Pietenpol-List Digest Archive

Sun 12/22/02


Total Messages Posted: 7



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
    Time: 07:13:38 AM PST US
    From: Les Schubert <leskarin@telus.net>
    Subject: 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 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
    Time: 07:55:40 AM PST US
    From: "Ken" <av8or@citizen.infi.net>
    Subject: new member
    --> 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
    Time: 10:12:14 AM PST US
    From: "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips@earthlink.net>
    Subject: 2002 EAA plate
    --> 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
    Time: 11:37:08 AM PST US
    From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@charter.net>
    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
    Time: 11:38:10 AM PST US
    From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@charter.net>
    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
    Time: 07:19:23 PM PST US
    From: "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979@naples.net>
    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
    Time: 08:02:14 PM PST US
    From: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
    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

  • Post A New Message
  •   pietenpol-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm
  • Full Archive Search Engine
  •   http://www.matronics.com/search
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/pietenpol-list
  • Browse Pietenpol-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contributions

    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! --