Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:13 AM - new member (Les Schubert)
2. 07:55 AM - Re: new member (Ken)
3. 10:12 AM - Re: 2002 EAA plate (Jack Phillips)
4. 11:37 AM - Re: Landing gear reinforcement straps (Christian Bobka)
5. 11:38 AM - Shirts available (Christian Bobka)
6. 07:19 PM - Bell crank location (Ted Brousseau)
7. 08:02 PM - Re: Landing gear reinforcement straps (Gene Rambo)
Message 1
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Les Schubert <leskarin@telus.net>
After 30 years of playing with old cars the airplane bug has bitten. I have
done a lot of work with model t engines including several A-cranked
pressure oiled and much modified T engines. My experience is I can get more
power and reliability with less weight from this combination. Has anyone
else besides Chris Eggsgard ever done this, About 10 years ago I so his Sky
Scout at a T tour and I understand he flew it a lot including Oshkosh.
Another question, I weigh 230 lbs and am 6'4" tall so it seems to me that
building it as a single place is the answer, the problem is my wife is 5'2"
and also wants to fly, any suggestions on adjustable seat/controls would be
most appreciated as well as recommendations on the right set up for a
single place. I read where it is suggested to raise the back of the
fuselage to accommodate shoulder harness and this makes real sense to me. I
live in Calgary Alberta and would be pleased to meet with any other Piet
people in the area to learn from them.
Les
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Ken" <av8or@citizen.infi.net>
Why don't you just build one for each.
Ken
av8or@citizen.infi.net
kring@mountainviewdogs.com
kring@irisweb.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Les
Schubert
Subject: Pietenpol-List: new member
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Les Schubert <leskarin@telus.net>
After 30 years of playing with old cars the airplane bug has bitten. I have
done a lot of work with model t engines including several A-cranked
pressure oiled and much modified T engines. My experience is I can get more
power and reliability with less weight from this combination. Has anyone
else besides Chris Eggsgard ever done this, About 10 years ago I so his Sky
Scout at a T tour and I understand he flew it a lot including Oshkosh.
Another question, I weigh 230 lbs and am 6'4" tall so it seems to me that
building it as a single place is the answer, the problem is my wife is 5'2"
and also wants to fly, any suggestions on adjustable seat/controls would be
most appreciated as well as recommendations on the right set up for a
single place. I read where it is suggested to raise the back of the
fuselage to accommodate shoulder harness and this makes real sense to me. I
live in Calgary Alberta and would be pleased to meet with any other Piet
people in the area to learn from them.
Les
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips@earthlink.net>
I just returned from a weekend at Kittyhawk (reserving a beach house for
next year) and found that Wilbur DID crash the airplane on the first
attempt, on December 14th. It took them two days to repair and get ready
for the first successful attempt on the 17th. Winds that day were 29 knots!
I can think of better weather to make my first flight, but they had promised
their sister they would be home for Christmas, so they tried it, made four
flights with the fourth resulting in substantial damage to the airframe. It
required at least 15 knots of wind to enable them to take off on the short
piece of track that they used for a runway.
There are a number of people who could claim first flight status, however
few if any performed the detailed research and analysis that made the
Wright's work so remarkable.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard L.
Dery
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 2002 EAA plate
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Richard L. Dery"
<dickdery@teleport.com>
clif wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: clif <cdawson5854@shaw.ca>
>
> What if that AC had crashed on that day?
> This is an extremely likely outcome of
> such a flight.
>
I visited Kill Devil Hill about 25 years ago. There were historical
markers that indicated that the Wright Brothers made four flights that
day, and the plane did crash at the conclusion of the fourth flight.
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Landing gear reinforcement straps |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@charter.net>
Gene,
The mechanical engineers say here on the piet list that the one piece wing
really does not need the cabanes at all except to stabilize the wing when
the spars are in compression much like the jury struts stablize the wing
struts. The wing area outboard of the wing struts is equal to the area
inboard so the up lift outboard causes the inboard to deflect down but this
is countered by the inboard lift force up which is countered by....well you
know the rest.
Look at the wing as a column. If you pull G's, then the straps are trying
to move closer to the cabane/wing joint, putting the fuselage sides and the
cabanes in compression. Obviously with the increased G's, the wing is
lifting that much harder and the fuselage weight is pulling down away from
the cabane/wing joint. The wing strut attach points at the wing are trying
to move toward one another putting the wing spars between the wing strut
attach fittings, wing to wing, in compression. The wing section is fairly
thin and the 20:1 max slenderness ratio rule comes into play. The spars
become axially loaded columns with a deflection.
Think of your leg in a cast vs. having a flexible knee joint. A column with
a pinned joint half way along its length has to behave substantially
different from a solid column with no joint, especially when it is being
deflected.
The pinned joint on the multiple piece wing changes things, right?
Amateur engineer still learning,
chris bobka
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Hubbard,
Eugene
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Landing gear reinforcement straps
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard@titan.com>
Chris,
I don't see that the one-piece wing can possibly be stiff enough to affect
the cabane and lift strut loading ratios. My reasoning is that I have no
doubt that I could, with hand pressure, flex the one-piece wing with the
cabane struts removed such that the distance between atatch points changes
measurably. This is really a crude way of establishing a Young's modulus of
maybe a few hundred to a thousand pounds per inch of displacement.
Similarly, I cannot imagine, under any circumstances, changing the length of
the cabane struts in a similar way. This strongly suggests that any force
on the cabane attach points will be taken up by the struts long before the
stiffness of the wing itself becomes a factor, and that attach point
stresses should be nearly identical between one and three-piece wings.
I totally agree with your other comments though, that the bottom of the
fuselage is always in tension, and that force on the cabanes, whether
tension or compression, is minimal.
Gene Hubbard
San Diego
_
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Shirts available |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@charter.net>
Guys,
I saw a really nice piet shirt on ebay and it turns out it is one of the
locals from Brodhead selling them. Below is some correspondence I received
from him. Contact him directly if you want one (or more). The graphics are
wonderful. Maybe you can ask for a picture if you are interested.
Chris,
Shipping 3 shirts would be about 5 bucks. I'd sell three for $40. The
shirts are white 100% cotton Hanes shirts. Because they are all cotton,
they will shrink a bit. The front art is a small rectangle, about 3.5
inches wide and 2 inches high with PIETENPOL AIRPLANES in red, blue and
black that matches the back lettering. I'm at work right now, when I get
home, I'll send you a picture of the front if you'd like.
I was at Grassroots and had a few shirts with me, but I didn't want to set
up a table and sell Pietenpol stuff at the MAAC fly-in and step on any toes
of the MAAC people. If you were there, or at Blakesburg, you probably saw
my dad's Rearwin Sportster.
Let me know if you want any shirts. I have several left and I also have the
other Pietenpol type with the different artwork.
Where are you from?
Bill Weeden
billrobin@brodnet.com
>
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Bell crank location |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979@naples.net>
Anyone know of a reason why the elevator bell crank couldn't be located on
the front of the upright instead of the rear?
Happy holidays.
Ted Brousseau
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Landing gear reinforcement straps |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
I won't get into the total of the conversation, but the cabane struts are
required for more than is suggested here. The "roll wires" which keep the
top wing from moving left and right in relation to the fuselage must have
something to pull against, i.e. the cabanes.
Gene Rambo
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Bobka <bobka@charter.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Landing gear reinforcement straps
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka"
<bobka@charter.net>
>
> Gene,
>
> The mechanical engineers say here on the piet list that the one piece wing
> really does not need the cabanes at all except to stabilize the wing when
> the spars are in compression much like the jury struts stablize the wing
> struts. The wing area outboard of the wing struts is equal to the area
> inboard so the up lift outboard causes the inboard to deflect down but
this
> is countered by the inboard lift force up which is countered by....well
you
> know the rest.
>
> Look at the wing as a column. If you pull G's, then the straps are trying
> to move closer to the cabane/wing joint, putting the fuselage sides and
the
> cabanes in compression. Obviously with the increased G's, the wing is
> lifting that much harder and the fuselage weight is pulling down away from
> the cabane/wing joint. The wing strut attach points at the wing are
trying
> to move toward one another putting the wing spars between the wing strut
> attach fittings, wing to wing, in compression. The wing section is fairly
> thin and the 20:1 max slenderness ratio rule comes into play. The spars
> become axially loaded columns with a deflection.
>
> Think of your leg in a cast vs. having a flexible knee joint. A column
with
> a pinned joint half way along its length has to behave substantially
> different from a solid column with no joint, especially when it is being
> deflected.
>
> The pinned joint on the multiple piece wing changes things, right?
>
> Amateur engineer still learning,
>
> chris bobka
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Hubbard,
> Eugene
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Landing gear reinforcement straps
>
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hubbard, Eugene"
<ehubbard@titan.com>
>
> Chris,
>
> I don't see that the one-piece wing can possibly be stiff enough to affect
> the cabane and lift strut loading ratios. My reasoning is that I have no
> doubt that I could, with hand pressure, flex the one-piece wing with the
> cabane struts removed such that the distance between atatch points changes
> measurably. This is really a crude way of establishing a Young's modulus
of
> maybe a few hundred to a thousand pounds per inch of displacement.
> Similarly, I cannot imagine, under any circumstances, changing the length
of
> the cabane struts in a similar way. This strongly suggests that any force
> on the cabane attach points will be taken up by the struts long before the
> stiffness of the wing itself becomes a factor, and that attach point
> stresses should be nearly identical between one and three-piece wings.
>
> I totally agree with your other comments though, that the bottom of the
> fuselage is always in tension, and that force on the cabanes, whether
> tension or compression, is minimal.
>
> Gene Hubbard
> San Diego
>
>
> _
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|