Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:57 AM - Re: Naming of Wright Field (rhartwig11@juno.com)
2. 06:34 AM - Re: Wingspan (Ed Grentzer)
3. 07:29 AM - Re: Changing rear seat-back angle (At7000ft@aol.com)
4. 09:51 AM - Re: Re: Naming of Wright Field (Christian Bobka)
5. 10:06 AM - Naming of Mitchel Field (Christian Bobka)
6. 10:14 AM - Re: Wingspan (Michael D Cuy)
7. 10:33 AM - Re: Naming of Mitchel Field (Jim Markle)
8. 10:48 AM - Re: Wingspan (John Ford)
9. 10:54 AM - Re: Naming of Mitchel Field (Fred Weaver)
10. 11:00 AM - while we're off the subject..... (Michael D Cuy)
11. 01:32 PM - Re: Help me decide (Hubbard, Eugene)
12. 04:11 PM - Re: Re: Naming of Wright Field (catdesign@intergate.com)
13. 04:32 PM - Re: Good Fuselage?? (Hubbard, Eugene)
14. 05:10 PM - Re: Naming of Mitchel Field (w b evans)
15. 05:11 PM - Re: while we're off the subject..... (w b evans)
16. 05:18 PM - Re: Naming of Mitchel Field (w b evans)
17. 05:32 PM - Re: Good Fuselage?? (Hubbard, Eugene)
18. 05:34 PM - Re: Good Fuselage?? (Hubbard, Eugene)
19. 05:36 PM - Re: Naming of Mitchel Field (Gene Rambo)
20. 05:43 PM - Re: Good Fuselage?? (Jack Phillips)
21. 05:57 PM - Re: Good Fuselage?? (Dennis Engelkenjohn)
22. 07:15 PM - Re: Naming of Mitchel Field (w b evans)
23. 07:16 PM - Re: Good Fuselage?? (w b evans)
24. 07:20 PM - Re: Naming of Wright Field (Mike Whaley)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Naming of Wright Field |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: rhartwig11@juno.com
Chris,
Cliff's source says that the field was named after the brothers, but it
may be a little more involved than that. The history is a little
confusing to me. One source says--First there was McCook Field, next,
adjacent to it was Wilbur Wright Field. Then land was donated for Wright
Field. Then Wilbur Wright Field was renamed Patterson Field. Then the
whole works became Wright-Patterson AFB.
It seems that 2 fields with a total of three names became the
AFB.......then there is the story of the field that predated the above,
where the brothers did their testing after the first flight--Huffman
Prairie Flying Field which also is on W-P AFB.
So, what is the correct answer?
Dick Hartwig
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Ed Grentzer" <flyboy_120@hotmail.com>
There was a fellow on this list from South Africa who used to fly a piet
with the wings extended quite abit because of an extra wide center section (
six feet if I remember right). He came to the list trying to figure out why
the tail would stall before the wing making landing a very exciting manuver.
He finally ended up crashing it. I believe he wasn't hurt too bad but we
haven't heard from him since. And remember....when you tilt the seat back
back you are moving the C/G of the pilots head and shoulders aft, something
we need to be careful of. Bernie did all of the calculations and
experimentation for us so that every thing works together....When you change
something it almost always affects something else. And besides...it's so
much faster and easier to follow the plans. Ed G. in chilly Florida
>From: piet@pointdx.com
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wingspan
>Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 14:14:19 -0500
>
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: piet@pointdx.com
>
>Does anyone have any experience/knowledge about building Piets with varying
>wingspans? Seems to me that if one isn't going for speed, one may as well
>go for
>shorter takeoff rolls(?), shallower glide path(?), etc, and therefore maybe
>extend the wings just a bit.
>
>Would this require any changes to the tail surfaces?
>
>-Mike B.
>
>
Winterize your home with tips from MSN House & Home.
http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx
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: Changing rear seat-back angle |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: At7000ft@aol.com
Thanks Clif
Great idea to use screws on the mockup. So you increased the width of the
front end of your fuselage 1" so you could keep the outside width at the rear
seatback 24" correct? Has anyone tried tried keeping the 24" outside width back
to the rear seatback and bending the longerons a little more back to the tail?
Rick Holland
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.
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: | Re: Naming of Wright Field |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@compuserve.com>
Dick,
The truth will come out after the anwers are all in.
Chris
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: <rhartwig11@juno.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Naming of Wright Field
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: rhartwig11@juno.com
>
> Chris,
> Cliff's source says that the field was named after the brothers, but it
> may be a little more involved than that. The history is a little
> confusing to me. One source says--First there was McCook Field, next,
> adjacent to it was Wilbur Wright Field. Then land was donated for Wright
> Field. Then Wilbur Wright Field was renamed Patterson Field. Then the
> whole works became Wright-Patterson AFB.
> It seems that 2 fields with a total of three names became the
> AFB.......then there is the story of the field that predated the above,
> where the brothers did their testing after the first flight--Huffman
> Prairie Flying Field which also is on W-P AFB.
> So, what is the correct answer?
> Dick Hartwig
>
>
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: | Naming of Mitchel Field |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@compuserve.com>
Dick,
Here is another one for you. How is Mitchel Field on Long Island named
after?
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: <rhartwig11@juno.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Naming of Wright Field
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: rhartwig11@juno.com
>
> Chris,
> Cliff's source says that the field was named after the brothers, but it
> may be a little more involved than that. The history is a little
> confusing to me. One source says--First there was McCook Field, next,
> adjacent to it was Wilbur Wright Field. Then land was donated for Wright
> Field. Then Wilbur Wright Field was renamed Patterson Field. Then the
> whole works became Wright-Patterson AFB.
> It seems that 2 fields with a total of three names became the
> AFB.......then there is the story of the field that predated the above,
> where the brothers did their testing after the first flight--Huffman
> Prairie Flying Field which also is on W-P AFB.
> So, what is the correct answer?
> Dick Hartwig
>
>
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
I think Bill Rewey's wing is a foot or three longer than plans. (he's got
a wider center section from what I recall) I wouldn't think there would
be anything wrong with adding a foot or three to a Piet wing. It would
still be shorter than a Cub or Champ wing and would give you more lift for
those fat people who want to fly. I know for a fact that I can carry way
heavier people with more wing in a Champ or Cub than I can with that short
29 foot Pietenpol wing. I say go for it.
Mike C. who has no aeronautical engineering bones in his body, but my gut
says why not--add some wing if you want.
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: Naming of Mitchel Field |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jim Markle <jim_markle@mindspring.com>
I think it was named after Mitchel Pietenpol, Bernard's illegitimate son.
He was a great aviator but it gets REAL quiet when they bring the subject up around
Cherry Grove.....
(Hey, if we can get "off topic"....I can get silly.....)
-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Bobka <bobka@compuserve.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Naming of Mitchel Field
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@compuserve.com>
Dick,
Here is another one for you. How is Mitchel Field on Long Island named
after?
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: <rhartwig11@juno.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Naming of Wright Field
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: rhartwig11@juno.com
>
> Chris,
> Cliff's source says that the field was named after the brothers, but it
> may be a little more involved than that. The history is a little
> confusing to me. One source says--First there was McCook Field, next,
> adjacent to it was Wilbur Wright Field. Then land was donated for Wright
> Field. Then Wilbur Wright Field was renamed Patterson Field. Then the
> whole works became Wright-Patterson AFB.
> It seems that 2 fields with a total of three names became the
> AFB.......then there is the story of the field that predated the above,
> where the brothers did their testing after the first flight--Huffman
> Prairie Flying Field which also is on W-P AFB.
> So, what is the correct answer?
> Dick Hartwig
>
>
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "John Ford" <Jford@indstate.edu>
It sounds like the tail surfaces on the Piet are on the small side to
begin with, though, so I would wonder by what factor you would want to
enlarge them as well? I figured I would enlarge my vertical fin when I
build, because it seems most people find that the plane tends to hunt
quite a bit in even light turbulence. While I believe BHP did quite a
bit of engineering to arrive at the good airplane the Piet is, I also
think that a lot of it was pure guesswork and trial-and-error on his
part. I for one am also considering the prospect of a marginally longer
wing, if there isn't too much trickle-down compensation to be done. I
guess it's time to hit the aeronautical design manuals for me...
John
John Ford
john@indstate.edu
812-237-8542
>>> Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov Monday, December 08, 2003 1:14:19 PM
>>>
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
<Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
I think Bill Rewey's wing is a foot or three longer than plans. (he's
got
a wider center section from what I recall) I wouldn't think there
would
be anything wrong with adding a foot or three to a Piet wing. It would
still be shorter than a Cub or Champ wing and would give you more lift
for
those fat people who want to fly. I know for a fact that I can carry
way
heavier people with more wing in a Champ or Cub than I can with that
short
29 foot Pietenpol wing. I say go for it.
Mike C. who has no aeronautical engineering bones in his body, but my
gut
says why not--add some wing if you want.
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: Naming of Mitchel Field |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Fred Weaver <mytyweav@earthlink.net>
ATTA WAY JIM!! hahahahhahha.... I loved it.....
Weav
On Monday, December 8, 2003, at 10:33 AM, Jim Markle wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jim Markle
> <jim_markle@mindspring.com>
>
> I think it was named after Mitchel Pietenpol, Bernard's illegitimate
> son.
>
> He was a great aviator but it gets REAL quiet when they bring the
> subject up around Cherry Grove.....
>
> (Hey, if we can get "off topic"....I can get silly.....)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Bobka <bobka@compuserve.com>
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Naming of Mitchel Field
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka"
> <bobka@compuserve.com>
>
> Dick,
>
> Here is another one for you. How is Mitchel Field on Long Island named
> after?
>
> Chris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <rhartwig11@juno.com>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Naming of Wright Field
>
>
>> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: rhartwig11@juno.com
>>
>> Chris,
>> Cliff's source says that the field was named after the brothers, but
>> it
>> may be a little more involved than that. The history is a little
>> confusing to me. One source says--First there was McCook Field, next,
>> adjacent to it was Wilbur Wright Field. Then land was donated for
>> Wright
>> Field. Then Wilbur Wright Field was renamed Patterson Field. Then
>> the
>> whole works became Wright-Patterson AFB.
>> It seems that 2 fields with a total of three names became the
>> AFB.......then there is the story of the field that predated the
>> above,
>> where the brothers did their testing after the first flight--Huffman
>> Prairie Flying Field which also is on W-P AFB.
>> So, what is the correct answer?
>> Dick Hartwig
>>
>>
>
>
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> >
>
>
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: | while we're off the subject..... |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Has anyone ever seen a photo of either of the Wright brothers with a smile
on thier faces ????
My point is that neither of them ever married, they tinkered their whole
lives making a decent living and
travelling the world without being hen pecked or pushed around by some
whining woman and you never
see a smile on their faces. I don't get it.
Oh yeah, and how did Punksatawny Phil get his name ?
Mike C.
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard@titan.com>
DJ,
I did not find the quality of the AS&S wood to be excellent--there were too
many capstrips that I couldn't use because of the grain angle. I'm not
talking about boarderline 1:12 here--more like 1:4. I was much happier with
Wicks' wood, and had it shipped across country for spars and longerons.
OTHO, I've found their service pretty good for everything else (except that
they always seem to have tubing backordered.
Gene
-----Original Message-----
From: DJ Vegh [mailto:djv@imagedv.com]
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Help me decide
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "DJ Vegh" <djv@imagedv.com>
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" <fly1m1@comcast.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Help me decide
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christopher Smith"
<fly1m1@comcast.net>
>
> 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 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: Naming of Wright Field |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "catdesign@intergate.com" <catdesign@intergate.com>
No, it's much simpler then that, there were two fields one on the left and one
on the right, so they were referred to as left field and right field.
Somewhere down the paper-chain someone thought it was misspelled and wrote it
Wright which was wrong it should have been right so now we don't know which
right is right. Am I right?
Chris T. from the Left Coast
Do not archive
Quoting rhartwig11@juno.com:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: rhartwig11@juno.com
>
> Chris,
> Cliff's source says that the field was named after the brothers, but it
> may be a little more involved than that. The history is a little
> confusing to me. One source says--First there was McCook Field, next,
> adjacent to it was Wilbur Wright Field. Then land was donated for Wright
> Field. Then Wilbur Wright Field was renamed Patterson Field. Then the
> whole works became Wright-Patterson AFB.
> It seems that 2 fields with a total of three names became the
> AFB.......then there is the story of the field that predated the above,
> where the brothers did their testing after the first flight--Huffman
> Prairie Flying Field which also is on W-P AFB.
> So, what is the correct answer?
> Dick Hartwig
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Chris T.
Sacramento, Ca
-------------------------------------------------
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard@titan.com>
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" <ewilliams805@msn.com>
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 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: Naming of Mitchel Field |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "w b evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net>
Used to hear it called Billy Mitchel field, and think it was the one that
the first blind flight was made from by Jimmy Dolittle.
(My Dad worked at the place that made the instruments, in NJ)
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@compuserve.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Naming of Mitchel Field
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka"
<bobka@compuserve.com>
>
> Dick,
>
> Here is another one for you. How is Mitchel Field on Long Island named
> after?
>
> Chris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <rhartwig11@juno.com>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Naming of Wright Field
>
>
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: rhartwig11@juno.com
> >
> > Chris,
> > Cliff's source says that the field was named after the brothers, but it
> > may be a little more involved than that. The history is a little
> > confusing to me. One source says--First there was McCook Field, next,
> > adjacent to it was Wilbur Wright Field. Then land was donated for
Wright
> > Field. Then Wilbur Wright Field was renamed Patterson Field. Then the
> > whole works became Wright-Patterson AFB.
> > It seems that 2 fields with a total of three names became the
> > AFB.......then there is the story of the field that predated the above,
> > where the brothers did their testing after the first flight--Huffman
> > Prairie Flying Field which also is on W-P AFB.
> > So, what is the correct answer?
> > Dick Hartwig
> >
> >
>
>
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: while we're off the subject..... |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "w b evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net>
Mike,
Well, at least you're not jumping around.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: while we're off the subject.....
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
<Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
>
> Has anyone ever seen a photo of either of the Wright brothers with a smile
> on thier faces ????
> My point is that neither of them ever married, they tinkered their whole
> lives making a decent living and
> travelling the world without being hen pecked or pushed around by some
> whining woman and you never
> see a smile on their faces. I don't get it.
>
> Oh yeah, and how did Punksatawny Phil get his name ?
>
> 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: | Re: Naming of Mitchel Field |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "w b evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net>
OOPS forgot. He was a WWl ACE, I think.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@compuserve.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Naming of Mitchel Field
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka"
<bobka@compuserve.com>
>
> Dick,
>
> Here is another one for you. How is Mitchel Field on Long Island named
> after?
>
> Chris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <rhartwig11@juno.com>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Naming of Wright Field
>
>
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: rhartwig11@juno.com
> >
> > Chris,
> > Cliff's source says that the field was named after the brothers, but it
> > may be a little more involved than that. The history is a little
> > confusing to me. One source says--First there was McCook Field, next,
> > adjacent to it was Wilbur Wright Field. Then land was donated for
Wright
> > Field. Then Wilbur Wright Field was renamed Patterson Field. Then the
> > whole works became Wright-Patterson AFB.
> > It seems that 2 fields with a total of three names became the
> > AFB.......then there is the story of the field that predated the above,
> > where the brothers did their testing after the first flight--Huffman
> > Prairie Flying Field which also is on W-P AFB.
> > So, what is the correct answer?
> > Dick Hartwig
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard@titan.com>
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" <ewilliams805@msn.com>
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 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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard@titan.com>
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" <ewilliams805@msn.com>
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 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: Naming of Mitchel Field |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
Billy Mitchell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@compuserve.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Naming of Mitchel Field
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka"
<bobka@compuserve.com>
>
> Dick,
>
> Here is another one for you. How is Mitchel Field on Long Island named
> after?
>
> Chris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <rhartwig11@juno.com>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Naming of Wright Field
>
>
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: rhartwig11@juno.com
> >
> > Chris,
> > Cliff's source says that the field was named after the brothers, but it
> > may be a little more involved than that. The history is a little
> > confusing to me. One source says--First there was McCook Field, next,
> > adjacent to it was Wilbur Wright Field. Then land was donated for
Wright
> > Field. Then Wilbur Wright Field was renamed Patterson Field. Then the
> > whole works became Wright-Patterson AFB.
> > It seems that 2 fields with a total of three names became the
> > AFB.......then there is the story of the field that predated the above,
> > where the brothers did their testing after the first flight--Huffman
> > Prairie Flying Field which also is on W-P AFB.
> > So, what is the correct answer?
> > Dick Hartwig
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
Gene, aren't you getting a little tired of sending the same old email?
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hubbard,
Eugene
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage??
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard@titan.com>
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" <ewilliams805@msn.com>
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 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: Good Fuselage?? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dennis Engelkenjohn" <wingding@usmo.com>
On my minimax the plans call for a strip of 1/8" mahogany plywood, about 1
3/4" wide by 7' long from the cockpit back to the tail on all outside
corners of the longerons. It also has cross braces in the back part of the
fuselage.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard@titan.com>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage??
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hubbard, Eugene"
<ehubbard@titan.com>
>
> 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]
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage??
>
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Eric Williams"
<ewilliams805@msn.com>
>
> 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 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: Naming of Mitchel Field |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "w b evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net>
OK,, thanks.
What other infro do you know?
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Naming of Mitchel Field
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gene Rambo" <rambog@erols.com>
>
> Billy Mitchell
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@compuserve.com>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Naming of Mitchel Field
>
>
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka"
> <bobka@compuserve.com>
> >
> > Dick,
> >
> > Here is another one for you. How is Mitchel Field on Long Island named
> > after?
> >
> > Chris
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <rhartwig11@juno.com>
> > To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Naming of Wright Field
> >
> >
> > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: rhartwig11@juno.com
> > >
> > > Chris,
> > > Cliff's source says that the field was named after the brothers, but
it
> > > may be a little more involved than that. The history is a little
> > > confusing to me. One source says--First there was McCook Field, next,
> > > adjacent to it was Wilbur Wright Field. Then land was donated for
> Wright
> > > Field. Then Wilbur Wright Field was renamed Patterson Field. Then
the
> > > whole works became Wright-Patterson AFB.
> > > It seems that 2 fields with a total of three names became the
> > > AFB.......then there is the story of the field that predated the
above,
> > > where the brothers did their testing after the first flight--Huffman
> > > Prairie Flying Field which also is on W-P AFB.
> > > So, what is the correct answer?
> > > Dick Hartwig
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
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: Good Fuselage?? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "w b evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net>
yes, I concur.
what's up with that?
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage??
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jack Phillips"
<pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
>
> Gene, aren't you getting a little tired of sending the same old email?
>
> Jack
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hubbard,
> Eugene
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 8:34 PM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage??
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hubbard, Eugene"
<ehubbard@titan.com>
>
> 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]
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage??
>
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Eric Williams"
<ewilliams805@msn.com>
>
> 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 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: | Re: Naming of Wright Field |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Mike Whaley" <MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com>
Two wrongs don't make a right... but two Wrights made an airplane.
> Wright which was wrong it should have been right so now we don't know
which
> right is right. Am I right?
> Chris T. from the Left Coast
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! --
|