Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:03 AM - Re: Pietenpol Reunion this Weekend in Ohio (Isablcorky@aol.com)
2. 05:49 AM - You don't have a WHAT ? (Michael D Cuy)
3. 06:17 AM - Re: what do you find odd in this NTSB report?? (Robert Haines)
4. 06:18 AM - Three piece and one piece wings are differen?? (baileys)
5. 10:11 AM - Re: Three piece and one piece wings are differen?? (Mike)
6. 10:54 AM - Re: Three piece and one piece wings are differen?? (dpilot)
7. 10:54 AM - Re: work bench length (Jeff Cours)
8. 02:02 PM - Re: Pietenpol Reunion this Weekend in Ohio (Carbarvo@aol.com)
9. 02:14 PM - Re: Three piece and one piece wings are differen?? (Carbarvo@aol.com)
10. 03:52 PM - Pietenpol wings (Victorjeanharper@aol.com)
11. 03:54 PM - an aquaintance of mine goes down in his Cessna 140 - sad news (DJ Vegh)
12. 05:09 PM - Re: Pietenpol Reunion this Weekend in Ohio (Carbarvo@aol.com)
13. 05:16 PM - Re: Three piece and one piece wings are differen?? (Alex Sloan)
14. 05:16 PM - Re: Three piece and one piece wings are differen?? (dpilot)
15. 05:26 PM - Re: Three piece and one piece wings are differen?? (dpilot)
16. 05:32 PM - Re: Three piece and one piece wings are differen?? (Carbarvo@aol.com)
17. 07:28 PM - Re: Three piece and one piece wings are differen?? (dpilot)
18. 08:52 PM - Re: Three piece and one piece wings are differen?? (w b evans)
19. 10:02 PM - Re: Pietenpol Reunion this Weekend in Ohio (Rcaprd@aol.com)
20. 10:10 PM - Re: Three piece and one piece wings are differen?? (clif)
21. 10:44 PM - Re: You don't have a WHAT ? (Rcaprd@aol.com)
22. 10:56 PM - Re: Three piece and one piece wings are differen?? (clif)
23. 11:55 PM - Sunday outing (clif)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol Reunion this Weekend in Ohio |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Isablcorky@aol.com
Chuck,
It could possibly end as a massed flotilla. I'll just keep 41CC for the
ocassion.
Corky in Hot La but we're used to it. Thank God there are no flys or
misquitos (sp)
Do Not Archive
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: | You don't have a WHAT ? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Chuck---like answering machines, cell phones, and gps units, I'm ALWAYS the
last one on my block to get one. I still do NOT have a cell
phone. (though my wife does) I took the Piet to Oshkosh in 1998 and 1999
with NO gps, NO com radio and did just fine. No wires to clutter the
cockpit, no batteries to go dead, no fuss. When I got to the photo
briefing session with EAA the photo plane pilot asked if anyone didn't have
a gps---and I was the only one in the room to raise my hand. I was the
only one to raise my hand again when asked if "if anyone does not have a
com radio". I got some nasty looks from some of those better than me
types in the room but shrugged it off and carried on. I broke down about
2 years ago though and bought and handheld and a gps and a buddy made me up
a neat 12 volt system out of a neat little battery that is the size of an
index card box. He wired a cigarette lighter female adapter to the
terminals, and I bought the appropriate DC power/cig lighter plugs for my
gps and hanheld to run them off of. He also made me up a 12 volt AC/DC
charger from I think radio shack with the cig. adapter to charge up the 12
volt battery after trips. Works GREAT ! I can run for a long time on
that battery. All the way up to Wisc. and back with plenty of power to
spare. Course 97% of that is for the gps, since I only use the radio if
absolutely needed to get into controlled airspace. I strap the battery
which is in a little black nylon case to the front seat using the belt and
run my wires next to my left leg into the gps. I still love to navigate
by the chart and keep track of where I'm at because you cannot rely solely
on that gps since it can go belly up on you for a myriad of reasons. I
will say that the gps is just some fantastic technology and I do enjoy
using it very much but it does distract us from doing what we should do
more and that is looking for other traffic. Trouble tho is that at least
with me, I get lulled into the sense that nobody else is flying even on
nice days. Yesterday the conditions were just excellent in Ohio to fly---I
mean just perfect and while I was up for about 1.5 hours I only saw 3 other
planes. Heck, on the way to Wisc. a few weeks ago I only saw 2 other
planes in the air the whole way ! Great stories Chuck---love to
take a month and fly all over this land.
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: | Re: what do you find odd in this NTSB report?? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk@hotmail.com>
There is a "Pietenpol" located at the Pinckneyville, IL airport that is
flown from the front seat. It seems to be about the same size as a Piet
(i.e. - not some ultralight variation) with the exception that it's powered
by a Volkswagen engine. My guess is that the lighter powerplant and the
front seat pilot's position are related. Regardless, it's registered as a
"Pietenpol" so the NTSB report may not be incorrect.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
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: | Three piece and one piece wings are differen?? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "baileys" <baileys@ktis.net>
Well duh, so they are. My question is what is the difference in the way
loads are transferred between wing, center section, and fuselage? First,
this is purely rhetorical I'm not proposing any change to the design. Also
I'm not a mechanical engineer and have zero training in stress analysis.
First the one piece spar; within the spar itself compression and tension
loads will be felt by the center section from both wings. In normal flight
the cabane struts and the wing struts will be in tension. The bottom
fuselage cross member will also be in tension.
Three piece spar; no spar tension loads transferred to the center section,
only compression. Cabane struts have far less tension load. Wing struts and
bottom fuselage member under much greater tension.
O.K. Will somebody who understands the mystic art of stress analysis please
help straighten me out?
Bob B - Missouri
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: Three piece and one piece wings are differen?? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mike <bike.mike@verizon.net>
In normal, upright, flight, aerodynamic loads on the wing inboard and
outboard of the lift strut attach points sort of balance each other. The
Cabanes actually carry very small lift loads, no matter whether the wing is
made in one piece or three.
Whether one piece or three, there are tension loads on the lift struts which
can be resolved into a vertical component and a horizontal component. The
horizontal component of the tension is resisted by compression in the spars
which is carried through the spars and the wing joint fittings in the
three-piece or only in the wooden spars in the one piece.
The vertical component is resisted at the upper end by the wing's lift and
at the lower end by the fuselage weight on the lower fitting.
You are correct in that the fuselage bottom cross piece, made of ash in
BHP's plans, is in tension, resisting the horizontal component of strut
load.
There is very little difference between the one-piece and three-piece wings,
if any at all, in the way the fuselage and the cabane struts are loaded.
Mike Hardaway
Former Aeronautical Engineer
on 8/25/03 6:16, baileys at baileys@ktis.net wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "baileys" <baileys@ktis.net>
>
> Well duh, so they are. My question is what is the difference in the way
> loads are transferred between wing, center section, and fuselage? First,
> this is purely rhetorical I'm not proposing any change to the design. Also
> I'm not a mechanical engineer and have zero training in stress analysis.
>
> First the one piece spar; within the spar itself compression and tension
> loads will be felt by the center section from both wings. In normal flight
> the cabane struts and the wing struts will be in tension. The bottom
> fuselage cross member will also be in tension.
>
> Three piece spar; no spar tension loads transferred to the center section,
> only compression. Cabane struts have far less tension load. Wing struts and
> bottom fuselage member under much greater tension.
>
> O.K. Will somebody who understands the mystic art of stress analysis please
> help straighten me out?
>
> Bob B - Missouri
>
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: Three piece and one piece wings are differen?? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dpilot <dpilot@yahoo.com>
The difference is 32.
The three piece wing is 32 pounds heavier.
JimV.
baileys <baileys@ktis.net> wrote:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "baileys"
Well duh, so they are. My question is what is the difference in the way
loads are transferred between wing, center section, and fuselage? First,
this is purely rhetorical I'm not proposing any change to the design. Also
I'm not a mechanical engineer and have zero training in stress analysis.
First the one piece spar; within the spar itself compression and tension
loads will be felt by the center section from both wings. In normal flight
the cabane struts and the wing struts will be in tension. The bottom
fuselage cross member will also be in tension.
Three piece spar; no spar tension loads transferred to the center section,
only compression. Cabane struts have far less tension load. Wing struts and
bottom fuselage member under much greater tension.
O.K. Will somebody who understands the mystic art of stress analysis please
help straighten me out?
Bob B - Missouri
---------------------------------
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: work bench length |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jeff Cours <piet-j@moriarti.org>
Thanks for all the great info, everyone! After mulling it over a bit, I
decided on an all-wood design to let me dust off my carpentry skills and
give my wife, who's helping me but has never done any carpentry work, a
chance to learn a bit of woodworking on something that's not going to be
hauling us around the sky...
The final design is in four sections of 30"x4' each. (Can't go any wider
than 30" in the space available.) The tops are 5/8" plywood with 1x6
framing. Each leg will be two 1x4's fastened into an "L" (like an angle
iron) for stiffness. I plan to use adjustable furniture glides to level
it, but haven't yet decided exactly how I'll attach them to the leg
bottoms: either I'll go directly into one of the 1x4 ends, or I'll
attach a 5/8" ply plate to the end of the leg and go into that. I also
saved an old mouse pad: I plan to put pieces of it under the glides so
they don't glide.
The whole structure should be fairly stiff and light, and it'll let me
pop out a section if I don't need the full length for something.
Underneath, I'll put in some cross-pieces to act as a rack for long
stock and will probably use at least some of the plywood off-cuts for
shelving. Some of it may also become a rib jig. And a saw bench or two.
Bought the lumber and cut the tops over the weekend, still need to cut
the boards to length and assemble it.
I also need to start thinking about aircraft glues, so I can build ribs
until my carpentry skills are up to scratch.
- Jeff 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: | Re: Pietenpol Reunion this Weekend in Ohio |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Carbarvo@aol.com
Chuck...I'll look that stuff up and get back with you......Carl V
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: Three piece and one piece wings are differen?? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Carbarvo@aol.com
I've heard this before, so when I started building my Piet, I was watching
for it. Can anybody suggest where the 30 or so pounds comes from? My whole
center section (V. J. Kappler plans with a flop added) doesn't weigh 20 pounds
(including the fuel tank) and my wings are each a foot shorter than one half of
a
one piece wing. Carl V.
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Victorjeanharper@aol.com
Hello, I'm getting ready to start building, I thought I'd do the wings first.
I've got a couple of questions if you don't mind. I have Don Pietenpols
plans, are Vi Kapplers better? How did you make your spars, routed plank, I-beam
etc. Should you build the spars first to get the width dimension of the caps
so the ribs can be build to that size? .When you glue the compression struts
to the spars did you add any triangle gussets. Thanks for any help!! Vic
Harper
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: | an aquaintance of mine goes down in his Cessna 140 - sad |
news
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper@imagedv.com>
I don't know what it is lately but last summer a friend of mine was killed when
his Fisher Celebrity had a massive structural failure killing him and his daughter....
now this....
I went to Indiana/Michigan last weekend to visit my cousin. My cousin has a 1946
Tcraft and a beautiful house with a 2600ft. grass strip in the back yard.
Lots of pilots stop by his place and BS about flying and such.
Last weekend I was introduced to a guy named Steve who had a beautiful Cessna 140.
He was a really neat guy who was very low key and not that typical "hot shot"
mentality that so many pilots seem to have. We all talked with him for several
hours that day and then the next day he flew in again and we all had a
get together and lunch.
he took my cousin's sister for a ride in his 140. She loved it.
I ended up heading home last Tuesday full of great memories from the vacation.
Lots of farm yard flying.
Then my cousin calls me a couple nights ago with a very distraught tone to his
voice.... he says "hey, remember Steve, the guy with the 140?" I say yes and
then he proceeds to tell me how he was just killed not 20 minutes before.
Apparently he was doing some real low flybys over Juno Lake which is just about
1/2 mile north of my cousins strip. he was buzzing my cousins uncle who happened
to be in his boat out on the lake. Just as he is making his low pass he
clipped some power lines which sheared off a wing and then he spun in. My cousins
uncle sped over in his boat and jumped in just as the plane was sinking to
try to save him... the fuel was all over the water and he couldn't see anything
due to the fuel burning his eyes. no luck. Not that it would have mattered
anyway I guess because Steve was most likely dead upon impact. The power lines
were about 30ft. off the water.
I snapped some pics of Steve and his plane just last weekend. here's a link to
some of them
http://imagedv.com/indiana-8-03/pages/DSCN0285.htm
http://imagedv.com/indiana-8-03/pages/DSCN0293.htm
http://imagedv.com/indiana-8-03/pages/DSCN0296.htm
here's one of him standing by his plane
http://imagedv.com/indiana-8-03/pages/DSCN0288.htm
It just goes to show you how quickly things can change. I know alot of us like
to fly "low and slow" but I really hope that we can learn from stuff like this..
flying low over populated areas or areas unknown to us poses a serious risk.
Let's all think twice before we "get down" for those low passes.
DJ Vegh
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 10:39 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Charts, Pilotage & Dead Reconing vs. GPS
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
When flying a Pietenpol, its best if you play the part wearing a leather
helmet, goggles, and long white silk scarf. It gives you a much better
relationship with the way our Forefathers did it in the early days. Using a
GPS in
a Pietenpol, to me, seemed like contradiction in terms. GPS is for
sissies...I don't need one, and I don't want one. However, Doug Bryant insisted
I take
his GPS along with me, and just try it out. It's a Magellan SkyBlazer XL.
All the guys at Benton said "GPS is the best thing that's happened since
ailerons". Well, I guess I had to go along with the majority. After some
experimentation, we found the best place to mount the antenna was on the trailing
edge,
just above the pilot seat. I had to drill holes in the trailing edge to mount
the thing...I HATE drilling useless holes in my plane. Mike (at Benton) was
familiar with a similar model, and was showing me some of the features of
this little 1" x 3 1/2 x 6 1/2 box, while I was trying desperately to do final
preparations on my plane before the trip. I also scanned through the thick
instruction manual. I do, sometimes, read directions !! Now I have another
chore, of building some kind of bracket to hold this thing. Real Estate, as
you
know, is very limited in the cockpit. I already had to make a bracket for the
Com radio, on the right longeron, to allow the antenna to point up, just to
the right side of the windshield. I also had to get another flying helmet, to
accommodate the headset I wore, and also had a wire going to the 'PTT' (push
to
talk) on the control stick. I finally opted to just make a sling, our of
some duct tape, and wear the GPS around my neck...just not enough time to
develop a suitable bracket. It felt like a bowling ball. I hate all this wiring,
and EELEC TRONIC crap !!
The first time I actually used it, was on the first leg of my journey.
It showed ground speed, direction to the airport, distance to the airport,
heading, CDI, and some other stuff, too. All right, that's kinda cool. During
the second leg, the thing said 'Battery Power', then crapped out. After I
landed at Ottowa, took on some fuel, talked with the locals about where I'm coming
from and going to, I replaced the THREE batteries that are in this electronic
marvel. During the fourth leg, the thing said 'Battery Power', and once
again...crapped out !! I wasn't even a quarter of the way there, yet. I would
have thrown this thing overboard, but it had a sling around my neck !! This
thing eats batteries, like a teenager with the munchies !! I assumed the best
way
to use it, was to turn it on just to double check my heading, or the remote
possibility - if I got lost. At the next fuel stop, I replenished the
batteries, stowed it next to my left hip, and never turned it on again...until
I was
half way back on my return trip.
Studying the scenery, using pilotage to maintain position, is truly the
most enjoyable method of navigation. The panoramic view, offered in an open
cockpit, is unparalleled. Watching all those 'Grounders' (folks who never fly),
I kind of feel sorry for them, for they will never know what they are
missing. It really gives you a chance to appreciate the countryside. Once,
I saw a
back yard swimming pool, and yes, there were a couple of bikini clad girls
down there !! I pulled power, and dropped down for a closer look. On my second
lap around the pool, they both started waving their arms at me !! I gave 'em
a good wing wave back, hoping they were from the 'Girls Gone Wild' video, but
no such luck. Gave 'em another wing wave, and took up a northeast heading.
An afterthought, was to holler down to them, my request...I'll do that next
time !!
On the return trip, Saturday evening, at the end of my third long leg of
flying, I had spent over 7 hours in the sky. Except for a sore butt, I really
didn't feel fatigued. I came up on a stretch of forest, where there were
just no distinguishable features, so I just checked one of the VOR's on the
chart, noted the direction I needed to fly, and flew compass heading for a while.
Twenty minutes later, I finally came upon a small town, but couldn't find it
on the chart. Then I thought...damn...I didn't correct for wind. OK, there's
another town in the distance, and it has a water tower on the West side of
town. As I looked at how the roads and railroads laid, I still didn't find it
on
the chart. OK, pull power, drop down to have a look at the name on the water
tower. Turned out this was a small water tower, the kind that looks like a
golf ball on a tee, and it was evedently one that just fed the needs of a farm,
and didn't have a name on it. OK, it's only 7:30, still lots of daylight
left, and I have plenty of fuel onboard. Should I go in this direction, or that
direction. I zig zagged to two more towns, but couldn't find them on the
chart either. I wasn't really lost...I mean I knew what area I was in, I just
didn't know my position. Well, as I began to look for a suitable landing area,
I
went over in my mind how I would do it: Do three of four low fly-bys,
checking for spider webs (electric & telephone wires), and dropping a little
lower
on each pass. Then do a couple of touch & goes, just to test the soil, or the
road, and wondering how I would explain this to the neighbors that I would
have to encounter. However, I do have another option: program the GPS. I
hesitated calling it my 'Ace in the Hole'. I had to program this unfamiliar
gadget, with the 'from' and 'to' identifiers I found on the chart, MPZ to IRK,
while
I was looking for landmarks or a place to land, and most of all - Fly the
Plane !! With my head in the cockpit, it seamed each time I looked back up,
the
nose was way high, or a wing was way high. I double checked each letter I put
in the GPS, because I didn't want to put the wrong identifier in.
Finally...WA LAA !! It showed me what heading to take up, and Kirksville was
just nine
miles away !! I noted the heading, and turned the GPS back off, to conserve
those three tiny batteries. Turned it back on when I was about three miles
out, then spotted the airport. I turned on the COM radio to enter the class
D
airspace, and when I broadcast my position and intention, the 'Battery' light
was flashing on the COM radio !! I still don't like this battery stuff, and
electronic crap, but I guess I've come to terms with the fact that we live in
a
different time. Kirksville has a nice East / West grass runway, and I
greased 'er on with at least 15 minutes of daylight left. After taxiing in to
where
the pumps were, nobody around, I was glad to see it was the credit card type
pumps. Had to kind of pry my body out of the cockpit, stretch all the kinks
out, and fuel 'er up. Pushed 'er over to a tie down area, secured my trusty
pair of wings, unpacked a few things and headed over to the big glass doors of
the building...locked. No phone around. Walked around the side of the building
to where it said 'Pilot Brief', and the door was unlocked. Hummmm....vending
machines and a couch !! I had three bags of corn chips, two bags of
skittles, & two cans or root beer for supper, and got a good nights sleep on
the
couch !!! Just doesn't get any better than this !!
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
=
This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by Half Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more information on an anti-virus email solution, visit <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
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: Pietenpol Reunion this Weekend in Ohio |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Carbarvo@aol.com
LATER......Chuck: I got some very capable help from Susan at the EAA
library..She was able to look up the story about the guy from Alabama who flew
around
the United States...Here's the data...
See EXPERIMENTER (Part 1) , May 1995, p 22
ditto (Part 2) June, 1995, p 27
ditto (Part 3) July, 1995, p 43
ditto (Part 4) Aug., 1995, p 43
He is John Hauck from Gantt, Alabama. He's got quite a story!...Carl Vought
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: Three piece and one piece wings are differen?? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1@bellsouth.net>
Good question Carl
I would like to hear the answer.
Alex S.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Carbarvo@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Three piece and one piece wings are differen??
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Carbarvo@aol.com
>
> I've heard this before, so when I started building my Piet, I was watching
> for it. Can anybody suggest where the 30 or so pounds comes from? My whole
> center section (V. J. Kappler plans with a flop added) doesn't weigh 20
pounds
> (including the fuel tank) and my wings are each a foot shorter than one
half of a
> one piece wing. Carl V.
>
>
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: Three piece and one piece wings are differen?? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dpilot <dpilot@yahoo.com>
I presume it is the weight of all the botls, nuts and metal fittings.
I think it was Vi Kappler that told me .
JimV.
Carbarvo@aol.com wrote:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Carbarvo@aol.com
I've heard this before, so when I started building my Piet, I was watching
for it. Can anybody suggest where the 30 or so pounds comes from? My whole
center section (V. J. Kappler plans with a flop added) doesn't weigh 20 pounds
(including the fuel tank) and my wings are each a foot shorter than one half of
a
one piece wing. Carl V.
---------------------------------
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: | Re: Three piece and one piece wings are differen?? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dpilot <dpilot@yahoo.com>
We are talking about the DIFFERENCE in weight between the 3 piece and the one piece
wing.
Not the weight of any one thing.
The last wings that Mr. Pietenpol built used spars laminated of 7 pieces of wood
and finished size of 4 3/4 X 3/4
Each piece was .666 X .750.
He put a bearing plate under where each rib contacted the spar that was 1/8 thick.
This made everything come out right.
My brain and memory are old , and I hope I have remembered well.
JimV.
PS, I built mine that way.
The finished empty weight of my Aircamper was 610 pounds.
Alex Sloan <alexms1@bellsouth.net> wrote:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Alex Sloan"
Good question Carl
I would like to hear the answer.
Alex S.
----- Original Message -----
From:
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Three piece and one piece wings are differen??
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Carbarvo@aol.com
>
> I've heard this before, so when I started building my Piet, I was watching
> for it. Can anybody suggest where the 30 or so pounds comes from? My whole
> center section (V. J. Kappler plans with a flop added) doesn't weigh 20
pounds
> (including the fuel tank) and my wings are each a foot shorter than one
half of a
> one piece wing. Carl V.
>
>
---------------------------------
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: | Re: Three piece and one piece wings are differen?? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Carbarvo@aol.com
Yes, I realize that you are talking "difference". That's what puzzles me.
Thank you for expanding on your memo. The laminated spars are very interesting
and will become even more interesting as time goes on and spruce prices go up.
Were your laminations one piece from end to end or were you able to splice
them?...Carl V.
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: Three piece and one piece wings are differen?? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dpilot <dpilot@yahoo.com>
I made them out of a lot of short pieces.
The 10 to 1 cuts didnt overlap
Jim
Carbarvo@aol.com wrote:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Carbarvo@aol.com
Yes, I realize that you are talking "difference". That's what puzzles me.
Thank you for expanding on your memo. The laminated spars are very interesting
and will become even more interesting as time goes on and spruce prices go up.
Were your laminations one piece from end to end or were you able to splice
them?...Carl V.
---------------------------------
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: Three piece and one piece wings are differen?? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "w b evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net>
Consider this. I built right to the plans, with very little variations.
Long fuselage with an A-65, and the three piece wing. also a wing tank and
a nose tank, and my empty weight was 595#. Would a one piece wing weigh in
at 565# ?
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: <Carbarvo@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Three piece and one piece wings are differen??
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Carbarvo@aol.com
>
> Yes, I realize that you are talking "difference". That's what puzzles me.
> Thank you for expanding on your memo. The laminated spars are very
interesting
> and will become even more interesting as time goes on and spruce prices go
up.
> Were your laminations one piece from end to end or were you able to splice
> them?...Carl V.
>
>
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: Pietenpol Reunion this Weekend in Ohio |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
In a message dated 8/25/03 7:10:11 PM Central Daylight Time, Carbarvo@aol.com
writes:
<< LATER......Chuck: I got some very capable help from Susan at the EAA
library..She was able to look up the story about the guy from Alabama who
flew around
the United States...Here's the data...
See EXPERIMENTER (Part 1) , May 1995, p 22
ditto (Part 2) June, 1995, p 27
ditto (Part 3) July, 1995, p 43
ditto (Part 4) Aug., 1995, p 43
He is John Hauck from Gantt, Alabama. He's got quite a story!...Carl Vought
>>
Carl, or anyone,
Is there any way I can view these articles on the internet ? Or, should I
just try to order each of these magazines from EAA?
Also, does anyone know what was the longest cross country flight in a
Pietenpol ? I'm feeling the need to get in the record books !!
Chuck G.
I appreciate your effort, Carl
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: | Re: Three piece and one piece wings are differen?? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: clif <cdawson5854@shaw.ca>
How much do the attachment straps weigh?
I don't have mine yet but I would think
5-8 oz? There are 16 of them. There are
28 assorted nuts and bolts and 2 pulleys.
Two small straps for those pulleys and two
extra ribs. There's possibly a little more ply
in the center section. What else?
We're missing the two very long bolts, front
and rear, holding the center of each one piece
spar together. The center pulleys and their
mounts are extra in the wing as they were
originaly at the strut/fuse point, not in the wing.
Anybody got a collection of these parts to weigh?
----- Original Message -----
From: "w b evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Three piece and one piece wings are differen??
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "w b evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net>
>
> Consider this. I built right to the plans, with very little variations.
> Long fuselage with an A-65, and the three piece wing. also a wing tank
and
> a nose tank, and my empty weight was 595#. Would a one piece wing weigh
in
> at 565# ?
> walt evans
> NX140DL
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Carbarvo@aol.com>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Three piece and one piece wings are
differen??
>
>
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Carbarvo@aol.com
> >
> > Yes, I realize that you are talking "difference". That's what puzzles
me.
> > Thank you for expanding on your memo. The laminated spars are very
> interesting
> > and will become even more interesting as time goes on and spruce prices
go
> up.
> > Were your laminations one piece from end to end or were you able to
splice
> > them?...Carl V.
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: You don't have a WHAT ? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
In a message dated 8/25/03 7:50:21 AM Central Daylight Time,
Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov writes:
<< Chuck---like answering machines, cell phones, and gps units, I'm ALWAYS
the
last one on my block to get one. I still do NOT have a cell
phone. (though my wife does) I took the Piet to Oshkosh in 1998 and 1999
with NO gps, NO com radio and did just fine. No wires to clutter the
cockpit, no batteries to go dead, no fuss. When I got to the photo
briefing session with EAA the photo plane pilot asked if anyone didn't have
a gps---and I was the only one in the room to raise my hand. I was the
only one to raise my hand again when asked if "if anyone does not have a
com radio". I got some nasty looks from some of those better than me
types in the room but shrugged it off and carried on. I broke down about
2 years ago though and bought and handheld and a gps and a buddy made me up
a neat 12 volt system out of a neat little battery that is the size of an
index card box. He wired a cigarette lighter female adapter to the
terminals, and I bought the appropriate DC power/cig lighter plugs for my
gps and hanheld to run them off of. He also made me up a 12 volt AC/DC
charger from I think radio shack with the cig. adapter to charge up the 12
volt battery after trips. Works GREAT ! I can run for a long time on
that battery. All the way up to Wisc. and back with plenty of power to
spare. Course 97% of that is for the gps, since I only use the radio if
absolutely needed to get into controlled airspace. I strap the battery
which is in a little black nylon case to the front seat using the belt and
run my wires next to my left leg into the gps. I still love to navigate
by the chart and keep track of where I'm at because you cannot rely solely
on that gps since it can go belly up on you for a myriad of reasons. I
will say that the gps is just some fantastic technology and I do enjoy
using it very much but it does distract us from doing what we should do
more and that is looking for other traffic. Trouble tho is that at least
with me, I get lulled into the sense that nobody else is flying even on
nice days. Yesterday the conditions were just excellent in Ohio to fly---I
mean just perfect and while I was up for about 1.5 hours I only saw 3 other
planes. Heck, on the way to Wisc. a few weeks ago I only saw 2 other
planes in the air the whole way ! Great stories Chuck---love to
take a month and fly all over this land.
Mike C. >>
Mike,
I haven't got a cell phone either...don't need one, don't want one.
Hummm...That's the same thing I said before I got the GPS !! As much as I hate
to admit it, I'm putting in a retractable, or removable, bracket to accomodate
the GPS. My fear is that I'll get so used to using it, that when it craps out
the next time, I'll be left high & dry. I hope to have enough self control,
to only use the GPS if I'm lost...fat chance!! Another problem I have with
the GPS, is that when I turn it on, it causes static noise on the COM radio.
Does anyone else have this happen ?
I'll probably also add on the battery, preferebly mounted on the
firewall, to be recharged after each flight. The battery would also be usefull
to run
a windshield washer pump, for...SMOKE OIL !! Yeah...that's how I can
justifiy the battery !!
OK...Looks like Corky, Mike Cuy, and myself will be doing a 'Lap Around
America' !!! Is there anyone else out there, that would like to join us in a
massed flotilla ??
Chuck G.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Three piece and one piece wings are differen?? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: clif <cdawson5854@shaw.ca>
Here's a plot of the lift distribution of
a hershey wing I came across. It might
help in clarifying what Mike is saying.
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=IMG_0592.jpg&PhotoID=1397
The distance from the attach bolt to the strut
mount on the plans is 79". The panel is162".
The inboard section is approx 49% of the
entire panel. It lifts approx 57% of the load.
That leaves 43% for the outer section to lift.
We haven't taken into account the lift of the
center section at this point. So there is a
definite load on the cabanes, not significant
as Mike says but some is there.
On the three piece plans the spars are shown
butted tightly together. This is to keep most
of the considerable compression loads out
of the joint fittings. They are not made to
handle the compression. Look at the pics of
DJ's GN fittings, they're quite different.
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mike <bike.mike@verizon.net>
>
> In normal, upright, flight, aerodynamic loads on the wing inboard and
> outboard of the lift strut attach points sort of balance each other. The
> Cabanes actually carry very small lift loads, no matter whether the wing
is
> made in one piece or three.
>
> Whether one piece or three, there are tension loads on the lift struts
which
> can be resolved into a vertical component and a horizontal component. The
> horizontal component of the tension is resisted by compression in the
spars
> which is carried through the spars and the wing joint fittings in the
> three-piece or only in the wooden spars in the one piece.
>
> The vertical component is resisted at the upper end by the wing's lift and
> at the lower end by the fuselage weight on the lower fitting.
>
> You are correct in that the fuselage bottom cross piece, made of ash in
> BHP's plans, is in tension, resisting the horizontal component of strut
> load.
>
> There is very little difference between the one-piece and three-piece
wings,
> if any at all, in the way the fuselage and the cabane struts are loaded.
>
> Mike Hardaway
> Former Aeronautical Engineer
>
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: clif <cdawson5854@shaw.ca>
I left Vancouver at 8:01 and arrived at
Jefferson County Airport in Port Townsend
at 1:45. 1/2 hr out for brekky in Bellingham.
1/2 hr wait for ferry and 1/2 hr ferry ride to
Port Townsend.
Jim Markle and I met there to look over
Larry Prange's Piet, almost ready for
covering.
This is a model A job with wire wheels
and straight axle. The rad is quite narrow
so covers only a small portion of the sky.
Great looking job! Excellent workmanship.
And the cowling has to be seen to be believed.
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID=140
What a great day! Thanks for inviting us Larry.
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! --
|