---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 12/05/03: 10 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 06:50 AM - Rear seat belt (Bill Budgell) 2. 07:22 AM - Changing rear seat-back angle (At7000ft@aol.com) 3. 08:02 AM - Re: Changing rear seat-back angle (catdesign@intergate.com) 4. 11:54 AM - Re: Spruce Wedges (Michael Green) 5. 12:52 PM - Re: Changing rear seat-back angle (At7000ft@aol.com) 6. 03:06 PM - Help me decide (Christopher Smith) 7. 04:41 PM - Re: Good Fuselage?? (Hubbard, Eugene) 8. 04:45 PM - Re: Help me decide (Bill Budgell) 9. 04:57 PM - Re: Help me decide (DJ Vegh) 10. 10:21 PM - Re: Changing rear seat-back angle (Clif Dawson) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 06:50:32 AM PST US From: "Bill Budgell" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Rear seat belt --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Bill Budgell" Hi: All Could some one tell me how you attach the rear seatbelt to the fuselage?. My fusel age is built and the tail is completed and all ribs and center section is completed at this time. So it wold be nice if I could get some feed back thank for your time. My pietenpol is the short fuselage and thinking of a Model A or Corvair. Regards: Bill Budgell Canada ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 07:22:46 AM PST US From: At7000ft@aol.com Subject: Pietenpol-List: Changing rear seat-back angle --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: At7000ft@aol.com Am building a cockpit mockup and have read in the archives were serveral people have changed the seat-back angle to 10-15 degrees. I assume when you have done that you changed the angle of the fuselage strut/brace the set-back glues to? (Number 7 on the 33 fuselage plans). Rick Holland ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 08:02:44 AM PST US From: "catdesign@intergate.com" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Changing rear seat-back angle --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "catdesign@intergate.com" I change the angled of my seat but I don't know by how much. This is what I did, I measured out the spacing per the plans then I moved the top of the brace (the edge facing to the front) behind the measurement mark and then the bottom (the edge facing to the back)in front of the measurement mark. Don't know how much of an angle change it was but it feels good to me. Also, notice the head rest is shown attached behind the top seat brace/fuselage cross brace. I am 6'1" and when I sat in the seat I could feel the top of the seat across my back. It was not comfortable to me. So I installed the headrest on the front of the brace and angled it back in line with the seat. Much more comfortable for me. The only problem I see with this is if you want to put padding all around the cockpit the padding will now stick out behind your neck or back and might be a problem. I'm not going to go all the way around with mine so it's not a problem with me. Chris T. Sacramento, Ca Quoting At7000ft@aol.com: > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: At7000ft@aol.com > > Am building a cockpit mockup and have read in the archives were serveral > people have changed the seat-back angle to 10-15 degrees. I assume when you > have > done that you changed the angle of the fuselage strut/brace the set-back > glues > to? (Number 7 on the 33 fuselage plans). > > Rick Holland > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 11:54:51 AM PST US From: "Michael Green" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Spruce Wedges --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Michael Green" Peter, Thanks. I should have seen that shouldn't I. Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter W Johnson" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Spruce Wedges > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Peter W Johnson" > > Mike, > > The wedges are only shown in the position of the undercarriage mounting > points. You can fit them only there or all over if you wish. > > Cheers > > Peter. > Wonthaggi, Australia > http://cpc-world.cable.nu > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael > Green > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Spruce Wedges > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Michael Green" > > Hi All, > > I've finally finnished off the tail feathers and I'm about to start on the > fuselage. I was just wondering if the spruce wedges that are to be fitted at > the side bay struts are only in the cockpit area or the entire length of the > fuse? > > Thanks in advance. > > Mike Green > Romsey, > Victoria, > Australia > > > advertising on the Matronics Forums. > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 12:52:15 PM PST US From: At7000ft@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Changing rear seat-back angle --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: At7000ft@aol.com Thanks Chris I will try it on the mockup. Other small modifications in the rear seat area I am looking at to accomidate us taller people (I am 6') is raising the rear turtle deck an inch or two (as Mike Cuy mentioned on his video), and lowering the seat an inch or two as John Dilatush did. Rick Holland > > I change the angled of my seat but I don't know by how much. This is what I > did, I measured out the spacing per the plans then I moved the top of the brace > (the edge facing to the front) behind the measurement mark and then the bottom > (the edge facing to the back)in front of the measurement mark. Don't know how > much of an angle change it was but it feels good to me. Also, notice the head > rest is shown attached behind the top seat brace/fuselage > cross brace. I am ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 03:06:12 PM PST US From: "Christopher Smith" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Help me decide --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christopher Smith" I am new to the list and am looking for as much info as possible about choosing between the Pietenpol and the GN-1. I have noticed that the plans for the GN-1 are only $50. Does that include the wing or do you have to use J-3 wings? Also, a look at the wood kits for the Piet & GN-1 in AS&S has a price difference of about $300. What are the main differences in the in the two designs that are reflected in those prices? Thanks for all the help, Christopher W. E. Smith ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 04:41:11 PM PST US From: "Hubbard, Eugene" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage?? --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hubbard, Eugene" Eric, First the disclaimer: I'm not a structural engineer, and I haven't run the numbers for the Piet fuselage. I do understand a lot of the physics involved. I built my Piet fuselage 1 inch spruce longerons. You're calculations are correct, at least for tensile strength. Stiffness depends on dimension squared, and goes down even faster. There's a MIL-SPEC on spruce--I don't have the number handy, but someone on the list probably does. It lists substitution recommendations for other woods, including Douglas fir. On the other hand, there seems to be a general consensus that the Piet is overbuilt. You could check into the construction used for other wood planes to get a feeling for what is done. The only data point I (think) I remember is that I've seen an Ospery I amphibian that appeared to be built of 3/4 inch fir. Doublers seem like an interesting idea. If I were going to do it that way, I'd think about 8 long strips on the outsides of the corners, over the gussets, with filler blocks between the gussets. 1/8 inch Douglas fir over 1/8 inch filler would probably bring your strength back to nominal. Stiffness would (probably) be better than using 1" spruce. I'd worry a bit about using a spruce doubler over Douglas Fir because of a difference in stiffness (Young's modulus to be specific). Let us know how you decide to go. Gene Hubbard San Diego -----Original Message----- From: Eric Williams [mailto:ewilliams805@msn.com] Subject: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage?? --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Eric Williams" Hi everyone. This is my first posting to this list (although Ive been lurking for a while) and I have a situation that I would really appreciate any comments or suggestions on. While at Oshkosh this year, a very good friend of mine, who has too many airplanes in various stages of repair, offered to give me a Piet project that he had acquired several years ago from a friend of his (the builder). I picked up the project this past weekend and it consists of a completed fuselage structure with the plywood skin on the forward half and the floor, a complete set of wing ribs, and a complete set of tail surfaces. The workmanship on the project looks to be acceptable however, one thing that bothered me was the longerons and the other fuselage members appeared to be small in cross-section. The builder happened to stop by while we were loading it all onto my trailer. He said that he had used douglas fir and since his research proved to him that fir was 25% stronger than spruce, he had reduced the dimensions of the members by 25% (from 1" to 3/4"). The problem with this line of thinking, as I see it, is that when you multiply 3/4" by 3/4" you end up with 0.56 square inches as the cross-sectional area of the wood that was used, as compared to 1.00 square inch in a 1" x 1" member. That means the longerons in my fuselage actually contain 44% less material than had they been built using 1x1 stock. I would sincerely appreciate any thoughts you all might have as to the usability of this fuselage. I should say that it "feels" strong and I did sit in it while it was supported at the approximate landing gear points and there appeared to be no deflection or creaking at all (there were a few engine noises made however). I also wonder if I might be able to epoxy some 1/4" strips to the various members for added strength? The builder said he had used West System epoxy to construct it. Thanks for your input. Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account is over ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 04:45:14 PM PST US From: "Bill Budgell" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Help me decide --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Bill Budgell" Hi: Chris I cant help you on all your requests but can on some things. The best wood I have seen and used is from wicks aircraft or western aircraft in Canada. As far as the difference between pietenpol and GN1 I can only say about the pietenpol is truly a very nice plane to fly I have 450hrs in a pietenpol with 65 cont and enjoyed every bit of it even in the snow on skies. And now I'm building my own. Bill Budgell ----- Original Message ----- From: Christopher Smith Subject: Pietenpol-List: Help me decide > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christopher Smith" > > I am new to the list and am looking for as much info as possible about > choosing between the Pietenpol and the GN-1. > I have noticed that the plans for the GN-1 are only $50. Does that > include the wing or do you have to use J-3 wings? > Also, a look at the wood kits for the Piet & GN-1 in AS&S has a price > difference of about $300. What are the main > differences in the in the two designs that are reflected in those > prices? > Thanks for all the help, > Christopher W. E. Smith > > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 04:57:17 PM PST US From: "DJ Vegh" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Help me decide --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "DJ Vegh" yes the price includes plans for the wing. You may use clipped J-3 wings if you choose but there are no plans for that particular conversion (that I know of) I bought my wood kit from AS&S and I too saw the price difference between the GN1 kit and the Piet. I'm not exactly sure why there is a difference other than the GN-1 requires a few more board feet?? not really sure. The AS&S kit is not complete. You can plan on spending about another $300 or so on more wood that for some reason they left out. I contacted them about it 2 years ago but as of now they still have not corrected the missing pieces. I don't recall off hand exactly which pieces they are but I think they were pieces used in the tail section and the wing rib cap strips. You will also need to get some plywood as this is not included in the kit. I used BS1088 Okoume marine ply used for making canoes. I got it here: http://www.noahsmarine.com/United_States/Plywoods-us/plywoods-us.html I got all my 1/4" and 1/8" from there and the bill was like $220 shipped to my door. It's about 500% cheaper than real MS aircraft ply and the quality is damn near as good. In fact, it's got a Lloyd's approval#. In all honesty I would highly suggest getting your Spruce from Wick's. I've had it with AS&S. They have finally done it for me by "losing" my refund for a defective CHT gauge I returned many many weeks ago. There's a list of ways they have done me wrong but that was the straw that broke the camels back for me. anyways... don't mean to ramble on about AS&S.. use them if you like. There quality of wood is excellent. If you go with AS&S be prepared to wait about 8-10 weeks to get your wood. Wicks wood will get to you MUCH MUCH quicker. DJ Vegh N74DV Mesa, AZ www.imagedv.com/aircamper - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Smith" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Help me decide > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christopher Smith" > > I am new to the list and am looking for as much info as possible about > choosing between the Pietenpol and the GN-1. > I have noticed that the plans for the GN-1 are only $50. Does that > include the wing or do you have to use J-3 wings? > Also, a look at the wood kits for the Piet & GN-1 in AS&S has a price > difference of about $300. What are the main > differences in the in the two designs that are reflected in those > prices? > Thanks for all the help, > Christopher W. E. Smith > > ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 10:21:18 PM PST US From: Clif Dawson Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Changing rear seat-back angle --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Clif Dawson If you're not already, put everything together with screws so you can move those braces around. I have angled mine back a bit but don't have your problem at 5'8". After sitting in it and playing with a false stick and rudder bar wearing the heaviest clothing I would fly with it became apparent that my right elbow was having awkward meetings with the slanted brace on that side so I widened the cockpit to 24" at the seat back. Much better. Since I felt it would be a little stressfull on the structure to go straight back to this point then bend the sides in I made it 25" to the front seat back then tapered it from there making sure it was 24" at the rear seat back. Then I began fiddling with those fancy throttle quads of mine and moved them nine times to get the right feel for me. If your going to lower the seat make sure that the elevator cables are accounted for. I think my top one will pass the seat/back junction just barely at the top surface of the seat at that point. I suppose it could be a little higher, after all, there is some space between the buns, Zzzz, Zzzz. Clif Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Changing rear seat-back angle > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: At7000ft@aol.com > > Thanks Chris > > I will try it on the mockup. Other small modifications in the rear seat area I am looking at to accomidate us taller people (I am 6') is raising the rear turtle deck an inch or two (as Mike Cuy mentioned on his video), and lowering the seat an inch or two as John Dilatush did. > > Rick Holland >