---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 05/18/03: 5 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 04:12 AM - Re: cabane struts (Jack Phillips) 2. 07:25 AM - Re: cabane struts (John Dilatush) 3. 07:27 AM - Re: cabane struts (Gene Rambo) 4. 01:36 PM - Re: Brodhead (Jon Botsford) 5. 04:43 PM - Re: cabane struts (Waytogopiet@aol.com) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 04:12:46 AM PST US From: "Jack Phillips" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: cabane struts --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jack Phillips" Gene, I made mine 2-1/2" longer than plans and to me, they seem about right. There is sufficient room under the wing to allow reasonable access to both cockpits (I'm 6'2" tall). I have added steps to both cockpits and a circular cutout in the trailing edge. Front cockpit is still a little difficult to get in and out of. But as for the "correct" length, there is no such animal, IMHO. I'll bet if you went to OSH and measured the struts of the two BHP-built Piets there, you would find they had different lengths. Jack -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gene Rambo Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: cabane struts --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene Rambo" Before I put saw to streamline tubing I just want to confirm the proper length for the cabane struts. I thought that the conventional wisdom is to lengthen them 2" from the drawings, but someone recently mentioned lengthening them 3" or 4". I have also heard someone mention that there is a maximum that should not be exceeded. What are the proper numbers?? Gene ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 07:25:12 AM PST US From: "John Dilatush" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: cabane struts --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "John Dilatush" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gene Rambo" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: cabane struts +++++++++++++++++++++ Gene, I think that I read in one of the old BPA newsletters that Mr. Pietenpol raised his wing 4" on one of the last Corvair powered planes that he built. He later commented that this was too much. I raised mine only 1", and since the thrust line of the prop has been raised about 4 inches due to the reduction unit, the overall effect was very little trim change with varied throttle settings. Except for some arthritis, (getting old, you know) getting in and out is no problem. John ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene Rambo" > > Before I put saw to streamline tubing I just want to confirm the proper > length for the cabane struts. I thought that the conventional wisdom is to > lengthen them 2" from the drawings, but someone recently mentioned > lengthening them 3" or 4". I have also heard someone mention that there is > a maximum that should not be exceeded. What are the proper numbers?? > > Gene > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 07:27:19 AM PST US From: "Gene Rambo" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: cabane struts --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene Rambo" Thanks everyone that have responded, I'm still interested to hear from more of you. I am 6'1", so I want all the room I can get without messing up the appearance. I still think I remember some mention of an upper limit for some structural or aerodynamic reason. I happen to have two pieces of streamline tubing the right size, and they are 48" long. If I cut them so that one is 1" longer than the other, they will turn out to be 24 1/2" and 23 1/2" long. Giving the proper edge distance from the bolt holes that would make them 24 1/8" and 23 1/8" between bolt holes (which I'll probably make an even 24 and 23) Soooooo they'll be 2 1/2" longer than the plans. Enough to help without hurting the appearance?? Gene ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 01:36:10 PM PST US From: "Jon Botsford" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jon Botsford" I just got home from four days of volunteer work at the Southwest Regional Flyin, Tired. It is the extra work of the "extra" people that is the issue. I still think that we all should go. However, Why not try to give a hand while there. Three or four hours collecting garbage would be a very worthy thing to do. It is low on the totem pole and is something that all will benefit from. I know as most of my timeat SWRFI was spent doing that. Last year was my first time at Brodhead and they are a very good group. When the number of visitors is overwhelming the attitude can slip to why bother. Lets all go and all help. It will be an excellent event!! Jon Botsford GN-1 N4057T ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Gower" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Gary Gower Don, You still dont get the message, even for me (english second language) was clear... What he wants to say is something very "normal" for some pilots: "Hey, lets go ALL OF US to Brodhead, is a cool place to stay , just a few days before Airventure, they have a little Piet Fly Inn and also some camping area and services... Doesnt matter that we are 200 planes with two people in each one, is THEIR problem... Joe Doe (a Piet builder) invited us.... This is exactly what he said NOT: "No Piet airplanes allowded" JEESS is clear as water for me. Saludos Gary Gower Piet lover, 701 builder, No Not going this year :-) --- ADonJr@aol.com wrote: > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: ADonJr@aol.com > > Gene, and others, > As part of the "sizeable N. California contingent" which came > in and > "took over" the Pietenpol Fly-in, I'd like to state that I came > because I am > a Piet enthusiast, a potential builder and thought that we were > welcome. The > tone of the comments I'm reading now, from other Piet enthusiasts > makes me > question the attitude of those folks. I have always been attracted > to the > Piet, and to the type of people who have been similarly drawn to it. > I have > attended Brodhead Fly-ins on three occasions, and been made to feel > welcome. > I hope that this group is not going to adopt the attitude that > "outsiders" > are not welcome. That would be more than sad. > > Don Cooley > Ercoupe N3571H > > __________________________________ http://search.yahoo.com ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 04:43:17 PM PST US From: Waytogopiet@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: cabane struts --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Waytogopiet@aol.com In a message dated 5/18/2003 9:27:44 AM Central Standard Time, rambog@erols.com writes: > I still think I remember some mention of an upper limit for > some structural or aerodynamic reason. > Gene, you may be thinking about the comment by Pete Bowers in his articles for the BPAN in which he flew four or five different Piets. His opinion was that if you lengthened the cabanes and were using a center section fuel tank (assuming it was full) you would raise the vertical center of gravity and tend to aggravate any tendency to ground loop. That may have some validity at 4 or more inches but doubt that 2 or less would make that much difference. Don