Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:11 AM - Piet information list (Carbarvo@aol.com)
2. 07:10 AM - Re: NX899LW (Michael D Cuy)
3. 07:59 AM - Re: Piet information list (At7000ft@aol.com)
4. 08:26 AM - w&b success! (DJ Vegh)
5. 08:38 AM - Re: w&b success! (Michael D Cuy)
6. 08:46 AM - Re: w&b success! (Andimaxd@aol.com)
7. 09:33 AM - Re: w&b success! (DJ Vegh)
8. 10:47 AM - Landing Gear Location (John Dilatush)
9. 11:32 AM - Re: Landing Gear Location (Mike)
10. 02:41 PM - Re: Buying spruce for AirCamper (Hodgson, Mark O)
11. 02:45 PM - Re: wing & fabic/paint weights (Carl Loar)
12. 03:15 PM - Re: Buying spruce for AirCamper (walt evans)
13. 04:03 PM - Re: Piet information list (hjarrett)
14. 04:05 PM - Re: Buying spruce for AirCamper (dave rowe)
15. 04:06 PM - Re: FW: 6 peteskis (dave rowe)
16. 04:31 PM - Re: Buying spruce for AirCamper (hjarrett)
17. 05:20 PM - Re: Landing Gear Location (John Dilatush)
18. 06:15 PM - Re: FW: 6 peteskis (Alex Sloan)
19. 06:18 PM - Re: Piet information list (Alex Sloan)
20. 06:57 PM - Re: Landing Gear Location (Christian Bobka)
21. 07:12 PM - landings, airfoils, no snow (Oscar Zuniga)
22. 07:43 PM - Re: Buying spruce for AirCamper (Dennis Engelkenjohn)
23. 08:03 PM - Re: Landing Gear Location (John Dilatush)
24. 08:19 PM - Re: Piet information list (Christian Bobka)
25. 08:21 PM - Re: Landing Gear Location (John Dilatush)
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: | Piet information list |
I think the questionaire on Piets is an excellent way of cataloging the
variations in the airplanes. Unless I missed it, there's one addition I would like
to see. When brakes are added to a Piet, some folks move the mains axis
forward to reduce the tendency to nose over on heavy braking (mine have been moved
forward 2.5" from the plans). We could include the dimension from prop hub to
the axle....Whatta ya think?....Carl Vought
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: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Congratulations Larry on this article !!! I'm still waiting for the
issue to arrive at my house. It sure would cure these winter
Piet-deprivation days. (as I dropped off my stepdaughter to school this
morning with her snow skis for skiing after school w/ the club)
Mike C.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Piet information list |
Good idea Carl, one question though is what to use for a datum to measure
from. Since people move their engine forward sometimes 6 -8 inches for CG I don't
think that will work. Same thing with the wing leading edge, people move the
wing forward and backward too. How about the front Ash floor cross strut?
Rick Holland
I think the questionaire on Piets is an excellent way of cataloging the
variations in the airplanes. Unless I missed it, there's one addition I would like
to see. When brakes are added to a Piet, some folks move the mains axis
forward to reduce the tendency to nose over on heavy braking (mine have been moved
forward 2.5" from the plans). We could include the dimension from prop hub to
the axle....Whatta ya think?....Carl Vought
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 |
|
I did my preliminary weight and balance last night. I do not have wings built
but I estimated thier finished weights and arm. I needed to figure this out so
I can design my engine mount.
I levelled the airframe and placed scales under each wheel with me sitting in the
rear hole. I got 140 on each main and 115 on the tail. I then figured in
wing weight and other misc. items like avionics/instruments control cables, covering,
paint. Using my firewall as the datum I determined that the center of
mass of my Corvair would be about 19" in front of the datum. I then figured
all the firewall forward items and did the final calculation.
Wow! I need my GN-1 to balance at 36" aft of the datum.... my calculations came
in at 35.5" Looks like I did my math properly when I stretched my fuse and
moved the rear seat. Hopefully my estimations of all items I don't have were
close. In any case as long as I can manage about 1" or 2" nose heavy I can
always add 5lb to the tail. no biggie.
by the way, my estimated empty weight is going to be around 630-660lb. Right
where I had hoped.
Now I can begin engine mount construction.
DJ Vegh
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
N74DV
_
=
This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by Half Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more information on an anti-virus email solution, visit <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
Message 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: w&b success! |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
DJ--- don't worry, if you fly a year from now you might have put on 5
pounds and won't have to add any weight to the tail !!!! I'll be glad to
donate as much weight as you want.
PS-- your empty wt. sounds great. You must be going non-electric. Great
to hear of your progress.
Mike C.
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: w&b success! |
DJ:
If you can't move the wing and must add weight, don't use dead lead weight.
Put together a tool kit, spare tire and or wheel, battery, spare climbing
propeller or something remotely useful in case of an emergency. In the old days
these things were built into the design.
Just a thought,
Max
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: w&b success! |
Love that idea!
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Andimaxd@aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w&b success!
DJ:
If you can't move the wing and must add weight, don't use dead lead weight. Put
together a tool kit, spare tire and or wheel, battery, spare climbing propeller
or something remotely useful in case of an emergency. In the old days these
things were built into the design.
Just a thought,
Max
=
This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by Half Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more information on an anti-virus email solution, visit <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
Message 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: | Landing Gear Location |
----- Original Message -----
From: At7000ft@aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet information list
Pieters,
The proper location of the landing gear ground contact point is determined by the
CG of the plane.
The CG of the entire plane is a combination of the horizontal and vertical centers
of gravity. From this point a line may be drawn to the ground contact point
of the landing gear. The angle of this line is usually 16.5 degrees forward
from the vertical if the plane is equiped with brakes, somewhat less if the
plane has no brakes. It might be neccessary to increase this angle if the thrust
line is high, so as to prevent nose over during run up and rough field operation.
However, the heavier the tail load is, the more of a tendency for ground
looping upon landing.
On "Mountain Piet" this angle is about 12 degrees and this seems to work out OK,
both for rough fields and no ground looping tendencies. The brakes won't hold
the plane during run up, so this is not an issue. My tailwheel weight when
the plane is leveled up is only about 9 lbs.
I had attached the spreadsheet used for my plane, however it was too large for
Matronics to accept, so it was bounced. If anyone is interested, I'll be glad
to try and send it directly to you.
Hope all this helps.
John Dilatush NX114D
Salida, CO
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: Landing Gear Location |
MIME_QP_LONG_LINE
on 1/13/04 10:46, John Dilatush at dilatush@amigo.net wrote:
The CG of the entire plane is a combination of the horizontal and vertical
centers of gravity. From this point a line may be drawn to the ground
contact point of the landing gear. The angle of this line is usually 16.5
degrees forward from the vertical if the plane is equiped with brakes,
somewhat less if the plane has no brakes. (...)
On "Mountain Piet" this angle is about 12 degrees and this seems to work out
OK, both for rough fields and no ground looping tendencies. The brakes
won't hold the plane during run up, so this is not an issue. My tailwheel
weight when the plane is leveled up is only about 9 lbs.
John,
I have to assume that your 9lb tail wheel measurement is with nobody in the
driver's seat. Otherwise your vertical CG location is down around the
wheels (unlikely), or your 12 degree angle is taken tail down (also
unlikely).
What's your tail wheel weight at full GW?
Mike Hardaway
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: Buying spruce for AirCamper |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hodgson, Mark O" <mhodgson@bu.edu>
I've been a list-lurker for a while, with only a couple comments before.
But I want to get started building--the plans arrived at my doorstep the
day after Christmas--and there are some major issues:
1) Wood supply--enough people have flamed A.S. & S. that I'm
reluctant to do business with them, and from this list it looks like
Wicks, with a great reputation, isn't cheap. I've been told that most
of the wood could come from a marine lumber supplier, which might sell
milspec sitka spruce, etc. After a quick Google search it looks like
there might be a few suppliers like that in the Northeast. Should I
check them out? Or is Wicks worth whatever the extra expense might be?
2) I'm a private pilot with about 200 hours, now working on a
tailwheel endorsement. Although my instructor says I'm "almost there,"
it has taken a LOT longer than I expected (over 20 hours), and this in a
Citabria which sounds like it's much easier to land/take off than a Piet
by all descriptions I have heard. Should low total time and a long time
learning to handle a taildragger deter me from building a Pietenpol, or
will this seem like a distant problem in a few years when I'm ready to
fly it?
Also, if anyone knows a Piet owner in the Northeast willing to give
rides, I could use an introduction.
Thanks for any input,
Mark Hodgson
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: wing & fabic/paint weights |
DJ,,, I moved my corvair out 2 and a half inches and I'm sure glad I did. Besides
my big butt not helping the w&b, it
really gave me a little extra room from the firewall. It gets real crowded back
there to boot. I know this is repetitious
but don't ya just love that corvair engine? Man what a kick,,, your's really looks
great.
Carl
----- Original Message -----
From: DJ Vegh
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 8:24 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: wing & fabic/paint weights
I'm doing some rough W&B calc's so I can design my engine mount and am wondering
what the average weight of a wing panel is. A completed wing minus fabric.
Also, what is the average weight of all the fabric and paint.
I need to figure out where this 220lb Corvair engine needs to sit.
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
-
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: Buying spruce for AirCamper |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "walt evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net>
Mark,
Where in the NE?
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hodgson, Mark O" <mhodgson@bu.edu>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Buying spruce for AirCamper
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hodgson, Mark O" <mhodgson@bu.edu>
>
> I've been a list-lurker for a while, with only a couple comments before.
> But I want to get started building--the plans arrived at my doorstep the
> day after Christmas--and there are some major issues:
>
> 1) Wood supply--enough people have flamed A.S. & S. that I'm
> reluctant to do business with them, and from this list it looks like
> Wicks, with a great reputation, isn't cheap. I've been told that most
> of the wood could come from a marine lumber supplier, which might sell
> milspec sitka spruce, etc. After a quick Google search it looks like
> there might be a few suppliers like that in the Northeast. Should I
> check them out? Or is Wicks worth whatever the extra expense might be?
>
> 2) I'm a private pilot with about 200 hours, now working on a
> tailwheel endorsement. Although my instructor says I'm "almost there,"
> it has taken a LOT longer than I expected (over 20 hours), and this in a
> Citabria which sounds like it's much easier to land/take off than a Piet
> by all descriptions I have heard. Should low total time and a long time
> learning to handle a taildragger deter me from building a Pietenpol, or
> will this seem like a distant problem in a few years when I'm ready to
> fly it?
>
> Also, if anyone knows a Piet owner in the Northeast willing to give
> rides, I could use an introduction.
>
> Thanks for any input,
>
> Mark Hodgson
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Piet information list |
OK, I'm going to stick my nose in once more. To be useful you need to know where
the contact point of the tire is in relation to the CG in a level attitude.
Sorry guys but all the other measurements don't help much from a nose over point
of view. The other thing that is needed is the height from the ground to
the CG. With those measurements you can calculate the nose over moment and with
the tail force and arm you can calculate exactly how much brake you can use
verses the airspeed. That is what tells you if you are going to have a "grazer"
or a tail dragger.
Hank J
----- Original Message -----
From: At7000ft@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet information list
Good idea Carl, one question though is what to use for a datum to measure from.
Since people move their engine forward sometimes 6 -8 inches for CG I don't
think that will work. Same thing with the wing leading edge, people move the
wing forward and backward too. How about the front Ash floor cross strut?
Rick Holland
I think the questionaire on Piets is an excellent way of cataloging the variations
in the airplanes. Unless I missed it, there's one addition I would like
to see. When brakes are added to a Piet, some folks move the mains axis forward
to reduce the tendency to nose over on heavy braking (mine have been moved
forward 2.5" from the plans). We could include the dimension from prop hub to
the axle....Whatta ya think?....Carl Vought
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: Buying spruce for AirCamper |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca>
Silly question, but what part of the country do you live in? If you are
in WA or Ore, you can do way better. My entire airframe cost for wood
is under $400.00 Canadian. I should have plenty of leftover yellow
cedar if anyone wants some for wing ribs, let me know. A local mill
here lets me wander through and hand pick anything I want, so larger
sizes can be had too.
At7000ft@aol.com wrote:
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: At7000ft@aol.com
>
> Not having a lot of experience dealing with Aircraft Spruce or Wicks (yet) I
was wondering if some of you veterans would give me your opinion on this:
>
> Aircraft Spruce has an AirCamper spruce kit for $804. Since Wicks has no equivalent
kit I asked AS for the kit part list, (the contents matched that of an
Excel spreadsheet I have seen posted at this site) sent the list to Wicks and
they came back with a price of $1075. Then I added up the AS prices for the list
items and came up with around $1070. The AS rep said the $804 price is discounted
because its a kit, however the lead time is 1 to 2 months. Wicks claims
a 1 weeks lead time.
>
> I can't believe AS is discounting spruce this much and there must be a catch,
problem is I may need to wait 2 months to find out what it is. Has anyone else
ordered this wood kit from Aircraft Spruce before?
>
> Thanks
>
> Rick Holland
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: FW: 6 peteskis |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca>
Great to see other Canucks, although being from Vancouver Island, I
don't recognize the funny white stuff!!
John McNarry wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shawn Wolk [mailto:shawnwolk@sprint.ca]
> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:15 AM
> To: Wilf Dux; Wayne Mather; Victor Buckwold; Tracy Sandra
> McGavin; Russ Wasylyk; Robin Doig; Mark LaRochelle; Kevin Antonyshyn;
> Kenney Family; Ken John McNarry; John Hollosi; jackie wood;
> Howard Gerber; Glenm Miller; Glen Tait; Glen Konowalchuk; Glen Garbutt;
> Ed Lins; Earl Wiebe; denny knott; David Malcolm; Dave Johnson; dave
> malcolm; Darren Lysak; Chuck Sava; Chris Billard; brandonflyingclub; Bob
> Lockwood
> Subject: Fw: 6 peteskis
>
> Now this is winter flying!!
>
> ShawnWolk
> C-FRAZ
>
> ----
> ----
>
> ----
> ----
>
> >
> > IMG_4059.JPG
> >
> >
> >
>
> ----
> ----
>
> ----
> ----
>
> >
> > IMG_4064.JPG
> >
> >
> >
>
> ----
> ----
>
> ----
> ----
>
> >
> > IMG_4069.JPG
> >
> >
> >
>
> ----
> ----
>
> ----
> ----
>
> >
> > IMG_4070.JPG
> >
> >
> >
>
> ----
> ----
>
> ----
> ----
>
> >
> > IMG_4071.JPG
> >
> >
> >
>
> ----
> ----
>
> ----
> ----
>
> >
> > IMG_4058.JPG
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Name: IMG_4059.jpg
> IMG_4059.jpg Type: JPEG Image (image/jpeg)
> Encoding: base64
>
> Name: IMG_4069.jpg
> IMG_4069.jpg Type: JPEG Image (image/jpeg)
> Encoding: base64
>
> Name: IMG_4071.jpg
> IMG_4071.jpg Type: JPEG Image (image/jpeg)
> Encoding: base64
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: Buying spruce for AirCamper |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "hjarrett" <hjarrett@hroads.net>
MAN! You should go into the kit parts business. Collect up and package all
the wood to build a Piet and sell for a huge profit. You would still be
beating the pants off the competition. Good deal for us and you.
Hank J
----- Original Message -----
From: "dave rowe" <rowed044@shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Buying spruce for AirCamper
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca>
>
> Silly question, but what part of the country do you live in? If you are
> in WA or Ore, you can do way better. My entire airframe cost for wood
> is under $400.00 Canadian. I should have plenty of leftover yellow
> cedar if anyone wants some for wing ribs, let me know. A local mill
> here lets me wander through and hand pick anything I want, so larger
> sizes can be had too.
>
> At7000ft@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: At7000ft@aol.com
> >
> > Not having a lot of experience dealing with Aircraft Spruce or Wicks
(yet) I was wondering if some of you veterans would give me your opinion on
this:
> >
> > Aircraft Spruce has an AirCamper spruce kit for $804. Since Wicks has no
equivalent kit I asked AS for the kit part list, (the contents matched that
of an Excel spreadsheet I have seen posted at this site) sent the list to
Wicks and they came back with a price of $1075. Then I added up the AS
prices for the list items and came up with around $1070. The AS rep said the
$804 price is discounted because its a kit, however the lead time is 1 to 2
months. Wicks claims a 1 weeks lead time.
> >
> > I can't believe AS is discounting spruce this much and there must be a
catch, problem is I may need to wait 2 months to find out what it is. Has
anyone else ordered this wood kit from Aircraft Spruce before?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Rick Holland
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear Location |
Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Location
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Location
on 1/13/04 10:46, John Dilatush at dilatush@amigo.net wrote:
The CG of the entire plane is a combination of the horizontal and vertical
centers of gravity. From this point a line may be drawn to the ground contact
point of the landing gear. The angle of this line is usually 16.5 degrees forward
from the vertical if the plane is equiped with brakes, somewhat less if
the plane has no brakes. (...)
On "Mountain Piet" this angle is about 12 degrees and this seems to work out
OK, both for rough fields and no ground looping tendencies. The brakes won't
hold the plane during run up, so this is not an issue. My tailwheel weight
when the plane is leveled up is only about 9 lbs.
John,
I have to assume that your 9lb tail wheel measurement is with nobody in the driver's
seat. Otherwise your vertical CG location is down around the wheels (unlikely),
or your 12 degree angle is taken tail down (also unlikely).
What's your tail wheel weight at full GW?
Mike Hardaway
Mike,
I can't answer your question because I just don't know. I am sending you a
copy of my weight and balance and you can see how it is computed using the empty
weight as a basis and then plugging in the numbers for varied loadings.
John
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: FW: 6 peteskis |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1@bellsouth.net>
Pieters,
None of the pictures came through on my machine. Where may I go to view
them?
Alex Sloan
alexms1@bellsouth.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "dave rowe" <rowed044@shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: FW: 6 peteskis
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca>
>
> Great to see other Canucks, although being from Vancouver Island, I
> don't recognize the funny white stuff!!
>
> John McNarry wrote:
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Shawn Wolk [mailto:shawnwolk@sprint.ca]
> > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:15 AM
> > To: Wilf Dux; Wayne Mather; Victor Buckwold; Tracy Sandra
> > McGavin; Russ Wasylyk; Robin Doig; Mark LaRochelle; Kevin Antonyshyn;
> > Kenney Family; Ken John McNarry; John Hollosi; jackie wood;
> > Howard Gerber; Glenm Miller; Glen Tait; Glen Konowalchuk; Glen Garbutt;
> > Ed Lins; Earl Wiebe; denny knott; David Malcolm; Dave Johnson; dave
> > malcolm; Darren Lysak; Chuck Sava; Chris Billard; brandonflyingclub; Bob
> > Lockwood
> > Subject: Fw: 6 peteskis
> >
> > Now this is winter flying!!
> >
> > ShawnWolk
> > C-FRAZ
> >
> > ----
> > ----
> >
> > ----
> > ----
> >
> > >
> > > IMG_4059.JPG
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ----
> > ----
> >
> > ----
> > ----
> >
> > >
> > > IMG_4064.JPG
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ----
> > ----
> >
> > ----
> > ----
> >
> > >
> > > IMG_4069.JPG
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ----
> > ----
> >
> > ----
> > ----
> >
> > >
> > > IMG_4070.JPG
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ----
> > ----
> >
> > ----
> > ----
> >
> > >
> > > IMG_4071.JPG
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ----
> > ----
> >
> > ----
> > ----
> >
> > >
> > > IMG_4058.JPG
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> > Name: IMG_4059.jpg
> > IMG_4059.jpg Type: JPEG Image (image/jpeg)
> > Encoding: base64
> >
> > Name: IMG_4069.jpg
> > IMG_4069.jpg Type: JPEG Image (image/jpeg)
> > Encoding: base64
> >
> > Name: IMG_4071.jpg
> > IMG_4071.jpg Type: JPEG Image (image/jpeg)
> > Encoding: base64
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Piet information list |
Hank J.
Good information. Can you give the math to go with the measurments?
Alex S.
----- Original Message -----
From: hjarrett
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet information list
OK, I'm going to stick my nose in once more. To be useful you need to know where
the contact point of the tire is in relation to the CG in a level attitude.
Sorry guys but all the other measurements don't help much from a nose over
point of view. The other thing that is needed is the height from the ground
to the CG. With those measurements you can calculate the nose over moment and
with the tail force and arm you can calculate exactly how much brake you can
use verses the airspeed. That is what tells you if you are going to have a "grazer"
or a tail dragger.
Hank J
----- Original Message -----
From: At7000ft@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet information list
Good idea Carl, one question though is what to use for a datum to measure from.
Since people move their engine forward sometimes 6 -8 inches for CG I don't
think that will work. Same thing with the wing leading edge, people move the
wing forward and backward too. How about the front Ash floor cross strut?
Rick Holland
I think the questionaire on Piets is an excellent way of cataloging the variations
in the airplanes. Unless I missed it, there's one addition I would like
to see. When brakes are added to a Piet, some folks move the mains axis forward
to reduce the tendency to nose over on heavy braking (mine have been moved
forward 2.5" from the plans). We could include the dimension from prop hub
to the axle....Whatta ya think?....Carl Vought
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear Location |
To clarify John's post below, the 16.5 degree angle is with the tail up and the
ship level fore and aft using the top longerons at the cockpit for leveling.
chris bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: John Dilatush
To: Pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 12:46 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Location
----- Original Message -----
From: At7000ft@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet information list
Pieters,
The proper location of the landing gear ground contact point is determined by
the CG of the plane.
The CG of the entire plane is a combination of the horizontal and vertical centers
of gravity. From this point a line may be drawn to the ground contact
point of the landing gear. The angle of this line is usually 16.5 degrees forward
from the vertical if the plane is equiped with brakes, somewhat less if the
plane has no brakes. It might be neccessary to increase this angle if the
thrust line is high, so as to prevent nose over during run up and rough field
operation. However, the heavier the tail load is, the more of a tendency for
ground looping upon landing.
On "Mountain Piet" this angle is about 12 degrees and this seems to work out
OK, both for rough fields and no ground looping tendencies. The brakes won't
hold the plane during run up, so this is not an issue. My tailwheel weight when
the plane is leveled up is only about 9 lbs.
I had attached the spreadsheet used for my plane, however it was too large for
Matronics to accept, so it was bounced. If anyone is interested, I'll be glad
to try and send it directly to you.
Hope all this helps.
John Dilatush NX114D
Salida, CO
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: | landings, airfoils, no snow |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags@hotmail.com>
Hello, low and slow fliers;
This post has no substance so if you are looking for something useful, it
ain't here. Hit <delete> now. I've been away for days and days and have
been catching up on all the digests since the new year. I felt I had to
comment on at least two things, the airfoil discussion and the landings
discussion.
Airfoils- because I was involved in the development of the airfoil that was
specifically designed for the KR series of homebuilts. Not directly, but I
did some of the mop-up work on bringing the airfoil to the public (see the
story I compiled in Contact! magazine a while back). The KR is actually a
design that can wear the "NX-" numbers, being a design dating back enough
years, believe it or not. The original design uses the RAF48 airfoil, but
there are always those wanting to tweak and improve. Bottom line is that
it's just like the old beer commercial where the two groups incessantly
argue, "less filling! more taste!". Both are right, but neither wants to
give up their position. The new KR airfoil was developed by a graduate
student working at the University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign in the wind
tunnel, coupled with software analyses and CFD studies by various members of
the KRNet list. The new airfoil has flown and has met all of its stated
goals. However... many continue to insist that the KR be built to the plans
in order to be a true KR, and the design owner does not offer the option of
any other design nor officially recognize it (this despite the fact that
their 'poster child' KR-2S, built by Roy Marsh, uses the 23012!). I say,
give up the argument and let each side happily build and fly. It will make
for good fodder around the grill at Brodhead, make for interesting
competitions at fly-ins, and fuel endless discussions online and in the
hangar! Engineering be hanged, just read what Mr. Pietenpol said about not
bothering with improved airfoils... he tried many and found his to be best!
(And I'm a for real engineer myself!) I'd be curious to see who actually
builds an 'improved' Piet wing and flies it, but I'm not so sure I'd want to
be standing too close when he tells everybody it's a Pietenpol. A fight
will likely break out, scoffers will scoff, and "less filling! more taste!"
will echo across the picnic table for hours.
On the topic of landings, I really appreciated the narratives on technique,
as well as Chris Bobka's comments about dragging the tiedown ring. I always
thought I'd get whipped big time by the FBO if they ever knew who was
scraping the tiedown ring on the 150's all the time. I converted several
rings to open hooks! Day after day of boring touch and goes in the pattern
at Laredo, I got to where I could put the mains down on any part of the
threshold I wanted to, or on any chevron or any part of the numbers...
although I must admit to putting them on the leading edge of the pavement a
time or two, which makes for a bit of an abrupt nose-down. My problem is
that I've always been the 95-pound weakling and my arms aren't gorilla
types. What little time I have in things like Senecas and turbo 206's
always led to sore arms the following day from having to hold that anchor of
a yoke back in my chest... my instructor was an old duster pilot who
insisted on full stall all the time, and it takes all the strength I have on
some of those planes. But like Chris and John and others said- it's good
training and leads to good technique.
And my last topic- snow. There ain't none in south Texas! And for those
looking for Piets here in Texas there is an air museum up near New
Braunfels/Seguin that has a Scout as one of its displays. I still haven't
been over to see it...
do not archive
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software optimizes dial-up to the max!
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: Buying spruce for AirCamper |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dennis Engelkenjohn" <wingding@usmo.com>
Wicks will be comparable in price to AS&S and if you send a photocopy of the
shapes for the tail they will mill them for you for about $ 1.65 per foot.
You don't need much made so it is cheaper to pay them than to buy the router
bits to do it yourself.
Dennis E.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hodgson, Mark O" <mhodgson@bu.edu>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Buying spruce for AirCamper
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hodgson, Mark O" <mhodgson@bu.edu>
>
> I've been a list-lurker for a while, with only a couple comments before.
> But I want to get started building--the plans arrived at my doorstep the
> day after Christmas--and there are some major issues:
>
> 1) Wood supply--enough people have flamed A.S. & S. that I'm
> reluctant to do business with them, and from this list it looks like
> Wicks, with a great reputation, isn't cheap. I've been told that most
> of the wood could come from a marine lumber supplier, which might sell
> milspec sitka spruce, etc. After a quick Google search it looks like
> there might be a few suppliers like that in the Northeast. Should I
> check them out? Or is Wicks worth whatever the extra expense might be?
>
> 2) I'm a private pilot with about 200 hours, now working on a
> tailwheel endorsement. Although my instructor says I'm "almost there,"
> it has taken a LOT longer than I expected (over 20 hours), and this in a
> Citabria which sounds like it's much easier to land/take off than a Piet
> by all descriptions I have heard. Should low total time and a long time
> learning to handle a taildragger deter me from building a Pietenpol, or
> will this seem like a distant problem in a few years when I'm ready to
> fly it?
>
> Also, if anyone knows a Piet owner in the Northeast willing to give
> rides, I could use an introduction.
>
> Thanks for any input,
>
> Mark Hodgson
>
>
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: Landing Gear Location |
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Bobka
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Location
Thanks Chris! I should have said this as a condition.
John
To clarify John's post below, the 16.5 degree angle is with the tail up and the
ship level fore and aft using the top longerons at the cockpit for leveling.
chris bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: John Dilatush
To: Pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 12:46 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Location
----- Original Message -----
From: At7000ft@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet information list
Pieters,
The proper location of the landing gear ground contact point is determined
by the CG of the plane.
The CG of the entire plane is a combination of the horizontal and vertical
centers of gravity. From this point a line may be drawn to the ground contact
point of the landing gear. The angle of this line is usually 16.5 degrees forward
from the vertical if the plane is equiped with brakes, somewhat less if
the plane has no brakes. It might be neccessary to increase this angle if the
thrust line is high, so as to prevent nose over during run up and rough field
operation. However, the heavier the tail load is, the more of a tendency for
ground looping upon landing.
On "Mountain Piet" this angle is about 12 degrees and this seems to work out
OK, both for rough fields and no ground looping tendencies. The brakes won't
hold the plane during run up, so this is not an issue. My tailwheel weight
when the plane is leveled up is only about 9 lbs.
I had attached the spreadsheet used for my plane, however it was too large
for Matronics to accept, so it was bounced. If anyone is interested, I'll be
glad to try and send it directly to you.
Hope all this helps.
John Dilatush NX114D
Salida, CO
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: Piet information list |
I have a formula that I got from Greg Cardinal somewhere around here that uses
the weight of the ship level and then the weight of the ship in three point attitude,
loaded, of course. It will determine the vertical CG of the ship when
loaded. Maybe the math guys can come up with it faster than I can.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: Alex Sloan
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet information list
Hank J.
Good information. Can you give the math to go with the measurments?
Alex S.
----- Original Message -----
From: hjarrett
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet information list
OK, I'm going to stick my nose in once more. To be useful you need to know
where the contact point of the tire is in relation to the CG in a level attitude.
Sorry guys but all the other measurements don't help much from a nose over
point of view. The other thing that is needed is the height from the ground
to the CG. With those measurements you can calculate the nose over moment and
with the tail force and arm you can calculate exactly how much brake you can
use verses the airspeed. That is what tells you if you are going to have a
"grazer" or a tail dragger.
Hank J
----- Original Message -----
From: At7000ft@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet information list
Good idea Carl, one question though is what to use for a datum to measure
from. Since people move their engine forward sometimes 6 -8 inches for CG I don't
think that will work. Same thing with the wing leading edge, people move
the wing forward and backward too. How about the front Ash floor cross strut?
Rick Holland
I think the questionaire on Piets is an excellent way of cataloging the
variations in the airplanes. Unless I missed it, there's one addition I would
like to see. When brakes are added to a Piet, some folks move the mains axis
forward to reduce the tendency to nose over on heavy braking (mine have been moved
forward 2.5" from the plans). We could include the dimension from prop hub
to the axle....Whatta ya think?....Carl Vought
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear Location |
Re: Landing Gear Location
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike
To: John Dilatush
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: Landing Gear Location
Let's see, how about a two fuel tanks, brakes, electrical system, ELT, tailwheel
with tow hook, some extra instrumentation to monitor engine performance, and
the jenny gear which seems to be heavier than the split axle gear. The engine
carries a 40 lb PRU too. Nothing added to the basic airframe which came out
quite light in spite of 2.7 oz. covering. The engine complete with stock flywheel,
alternator and starter was 222 lbs. One thing leads to another you know!
Interestingly enough, in 1994 the Buckeye Pietenpol Association did weight and
balance on 8 Piets at Brodhead. Those with the long fuselage averaged 742.8
lbs empty! This seems to be a long way from the empty weights being reported
now by builders. Don't know what has changed?
John
Thanks, John. the spreadsheet came through fine. I see that you've calculated
your cg positions from your empty weight and not weighed for them, which is
probably what most people do.
I'll do some math work later to see what your gear weighs on the scales.
I notice that your empty weight is pretty high. What do you have in your bird
besides that super-pooper turbo-charged Subaru engine?
Mike Hardaway
on 1/13/04 17:27, John Dilatush at dilatush@amigo.net wrote:
Mike,
Here is the W&B and you can see how it is normally computed for various loadings.
John
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! --
|