---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 01/13/04: 25 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:11:15 AM PST US From: Carbarvo@aol.com Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:10:30 AM PST US From: Michael D Cuy Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: NX899LW --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:59:31 AM PST US From: At7000ft@aol.com 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 4 _____________________________________ Time: 08:26:03 AM PST US From: "DJ Vegh" Subject: Pietenpol-List: w&b success! 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 . ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 08:38:41 AM PST US From: Michael D Cuy Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w&b success! --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:46:17 AM PST US 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 ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 09:33:18 AM PST US From: "DJ Vegh" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 . ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 10:47:15 AM PST US From: "John Dilatush" Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:32:56 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Location From: Mike 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:41:45 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Buying spruce for AirCamper From: "Hodgson, Mark O" --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hodgson, Mark O" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:45:02 PM PST US From: "Carl Loar" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:15:26 PM PST US From: "walt evans" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Buying spruce for AirCamper --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "walt evans" Mark, Where in the NE? walt evans NX140DL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hodgson, Mark O" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Buying spruce for AirCamper > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hodgson, Mark O" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:03:43 PM PST US From: "hjarrett" 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 14 ____________________________________ Time: 04:05:00 PM PST US From: dave rowe Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Buying spruce for AirCamper --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dave rowe 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:06:37 PM PST US From: dave rowe Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: FW: 6 peteskis --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dave rowe 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:31:42 PM PST US From: "hjarrett" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Buying spruce for AirCamper --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "hjarrett" 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" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Buying spruce for AirCamper > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dave rowe > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:20:37 PM PST US From: "John Dilatush" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:15:34 PM PST US From: "Alex Sloan" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: FW: 6 peteskis --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Alex Sloan" 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" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: FW: 6 peteskis > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dave rowe > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:18:26 PM PST US From: "Alex Sloan" 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 20 ____________________________________ Time: 06:57:34 PM PST US From: "Christian Bobka" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:12:23 PM PST US From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: Pietenpol-List: landings, airfoils, no snow --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Oscar Zuniga" Hello, low and slow fliers; This post has no substance so if you are looking for something useful, it ain't here. Hit 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:43:08 PM PST US From: "Dennis Engelkenjohn" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Buying spruce for AirCamper --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dennis Engelkenjohn" 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" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Buying spruce for AirCamper > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hodgson, Mark O" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:03:39 PM PST US From: "John Dilatush" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:19:01 PM PST US From: "Christian Bobka" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:21:56 PM PST US From: "John Dilatush" Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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