Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:16 AM - DeLand Fl. Model A (lshutks@webtv.net (Leon Stefan))
2. 03:31 AM - Off set vert. fin (lshutks@webtv.net (Leon Stefan))
3. 04:34 AM - Re: Piet rigging (Gene Rambo)
4. 04:39 AM - Re: Re: Question #7 (Gene Rambo)
5. 05:51 AM - Re: Bell Crank (Greg Cardinal)
6. 06:38 AM - Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 06/01/03 (Woodflier@aol.com)
7. 07:39 AM - Re: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 06/01/03 (Alex Sloan)
8. 07:53 AM - Re: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 06/01/03 (Isablcorky@aol.com)
9. 07:56 AM - Re: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 8 Msgs - (John Ford)
10. 08:39 AM - Re: Piet rigging (Jim Sury)
11. 09:09 AM - Re: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 06/01/03 (Alex Sloan)
12. 09:12 AM - Re: Piet rigging (Isablcorky@aol.com)
13. 09:13 AM - Re: Piet rigging (Isablcorky@aol.com)
14. 09:46 AM - Re: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 8 Msgs - (Michael D Cuy)
15. 09:49 AM - A-65 engine offset (Michael D Cuy)
16. 09:52 AM - Piet speed (was Piet rigging) (Stefan Vorkoetter)
17. 09:52 AM - Re: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 06/01/03 (rambog@erols.com)
18. 10:00 AM - Re: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 06/01/03 (Gary Gower)
19. 10:12 AM - Re: Piet speed (was Piet rigging) (Michael D Cuy)
20. 11:01 AM - Pietenpol Wing Washout (Mike)
21. 11:56 AM - Re: Re: Question #7 (w b evans)
22. 12:16 PM - Re: Re: Question #7 (Steve Eldredge)
23. 12:20 PM - Re: Pietenpol Wing Washout (Alex Sloan)
24. 12:21 PM - Re: Piet speed (was Piet rigging) (Steve Eldredge)
25. 12:39 PM - Re: Piet speed (was Piet rigging) (Isablcorky@aol.com)
26. 01:15 PM - Re: Piet speed (was Piet rigging) (cat_designs@juno.com)
27. 01:16 PM - Re: Pietenpol Wing Washout (Mike)
28. 02:41 PM - Re: Piet rigging (John Dilatush)
29. 02:46 PM - Re: Re: Question #7 (John Dilatush)
30. 02:59 PM - Clarification of my Piets" landing characteristics (John Dilatush)
31. 03:25 PM - Split Axle Springs (D. Engelkenjohn)
32. 04:40 PM - Re: Re:Fin offset and A engine mounts (John McNarry)
33. 04:41 PM - need some input from those who have flown a standard Piet, and also a Piet with dihedral (w b evans)
34. 07:59 PM - Re: Piet rigging (Ted Brousseau)
35. 09:10 PM - Re: Split Axle Springs (James Dallas)
Message 1
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | DeLand Fl. Model A |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: lshutks@webtv.net (Leon Stefan)
Hello Lou: Thanks for the work on bud Rogers. The article just called it
Travel Air Aviation, and gave no name. They did include a phone no., so
I will give him a call. Full pressure oiling, insert bearings, and
updated carburation may just be the ticket to a reliable Model A.
Thanks. Leon Stefan
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: | Off set vert. fin |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: lshutks@webtv.net (Leon Stefan)
Gene: I was going to off set the fin, but decided to set it straight
with the fus. center line. I beefed up a small area of the rudder
trailing edge and drilled it so I can add a trim tab later if I need to.
I also did the same to the elevator trailing edges after the long
discussion about trim problems that ran on the list some months ago.
Leon S.
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: | Re: Piet rigging |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
You guys shouldn't overdo the admonition about using the ailerons in a
stall. The discussion is about the pre-stall area, and if you were not
supposed to use the ailerons then, they wouldn't have designed the airplane
so that the inboard end stalls first in order to give you aileron authority
up until the stall. What you NEVER NEVER want to do is be screwing around
with massive rudder imputs at the point of the stall or you WILL spin.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rcaprd@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet rigging
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
>
> I think the 1" difference in the front and rear cabane struts, equates to
3
> degrees positive incidence. No need for washout on a Hershey bar wing.
It
> inherently stalls inboard first, then the stall progresses outboard,
providing
> you keep the ball in the middle. The drawback to washout, is it adds
drag.
> Cy is correct : NEVER EVER use ailerons at stall. Pick up the low wing
> with
> the rudder unless you really want to spin! Lets look at this-- Lets say
you
> are very close to the 'Critical Angle of Attack' (AOA where a stall
begins),
> at low airspeed (any airspeed actually). If the right wing is low, and
you
> give left aileron, lowering the right aileron past the 'Critical Angle of
> Attack,' raising the left aileron and lowering the left wing tip's angle
of attack.
> Result : the right wing tip will stall, and it will spin to the right.
> A little blip of power might be needed if your rate of decent is high,
> and your airspeed is low, to help level off the rate of decent just before
> touchdown. The propwash also helps the rudder to be more responsive.
> Corky, my hunch is that you are doing your round - out, and flair all
in
> the same motion of the stick. This will bring the entire wing past the
> 'Critical Angle of Attack' all at once, and stall the entire wing.
> It's been awhile since I've flown my Piet, but my preference for
landing
> was to cross the fence at about 50 mph, roundout at about 5 to 8 agl, then
> ride the ground effect for a couple of seconds very close to the ground,
then
> break lift with very slight additional aft stick. My last 3 landings
(last fall)
> the tail touched just a split second before the mains, and it stayed on
the
> ground...no bounce, short roll out. This method, however, probably would
not
> work well with a cross wind. Wheel landing is preferred for cross wind
> landings.
>
> Chuck Gantzer
> NX770CG
> planning on first engine run of the A65 this week. Do 3 or 4 ground runs,
> with cool down period, and inspections. If everything works out first
flight
> with new engine next Sunday evening, weather permitting.
>
>
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
I don't know about low powered airplanes not needing the offset, have you
ever seen a Aeronca Champ fuselage? The fin is offset nearly an inch. A
Cub is offset, too. I don't know for sure about the common belief that the
offset is for torque, I believe that it is to correct for adverse yaw as a
result of P factor. I know the Cessna Airmaster I used to have had the
non-adjustable fin set in the middle, and the thing would never fly hands
off without rolling off to one side until I discovered that they originally
came with an externally adjustable rudder trim tab (which the previous
restorer had omitted for appearance sake). Once I installed the tab, it
flew perfectly.
I do NOT want to install a tab on the Piet if I can help it. C'mon you guys
with flying airplanes, especially Model A powered, offset fin or not?????
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rcaprd@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Question #7
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 6/1/03 9:03:31 PM Central Daylight Time,
rambog@erols.com
> writes:
>
> << 7. Are any of you offsetting the vertical fin to the left, or are you
> aligning it with the fuselage????? >>
>
> Gene,
> My fin is aligned with the fuselage, but I ofset the A65 engine mount
about
> 1/16" to the right. Low power aircraft usually don't need the fin offset
to
> account for torque.
>
> Chuck
>
>
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal@startribune.com>
For the cabanes we used 1.349 x .571 .049 wall thickness. Bellcrank
ends were flattened. End holes for the cable attachments were drilled so
they would align through the bellcrank pivot centerline. This maintains
the cable geometry as a parallelogram to reduce uneven cable tension
throughout the range of motion.
We did not use cables from the control stick to the bellcrank. A
push-pull tube from the stick passes under the seat and connects to the
bellcrank. Stick / elevator movement ratios were maintained to the
original design.
Neither the bellcrank nor the rudder bar ends were welded shut.
Greg Cardinal in Minneapolis
>>> cat_designs@juno.com 05/30/03 03:56PM >>>
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: cat_designs@juno.com
Greg Cardinal wrote:
Dale and I used the same tubing as the cabanes.
Do you happen to remember what size you use for the cabane struts. Did
you flatten the ends on it for use on the bell crank. The plans show
you should flatten the ends. The streamlined tubing I have is 1.685 x
0.714 0.049 thickness. Is this to big? or does the geometry of the
control cables (two into one attachment point)require this much
strength?
Speaking of flattened ends, when you pinch the ends for the rudder bar
and the bell crank do you need to weld the ends closed after you flatten
them?
Chris
Sacramento, CA
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
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: Pietenpol-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 06/01/03 |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Woodflier@aol.com
Gene, I offset the leading edge of my fin 1/4" to the left. If I don't like
the way it flies, I'll make up two new forward fin brackets and align it
straight.
Matt Paxton
In a message dated 6/2/03 2:58:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
pietenpol-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
<< Time: 07:03:19 PM PST US
From: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Question #7
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
To add to my list of questions (not that my previous ones have generated
many responses):
7. Are any of you offsetting the vertical fin to the left, or are you
aligning it with the fuselage?????
Gene >>
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: Pietenpol-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 06/01/03 |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1@bellsouth.net>
Group,
How many of the flying Pietenpol's have placed a tuft of yarn about 12-18"
long in the center of the fuselage forward of the wind screen to see if they
are flying straight or in a crab? The answer to this question will do a lot
for us in answering the question of offsetting the vertical fin or adding a
rudder trim tab. I did this test when test flying the RV-6 and offsetting
the vertical stab caused a lot of unnecessary work. Ended up resetting it
straight and adding a trim tab on the rudder. On my Pietenpol I will set
the stab straight unless information gathered says otherwise. Looking
forward to the answer to the first question..
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: <Woodflier@aol.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 06/01/03
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Woodflier@aol.com
>
> Gene, I offset the leading edge of my fin 1/4" to the left. If I don't
like
> the way it flies, I'll make up two new forward fin brackets and align it
> straight.
>
> Matt Paxton
>
>
> In a message dated 6/2/03 2:58:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> pietenpol-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
>
> << Time: 07:03:19 PM PST US
> From: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Question #7
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
>
> To add to my list of questions (not that my previous ones have generated
> many responses):
>
> 7. Are any of you offsetting the vertical fin to the left, or are you
> aligning it with the fuselage?????
>
> Gene >>
>
>
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: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 06/01/03 |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Isablcorky@aol.com
We set our rudder straight and after a few hours flight added a 3x3 .020
alum tab on the upper part of the rudder. Solved the problem completely, matter
of fact have never had to bend adjust since.Didn't even slow the Piet down,
still speeds along at 69 cruise, 72 in a dive and stalls at 40.
YKW
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: Pietenpol-List Digest: 8 Msgs - |
06/01/03
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "John Ford" <Jford@indstate.edu>
Alex,
Wouldn't that give an invalid reading, since it is in the slipstream? Perhaps
some yarn outside of the slipstream on the underside of the wing and some reference
lines visible from the driver's seat would be more accurate. If the yarn
extended beyond the trailing edge and you had a piece of masking tape marked
with a sharpie you should (might?) be able to see if from the cockpit.. Just
a thought from a guy who has never flown a Pietenpol (yet, at least), but only
sat in one in a hanger...
John
John Ford
jford@indstate.edu
812-237-8542
>>> alexms1@bellsouth.net Monday, June 02, 2003 9:41:29 AM >>>
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1@bellsouth.net>
Group,
How many of the flying Pietenpol's have placed a tuft of yarn about 12-18"
long in the center of the fuselage forward of the wind screen to see if they
are flying straight or in a crab? The answer to this question will do a lot
for us in answering the question of offsetting the vertical fin or adding a
rudder trim tab. I did this test when test flying the RV-6 and offsetting
the vertical stab caused a lot of unnecessary work. Ended up resetting it
straight and adding a trim tab on the rudder. On my Pietenpol I will set
the stab straight unless information gathered says otherwise. Looking
forward to the answer to the first question..
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: <Woodflier@aol.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 06/01/03
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Woodflier@aol.com
>
> Gene, I offset the leading edge of my fin 1/4" to the left. If I don't
like
> the way it flies, I'll make up two new forward fin brackets and align it
> straight.
>
> Matt Paxton
>
>
> In a message dated 6/2/03 2:58:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> pietenpol-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
>
> << Time: 07:03:19 PM PST US
> From: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Question #7
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
>
> To add to my list of questions (not that my previous ones have generated
> many responses):
>
> 7. Are any of you offsetting the vertical fin to the left, or are you
> aligning it with the fuselage?????
>
> Gene >>
>
>
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: Piet rigging |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jim Sury <jimsury@fbtc.net>
I think all Piets tend to do this. I fly a GN-1 and it does the same thing.
Add a little power when you start to flare and you will grease it on. Or
come in at 80mph. jas
At 06:21 PM 6/1/03 EDT, you wrote:
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Isablcorky@aol.com
>
>Pieters,
>Our little Piet 41CC has 33:45 successful flying time. I have about 5 dual
>with my test-instructor pilot Mr Johnson. Yesterday he had me shooting
landings
>on a sod crop duster strip in the cotton fields down south. 96 La degrees,
mid
>afternoon, lots of fresh cultivated acres below. CC was bouncing like Jr.'s
>rubber ball. Density altitude, 200 ft above sea level. When I flared,
usually
>too high, CC seemed to be unaffected and kept on earthward.
>QUESTION?
>Given the 2 degree + incidence at the root in level flight according to the
>plans, what should be the washout reading at the outer rib? I'm feeling that
>the entire wing is stalling at the same time.
>Need some thoughts and chatter on this subject
>Corky in La
>
>
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: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 06/01/03 |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1@bellsouth.net>
Group,
If it is proven a trim tab is needed on the Piet, it is important that the
trim tab be placed on the UPPER part of the rudder. If placed on the lower
part of the rudder the fuselage blocks out the effectiveness of the tab to a
degree. This is a lesson I learned the hard way.
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: <Isablcorky@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 06/01/03
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Isablcorky@aol.com
>
> We set our rudder straight and after a few hours flight added a 3x3 .020
> alum tab on the upper part of the rudder. Solved the problem completely,
matter
> of fact have never had to bend adjust since.Didn't even slow the Piet
down,
> still speeds along at 69 cruise, 72 in a dive and stalls at 40.
> YKW
>
>
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: Piet rigging |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Isablcorky@aol.com
Message 13
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: Piet rigging |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Isablcorky@aol.com
80 mph?????????????? Maybe in my model T but never in a Piet
Message 14
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: Pietenpol-List Digest: 8 Msgs - |
06/01/03
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
>We set our rudder straight and after a few hours flight added a 3x3 .020
>alum tab on the upper part of the rudder. Solved the problem completely
Corky-- Had the exact same scenario with my Piet. I did put in something
like 3/8" washout as measured at the second last rib towards the tip as per
Cubs & Champs. Figured they knew what they were doing and the restoration
gurus at my airport (IA's, not just jaw flappers) said to put that washout
in as well. Went thru the in-flight rigging check that Tony Bingelis
describes so nicely and had to tweak one of my rear lift struts and add the
alum trim to the rudder.
Mike C.
Message 15
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: | A-65 engine offset |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Forgot to say that I put some big fender washers on the left sides of my
motor mount to make the engine point
"right" a bit. About three or 4 1/16" thick washers I think. Can't help
the Model A builders with any input here.
Mike C.
Message 16
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: | Piet speed (was Piet rigging) |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Stefan Vorkoetter <stefan@capable.ca>
Isablcorky@aol.com wrote:
> 80 mph?????????????? Maybe in my model T but never in a Piet
Which brings me to a question I've had. How fast can a Piet cruise (Vno)?
I've heard everything from 65 mph to 95 mph. Also, what's the typical (Vne)?
Stefan
Message 17
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: Pietenpol-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 06/01/03 |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "rambog@erols.com" <rambog@erols.com>
The yarn thing is probably not necessary as most of the builders I have
heard on here are putting turn and banks, or at least inclinometers in
their aircraft. I don't know whether the fin offset (or tab) would
necessarily affect the slip/skid, but it will affect wing heaviness.
I want to avoid using a trim tab at all costs. It sounds like most
responses on here have resorted to tabs, so some offset must be necessary.
I may make the holes in the horiz stab far enough apart that I could change
the lower fittings and move the leading edge of the fin as necessary (or
drill multiple holes like some have suggested).
Now that I think of it, though, I could make a fitting similar to the one
on the front of the fin on the Travel Air, which consists of two 90 degree
tabs with a long threaded bolt horizontally between them. The bolt goes
through the leading edge of the fin with a lock nut on either side of the
fin. This allows infinite adjustments by repositioning the locknuts and
moving the fin left or right. This is really not much different than
Bernie designed, the bolt through the fin is just a little longer.
Gene
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Alex Sloan alexms1@bellsouth.net
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 06/01/03
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1@bellsouth.net>
Group,
How many of the flying Pietenpol's have placed a tuft of yarn about 12-18"
long in the center of the fuselage forward of the wind screen to see if they
are flying straight or in a crab? The answer to this question will do a lot
for us in answering the question of offsetting the vertical fin or adding a
rudder trim tab. I did this test when test flying the RV-6 and offsetting
the vertical stab caused a lot of unnecessary work. Ended up resetting it
straight and adding a trim tab on the rudder. On my Pietenpol I will set
the stab straight unless information gathered says otherwise. Looking
forward to the answer to the first question..
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: <Woodflier@aol.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 06/01/03
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Woodflier@aol.com
>
> Gene, I offset the leading edge of my fin 1/4" to the left. If I don't
like
> the way it flies, I'll make up two new forward fin brackets and align it
> straight.
>
> Matt Paxton
>
>
> In a message dated 6/2/03 2:58:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> pietenpol-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
>
> << Time: 07:03:19 PM PST US
> From: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Question #7
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
>
> To add to my list of questions (not that my previous ones have generated
> many responses):
>
> 7. Are any of you offsetting the vertical fin to the left, or are you
> aligning it with the fuselage?????
>
> Gene >>
>
>
Message 18
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: Pietenpol-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 06/01/03 |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Gary Gower <ggower_99@yahoo.com>
In the same Flying and Glider Manual (1932) Check out the "Ramsey
Bathtub" The same way, just make it fit in the wooden fuse of the
Piet.
If I remember correct is about 1" each side with washer adjustments.
Saludos
Gary Gower.
--- "rambog@erols.com" <rambog@erols.com> wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "rambog@erols.com"
> <rambog@erols.com>
>
>
> The yarn thing is probably not necessary as most of the builders I
> have
> heard on here are putting turn and banks, or at least inclinometers
> in
> their aircraft. I don't know whether the fin offset (or tab) would
> necessarily affect the slip/skid, but it will affect wing heaviness.
>
> I want to avoid using a trim tab at all costs. It sounds like most
> responses on here have resorted to tabs, so some offset must be
> necessary.
> I may make the holes in the horiz stab far enough apart that I could
> change
> the lower fittings and move the leading edge of the fin as necessary
> (or
> drill multiple holes like some have suggested).
>
> Now that I think of it, though, I could make a fitting similar to the
> one
> on the front of the fin on the Travel Air, which consists of two 90
> degree
> tabs with a long threaded bolt horizontally between them. The bolt
> goes
> through the leading edge of the fin with a lock nut on either side of
> the
> fin. This allows infinite adjustments by repositioning the locknuts
> and
> moving the fin left or right. This is really not much different than
> Bernie designed, the bolt through the fin is just a little longer.
>
> Gene
>
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: Alex Sloan alexms1@bellsouth.net
> Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 09:41:29 -0500
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 8 Msgs -
> 06/01/03
>
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Alex Sloan"
> <alexms1@bellsouth.net>
>
> Group,
> How many of the flying Pietenpol's have placed a tuft of yarn about
> 12-18"
> long in the center of the fuselage forward of the wind screen to see
> if they
> are flying straight or in a crab? The answer to this question will
> do a lot
> for us in answering the question of offsetting the vertical fin or
> adding a
> rudder trim tab. I did this test when test flying the RV-6 and
> offsetting
> the vertical stab caused a lot of unnecessary work. Ended up
> resetting it
> straight and adding a trim tab on the rudder. On my Pietenpol I will
> set
> the stab straight unless information gathered says otherwise.
> Looking
> forward to the answer to the first question..
> Alex Sloan
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Woodflier@aol.com>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 06/01/03
>
>
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Woodflier@aol.com
> >
> > Gene, I offset the leading edge of my fin 1/4" to the left. If I
> don't
> like
> > the way it flies, I'll make up two new forward fin brackets and
> align it
> > straight.
> >
> > Matt Paxton
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 6/2/03 2:58:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > pietenpol-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
> >
> > << Time: 07:03:19 PM PST US
> > From: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Question #7
> >
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene Rambo"
> <rambog@erols.com>
> >
> > To add to my list of questions (not that my previous ones have
> generated
> > many responses):
> >
> > 7. Are any of you offsetting the vertical fin to the left, or are
> you
> > aligning it with the fuselage?????
> >
> > Gene >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
http://search.yahoo.com
Message 19
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: Piet speed (was Piet rigging) |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Stefan, at 2150 rpm on a 65 Cont. I cruise at 71-72 mph (gps, no wind)
stall at 29 mph and when I hit
about 95-100 mph I gently ease out of that since it sounds like the fat
lady is about to sing. Others may differ.
Running a 72"-42P wood prop.
PS-- Corky-- I think on a 96 F day the reason you don't have much left in
the flare with two souls aboard is because
the air is so thin. How was your climb out ? I wouldn't dare take
another person on a 96 F for a ride. (course then
Edwin doesn't weigh what we do---thankfully.)
Mike C.
Message 20
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 Wing Washout |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mike <bike.mike@verizon.net>
On the subject of wing washout:
Washout is a reduced angle of incidence at a wing tip as compared to the
root. (It's as if the wing is twisted slightly toward the nose looking from
root to tip.)
All wings that don't have any washout tend to stall near the tips first.
(Lower aspect ratio wings have a stronger tendency than high aspect ratio
wings and swept wings have a much stronger tendency that straight wings.)
The purpose of washout in any wing is to prevent a stall close to the
wingtip before a stall begins near the root. A stall causes a rapid loss of
lift and a partial stall near the tip, if not perfectly balanced, will cause
an airplane to roll towards the stalled tip. The natural tendency of a
pilot is to stop that roll with an aileron input which only worsens the
stall on the low side.
By rigging washout in the wing, the stall onset can be forced to occur
closer to the wing root. Any imbalance in a stall at the root won't roll
the airplane as much as a tip stall and stall recovery can be initiated
before feeling any need to roll the airplane upright.
Message 21
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: "w b evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net>
I built it right down the middle, with the engine mount per plans ( only a
little longer) and yaw is not a problem.
walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Question #7
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
>
> I don't know about low powered airplanes not needing the offset, have you
> ever seen a Aeronca Champ fuselage? The fin is offset nearly an inch. A
> Cub is offset, too. I don't know for sure about the common belief that
the
> offset is for torque, I believe that it is to correct for adverse yaw as a
> result of P factor. I know the Cessna Airmaster I used to have had the
> non-adjustable fin set in the middle, and the thing would never fly hands
> off without rolling off to one side until I discovered that they
originally
> came with an externally adjustable rudder trim tab (which the previous
> restorer had omitted for appearance sake). Once I installed the tab, it
> flew perfectly.
>
> I do NOT want to install a tab on the Piet if I can help it. C'mon you
guys
> with flying airplanes, especially Model A powered, offset fin or not?????
>
> Gene
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Rcaprd@aol.com>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Question #7
>
>
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
> >
> > In a message dated 6/1/03 9:03:31 PM Central Daylight Time,
> rambog@erols.com
> > writes:
> >
> > << 7. Are any of you offsetting the vertical fin to the left, or are
you
> > aligning it with the fuselage????? >>
> >
> > Gene,
> > My fin is aligned with the fuselage, but I ofset the A65 engine mount
> about
> > 1/16" to the right. Low power aircraft usually don't need the fin
offset
> to
> > account for torque.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >
>
>
Message 22
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: "Steve Eldredge" <steve@byu.edu>
I offset mine 1/2 inch from the centerline, and offset the engine mount
too.
Steve e.
-----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: Re: Question #7
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
I don't know about low powered airplanes not needing the offset, have
you
ever seen a Aeronca Champ fuselage? The fin is offset nearly an inch.
A
Cub is offset, too. I don't know for sure about the common belief that
the
offset is for torque, I believe that it is to correct for adverse yaw as
a
result of P factor. I know the Cessna Airmaster I used to have had the
non-adjustable fin set in the middle, and the thing would never fly
hands
off without rolling off to one side until I discovered that they
originally
came with an externally adjustable rudder trim tab (which the previous
restorer had omitted for appearance sake). Once I installed the tab, it
flew perfectly.
I do NOT want to install a tab on the Piet if I can help it. C'mon you
guys
with flying airplanes, especially Model A powered, offset fin or
not?????
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rcaprd@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Question #7
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 6/1/03 9:03:31 PM Central Daylight Time,
rambog@erols.com
> writes:
>
> << 7. Are any of you offsetting the vertical fin to the left, or are
you
> aligning it with the fuselage????? >>
>
> Gene,
> My fin is aligned with the fuselage, but I ofset the A65 engine mount
about
> 1/16" to the right. Low power aircraft usually don't need the fin
offset
to
> account for torque.
>
> Chuck
>
>
Message 23
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: Pietenpol Wing Washout |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1@bellsouth.net>
Mike,
I like your explanation of wing tip stall. So, for me to understand the
suggested wing twist in my Pietenpol, the outer wing tips should not have as
much incidence as the root, correct? So, as the wing loses lift, the wing
tips are at a lower AOA and will still be flying. Is this what your saying?
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike" <bike.mike@verizon.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Wing Washout
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mike <bike.mike@verizon.net>
>
> On the subject of wing washout:
>
> Washout is a reduced angle of incidence at a wing tip as compared to the
> root. (It's as if the wing is twisted slightly toward the nose looking
from
> root to tip.)
>
> All wings that don't have any washout tend to stall near the tips first.
> (Lower aspect ratio wings have a stronger tendency than high aspect ratio
> wings and swept wings have a much stronger tendency that straight wings.)
>
> The purpose of washout in any wing is to prevent a stall close to the
> wingtip before a stall begins near the root. A stall causes a rapid loss
of
> lift and a partial stall near the tip, if not perfectly balanced, will
cause
> an airplane to roll towards the stalled tip. The natural tendency of a
> pilot is to stop that roll with an aileron input which only worsens the
> stall on the low side.
>
> By rigging washout in the wing, the stall onset can be forced to occur
> closer to the wing root. Any imbalance in a stall at the root won't roll
> the airplane as much as a tip stall and stall recovery can be initiated
> before feeling any need to roll the airplane upright.
>
>
Message 24
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: | Piet speed (was Piet rigging) |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Steve Eldredge" <steve@byu.edu>
Nx7229r is 74mph cruise. 104mph VNE.
I came up with the 104 on my own during flight test phase. The airplane
gave all kinds of complaints at that speed. Lots of wind noise, felt
like it wanted to nose over, stiff controls. Keep it slower and it
will be happy.
Steve e.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stefan
Vorkoetter
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet speed (was Piet rigging)
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Stefan Vorkoetter
<stefan@capable.ca>
Isablcorky@aol.com wrote:
> 80 mph?????????????? Maybe in my model T but never in a Piet
Which brings me to a question I've had. How fast can a Piet cruise
(Vno)?
I've heard everything from 65 mph to 95 mph. Also, what's the typical
(Vne)?
Stefan
Message 25
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: Piet speed (was Piet rigging) |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Isablcorky@aol.com
Pardon me for asking but were you in a kamakazi attitude to obtain that
104?????????
Message 26
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: Piet speed (was Piet rigging) |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: cat_designs@juno.com
In the book "How I make wood propellers" by Alvin Schubert the author talks about
carving several props for Berne Pietenpol and Vi Capler for use on a corvair
powered Air Camper. Full throttle speed was 100 mph (3500 rpm) cruise was 78
mph (2900 rpm). The authors indicates it was the best propeller that had used
on the plane. I'd say the Vne should be 100 mph anything above this is unknown
ground (and very hard to obtain).
Chris
Sacramento, CA
--- Stefan Vorkoetter <stefan@capable.ca> wrote:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Stefan Vorkoetter <stefan@capable.ca>
Isablcorky@aol.com wrote:
> 80 mph?????????????? Maybe in my model T but never in a Piet
Which brings me to a question I've had. How fast can a Piet cruise (Vno)?
I've heard everything from 65 mph to 95 mph. Also, what's the typical (Vne)?
Stefan
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Message 27
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: Pietenpol Wing Washout |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mike <bike.mike@verizon.net>
on 6/2/03 12:23, Alex Sloan at alexms1@bellsouth.net wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1@bellsouth.net>
>
> Mike,
> I like your explanation of wing tip stall. So, for me to understand the
> suggested wing twist in my Pietenpol, the outer wing tips should not have as
> much incidence as the root, correct? So, as the wing loses lift, the wing
> tips are at a lower AOA and will still be flying. Is this what your saying?
> Alex Sloan
>
Generally, yes.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike" <bike.mike@verizon.net>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Wing Washout
>
>
>> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mike <bike.mike@verizon.net>
>>
>> On the subject of wing washout:
>>
>> Washout is a reduced angle of incidence at a wing tip as compared to the
>> root. (It's as if the wing is twisted slightly toward the nose looking
> from
>> root to tip.)
>>
>> All wings that don't have any washout tend to stall near the tips first.
>> (Lower aspect ratio wings have a stronger tendency than high aspect ratio
>> wings and swept wings have a much stronger tendency that straight wings.)
>>
>> The purpose of washout in any wing is to prevent a stall close to the
>> wingtip before a stall begins near the root. A stall causes a rapid loss
> of
>> lift and a partial stall near the tip, if not perfectly balanced, will
> cause
>> an airplane to roll towards the stalled tip. The natural tendency of a
>> pilot is to stop that roll with an aileron input which only worsens the
>> stall on the low side.
>>
>> By rigging washout in the wing, the stall onset can be forced to occur
>> closer to the wing root. Any imbalance in a stall at the root won't roll
>> the airplane as much as a tip stall and stall recovery can be initiated
>> before feeling any need to roll the airplane upright.
>>
Message 28
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: Piet rigging |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "John Dilatush" <dilatush@amigo.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: <Isablcorky@aol.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet rigging
+++++++++++++++++++
Corky,
I had the same problem with no-float after starting to flare for the
landing. Probably more extreme than you have because of our higher
(sometimes more than 10,000 feet) density altitude.
The first few landings I made were when I came over the fence at about 60
indicated and when I flared, the damn'd thing just wanted to drop out of the
sky! The Piet design has so much drag that as soon as you increase the
angle of attack, it slows down dramatically and just quits flying (stalls).
I then experimented with a higher approach speed and this did the trick.
The higher approach speed results in a surplus of energy during the flare
which translates into more float and therefore you have more time to adjust
the height of the flare. You can also increase the flare by adding a
little power on the landings. As a result of this learning curve, I now
come over the fence faster than 70 indicated. When using power, set up your
approach some distance out and use just enough power to check the sink rate
and then don't change a thing until you have all wheels firmly planted with
the stick back in your belly so you have positive directional control.
As far as wash out is concerned, I put about 3/8" measured at the trailing
edge of the aileron. A normal stall is straight foward, although a power on
stall tends to drop the left wing, probably due to P-factor.
Hope this helps, Good Flying!
John
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Isablcorky@aol.com
>
> Pieters,
> Our little Piet 41CC has 33:45 successful flying time. I have about 5 dual
> with my test-instructor pilot Mr Johnson. Yesterday he had me shooting
landings
> on a sod crop duster strip in the cotton fields down south. 96 La degrees,
mid
> afternoon, lots of fresh cultivated acres below. CC was bouncing like
Jr.'s
> rubber ball. Density altitude, 200 ft above sea level. When I flared,
usually
> too high, CC seemed to be unaffected and kept on earthward.
> QUESTION?
> Given the 2 degree + incidence at the root in level flight according to
the
> plans, what should be the washout reading at the outer rib? I'm feeling
that
> the entire wing is stalling at the same time.
> Need some thoughts and chatter on this subject
> Corky in La
>
>
Message 29
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: "John Dilatush" <dilatush@amigo.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Question #7
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gene,
I did offset the leading edge of the vertical fin 1" to the left. This
seems about right in cruise, however, you will still have to hold a little
right rudder in a climb.
Hope this helps, Good Flying!
John
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
>
> To add to my list of questions (not that my previous ones have generated
> many responses):
>
> 7. Are any of you offsetting the vertical fin to the left, or are you
> aligning it with the fuselage?????
>
> Gene
>
>
Message 30
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: | Clarification of my Piets" landing characteristics |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "John Dilatush" <dilatush@amigo.net>
Corky,
I should explain that my Piet probably weighs a 150 lbs more than yours does, because
of the engine, etc, etc.
This is the reason that my approach speeds are somewhat higher than you would see,
however, the principle of surplus energy is still valid to smooth out your
landings.
John
Message 31
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: | Split Axle Springs |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "D. Engelkenjohn" <wingding@usmo.com>
Those of you who are using a split axle on their Aircamper, what type of
springs did you use and where did you get them?
In an old issue of the BPA there is a spring set up to replace the
bungees which calls for H56 Lamina springs, what are they?
Dennis Engelkenjohn
Message 32
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:Fin offset and A engine mounts |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "John McNarry" <jmcnarry@escape.ca>
Gene
I really like your solution to fin adjustment as stated below. It is also
one of the reasons I stay with this group.
Great Ideas, new or old. One thing that led me to the Piet/GN-1 is the
infinite solutions builders seem to find to little problems or quirks of the
design.
In response to one of your earlier questions about A engine mounts: BHP
states that the down thrust angle of ash engine bearers allow the prop to
bite the air squarely in climb attitude. How do we know this is right? I
assume he tried many different angles.
I have decided to make a tubular engine mount that is adjustable in thrust
line both horizontally and vertically. It would consist of two long "V's" to
carry the front of the engine and two shorter ones for the rear. The engine
itself is a rigid beam. If the cowlings are mounted only to the engine and
mount, thrust line changes wouldn't require cowling changes.
The angle of incidence of the wing to fuselage and also to the thrust line,
seems like an area that a lot of experimenting can go into. When each
individual builder incorporates their own small changes, it gets a little
tough to compare if changes are beneficial. I think it was Graham Hansen who
said or quoted "Add lightness and simplicate!"
That Travel Air fin adjust method is a good example.
John Mc
Now that I think of it, though, I could make a fitting similar to the one
on the front of the fin on the Travel Air, which consists of two 90 degree
tabs with a long threaded bolt horizontally between them. The bolt goes
through the leading edge of the fin with a lock nut on either side of the
fin. This allows infinite adjustments by repositioning the locknuts and
moving the fin left or right. This is really not much different than
Bernie designed, the bolt through the fin is just a little longer.
Gene
Message 33
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: | need some input from those who have flown a standard Piet, |
and also a Piet with dihedral
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "w b evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net>
I have been running into an annoying problem with my Piet. In still air it flies
beautifully, hands off. but later in the morning when the turbulence starts,
I seem to be all over the place, being tossed around like a cork. I couldn't
even imagine flying some major cross country in anything but sunset or sunrise.
Could this be from my lack of dihedral, or is it just because it's a light plane.
(and mine seems to be one of the lightest.) Maybe the heavier planes are
better in the wind.
I would consider putting in the normal dihedral, but I don't want to go thru the
labor and time down, only to find out that it really makes no difference. When
I was flying the Cub and Aeronca, I didn't seem to feel this. But then again
I didn't have enough hours in either to maybe realize it.
Did anyone out there happen to fly both? And if so, was there a big difference?
thanks,
walt evans
Message 34
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: Piet rigging |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979@naples.net>
Corky,
Try this. Use an approach speed of around 65 MPH and hold it until you are
about 6" above the ground. Pull back smoothly on the stick and you will
flare and should have a smooth landing. I found that trying anything less
than 65 resulted in what you describe. You just seem to run out of elevator
and the thing just keeps sinking into the ground with thud.
What I describe above is a dead stick landing. If you come in with slight
power you can slow the approach down a little. Cut the power at the 6"
point and you have another great landing.
I fly a Cessna 140A and this thing doesn't flare or float anything like it
or any other plane I have flown.
Try this and report back. You might experiment and find a better approach
speed for yours. They all seem a little different.
Ted
----- Original Message -----
From: <Isablcorky@aol.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet rigging
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Isablcorky@aol.com
>
> Pieters,
> Our little Piet 41CC has 33:45 successful flying time. I have about 5 dual
> with my test-instructor pilot Mr Johnson. Yesterday he had me shooting
landings
> on a sod crop duster strip in the cotton fields down south. 96 La degrees,
mid
> afternoon, lots of fresh cultivated acres below. CC was bouncing like
Jr.'s
> rubber ball. Density altitude, 200 ft above sea level. When I flared,
usually
> too high, CC seemed to be unaffected and kept on earthward.
> QUESTION?
> Given the 2 degree + incidence at the root in level flight according to
the
> plans, what should be the washout reading at the outer rib? I'm feeling
that
> the entire wing is stalling at the same time.
> Need some thoughts and chatter on this subject
> Corky in La
>
>
Message 35
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: Split Axle Springs |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "James Dallas" <BEC176@msn.com>
Dennis, The H56 Lamina Springs are Die Springs as used in large stamping
dies. If you have a tool and Die builder in your area he will be able to
get them for you. Another source would be from a McMaster Carr Catalog.
They sell everything you can think of for industry. There Web site is
www.mcmaster.com
Jim D.
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Engelkenjohn" <wingding@usmo.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Split Axle Springs
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "D. Engelkenjohn"
<wingding@usmo.com>
>
> Those of you who are using a split axle on their Aircamper, what type of
> springs did you use and where did you get them?
>
> In an old issue of the BPA there is a spring set up to replace the
> bungees which calls for H56 Lamina springs, what are they?
>
> Dennis Engelkenjohn
>
>
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! --
|