Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:27 AM - Re: what medical ? (Michael D Cuy)
2. 06:49 AM - Re: Re: Airfoil stuff (Mike King)
3. 08:40 AM - Re: list postings from Thursday, Jan 8 (Bill Church)
4. 09:03 AM - Re: Re: list postings from Thursday, Jan 8 (Gadd, Skip)
5. 09:08 AM - Re: Re: Airfoil stuff (BARNSTMR@aol.com)
6. 09:33 AM - float/short field (Michael D Cuy)
7. 09:33 AM - Taylorcraft wing (Doc Mosher)
8. 09:53 AM - Re: what medical ? (Isablcorky@aol.com)
9. 10:07 AM - Medical? (Doc Mosher)
10. 11:45 AM - Re: Re: list postings from Thursday, Jan 8 (Bill Church)
11. 12:15 PM - For those of us in the cold (John Hofmann)
12. 01:52 PM - Re: For those of us in the cold (Mike)
13. 02:34 PM - Re: Airfoils (hjarrett)
14. 02:45 PM - one hole in each end of the rudder bar (Ken Chambers)
15. 03:50 PM - Re: what medical (Janis Nielsen)
16. 04:01 PM - Re: Airfoils (Kevin Holcomb)
17. 05:12 PM - Re: Airfoils (hjarrett)
18. 06:05 PM - Re: Re: what medical (Ellie & Jim Sheen)
19. 06:08 PM - Re: Airfoils (Mike)
20. 06:47 PM - I see 0 deg f on the thermometer (w b evans)
21. 06:56 PM - Re: For those of us in the cold (dpaul)
22. 07:10 PM - Re: Re: what medical (Doyle K. Combs)
23. 07:15 PM - Re: Re: what medical (Carbarvo@aol.com)
24. 07:48 PM - Re: I see 0 deg f on the thermometer (Christian Bobka)
25. 07:50 PM - Re: Airfoils (John Dilatush)
26. 08:01 PM - Forwarded to the Piet list from Dan Zigo (Christian Bobka)
27. 08:03 PM - Re: one hole in each end of the rudder bar (Rcaprd@aol.com)
28. 08:05 PM - Re: Airfoils (Christian Bobka)
29. 08:27 PM - Re: Airfoils (Graham Hansen)
30. 08:29 PM - Re: Airfoils (hjarrett)
31. 09:24 PM - Re: Airfoils (Rcaprd@aol.com)
32. 09:49 PM - Pete Bowers article..... (Jim Markle)
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: what medical ? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Gosh Chris, those were amazing stories. I knew these cases happened but
to hear about the ones you cited just floored me. Thanks for the input---I
feel exactly the same way on this medical issue and guys who have one
little accident and are punished forever. Reminds me of marriage, actually:)))
Mike C. where it's 18 F here with flurries !
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: | Re: Airfoil stuff |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Mike King" <mike@mking.us>
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
BARNSTMR@aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Airfoil stuff
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: BARNSTMR@aol.com
There was a Piet in Clifton TX years ago with T-craft wings and a 70 hp
Lambert or LeBlond engine. I heard it is in a museum now in south TX
somewhere. It is black painted with skull and crossbones and mock german
markings. I think it even had mock machine guns on it. I never talked to
anyone who flew it tho. Has anyone heard of this airplane?
Terry L. Bowden
ph 254-715-4773
fax 254-853-3805
Terry,
You are right. That PIET was based in Clifton, Texas some years ago. It
was sold
to the Texas Air Museum located in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas
which
border Mexico. See the web site: http://www.texasairmuseum.com/index.htm
The plane is on static display and flies regularly in air shows as part of
an air-to-air
combat with a SE 5 to demonstrate the first known "dogfight" to take place.
I saw
this airplane perform and could not believe how agile it was in tight
turns...and at
very, very low level. These planes were no more than a couple hundred feet
above
the crowd and many times barely cleared the brush in several swoops across
the
field.
After reading your post, I called the museum and asked for static and aerial
shots
of the PIET in action. There is an air show there this weekend.
I will post the pictures of the plane when I get them from South Texas.
By the way, this is the same museum that rebuilt a World War II German
fighter and
located the pilot in Germany who was shot down in it during the war.
Discovery WINGS
did a show on it and featured my late friend John Warren Houston who was the
museum
director. The German pilot flew to South Texas and was very emotional at
the site of his
airplane. The museum did not an outstanding job. Visit the above web site
to get a better
idea of what the museum is doing.
For those who live in Texas, it would be worth the flight or drive to the
museum to see
the exhibits and watch the PIET get a workout in a well done dogfight.
Mike King
GN-1
77MK
Dallas, Texas
---
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: list postings from Thursday, Jan 8 |
Am I missing something here? Were there photos attached to these three list
postings on Thursday?
Re: a view from the pilot's seat in a Pietenpol w/ a passenger
Re: Brodhead from the air---from a Piet
Re: Great Photos
I checked photoshare and didn't find anything. Some of you were obviously
able to view some pics (apparently good ones too). I feel like I'm missing
out.
Bill
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<META NAME"Generator" CONTENT"MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2448.0">
Re: list postings from Thursday, Jan 8
Am I missing something here? Were there photos attached to these three list postings
on Thursday?
Re: a view from the pilot's seat in a Pietenpol w/ a passenger
Re: Brodhead from the air---from a Piet
Re: Great Photos
I checked photoshare and didn't find anything. Some of you were obviously able
to view some pics (apparently good ones too). I feel like I'm missing out.
Bill
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: list postings from Thursday, Jan 8 |
Bill,
The way I understand it you have to be receiving the list postings in real
time to get the attachments, if you get a daily dump from the archives it
would not attachments.
The pictures are great!
Skip
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Church
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: list postings from Thursday, Jan 8
Am I missing something here? Were there photos attached to these three list
postings on Thursday?
Re: a view from the pilot's seat in a Pietenpol w/ a passenger
Re: Brodhead from the air---from a Piet
Re: Great Photos
I checked photoshare and didn't find anything. Some of you were obviously
able to view some pics (apparently good ones too). I feel like I'm missing
out.
Bill
Message
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=GENERATOR>
<FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Bill,
The
way I understand it you have to be receiving the list postings in real time to
get the attachments, if you get a daily dump from the archives it would not
attachments.
The
pictures are great!
<FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Skip
<FONT
face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Church
'pietenpol-list@matronics.com'
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: list
postings from Thursday, Jan 8
Am I missing something here? Were there
photos attached to these three list postings on Thursday?
Re: a view from the pilot's seat in a
Pietenpol w/ a passenger
Re:
Brodhead from the air---from a Piet
<FONT face="Courier New"
size=2>Re: Great Photos
I checked photoshare and didn't find
anything. Some of you were obviously able to view some pics (apparently good
ones too). I feel like I'm missing out.
Bill
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: Airfoil stuff |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: BARNSTMR@aol.com
Mike,
Thanks for the update. Sounds like a lot of fun for some lucky snoopy and red
barron pilots. I won't be able to make the air show there this weekend. If you
go, please take some pictures and post them for us to see. Best regards,
Terry L. Bowden
ph 254-715-4773
fax 254-853-3805
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: | float/short field |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Chuck G. and John Dilatush are right on about the Piet's flying limitations
and goodness qualities about short field and smooth landings. These are no
Champs or Cubs on landing due to all those cross braces, wires, cabane
struts windshields, and bodies and heads sticking out. Where you are going
to shoot yourself in the foot is building tooooo heavy and trying to
approach at too shallow an angle. Oh yes, hot days and high elevations
will put even more excitement into landings--but it can be done and done
very sweetly once you get used to them. You can't imagine how little roll
out you have on landing a Piet into say a 15 mph headwind, no flaps, no
power, and on grass. At fly-in's too---you always need to add power to
get your butt off the runway or the guy in the 172 behind you will curse
you or eat your rudder with his prop.
Mike C.
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: | Taylorcraft wing |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Doc Mosher <docshop@tds.net>
Terry and others -
The Piet you reference may be 36RN, which is in the Texas Air Museum in Rio
Hondo Texas. I may have a photo or two of it in flight. It is black with
a Fokker fin and rudder, as I remember (senior moment). I do not know that
it had a Taylorcraft wing, but it is the only one I know about in a museum
in south Texas.
Doc
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: what medical ? |
Mike,
If you had elected for a flop over your rear pit instead of the cutout you
could fly today like we do way down here and never be bothered by those flurries.
Corky in beautiful, sunny, kinda warm La
Do not archive
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Doc Mosher <docshop@tds.net>
Chris - Great story about Jack Green and Charlie G!
I've been flying for 60 years now (+21,000 hrs) and I was embarrassed a
few years ago at a nameless FSDO when I was doing a 135 recurrent flight
check. The fed man asked for my pilot paperwork! Well, it was the first
time anyone had ever asked for it. I didn't carry it with me, so I told
him I would have to go home and get it. He was the right guy at the right
time, and he said he was going for a cup of coffee, and he was not sure
just how I was going to get the KingAir back home. Somehow, even without
papers, the trip back to base was without incident. I made another
appointment with Mr. Fed.
It sure has helped that I never had any CAA/FAA violations and no accidents.
It is always better to ask forgiveness than to ask for permission.
Doc
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Re: list postings from Thursday, Jan 8 |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Bill Church <eng@canadianrogers.com>
Thanks Skip,
I have just subscribed to the realtime listing, in addition to the
digest, so I won't miss any future pics. In the meantime, if anyone out
there that got those pics wanted to post them to photoshare, I imagine those
of us that missed them would appreciate it.
Bill (up in Ontario, Canada, where it was -18F (-28C) this AM)
------------------ORIGINAL MESSAGE-------------------------------
Subject: RE: Re: list postings from Thursday, Jan 8
From: Gadd, Skip (Skip.Gadd@ssa.gov)
Date: Fri Jan 09 - 9:03 AM
Bill,
The way I understand it you have to be receiving the list postings
in real time to get the attachments, if you get a daily dump from the
archives it would not attachments. The pictures are great!
Skip
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: | For those of us in the cold |
Brodhead from the ground, 2002, back in the woods at sunup.
TakeCare,
-john-
---------------------------------
John Hofmann
Manager, Information Technology
The Rees Group, Inc.
7600 Terrace Avenue, Ste. 203
Middleton, WI 53562
Phone: 608-831-3611, ext. 150
Fax: 608-831-5122
Email: jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com
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: For those of us in the cold |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mike <bike.mike@verizon.net>
on 1/9/04 12:15, John Hofmann at jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com wrote:
> Brodhead from the ground, 2002, back in the woods at sunup.
>
I don't know whose Piet that is, waking up the campers at Brodhead, but it
has been my monitor's wallpaper for a while now. It is the most
inspirational Piet-builder's photo I've seen.
Mike Hardaway
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 |
|
I originally wrote to Corky in La about doing a study on the Piet airfoil and recommended
keeping it quiet until we had something to really say, but there seems
to be tremendous interest in this subject and quite a bit of passion too.
There are at least two people on this list who are (or have been) with NASA and
several Aero Engineers and students studying Aero Engineering. I would like
to suggest that those with a technical background get together and set up a
test plan to include a section of wing for wind tunnel testing (I have seen the
data on BPs wing that is available and there doesn't appear to be any data at
the stall where it's needed)
From there we all do some of the building and testing to find out just how good
an airfoil the edge of BPs shoe really made. I'm not saying everybody should
go out and change their wings, just that we ought to know what the current (and
alternate) wings are really doing. The accident statistics do seem to be saying
that there are some unusual features to flying a Piet. If that's true lets
find out what those features are and make sure the new guys thoroughly understand
what their new birds are going to do. In the process, there will probably
be some new changes that will come out that SOME people will want to make
to the aerodynamics of their projects. That's why they call them "Experimental".
Any students out there want a really off beat special project for their engineering
degree? Any of the other engineers interested in doing some REALLY cheap
engineering (trust me, there is NO MONEY in this kind of thing) and lastly I'll
bet there are several out there that would like to see a section of the wing
they built in a real wind tunnel or would like to try their hand at being a
REAL TEST PILOT to test out the real world differences with different airfoils
on a Piet.
Hank J
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Chambers
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings
Chuck
I understand those who like the airplane just as it flies. I think everyone should
get the chance to fly an original Pietenpol with the original airfoil. It's
a unique piece of history, and it's a blessing that we can build it and fly
it just the way it was designed way back when. It should always be that way.
Meanwhile, why shouldn't we develop another airfoil option for those who want
a little less drag and maybe a lower stall speed? One member of this list (I
forget who) summed up the NTSB Pietenpol crash stats by saying we could avoid
about half of all accidents by "keeping it full of gas and keeping the airspeed
up". A lower drag airfoil would help make the Pietenpol safer in both those
circumstances (engine out and stalls) plus many of the other situations that led
to crashes.
There's a great airfoil forum I ran across on the Web a few months ago. I'll see if I can find it and have them look over Kevin's "FC-10" numbers at www.airminded.net. Maybe we'll get some recommendations for airfoils with similar characteristics but lower drag.
If anyone else who knows more about this than I do (and that should be just about
everyone on the list) wants to start looking at numbers and talking to the
gurus, I think it would be a great way to get started.
Ken in Austin, thinking about holding off on the ribs a while longer
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: | one hole in each end of the rudder bar |
The plans are a bit ambiguous on this, and I ended up drilling one hole.
Now I notice that most of the rudder bar photos I can find show two
holes. You guys think there's going to be any problem with the cable
going to the front pedals and the cable going back to the tail sharing a
single hole? We've tried it with one pin holding two buckles and it
doesn't seem to bind.
Ken
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: what medical |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Janis Nielsen <nielsen5052@yahoo.com>
I have been following this group for a year now and
feel that I know some of you personally. The medical
thing has really hit home to me. I was going to start
on my Piet this year and then the FAA yanked my
medical because I take Prozac. Anyone have any clues
as to how to get the guys in Oklahoma City to
reinstate my medical so I can finish getting my
Private license (only about 10 hours to go) or will I
have to wait until the Sport Pilot issue gets
resolved? I have put the Piet on hold until I find out
if I will be able to fly the thing once it is built.
Bruce Nielsen
about a mile away from Steve E.
__________________________________
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
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 |
|
Obtaining data near stall is a big problem. The CFD methods break down, they can
be used to explain what happens after you know what the answer is. However
they are not of much use in predicting when it will stall. The trick is to know
when the airflow unattaches itself from the surface. Wind tunnel methods
are not much better as the behavior of an airfoil near stall very sensitive to
reynolds number. You would pretty much have to test at full scale and full speed.
One trick that the pros use when doing wind tunnel test is they attach
a strip to the top surface of the wing to trip the air. That little trick helps
a great deal in obtaining repeatable data. It also hints that data without
that strip will not be easily repeatable, and thus not reliable. The point
is, don't look to either of the two big tools for reliable predictions around
stall.
If you want to arm chair engineer this one, use XFOIL to run the cases and simply
not run or look at any cases beyond the angle at which experience shows most
airfoils stall (somewhere between 11 and 14 degrees.) Keep in mind data obtained
from different methods is not as consistent as data obtained from the same
method. XFOIL has a function that lets you quickly generate any NACA airfoil.
Also, keep in mind that 3D results are usually slightly worse than the 2D
(infinite wings) sections the NACA reports or XFOIL deals with. Not a big deal
as long as you compare apples to apples, but expect to lose 5% when you translate
from theorey to real life. Ignore any laminar airfoils; laminar flow
simply won't happen on a piet or for that matter most GA airplanes. When using
charts, you want to use the 'standard roughness' numbers, yes they are lower
than the others but you simply won't get the better results on anything less
than an extreamly exact, smooth and polished wing; s
o no sense dreaming about them. Also, make sure that you compare pitching moments.
The GA(W)-1 that was developed for optimum lift to drag has an extreamly
high pitching moment, which when incorporated in a complete design requires
more stabilizer, that in turn increases the airplanes drag and thus may not present
an optimum solution of maximum lift for the drag after all. If you select
an airplane with a greater pitching moment you will most likely discover that
you do not have enough horizontal stabilizer area, and in such ways small design
changes spiral out of control.
After you do all this, I think you will find the BHP airfoil is a pretty good choice
for an airplane of the size and that flies at the speeds of a Piet.
Kevin
www.airminded.net
----- Original Message -----
From: hjarrett
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoils
I originally wrote to Corky in La about doing a study on the Piet airfoil and recommended
keeping it quiet until we had something to really say, but there seems
to be tremendous interest in this subject and quite a bit of passion too.
There are at least two people on this list who are (or have been) with NASA and
several Aero Engineers and students studying Aero Engineering. I would like
to suggest that those with a technical background get together and set up a
test plan to include a section of wing for wind tunnel testing (I have seen the
data on BPs wing that is available and there doesn't appear to be any data at
the stall where it's needed)
From there we all do some of the building and testing to find out just how good
an airfoil the edge of BPs shoe really made. I'm not saying everybody should
go out and change their wings, just that we ought to know what the current (and
alternate) wings are really doing. The accident statistics do seem to be saying
that there are some unusual features to flying a Piet. If that's true lets
find out what those features are and make sure the new guys thoroughly understand
what their new birds are going to do. In the process, there will probably
be some new changes that will come out that SOME people will want to make
to the aerodynamics of their projects. That's why they call them "Experimental".
Any students out there want a really off beat special project for their engineering
degree? Any of the other engineers interested in doing some REALLY cheap
engineering (trust me, there is NO MONEY in this kind of thing) and lastly I'll
bet there are several out there that would like to see a section of the wing
they built in a real wind tunnel or would like to try their hand at being a
REAL TEST PILOT to test out the real world differences with different airfoils
on a Piet.
Hank J
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Chambers
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings
Chuck
I understand those who like the airplane just as it flies. I think everyone should
get the chance to fly an original Pietenpol with the original airfoil. Its
a unique piece of history, and its a blessing that we can build it and fly it
just the way it was designed way back when. It should always be that way.
Meanwhile, why shouldnt we develop another airfoil option for those who want a
little less drag and maybe a lower stall speed? One member of this list (I forget
who) summed up the NTSB Pietenpol crash stats by saying we could avoid about
half of all accidents by keeping it full of gas and keeping the airspeed up.
A lower drag airfoil would help make the Pietenpol safer in both those circumstances
(engine out and stalls) plus many of the other situations that led to
crashes.
Theres a great airfoil forum I ran across on the Web a few months ago. Ill see if I can find it and have them look over Kevins FC-10 numbers at www.airminded.net. Maybe well get some recommendations for airfoils with similar characteristics but lower drag.
If anyone else who knows more about this than I do (and that should be just about
everyone on the list) wants to start looking at numbers and talking to the
gurus, I think it would be a great way to get started.
Ken in Austin, thinking about holding off on the ribs a while longer
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 |
|
Testing a section at full chord size and actual Reynolds Number is exactly what
I had in mind. A Piet wing has a small enough size that one of the university
tunnels might be able to hold a section and it would make a GREAT student project.
Then too, we might be able to get one of the NASA tunnels to make a run
in conjunction with another test if there wasn't significant interference with
their schedule. Glenn and Langley both have facilities that might be worked
if there was a strong education connection and some good publicity. One of
the Langley tunnels is managed by the local university but it is big enough for
a WHOLE Piet!
The problem with arm chair engineer using something like XFOIL is it lets you size
a wing and do some performance work but the problems hit right where the predictive
CFD tools break down. The shape of the hook at the top of the lift
curve slope is what makes the Piet fly (stall) like it does and CFD doesn't give
you that.
I also think you would be amazed at how much Natural Laminar Flow happens in nature
(and on a Piet). It isn't that it's not there as much as I think we don't
really understand it that well (certainly not on wood and cloth wings!). The
heavy iron and even the major GA manufactures just don't care about aerodynamics
in the area we work in.
Sounds like you may be one of the Engineer types that would be right for this part
of a project. Do we have others? Mike C?
Hank J
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Holcomb
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoils
Obtaining data near stall is a big problem. The CFD methods break down, they
can be used to explain what happens after you know what the answer is. However
they are not of much use in predicting when it will stall. The trick is to
know when the airflow unattaches itself from the surface. Wind tunnel methods
are not much better as the behavior of an airfoil near stall very sensitive
to reynolds number. You would pretty much have to test at full scale and full
speed. One trick that the pros use when doing wind tunnel test is they attach
a strip to the top surface of the wing to trip the air. That little trick helps
a great deal in obtaining repeatable data. It also hints that data without
that strip will not be easily repeatable, and thus not reliable. The point
is, don't look to either of the two big tools for reliable predictions around
stall.
If you want to arm chair engineer this one, use XFOIL to run the cases and simply
not run or look at any cases beyond the angle at which experience shows most
airfoils stall (somewhere between 11 and 14 degrees.) Keep in mind data
obtained from different methods is not as consistent as data obtained from the
same method. XFOIL has a function that lets you quickly generate any NACA airfoil.
Also, keep in mind that 3D results are usually slightly worse than the
2D (infinite wings) sections the NACA reports or XFOIL deals with. Not a big
deal as long as you compare apples to apples, but expect to lose 5% when you
translate from theorey to real life. Ignore any laminar airfoils; laminar flow
simply won't happen on a piet or for that matter most GA airplanes. When using
charts, you want to use the 'standard roughness' numbers, yes they are lower
than the others but you simply won't get the better results on anything le
ss than an extreamly exact, smooth and polished wing; so no sense dreaming about
them. Also, make sure that you compare pitching moments. The GA(W)-1 that
was developed for optimum lift to drag has an extreamly high pitching moment,
which when incorporated in a complete design requires more stabilizer, that
in turn increases the airplanes drag and thus may not present an optimum solution
of maximum lift for the drag after all. If you select an airplane with a
greater pitching moment you will most likely discover that you do not have enough
horizontal stabilizer area, and in such ways small design changes spiral out
of control.
After you do all this, I think you will find the BHP airfoil is a pretty good
choice for an airplane of the size and that flies at the speeds of a Piet.
Kevin
www.airminded.net
----- Original Message -----
From: hjarrett
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: 1/9/2004 5:34:49 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoils
I originally wrote to Corky in La about doing a study on the Piet airfoil and
recommended keeping it quiet until we had something to really say, but there
seems to be tremendous interest in this subject and quite a bit of passion too.
There are at least two people on this list who are (or have been) with NASA
and several Aero Engineers and students studying Aero Engineering. I would
like to suggest that those with a technical background get together and set up
a test plan to include a section of wing for wind tunnel testing (I have seen
the data on BPs wing that is available and there doesn't appear to be any data
at the stall where it's needed)
From there we all do some of the building and testing to find out just how
good an airfoil the edge of BPs shoe really made. I'm not saying everybody should
go out and change their wings, just that we ought to know what the current
(and alternate) wings are really doing. The accident statistics do seem to
be saying that there are some unusual features to flying a Piet. If that's true
lets find out what those features are and make sure the new guys thoroughly
understand what their new birds are going to do. In the process, there will
probably be some new changes that will come out that SOME people will want to
make to the aerodynamics of their projects. That's why they call them "Experimental".
Any students out there want a really off beat special project for their engineering
degree? Any of the other engineers interested in doing some REALLY cheap
engineering (trust me, there is NO MONEY in this kind of thing) and lastly
I'll bet there are several out there that would like to see a section of the
wing they built in a real wind tunnel or would like to try their hand at being
a REAL TEST PILOT to test out the real world differences with different airfoils
on a Piet.
Hank J
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Chambers
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings
Chuck
I understand those who like the airplane just as it flies. I think everyone
should get the chance to fly an original Pietenpol with the original airfoil.
It's a unique piece of history, and it's a blessing that we can build it and
fly it just the way it was designed way back when. It should always be that
way.
Meanwhile, why shouldn't we develop another airfoil option for those who
want a little less drag and maybe a lower stall speed? One member of this list
(I forget who) summed up the NTSB Pietenpol crash stats by saying we could avoid
about half of all accidents by "keeping it full of gas and keeping the airspeed
up". A lower drag airfoil would help make the Pietenpol safer in both those
circumstances (engine out and stalls) plus many of the other situations that
led to crashes.
There's a great airfoil forum I ran across on the Web a few months ago. I'll see if I can find it and have them look over Kevin's "FC-10" numbers at www.airminded.net. Maybe we'll get some recommendations for airfoils with similar characteristics but lower drag.
If anyone else who knows more about this than I do (and that should be just
about everyone on the list) wants to start looking at numbers and talking to
the gurus, I think it would be a great way to get started.
Ken in Austin, thinking about holding off on the ribs a while longer
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: what medical |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Ellie & Jim Sheen" <sheenej@adelphia.net>
Janis
To get some helpful knowledgeable information, contact the medical
advisory department at AOPA. They will give you accurate details. If you are
not a member, become a member. You will get more than your moneys worth.
They have helped me many times over the years. Presently my cardiac health
does not allow me to fly but I am building our Piet just so I will have a
plane that fits the sport plane category. It will allow me to stay at
thecontrols.
Don't give up until you have examined all your options. The building
process is good therapy, lots of fun, a rewarding process, and I am learning
to have a whole new circle of friends. All of you Piet builders have been
and are helpful. Thanks! A great group.
Jim Sheen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Janis Nielsen" <nielsen5052@yahoo.com>
To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 6:50 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: what medical
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Janis Nielsen
<nielsen5052@yahoo.com>
>
> I have been following this group for a year now and
> feel that I know some of you personally. The medical
> thing has really hit home to me. I was going to start
> on my Piet this year and then the FAA yanked my
> medical because I take Prozac. Anyone have any clues
> as to how to get the guys in Oklahoma City to
> reinstate my medical so I can finish getting my
> Private license (only about 10 hours to go) or will I
> have to wait until the Sport Pilot issue gets
> resolved? I have put the Piet on hold until I find out
> if I will be able to fly the thing once it is built.
>
> Bruce Nielsen
> about a mile away from Steve E.
>
> __________________________________
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
MIME_QP_LONG_LINE
All this talk about testing airfoils and sticking this antiquated design of
ours in a wind tunnel sets me to thinking.
We could find a better-stalling airfoil that is maybe thicker so we could
have a deeper spar, then we wouldn't need struts; then we could go fast
enough that we'd need to keep the air blast down by enclosing the cockpit;
then we could go even faster so it would make sense to design and build a
stiffer tail that wouldn't need those draggy flying wires; then we could go
fast enough that retracting the landing gear would really benefit the top
end. Heck, while we're at it, we could figure out how to make a glass lay
up for the fuselage, maybe rounding off those aerodynamically troubling
square corners. Going fast enough by now that we'll have to file a flight
plan to do touch-and-go's, we'll have to think about panel-mounted GPS and
maybe a FADEC so we'll probably need that 150 amp 28 volt alternator. That
means a bigger engine...
Wait a minute, what happened to my Pietenpol?
The 75 year old Air Camper is just that: a 75 year old design. Those 75
years have seen a lot of innovation and, if you want, you can use some of
it. Then your airplane would be a Lanceair or a GlassStar.
This little pasture hopping airplane that is the cause of this list appeals
to me BECAUSE it is a lightweight, slow, draggy, inexpensive, simultaneously
cantankerous and forgiving, and beautiful, bird. If I didn't like it, AS IT
IS, I would build something else, something that already has a more
forgiving airfoil and doesn't slow down too quickly when I pull off the
power or raise the nose.
I have chosen to build a Pietenpol Aircamper. A Pietenpol Aircamper has
open cockpits, flying wires all over the place and exposed control cables,
causing it to have more drag than a parachute; a thin, highly cambered
airfoil that has a questionable stall; a front seat that is hard to get in
and out of; can be built with hand tools, can fly on a few horsepower
wrenched out of an antique car engine, takes up little space in a hangar,
and turns heads everywhere it goes.
I will stay with my decision.
Mike Hardaway
PS: Yes, I'm trained as an aeronautical engineer, but I like the old Piet.
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: | I see 0 deg f on the thermometer |
Just looked out and I see 0 on the thermometer. Man! that's cold. I long for
the buggy summer nights , with the katy-dids, after comming back from flying
the valley.
walt evans
NX140DL
do not archive
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: For those of us in the cold |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "dpaul" <dpaul@fidnet.com>
-----Original Message-----
Subject: Pietenpol-List: For those of us in the cold
John -Thanks for sending that beautiful picture to the List. From now on, it
will be the first thing I see whenever I turn on my computer.
Just got this month's EAA magazine. What a great article inside about the
Pietenpol!!!
Dave in Missouri
(Do not archive)
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: what medical |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Doyle K. Combs" <dcombs@Ltex.net>
Regarding getting help on a medical. I know one person who contacted their
Senator and he sent some inquiries to FAA and some lady from Washington, DC,
called and began getting the necessary machinery in motion. You have
nothing to lose.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Janis Nielsen" <nielsen5052@yahoo.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: what medical
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Janis Nielsen
<nielsen5052@yahoo.com>
>
> I have been following this group for a year now and
> feel that I know some of you personally. The medical
> thing has really hit home to me. I was going to start
> on my Piet this year and then the FAA yanked my
> medical because I take Prozac. Anyone have any clues
> as to how to get the guys in Oklahoma City to
> reinstate my medical so I can finish getting my
> Private license (only about 10 hours to go) or will I
> have to wait until the Sport Pilot issue gets
> resolved? I have put the Piet on hold until I find out
> if I will be able to fly the thing once it is built.
>
> Bruce Nielsen
> about a mile away from Steve E.
>
> __________________________________
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
>
>
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: what medical |
EAA maintains a list of MDs to which they refer as "Advocates"...Doctors who
fly and have a broader understanding of the requirements and passions for
flight. It might be that from that list, you could find the kind of help you
need....Carl Vought
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: I see 0 deg f on the thermometer |
Walt,
Move to Minnesota. It is in the mid 20's here.
Chris Bobka
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: w b evans
To: piet discussion
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 8:47 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: I see 0 deg f on the thermometer
Just looked out and I see 0 on the thermometer. Man! that's cold. I long for
the buggy summer nights , with the katy-dids, after comming back from flying
the valley.
walt evans
NX140DL
do not archive
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoils
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoils
Mike said:
"The 75 year old Air Camper is just that: a 75 year old design. Those 75 years
have seen a lot of innovation and, if you want, you can use some of it. Then
your airplane would be a Lanceair or a GlassStar.
This little pasture hopping airplane that is the cause of this list appeals to
me BECAUSE it is a lightweight, slow, draggy, inexpensive, simultaneously cantankerous
and forgiving, and beautiful, bird. If I didn't like it, AS IT IS,
I would build something else, something that already has a more forgiving airfoil
and doesn't slow down too quickly when I pull off the power or raise the
nose.
I have chosen to build a Pietenpol Aircamper. A Pietenpol Aircamper has open
cockpits, flying wires all over the place and exposed control cables, causing
it to have more drag than a parachute; a thin, highly cambered airfoil that has
a questionable stall; a front seat that is hard to get in and out of; can be
built with hand tools, can fly on a few horsepower wrenched out of an antique
car engine, takes up little space in a hangar, and turns heads everywhere it
goes.
I will stay with my decision."
Mike Hardaway
PS: Yes, I'm trained as an aeronautical engineer, but I like the old Piet.
Well said Mike!
We are flying a bit of history and can actual experience the joys and problems
that the old pilots actually felt in the 1929
and 30's. The Piet was not unique in it's flying characteristics, many of the
planes of the time flew the same way. It was considered a "good flying plane"
if the planes of that time even flew and were controllable. Flight characteristics
that we know in comtemporary planes of today are the product of long
experience and government requirements.
John
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Forwarded to the Piet list from Dan Zigo |
Guys,
I just got this (what is below) from Dan Zigo who was on the list until his ANG
unit was activiated and he went off to win the war.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: Shea Zigo
Subject: Hello
Chris,
I came back back in Aug after being gone for 5 months, left again in Oct, back
in Dec just in time for Christmas. I am leaving again sometime next week.
So far I have been to Saudi, Quatar, Iraq, and now we are off again to support
Afganistan!
When we first left it was our entire unit and all of our planes and we were gone
for the 5 months. Lucky for us now they have scaled back the number of planes
needed (less than half) so this has allowed us to rotate in and out of the
theater for now. This last time I went should have been my last time to go, however
on Monday we found out that we have been extended another 6 months. So
that's why I am going again.
I was looking at the Flitzer and man is it a good looking bird or what? I have
been going back and forth on what I want to build for a long time, single place
vs. two place ect. I like em all and wish I could build them all. As for now
I can't really do much until I am done with this activation.
BTW my wife is pregnant now, I guess that's what happens when you come home after
being gone for 5 months. We decided to go for it so when I got back in Agust
we started trying, and in Sept. we found she was pregnant. With twins no less
and yesterday I we found out they are girls.
Well anyway I just wanted to let you know I think of you guys and the list all
the time. Thanks for all of the support. When my life gets back to normal I
will join you all again.
Thanks,
Dan
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: one hole in each end of the rudder bar |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
In a message dated 1/9/04 4:45:43 PM Central Standard Time,
kchambers@winternals.com writes:
<< You guys think there's going to be any problem with the cable
going to the front pedals and the cable going back to the tail sharing a
single hole? >>
Ken,
I would suggest you just simply make a new rudder bar. It's all there on the
sheet marked 'Drawing No. 4 - DUEL CONTROL ASSEMBLY.
Chuck G.
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I thought that if you double the density of the air in the tunnel, then you could
go with half the chord and keep all other parameters the same like speed.
This would keep the Reynolds Number the same and would allow for good data that
would work in the real world. Is this not what Munk, Diehl, Weick and all the
guys at NACA back in the twenties did to make up the charts we use today?
Are these tunnels of increased density or is a smaller but high density tunnel
more available that would allow for a scaled wing section?
I imagine that aspect ratio is very important. It almost sounds easiest to hang
Mike C.'s Piet in a full scale tunnel and work up the numbers.
I am not an engineer by training but would love to contribute to this project.
Working for the airline enables me to get around easy too.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: hjarrett
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoils
Testing a section at full chord size and actual Reynolds Number is exactly what
I had in mind. A Piet wing has a small enough size that one of the university
tunnels might be able to hold a section and it would make a GREAT student
project. Then too, we might be able to get one of the NASA tunnels to make a
run in conjunction with another test if there wasn't significant interference
with their schedule. Glenn and Langley both have facilities that might be worked
if there was a strong education connection and some good publicity. One of
the Langley tunnels is managed by the local university but it is big enough
for a WHOLE Piet!
The problem with arm chair engineer using something like XFOIL is it lets you
size a wing and do some performance work but the problems hit right where the
predictive CFD tools break down. The shape of the hook at the top of the lift
curve slope is what makes the Piet fly (stall) like it does and CFD doesn't
give you that.
I also think you would be amazed at how much Natural Laminar Flow happens in
nature (and on a Piet). It isn't that it's not there as much as I think we don't
really understand it that well (certainly not on wood and cloth wings!).
The heavy iron and even the major GA manufactures just don't care about aerodynamics
in the area we work in.
Sounds like you may be one of the Engineer types that would be right for this
part of a project. Do we have others? Mike C?
Hank J
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Holcomb
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoils
Obtaining data near stall is a big problem. The CFD methods break down, they
can be used to explain what happens after you know what the answer is. However
they are not of much use in predicting when it will stall. The trick is
to know when the airflow unattaches itself from the surface. Wind tunnel methods
are not much better as the behavior of an airfoil near stall very sensitive
to reynolds number. You would pretty much have to test at full scale and full
speed. One trick that the pros use when doing wind tunnel test is they attach
a strip to the top surface of the wing to trip the air. That little trick
helps a great deal in obtaining repeatable data. It also hints that data without
that strip will not be easily repeatable, and thus not reliable. The point
is, don't look to either of the two big tools for reliable predictions around
stall.
If you want to arm chair engineer this one, use XFOIL to run the cases and
simply not run or look at any cases beyond the angle at which experience shows
most airfoils stall (somewhere between 11 and 14 degrees.) Keep in mind data
obtained from different methods is not as consistent as data obtained from the
same method. XFOIL has a function that lets you quickly generate any NACA
airfoil. Also, keep in mind that 3D results are usually slightly worse than the
2D (infinite wings) sections the NACA reports or XFOIL deals with. Not a big
deal as long as you compare apples to apples, but expect to lose 5% when you
translate from theorey to real life. Ignore any laminar airfoils; laminar flow
simply won't happen on a piet or for that matter most GA airplanes. When
using charts, you want to use the 'standard roughness' numbers, yes they are
lower than the others but you simply won't get the better results on anything
le ss than an extreamly exact, smooth and polished wing; so no sense dreaming
about them. Also, make sure that you compare pitching moments. The GA(W)-1 that
was developed for optimum lift to drag has an extreamly high pitching moment,
which when incorporated in a complete design requires more stabilizer, that
in turn increases the airplanes drag and thus may not present an optimum solution
of maximum lift for the drag after all. If you select an airplane with
a greater pitching moment you will most likely discover that you do not have enough
horizontal stabilizer area, and in such ways small design changes spiral
out of control.
After you do all this, I think you will find the BHP airfoil is a pretty good
choice for an airplane of the size and that flies at the speeds of a Piet.
Kevin
www.airminded.net
----- Original Message -----
From: hjarrett
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: 1/9/2004 5:34:49 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoils
I originally wrote to Corky in La about doing a study on the Piet airfoil
and recommended keeping it quiet until we had something to really say, but there
seems to be tremendous interest in this subject and quite a bit of passion
too. There are at least two people on this list who are (or have been) with
NASA and several Aero Engineers and students studying Aero Engineering. I would
like to suggest that those with a technical background get together and set
up a test plan to include a section of wing for wind tunnel testing (I have seen
the data on BPs wing that is available and there doesn't appear to be any
data at the stall where it's needed)
From there we all do some of the building and testing to find out just how
good an airfoil the edge of BPs shoe really made. I'm not saying everybody
should go out and change their wings, just that we ought to know what the current
(and alternate) wings are really doing. The accident statistics do seem to
be saying that there are some unusual features to flying a Piet. If that's
true lets find out what those features are and make sure the new guys thoroughly
understand what their new birds are going to do. In the process, there will
probably be some new changes that will come out that SOME people will want to
make to the aerodynamics of their projects. That's why they call them "Experimental".
Any students out there want a really off beat special project for their engineering
degree? Any of the other engineers interested in doing some REALLY
cheap engineering (trust me, there is NO MONEY in this kind of thing) and lastly
I'll bet there are several out there that would like to see a section of the
wing they built in a real wind tunnel or would like to try their hand at being
a REAL TEST PILOT to test out the real world differences with different airfoils
on a Piet.
Hank J
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Chambers
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Auto Cad Pietenpol drawings
Chuck
I understand those who like the airplane just as it flies. I think everyone
should get the chance to fly an original Pietenpol with the original airfoil.
It's a unique piece of history, and it's a blessing that we can build it
and fly it just the way it was designed way back when. It should always be that
way.
Meanwhile, why shouldn't we develop another airfoil option for those who
want a little less drag and maybe a lower stall speed? One member of this list
(I forget who) summed up the NTSB Pietenpol crash stats by saying we could
avoid about half of all accidents by "keeping it full of gas and keeping the airspeed
up". A lower drag airfoil would help make the Pietenpol safer in both
those circumstances (engine out and stalls) plus many of the other situations
that led to crashes.
There's a great airfoil forum I ran across on the Web a few months ago. I'll see if I can find it and have them look over Kevin's "FC-10" numbers at www.airminded.net. Maybe we'll get some recommendations for airfoils with similar characteristics but lower drag.
If anyone else who knows more about this than I do (and that should be
just about everyone on the list) wants to start looking at numbers and talking
to the gurus, I think it would be a great way to get started.
Ken in Austin, thinking about holding off on the ribs a while longer
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
tests=FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE
Mike Hardaway, you said exactly what needed to be said about
the venerable Pietenpol design. Now I'll add my 2 cents worth.
Those who build the Pietenpol Aircamper pretty much as it was
designed will have built a Time Machine that will take them
back to the early days when flying an airplane was more of an art
than a science---and, above all, fun.
I made a few changes on mine, but nothing that affected the aero-
dynamics or the overall appearance. It has been my "time machine"
for over 33 years and, of all the airplanes I have owned over the last
50 years, has given me the most satisfaction for pure sport flying.
Sure, it is draggy and antiquated in appearance, but it is one of my
all-time favorite sport airplanes. The only competition it has, in my
experience, is the DeHavilland DH 60 Gypsy Moth which I had the
privilege of flying back in 1952. These are rare as tooth decay in a
hen and, accordingly, fetch a king's ransom should one ever be for
sale. The D.H. has a pretty thin airfoil, too, and lots of them spun in
over the years (I have the history of dozens of them in Canada during
the 1920's and 30's).
The bottom line is that many early designs require careful handling
in the air, particularly when heavily loaded. They lose speed easily
and quickly, and need a lot of altitude to regain it when there is no
power available. But in general they are a blast (literally) to fly!
The late Peter Bowers wrote an article on the Pietenpol airplanes
and it appeared in a magazine (some time in the 1970's, I think it
was), entitled "Pietenpol--The Pasture Pilot's Pride and Joy".The
essence of the article was this:
If you want to experience flying as it was many years ago with
goggles, scarf, etc., the Pietenpol will take you there for a modest
amount of money and some effort on your part. But if you must
"modernize" it extensively, build or buy something else.
Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN)
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Re: Pietenpol-List: AirfoilsI like the Piet for all the same reasons you listed,
as is, with no changes. I'm also trained as an aeronautical (OK, aerospace)
engineer which is why I want to know "why" it does what it does. If a study
showed I could get the better handling and performance by just opening the leading
edge diameter 1/4" or adding a Phillips entry or dropping the undercamber
10%, I would probably do it. Would I change the character of the design? NO
WAY. I LIKE struts, tight cockpits (within reason) fabric over wood and the
sing of flying wires on a warm spring day. Even if I never changed ANYTHING I
would still want to know why it does what it does. It's just my nature. No
one would EVER be able to force any of us (OK, again, Uncle CAN force us) to make
changes to the design, but some of us would like to "tweak" it a little.
That's what BP did and I think he would approve of us looking at how well he did
it..
Hank J
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoils
All this talk about testing airfoils and sticking this antiquated design of ours
in a wind tunnel sets me to thinking.
We could find a better-stalling airfoil that is maybe thicker so we could have
a deeper spar, then we wouldn't need struts; then we could go fast enough that
we'd need to keep the air blast down by enclosing the cockpit; then we could
go even faster so it would make sense to design and build a stiffer tail that
wouldn't need those draggy flying wires; then we could go fast enough that retracting
the landing gear would really benefit the top end. Heck, while we're
at it, we could figure out how to make a glass lay up for the fuselage, maybe
rounding off those aerodynamically troubling square corners. Going fast enough
by now that we'll have to file a flight plan to do touch-and-go's, we'll have
to think about panel-mounted GPS and maybe a FADEC so we'll probably need
that 150 amp 28 volt alternator. That means a bigger engine...
Wait a minute, what happened to my Pietenpol?
The 75 year old Air Camper is just that: a 75 year old design. Those 75 years
have seen a lot of innovation and, if you want, you can use some of it. Then
your airplane would be a Lanceair or a GlassStar.
This little pasture hopping airplane that is the cause of this list appeals to
me BECAUSE it is a lightweight, slow, draggy, inexpensive, simultaneously cantankerous
and forgiving, and beautiful, bird. If I didn't like it, AS IT IS,
I would build something else, something that already has a more forgiving airfoil
and doesn't slow down too quickly when I pull off the power or raise the
nose.
I have chosen to build a Pietenpol Aircamper. A Pietenpol Aircamper has open
cockpits, flying wires all over the place and exposed control cables, causing
it to have more drag than a parachute; a thin, highly cambered airfoil that has
a questionable stall; a front seat that is hard to get in and out of; can be
built with hand tools, can fly on a few horsepower wrenched out of an antique
car engine, takes up little space in a hangar, and turns heads everywhere it
goes.
I will stay with my decision.
Mike Hardaway
PS: Yes, I'm trained as an aeronautical engineer, but I like the old Piet.
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
In a message dated 1/9/04 8:09:27 PM Central Standard Time,
bike.mike@verizon.net writes:
<< All this talk about testing airfoils and sticking this antiquated design of
ours in a wind tunnel sets me to thinking.
We could find a better-stalling airfoil that is maybe thicker so we could
have a deeper spar, then we wouldn't need struts; then we could go fast
enough that we'd need to keep the air blast down by enclosing the cockpit;
then we could go even faster so it would make sense to design and build a
stiffer tail that wouldn't need those draggy flying wires; then we could go
fast enough that retracting the landing gear would really benefit the top
end. Heck, while we're at it, we could figure out how to make a glass lay
up for the fuselage, maybe rounding off those aerodynamically troubling
square corners. Going fast enough by now that we'll have to file a flight
plan to do touch-and-go's, we'll have to think about panel-mounted GPS and
maybe a FADEC so we'll probably need that 150 amp 28 volt alternator. That
means a bigger engine...
Wait a minute, what happened to my Pietenpol?
The 75 year old Air Camper is just that: a 75 year old design. Those 75
years have seen a lot of innovation and, if you want, you can use some of
it. Then your airplane would be a Lanceair or a GlassStar.
This little pasture hopping airplane that is the cause of this list appeals
to me BECAUSE it is a lightweight, slow, draggy, inexpensive, simultaneously
cantankerous and forgiving, and beautiful, bird. If I didn't like it, AS IT
IS, I would build something else, something that already has a more
forgiving airfoil and doesn't slow down too quickly when I pull off the
power or raise the nose.
I have chosen to build a Pietenpol Aircamper. A Pietenpol Aircamper has
open cockpits, flying wires all over the place and exposed control cables,
causing it to have more drag than a parachute; a thin, highly cambered
airfoil that has a questionable stall; a front seat that is hard to get in
and out of; can be built with hand tools, can fly on a few horsepower
wrenched out of an antique car engine, takes up little space in a hangar,
and turns heads everywhere it goes.
I will stay with my decision.
Mike Hardaway
PS: Yes, I'm trained as an aeronautical engineer, but I like the old Piet. >>
Mike,
Very well put !!
It takes a while to get acquainted with flying your new ship, but once
you do, and you know what to expect, her characteristics become engrained in
your reflexes, and I promise you - you wouldn't have it any other way !! While
you're getting to know 'er, the robust design will allow you to drop 'er in,
and cause no damage (although a close inspection would be in order). She's a
'Stick & Rudder' airplane. Her characteristics are not worse than newer
aircraft....just different. All of your senses are used - Sight - view over the
cowl during takeoff / landing & oh the beautiful landscape, Sound - wind noise
&
engine sound to indicate your speed, or the ground rumbling under the tires,
Feel - seat of the pants, G force in conjunction with the sound of speed and
buffet of the wing indicates your angle of attack & which side of your face you
feel the wind, so you know which rudder input to use without looking at the
ball, or the feel of a brisk temperature indicating a better climb rate and visa
versa, Smell - occasional exhaust, barbaques, road kill, spring flowers, Taste
- summer air, bugs, and beer after sunset. As you eventually become one
with your ship, it will offer you as much or more satisfaction flying 'er, as it
has building 'er, and showing 'er off on the ramp !! You just don't get that
in very many ships.
I would encourage everyone to study and learn everything you can about
aerodynamics - you will be a better pilot as a result, but please - Don't Change
the Pietenpol Airfoil !!!!
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Pete Bowers article..... |
tests=FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE, UPPERCASE_25_50
I agree with Graham. And here's one magazine article by Pete Bowers about the
Pietenpol design......
<http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID181>
(If that link doesn't work, try mykitplane.com in the photo gallery section.)
Jim Markle
The late Peter Bowers wrote an article on the Pietenpol airplanes
and it appeared in a magazine (some time in the 1970's, I think it
was), entitled "Pietenpol--The Pasture Pilot's Pride and Joy".The
essence of the article was this:
If you want to experience flying as it was many years ago with
goggles, scarf, etc., the Pietenpol will take you there for a modest
amount of money and some effort on your part. But if you must
"modernize" it extensively, build or buy something else.
Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN)
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! --
|