Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 09:48 AM - mocycle tire pressure (Michael D Cuy)
2. 10:26 AM - trim sketches are ON-line.......please read (Michael D Cuy)
3. 10:58 AM - Re: question for the guys with skinny wheels (Gadd, Skip)
4. 11:00 AM - Mike's Piet Video (Carl Loar)
5. 12:38 PM - Re: Mike's Piet Video (walter evans)
6. 01:16 PM - Re: question for the guys with skinny wheels (walter evans)
7. 01:19 PM - Re: mocycle tire pressure (John Dilatush)
8. 04:15 PM - Wood fuse. vs. tube fuse. (Larry Groulx)
9. 04:47 PM - Re: Wood fuse. vs. tube fuse. (Owen Davies)
10. 05:54 PM - Re: Wood fuse. vs. tube fuse. (Graham Hansen)
11. 07:30 PM - Pietenpol Peanut scale, 13" WS. (TWINBOOM)
12. 08:29 PM - Re: Wood fuse. vs. tube fuse. (Alex Sloan)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | mocycle tire pressure |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Walt---I run about 17 to 21 lbs. as I recall on my skinny tires. You are
right----the guy at the motorcycle shop
told me to beware of this on landing on pavement with the
spin-up. Luckily we touch down at a pretty low speed, but
this can be a problem. I eyeball the tire on the hangar floor too to see
that all the tread is touching, but not any more than that.
(ie, too much side bulge not good.....too little, hard landings:)
Mike C.
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 |
|
| Subject: | trim sketches are ON-line.......please read |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Les, group-----Go to Carl Loar's web site here for some of our sketches
that he kindly posted.......
http://cvl.virtualave.net/mikedraw.htm
I see no need for a counterbalance on the elevator system and if you
position the wing right for your particular engine/body weight/fuel tank
location a trim system isn't really necessary. It it helpful though in a
case like mine where my 17 gallons of fuel is in the nose and as it burns
off I use a bit of nose-down trim. If I would just loose some weight that
would not even be needed.
Info about the video I offer is in the Brodhead Pietenpol Association
Newsletter-----see this web site for subscription info,
http://www.pietenpol.org/ or here
http://users.aol.com/bpabpabpa/cuyvideo.html, only difference is that
Priority Mail shipping is not $3 but $4 now.
Mike C.
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 |
|
| Subject: | question for the guys with skinny wheels |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gadd, Skip" <Skip.Gadd@ssa.gov>
Walt,
The eyeball engineer in me says you should not have the spun tire problem
with large rims, here is my thinking.
A 21" rim has 2 beads of 65.97" so over 130" of friction between rubber and
rim.
The distance between the rim and pavement in my 21" tires is 5", so you have
a 5" lever trying to rotate the tire on the rim and 130" of friction trying
to stop the rotation.
A 4" Cub tire has 2 beads 12.56" so less than 26" of friction and the lever
is about 8" long.
Seems to me the spun tire problem would be much less with the large rims
with small tires on them.
Skip, Still turning my aluminum hubs.
-----Original Message-----
> For all of you flying with skinny wheels,,,,,,used to fly my Fisher 404
(with standard small wheels) with soft tires cause I didn't have brakes.
One day on landing, I spun the tire on the tube and got a flat cause it tore
the stem.
> My question is,,,has anyone with skinny wheels had problem with tires
spinning on tubes? or flats? This came to mind once when I landed on the
pavement and heard a chirp.
>walt
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: | Mike's Piet Video |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Carl Loar" <skycarl@megsinet.net>
To our "for what it's worth dept"... I can't stress enough the help that
Mike's video can help
while building the aircamper. Talking about different phases of building on
here is great but
when you can put something visual with it really helps. Another great help
is seeing some of
the building photo's that are on mykitplane.com. Plus we have the archives
of this list.
You may not use the same exact technique that Mike and the rest of us used
but it will give
you a great foundation to build on your own method. They are tools that are
just as important
as your torches, grinders, hammers and saws.
Carl
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: | Re: Mike's Piet Video |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "walter evans" <wbeevans@worldnet.att.net>
Carl,
I second that!!! As a matter of fact I was watching parts of it just
yesterday.
When I was in the building stages, didn't get too much into the flying
scenes, only to oogle at them. Yesterday I got alot out of the same scenes
cause I'm flying now and wanting to compare performance.
No one will ever regret getting this tape. A keeper!
walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Loar" <skycarl@megsinet.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Mike's Piet Video
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Carl Loar" <skycarl@megsinet.net>
>
> To our "for what it's worth dept"... I can't stress enough the help that
> Mike's video can help
> while building the aircamper. Talking about different phases of building
on
> here is great but
> when you can put something visual with it really helps. Another great help
> is seeing some of
> the building photo's that are on mykitplane.com. Plus we have the archives
> of this list.
> You may not use the same exact technique that Mike and the rest of us used
> but it will give
> you a great foundation to build on your own method. They are tools that
are
> just as important
> as your torches, grinders, hammers and saws.
> Carl
>
>
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: | Re: question for the guys with skinny wheels |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "walter evans" <wbeevans@worldnet.att.net>
Ken,
Here is the W&B for the worst case . I had made four of these with/without
pass, and fuel /no fuel in either tank. But the problem in Piets are for
rear CG, so that's what I had to watch. This is for only pilot with only 4
gals in the nose tank.
Not noted on the prog sheet is that with everything level, the leading edge
is 49" from datum ( prop hub snout.)
Also that block on the right seemed to have a mind of it's own with the tank
data, don't know if that's accurate.
It was the nose tank that saved me CG wise.
Just remember, you don't really move the wing back,,,you move the fuselage
forward.
walt
ps assuming you have excel, you should be able to plug in your own numbers
to this if you want.
----- Original Message -----
From: "walter evans" <wbeevans@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: question for the guys with skinny wheels
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "walter evans"
<wbeevans@worldnet.att.net>
>
> Ken,
> Was just snoozing on the couch, and a little groggy. But here goes,,,my
> weight and bal came out about 2 3/4" too far aft. Moved the wing back,
and
> just got it in. got thru DAR inspection and now flying with about 3.5
hours
> on it. I had moved the engine mount about 1 3/4" fwd with an A-65, and I
> weigh 210/220#,,,,,,,,,With almost full nose tank, flies hands off/ a
little
> fwd stick with half nose tank. remind me tomorrow and I'll send you the
> final results in EXCEL on what the #'s were.
> walt
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Wizzard187@aol.com>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: question for the guys with skinny wheels
>
>
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Wizzard187@aol.com
> >
> > Walt Evans, In one of your message some time ago you mentioned that
you
> > moved you wing back 3 inches to get the weight and balance right. I
just
> > ran a quick wt and bal and have the same problem. If you can
remember,
> > at what percent of the wing cord did you end up with and how does it
fly?
> > In Iowa with no snow Ken Conrad
> >
> >
>
>
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: mocycle tire pressure |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "John Dilatush" <dilatush@amigo.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: mocycle tire pressure
+++++++++++++++++
Mike,
I run 45 lbs of pressure in my 3.5 x 18" tires. Is this the reason that
most of my landings are hard? ( I am looking for any excuse)
John ++++++++++++++++++++
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
<Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
>
> Walt---I run about 17 to 21 lbs. as I recall on my skinny tires. You are
> right----the guy at the motorcycle shop
> told me to beware of this on landing on pavement with the
> spin-up. Luckily we touch down at a pretty low speed, but
> this can be a problem. I eyeball the tire on the hangar floor too to see
> that all the tread is touching, but not any more than that.
> (ie, too much side bulge not good.....too little, hard landings:)
>
> Mike C.
>
>
Message 8
| 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: | Wood fuse. vs. tube fuse. |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Larry Groulx <lgroulx@shaw.ca>
Hi,
What is the weight difference between the complete wood fuselage vs.
complete tube fuselage?
Thanks
Larry
Message 9
| 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: Wood fuse. vs. tube fuse. |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Owen Davies" <owen5819@adelphia.net>
Larry Groulx asked:
> What is the weight difference between the complete wood fuselage vs.
> complete tube fuselage?
The steel is lighter, but I'm not sure how much lighter. The figure I've
heard was 35 to 40 pounds, but that seems like an awful lot to save from one
fuselage.
In any case, the wood Piet flies well enough so that your choice is probably
as much aesthetic as anything. A Piet doesn't seem like a Piet to me unless
it's wood, even though the design is also from Mr. Pietenpol himself.
Despite which, mine is likely to be steel tube. I really enjoy welding, and
the other planes I want to build are all steel tube designs. So it goes.
Owen Davies
Message 10
| 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: Wood fuse. vs. tube fuse. |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Graham Hansen" <grhans@cable-lynx.net>
Larry,
In 1970 I built a Pietenpol with a wooden fuselage whch I'm still flying.
Then,
about five years later I built a steel tube fuselage based on the Pietenpol
plans. I increased the size of some members, particularly in the cockpit
area.
I'm not sure of the numbers anymore, but the weight of the basic frame with-
out fittings was approximately 35 lbs. By the time I added seat supports,
fittings, fairing clips, front pit door structure, etc. it had increased
noticeably. However, I believe it was still below the weight of the wooden
fuselage. How
much I cannot say.
This airplane had steel tubing tail surfaces which were a bit heavier than
the
wooden ones. I sold the project and it was finished and became a good-
flying Pietenpol with an A65, although its empty weight wound up at about
660 lbs.(solid, not routed, wing spars made it heavier). I would recommend
that one should stick with the wooden tail surfaces even with a steel
fuselage; they are about as light as it is possible to make them.
Weight savings of 35 to 40 lbs. from using the steel tubing fuselage seem
too
high because we are talking about the frame only. While I didn't weigh it,
my
basic wood frame fuselage wasn't very heavy either. (Framing was spruce and
I used marine quality 1/8" ply for the sides together with 1/4" marine fir
ply for the floor. Gussets were 1/8" aircraft birch ply.)
Does anyone out there have the numbers for the basic wood frame?
Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN)
Message 11
| 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: | Pietenpol Peanut scale, 13" WS. |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "TWINBOOM" <TWINBOOM@msn.com>
Hey gents,
The model goes to Bob Humbert in Michigan. If anyone is intrested, they can
be found at the following web address, http://www.peck-polymers.com/html/peanuts.htm#peanuts
. They are very affordable, and look like a lot of fun to build
and fly. Bob, it will be in the mail tommorrow, Friday afternoon. Have fun!!!!!
Doug Blackburn
P.S. I am not affiliated with Peck-Polymers in any way. Bob was looking, and I
was cleaning out the shop after moving in to a new place. Do Not Archive
Doug/Elizabeth Blackburn
Yucaipa California
Inland Slope Rebels, Riverside Ca. http://inlandsloperebels.com
Message 12
| 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: Wood fuse. vs. tube fuse. |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1@bellsouth.net>
Graham,
I have my basic fuselage glued together. Both sides, floor and side walls.
I will try to remember to weigh it next time I go to the work shop.
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Graham Hansen" <grhans@cable-lynx.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wood fuse. vs. tube fuse.
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Graham Hansen"
<grhans@cable-lynx.net>
>
> Larry,
>
> In 1970 I built a Pietenpol with a wooden fuselage whch I'm still flying.
> Then,
> about five years later I built a steel tube fuselage based on the
Pietenpol
> plans. I increased the size of some members, particularly in the cockpit
> area.
>
> I'm not sure of the numbers anymore, but the weight of the basic frame
with-
> out fittings was approximately 35 lbs. By the time I added seat supports,
> fittings, fairing clips, front pit door structure, etc. it had increased
> noticeably. However, I believe it was still below the weight of the wooden
> fuselage. How
> much I cannot say.
>
> This airplane had steel tubing tail surfaces which were a bit heavier than
> the
> wooden ones. I sold the project and it was finished and became a good-
> flying Pietenpol with an A65, although its empty weight wound up at about
> 660 lbs.(solid, not routed, wing spars made it heavier). I would recommend
> that one should stick with the wooden tail surfaces even with a steel
> fuselage; they are about as light as it is possible to make them.
>
> Weight savings of 35 to 40 lbs. from using the steel tubing fuselage seem
> too
> high because we are talking about the frame only. While I didn't weigh it,
> my
> basic wood frame fuselage wasn't very heavy either. (Framing was spruce
and
> I used marine quality 1/8" ply for the sides together with 1/4" marine fir
> ply for the floor. Gussets were 1/8" aircraft birch ply.)
>
> Does anyone out there have the numbers for the basic wood frame?
>
> Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN)
>
>
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! --
|