kevinpurtee" <kevin.purtee(at)us.army.mil> |
Friends - Please come join us. Here's the registration link:
https://corviarcollegeregistration.wufoo.com/forms/cc36/
--------
Kevin "Axel" Purtee
Rebuilding NX899KP
Austin/San Marcos, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452690#452690
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "CatDesigns" <CatDesigns(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Control Stick Movements |
Ray
I believe it is measured at the bottom of the trailing edge with the aileron
level with the bottom of the wing, i.e. in the neutral position. Then
measure the angle (at the trailing edge) at full up or down.
Chris
Sacramento, CA
WestcoastPiet.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ray Krause
Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2016 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Control Stick Movements
-->
Chris,
Is the angle measured from the top of the wing as "level"?
Thanks,
Ray Krause
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 7, 2016, at 3:53 PM, CatDesigns wrote:
>
> -->
>
> Does this discussion help?
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=416457
>
> The deflections mentioned sound about right. Somewhere I have another
> sketch of the deflections but I can't find it right now.
>
> Chris
> Sacramento, CA
> WestcoastPiet.com
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> tonyp51qa
> Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2016 4:21 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Control Stick Movements
>
> -->
>
> I have the torque tube, control sticks and the rudder bar installed. I
> am concerned with the movement of my {PILOTS} stick fore and aft
{elevator}.
> And especially left and right{ailerons}. I need to know the degree of
> deflection of elevator in degrees [up and down]. I also need to know
> how much stick deflection is needed to move my ailerons. Since my Piet
> is built per plans, the control rod that ties the two sticks together
> has caused a lesser movement going to the left.{this control rod hits the
seat back "V"
> cutout} This limits the stick deflection going fully to the left}. My
> control stick also hits the seat back at 24 degrees and goes back 30
> plus degrees. At present I do not have any cables installed yet. Thank
You!
>
> Tony
>
> --------
> Tony Crawford
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452656#452656
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Corvair College 36 - San Marcos, TX, 1-3 April 2016 |
| From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Axel- only on one condition: that you either correct the spelling in the event
registration weblink to "Corvair", or else serve some prime Detroit "corviar"
on crackers at the event ;o)
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452693#452693
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Control Stick Movements |
| From: | "Charles N. Campbell" <charlescampbell1924(at)gmail.com> |
I remember a post of a few years ago where one Piet owner put small blocks
of wood on the floor (under the ends of the aileron activator) to limit the
travel of the ailerons. He(she) complained that the sound the ailerons
made hitting the wing at full down deflection bothered her(him). (I have
forgotten whether it was a male of female who made the entry.) So I gather
from that post that the aileron travel is sufficient at full throw of the
stick. Chuck
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 7:20 AM, tonyp51qa wrote:
>
> I have the torque tube, control sticks and the rudder bar installed. I am
> concerned with the movement of my {PILOTS} stick fore and aft {elevator}.
> And especially left and right{ailerons}. I need to know the degree of
> deflection of elevator in degrees [up and down]. I also need to know how
> much stick deflection is needed to move my ailerons. Since my Piet is built
> per plans, the control rod that ties the two sticks together has caused a
> lesser movement going to the left.{this control rod hits the seat back "V"
> cutout} This limits the stick deflection going fully to the left}. My
> control stick also hits the seat back at 24 degrees and goes back 30 plus
> degrees. At present I do not have any cables installed yet. Thank You!
>
> Tony
>
> --------
> Tony Crawford
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452656#452656
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Corvair College 36 - San Marcos, TX, 1-3 April 2016 |
| From: | "kevinpurtee" <kevin.purtee(at)us.army.mil> |
You gotta talk to the IT Girl, Oscar.
--------
Kevin "Axel" Purtee
Rebuilding NX899KP
Austin/San Marcos, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452703#452703
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Engine mount bolt lengths |
| From: | "Charles N. Campbell" <charlescampbell1924(at)gmail.com> |
Do any of you Piet drivers having a Corvair-powered airplane remember the
length of bolt required for mounting the engine to the hitch using the
"Energy Suspension End Link Bushings" that William W. recommends? Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Corvair College 36 - San Marcos, TX, 1-3 April |
2016
| From: | "Charles N. Campbell" <charlescampbell1924(at)gmail.com> |
Regardless of spelling method used, the page comes up OK. C
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:28 AM, kevinpurtee
wrote:
> kevin.purtee(at)us.army.mil>
>
> You gotta talk to the IT Girl, Oscar.
>
> --------
> Kevin "Axel" Purtee
> Rebuilding NX899KP
> Austin/San Marcos, TX
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452703#452703
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine mount bolt lengths |
| From: | "Charles N. Campbell" <charlescampbell1924(at)gmail.com> |
Sorry about that; I must have been thinking about my trailer when I used
the term "hitch". Mentally convert that word to "mount". C
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Charles N. Campbell <
charlescampbell1924(at)gmail.com> wrote:
> Do any of you Piet drivers having a Corvair-powered airplane remember the
> length of bolt required for mounting the engine to the hitch using the
> "Energy Suspension End Link Bushings" that William W. recommends? Chuck
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Philips" <jack(at)bedfordlandings.com> |
| Subject: | Control Stick Movements |
Hard to see how the ailerons could make much noise against the wing
=93 the stick hits my knee long before the ailerons reach full
deflection.
The FAA generally wants to see control stops on all controls. I put
small blocks of wood under the aileron horn on the torque tube for that
purpose (the stick still hits my knee before the horn reaches the stop).
I added elevator stops on the elevator bellcrank in the fuselage to
limit the elevator movement. It still has far more elevator travel than
you would ever need in flight.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charles
N. Campbell
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2016 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Control Stick Movements
I remember a post of a few years ago where one Piet owner put small
blocks of wood on the floor (under the ends of the aileron activator) to
limit the travel of the ailerons. He(she) complained that the sound the
ailerons made hitting the wing at full down deflection bothered
her(him). (I have forgotten whether it was a male of female who made
the entry.) So I gather from that post that the aileron travel is
sufficient at full throw of the stick. Chuck
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 7:20 AM, tonyp51qa > wrote:
>
I have the torque tube, control sticks and the rudder bar installed. I
am concerned with the movement of my {PILOTS} stick fore and aft
{elevator}. And especially left and right{ailerons}. I need to know the
degree of deflection of elevator in degrees [up and down]. I also need
to know how much stick deflection is needed to move my ailerons. Since
my Piet is built per plans, the control rod that ties the two sticks
together has caused a lesser movement going to the left.{this control
rod hits the seat back "V" cutout} This limits the stick deflection
going fully to the left}. My control stick also hits the seat back at
24 degrees and goes back 30 plus degrees. At present I do not have any
cables installed yet. Thank You!
Tony
--------
Tony Crawford
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452656#452656
br> fts!)
r> > w.buildersbooks.com" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com <http://www.buildersbooks.com>
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
br> enpol-List" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ray Krause <raykrause(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Control Stick Movements |
Chris,
Thanks. My Sonex is measured from the top of the wing as level (neutral) starting
point.
Ray
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 7, 2016, at 7:51 PM, CatDesigns wrote:
>
>
> Ray
>
> I believe it is measured at the bottom of the trailing edge with the aileron
> level with the bottom of the wing, i.e. in the neutral position. Then
> measure the angle (at the trailing edge) at full up or down.
>
>
> Chris
> Sacramento, CA
> WestcoastPiet.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ray Krause
> Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2016 6:50 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Control Stick Movements
>
> -->
>
> Chris,
>
> Is the angle measured from the top of the wing as "level"?
>
> Thanks,
> Ray Krause
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Feb 7, 2016, at 3:53 PM, CatDesigns wrote:
>>
>> -->
>>
>> Does this discussion help?
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=416457
>>
>> The deflections mentioned sound about right. Somewhere I have another
>> sketch of the deflections but I can't find it right now.
>>
>> Chris
>> Sacramento, CA
>> WestcoastPiet.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> tonyp51qa
>> Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2016 4:21 AM
>> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Control Stick Movements
>>
>> -->
>>
>> I have the torque tube, control sticks and the rudder bar installed. I
>> am concerned with the movement of my {PILOTS} stick fore and aft
> {elevator}.
>> And especially left and right{ailerons}. I need to know the degree of
>> deflection of elevator in degrees [up and down]. I also need to know
>> how much stick deflection is needed to move my ailerons. Since my Piet
>> is built per plans, the control rod that ties the two sticks together
>> has caused a lesser movement going to the left.{this control rod hits the
> seat back "V"
>> cutout} This limits the stick deflection going fully to the left}. My
>> control stick also hits the seat back at 24 degrees and goes back 30
>> plus degrees. At present I do not have any cables installed yet. Thank
> You!
>>
>> Tony
>>
>> --------
>> Tony Crawford
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452656#452656
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ray Krause <raykrause(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Control Stick Movements |
Full throw of the stick (left/right) can be greatly limited by the size (fat
ness) of the pilots legs and the position of the stick (forward/back). I wan
t to measure to see how much aileron movement I get with various positions o
f the stick. But I'm sure, with so many Piets flying with the same setup, it
will be adequate. Full aileron deflection may never be needed.
Ray Krause
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 8, 2016, at 7:27 AM, Charles N. Campbell wrote:
>
> I remember a post of a few years ago where one Piet owner put small blocks
of wood on the floor (under the ends of the aileron activator) to limit the
travel of the ailerons. He(she) complained that the sound the ailerons mad
e hitting the wing at full down deflection bothered her(him). (I have forgo
tten whether it was a male of female who made the entry.) So I gather from t
hat post that the aileron travel is sufficient at full throw of the stick. C
huck
>
>> On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 7:20 AM, tonyp51qa wrote:
>>
>> I have the torque tube, control sticks and the rudder bar installed. I am
concerned with the movement of my {PILOTS} stick fore and aft {elevator}. A
nd especially left and right{ailerons}. I need to know the degree of deflect
ion of elevator in degrees [up and down]. I also need to know how much stick
deflection is needed to move my ailerons. Since my Piet is built per plans,
the control rod that ties the two sticks together has caused a lesser movem
ent going to the left.{this control rod hits the seat back "V" cutout} This l
imits the stick deflection going fully to the left}. My control stick also h
its the seat back at 24 degrees and goes back 30 plus degrees. At present I d
o not have any cables installed yet. Thank You!
>>
>> Tony
>>
>> --------
>> Tony Crawford
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452656#452656
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> br> fts!)
>> r> > w.buildersbooks.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.builde
rsbooks.com
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> ==========
>> br> enpol-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n
>> ==========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pocono John" <tinmotion(at)yahoo.com> |
Hello.I'm going to attempt to order metal for all the fittings, brackets, hinges,
control horns, etc.
I see .080, 12 ga, 13 ga and 22 ga in the plans.
Are there any sizes I missed? Any advice as to size of the sheets?
Thank you.
John
PS
I packed the project last spring as we moved. Just getting started again. I have
a heated over-sized (BIG) two car garage just for the project. House has attached
two car garage. Yippee!
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452713#452713
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol on floats ? |
| From: | "piperj3" <rmilkie51(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks guys ill try to reach him.
Bob
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452719#452719
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Control Stick Movements |
| From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
I'm going to agree with the others here... you may never consciously hit the extreme
limits of your control stick travel. Thinking back though, I may have done
it a couple of times. I can recall practicing power-off stalls at altitude,
and holding full aft stick while wearing summer clothing (no bulky jacket),
I was surprised that after repeated attempts I could not get the nose to break
sharply and drop if I eased up to the stall. It would come up, bob, sink rate
would go up, then it would just dip to get a little air over the wings and
then repeat the cycle. In a sharper and intentionally rapid stall maneuver,
I wouldn't try it but in a slow approach to full nose-up, I could hold the stick
full back in the bobbing cycle as altitude was rapidly lost and airspeed stayed
in the 30s or low 40s. I'm quite sure I've never had the stick full forward!!!
I have no desire to set a new world's record for elapsed time from cruise
to Vne in a homebuilt, but the Air Camper would sure be willing to try if
you hit the forward stop!
The time I think I've hit the aileron stops was in short-field slips to a landing
on grass. Back at San Geronimo, I would come in just a tad high on final so
I could get over the trees at the approach end of the field, then kick it over
into a hard slip to get in where I could use all the grass. I think I have
felt the stop once or twice in that configuration, but I could also be imagining
it because in that configuration the stick is well into your thigh. I have
a 32" waist and weigh about 160, not a lot of meat on my thighs, but if you're
not slight of build the insides of your thighs will serve nicely as stick stops
in roll.
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452721#452721
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Corvair College 36 - San Marcos, TX, 1-3 April 2016 |
| From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Folks, you will not find better, nicer, or more Pietenpol-y people than Kevin and
Shelley, hosts of this event. I highly recommend this upcoming Corvair College
(with or without 'corviar on crackers') if you have any leanings towards
building a Piet, building a Corvair to power a Piet, or building your own engine
for any kind of a homebuilt aircraft. The experience will be one that you
will remember whether you ever build an engine or airplane or not.
Highly recommended.
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452722#452722
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ordering metal |
| From: | "bdewenter" <anonymouse(at)woh.rr.com> |
John,
MANY of the fittings can be made from "strip steel" in various gauges, widths and
lengths. You can cut these up with a simple hack saw (with the BEST blades
money can buy) very quickly.
Obviously the larger metal fitting need to come from sheet. Consider getting your
larger parts water jet cut.
--------
Bob 'Early Builder' Dewenter
Dayton OH
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452744#452744
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine mount bolt lengths |
| From: | "bdewenter" <anonymouse(at)woh.rr.com> |
Page 192 of the manual states AN6-36 and in the instructions for the motor mount
state AN6-36
--------
Bob 'Early Builder' Dewenter
Dayton OH
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452745#452745
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ordering metal |
| From: | "Pocono John" <tinmotion(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks Bob. The plans don't mention (or I missed it) what type steel. Do builders
use 4130, something else, or steel bought locally (like Tractor Supply)?
I have a metal cutting band saw and I can drill and ream holes. The one company
for water jet is priceywill see about it when the time comes.
I found a great page on the website "Pete's Pietenpol" that listed in detail the
metal parts required. I'll use that to make a shopping list.
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452749#452749
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ordering metal |
| From: | "tools" <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com> |
Yep, you want 4130 for everything. I think the plans mention1020 or something,
so 4130 isn't "necessary", but is widely accepted as the way to go.
If you have a metal cutting contour saw, vertical, water jetting isn't necessary,
just a matter of time vs money. With nothing but a hacksaw... Ya, probably
a little higher on the priority list!
The only real advice I have to add is to really consider the holes. If a hole
is to be matched up with another part, sometimes wise to drill both at once, or
use one part to locate the matching hole. It's possible you will save some
frustration by trying your best to visualize those sorts of situations and planning
ahead.
Generally, it's a pretty straight forward job!
Tools
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452753#452753
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ordering metal |
| From: | "Pocono John" <tinmotion(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks Tools! Previous to this project, I made all the brackets for a Hatz Classic
and doubled the parts for drilling/reaming. After all that, realized I'd rather
have a plane in a few years instead of 12 or moreso Hatz will be my retirement
project.
OK, I'll get more 4130. Thanks again!
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452754#452754
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ordering metal |
| From: | "tools" <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com> |
I didn't build my Piet, but have done extensive work on it. I'm now working on
(extensive repairs) a starduster too... WOW! Probably ten times the parts?
Practically ALL of them more complicated than anything on a Piet! I definitely
see where you're coming from!
Tools
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452755#452755
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ordering metal |
| From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
John;
Many people have mentioned this over the years but I'll repeat it: some of the
metal fittings on the Air Camper can benefit by being made a little bit longer
and you would do well to study photos (Westcoastpiet is a great place to see
lots of photos). I'll give you two quick examples. First, the wing lift strut
attach fittings on the wing spars, where they protrude out the bottom of the
wing, end up with the strut mounting holes so close to the fabric that you can't
get a ratchet or a box-end ratcheting wrench on them. Tightening the bolts
becomes a flat-by-flat exercise using two open-end wrenches. Lengthening the
fittings just a little bit would really help. Next, down at the landing gear/lift
strut attach fittings at the bottom of the fuselage, the lift struts are
typically attached to the fittings using adjustable fork ends. The bolt that
holds the fork end to the attach fitting is a stubby AN5- or -6 bolt (I don't
remember which), and it has to go in at an angle. If you build everything per
plans, it's very difficult to insert that bolt as it should be (with the head
up) because the bolt contacts the lower longeron and fabric.
If you don't have Mike Cuy's excellent build-and-fly video, by all means get a
copy! Mike does a very thorough walk-around of his airplane and points out some
of the spots where the fittings should be made a little longer to make installation
of the hardware less of a pain. The video is great rainy day viewing,
too.
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452766#452766
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ordering metal |
| From: | "Charles N. Campbell" <charlescampbell1924(at)gmail.com> |
Now you tell me. Fooey on it. I'll just run the bolts upside down. The
nuts are not coming off anyway! C
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:23 AM, taildrags wrote:
>
> John;
>
> Many people have mentioned this over the years but I'll repeat it: some of
> the metal fittings on the Air Camper can benefit by being made a little bit
> longer and you would do well to study photos (Westcoastpiet is a great
> place to see lots of photos). I'll give you two quick examples. First,
> the wing lift strut attach fittings on the wing spars, where they protrude
> out the bottom of the wing, end up with the strut mounting holes so close
> to the fabric that you can't get a ratchet or a box-end ratcheting wrench
> on them. Tightening the bolts becomes a flat-by-flat exercise using two
> open-end wrenches. Lengthening the fittings just a little bit would really
> help. Next, down at the landing gear/lift strut attach fittings at the
> bottom of the fuselage, the lift struts are typically attached to the
> fittings using adjustable fork ends. The bolt that holds the fork end to
> the attach fitting is a stubby AN5- or -6 bolt (I don't remember which),
> and it has to go in at an angle. !
> If you build everything per plans, it's very difficult to insert that
> bolt as it should be (with the head up) because the bolt contacts the lower
> longeron and fabric.
>
> If you don't have Mike Cuy's excellent build-and-fly video, by all means
> get a copy! Mike does a very thorough walk-around of his airplane and
> points out some of the spots where the fittings should be made a little
> longer to make installation of the hardware less of a pain. The video is
> great rainy day viewing, too.
>
> --------
> Oscar Zuniga
> Medford, OR
> Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
> A75 power
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452766#452766
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ordering metal |
| From: | "Lorenzo" <larharris2(at)msn.com> |
I tried to get a copy of Mike Cuy's video a couple of years ago, but he wasn't
making them any more. If anyone has a copy they would send/sell to me, please
let me know. I'd still like to watch it.
Lorenzo
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452774#452774
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ordering metal |
| From: | "wheelharp" <wheelharp(at)gmail.com> |
I'd like to see it too....maybe if Mike doesn't want to mess with making them,
he could allow someone to make copies and send him the money for them. What would
be really cool is a digital download.
--------
Jon Jones
Ironton, MO
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452775#452775
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ordering metal |
| From: | "Pocono John" <tinmotion(at)yahoo.com> |
Thank you Oscar! I'll remember what you wrote and add it to my notes. As far as
the Mike Cuy video, I'll have to search for that. As far as photos, I've been
compiling photos from all over as they help. I'm making sure to upload plenty
of photos to my own site not only to document it, but maybe the photos will help
others. Thanks again!
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452776#452776
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Donald Lane" <dslane(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Pietenpol-List Digest: 6 Msgs - 02/10/16 |
That is odd because you do have the right email address . Phyllis
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Pietenpol-List Digest Server
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 3:01 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List Digest: 6 Msgs - 02/10/16
*
=================================================
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
=================================================
Today's complete Pietenpol-List Digest can also be found in either of the
two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted in
HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes and
Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version of the
Pietenpol-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor such as
Notepad or with a web browser.
HTML Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter
16-02-10&Archive=Pietenpol
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter
2016-02-10&Archive=Pietenpol
===============================================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
===============================================
----------------------------------------------------------
Pietenpol-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Wed 02/10/16: 6
----------------------------------------------------------
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:19 AM - Re: Ordering metal (bdewenter)
2. 06:21 AM - Re: Engine mount bolt lengths (bdewenter)
3. 07:59 AM - Re: Ordering metal (Pocono John)
4. 02:43 PM - Re: Ordering metal (tools)
5. 02:57 PM - Re: Ordering metal (Pocono John)
6. 03:32 PM - Re: Ordering metal (tools)
________________________________ Message 1
_____________________________________
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Ordering metal
From: "bdewenter" <anonymouse(at)woh.rr.com>
John,
MANY of the fittings can be made from "strip steel" in various gauges,
widths and lengths. You can cut these up with a simple hack saw (with the
BEST blades money can buy) very quickly.
Obviously the larger metal fitting need to come from sheet. Consider
getting your larger parts water jet cut.
--------
Bob 'Early Builder' Dewenter
Dayton OH
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452744#452744
________________________________ Message 2
_____________________________________
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Engine mount bolt lengths
From: "bdewenter" <anonymouse(at)woh.rr.com>
Page 192 of the manual states AN6-36 and in the instructions for the motor
mount state AN6-36
--------
Bob 'Early Builder' Dewenter
Dayton OH
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452745#452745
________________________________ Message 3
_____________________________________
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Ordering metal
From: "Pocono John" <tinmotion(at)yahoo.com>
Thanks Bob. The plans don't mention (or I missed it) what type steel. Do
builders use 4130, something else, or steel bought locally (like Tractor
Supply)?
I have a metal cutting band saw and I can drill and ream holes. The one
company for water jet is priceywill see about it when the time comes.
I found a great page on the website "Pete's Pietenpol" that listed in detail
the metal parts required. I'll use that to make a shopping list.
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452749#452749
________________________________ Message 4
_____________________________________
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Ordering metal
From: "tools" <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com>
Yep, you want 4130 for everything. I think the plans mention1020 or
something, so 4130 isn't "necessary", but is widely accepted as the way to
go.
If you have a metal cutting contour saw, vertical, water jetting isn't
necessary, just a matter of time vs money. With nothing but a hacksaw...
Ya, probably a little higher on the priority list!
The only real advice I have to add is to really consider the holes. If a
hole is to be matched up with another part, sometimes wise to drill both at
once, or use one part to locate the matching hole. It's possible you will
save some frustration by trying your best to visualize those sorts of
situations and planning ahead.
Generally, it's a pretty straight forward job!
Tools
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452753#452753
________________________________ Message 5
_____________________________________
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Ordering metal
From: "Pocono John" <tinmotion(at)yahoo.com>
Thanks Tools! Previous to this project, I made all the brackets for a Hatz
Classic and doubled the parts for drilling/reaming. After all that, realized
I'd rather have a plane in a few years instead of 12 or moreso Hatz will be
my retirement project.
OK, I'll get more 4130. Thanks again!
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452754#452754
________________________________ Message 6
_____________________________________
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Ordering metal
From: "tools" <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com>
I didn't build my Piet, but have done extensive work on it. I'm now working
on (extensive repairs) a starduster too... WOW! Probably ten times the
parts?
Practically ALL of them more complicated than anything on a Piet! I
definitely see where you're coming from!
Tools
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452755#452755
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Allen James Pietenpol Diplomat from across the pond |
| From: | Matt Naiva <corvaircoupe(at)gmail.com> |
I have always admired the workmanship from afar on G-BUCO.
I believe the cowl and paint were borrowed from the Parnall Elf and suite
the Pietenpol well.
I just found this video interview of the English Pietenpol statesmen.
https://player.vimeo.com/video/109686038
I hope all who have not seen it enjoy it! I would like to meet Allen James
one day.
Matt
REF
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5091/5474456519_e4ebdafa6c.jpg
http://www.westcoastpiet.com/images/G-BUCO%20Pictures/images/Pietenpol.air.camper.g-buco.arp.jpg
My favorite Iconic image!
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g77/krazy-eyes/Master-Walker-copy.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clif Dawson" <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Ordering metal |
You'll be in good company. As in F86 Saber.
----- Original Message -----
From: Charles N. Campbell
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Ordering metal
Now you tell me. Fooey on it. I'll just run the bolts upside down.
The nuts are not coming off anyway! C
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:23 AM, taildrags
wrote:
John;
Many people have mentioned this over the years but I'll repeat it:
some of the metal fittings on the Air Camper can benefit by being made a
little bit longer and you would do well to study photos (Westcoastpiet
is a great place to see lots of photos). I'll give you two quick
examples. First, the wing lift strut attach fittings on the wing spars,
where they protrude out the bottom of the wing, end up with the strut
mounting holes so close to the fabric that you can't get a ratchet or a
box-end ratcheting wrench on them. Tightening the bolts becomes a
flat-by-flat exercise using two open-end wrenches. Lengthening the
fittings just a little bit would really help. Next, down at the landing
gear/lift strut attach fittings at the bottom of the fuselage, the lift
struts are typically attached to the fittings using adjustable fork
ends. The bolt that holds the fork end to the attach fitting is a
stubby AN5- or -6 bolt (I don't remember which), and it has to go in at
an angle. !
If you build everything per plans, it's very difficult to insert
that bolt as it should be (with the head up) because the bolt contacts
the lower longeron and fabric.
If you don't have Mike Cuy's excellent build-and-fly video, by all
means get a copy! Mike does a very thorough walk-around of his airplane
and points out some of the spots where the fittings should be made a
little longer to make installation of the hardware less of a pain. The
video is great rainy day viewing, too.
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452766#452766
==========
br> fts!)
r> > w.buildersbooks.com" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
==========
br> enpol-List" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
==========
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
==========
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ray Krause <raykrause(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ordering metal |
I put the bolts in the bottom strut fitting upside down and just used castel
lated nuts and cotter pins, I'm pretty sure the nuts won't come off!
Ray Krause
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 11, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Charles N. Campbell wrote:
>
> Now you tell me. Fooey on it. I'll just run the bolts upside down. The n
uts are not coming off anyway! C
>
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:23 AM, taildrags wrote
:
>>
>> John;
>>
>> Many people have mentioned this over the years but I'll repeat it: some o
f the metal fittings on the Air Camper can benefit by being made a little bi
t longer and you would do well to study photos (Westcoastpiet is a great pla
ce to see lots of photos). I'll give you two quick examples. First, the wi
ng lift strut attach fittings on the wing spars, where they protrude out the
bottom of the wing, end up with the strut mounting holes so close to the fa
bric that you can't get a ratchet or a box-end ratcheting wrench on them. T
ightening the bolts becomes a flat-by-flat exercise using two open-end wrenc
hes. Lengthening the fittings just a little bit would really help. Next, d
own at the landing gear/lift strut attach fittings at the bottom of the fuse
lage, the lift struts are typically attached to the fittings using adjustabl
e fork ends. The bolt that holds the fork end to the attach fitting is a st
ubby AN5- or -6 bolt (I don't remember which), and it has to go in at an ang
le. !
>> If you build everything per plans, it's very difficult to insert that b
olt as it should be (with the head up) because the bolt contacts the lower l
ongeron and fabric.
>>
>> If you don't have Mike Cuy's excellent build-and-fly video, by all means g
et a copy! Mike does a very thorough walk-around of his airplane and points
out some of the spots where the fittings should be made a little longer to m
ake installation of the hardware less of a pain. The video is great rainy d
ay viewing, too.
>>
>> --------
>> Oscar Zuniga
>> Medford, OR
>> Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
>> A75 power
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452766#452766
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> br> fts!)
>> r> > w.buildersbooks.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.builde
rsbooks.com
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> ==========
>> br> enpol-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n
>> ==========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ordering metal |
| From: | "Charles N. Campbell" <charlescampbell1924(at)gmail.com> |
Hey! Good idea. I was going to use just regular nuts with plastic locking
on them. I'll use castellated nuts with cotter pins. C
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Ray Krause
wrote:
> I put the bolts in the bottom strut fitting upside down and just used
> castellated nuts and cotter pins, I'm pretty sure the nuts won't come off!
> Ray Krause
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 11, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Charles N. Campbell <
> charlescampbell1924(at)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Now you tell me. Fooey on it. I'll just run the bolts upside down. The
> nuts are not coming off anyway! C
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:23 AM, taildrags wrote:
>
>>
>> John;
>>
>> Many people have mentioned this over the years but I'll repeat it: some
>> of the metal fittings on the Air Camper can benefit by being made a little
>> bit longer and you would do well to study photos (Westcoastpiet is a great
>> place to see lots of photos). I'll give you two quick examples. First,
>> the wing lift strut attach fittings on the wing spars, where they protrude
>> out the bottom of the wing, end up with the strut mounting holes so close
>> to the fabric that you can't get a ratchet or a box-end ratcheting wrench
>> on them. Tightening the bolts becomes a flat-by-flat exercise using two
>> open-end wrenches. Lengthening the fittings just a little bit would really
>> help. Next, down at the landing gear/lift strut attach fittings at the
>> bottom of the fuselage, the lift struts are typically attached to the
>> fittings using adjustable fork ends. The bolt that holds the fork end to
>> the attach fitting is a stubby AN5- or -6 bolt (I don't remember which),
>> and it has to go in at an angle. !
>> If you build everything per plans, it's very difficult to insert that
>> bolt as it should be (with the head up) because the bolt contacts the lower
>> longeron and fabric.
>>
>> If you don't have Mike Cuy's excellent build-and-fly video, by all means
>> get a copy! Mike does a very thorough walk-around of his airplane and
>> points out some of the spots where the fittings should be made a little
>> longer to make installation of the hardware less of a pain. The video is
>> great rainy day viewing, too.
>>
>> --------
>> Oscar Zuniga
>> Medford, OR
>> Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
>> A75 power
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452766#452766
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> br> fts!)
>> r> > w.buildersbooks.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">
>> www.buildersbooks.com
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> ==========
>> br> enpol-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Siegel <psiegel(at)fuse.net> |
| Subject: | Cabane strut angle with heavy engine |
Preparing to weld up the six cabane struts. Will raise wing 2 for more cockpit
clearance. With Continental A65 top of cabane struts is usually leaned aft
4. I will be using Continental O-200 D (light sport) with starter, on long fuselage
version. This will be about 40 lbs heavier than A65. Any suggestions
on how much of the aft lean to eliminate? Should cabanes be straight up with
heavier engine (no clean back)? I will use third diagonal cabane strut angled
to top motor mount on both sides to set angle of cabanes. I guess I can remake
those angled front struts after weight and balance performed. Any suggestion
on starting point though? Please dont tell me to go to the search engine.
Standing by Paul Siegel psiegel(at)fuse.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cabane strut angle with heavy engine |
| From: | "aviken" <aviken(at)windstream.net> |
Hi I am also dealing with a heavy engine / Jeep 134 / I decided to just build
the cabines straight and hope it is in the ball park. if I have to I can
re-do the angle after weight and balance.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452789#452789
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cabane strut angle with heavy engine |
| From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Okay, so please don't take any of this to be exact science and please don't substitute
this for a more careful analysis and certainly a careful W&B, and I know
there are a lot of approximations and inaccuracies but it's just a simple little
study. 41CC's cabanes are canted so as to move the wing aft about 4" and
my engine is an A75, so it's the same as an A65 for weight.
Basic empty weight of 41CC is 636 lbs and the empty CG is about 12" aft of the
wing leading edge. If I take the 4" out and set the cabanes vertical, I've moved
most of the empty weight (not the wings though) 4" aft of the datum. Just
to use round numbers, let's say the wings weigh 86 lbs so I've moved 550 lbs
of empty weight 4" aft of the datum, creating a increased moment of 2200 lb-in.
My oil is on a moment arm of about 26" forward of the datum (rounding the numbers
to make them simple, and remembering that moment arms forward of the datum
create a negative moment), so if I move the engine the same 4", I've reduced its
moment arm to about 22" forward of the datum. For the aircraft to once again
balance, I would need to have an engine that's 100 lbs heavier than before
since it would be acting on a moment arm of 22" to create an equal 2200 lb-in
to offset the shift in the aircraft's empty weight.
If any of the above is close to accurate, a quickie rule of thumb might be that
for my airplane, I could take out 1" of cabane offset for every 25 lbs of weight
that I add to the engine. From there, I can't help you because I have no
idea what your O200 might weigh compared to my A65/75.
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452790#452790
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cabane strut angle with heavy engine |
| From: | "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82(at)hotmail.com> |
Here is what I would do-
1. Don't guess or ASSUME a cabane angle is correct.
2. Contact Doc Mosher and buy the W&B articles. Or borrow if you can't get him.
3. Do a weight and balance spreadsheet. If you don't know how, have someone help
you.
4. Download a copy of the FAA Weight and Balance Handbook. Google FAA-H-8083-1A.
It is free to download. Read it.
It doesn't matter if you lean 2 inches 4 inches or 6 inches if your gear placement
is wrong. That is key.
--------
Semper Fi,
Terry Hand
Athens, GA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452791#452791
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cabane strut angle with heavy engine |
| From: | "planes&bikes" <yb21701(at)juno.com> |
I'm in the final trim painting and assembly stage of my A-75-8 powered PIET. I
built as closely to the BPA wt/bal data by Wm.Wynn as I could and also used a
newsletter item that said BHP had recommended 3" aft sweep of the cabanes and
14" (firewall to crankcase) length engine mount for the small Continental. Per
Wm.Wynn, I also wanted solid welded diagonal cabane struts, so to make sure that
the wing position and engine mount length were correct, I bent 5/16" allthread
into a temporary engine mount held together by cable clamps. I made the allthreads
that protruded through the 4 crankcase lugs long enough that I could
move the engine fore and aft, and with the aircraft on the scales, played cabane
sweep versus engine mount length until I compromised at 17.5" C/G. Final position
is sweep 3-13/16" and engine mount 34" (using the same measurement locations
as Wm.Wynn stated in his articles). I haven't flown yet, but I'm dead
certain of my C/G. See attached photos.
--------
Planes&Bikes
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452801#452801
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dscn8484_640x480_200.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/028_480x640_218.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Corvair College 36 - San Marcos, TX, 1-3 April 2016 |
| From: | Steven Dortch <steven.d.dortch(at)gmail.com> |
Axle, is it cool if I forward this to my eaa chapter?
Steve D
On Feb 7, 2016 9:37 PM, "kevinpurtee" wrote:
> kevin.purtee(at)us.army.mil>
>
> Friends - Please come join us. Here's the registration link:
>
> https://corviarcollegeregistration.wufoo.com/forms/cc36/
>
> --------
> Kevin "Axel" Purtee
> Rebuilding NX899KP
> Austin/San Marcos, TX
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452690#452690
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | OT Lindberg book |
| From: | Steven Dortch <steven.d.dortch(at)gmail.com> |
I am reading The flight of the century by Thomas Kessner, about Lindbergh.
OK overall but the author is obviously not a pilot. It irritates me when he
confuses a stalled engine and stalled wing when describing a crash. Also he
states that he n Richard Byrd's trimotor, when the main engine quit, the
other engine kicked in.
Seems good a discussing the era.
Blue Skies,
Steve D
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cabane strut angle with heavy engine |
| From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Now THAT is clever! The bent-and-clamped allthread is something I've never seen
before, but it obviously got you an adjustable jig! Interesting to find that
you've got your cabanes just about where the ones are on 41CC with the same
engine. One difference between our airplanes is that you have the fuel tank in
the wing, while 41CC has a welded aluminum tank in the nose. I wonder how close
to 4" your cabane angle would be with a nose tank?
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452822#452822
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cabane strut angle with heavy engine |
| From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
By the way, 'planes&bikes', noticing the registration markings on the side of your
airplane I thought I would mention that you can use 'NX41YB' and dispense
with the passenger warning ('EXPERIMENTAL') near the entry to the cockpit. Gives
your airplane more of a 1929 period look, too.
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452823#452823
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "andrea" <andrea(at)modelberg.it> |
Hello to all!
A simple and direct survey: speaking about wooden landing gear and shock
cord, how many loops and what cross section are you guys using?
Thanks to all.
Andrea Vavassori
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)comcast.net> |
On NX18235, 1/2" cord was wrapped around the axle 3 times.
Greg Cardinal
Minneapolis
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of andrea
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 1:48 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Shock cords
Hello to all!
A simple and direct survey: speaking about wooden landing gear and shock
cord, how many loops and what cross section are you guys using?
Thanks to all.
Andrea Vavassori
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tools" <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com> |
Nx2rn... Ditto.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452848#452848
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Corvair College 36 - San Marcos, TX, 1-3 April 2016 |
| From: | "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82(at)hotmail.com> |
Steve,
Kevin is busy finishing up FBG, and he doesn't get online too much, so let me
answer for him - absolutely.
Here is a link with more info-
http://flycorvair.net/2016/02/12/texas-corvair-college-36-april-1-3-sign-up-closes-soon/
Oscar hit the nail on the head. If you are any kind of experimental aviation guy,
you will have a great time at a Corvair College. You will make friends with
new people, put faces with names of people on this forum, and have a great time
in general.
Here is a video explaining more about Corvair College, filmed and produced by EAA
-
http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=3971877626001
Here are some videos showing the kind of learning that takes place -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l85w6Bk90V4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt529VT2WHQ
--------
Semper Fi,
Terry Hand
Athens, GA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452884#452884
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Corvair College 36 - San Marcos, TX, 1-3 April |
2016
| From: | Steven Dortch <steven.d.dortch(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks, i sent it to our EAA newsletter
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | weight & balance |
| From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Okay, so really, builders don't need to be waiting till their aircraft are almost
finished before thinking about W&B. In fact, the earlier you start to think
about it and start getting numbers in your head, the more confident you'll be
about it when it comes time to do the final, actual W&B and fill in the forms
that you'll show at the end. Once you have the bare fuselage -covered or not-
on the gear, you're ready to start measuring and weighing. At that point you
can start plugging some numbers into a W&B spreadsheet and it will be even
easier if you don't have the wings or engine on the bare fuselage because you
can move it around the shop or hangar very easily. Not only that but if you don't
have the cabanes and centersection mounted yet, it will be even easier to
get your helper to climb into that front cockpit to do the weighing to get the
passenger moment arm calculated.
With the fuselage on the gear (as long as the geometry is locked in and the gear
mounting brackets are actually bolted to the fuselage or at least pinned in
place in final locations), you can determine the various moment arms for the main
gear and tailwheel, as well as the moment arms for pilot and passenger. If
you're using a nose tank you can also determine the moment arm for it if you
have the tank fabricated and can set it temporarily in place in the forward fuselage.
All of this can be done with nothing more than masking tape, markers,
a string and plumb bob or fishing weight, and a couple of simple bathroom scales
since the accuracy of the scales doesn't matter too much at that point.
They just need to be reasonably accurate and the readings repeatable, and the
actual weights won't matter much in order to determine moment arms.
As a starting point I can offer the Excel spreadsheet that I've used for the W&B
on 41CC, and I can probably also cook up a simple spreadsheet for coming up
with the passenger and pilot moment arms after you've taken some simple readings
on a rainy workshop day when you and a helper are able to make some measurements
slowly, carefully, and thoughtfully. If you do it right the first time,
you'll never have to do it again. The upside to all of this is that if you start
the process early, you can make adjustments as you go along and not get surprised
at the very end when you find out your airplane has a heavy tail and
you have to find a way to offset or move it.
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452912#452912
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fairfield, Mike" <MFairfield(at)hewitt.ca> |
| Subject: | weight & balance |
Good morning Oscar,
I for one, would be interested in your spreadsheet if you would be so kind.
Thanks, Mike the canuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of taildrags
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 12:56 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: weight & balance
-->
Okay, so really, builders don't need to be waiting till their aircraft are almost
finished before thinking about W&B. In fact, the earlier you start to think
about it and start getting numbers in your head, the more confident you'll be
about it when it comes time to do the final, actual W&B and fill in the forms
that you'll show at the end. Once you have the bare fuselage -covered or not-
on the gear, you're ready to start measuring and weighing. At that point you
can start plugging some numbers into a W&B spreadsheet and it will be even
easier if you don't have the wings or engine on the bare fuselage because you
can move it around the shop or hangar very easily. Not only that but if you don't
have the cabanes and centersection mounted yet, it will be even easier to
get your helper to climb into that front cockpit to do the weighing to get the
passenger moment arm calculated.
With the fuselage on the gear (as long as the geometry is locked in and the gear
mounting brackets are actually bolted to the fuselage or at least pinned in
place in final locations), you can determine the various moment arms for the main
gear and tailwheel, as well as the moment arms for pilot and passenger. If
you're using a nose tank you can also determine the moment arm for it if you
have the tank fabricated and can set it temporarily in place in the forward fuselage.
All of this can be done with nothing more than masking tape, markers,
a string and plumb bob or fishing weight, and a couple of simple bathroom scales
since the accuracy of the scales doesn't matter too much at that point.
They just need to be reasonably accurate and the readings repeatable, and the
actual weights won't matter much in order to determine moment arms.
As a starting point I can offer the Excel spreadsheet that I've used for the W&B
on 41CC, and I can probably also cook up a simple spreadsheet for coming up
with the passenger and pilot moment arms after you've taken some simple readings
on a rainy workshop day when you and a helper are able to make some measurements
slowly, carefully, and thoughtfully. If you do it right the first time,
you'll never have to do it again. The upside to all of this is that if you start
the process early, you can make adjustments as you go along and not get surprised
at the very end when you find out your airplane has a heavy tail and
you have to find a way to offset or move it.
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__forums.matronics.com_viewtopic.php-3Fp-3D452912-23452912&d=CwICAw&c=epcZb5jdh1ysHc2TC_uZEMpi5Xp3bPQPSZatc6SDw3A&r=hRt1T_6xXLTFw-Pi77z3ka1Hyoflt0RLKFhpWJWpHdk&m=SNBG4gYh0cPdOwaSGLVxA-ubnN9CFigPFIK4b6Wtwps&s=g-oCKFEtWuYFQOrW5LV-taaPzpylwcSaYtuF7JrlPBw&e=
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: weight & balance |
| From: | "Charles N. Campbell" <charlescampbell1924(at)gmail.com> |
Me, too. Chuck
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Fairfield, Mike
wrote:
> MFairfield(at)hewitt.ca>
>
> Good morning Oscar,
>
> I for one, would be interested in your spreadsheet if you would b
e
> so kind.
>
> Thanks, Mike the canuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of taildrags
> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 12:56 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: weight & balance
>
> -->
>
> Okay, so really, builders don't need to be waiting till their aircraft ar
e
> almost finished before thinking about W&B. In fact, the earlier you star
t
> to think about it and start getting numbers in your head, the more
> confident you'll be about it when it comes time to do the final, actual W
&B
> and fill in the forms that you'll show at the end. Once you have the bar
e
> fuselage -covered or not- on the gear, you're ready to start measuring an
d
> weighing. At that point you can start plugging some numbers into a W&B
> spreadsheet and it will be even easier if you don't have the wings or
> engine on the bare fuselage because you can move it around the shop or
> hangar very easily. Not only that but if you don't have the cabanes and
> centersection mounted yet, it will be even easier to get your helper to
> climb into that front cockpit to do the weighing to get the passenger
> moment arm calculated.
>
> With the fuselage on the gear (as long as the geometry is locked in and
> the gear mounting brackets are actually bolted to the fuselage or at leas
t
> pinned in place in final locations), you can determine the various moment
> arms for the main gear and tailwheel, as well as the moment arms for pilo
t
> and passenger. If you're using a nose tank you can also determine the
> moment arm for it if you have the tank fabricated and can set it
> temporarily in place in the forward fuselage. All of this can be done wi
th
> nothing more than masking tape, markers, a string and plumb bob or fishin
g
> weight, and a couple of simple bathroom scales since the accuracy of the
> scales doesn't matter too much at that point. They just need to be
> reasonably accurate and the readings repeatable, and the actual weights
> won't matter much in order to determine moment arms.
>
> As a starting point I can offer the Excel spreadsheet that I've used for
> the W&B on 41CC, and I can probably also cook up a simple spreadsheet for
> coming up with the passenger and pilot moment arms after you've taken som
e
> simple readings on a rainy workshop day when you and a helper are able to
> make some measurements slowly, carefully, and thoughtfully. If you do it
> right the first time, you'll never have to do it again. The upside to al
l
> of this is that if you start the process early, you can make adjustments
as
> you go along and not get surprised at the very end when you find out your
> airplane has a heavy tail and you have to find a way to offset or move it
.
>
> --------
> Oscar Zuniga
> Medford, OR
> Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
> A75 power
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__forums.matronics.co
m_viewtopic.php-3Fp-3D452912-23452912&d=CwICAw&c=epcZb5jdh1ysHc2TC_uZEM
pi5Xp3bPQPSZatc6SDw3A&r=hRt1T_6xXLTFw-Pi77z3ka1Hyoflt0RLKFhpWJWpHdk&m=S
NBG4gYh0cPdOwaSGLVxA-ubnN9CFigPFIK4b6Wtwps&s=g-oCKFEtWuYFQOrW5LV-taaPzpyl
wcSaYtuF7JrlPBw&e
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Brewer <alpha(at)concordnc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair College |
Folks,
I want to second the recommendation about attending a Corvair College.
Even if you are going to install an XYZ engine, certified or otherwise
you will come a way with a better understanding of internal combustion
engines. Even if you do not have a Corvair engine, go a meet people
that brought theirs and ask them if you can be their "slave". Help them
in any way you can. Take some nitrile gloves and a gallon of paint
thinner with you. Pick up a couple of empty antifreeze jugs, lay on the
side and cut out the label area, and use as a small parts cleaner.
Offer to use the thinner and clean parts for them. You will meet some
wonderful people and make some wonderful memories. Take a responsible
and interested kid with you. I think that the Corvair College is
without a doubt, the best technical event in homebuilding. You pay for
your meals....no fees are charged for the learning you will get....what
is not to like? William Wynne is a great teacher. Wright down
questions you have about engines before you go and you can get the
answers there. No politics or religion discussions are allowed, just
engine talk. Sign up early......Just do it!
I went to Barnwell, SC Corvair College and hope to go back this year.
Jim Brewer
Albemarle, NC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ray Krause <raykrause(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: weight & balance |
I would like it, too. But for a one wholer! Ran the engine yesterday! Progre
ss gets slower and slower, but going forever forward.
Ray Krause
SkyScout N667RK
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 17, 2016, at 5:42 AM, Charles N. Campbell wrote:
>
> Me, too. Chuck
>
>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Fairfield, Mike w
rote:
t.ca>
>>
>> Good morning Oscar,
>>
>> I for one, would be interested in your spreadsheet if you would b
e so kind.
>>
>> Thanks, Mike the canuck
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-l
ist-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of taildrags
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 12:56 AM
>> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: weight & balance
>>
>> -->
>>
>> Okay, so really, builders don't need to be waiting till their aircraft ar
e almost finished before thinking about W&B. In fact, the earlier you start
to think about it and start getting numbers in your head, the more confiden
t you'll be about it when it comes time to do the final, actual W&B and fill
in the forms that you'll show at the end. Once you have the bare fuselage -
covered or not- on the gear, you're ready to start measuring and weighing. A
t that point you can start plugging some numbers into a W&B spreadsheet and i
t will be even easier if you don't have the wings or engine on the bare fuse
lage because you can move it around the shop or hangar very easily. Not onl
y that but if you don't have the cabanes and centersection mounted yet, it w
ill be even easier to get your helper to climb into that front cockpit to do
the weighing to get the passenger moment arm calculated.
>>
>> With the fuselage on the gear (as long as the geometry is locked in and t
he gear mounting brackets are actually bolted to the fuselage or at least pi
nned in place in final locations), you can determine the various moment arms
for the main gear and tailwheel, as well as the moment arms for pilot and p
assenger. If you're using a nose tank you can also determine the moment arm
for it if you have the tank fabricated and can set it temporarily in place i
n the forward fuselage. All of this can be done with nothing more than mask
ing tape, markers, a string and plumb bob or fishing weight, and a couple of
simple bathroom scales since the accuracy of the scales doesn't matter too m
uch at that point. They just need to be reasonably accurate and the reading
s repeatable, and the actual weights won't matter much in order to determine
moment arms.
>>
>> As a starting point I can offer the Excel spreadsheet that I've used for t
he W&B on 41CC, and I can probably also cook up a simple spreadsheet for com
ing up with the passenger and pilot moment arms after you've taken some simp
le readings on a rainy workshop day when you and a helper are able to make s
ome measurements slowly, carefully, and thoughtfully. If you do it right th
e first time, you'll never have to do it again. The upside to all of this i
s that if you start the process early, you can make adjustments as you go al
ong and not get surprised at the very end when you find out your airplane ha
s a heavy tail and you have to find a way to offset or move it.
>>
>> --------
>> Oscar Zuniga
>> Medford, OR
>> Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
>> A75 power
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__forums.matronics.co
m_viewtopic.php-3Fp-3D452912-23452912&d=CwICAw&c=epcZb5jdh1ysHc2TC_uZEMp
i5Xp3bPQPSZatc6SDw3A&r=hRt1T_6xXLTFw-Pi77z3ka1Hyoflt0RLKFhpWJWpHdk&m=SNB
G4gYh0cPdOwaSGLVxA-ubnN9CFigPFIK4b6Wtwps&s=g-oCKFEtWuYFQOrW5LV-taaPzpylwcS
aYtuF7JrlPBw&e
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> br> fts!)
>> r> > w.buildersbooks.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.builde
rsbooks.com
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> ==========
>> br> enpol-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n
>> ==========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Boyer <boyerjrb(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: weight & balance |
Sounds like you are getting very close though Ray. Have you had your final inspection
by a DAR yet?
Cheers,
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Boyer <boyerjrb(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: weight & balance |
Hi Oscar,
Will you send me a copy of your Piet weigh and balance sheet?
Thanks,
Jim B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ray Krause <raykrause(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: weight & balance |
Jim,
No inspection, yet. Have to put the wings on, do final rigging W/B and a lot
of other little stuff.
Ray
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 18, 2016, at 9:12 AM, Jim Boyer wrote:
>
> Sounds like you are getting very close though Ray. Have you had your final
inspection by a DAR yet?
> Cheers,
> Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | W&B S/S -- remarks re Oscar's post |
| From: | Timothy Willis <timwillis01(at)gmail.com> |
=8B
Oscar is certainly right to recommend a pre-build spreadsheet for W&B, in
order to plan well and to save iterations-- Plan B,C,D.... Years ago I
wrote a fab pre-build W&B spreadsheet. Unfortunately that was a PC crash
and several PCs ago, and I no longer have it. However I will share a
feature and some findings.
I had a "what if" feature in the Excel model so that I could move a battery
fore or aft to improve balance. Of course moving it away from the firewall
also adds longer heavy wiring. Thus IMO this partial solution falls among
the category of "desperate corrective measures."
Slanting the wings aft obviously is a very effective way to alter CG to
within bounds. My major concern as a fat boy has been my nearly 100 lbs.
over the 170-pound "FAA pilot." I discovered that every *25 pounds *of
added pilot weight required a movement of the wing back* one inch*. My
setup features an A-65, and while I did also test for a Corvair instead, I
do not recall those comparative data. I did not run versions with a Model
A engine, radiator, etc.
My setup also features an 18 gallon fuselage tank, which accentuates W&B
considerations... about 100 lbs. (16 gals) difference between full and
empty-useable. In this regard a *wing *tank empty/full and a passenger
yes/no made almost no difference. I added a "thousand pound passenger" as
a test, and it moved the resultant CG nearly nil, under an inch, since both
are right at the CG.
I have concluded that I will slant my cabanes aft 6 inches. If in actual
practice that is not enough, I will develop a close relationship with Jenny
Craig, a virtuous step in its own right.
Tim in Central TX
=================
>> Okay, so really, builders don't need to be waiting till their aircraft
are almost finished before thinking about W&B. In fact, the earlier you
start to think about it and start getting numbers in your head, the more
confident you'll be about it when it comes time to do the final, actual W&B
and fill in the forms that you'll show at the end. Once you have the bare
fuselage -covered or not- on the gear, you're ready to start measuring and
weighing. At that point you can start plugging some numbers into a W&B
spreadsheet and it will be even easier if you don't have the wings or
engine on the bare fuselage because you can move it around the shop or
hangar very easily. Not only that but if you don't have the cabanes and
centersection mounted yet, it will be even easier to get your helper to
climb into that front cockpit to do the weighing to get the passenger
moment arm calculated.
>>
>> With the fuselage on the gear (as long as the geometry is locked in and
the gear mounting brackets are actually bolted to the fuselage or at least
pinned in place in final locations), you can determine the various moment
arms for the main gear and tailwheel, as well as the moment arms for pilot
and passenger. If you're using a nose tank you can also determine the
moment arm for it if you have the tank fabricated and can set it
temporarily in place in the forward fuselage. All of this can be done with
nothing more than masking tape, markers, a string and plumb bob or fishing
weight, and a couple of simple bathroom scales since the accuracy of the
scales doesn't matter too much at that point. They just need to be
reasonably accurate and the readings repeatable, and the actual weights
won't matter much in order to determine moment arms.
>>
>> As a starting point I can offer the Excel spreadsheet that I've used for
the W&B on 41CC, and I can probably also cook up a simple spreadsheet for
com ing up with the passenger and pilot moment arms after you've taken some
simple readings on a rainy workshop day when you and a helper are able to
make some measurements slowly, carefully, and thoughtfully. If you do it
right the first time, you'll never have to do it again. The upside to all
of this is that if you start the process early, you can make adjustments as
you go along and not get surprised at the very end when you find out your
airplane has a heavy tail and you have to find a way to offset or move it.
>> --------
>> Oscar Zuniga
>> Medford, OR
>> Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
>> A75 power
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ray Krause <raykrause(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: W&B S/S -- remarks re Oscar's post |
Tim,
Very interesting comments and well written, thanks.
Ray Krause
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 18, 2016, at 10:03 AM, Timothy Willis wrote
:
>
> =8B
> Oscar is certainly right to recommend a pre-build spreadsheet for W&B, in o
rder to plan well and to save iterations-- Plan B,C,D.... Years ago I wrot
e a fab pre-build W&B spreadsheet. Unfortunately that was a PC crash and se
veral PCs ago, and I no longer have it. However I will share a feature and s
ome findings.
>
> I had a "what if" feature in the Excel model so that I could move a batter
y fore or aft to improve balance. Of course moving it away from the firewal
l also adds longer heavy wiring. Thus IMO this partial solution falls among
the category of "desperate corrective measures."
>
> Slanting the wings aft obviously is a very effective way to alter CG to wi
thin bounds. My major concern as a fat boy has been my nearly 100 lbs. over
the 170-pound "FAA pilot." I discovered that every 25 pounds of added pilo
t weight required a movement of the wing back one inch. My setup features a
n A-65, and while I did also test for a Corvair instead, I do not recall tho
se comparative data. I did not run versions with a Model A engine, radiator
, etc.
>
> My setup also features an 18 gallon fuselage tank, which accentuates W&B c
onsiderations... about 100 lbs. (16 gals) difference between full and empty-
useable. In this regard a wing tank empty/full and a passenger yes/no made a
lmost no difference. I added a "thousand pound passenger" as a test, and it
moved the resultant CG nearly nil, under an inch, since both are right at t
he CG.
>
> I have concluded that I will slant my cabanes aft 6 inches. If in actual p
ractice that is not enough, I will develop a close relationship with Jenny C
raig, a virtuous step in its own right.
>
> Tim in Central TX
> =================
>
> >> Okay, so really, builders don't need to be waiting till their aircraft a
re almost finished before thinking about W&B. In fact, the earlier you star
t to think about it and start getting numbers in your head, the more confide
nt you'll be about it when it comes time to do the final, actual W&B and fil
l in the forms that you'll show at the end. Once you have the bare fuselage
-covered or not- on the gear, you're ready to start measuring and weighing.
At that point you can start plugging some numbers into a W&B spreadsheet a
nd it will be even easier if you don't have the wings or engine on the bare f
uselage because you can move it around the shop or hangar very easily. Not o
nly that but if you don't have the cabanes and centersection mounted yet, it
will be even easier to get your helper to climb into that front cockpit to d
o the weighing to get the passenger moment arm calculated.
> >>
> >> With the fuselage on the gear (as long as the geometry is locked in and
the gear mounting brackets are actually bolted to the fuselage or at least p
inned in place in final locations), you can determine the various moment arm
s for the main gear and tailwheel, as well as the moment arms for pilot and p
assenger. If you're using a nose tank you can also determine the moment arm
for it if you have the tank fabricated and can set it temporarily in place i
n the forward fuselage. All of this can be done with nothing more than mask
ing tape, markers, a string and plumb bob or fishing weight, and a couple of
simple bathroom scales since the accuracy of the scales doesn't matter too m
uch at that point. They just need to be reasonably accurate and the reading
s repeatable, and the actual weights won't matter much in order to determine
moment arms.
> >>
> >> As a starting point I can offer the Excel spreadsheet that I've used fo
r the W&B on 41CC, and I can probably also cook up a simple spreadsheet for c
om ing up with the passenger and pilot moment arms after you've taken some s
imple readings on a rainy workshop day when you and a helper are able to mak
e some measurements slowly, carefully, and thoughtfully. If you do it right
the first time, you'll never have to do it again. The upside to all of thi
s is that if you start the process early, you can make adjustments as you go
along and not get surprised at the very end when you find out your airplane
has a heavy tail and you have to find a way to offset or move it.
> >> --------
> >> Oscar Zuniga
> >> Medford, OR
> >> Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
> >> A75 power
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: weight & balance |
| From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
For all those who asked, I've uploaded my W&B spreadsheet to the forum but if you're
unable to get it that way, email me privately and I'll send it to you.
The usual caveats apply, especially "the numbers in this spreadsheet are for NX41CC
ONLY!" Do not use them for your airplane except as a starting point so
you can check to see if your numbers are reasonable. The other thing I'd like
to mention is that I did not author this spreadsheet. It was generously shared
with me and it is in that spirit that I share it with others. Like Tim, I
also added another tab so that I would have a "what-if sandbox" to play in without
messing up the REAL sheet with the real numbers. In fact, I would suggest
that once you enter your final numbers into the real sheet, that you lock those
cells so you can't inadvertently change the numbers that shouldn't change.
Ray: the spreadsheet doesn't care if you have a one-holer, two-holer, or twelve-holer...
you can either leave the numbers for passenger weight and moment arm
as "zero", or else eliminate those cells to streamline the spreadsheet. And
if you're building a 3-cockpit Air Camper, just add rows for another cockpit and
passenger ;o)
As I mentioned, you don't need to have a complete airplane to start entering values
into the sheet. For sure you can add the basic information at the top, but
then as you measure the moment arms relative to the datum that you choose,
you can start entering those values into the sheet and begin playing what-ifs.
If the datum that you choose is going to be the wing leading edge and you don't
have the centersection mounted yet, you'll have to enter values relative to
the firewall and then later adjust those numbers when the distance from leading
edge to firewall is determined. I have set the precision of weights and moment
arms to one decimal place (roughly to the nearest 2 oz and 1/8"). I've
played with it by increasing the precision of them one at a time and then both
together, but I decided that I do not have eyes or tools that can measure closer
than that. I've tried decreasing the precision to whole pounds and inches
only, but that is unsatisfactory. If I were going to simplify one of the two,
I would use whole pounds but keep tenths of an inch of length.
You may argue about the acceptable range of 15 to 20" aft of wing leading edge
for the CG and you may argue about the allowable maximum gross weight of 1,088
lbs. You just won't be arguing them with me ;o)
Anyway, here is the spreadsheet.
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452991#452991
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/nx41ccw_b_2014_117.xls
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: weight & balance |
| From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
...oh, and also- my empty weight includes 3 quarts of oil in the engine, which
is the minimum amount recommended by Continental. You can argue about whether
minimum oil should be included in the aircraft's empty weight, but I won't fly
the airplane without it. You can make it whatever you want it to be when you
weigh your airplane and edit the notes in those cells appropriately.
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452992#452992
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to |
build!
| From: | "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com> |
Hello, I am new to the forum. I'm building a Piet with a Continental A65 or C85
engine.
My wood is arriving soon, but I have a bit of a conundrum- I had planned on building
the 173.375" fuselage (as shown in the supplemental plans) along with the
Pietnepol supplied plan for a Continental engine mount.
Then I ordered the Kerri-Ann plans for the front door mod, which is really nice.
Unfortunately, it looks as though the plans are only for the 163" fuselage,
and not the 173.375" fuselage. And I really want a door...
Was the 173.375" fuselage designed specifically for the Corvair & Continental engines?
( I sometimes hear a fuselage referred to as the "Corvair Fuselage").
Because I want a door, I might be stuck with building the 163" fuselage, but I
first need to make sure that I'm not going to run into issues down the road if
I build a 163" fuselage and combine it with the Continental engine mount in
Pietenpol's plans. I really don't want to be left having to draw up my own plan
for an engine mount.
I have read where people have extended their Continental mounts by 1-2 inches in
anticipation of CG problems. But I don't know which fuselage they were building.
I'm 200 lbs and I'm planning on putting the fuel tank in the wing, and I'm just
trying to plan ahead so that I can avoid having to deal with a CG that is too
far aft.
If I want to use the Pietenpol drawing for a Continental engine mount, do I have
to build the 173.375" fuselage, or will that mount work with the 163" fuselage
as well (as far as the resultant CG is concerned)?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Also, nowhere on the plans does it specify what the angle of the firewall bulkhead
is in relation to the top longhorn... I assume it's 90 degrees, but I'm practicing
not assuming things since I'm not building a kitchen cabinet here :D
Thanks for any replies- I'm hoping to understand this completely so that I can
start laying out the jig for the fuselage.
Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452993#452993
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage |
to build!
| From: | "tools" <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com> |
I'm five ten, 185. Actually fit in the short wood fuse fine which surprised me.
Also have a a65. Think it's the plans continental mount. Cabanes an inch or two
longer and angled back the fairly normal about four inches. Wing tank. My
cg is well located.
Best thing to do is find each variant and sit in one! Brodhead works GREAT!
I have a fuse layout table if ya want it. It's orphaned and in Oshkosh. The plane,
not built on that table, is near Chatt TN. Let me know if I can help.
The firewall is at 90 degrees.
Gotta run!
Tools
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453000#453000
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage |
to build!
| From: | "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks Tools... I do appreciate the offer on the layup table, but I have built
mine already.
I'm 6'0" and so is my girlfriend. My son is 6'3". She's 160 and he's about 180.
I plan on raising the wing a couple of inches as well to help them have a better
time up front. It seems that builders have done this thus far with no ill
effects.
I assume by the "short fuselage" you mean the 163" "Improved Pietenpol 33-34 design,
and not the 1932 (even shorter) design?
My next concern is landing gear axle placement, which is discussed at length at
the westcoastpiet site, however, it does not talk about the effect of having
to move the wing back, and I know that the axle needs to be set a certain number
of degrees forward of the CG measured at the wing. DO builders think this through,
or do they simply take a SWAG in the beginning and then accept the result
when it's finished? Not knowing (for sure) where my Continental with a plans
built mount on a 163" fuselage and a 2 inch wing raise is going to send the
CG, makes me a little hesitant to start cutting wood... I know that 17 inches
aft of firewall is the axle location given by the 33-34 plans for a wood axle
and large wheels- but I don't know whether a Continental & mount & my weight
will make that a not-so-great place to have the gear, especially when I have to
move the wing back later.. Pietenpol has the cabane struts vertical in his drawings.
Moving the wing aft seems to be a later idea employed to deal with the
aft CG's that builders ended up with?
SO many questions, I know... But I can't afford to build the airplane twice and
certainly don't want to tear it apart or add 10 lbs of lead after I build it
to fix a CG problem!!
On another note, how does your Piet climb-out in the summer with 2 people onboard?
Continental engines are becoming VERY expensive and the cost difference between
an A65 and a C85 is quite large when considering an engine that isn't timed-out.
I'd love to be able to go with an A65, but a 200 ft per min rate of climb
gets scary when crossing mountainous terrain...
Thanks for your input,.
Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453002#453002
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage |
to build!
| From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
Hi Dave,
The fuselages in both the FGM plans, and the 1933 Improved Air Camper plans were
designed for use with the Ford Model A engine (and a 140 pound pilot). The
longer 173" fuselage in the supplemental plans was designed to be used with lighter
engines, such as the small Continentals, or the Corvair. The Pietenpol-designed
engine mount for Continental engines was intended for use with the longest
fuselage, but many have adapted it for use with the Improved Air Camper
fuselage (usually extending the mount). To use an A-65 with the Improved Air
Camper fuselage, and keep the cabanes vertical, the engine mount will typically
need to be extended 8 or 9 inches.
If you plan to carry passengers that are 6'-3" tall, you really should give serious
thought to building the long fuselage, as it does provide additional leg
room for both pilot and passenger. I haven't seen the plans for the Kerri-Ann
door, but I'm sure that adapting it to suit the longer fuselage would not be
very difficult.
The number one thing that will have the most impact on the performance of any Pietenpol
is keeping it light. Adding a passenger door will not contribute to
lightness, and some will argue that a passenger door does not even make passenger
entry any easier.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453004#453004
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage |
to build!
| From: | vic groah <vicgroah(at)gmail.com> |
We have the long fuselage with the side door. We are using a Corvair but a
continental works just as well. I am 76 at 260 pounds and am 6 ft 2 in and
have a bad back. My son Michael is 6 ft and about 220. We fly together
with no problem We did raise the top deck and the wing one inch to make
the fit work. Obviously it performs better with one person of our size but
is safe with the two of us. The one change we would do if we were doing it
over is to tilt the rear seat back rest one inch at the top to make a
little more comfort for the pilot on long flights. Without the front door
I could not get into the front do to a fused together back. With the door I
get in no problem. just takes practice. We have a cut out with a handle
to access the front.
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Bill Church
wrote:
> billspiet(at)sympatico.ca>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> The fuselages in both the FGM plans, and the 1933 Improved Air Camper
> plans were designed for use with the Ford Model A engine (and a 140 pound
> pilot). The longer 173" fuselage in the supplemental plans was designed to
> be used with lighter engines, such as the small Continentals, or the
> Corvair. The Pietenpol-designed engine mount for Continental engines was
> intended for use with the longest fuselage, but many have adapted it for
> use with the Improved Air Camper fuselage (usually extending the mount).
> To use an A-65 with the Improved Air Camper fuselage, and keep the cabanes
> vertical, the engine mount will typically need to be extended 8 or 9 inches.
> If you plan to carry passengers that are 6'-3" tall, you really should
> give serious thought to building the long fuselage, as it does provide
> additional leg room for both pilot and passenger. I haven't seen the plans
> for the Kerri-Ann door, but I'm sure that adapting it to suit the longer
> fuselage would not be very difficult.
> The number one thing that will have the most impact on the performance of
> any Pietenpol is keeping it light. Adding a passenger door will not
> contribute to lightness, and some will argue that a passenger door does not
> even make passenger entry any easier.
>
> Bill C.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453004#453004
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage |
to build
| From: | "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks Vic- that was very helpful.
David
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453009#453009
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage |
to build!
| From: | "tools" <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com> |
Mine is the 1932 version. Given your requirements, I REALLY think you should track
down some planes and try them on.
Bill makes a SUPER good point. Light is going to be critical. I even suggest
a one piece wing. I have taken a 205 lb pax, 6' 2", at brodhead with a a65.
Not stellar performance!
An 85hp engine is probably the way to go for a cont. the corvair is rated around
a hundred. Kevin Purtee took me for a ride, he's taller and bigger than I,
with that engine and it flew really well. Food for thought.
A,common belief is you'll save money with a car engine. Not really so when built
correctly. It's just a different way to go. Properly built however, I really
don't think you're compromising on safety.
As for gear, again, find one configured like you want, known to fly and handle
well, and do what he did. However, with wood gear legs, not real hard to change
where the axle is relative to the firewall. Four pieces of wood. I made mine,
a rebuild issue, out of a really nice southern yellow pine pallet. The legs
were free...
Start building fittings, ribs, wing, tail feathers and keep asking and looking
on the fuse until you think you're set would be my advice.
Tools
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453011#453011
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Douwe Blumberg <douwe(at)douwestudios.com> |
Hi Dave,
Welcome!
I have a short ( first version) fuse with a c-90.
RE gear position; if building again, I'd follow William follow advice in his article
In the bpa newsletter and available at other places on line. Harder to put on the
nose, though I will say that I believe the gear further back makes her easier
in a crosswind.
I really wish the pilots seat back was slanted more for comfort which makes me
lean towards the long fuselage. Making the steel version will save some weight
if you can weld
With those passenger and pilot weights I say go for the larger engine. Might be
a bit more expensive but You won't care about that after your first flight on
a hot day with two people.
FYI, people have added a couple feet to the span...
Definitely raise the wing a couple inches to ease front out ingress and egress.
Can't speak in the door. Heard its helpful but not sure if it offsets the extra
few lbs
Build it light
Douwe
On Feb 20, 2016, at 1:00 AM, Pietenpol-List Digest Server
wrote:
> *
>
> =================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> =================================================
>
> Today's complete Pietenpol-List Digest can also be found in either of the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
> of the Pietenpol-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 16-02-19&Archive=Pietenpol
>
> Text Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 16-02-19&Archive=Pietenpol
>
>
> ===============================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ===============================================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Pietenpol-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Fri 02/19/16: 7
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 12:23 AM - Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to build!
(Dave'sPiet)
> 2. 06:37 AM - Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to build!
(tools)
> 3. 08:47 AM - Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to build!
(Dave'sPiet)
> 4. 10:18 AM - Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to build!
(Bill Church)
> 5. 11:47 AM - Re: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage
to build! (vic groah)
> 6. 03:43 PM - Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to build
(Dave'sPiet)
> 7. 06:04 PM - Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to build!
(tools)
>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
>
>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to
> build!
> From: "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com>
>
>
> Hello, I am new to the forum. I'm building a Piet with a Continental A65 or C85
> engine.
>
> My wood is arriving soon, but I have a bit of a conundrum- I had planned on
building
> the 173.375" fuselage (as shown in the supplemental plans) along with the
> Pietnepol supplied plan for a Continental engine mount.
>
> Then I ordered the Kerri-Ann plans for the front door mod, which is really nice.
> Unfortunately, it looks as though the plans are only for the 163" fuselage,
> and not the 173.375" fuselage. And I really want a door...
>
> Was the 173.375" fuselage designed specifically for the Corvair & Continental
engines?
> ( I sometimes hear a fuselage referred to as the "Corvair Fuselage").
>
>
> Because I want a door, I might be stuck with building the 163" fuselage, but
I
> first need to make sure that I'm not going to run into issues down the road
if
> I build a 163" fuselage and combine it with the Continental engine mount in
> Pietenpol's plans. I really don't want to be left having to draw up my own plan
> for an engine mount.
>
> I have read where people have extended their Continental mounts by 1-2 inches
in
> anticipation of CG problems. But I don't know which fuselage they were building.
>
>
> I'm 200 lbs and I'm planning on putting the fuel tank in the wing, and I'm just
> trying to plan ahead so that I can avoid having to deal with a CG that is too
> far aft.
>
> If I want to use the Pietenpol drawing for a Continental engine mount, do I have
> to build the 173.375" fuselage, or will that mount work with the 163" fuselage
> as well (as far as the resultant CG is concerned)?
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Also, nowhere on the plans does it specify what the angle of the firewall bulkhead
> is in relation to the top longhorn... I assume it's 90 degrees, but I'm practicing
> not assuming things since I'm not building a kitchen cabinet here :D
>
>
> Thanks for any replies- I'm hoping to understand this completely so that I can
> start laying out the jig for the fuselage.
>
> Dave
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452993#452993
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
>
>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage
> to build!
> From: "tools" <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com>
>
>
> I'm five ten, 185. Actually fit in the short wood fuse fine which surprised
me.
>
> Also have a a65. Think it's the plans continental mount. Cabanes an inch or
two
> longer and angled back the fairly normal about four inches. Wing tank. My
> cg is well located.
>
> Best thing to do is find each variant and sit in one! Brodhead works GREAT!
>
> I have a fuse layout table if ya want it. It's orphaned and in Oshkosh. The
plane,
> not built on that table, is near Chatt TN. Let me know if I can help.
>
> The firewall is at 90 degrees.
>
> Gotta run!
>
> Tools
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453000#453000
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________
>
>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage
> to build!
> From: "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com>
>
>
> Thanks Tools... I do appreciate the offer on the layup table, but I have built
> mine already.
>
> I'm 6'0" and so is my girlfriend. My son is 6'3". She's 160 and he's about 180.
> I plan on raising the wing a couple of inches as well to help them have a better
> time up front. It seems that builders have done this thus far with no ill
> effects.
>
> I assume by the "short fuselage" you mean the 163" "Improved Pietenpol 33-34
design,
> and not the 1932 (even shorter) design?
>
> My next concern is landing gear axle placement, which is discussed at length
at
> the westcoastpiet site, however, it does not talk about the effect of having
> to move the wing back, and I know that the axle needs to be set a certain number
> of degrees forward of the CG measured at the wing. DO builders think this through,
> or do they simply take a SWAG in the beginning and then accept the result
> when it's finished? Not knowing (for sure) where my Continental with a plans
> built mount on a 163" fuselage and a 2 inch wing raise is going to send the
> CG, makes me a little hesitant to start cutting wood... I know that 17 inches
> aft of firewall is the axle location given by the 33-34 plans for a wood axle
> and large wheels- but I don't know whether a Continental & mount & my weight
> will make that a not-so-great place to have the gear, especially when I have
to
> move the wing back later.. Pietenpol has the cabane struts vertical in his drawings.
> Moving the wing aft seems to be a later idea employed to deal with the
> aft CG's that builders ended up with?
>
> SO many questions, I know... But I can't afford to build the airplane twice and
> certainly don't want to tear it apart or add 10 lbs of lead after I build it
> to fix a CG problem!!
>
> On another note, how does your Piet climb-out in the summer with 2 people onboard?
> Continental engines are becoming VERY expensive and the cost difference between
> an A65 and a C85 is quite large when considering an engine that isn't timed-out.
> I'd love to be able to go with an A65, but a 200 ft per min rate of climb
> gets scary when crossing mountainous terrain...
>
> Thanks for your input,.
>
> Dave
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453002#453002
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________
>
>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage
> to build!
> From: "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca>
>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> The fuselages in both the FGM plans, and the 1933 Improved Air Camper plans were
> designed for use with the Ford Model A engine (and a 140 pound pilot). The
> longer 173" fuselage in the supplemental plans was designed to be used with lighter
> engines, such as the small Continentals, or the Corvair. The Pietenpol-designed
> engine mount for Continental engines was intended for use with the longest
> fuselage, but many have adapted it for use with the Improved Air Camper
> fuselage (usually extending the mount). To use an A-65 with the Improved Air
> Camper fuselage, and keep the cabanes vertical, the engine mount will typically
> need to be extended 8 or 9 inches.
> If you plan to carry passengers that are 6'-3" tall, you really should give serious
> thought to building the long fuselage, as it does provide additional leg
> room for both pilot and passenger. I haven't seen the plans for the Kerri-Ann
> door, but I'm sure that adapting it to suit the longer fuselage would not be
> very difficult.
> The number one thing that will have the most impact on the performance of any
Pietenpol
> is keeping it light. Adding a passenger door will not contribute to
> lightness, and some will argue that a passenger door does not even make passenger
> entry any easier.
>
> Bill C.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453004#453004
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________
>
>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage
> to build!
> From: vic groah <vicgroah(at)gmail.com>
>
> We have the long fuselage with the side door. We are using a Corvair but a
> continental works just as well. I am 76 at 260 pounds and am 6 ft 2 in and
> have a bad back. My son Michael is 6 ft and about 220. We fly together
> with no problem We did raise the top deck and the wing one inch to make
> the fit work. Obviously it performs better with one person of our size but
> is safe with the two of us. The one change we would do if we were doing it
> over is to tilt the rear seat back rest one inch at the top to make a
> little more comfort for the pilot on long flights. Without the front door
> I could not get into the front do to a fused together back. With the door I
> get in no problem. just takes practice. We have a cut out with a handle
> to access the front.
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Bill Church
> wrote:
>
>> billspiet(at)sympatico.ca>
>>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> The fuselages in both the FGM plans, and the 1933 Improved Air Camper
>> plans were designed for use with the Ford Model A engine (and a 140 pound
>> pilot). The longer 173" fuselage in the supplemental plans was designed to
>> be used with lighter engines, such as the small Continentals, or the
>> Corvair. The Pietenpol-designed engine mount for Continental engines was
>> intended for use with the longest fuselage, but many have adapted it for
>> use with the Improved Air Camper fuselage (usually extending the mount).
>> To use an A-65 with the Improved Air Camper fuselage, and keep the cabanes
>> vertical, the engine mount will typically need to be extended 8 or 9 inches.
>> If you plan to carry passengers that are 6'-3" tall, you really should
>> give serious thought to building the long fuselage, as it does provide
>> additional leg room for both pilot and passenger. I haven't seen the plans
>> for the Kerri-Ann door, but I'm sure that adapting it to suit the longer
>> fuselage would not be very difficult.
>> The number one thing that will have the most impact on the performance of
>> any Pietenpol is keeping it light. Adding a passenger door will not
>> contribute to lightness, and some will argue that a passenger door does not
>> even make passenger entry any easier.
>>
>> Bill C.
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453004#453004
>>
>>
>
> ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________
>
>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage
> to build
> From: "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com>
>
>
> Thanks Vic- that was very helpful.
>
> David
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453009#453009
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________
>
>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage
> to build!
> From: "tools" <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com>
>
>
> Mine is the 1932 version. Given your requirements, I REALLY think you should
track
> down some planes and try them on.
>
> Bill makes a SUPER good point. Light is going to be critical. I even suggest
> a one piece wing. I have taken a 205 lb pax, 6' 2", at brodhead with a a65.
> Not stellar performance!
>
> An 85hp engine is probably the way to go for a cont. the corvair is rated around
> a hundred. Kevin Purtee took me for a ride, he's taller and bigger than I,
> with that engine and it flew really well. Food for thought.
>
> A,common belief is you'll save money with a car engine. Not really so when built
> correctly. It's just a different way to go. Properly built however, I really
> don't think you're compromising on safety.
>
> As for gear, again, find one configured like you want, known to fly and handle
> well, and do what he did. However, with wood gear legs, not real hard to change
> where the axle is relative to the firewall. Four pieces of wood. I made mine,
> a rebuild issue, out of a really nice southern yellow pine pallet. The legs
> were free...
>
> Start building fittings, ribs, wing, tail feathers and keep asking and looking
> on the fuse until you think you're set would be my advice.
>
> Tools
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453011#453011
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glen Schweizer <glenschweizer(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuse choices |
Very interesting posts lately. How much higher than plans specs can a person raise
the wing? What about dihedral and incidence. BHP says in f and g manual
rig flat. Could dihedral improve roll stability? Also, If incidence were less,
wouldn't speed increase a bit? The same full stall landing speed could be achieved
by slightly longer gear,yes? Ideas?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 20, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Douwe Blumberg wrote:
>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Welcome!
>
> I have a short ( first version) fuse with a c-90.
>
> RE gear position; if building again, I'd follow William follow advice in his
article
> In the bpa newsletter and available at other places on line. Harder to put on
the nose, though I will say that I believe the gear further back makes her easier
in a crosswind.
>
> I really wish the pilots seat back was slanted more for comfort which makes me
lean towards the long fuselage. Making the steel version will save some weight
if you can weld
>
> With those passenger and pilot weights I say go for the larger engine. Might
be a bit more expensive but You won't care about that after your first flight
on a hot day with two people.
>
> FYI, people have added a couple feet to the span...
>
> Definitely raise the wing a couple inches to ease front out ingress and egress.
>
> Can't speak in the door. Heard its helpful but not sure if it offsets the extra
few lbs
>
> Build it light
>
> Douwe
>
>
>> On Feb 20, 2016, at 1:00 AM, Pietenpol-List Digest Server
wrote:
>>
>> *
>>
>> =================================================
>> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
>> =================================================
>>
>> Today's complete Pietenpol-List Digest can also be found in either of the
>> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
>> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
>> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
>> of the Pietenpol-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
>> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>>
>> HTML Version:
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 16-02-19&Archive=Pietenpol
>>
>> Text Version:
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 16-02-19&Archive=Pietenpol
>>
>>
>> ===============================================
>> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
>> ===============================================
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Pietenpol-List Digest Archive
>> ---
>> Total Messages Posted Fri 02/19/16: 7
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Today's Message Index:
>> ----------------------
>>
>> 1. 12:23 AM - Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to build!
(Dave'sPiet)
>> 2. 06:37 AM - Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to build!
(tools)
>> 3. 08:47 AM - Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to build!
(Dave'sPiet)
>> 4. 10:18 AM - Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to build!
(Bill Church)
>> 5. 11:47 AM - Re: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage
to build! (vic groah)
>> 6. 03:43 PM - Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to build
(Dave'sPiet)
>> 7. 06:04 PM - Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to build!
(tools)
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
>>
>>
>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage
to
>> build!
>> From: "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com>
>>
>>
>> Hello, I am new to the forum. I'm building a Piet with a Continental A65 or
C85
>> engine.
>>
>> My wood is arriving soon, but I have a bit of a conundrum- I had planned on
building
>> the 173.375" fuselage (as shown in the supplemental plans) along with the
>> Pietnepol supplied plan for a Continental engine mount.
>>
>> Then I ordered the Kerri-Ann plans for the front door mod, which is really
nice.
>> Unfortunately, it looks as though the plans are only for the 163" fuselage,
>> and not the 173.375" fuselage. And I really want a door...
>>
>> Was the 173.375" fuselage designed specifically for the Corvair & Continental
engines?
>> ( I sometimes hear a fuselage referred to as the "Corvair Fuselage").
>>
>>
>> Because I want a door, I might be stuck with building the 163" fuselage, but
I
>> first need to make sure that I'm not going to run into issues down the road
if
>> I build a 163" fuselage and combine it with the Continental engine mount in
>> Pietenpol's plans. I really don't want to be left having to draw up my own plan
>> for an engine mount.
>>
>> I have read where people have extended their Continental mounts by 1-2 inches
in
>> anticipation of CG problems. But I don't know which fuselage they were building.
>>
>>
>> I'm 200 lbs and I'm planning on putting the fuel tank in the wing, and I'm just
>> trying to plan ahead so that I can avoid having to deal with a CG that is too
>> far aft.
>>
>> If I want to use the Pietenpol drawing for a Continental engine mount, do I
have
>> to build the 173.375" fuselage, or will that mount work with the 163" fuselage
>> as well (as far as the resultant CG is concerned)?
>>
>> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Also, nowhere on the plans does it specify what the angle of the firewall bulkhead
>> is in relation to the top longhorn... I assume it's 90 degrees, but I'm practicing
>> not assuming things since I'm not building a kitchen cabinet here :D
>>
>>
>> Thanks for any replies- I'm hoping to understand this completely so that I can
>> start laying out the jig for the fuselage.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452993#452993
>>
>>
>> ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
>>
>>
>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage
>> to build!
>> From: "tools" <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com>
>>
>>
>> I'm five ten, 185. Actually fit in the short wood fuse fine which surprised
me.
>>
>> Also have a a65. Think it's the plans continental mount. Cabanes an inch or
two
>> longer and angled back the fairly normal about four inches. Wing tank. My
>> cg is well located.
>>
>> Best thing to do is find each variant and sit in one! Brodhead works GREAT!
>>
>> I have a fuse layout table if ya want it. It's orphaned and in Oshkosh. The
plane,
>> not built on that table, is near Chatt TN. Let me know if I can help.
>>
>> The firewall is at 90 degrees.
>>
>> Gotta run!
>>
>> Tools
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453000#453000
>>
>>
>> ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________
>>
>>
>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage
>> to build!
>> From: "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com>
>>
>>
>> Thanks Tools... I do appreciate the offer on the layup table, but I have built
>> mine already.
>>
>> I'm 6'0" and so is my girlfriend. My son is 6'3". She's 160 and he's about 180.
>> I plan on raising the wing a couple of inches as well to help them have a better
>> time up front. It seems that builders have done this thus far with no ill
>> effects.
>>
>> I assume by the "short fuselage" you mean the 163" "Improved Pietenpol 33-34
design,
>> and not the 1932 (even shorter) design?
>>
>> My next concern is landing gear axle placement, which is discussed at length
at
>> the westcoastpiet site, however, it does not talk about the effect of having
>> to move the wing back, and I know that the axle needs to be set a certain number
>> of degrees forward of the CG measured at the wing. DO builders think this through,
>> or do they simply take a SWAG in the beginning and then accept the result
>> when it's finished? Not knowing (for sure) where my Continental with a plans
>> built mount on a 163" fuselage and a 2 inch wing raise is going to send the
>> CG, makes me a little hesitant to start cutting wood... I know that 17 inches
>> aft of firewall is the axle location given by the 33-34 plans for a wood axle
>> and large wheels- but I don't know whether a Continental & mount & my weight
>> will make that a not-so-great place to have the gear, especially when I have
to
>> move the wing back later.. Pietenpol has the cabane struts vertical in his drawings.
>> Moving the wing aft seems to be a later idea employed to deal with the
>> aft CG's that builders ended up with?
>>
>> SO many questions, I know... But I can't afford to build the airplane twice
and
>> certainly don't want to tear it apart or add 10 lbs of lead after I build it
>> to fix a CG problem!!
>>
>> On another note, how does your Piet climb-out in the summer with 2 people onboard?
>> Continental engines are becoming VERY expensive and the cost difference between
>> an A65 and a C85 is quite large when considering an engine that isn't timed-out.
>> I'd love to be able to go with an A65, but a 200 ft per min rate of climb
>> gets scary when crossing mountainous terrain...
>>
>> Thanks for your input,.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453002#453002
>>
>>
>> ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________
>>
>>
>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage
>> to build!
>> From: "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca>
>>
>>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> The fuselages in both the FGM plans, and the 1933 Improved Air Camper plans
were
>> designed for use with the Ford Model A engine (and a 140 pound pilot). The
>> longer 173" fuselage in the supplemental plans was designed to be used with
lighter
>> engines, such as the small Continentals, or the Corvair. The Pietenpol-designed
>> engine mount for Continental engines was intended for use with the longest
>> fuselage, but many have adapted it for use with the Improved Air Camper
>> fuselage (usually extending the mount). To use an A-65 with the Improved Air
>> Camper fuselage, and keep the cabanes vertical, the engine mount will typically
>> need to be extended 8 or 9 inches.
>> If you plan to carry passengers that are 6'-3" tall, you really should give
serious
>> thought to building the long fuselage, as it does provide additional leg
>> room for both pilot and passenger. I haven't seen the plans for the Kerri-Ann
>> door, but I'm sure that adapting it to suit the longer fuselage would not be
>> very difficult.
>> The number one thing that will have the most impact on the performance of any
Pietenpol
>> is keeping it light. Adding a passenger door will not contribute to
>> lightness, and some will argue that a passenger door does not even make passenger
>> entry any easier.
>>
>> Bill C.
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453004#453004
>>
>>
>> ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________
>>
>>
>> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which
fuselage
>> to build!
>> From: vic groah <vicgroah(at)gmail.com>
>>
>> We have the long fuselage with the side door. We are using a Corvair but a
>> continental works just as well. I am 76 at 260 pounds and am 6 ft 2 in and
>> have a bad back. My son Michael is 6 ft and about 220. We fly together
>> with no problem We did raise the top deck and the wing one inch to make
>> the fit work. Obviously it performs better with one person of our size but
>> is safe with the two of us. The one change we would do if we were doing it
>> over is to tilt the rear seat back rest one inch at the top to make a
>> little more comfort for the pilot on long flights. Without the front door
>> I could not get into the front do to a fused together back. With the door I
>> get in no problem. just takes practice. We have a cut out with a handle
>> to access the front.
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Bill Church
>> wrote:
>>
>>> billspiet(at)sympatico.ca>
>>>
>>> Hi Dave,
>>>
>>> The fuselages in both the FGM plans, and the 1933 Improved Air Camper
>>> plans were designed for use with the Ford Model A engine (and a 140 pound
>>> pilot). The longer 173" fuselage in the supplemental plans was designed to
>>> be used with lighter engines, such as the small Continentals, or the
>>> Corvair. The Pietenpol-designed engine mount for Continental engines was
>>> intended for use with the longest fuselage, but many have adapted it for
>>> use with the Improved Air Camper fuselage (usually extending the mount).
>>> To use an A-65 with the Improved Air Camper fuselage, and keep the cabanes
>>> vertical, the engine mount will typically need to be extended 8 or 9 inches.
>>> If you plan to carry passengers that are 6'-3" tall, you really should
>>> give serious thought to building the long fuselage, as it does provide
>>> additional leg room for both pilot and passenger. I haven't seen the plans
>>> for the Kerri-Ann door, but I'm sure that adapting it to suit the longer
>>> fuselage would not be very difficult.
>>> The number one thing that will have the most impact on the performance of
>>> any Pietenpol is keeping it light. Adding a passenger door will not
>>> contribute to lightness, and some will argue that a passenger door does not
>>> even make passenger entry any easier.
>>>
>>> Bill C.
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453004#453004
>>
>> ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________
>>
>>
>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage
>> to build
>> From: "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com>
>>
>>
>> Thanks Vic- that was very helpful.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453009#453009
>>
>>
>> ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________
>>
>>
>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage
>> to build!
>> From: "tools" <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com>
>>
>>
>> Mine is the 1932 version. Given your requirements, I REALLY think you should
track
>> down some planes and try them on.
>>
>> Bill makes a SUPER good point. Light is going to be critical. I even suggest
>> a one piece wing. I have taken a 205 lb pax, 6' 2", at brodhead with a a65.
>> Not stellar performance!
>>
>> An 85hp engine is probably the way to go for a cont. the corvair is rated around
>> a hundred. Kevin Purtee took me for a ride, he's taller and bigger than I,
>> with that engine and it flew really well. Food for thought.
>>
>> A,common belief is you'll save money with a car engine. Not really so when
built
>> correctly. It's just a different way to go. Properly built however, I really
>> don't think you're compromising on safety.
>>
>> As for gear, again, find one configured like you want, known to fly and handle
>> well, and do what he did. However, with wood gear legs, not real hard to change
>> where the axle is relative to the firewall. Four pieces of wood. I made mine,
>> a rebuild issue, out of a really nice southern yellow pine pallet. The legs
>> were free...
>>
>> Start building fittings, ribs, wing, tail feathers and keep asking and looking
>> on the fuse until you think you're set would be my advice.
>>
>> Tools
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453011#453011
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glen Schweizer <glenschweizer(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuse choices |
Very interesting posts lately. How much higher than plans specs can a person raise
the wing? What about dihedral and incidence. BHP says in f and g manual
rig flat. Could dihedral improve roll stability? Also, If incidence were less,
wouldn't speed increase a bit? The same full stall landing speed could be achieved
by slightly longer gear,yes? Ideas?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 20, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Douwe Blumberg wrote:
>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Welcome!
>
> I have a short ( first version) fuse with a c-90.
>
> RE gear position; if building again, I'd follow William follow advice in his
article
> In the bpa newsletter and available at other places on line. Harder to put on
the nose, though I will say that I believe the gear further back makes her easier
in a crosswind.
>
> I really wish the pilots seat back was slanted more for comfort which makes me
lean towards the long fuselage. Making the steel version will save some weight
if you can weld
>
> With those passenger and pilot weights I say go for the larger engine. Might
be a bit more expensive but You won't care about that after your first flight
on a hot day with two people.
>
> FYI, people have added a couple feet to the span...
>
> Definitely raise the wing a couple inches to ease front out ingress and egress.
>
> Can't speak in the door. Heard its helpful but not sure if it offsets the extra
few lbs
>
> Build it light
>
> Douwe
>
>
>> On Feb 20, 2016, at 1:00 AM, Pietenpol-List Digest Server
wrote:
>>
>> *
>>
>> =================================================
>> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
>> =================================================
>>
>> Today's complete Pietenpol-List Digest can also be found in either of the
>> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
>> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
>> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
>> of the Pietenpol-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
>> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>>
>> HTML Version:
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 16-02-19&Archive=Pietenpol
>>
>> Text Version:
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 16-02-19&Archive=Pietenpol
>>
>>
>> ===============================================
>> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
>> ===============================================
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Pietenpol-List Digest Archive
>> ---
>> Total Messages Posted Fri 02/19/16: 7
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Today's Message Index:
>> ----------------------
>>
>> 1. 12:23 AM - Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to build!
(Dave'sPiet)
>> 2. 06:37 AM - Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to build!
(tools)
>> 3. 08:47 AM - Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to build!
(Dave'sPiet)
>> 4. 10:18 AM - Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to build!
(Bill Church)
>> 5. 11:47 AM - Re: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to
build! (vic groah)
>> 6. 03:43 PM - Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to build
(Dave'sPiet)
>> 7. 06:04 PM - Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to build!
(tools)
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
>>
>>
>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage
to
>> build!
>> From: "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com>
>>
>>
>> Hello, I am new to the forum. I'm building a Piet with a Continental A65 or
C85
>> engine.
>>
>> My wood is arriving soon, but I have a bit of a conundrum- I had planned on
building
>> the 173.375" fuselage (as shown in the supplemental plans) along with the
>> Pietnepol supplied plan for a Continental engine mount.
>>
>> Then I ordered the Kerri-Ann plans for the front door mod, which is really
nice.
>> Unfortunately, it looks as though the plans are only for the 163" fuselage,
>> and not the 173.375" fuselage. And I really want a door...
>>
>> Was the 173.375" fuselage designed specifically for the Corvair & Continental
engines?
>> ( I sometimes hear a fuselage referred to as the "Corvair Fuselage").
>>
>>
>> Because I want a door, I might be stuck with building the 163" fuselage, but
I
>> first need to make sure that I'm not going to run into issues down the road
if
>> I build a 163" fuselage and combine it with the Continental engine mount in
>> Pietenpol's plans. I really don't want to be left having to draw up my own plan
>> for an engine mount.
>>
>> I have read where people have extended their Continental mounts by 1-2 inches
in
>> anticipation of CG problems. But I don't know which fuselage they were building.
>>
>>
>> I'm 200 lbs and I'm planning on putting the fuel tank in the wing, and I'm just
>> trying to plan ahead so that I can avoid having to deal with a CG that is too
>> far aft.
>>
>> If I want to use the Pietenpol drawing for a Continental engine mount, do I
have
>> to build the 173.375" fuselage, or will that mount work with the 163" fuselage
>> as well (as far as the resultant CG is concerned)?
>>
>> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Also, nowhere on the plans does it specify what the angle of the firewall bulkhead
>> is in relation to the top longhorn... I assume it's 90 degrees, but I'm practicing
>> not assuming things since I'm not building a kitchen cabinet here :D
>>
>>
>> Thanks for any replies- I'm hoping to understand this completely so that I can
>> start laying out the jig for the fuselage.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452993#452993
>>
>>
>> ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
>>
>>
>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage
>> to build!
>> From: "tools" <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com>
>>
>>
>> I'm five ten, 185. Actually fit in the short wood fuse fine which surprised
me.
>>
>> Also have a a65. Think it's the plans continental mount. Cabanes an inch or
two
>> longer and angled back the fairly normal about four inches. Wing tank. My
>> cg is well located.
>>
>> Best thing to do is find each variant and sit in one! Brodhead works GREAT!
>>
>> I have a fuse layout table if ya want it. It's orphaned and in Oshkosh. The
plane,
>> not built on that table, is near Chatt TN. Let me know if I can help.
>>
>> The firewall is at 90 degrees.
>>
>> Gotta run!
>>
>> Tools
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453000#453000
>>
>>
>> ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________
>>
>>
>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage
>> to build!
>> From: "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com>
>>
>>
>> Thanks Tools... I do appreciate the offer on the layup table, but I have built
>> mine already.
>>
>> I'm 6'0" and so is my girlfriend. My son is 6'3". She's 160 and he's about 180.
>> I plan on raising the wing a couple of inches as well to help them have a better
>> time up front. It seems that builders have done this thus far with no ill
>> effects.
>>
>> I assume by the "short fuselage" you mean the 163" "Improved Pietenpol 33-34
design,
>> and not the 1932 (even shorter) design?
>>
>> My next concern is landing gear axle placement, which is discussed at length
at
>> the westcoastpiet site, however, it does not talk about the effect of having
>> to move the wing back, and I know that the axle needs to be set a certain number
>> of degrees forward of the CG measured at the wing. DO builders think this through,
>> or do they simply take a SWAG in the beginning and then accept the result
>> when it's finished? Not knowing (for sure) where my Continental with a plans
>> built mount on a 163" fuselage and a 2 inch wing raise is going to send the
>> CG, makes me a little hesitant to start cutting wood... I know that 17 inches
>> aft of firewall is the axle location given by the 33-34 plans for a wood axle
>> and large wheels- but I don't know whether a Continental & mount & my weight
>> will make that a not-so-great place to have the gear, especially when I have
to
>> move the wing back later.. Pietenpol has the cabane struts vertical in his drawings.
>> Moving the wing aft seems to be a later idea employed to deal with the
>> aft CG's that builders ended up with?
>>
>> SO many questions, I know... But I can't afford to build the airplane twice
and
>> certainly don't want to tear it apart or add 10 lbs of lead after I build it
>> to fix a CG problem!!
>>
>> On another note, how does your Piet climb-out in the summer with 2 people onboard?
>> Continental engines are becoming VERY expensive and the cost difference between
>> an A65 and a C85 is quite large when considering an engine that isn't timed-out.
>> I'd love to be able to go with an A65, but a 200 ft per min rate of climb
>> gets scary when crossing mountainous terrain...
>>
>> Thanks for your input,.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453002#453002
>>
>>
>> ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________
>>
>>
>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage
>> to build!
>> From: "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca>
>>
>>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> The fuselages in both the FGM plans, and the 1933 Improved Air Camper plans
were
>> designed for use with the Ford Model A engine (and a 140 pound pilot). The
>> longer 173" fuselage in the supplemental plans was designed to be used with
lighter
>> engines, such as the small Continentals, or the Corvair. The Pietenpol-designed
>> engine mount for Continental engines was intended for use with the longest
>> fuselage, but many have adapted it for use with the Improved Air Camper
>> fuselage (usually extending the mount). To use an A-65 with the Improved Air
>> Camper fuselage, and keep the cabanes vertical, the engine mount will typically
>> need to be extended 8 or 9 inches.
>> If you plan to carry passengers that are 6'-3" tall, you really should give
serious
>> thought to building the long fuselage, as it does provide additional leg
>> room for both pilot and passenger. I haven't seen the plans for the Kerri-Ann
>> door, but I'm sure that adapting it to suit the longer fuselage would not be
>> very difficult.
>> The number one thing that will have the most impact on the performance of any
Pietenpol
>> is keeping it light. Adding a passenger door will not contribute to
>> lightness, and some will argue that a passenger door does not even make passenger
>> entry any easier.
>>
>> Bill C.
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453004#453004
>>
>>
>> ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________
>>
>>
>> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which
fuselage
>> to build!
>> From: vic groah <vicgroah(at)gmail.com>
>>
>> We have the long fuselage with the side door. We are using a Corvair but a
>> continental works just as well. I am 76 at 260 pounds and am 6 ft 2 in and
>> have a bad back. My son Michael is 6 ft and about 220. We fly together
>> with no problem We did raise the top deck and the wing one inch to make
>> the fit work. Obviously it performs better with one person of our size but
>> is safe with the two of us. The one change we would do if we were doing it
>> over is to tilt the rear seat back rest one inch at the top to make a
>> little more comfort for the pilot on long flights. Without the front door
>> I could not get into the front do to a fused together back. With the door I
>> get in no problem. just takes practice. We have a cut out with a handle
>> to access the front.
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Bill Church
>> wrote:
>>
>>> billspiet(at)sympatico.ca>
>>>
>>> Hi Dave,
>>>
>>> The fuselages in both the FGM plans, and the 1933 Improved Air Camper
>>> plans were designed for use with the Ford Model A engine (and a 140 pound
>>> pilot). The longer 173" fuselage in the supplemental plans was designed to
>>> be used with lighter engines, such as the small Continentals, or the
>>> Corvair. The Pietenpol-designed engine mount for Continental engines was
>>> intended for use with the longest fuselage, but many have adapted it for
>>> use with the Improved Air Camper fuselage (usually extending the mount).
>>> To use an A-65 with the Improved Air Camper fuselage, and keep the cabanes
>>> vertical, the engine mount will typically need to be extended 8 or 9 inches.
>>> If you plan to carry passengers that are 6'-3" tall, you really should
>>> give serious thought to building the long fuselage, as it does provide
>>> additional leg room for both pilot and passenger. I haven't seen the plans
>>> for the Kerri-Ann door, but I'm sure that adapting it to suit the longer
>>> fuselage would not be very difficult.
>>> The number one thing that will have the most impact on the performance of
>>> any Pietenpol is keeping it light. Adding a passenger door will not
>>> contribute to lightness, and some will argue that a passenger door does not
>>> even make passenger entry any easier.
>>>
>>> Bill C.
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453004#453004
>>
>> ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________
>>
>>
>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage
>> to build
>> From: "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com>
>>
>>
>> Thanks Vic- that was very helpful.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453009#453009
>>
>>
>> ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________
>>
>>
>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage
>> to build!
>> From: "tools" <n0kkj(at)yahoo.com>
>>
>>
>> Mine is the 1932 version. Given your requirements, I REALLY think you should
track
>> down some planes and try them on.
>>
>> Bill makes a SUPER good point. Light is going to be critical. I even suggest
>> a one piece wing. I have taken a 205 lb pax, 6' 2", at brodhead with a a65.
>> Not stellar performance!
>>
>> An 85hp engine is probably the way to go for a cont. the corvair is rated around
>> a hundred. Kevin Purtee took me for a ride, he's taller and bigger than I,
>> with that engine and it flew really well. Food for thought.
>>
>> A,common belief is you'll save money with a car engine. Not really so when
built
>> correctly. It's just a different way to go. Properly built however, I really
>> don't think you're compromising on safety.
>>
>> As for gear, again, find one configured like you want, known to fly and handle
>> well, and do what he did. However, with wood gear legs, not real hard to change
>> where the axle is relative to the firewall. Four pieces of wood. I made mine,
>> a rebuild issue, out of a really nice southern yellow pine pallet. The legs
>> were free...
>>
>> Start building fittings, ribs, wing, tail feathers and keep asking and looking
>> on the fuse until you think you're set would be my advice.
>>
>> Tools
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453011#453011
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ray Krause <raykrause(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: weight & balance |
Thanks, Oscar. The file downloaded nicely to our desktop computer. It displays
and should work. The fuselage is done and the center section is on and rigged.
The engine runs fine, just some minor tuning. I need to make the seat cushions
and the coaming for the cockpit. I bought two nice leather coats from Salvation
Army, just need someone to sew it up. The tail is on and mostly rigged, just
some safety wire on the turnbuckles, now. Controls work nicely.
The SkyScout landing gear is still not solved. I'm having trouble with the toe-in.
One wheel is toed in, the other OK. The only way to change it is heating the
tubing. A real pain!
I will run a preliminary W/B before installing the wings using your form. Lots
to do.
Thanks,
Ray
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 18, 2016, at 8:07 PM, taildrags wrote:
>
>
> For all those who asked, I've uploaded my W&B spreadsheet to the forum but if
you're unable to get it that way, email me privately and I'll send it to you.
The usual caveats apply, especially "the numbers in this spreadsheet are for
NX41CC ONLY!" Do not use them for your airplane except as a starting point so
you can check to see if your numbers are reasonable. The other thing I'd like
to mention is that I did not author this spreadsheet. It was generously shared
with me and it is in that spirit that I share it with others. Like Tim,
I also added another tab so that I would have a "what-if sandbox" to play in without
messing up the REAL sheet with the real numbers. In fact, I would suggest
that once you enter your final numbers into the real sheet, that you lock
those cells so you can't inadvertently change the numbers that shouldn't change.
>
> Ray: the spreadsheet doesn't care if you have a one-holer, two-holer, or twelve-holer...
you can either leave the numbers for passenger weight and moment arm
as "zero", or else eliminate those cells to streamline the spreadsheet. And
if you're building a 3-cockpit Air Camper, just add rows for another cockpit
and passenger ;o)
>
> As I mentioned, you don't need to have a complete airplane to start entering
values into the sheet. For sure you can add the basic information at the top,
but then as you measure the moment arms relative to the datum that you choose,
you can start entering those values into the sheet and begin playing what-ifs.
If the datum that you choose is going to be the wing leading edge and you
don't have the centersection mounted yet, you'll have to enter values relative
to the firewall and then later adjust those numbers when the distance from leading
edge to firewall is determined. I have set the precision of weights and
moment arms to one decimal place (roughly to the nearest 2 oz and 1/8"). I've
played with it by increasing the precision of them one at a time and then both
together, but I decided that I do not have eyes or tools that can measure closer
than that. I've tried decreasing the precision to whole pounds and inches
only, but that is unsatisfactory. If I were going !
> to simplify one of the two, I would use whole pounds but keep tenths of an inch
of length.
>
> You may argue about the acceptable range of 15 to 20" aft of wing leading edge
for the CG and you may argue about the allowable maximum gross weight of 1,088
lbs. You just won't be arguing them with me ;o)
>
> Anyway, here is the spreadsheet.
>
> --------
> Oscar Zuniga
> Medford, OR
> Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
> A75 power
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452991#452991
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/nx41ccw_b_2014_117.xls
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Donald A Mosher <thepietshop(at)gmail.com> |
andrea (andrea(at)modelberg.it) speaking about wooden landing gear and shock
cords asked "how many loops and what cross section are you guys using?"
That info was not included in the Air Camper plans
in the 1932 Flying Manual.
However Bernard wrote on page 34 of the 1933 issue of the Flying Manual,
the one detailing building of the Sky Scout - "we had better put on some
safety device to keep the ship from dropping to the ground if the shock
cord breaks, since it seems that everybody has trouble wrapping shock cord.
Here is the method we use: First, cut a piece of leather to fit around the
bottom of the landing gear vee, and lace it on with lace leather. Now take
6 ft. of 1/2" shock cord and have someone hold it about half way up on the
outside of the front landing gear strut. Take the other end and pass it
under the landing gear vee, over the axle, under the landing gear, over the
axle, under the vee on the inside of the first wrap, over the axle on the
outside of the first wrap and under the vee on the inside of the last wrap
until you have three wraps pulled quite tight."
"The cord should be just long enough to make a good square knot and to
permit taping of the ends. This method makes each wrap about the same
length and you will not have any trouble with your shock cord cutting. The
landing gear should give not over one inch with a full load in the ship,
but neither should it be any tighter."
I know that this method is in the Sky Scout construction write up, but
Bernard advised people to have both the 1932 and the 1933 Flying Manuals to
cover everything.
The 1933 Flying Manual also says on page 30: "I wish to call attention to
the brace right back of the bottom beam. This was changed from the plans of
the Air Camper, and I advise all of you who have not built up your wing
ribs to build them this way." So the Air Camper ribs in the 1934 Flying
Manual had an erroneous brace position shown which was corrected in the
1933 Sky Scout Flying Manual.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Pilot seat back angle |
| From: | Donald A Mosher <thepietshop(at)gmail.com> |
Douwe brought up the fact that a relatively straight seat back can become
uncomfortable on a longer flight. Standard furniture design uses 10
degrees to 15 degrees for chairs that are built for comfort. Many
homebuilt pilot seats use 16 degrees. Uncle Tony says that you should
figure on 6" of seat tilt back but doesn't tell us how high the seat back
may be. Good design points out that when the seat back is tilted back, the
seat bottom itself should be similarly tilted or it will tend to slide your
butt forward.
One pilot, when asked how long a cross country trip is in a Piet, muttered
"xxxiftxx miles." "Fifty miles?" "No, fifteen miles."
Doc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steven Dortch <steven.d.dortch(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pilot seat back angle |
Tilting the seat back will also place your eyes further from the
instruments. Just sitting in my Piet and the instruments are very close to
me. I will have to wear readers when I fly!
Steve D
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pilot seat back angle |
| From: | "dgaldrich" <dgaldrich(at)embarqmail.com> |
The recent fuselages we have built at Sun N Fun (starting with Dick Navratils Rotec
powered one) simply moved the top of the back rearward 4 inches.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453043#453043
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuse choices |
| From: | "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com> |
I believe the BHP plans make note of adding a very small amount of dihedral (1"
at each tip?), for aesthetic purposes because the wing looks as though it is
drooping at the ends even when it is perfectly flat.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453045#453045
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage |
to build!
| From: | "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com> |
Chris from Westcoastpiet knows a few builders with Piet's in my area, so I'm hoping
to try out a few cockpits very soon.
Kerri-Ann got back to me about her door mod plans- they can be used on different
fuselages with only minor changes to a couple of dimensions. That was very good
news.
I was looking at the BHP drawings for the elevator controls and do not understand
the reason for the bell crank/ jackshaft setup behind the pilot- why not run
the cables from the stick all the way back to the tail? Seems like more weight
in the tail, more complexity, and more things to go wrong. I read through the
Flying & Glider Manuals as well- no reference as to why another shaft and bell
crank is installed to run the elevator cables. Any ideas? I would think that
with proper pulley size & positioning, a few fairleads should be able to handle
the chore of routing the cables from the pilot station to the control horns
on the elevator. Very curious.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453046#453046
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Amsafetyc <amsafetyc(at)aol.com> |
Doc
You're amazing!
Looking forward to seeing you this July
John Recine
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 21, 2016, at 1:37 PM, Donald A Mosher wrote
:
>
> andrea (andrea(at)modelberg.it) speaking about wooden landing gear and shock c
ords asked "how many loops and what cross section are you guys using?" That
info was not included in the Air Camper plans
> in the 1932 Flying Manual.
>
> However Bernard wrote on page 34 of the 1933 issue of the Flying Manual, t
he one detailing building of the Sky Scout - "we had better put on some safe
ty device to keep the ship from dropping to the ground if the shock cord bre
aks, since it seems that everybody has trouble wrapping shock cord. Here is t
he method we use: First, cut a piece of leather to fit around the bottom of t
he landing gear vee, and lace it on with lace leather. Now take 6 ft. of 1/2
" shock cord and have someone hold it about half way up on the outside of th
e front landing gear strut. Take the other end and pass it under the landing
gear vee, over the axle, under the landing gear, over the axle, under the v
ee on the inside of the first wrap, over the axle on the outside of the fir
st wrap and under the vee on the inside of the last wrap until you have thre
e wraps pulled quite tight."
>
> "The cord should be just long enough to make a good square knot and to per
mit taping of the ends. This method makes each wrap about the same length an
d you will not have any trouble with your shock cord cutting. The landing ge
ar should give not over one inch with a full load in the ship, but neither s
hould it be any tighter."
>
> I know that this method is in the Sky Scout construction write up, but Ber
nard advised people to have both the 1932 and the 1933 Flying Manuals to cov
er everything.
>
> The 1933 Flying Manual also says on page 30: "I wish to call attention to t
he brace right back of the bottom beam. This was changed from the plans of t
he Air Camper, and I advise all of you who have not built up your wing ribs t
o build them this way." So the Air Camper ribs in the 1934 Flying Manual h
ad an erroneous brace position shown which was corrected in the 1933 Sky Sco
ut Flying Manual.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage |
to build!
| From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Dave;
I guess I didn't realize you were in northern California. Where, exactly? I'm
about 35 miles north of the CA-OR border, right on I-5, in Medford and you are
welcome to look at, sit in, measure, photograph, and examine my Air Camper any
time you'd like. You would also do well to try to get to the West Coast Piet
Fly-In the first weekend of June, down at Frazier Lane (near Hollister/Gilroy).
There should be several different examples of Air Campers there including
one with a steel tube fuselage.
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453060#453060
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pilot seat back angle |
| From: | "AircamperN11MS" <Scott.liefeld(at)lacity.org> |
I have the long Fuse and we moved the top of the seat back 2" after flying it in
the stock configuration for many years. An improvement that is was much needed.
I recommend that anyone building should make that change.
Raising the Cabanes 2" seems to also be the norm.
--------
Scott Liefeld
Flying N11MS since March 1972
Steel Tube
C-85-12
Wire Wheels
Brodhead in 1996
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453068#453068
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuse choices |
| From: | "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks Douwe- I hope to sit in a few Piets before I start cutting wood.
The door plans call for conservative routing of many of the vertical struts on
both sides, which compensates for the added weight of the 3 beams added to the
right side of the fuselage. As soon as I start laying down the wood I'll start
posting pictures.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453070#453070
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Pilot seat back angle |
On the Big Piets, we tilted the top back 4=9D and raised the seat
front as required to match the 10 to 15 degrees like a standard chair.
Although it is not a problem, it moves your upper body mass backwards
4=9D as well, thus changing the CG to the rear. Plan accordingly
for the CG change.
Barry NX973BP
Ps we pushed the firewall forward 4=9D with the increase in the
area ahead of the front strut attach point.
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Donald A
Mosher
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 2:00 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Pilot seat back angle
Douwe brought up the fact that a relatively straight seat back can
become uncomfortable on a longer flight. Standard furniture design uses
10 degrees to 15 degrees for chairs that are built for comfort. Many
homebuilt pilot seats use 16 degrees. Uncle Tony says that you should
figure on 6" of seat tilt back but doesn't tell us how high the seat
back may be. Good design points out that when the seat back is tilted
back, the seat bottom itself should be similarly tilted or it will tend
to slide your butt forward.
One pilot, when asked how long a cross country trip is in a Piet,
muttered "xxxiftxx miles." "Fifty miles?" "No, fifteen miles."
Doc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tonyp51qa" <tonyp51qa(at)gmail.com> |
WOOD landing gear axle placement. Hello, I'm building the long wood fuselage and
I need to know the dimensions for the placement of the landing gear axle. I
have read 20 inches, 21 inches and 17 inches. I will be using a CORVAIR motor.Thanks!
Tony
--------
Tony Crawford
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453076#453076
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Axle Placement |
| From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Tony; the best two minutes you'll spend researching the placement of your axle
will be the two minutes you spend reading this page:
http://flycorvair.net/2014/03/08/pietenpol-weight-and-balance-article-source/
And the best money you spend on it will be the $5 you mail to Doc as per the instructions
at the bottom of that web page, to get yourself a copy of "The Piet
W&B Articles".
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453077#453077
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "CatDesigns" <CatDesigns(at)att.net> |
Tony
My research has been documented here
http://westcoastpiet.com/wood_gear_placement_analysis.htm and the weight
and
balance sheet I refer too is attached.
In summary If you built it to the plans:
The steel landing gear plans for the short fuselage show the axel is 17
inched behind the firewall. That would imply the axel ( steel gear) on
a
long fuselage should be at 19 inches (add two inches because of the
2-inch
addition to the front bay of the long fuselage)
If you placed the axel per the wood gear plans the axel should be
farther
forward at 13 =BC-inches (short) or 15 =BC-inches (long) from the
firewall.
Now because yours is the wood gear, do you follow the wood gear plans or
the
steel gear plans?
Just for reference the wing LE with the center struts vertical is at 7
=BD
-inches (short) or 9 =BD -inches (long).
What made me rethink the whole axel location AFTER I finished my gear
was
when William Wynne and I got into a long discussion about his weight and
balance article and his advice to have the axel even with the leading
edge.
While digging through my Pietenpol literature to prove he was wrong I
found
the attached weight and balance sheet that was part of the Corvair
engine
supplement when I purchased the plans. I don=92t even remember receiving
it
with the plans and never really looked at it because I=92m not using a
Corvair. What it did do was to prove he was more correct than I was.
Here is my comments I sent to William:
When I received my plans, I also received a 6 page document entitled
=93Converting the Corvair Engine=94. On page 1 Mr. Pietenpol lists the
empty
weight of the airplane using this modified Corvair engine at 622 pounds,
which is the same as the one on the weight and balance sheet mentioned
above. On page two Mr. Pietenpol list the modifications to this plane.
The
important ones for this discussion are:
-fuselage lengthened 9 inches (the genesis of the LONG fuselage)
-Wings slanted back 3 inches
-wheels moved forward 7 inches.
Using a little math, if the split axel landing gear legs were built per
the
plans the axel would be 19 inches from the long fuselage firewall (17
inches
for the standard plans fuselage plus 2 inches more for the LONG fuselage
extension of the first bay). Then moving the axel forward 7 inches
would
put it at 19-7= 12 inches back from the firewall. The wing was at 7.5
inches on the standard fuselage plus 2 inches (extension of the first
bay)
puts the wing at 9.5 inches behind the firewall plus the 3 inch slant
puts
the wing at 12.5 inches from the firewall. This brings us back to the
0.5
inch measurement but in this case its axel in front of the wing. This
modified airplane Mr. Pietenpol speaks of must be the same as the "1966
Pietenpol Air Camper Powered with a 110-66 Corvair Engine" airplane
shown on
the weight and balance sheet. However, Mr. Pietenpol goes on to say on
page
2 that 7 inches was too much. He recommends splitting the difference
which
would mean the axel should be at 12+3.5=15.5 inches behind the
firewall
(which oddly enough is the distance of the wood gear on a long fuselage)
or
3 inches behind the leading edge of this aircrafts wing. (If you look at
the
picture you can even see that the axel is about even with the leading
edge
and there is no sweep to the front gear leg. )
Some stuff reported on the Pietenpol discussion list:
Chuck Ganzer , NX770CG, has a short fuselage, with the axel at 17 aft of
the
firewall, wing back 3.5 inches from vertical. If you have ever seen him
stand on the brakes and spin, you would not think the wheels are too far
back.
Dick Navratil, =93I re-measured mine today to confirm. My short fuse has
axle
19" back from FW and axle is 3.5" aft of LE. The new plane (Radial
engine
one) has long fuse has axle 21" back and wing isn't mounted yet. My
short
fuse has a CG with min fuel and me at 19.05 and flies perfect. You are
on
the right track. dick N.=94
Don Emch, NX899DE has long fuselage (1966 model), Wing is slanted 4" aft
of
plans, A-65 engine mount is 1" longer than plans (just a little extra
without losing 'the look', Axle is 1" forward of steel gear plans.
Dick N. =93I built the long fuselage with an A65 (mount extended about 1
3/4"
to anticipate my bodily weight of 215") And had to move the wing back 3
inches. I used the split gear plans supplied. Flies fine=94
Lastly, in an article about landing gear design published in Sport
Aviation
by Ladislao Pazmany, he states "The main gear should contact the ground
at
least 15 degrees ahead of the most forward center of gravity and 25
degrees
at the most rearward CG with the aircraft in level attitude." This
center
of gravity is the CG of the plane and on a parasol plane it is somewhere
below the wing. Unfortunately, I don't know where this point is on a
Pietenpol. Some have suggested it is about the center of the instrument
panel but that is just a guess. As an aside I also found in
"Aeronautical
Engineering and Airplane Design" published in 1918, the landing gear
should
be at 13 degrees 10 minutes. It also assumes the CG is the same height
as
the propeller. This 15-25 degrees is in many publications.
Where does this leave you? Basically it really depend on where your wing
is
going to end up. How much you slant to the center supports will effect
where
axel needs to be because it determines the CG. If your guessing, try to
keep
it with 0 to 3 inches behind where you think the leading edge will
ultimately be located.
Chris
Sacramento, CA
WestcoastPiet.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
tonyp51qa
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 6:59 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Axle Placement
WOOD landing gear axle placement. Hello, I'm building the long wood
fuselage
and I need to know the dimensions for the placement of the landing gear
axle. I have read 20 inches, 21 inches and 17 inches. I will be using a
CORVAIR motor.Thanks!
Tony
--------
Tony Crawford
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453076#453076
List
7-Day
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuse choices |
| From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
Actually, no, the plans do NOT show any dihedral.
Dave's Piet wrote:
> I believe the BHP plans make note of adding a very small amount of dihedral (1"
at each tip?), for aesthetic purposes because the wing looks as though it is
drooping at the ends even when it is perfectly flat.
>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453084#453084
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage |
to build!
| From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
Dave,
What you nee to take into account is "where are the differences between the long
and short fuselages located?" If you study the plans, you will see that certain
bays are longer, and others remain unchanged. Some of the additional length
is located ahead of the CG, and some is located behind. Ultimately, the goal
is to ensure that the CG within the acceptable range, relative to the wing
leading edge. By shifting the wing back, what you are actually doing is shifting
the fuselage forward, relative to the wing. Since all the weight of the
fuselage (including the engine and pilot) shifts forward, the effect is powerful.
Extending the motor mount will have an effect on the CG, but nowhere near
the effect that slanting the cabanes will have.
Bill C.
Dave wrote:
> Bill, that of which you speak are the very things that confuse me just a little-
You would think that if the Continental engine mount was designed for the
173.375" fuselage, and then you decided to use it on the shorter, 163" fuselage,
that the mount would have to shortened, not extended, in order to keep the
aircraft inside the proper CG envelope.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453085#453085
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Axle Placement |
| From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
Chris,
Great reply. Very well thought out and researched.
One question, though. When reading your post, it appears that certain characters
don't show up correctly. I took a screen grab to show the areas in question
(underlined in red.) So, what did you type in those spaces that show up as
boxes? Enquiring minds want to know.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453086#453086
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/symbols_176.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Axle Placement |
| From: | "Catdesigns" <Catdesigns(at)att.net> |
Bill
It's not that exciting....... here it comes...... it's........ 1/2
--------
Chris
Sacramento, CA
WestCoastPiet.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453087#453087
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Axle Placement |
| From: | "Catdesigns" <Catdesigns(at)att.net> |
Bill
I went back and fixed the blank spots and typos in the web version. I guess I should
not be posting long emails at 1 am.
to be more specific, the first two are 1/4 and the second two are 1/2.
--------
Chris
Sacramento, CA
WestCoastPiet.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453090#453090
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage |
to build!
| From: | "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com> |
Oscar- Thank you for the offer. If I'm ever up your way I will get in touch. The
West Coast flying is already on my calendar!
Bill- All of this makes me want to marry up the best of both of these fuselages....
I have seen Corvair and Continental engines mounted on the 163" fuselage and also
on the longest fuselage, and occasionally a very long engine mount used on
the both fuselages in order to make it work...
At this juncture, I am actually considering building a fuselage with the longer
forward bays, but without adding the the longer bays behind the pilot seat. This
would effectively extend the engine out while decreasing the arm/moment of
the tail section, resulting in a CG that would not require the wings to be moved
so far aft at the end of my build (in comparison to building a plans built
longest fuselage).
Extending an engine mount makes little sense to me- you have an aircraft where
pilot and passenger are starved for space, yet a huge empty space is created forward
of the firewall to get the engine far enough out front to bring the aircraft
inside the CG envelope. Why not simply extend the firewall forward several
inches, creating a larger cockpit(s), and then use a shorter engine mount?
The longest fuselage doesn't make a lot of sense to me either, because you are
moving the pilot aft while moving the moment of the tail section aft, necessitating
moving the wings even further aft.
I'm not an airplane designer, but with the combinations that I have seen with fuselages,
engines and engine mounts, at first and second glance it would seem
to make more sense to simply extend the fuselage forward of the Datum if you are
going to utilize the Continental/Corvair engine, while minimizing the amount
of weight/moment you will build aft of the Datum.
Of course, then I become concerned about aircraft stability, but when I see the
things that builders have done- aircraft out there flying around with cabane
struts extended 3-5", and engine mounts extended 9" beyond plans, wings being
moved aft to get the CG within range, then I begin to think that a marriage of
the longest fuselage with the 163" fuselage isn't very far fetched at all....
and since I have to work out my own gear placement no matter what fuselage I
build, there is no additional work created there.
I also do not see stress/loading issues with my idea either, because the aircraft
would be lighter overall, in comparison to the plans-built longest fuselage.
I think the resultant fuselage would end up being only about ~6 inches shorter
than the longest fuselage, but the overall length from prop to tail would be considerably
shorter, since the engine mount would be shorter. I think that the
shift forward of the moment of the tail section would be significant in regards
to moving the CG further forward with a 210 lb pilot in the rear cockpit.
Fire away!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453189#453189
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage |
to build!
| From: | "echobravo4" <eab4(at)comcast.net> |
Dave-
The plane, per the plans, is designed to have the wing move fore and aft to account
for where the CG needs to be (regardless of fuselage length).
The final angled cabane struts would be made after the the wing position is finalized.
The thing to do would be to get ahold of the weight and balance articles from the
Brodhead Pietenpol Association and run the calculations based on your engine
choice and your weight. That will tell you right where your wing, as well as
your landing gear, will need to be, without any guesswork, before you even even
start building.
The articles cover continental engines and just about every fuselage length and
I think pilot weights up to 195 lbs.
The charts and the calculations should put you an the right track without having
to redesign the aircraft.
Earl
--------
Earl Brown
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I
intended to be.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453193#453193
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage |
to build!
| From: | "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com> |
I appreciate that Earl. I'll contact them.
Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453194#453194
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage |
to build!
| From: | "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com> |
Well, I just finished reading the W&B article by Doc Mosher and William Wynne...
it is a treasure trove, and addressed my concerns about how to build it with
a planned CG. No Piet plans should be sold without it.
[Shocked]
It also makes me realize how important it is to become part of the Piet community
prior to beginning a build (unless you don't mind building things twice).
I am becoming a Broadhead member tomorrow.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453197#453197
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage |
to build!
| From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Dave; I hope that you're referring to the complete series of articles on W&B than
includes the data tabulated for an assortment of Air Campers with different
fuselage lengths, landing gear styles, powerplants, fuel tank locations, and
of course accessories. It's good that you're doing homework up front instead
of jumping right into the build and then later wishing you'd paid a little more
attention to why people talk about tail heaviness, cabane angle adjustment,
and all that stuff. You'll be glad you took the time to study it.
And don't take this the wrong way, but your first lesson in BPA membership is that
you have to learn how to spell 'Brodhead'. It's a city in Wisconsin, not
a type of hunting arrow point ;o) Don't mind me though... I am an associate editor
and manuscript proofreader for a technical publication and my stock in trade
is checking spelling and punctuation ;o)
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453201#453201
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage |
to build!
| From: | "johnnysdrop" <johnnysdrop(at)googlemail.com> |
Is the Brodhead / WW W&B calculator available online?
English Johnny
STILL building wings
--------
The only way is UP
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453205#453205
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage |
to build!
| From: | Steven Dortch <steven.d.dortch(at)gmail.com> |
My pietengrega does not have an adjustable wing. Bottom bolts run
right-left, top bolts run fore-aft.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage |
to build!
| From: | John Hofmann <jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.com> |
I will post it to the list later today when I get to my hotel.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 26, 2016, at 5:17 AM, johnnysdrop wrote:
>
>
> Is the Brodhead / WW W&B calculator available online?
> English Johnny
> STILL building wings
>
> --------
> The only way is UP
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453205#453205
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Czaplicki <fishin3(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | parts for new builder |
If anyone located in the NE Illinois area is planning or newly started building,
I have some items that my help you. a rib jig (ribs flying in Oscars Piet)
several sample ribs, Continental motor mount jig, several aviation seat belts,
4x4 sheet of rib gusset plywood, misc hardware. Costs ? what ever you think it's
worth.
Give me a call at 847-872-2617.
Joe Czaplicki
Zion, IL
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage |
to build!
| From: | "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com> |
Oscar- I am not sure now many articles BRODHEAD put out regarding W&B. I have
one, long article that John sent me that includes tables for A65, Ford and Corvair
engined Piets that were weighed with the relevant stations and axle locations
measured.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453242#453242
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: new builder upstate NY |
| From: | "David McBride" <dmcb84(at)hotmail.com> |
Odds and ends....
Making slow steady progress despite the freezing temps and snow piling up.
--------
David McBride
Rochester, NY
dmcb84(at)hotmail.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453243#453243
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_20160218_193907_562.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_20160226_115316_133.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_20160226_120015_121.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_20160226_120156_745.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: parts for new builder |
| From: | Tony Crawford <tonyp51qa(at)gmail.com> |
Hello Joe,
I grew up in Mundelein IL. I could use that gusset material and would
consider the seat belts as well. Could you post a few pictures of them? How
much are you asking?? I'll be up in the Chicago area in a few weeks. Could
we get together then? Thanks!
Tony
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Joe Czaplicki
wrote:
> >
>
> If anyone located in the NE Illinois area is planning or newly started
> building, I have some items that my help you. a rib jig (ribs flying in
> Oscars Piet) several sample ribs, Continental motor mount jig, several
> aviation seat belts,
> 4x4 sheet of rib gusset plywood, misc hardware. Costs ? what ever you
> think it's worth.
> Give me a call at 847-872-2617.
> Joe Czaplicki
> Zion, IL
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuse choices |
| From: | "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com> |
True Bill, it is not in the plans, however, the builder's manual does specify a
1" raise at each wingtip for aesthetic purposes. You can find the reference in
Chapter VIII "Sixty Years of Post Flight", in the "Notes" section. I assume
that this document is part of the builders manual (it was included with the plans
package that I purchased from Pietenpol). Perhaps it that written by one of
his sons?? Verbatim:
Note 18. Dihedral.
Dihedral isn't required in this airplane. However, with the aircraft sitting on
the ground the straight wing gives the illusion that the wing is drooped on each
side. With that in mind, put approximately one inch of dihedral at each wing
tip and the wing will not look straight.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453279#453279
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pilot seat back angle |
| From: | "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com> |
If you are determined to move the seat back angle for comfort, then you would need
to know what the aircraft's exact attitude is while in cruise flight... because
the angle of the seat back would be measured from that reference point,
and not from the upper longeron, correct?
Does anybody have any data regarding the angle of the fuselage during cruise flight?
I would expect that the upper longeron is not level in this aircraft, but
who knows?
Any input appreciated [Wink]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453282#453282
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pilot seat back angle |
| From: | "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com> |
Suggest that a "target angle" could be obtained by going out to your car and measuring
the seat-back angle of your driver's seat (which is probably already set
to a comfortable angle).
With the Piet fuselage it would be much easier to decrease the seatback angle if
you ever need to, versus increasing it...
Patrick Hoyt
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453287#453287
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Elizabeth Cooper <eacooper9(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | weight & balance yet again |
Goodmorrow Pietenpeople,The list has been awfully quiet of late, so I thought I
would add my two cent's worth. Although I'm not sure it is worth $.02. First
I would like to ask if there is any update on Matt Dralle's health? I hope he
is doing well.
So... I have been following the W & B discussion. There has been a lot of good
info, albeit, so much so that it could overwhelm a newcomer. My concern is: Why
on earth would you choose to use a datum that moves? I have read several articles
that stated you can use any point on the aircraft as a datum. ie: the tip
of the spinner, the prop face plate, et al. I have chosen to use the firewall.
It is a solid fixed location on the air frame. It is easy to measure from and
most times you don't have to bother with a plumb bob. Supposing you have used
the leading edge.If you slant the cabanes rearward and move the leading edge
back 3", you must then go back and change every moment arm on your W & B sheet
by 3" and recalculate. If I move my wing there is a slight change in the empty
weight arm and a change to the arm of any fuel weight in the wing. The remaining
pilot wt, passenger wt, oil wt, coolant wt, prop wt, header tank wt, etc
arms all remain the same. And, should you move the wing again, it starts all
over. Just a thought.
I have not fabricated my engine mount as yet, or more correctly, had it built (
I will not trust my life to any welding I might learn to do). If I do my math
correctly, I am hoping I will not have to move the wing. Wish me luck.
Well folks, this has been my opinion. Take it as you may. Those of you who have
finished your builds, go out and enjoy flight. The rest of us will have to keep
plugging away.
Yours, Scott Bartko low and slow with the top down
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pilot seat back angle |
| From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
I think, for the purposes of this discussion, we can assume the top longeron to
be level during cruise flight. I'm not aware of anyone measuring the actual
conditions in flight, but air-to-air photos of Piets in flight don't appear to
indicate any appreciable deviation from level. For reference, one degree of
incidence would translate to approximately 3 inches of slope over the length of
the fuselage.
Therefore, setting the slope of the pilot's seat back based on the assumption that
the top longeron will be level during cruise would be a reasonable approach
to take.
Bill C.
Davespiet wrote:
> If you are determined to move the seat back angle for comfort, then you would
need to know what the aircraft's exact attitude is while in cruise flight...
because the angle of the seat back would be measured from that reference point,
and not from the upper longeron, correct?
>
> Does anybody have any data regarding the angle of the fuselage during cruise
flight? I would expect that the upper longeron is not level in that flight regime,
but who knows...
>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453293#453293
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pilot seat back angle |
| From: | "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com> |
Bill, I suppose one could assume that the top longeron is level in flight, but
BHP designed the original Ford engine mount to be angled downwards to account
for the fact that the fuselage had a nose high attitude in cruise flight, as he
felt that the engine should be pointed in the direction that the airframe was
actually traveling through the air...
If this was in fact true, then the top longeron was not inline with the thrust
line at that point in the development of the Piet. From what I understand, most
engine mounts in Piets these days are built with the engine parallel to the
firewall, which will no nothing to decrease that angle of incidence of the fuselage
during cruise flight.
I don't know whether BHPs first Piet design had the different cabane heights from
front to rear, so perhaps he added incidence to the wing with a later cabane
specification, which effectively lowered the fuselage incidence? I don't have
the plans in front of me right now so I don't know.
No doubt the individual build (wing location, resultant loaded CG, etc) will affect
the cruising attitude/incidence of a particular fuselage, so perhaps it is
all a wash and there is no point even trying to consider it, other than taking
a stab and just moving the seat back a little.
When my Piet is finished I'll put an angle finder on the top longeron during cruise
and share my data.
[Wink]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453298#453298
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net> |
| Subject: | Corvair Engines Wanted |
I have decided that a Corvair engine is desirable for my project and am looking
for a couple or three core engines. Would like to find an RD, RF, RH, RX, RK,
RA, RJ, RE, or RG engine or two. Would consider the YN, YM, SZ or ZG engines
or any of the Y , Z or W series engines that have the 8409 crank.
M. Haught
479-586-4241
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hofmann <jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage |
to build!
The promised w&b articles.
Best,
-john-
> On Feb 26, 2016, at 7:52 AM, John Hofmann
wrote:
>
>
> I will post it to the list later today when I get to my hotel.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Feb 26, 2016, at 5:17 AM, johnnysdrop
wrote:
>>
>>
>> Is the Brodhead / WW W&B calculator available online?
>> English Johnny
>> STILL building wings
>>
>> --------
>> The only way is UP
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453205#453205
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage |
to build!
| From: | "johnnysdrop" <johnnysdrop(at)googlemail.com> |
Thanks John, I appreciate the help.
Many thanks,
English Johnny
--------
The only way is UP
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453306#453306
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ray Krause <raykrause(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage |
to build!
John,
Thanks so much for sending the PDF of these articles. I just managed to find all
of them but one in my back issues. So your sending them was extremely helpful.
Am I paid up for the news letter, or what do I owe? I'm happy to receive the letter
electronically, but I still want to be current for the charges. I don't
want to miss any issues.
Thanks,
Ray Krause
843 Jay Street
Colusa, CA 95932
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 5:12 PM, John Hofmann wrote:
>
> The promised w&b articles.
>
> Best,
> -john-
>
>
>> On Feb 26, 2016, at 7:52 AM, John Hofmann wrote:
>>
>>
>> I will post it to the list later today when I get to my hotel.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Feb 26, 2016, at 5:17 AM, johnnysdrop wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Is the Brodhead / WW W&B calculator available online?
>>> English Johnny
>>> STILL building wings
>>>
>>> --------
>>> The only way is UP
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453205#453205
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: weight & balance yet again |
| From: | "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com> |
The firewall moves in these aircraft too!!
[Wink]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453325#453325
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pilot seat back angle |
| From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
I'm about two weekends away from making my first flights of 2016 in Scout, and
I will definitely take an angle finder (iPhone app) with me and measure the top
longeron angle in level cruise flight. Fun!
As to the angle of the seat back, I wouldn't know or care what it is because I
rarely, if ever, recline against it in flight. Most flights, all I want to do
is stay in the lee of the windscreen so I can hear the radio in my headset, or
to stay out of the slipstream buffet, so I'm leaning forward in my seat. The
only time I can lean back in leisurely flight with everything hanging out is
in the peak of summer when I'm in a tee shirt and shorts and just wearing a canvas
flying helmet with hearing protectors and NORDO, with elbows hanging on
the coamings. As Air Camper flying was intended to be!
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453327#453327
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clif Dawson" <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Pilot seat back angle |
No, the downward line on the engine was to provide more thrust in takeoff
as the upward angle of the plane is greater than the angle of motion at
this
time. In other words it's mushing along by a few degrees.
Remember, we're talking about the original Ford powered beast. At the
rpm's involved there is effectively only36 hp from a 200 cube inch engine.
http://www.nwvs.org/Technical/ConstructionStories/JohnsSpeedster/Chassis/Engine/Engine.shtml
Clif
http://www.clifdawson.ca/
>
> BHP designed the original Ford engine mount to be angled downwards to
> account for the fact that the fuselage had a nose high attitude in cruise
> flight, >
>
> I don't know whether BHPs first Piet design had the different cabane
> heights from front to rear, so perhaps he added incidence to the wing with
> a later cabane specification, which effectively lowered the fuselage
> incidence? I don't have the plans in front of me right now so I don't
> know.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pilot seat back angle |
| From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
OK, so I just ran the Chapter 549(?) formula for minimum required engine BHP using
a max gross weight of 1088 lbs and a wingspan of 29 feet and it comes out
right at 40 BHP. Okay, but going down the page to acceptable rate of climb, 1180
ft in 3 minutes (about 400 FPM) may be ambitious for a 40HP Air Camper at
max gross.
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453353#453353
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clif Dawson" <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Pilot seat back angle |
Probably right, Oscar, but what's assumed is MSL, pressure and temp.
When was the last time you saw any of those things? :-)
Also that Kelly guy running all those dyno tests stated that he never
got 40 hp out of a stock A, only 36.
Clif
Did you know that no man, or woman for that matter, has ever
gone into a hardware store wanting a drill bit.
What they really wanted was a hole.
Okay, but going down the page to acceptable rate of climb, 1180 ft in 3
minutes (about 400 FPM) may be ambitious for a 40HP Air Camper at max gross.
>
> --------
> Oscar Zuniga
> Medford, OR
> Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
> A75 power
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pocono John" <tinmotion(at)yahoo.com> |
I searched the forums and did find some info, but I just wanted to share this.
I found a place 1:45 away that sells marine and aircraft plywood. Unfortunately,
they're almost out of aircraft wood and do not plan to re-stock as demand is
low and their west coast supplier went belly up.
As far as the marine plywood, they have plenty. I'm told it's BS1088 starting at
3mm (3/32", so bit too thick for 1/16" parts)up to 25mm (1"). This page shows
their selection:
http://www.condonlumber.net/plywood/marineaircraft.html
To date, I've used only wood from wicks and AS&S. Ribs are done and I have wood
for fuselage gussets (not the big side pieces or belly). I think I have enough
for tail section gussets.
Any suggestions as to where I could use the marine plywoodor where to avoid its'
use?
For anyone in the Pocono,PA region, I could pick-up sheets for you.
Finally, any suggestions on what I should buy while I'm there? Would it be OK to
use 3/32" where 1/16" is indicated (going bigger)?
Thank you.
John
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453364#453364
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Laminating plywood. |
| From: | "john francis" <Mrkringles(at)msn.com> |
I have some good 1/16 aircraft plywood. I am in need of 1/8. Is it okay to epoxy
two 1/16 sheets together to make 1/8?
--------
John Francis
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453367#453367
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | welding 4130 hinges |
| From: | "danoliver" <danoliver909(at)gmail.com> |
Has anyone had any trouble with brittle welds? I am new to all of this so don't
rule out rookie error. I have spent the last couple weeks trying to fab the empennage
hinges to no avail. I am using .090 4130 steel from AS&S and an oxy/acetylene
welder. My welds are easily broken and when you look at the breaks they
look crystalline. As an experiment I decided to try several methods of simply
welding two flat pieces of steel together including; preheating, postheating,
reheating, over penetration, under penetration, filler rod, and no filler rod.
All with the same result, I can bend them to about 30 degrees and then they
snap. The worst part is that I can grab any piece of scrap steel laying around
my garage, cut it in half, and weld it back together with ease. Is there some
special procedure needed to weld 4130? Do I even need to use 4130? Bernard
doesn't call for it in the plans.
Please help.
--------
Dan O
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453369#453369
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "CatDesigns" <CatDesigns(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | welding 4130 hinges |
Dan
I'm not an expert but I have done all the welding on my Pietenpol using Oxy
fuel. Typically 4130 welds easily. The only time I have gotten brittle
welds is when I over heat the weld.
Questions I can think of.
Are you sure you have a soft neutral flame?
Are you using too small of a tip so it takes a lot of heat to start the weld
puddle thus over heating the metal or too big of a tip so it heats really
fast and over heats the metal?
What welding rod are you using?
Chris
Sacramento, CA
WestcoastPiet.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of danoliver
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 3:33 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: welding 4130 hinges
-->
Has anyone had any trouble with brittle welds? I am new to all of this so
don't rule out rookie error. I have spent the last couple weeks trying to
fab the empennage hinges to no avail. I am using .090 4130 steel from AS&S
and an oxy/acetylene welder. My welds are easily broken and when you look at
the breaks they look crystalline. As an experiment I decided to try several
methods of simply welding two flat pieces of steel together including;
preheating, postheating, reheating, over penetration, under penetration,
filler rod, and no filler rod. All with the same result, I can bend them to
about 30 degrees and then they snap. The worst part is that I can grab any
piece of scrap steel laying around my garage, cut it in half, and weld it
back together with ease. Is there some special procedure needed to weld
4130? Do I even need to use 4130? Bernard doesn't call for it in the plans.
Please help.
--------
Dan O
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453369#453369
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "CatDesigns" <CatDesigns(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Laminating plywood. |
Depends on what it is used for. If it is for a spar web I might not but I
would not have any problems using elsewhere on a Pietenpol. Just make sure
you have good glue coverage between the two.
Chris
Sacramento, CA
WestcoastPiet.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of john francis
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 2:17 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Laminating plywood.
-->
I have some good 1/16 aircraft plywood. I am in need of 1/8. Is it okay to
epoxy two 1/16 sheets together to make 1/8?
--------
John Francis
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453367#453367
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JERRY" <jerry(at)SKYCLASSIC.NET> |
| Subject: | welding 4130 hinges |
Also if you cool the metal to fast it will become very brittle and can brake
easy. The metal must cool at room temp.
Jerry
Sky Classic Aircraft
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of CatDesigns
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 8:46 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: welding 4130 hinges
Dan
I'm not an expert but I have done all the welding on my Pietenpol using Oxy
fuel. Typically 4130 welds easily. The only time I have gotten brittle
welds is when I over heat the weld.
Questions I can think of.
Are you sure you have a soft neutral flame?
Are you using too small of a tip so it takes a lot of heat to start the weld
puddle thus over heating the metal or too big of a tip so it heats really
fast and over heats the metal?
What welding rod are you using?
Chris
Sacramento, CA
WestcoastPiet.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of danoliver
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 3:33 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: welding 4130 hinges
-->
Has anyone had any trouble with brittle welds? I am new to all of this so
don't rule out rookie error. I have spent the last couple weeks trying to
fab the empennage hinges to no avail. I am using .090 4130 steel from AS&S
and an oxy/acetylene welder. My welds are easily broken and when you look at
the breaks they look crystalline. As an experiment I decided to try several
methods of simply welding two flat pieces of steel together including;
preheating, postheating, reheating, over penetration, under penetration,
filler rod, and no filler rod. All with the same result, I can bend them to
about 30 degrees and then they snap. The worst part is that I can grab any
piece of scrap steel laying around my garage, cut it in half, and weld it
back together with ease. Is there some special procedure needed to weld
4130? Do I even need to use 4130? Bernard doesn't call for it in the plans.
Please help.
--------
Dan O
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453369#453369
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Marine plywood |
| From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
John,
Many Pietenpol builders have used Marine Plywood in building their aircraft. BS
1088 ensures that the laminates are sound, with no knot holes, and that they
are bonded with truly waterproof adhesives (the plywood must actually pass a
test in which the plywood is immersed in boiling water, without de-laminating.)
Aircraft plywood is subject to these same requirements. Most of the plywood
in my project is B1088 Okoume Marine Ply.
3mm is actually just shy of 1/8" (as opposed to 3/32"), and would be considered
as "overkill" to be used where 1/16" is called for. However, you say that you
have completed your ribs. That is where most of the 1/16" ply is called for
in the Air Camper. I don't have my plans handy, but offhand, I don't recall
any other 1/16" ply in the plans. If there is, it isn't much. You can use 3mm
for the fuselage sides, and anywhere the plans call for 1/8", and 5 or 6mm for
the fuselage floor.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453384#453384
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pilot seat back angle |
| From: | "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com> |
Oscar- Looking forward to your data.
Clif- your Kung fu is better than mine...
Has any one ever collected ROC data for the Pietenpol at MGW with the Ford, Continental
& Corvair? It would be very helpful as far as selecting an engine & prop.....
[Wink]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453386#453386
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Philips" <jack(at)bedfordlandings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pilot seat back angle |
Dave, the problem is that most Pietenpols vary as much in Gross Weight as
they do in any other measurement. But I can tell you that with mine (GW
1195 lbs) on a hot day at gross weight my rate of climb (A65 Continental,
and this was with a Sensenich 72 x 42 prop) was right at 100 fpm (which is
the FAA's definition of Service Ceiling). This was from a runway at 275'
MSL. Density altitude was probably around 2,000'.
I limit mine to passengers of 180 lbs. or less, which pretty well limits it
to pretty young women. I find that anyone over that weight generally has
trouble folding themselves into the front cockpit anyway. Young women
(especially pretty ones) don't seem to suffer much from this, particularly
when a helping hand is offered.
Since I changed to a Cloudcars 76 x 38 prop my climb is improved by about
30%. Of course, at gross weight, this means climbing at 130 fpm rather than
100. This is a difference without a difference.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave'sPiet
Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2016 10:32 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
Oscar- Looking forward to your data.
Clif- your Kung fu is better than mine...
Has any one ever collected ROC data for the Pietenpol at MGW with the Ford,
Continental & Corvair? It would be very helpful as far as selecting an
engine & prop..... [Wink]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453386#453386
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Laminating plywood. |
| From: | "Pocono John" <tinmotion(at)yahoo.com> |
I wouldn't use it for anything structural (my opinion as I'm not an engineer).
The 1/8" I use for structural locations is 3 ply in compliance with MIL-P-6070.
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453397#453397
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pilot seat back angle |
| From: | "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks, Jack- that was helpful. 100 fpm is not a fun pace to be... I've been looking
for a C85 for over a month now, and there aren't too many laying around.
I heard that Cloud cars is no longer making props- how unfortunate.
BTW, moving the top of the pilot seat back aft by 2 inches gives you approx seat
angle of 11.5 degrees. This is how I plan to build mine. No doubt the cabanes
will have to come even further after now.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453406#453406
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Dave's Piet Build |
| From: | "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com> |
This is day one of my build. My wood showed up today. I'm building the long fuselage.
I'll post pics here as things progress.
I'm getting ready to cut the vertical struts for the fuselage, and the plans call
for 1 x 7/8 and 1 x 3/4 struts. Looking at pictures of other builds, I could
swear that I see people using 1x1 for some of the struts. Perhaps it is just
an optical illusion.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453408#453408
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/20160303_174934_943.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pilot seat back angle |
| From: | "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82(at)hotmail.com> |
Dave,
http://flycorvair.net/2012/10/17/pietenpol-power-100-hp-corvair-vs-65-hp-lycoming/
--------
Semper Fi,
Terry Hand
Athens, GA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453409#453409
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clif Dawson" <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Pilot seat back angle |
> Clif- your Kung fu is better than mine...
Ah, Grasshopper, that's because it's Qigong. :-)
Clif
Handle every Stressful situation like a dog.
If you can't eat it or play with it,
Piss on it and walk away.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Some recent metalwork from the UK |
| From: | "johnnysdrop" <johnnysdrop(at)googlemail.com> |
All
Attached are some pictures of jury strut brackets I've recently made.
English Johnny
Still building wings.
--------
The only way is UP
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453412#453412
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/jury_strut_brackets_complete_large_258.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/jury_strut_large_brackets_large_151.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/finished_small_jury_strut_bracket_large_450.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Bending aileron pulley brackets |
| From: | "johnnysdrop" <johnnysdrop(at)googlemail.com> |
Hi again all,
I'm trying to bend all the aileron pulley brackets but am not having any success
so need some ideas to help,
I've used a bender but can only make the first bend and have to hammer bend the
second needed which then doesn't have the same radius.
I'll post a picture later, PLEASE HELP!
English Johnny
Still building wings.
--------
The only way is UP
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453413#453413
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douwe(at)douwestudios.com> |
| Subject: | daves piet build |
Hey!
It is getting harder to find C85's as people don't seem to want to part with
them.
0200's however are plentiful and a core is pretty affordable.. I got an
0200 and by simply changing the cam and a few other things, turned it into a
C90. Wanting a shorter nose, I even left the gen and starter on it for
weight and my CG is perfect.
One could easily strip off the heavier stuff and probably not have to slant
your wing back. The piet flies great with a C90. The downside is more fuel
consumption, but chugging along at 2000rpm I burn maybe a gallon per hour
more than a 65.
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dave's Piet Build |
| From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
Dave,
Have fun seeing your fuselage quickly take shape. Building the frame of the fuselage
is the step with the highest degree of "instant gratification" in the whole
project. In a matter of just a few days, you go from a bundle of sticks
to something that looks as though you're actually building an airplane.
No need to beef up anything on the fuselage structure. It's plenty strong, as designed.
Just follow the plans, and everything will be fine.
Actually, on The Last Original, BHP used 7/8" x 1" longerons - with the 1" being
the vertical dimension. Of course, it's only been flying for about 50 years,
so time will tell whether it will hold up.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453422#453422
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bending aileron pulley brackets |
| From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
Johnny,
Going to need to see those photos to determine what your issue is.
>From memory, the aileron pulley brackets are just simple channels - unless the
UK plans have made them more complicated.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453423#453423
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: daves piet build |
| From: | Jack <jack(at)textors.com> |
Hi Dave,
I'm using the C85. Tom Wottreng built it for me. He is an authority on sma
ll Continentals and a great fellow! He has a website now, www.tomwottreng.c
om. He let me assist with my engine assembly which was quite an education.
I have pictures of the build on my dated web, www.textors.com. Good luck wi
th your build.
Jack
Sent from my iPad
Jack Textor
> On Mar 4, 2016, at 8:16 AM, Douwe Blumberg wrote:
>
> Hey!
>
> It is getting harder to find C85=99s as people don=99t seem to
want to part with them.
>
> 0200=99s however are plentiful and a core is pretty affordable
. I got an 0200 and by simply changing the cam and a few other things, t
urned it into a C90. Wanting a shorter nose, I even left the gen and starte
r on it for weight and my CG is perfect.
>
> One could easily strip off the heavier stuff and probably not have to slan
t your wing back. The piet flies great with a C90. The downside is more fu
el consumption, but chugging along at 2000rpm I burn maybe a gallon per hour
more than a 65.
>
> Douwe
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hofmann <jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: daves piet build |
Tom is building up a C-85 for one of our flight school Cubs and just did
one for the Cub I am rebuilding out of Chicago. He does great work and
is fairly priced.
-john-
> On Mar 4, 2016, at 10:05 AM, Jack wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
> I'm using the C85. Tom Wottreng built it for me. He is an authority
on small Continentals and a great fellow! He has a website now,
www.tomwottreng.com <http://www.tomwottreng.com/>. He let me assist
with my engine assembly which was quite an education. I have pictures
of the build on my dated web, www.textors.com <http://www.textors.com/>.
Good luck with your build.
> Jack
>
> Sent from my iPad
> Jack Textor
>
> On Mar 4, 2016, at 8:16 AM, Douwe Blumberg > wrote:
>
>> Hey!
>>
>> It is getting harder to find C85=99s as people don=99t
seem to want to part with them.
>>
>> 0200=99s however are plentiful and a core is pretty
affordable. I got an 0200 and by simply changing the cam and a
few other things, turned it into a C90. Wanting a shorter nose, I even
left the gen and starter on it for weight and my CG is perfect.
>>
>> One could easily strip off the heavier stuff and probably not have to
slant your wing back. The piet flies great with a C90. The downside is
more fuel consumption, but chugging along at 2000rpm I burn maybe a
gallon per hour more than a 65.
>>
>> Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: daves piet build |
| From: | "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com> |
Douwe- Thanks. I'm going to keep it a hand-prop, as that is what I am used to and
really need the weight savings. I'll bet your plane can really climb..
Really like your plane- a pic of it hangs above my workbench.
Jack & John- thanks for the reference. I have been talking to Don at Don's Dream
Machines and he may end up doing my engine if I don't do it myself. He offered
me a nice deal on an A-65 but I've decided C85 or larger.
David
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453429#453429
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dave's Piet Build |
| From: | "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks Bill
It was exciting to lay out the longhorns yesterday. BTW, I can't believe what Sitka
Spruce costs these days... the truck showed up with my wood order and I kept
telling him " there has to be another box in there"... [Wink]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453430#453430
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Some recent metalwork from the UK |
| From: | Tony Crawford <tonyp51qa(at)gmail.com> |
Hello,
Would you consider making more of these and selling them. I'm VERY
interested and can think of 2 more Piet builders that would be interested
as well.
Tony
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 6:31 AM, johnnysdrop
wrote:
> johnnysdrop(at)googlemail.com>
>
> All
> Attached are some pictures of jury strut brackets I've recently made.
> English Johnny
> Still building wings.
>
> --------
> The only way is UP
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453412#453412
>
>
> Attachments:
>
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/jury_strut_brackets_complete_large_258.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/jury_strut_large_brackets_large_151.jpg
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/finished_small_jury_strut_bracket_large_450.jpg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: welding 4130 hinges |
| From: | "danoliver" <danoliver909(at)gmail.com> |
I've tried RG45 and ER70S-2 rods. Used Victor # 00, 0, and 1 tips. I even followed
Bingelis's advice about not letting my dog wag his tail. All with the same
result - nice looking but easily broken welds. I'll try some more this Sunday
with your advice in mind. Thanks.
--------
Dan O
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453438#453438
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ray Krause <raykrause(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pilot seat back angle |
Cliff,
I love it! As I get older, it makes more and more sense!
Ray Krause
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 4, 2016, at 12:19 AM, Clif Dawson wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> Clif- your Kung fu is better than mine...
>
> Ah, Grasshopper, that's because it's Qigong. :-)
>
> Clif
> Handle every Stressful situation like a dog.
> If you can't eat it or play with it,
> Piss on it and walk away.
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douwe(at)douwestudios.com> |
Tom Wottreng built my C90 and is an awesome engine builder and all-around
nice guy to do business with, and now a friend. And he really knows Piets
and what engines they like.
No reason one can't have a C90 without a starter. Just sayin'
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack <jack(at)textors.com> |
Agreed Douwe!
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 5, 2016, at 3:59 PM, Douwe Blumberg wrote:
>
> Tom Wottreng built my C90 and is an awesome engine builder and all-around
nice guy to do business with, and now a friend. And he really knows Piets a
nd what engines they like.
>
> No reason one can=99t have a C90 without a starter. Just sayin
=99
>
> Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "taildrags" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Checking the specs for the stock C90, it shows 7:1 compression ratio, so propping
it shouldn't be much different from the 65 or 75.
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453449#453449
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clif Dawson" <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
Mine is easy on the Chief.
At least it was last time I got to fly!
Rain,rain,wind.
Rain, wind.
I forgot! Did I mention rain?
Clif
Worry gives a small thing a big shadow.
Swedish proverb
>
> Checking the specs for the stock C90, it shows 7:1 compression ratio, so
> propping it shouldn't be much different from the 65 or 75.
> Oscar Zuniga
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pilot seat back angle |
| From: | "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks Terry..
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453516#453516
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Burkholder <born2fly(at)abcmailbox.net> |
have over a hundred hours in a Piper PA-11 with a C-90, all started by
solo handprop. Easiest engine I have propped too.
On 3/5/2016 4:59 PM, Douwe Blumberg wrote:
>
> Tom Wottreng built my C90 and is an awesome engine builder and
> all-around nice guy to do business with, and now a friend. And he
> really knows Piets and what engines they like.
>
> No reason one cant have a C90 without a starter. Just sayin
>
> Douwe
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
>
--
Charles Burkholder
Visit my blog @ http://missionmechfund.blogspot.ca/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: welding 4130 hinges |
| From: | "womenfly2" <Love2Fly.KAP(at)gmail.com> |
Just watch these videos and some others that relate to gas welding 4130 tubing
for a start ... Gas welding the Legal Eagle Ultralight #1 of 6.
Then go an practice, practice and practice some more.
WF2
--------
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453565#453565
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tony Crawford <tonyp51qa(at)gmail.com> |
Hello,
This is Anthony (Tony) Crawford, and I was wondering if you had received my
check for you book the Oscar was talking about??
Tony
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Donald A Mosher
wrote:
> andrea (andrea(at)modelberg.it) speaking about wooden landing gear and shock
> cords asked "how many loops and what cross section are you guys using?"
> That info was not included in the Air Camper plans
> in the 1932 Flying Manual.
>
> However Bernard wrote on page 34 of the 1933 issue of the Flying Manual,
> the one detailing building of the Sky Scout - "we had better put on some
> safety device to keep the ship from dropping to the ground if the shock
> cord breaks, since it seems that everybody has trouble wrapping shock cord.
> Here is the method we use: First, cut a piece of leather to fit around the
> bottom of the landing gear vee, and lace it on with lace leather. Now take
> 6 ft. of 1/2" shock cord and have someone hold it about half way up on the
> outside of the front landing gear strut. Take the other end and pass it
> under the landing gear vee, over the axle, under the landing gear, over the
> axle, under the vee on the inside of the first wrap, over the axle on the
> outside of the first wrap and under the vee on the inside of the last wrap
> until you have three wraps pulled quite tight."
>
> "The cord should be just long enough to make a good square knot and to
> permit taping of the ends. This method makes each wrap about the same
> length and you will not have any trouble with your shock cord cutting. The
> landing gear should give not over one inch with a full load in the ship,
> but neither should it be any tighter."
>
> I know that this method is in the Sky Scout construction write up, but
> Bernard advised people to have both the 1932 and the 1933 Flying Manuals to
> cover everything.
>
> The 1933 Flying Manual also says on page 30: "I wish to call attention to
> the brace right back of the bottom beam. This was changed from the plans of
> the Air Camper, and I advise all of you who have not built up your wing
> ribs to build them this way." So the Air Camper ribs in the 1934 Flying
> Manual had an erroneous brace position shown which was corrected in the
> 1933 Sky Scout Flying Manual.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | cessna7226g(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: welding 4130 hinges |
Where can I find these videos on gas welding?
Joe R
-----Original Message-----
From: womenfly2 <Love2Fly.KAP(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, Mar 8, 2016 11:47 am
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: welding 4130 hinges
Just watch these videos and some others that relate to gas welding 4130 tubing
for a start ... Gas welding the Legal Eagle Ultralight #1 of 6.
Then go an practice, practice and practice some more.
WF2
--------
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453565#453565
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clif Dawson" <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: welding 4130 hinges |
https://www.google.ca/search?q=Gas+welding+the+Legal+Eagle+Ultralight+%
231+of+6&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=S5rfVr3MN8TMjwPG-aLgCA
Clif
1. There are two kinds of people in this world:
1)Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Where can I find these videos on gas welding?
Joe R
Just watch these videos and some others that relate to gas welding
4130 tubing for a start ... Gas welding the Legal Eagle Ultralight #1 of
6.
WF2
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pauls Piet Build |
| From: | "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com> |
That is some very nice craftsmanship... I'm curious- what engine do you plan on
running? The wood fairings on the cabanes is something I have not seen before-
could you post more pictures of your process with those? I really like them.
David
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453605#453605
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pauls Piet Build |
| From: | "AircamperN11MS" <Scott.liefeld(at)lacity.org> |
I like it. Can't wait to see more. It reminds me of the Corbin Ace I like so
much. Do the red seat belts give away your interior color choice? The old outrigger
landing gear would look really cool too. Or tall thin tires with large
wheel pants like the old racers had. You opened up a whole bunch of ideas.
Just amazing Paul.
--------
Scott Liefeld
Flying N11MS since March 1972
Steel Tube
C-85-12
Wire Wheels
Brodhead in 1996
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453607#453607
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Boatright, Jeffrey" <jeffboatright(at)emory.edu> |
| Subject: | Dick Navratil BPA Newsletter |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack <jack(at)textors.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dick Navratil BPA Newsletter |
Jeff was the newsletter via email or mail I have not received it. Would cert
ainly like to get it ASAP John if you can please email, thanks so much bye.
Jack
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 9, 2016, at 3:51 PM, Boatright, Jeffrey w
rote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> Great issue of the BPA Newsletter, and fine tribute to Dick.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
> This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
> the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
> information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
> or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
> prohibited.
>
> If you have received this message in error, please contact
> the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
> original message (including attachments).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Abernathy <avionixoz(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: welding 4130 hinges |
I see that you are able to weld other steel with no problem. Are you. Using 4130
rod on the other steel?
I ask this because it is possible to get bad metal.Or bad rod.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ray Krause <raykrause(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pauls Piet Build |
The woodwork is just absolutely amazing! Wish I had the skills and patience that
Paul has. I really like the cabane struts and the wide center section, very
"rakish" , speedy looking. Thanks for sharing,
Ray Krause
Building a SkyScout
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 9, 2016, at 1:51 PM, AircamperN11MS wrote:
>
>
> I like it. Can't wait to see more. It reminds me of the Corbin Ace I like so
much. Do the red seat belts give away your interior color choice? The old
outrigger landing gear would look really cool too. Or tall thin tires with large
wheel pants like the old racers had. You opened up a whole bunch of ideas.
>
> Just amazing Paul.
>
> --------
> Scott Liefeld
> Flying N11MS since March 1972
> Steel Tube
> C-85-12
> Wire Wheels
> Brodhead in 1996
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453607#453607
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ray Krause <raykrause(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dick Navratil BPA Newsletter |
John,
Did you ever find out if my subscription is still in effect? Receiving it vi
a email would be just fine,
Thanks,
Ray Krause
843 Jay Street
Colusa, CA 95932
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 9, 2016, at 1:51 PM, Boatright, Jeffrey w
rote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> Great issue of the BPA Newsletter, and fine tribute to Dick.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
> This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
> the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
> information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
> or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
> prohibited.
>
> If you have received this message in error, please contact
> the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
> original message (including attachments).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Boatright, Jeffrey" <jeffboatright(at)emory.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Dick Navratil BPA Newsletter |
Mail
=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97
=97=97=97=97
Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD, FARVO
Professor of Ophthalmology
Emory University School of Medicine
Sent from an iPad with a spelling problem
On Mar 9, 2016, at 5:21 PM, "Jack" > wrote:
Jeff was the newsletter via email or mail I have not received it. Would cer
tainly like to get it ASAP John if you can please email, thanks so much bye
.
Jack
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 9, 2016, at 3:51 PM, Boatright, Jeffrey > wrote:
Hi John,
Great issue of the BPA Newsletter, and fine tribute to Dick.
Thanks,
Jeff
________________________________
This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pauls Piet Build |
| From: | "Dave'sPiet" <helicfii(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks for posting the fairing pics!
Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453627#453627
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dick Navratil BPA Newsletter |
| From: | Amsafetyc <amsafetyc(at)aol.com> |
I've not received anything in a very long time. I asked about my membership a
nd received no reply. Please advise
I would like to read the tribute also
Thanks
John Recine
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 10, 2016, at 2:58 AM, "Boatright, Jeffrey" wrote:
>
> Mail
>
> =94=94=94=94=94=94=94=94
=94=94=94=94=94=94=94=94=94
=94=94=94=94=94=94=94=94
=94=94=94=94
> Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD, FARVO
> Professor of Ophthalmology
> Emory University School of Medicine
> Sent from an iPad with a spelling problem
>
> On Mar 9, 2016, at 5:21 PM, "Jack" wrote:
>
>> Jeff was the newsletter via email or mail I have not received it. Would c
ertainly like to get it ASAP John if you can please email, thanks so much by
e.
>> Jack
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Mar 9, 2016, at 3:51 PM, Boatright, Jeffrey w
rote:
>>
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>> Great issue of the BPA Newsletter, and fine tribute to Dick.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
>>> the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
>>> information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
>>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
>>> or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
>>> prohibited.
>>>
>>> If you have received this message in error, please contact
>>> the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
>>> original message (including attachments).
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dick Navratil BPA Newsletter |
| From: | "Bill Church" <billspiet(at)sympatico.ca> |
The latest edition of the newsletter obviously is now in the hands of the postal
service. Hurry up and wait, everybody. I expect that everybody should have
their copies within a couple of weeks.
I received my copy last week - but I'm special.
By "special", I mean that my subscription is the Canadian version, which costs
an extra $2 per year, because it cannot be sent via bulk mail, and must be sent
first class airmail. As a result, I also usually receive my copy before most.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453633#453633
________________________________________________________________________________
January 20, 2016 - March 10, 2016
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-pe