Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 10:24 AM - progress report (LAWRENCE WILLIAMS)
2. 11:03 AM - Re: Axle Dissertation (walt evans)
3. 11:12 AM - Re: Axle Dissertation (Rick Holland)
4. 11:44 AM - Re: Axle Dissertation (DJ Vegh)
5. 01:54 PM - Re: Axle Dissertation (walt evans)
6. 03:25 PM - Re: Axle Dissertation (Alex Sloan)
7. 03:52 PM - Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables. (Bert Conoly)
8. 03:52 PM - Re: Axle Dissertation (walt evans)
9. 04:31 PM - Re: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables. (DJ Vegh)
10. 04:38 PM - Re: Axle Dissertation (Greg Cardinal)
11. 06:35 PM - Re: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables. (Richard Navratil)
12. 07:26 PM - More Pietenpol magazine articles..... (Jim Markle)
13. 07:48 PM - Re: Axle Dissertation (Alex Sloan)
14. 08:18 PM - Re: progress report (Rcaprd@aol.com)
15. 09:23 PM - Re: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables. (Rcaprd@aol.com)
16. 09:42 PM - Re: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables. ()
17. 09:57 PM - Re: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables. (Rcaprd@aol.com)
18. 10:00 PM - Re: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables. (Rcaprd@aol.com)
19. 10:10 PM - [ Shawn Wolk ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! (Email List Photo Shares)
20. 11:06 PM - Re: [ Shawn Wolk ] : New Email List Photo Share (Clif Dawson)
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 |
|
Seal-Send-Time: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:26:44 -0500
I just returned from a "retirement property hunting" expedition to Florida and
was hosted most graciously on St. George Island by Piet builder John Ficklin and
his way above average wife, Susan.
John has more talent in his little finger than most mortals and it shows in everything
he touches. His Piet is no exception! It's bare-bones presently and fully
rigged. Soon it will be taken apart and given a good once-over then the covering
process will begin. EVERYTHING is superb, and many of the personal touches
are only going to be seen by someone who takes the time to really go over
it. They will be amply rewarded by John's antique instruments, clever inspection
panels, small blisters and fairings, and a simple but very elegant elevator
trim system. It's a jewel and his goal is to have it at Sun-N-Fun!!! If things
go well, he will try to get to Brodhead and on to OSH with the gaggle.
Made me wonder how many other Piets are out there waiting to hatch.
Piet people are Great!
Larry
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: Axle Dissertation |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "walt evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net>
Just remember that you are not moving the wing back,,,you are moving the
body forward. Not being a wise guy, it's just easier to understand what is
affected when you do this.
Picture hanging the plane from the point on top of the wing that is the
center of the theoretical <sp> CG. Now with you in the plane, the whole
thing is hanging down with the tail near the floor. Now by losening the
rigging cables, you push the whole body forward under the wing about four
inches. now all of a sudden the whole plane is hanging level on this wire
from the ceiling.
weird thinking but true.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Huizenga" <Kirk.Huizenga@moundsviewschools.org>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Kirk Huizenga"
<Kirk.Huizenga@moundsviewschools.org>
>
> Chris,
>
> Thanks for the research. I have one question that I hope will be simply
answered. The question is what affect shifting the wing back would have on
the proper placement of the axle.
>
> Example: For W&B reasons, one shifts the wing back 4in. In theory, this
doesn't change the CG much at all, but the center of lift changes enough to
allow for us that don't fit the FAA 180lb profile to fit leading edge datum
CG limits. Should this also cause a move rearward of the axle?
>
> Thanks for your input
> Kirk
>
>
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: Axle Dissertation |
HTML_TITLE_EMPTY
Good points Christian, and your datum point does sound logical. For
people building the long (172") version no axle placement info is
provided with the supplemental plans. Most people just assume it is
placed the same a shown on the original Ford plans, at least until they
read several of the postings on the subject the last few days. To give
us a ballpark idea how about doing an FAA standard 180 lb. pilot (and
maybe even 2 180 lb occupants) calculation for axle placement for the
long fuselage with everything else "per the plans" (10 gal. wing tank,
wing in standard position, corvair engine, etc.?) I would be interested
in seeing how far off it is from the short fuselage position.
RH
Christian Bobka wrote:
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@compuserve.com>
>
>Kirk,
>
>First, let me recommend to you and everybody else we fly balance ships. Who
>cares what the FAA says about 180 lb people. You are flying the plane and
>it should balance with you in it.
>
>Second, I recommend using something other than the wing leading edge as the
>datum. It does not make any sense to do so. If you are moving the wing
>around, then you are moving around the datum . The whole IDEA of the datum
>is that it is a PLACE THAT DOES NOT MOVE. It is by definition, a fixed
>reference point. I was at a loss as to what to use until some others
>mentioned using the bolt on the left side were the front cabane attaches to
>the fuselage. It seems that people will stretch and shorten the fuselage,
>shift the wing forward and aft but this point seems to not get tampered
>with. So let us use it going forth. If people give me good numbers, I will
>calculate W and Balance for them if they think they can't do it. I agreee
>that the Leading edge of the wing eventually becomes important because we
>need to make sure the CG is within the fore and aft limits of the airfoil
>but we can work that into the calculations later.
>
>I suggest that you look in the archives under the discussions on axle
>placement where one puts the axle at some angle forward from the vetical of
>about 12-16 degrees with the angle measured at the longitudinal and vertical
>CG point on the side of the fuselage. I forget what the number is and I
>loaned the book out on it last night so I can't look it up. You will need
>to compute the exact point on the aircraft where the CG is when looking at
>it from the side. This means longitudinal (how far back from the bolt) and
>vertical or up from the floor (Of course the aircraft is level
>longitudinally and laterally). You are familiar with the longitudinal CG
>but the vertical CG is new for most and this can be computed through a
>method Hank Jarrett posted last week and I posted through Jim Markle where
>he put it up at:
>
>http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID=185
>
>
>In short, yes, if you move the wing back, the axle needs to be moved back
>too.
>
>Chris
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Kirk Huizenga" <Kirk.Huizenga@moundsviewschools.org>
>To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 10:02 PM
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
>
>
>
>
>>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Kirk Huizenga"
>>
>>
><Kirk.Huizenga@moundsviewschools.org>
>
>
>>Chris,
>>
>>Thanks for the research. I have one question that I hope will be simply
>>
>>
>answered. The question is what affect shifting the wing back would have on
>the proper placement of the axle.
>
>
>>Example: For W&B reasons, one shifts the wing back 4in. In theory, this
>>
>>
>doesn't change the CG much at all, but the center of lift changes enough to
>allow for us that don't fit the FAA 180lb profile to fit leading edge datum
>CG limits. Should this also cause a move rearward of the axle?
>
>
>>Thanks for your input
>>Kirk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Axle Dissertation |
I'm not a fan of moving the wing. the tail moment is shortened, the angle between
the landing gear and CG is changed, etc.
Why not move the engine fore or aft to adjust CG? Moving a 200lb engine fore
or aft just 3" makes a difference.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "walt evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net>
Just remember that you are not moving the wing back,,,you are moving the
body forward. Not being a wise guy, it's just easier to understand what is
affected when you do this.
Picture hanging the plane from the point on top of the wing that is the
center of the theoretical <sp> CG. Now with you in the plane, the whole
thing is hanging down with the tail near the floor. Now by losening the
rigging cables, you push the whole body forward under the wing about four
inches. now all of a sudden the whole plane is hanging level on this wire
from the ceiling.
weird thinking but true.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Huizenga" <Kirk.Huizenga@moundsviewschools.org>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Kirk Huizenga"
<Kirk.Huizenga@moundsviewschools.org>
>
> Chris,
>
> Thanks for the research. I have one question that I hope will be simply
answered. The question is what affect shifting the wing back would have on
the proper placement of the axle.
>
> Example: For W&B reasons, one shifts the wing back 4in. In theory, this
doesn't change the CG much at all, but the center of lift changes enough to
allow for us that don't fit the FAA 180lb profile to fit leading edge datum
CG limits. Should this also cause a move rearward of the axle?
>
> Thanks for your input
> Kirk
>
>
=
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: Axle Dissertation |
I built the long fuselage with an A65 (mount extented about 1 3/4" to anticipate
my bodily weight of 215") And had to move the wing back (sorry, body forward)
3 inches.
I used the split gear plans supplied. 14 gallon nose tank and 10 gal center tank
(usually run empty).
Had read an article by a "seat of the pants guy" who said something like " if
you can hold the plane on the mains with the tail up without a problem on rollout,
then the CG can't be far off.
When doing takeoff roll, no problem getting up on the mains, and after a wheel
landing, I can keep it on the mains for quite a while till it's quite slow. Not
like the tail slams to the ground.
If the wheel location was too far forward, wouldn't it show up in the rollout?
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Good points Christian, and your datum point does sound logical. For people building
the long (172") version no axle placement info is provided with the supplemental
plans. Most people just assume it is placed the same a shown on the
original Ford plans, at least until they read several of the postings on the subject
the last few days. To give us a ballpark idea how about doing an FAA standard
180 lb. pilot (and maybe even 2 180 lb occupants) calculation for axle
placement for the long fuselage with everything else "per the plans" (10 gal.
wing tank, wing in standard position, corvair engine, etc.?) I would be interested
in seeing how far off it is from the short fuselage position.
RH
Christian Bobka wrote:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@compuserve.com>
Kirk,
First, let me recommend to you and everybody else we fly balance ships. Who
cares what the FAA says about 180 lb people. You are flying the plane and
it should balance with you in it.
Second, I recommend using something other than the wing leading edge as the
datum. It does not make any sense to do so. If you are moving the wing
around, then you are moving around the datum . The whole IDEA of the datum
is that it is a PLACE THAT DOES NOT MOVE. It is by definition, a fixed
reference point. I was at a loss as to what to use until some others
mentioned using the bolt on the left side were the front cabane attaches to
the fuselage. It seems that people will stretch and shorten the fuselage,
shift the wing forward and aft but this point seems to not get tampered
with. So let us use it going forth. If people give me good numbers, I will
calculate W and Balance for them if they think they can't do it. I agreee
that the Leading edge of the wing eventually becomes important because we
need to make sure the CG is within the fore and aft limits of the airfoil
but we can work that into the calculations later.
I suggest that you look in the archives under the discussions on axle
placement where one puts the axle at some angle forward from the vetical of
about 12-16 degrees with the angle measured at the longitudinal and vertical
CG point on the side of the fuselage. I forget what the number is and I
loaned the book out on it last night so I can't look it up. You will need
to compute the exact point on the aircraft where the CG is when looking at
it from the side. This means longitudinal (how far back from the bolt) and
vertical or up from the floor (Of course the aircraft is level
longitudinally and laterally). You are familiar with the longitudinal CG
but the vertical CG is new for most and this can be computed through a
method Hank Jarrett posted last week and I posted through Jim Markle where
he put it up at:
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID185
In short, yes, if you move the wing back, the axle needs to be moved back
too.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Huizenga" <Kirk.Huizenga@moundsviewschools.org>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Kirk Huizenga"
<Kirk.Huizenga@moundsviewschools.org>
Chris,
Thanks for the research. I have one question that I hope will be simply
answered. The question is what affect shifting the wing back would have on
the proper placement of the axle.
Example: For W&B reasons, one shifts the wing back 4in. In theory, this
doesn't change the CG much at all, but the center of lift changes enough to
allow for us that don't fit the FAA 180lb profile to fit leading edge datum
CG limits. Should this also cause a move rearward of the axle?
Thanks for your input
Kirk
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: Axle Dissertation |
Walt,
How far is your axle from your firewall? I ask as I am building the long fuselage.
I extended my engine mount 2" from the firewall. I will be using the Corvair
engine.
I am a long way from building the gear but assimilating as much info as this old
brain can hold.
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
I built the long fuselage with an A65 (mount extented about 1 3/4" to anticipate
my bodily weight of 215") And had to move the wing back (sorry, body forward)
3 inches.
I used the split gear plans supplied. 14 gallon nose tank and 10 gal center
tank (usually run empty).
Had read an article by a "seat of the pants guy" who said something like " if
you can hold the plane on the mains with the tail up without a problem on rollout,
then the CG can't be far off.
When doing takeoff roll, no problem getting up on the mains, and after a wheel
landing, I can keep it on the mains for quite a while till it's quite slow.
Not like the tail slams to the ground.
If the wheel location was too far forward, wouldn't it show up in the rollout?
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Good points Christian, and your datum point does sound logical. For people
building the long (172") version no axle placement info is provided with the supplemental
plans. Most people just assume it is placed the same a shown on the
original Ford plans, at least until they read several of the postings on the
subject the last few days. To give us a ballpark idea how about doing an FAA
standard 180 lb. pilot (and maybe even 2 180 lb occupants) calculation for axle
placement for the long fuselage with everything else "per the plans" (10 gal.
wing tank, wing in standard position, corvair engine, etc.?) I would be interested
in seeing how far off it is from the short fuselage position.
RH
Christian Bobka wrote:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@compuserve.com>
Kirk,
First, let me recommend to you and everybody else we fly balance ships. Who
cares what the FAA says about 180 lb people. You are flying the plane and
it should balance with you in it.
Second, I recommend using something other than the wing leading edge as the
datum. It does not make any sense to do so. If you are moving the wing
around, then you are moving around the datum . The whole IDEA of the datum
is that it is a PLACE THAT DOES NOT MOVE. It is by definition, a fixed
reference point. I was at a loss as to what to use until some others
mentioned using the bolt on the left side were the front cabane attaches to
the fuselage. It seems that people will stretch and shorten the fuselage,
shift the wing forward and aft but this point seems to not get tampered
with. So let us use it going forth. If people give me good numbers, I will
calculate W and Balance for them if they think they can't do it. I agreee
that the Leading edge of the wing eventually becomes important because we
need to make sure the CG is within the fore and aft limits of the airfoil
but we can work that into the calculations later.
I suggest that you look in the archives under the discussions on axle
placement where one puts the axle at some angle forward from the vetical of
about 12-16 degrees with the angle measured at the longitudinal and vertical
CG point on the side of the fuselage. I forget what the number is and I
loaned the book out on it last night so I can't look it up. You will need
to compute the exact point on the aircraft where the CG is when looking at
it from the side. This means longitudinal (how far back from the bolt) and
vertical or up from the floor (Of course the aircraft is level
longitudinally and laterally). You are familiar with the longitudinal CG
but the vertical CG is new for most and this can be computed through a
method Hank Jarrett posted last week and I posted through Jim Markle where
he put it up at:
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID185
In short, yes, if you move the wing back, the axle needs to be moved back
too.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Huizenga" <Kirk.Huizenga@moundsviewschools.org>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Kirk Huizenga"
<Kirk.Huizenga@moundsviewschools.org>
Chris,
Thanks for the research. I have one question that I hope will be simply
answered. The question is what affect shifting the wing back would have on
the proper placement of the axle.
Example: For W&B reasons, one shifts the wing back 4in. In theory, this
doesn't change the CG much at all, but the center of lift changes enough to
allow for us that don't fit the FAA 180lb profile to fit leading edge datum
CG limits. Should this also cause a move rearward of the axle?
Thanks for your input
Kirk
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: | Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables. |
As I stand here with fabric and Polyfiber Chemicals in hand I do wonder:
1) Is there really any "right" way to set the tension on the drag wires? I've
tightened them to where I think they are "snug" but not so tight they twang.
They are cables with turnbuckles. I have safetied everything off.
Thanks, Bert
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: Axle Dissertation |
Alex,
Don't really know at the moment. My plans are up in the hanger. Maybe if you
have the prints there,,,I built right to the long fuselage prints supplied from
the Pietenpol family, with the split gear from the supplied prints of 1933/34?
No changes to the long fuse and gear. (using 24" O.D. tires)
One old brain to another :
)
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Alex Sloan
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Walt,
How far is your axle from your firewall? I ask as I am building the long fuselage.
I extended my engine mount 2" from the firewall. I will be using the
Corvair engine.
I am a long way from building the gear but assimilating as much info as this
old brain can hold.
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
I built the long fuselage with an A65 (mount extented about 1 3/4" to anticipate
my bodily weight of 215") And had to move the wing back (sorry, body forward)
3 inches.
I used the split gear plans supplied. 14 gallon nose tank and 10 gal center
tank (usually run empty).
Had read an article by a "seat of the pants guy" who said something like "
if you can hold the plane on the mains with the tail up without a problem on
rollout, then the CG can't be far off.
When doing takeoff roll, no problem getting up on the mains, and after a wheel
landing, I can keep it on the mains for quite a while till it's quite slow.
Not like the tail slams to the ground.
If the wheel location was too far forward, wouldn't it show up in the rollout?
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Good points Christian, and your datum point does sound logical. For people
building the long (172") version no axle placement info is provided with the
supplemental plans. Most people just assume it is placed the same a shown on
the original Ford plans, at least until they read several of the postings on the
subject the last few days. To give us a ballpark idea how about doing an FAA
standard 180 lb. pilot (and maybe even 2 180 lb occupants) calculation for axle
placement for the long fuselage with everything else "per the plans" (10 gal.
wing tank, wing in standard position, corvair engine, etc.?) I would be interested
in seeing how far off it is from the short fuselage position.
RH
Christian Bobka wrote:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@compuserve.com>
Kirk,
First, let me recommend to you and everybody else we fly balance ships. Who
cares what the FAA says about 180 lb people. You are flying the plane and
it should balance with you in it.
Second, I recommend using something other than the wing leading edge as the
datum. It does not make any sense to do so. If you are moving the wing
around, then you are moving around the datum . The whole IDEA of the datum
is that it is a PLACE THAT DOES NOT MOVE. It is by definition, a fixed
reference point. I was at a loss as to what to use until some others
mentioned using the bolt on the left side were the front cabane attaches to
the fuselage. It seems that people will stretch and shorten the fuselage,
shift the wing forward and aft but this point seems to not get tampered
with. So let us use it going forth. If people give me good numbers, I will
calculate W and Balance for them if they think they can't do it. I agreee
that the Leading edge of the wing eventually becomes important because we
need to make sure the CG is within the fore and aft limits of the airfoil
but we can work that into the calculations later.
I suggest that you look in the archives under the discussions on axle
placement where one puts the axle at some angle forward from the vetical of
about 12-16 degrees with the angle measured at the longitudinal and vertical
CG point on the side of the fuselage. I forget what the number is and I
loaned the book out on it last night so I can't look it up. You will need
to compute the exact point on the aircraft where the CG is when looking at
it from the side. This means longitudinal (how far back from the bolt) and
vertical or up from the floor (Of course the aircraft is level
longitudinally and laterally). You are familiar with the longitudinal CG
but the vertical CG is new for most and this can be computed through a
method Hank Jarrett posted last week and I posted through Jim Markle where
he put it up at:
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID185
In short, yes, if you move the wing back, the axle needs to be moved back
too.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Huizenga" <Kirk.Huizenga@moundsviewschools.org>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Kirk Huizenga"
<Kirk.Huizenga@moundsviewschools.org>
Chris,
Thanks for the research. I have one question that I hope will be simply
answered. The question is what affect shifting the wing back would have on
the proper placement of the axle.
Example: For W&B reasons, one shifts the wing back 4in. In theory, this
doesn't change the CG much at all, but the center of lift changes enough to
allow for us that don't fit the FAA 180lb profile to fit leading edge datum
CG limits. Should this also cause a move rearward of the axle?
Thanks for your input
Kirk
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: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables. |
tests=FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS, MIME_BASE64_LATIN, MIME_BASE64_NO_NAME,
MIME_BASE64_TEXT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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: Axle Dissertation |
Dale Johnson and I are building a long fuselage, A-65 powered with original style
gear. The axle on ours is 19" aft of the firewall. We have not taxied yet but
it does look right.
Cabanes are slanted back about 3 inches.
Greg Cardinal in Minneapolis (-10 F this morning)
----- Original Message -----
From: Alex Sloan
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Walt,
How far is your axle from your firewall? I ask as I am building the long fuselage.
I extended my engine mount 2" from the firewall. I will be using the
Corvair engine.
I am a long way from building the gear but assimilating as much info as this
old brain can hold.
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
I built the long fuselage with an A65 (mount extented about 1 3/4" to anticipate
my bodily weight of 215") And had to move the wing back (sorry, body forward)
3 inches.
I used the split gear plans supplied. 14 gallon nose tank and 10 gal center
tank (usually run empty).
Had read an article by a "seat of the pants guy" who said something like "
if you can hold the plane on the mains with the tail up without a problem on
rollout, then the CG can't be far off.
When doing takeoff roll, no problem getting up on the mains, and after a wheel
landing, I can keep it on the mains for quite a while till it's quite slow.
Not like the tail slams to the ground.
If the wheel location was too far forward, wouldn't it show up in the rollout?
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Good points Christian, and your datum point does sound logical. For people
building the long (172") version no axle placement info is provided with the
supplemental plans. Most people just assume it is placed the same a shown on
the original Ford plans, at least until they read several of the postings on the
subject the last few days. To give us a ballpark idea how about doing an FAA
standard 180 lb. pilot (and maybe even 2 180 lb occupants) calculation for axle
placement for the long fuselage with everything else "per the plans" (10 gal.
wing tank, wing in standard position, corvair engine, etc.?) I would be interested
in seeing how far off it is from the short fuselage position.
RH
Christian Bobka wrote:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@compuserve.com>
Kirk,
First, let me recommend to you and everybody else we fly balance ships. Who
cares what the FAA says about 180 lb people. You are flying the plane and
it should balance with you in it.
Second, I recommend using something other than the wing leading edge as the
datum. It does not make any sense to do so. If you are moving the wing
around, then you are moving around the datum . The whole IDEA of the datum
is that it is a PLACE THAT DOES NOT MOVE. It is by definition, a fixed
reference point. I was at a loss as to what to use until some others
mentioned using the bolt on the left side were the front cabane attaches to
the fuselage. It seems that people will stretch and shorten the fuselage,
shift the wing forward and aft but this point seems to not get tampered
with. So let us use it going forth. If people give me good numbers, I will
calculate W and Balance for them if they think they can't do it. I agreee
that the Leading edge of the wing eventually becomes important because we
need to make sure the CG is within the fore and aft limits of the airfoil
but we can work that into the calculations later.
I suggest that you look in the archives under the discussions on axle
placement where one puts the axle at some angle forward from the vetical of
about 12-16 degrees with the angle measured at the longitudinal and vertical
CG point on the side of the fuselage. I forget what the number is and I
loaned the book out on it last night so I can't look it up. You will need
to compute the exact point on the aircraft where the CG is when looking at
it from the side. This means longitudinal (how far back from the bolt) and
vertical or up from the floor (Of course the aircraft is level
longitudinally and laterally). You are familiar with the longitudinal CG
but the vertical CG is new for most and this can be computed through a
method Hank Jarrett posted last week and I posted through Jim Markle where
he put it up at:
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID185
In short, yes, if you move the wing back, the axle needs to be moved back
too.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Huizenga" <Kirk.Huizenga@moundsviewschools.org>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Kirk Huizenga"
<Kirk.Huizenga@moundsviewschools.org>
Chris,
Thanks for the research. I have one question that I hope will be simply
answered. The question is what affect shifting the wing back would have on
the proper placement of the axle.
Example: For W&B reasons, one shifts the wing back 4in. In theory, this
doesn't change the CG much at all, but the center of lift changes enough to
allow for us that don't fit the FAA 180lb profile to fit leading edge datum
CG limits. Should this also cause a move rearward of the axle?
Thanks for your input
Kirk
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: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables. |
Hey Bert
My opinion is the wires should have a twang. Harmonics are good indication of
tension. If you give them all the same sound your rig will be all equal.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: Bert Conoly
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 5:52 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables.
As I stand here with fabric and Polyfiber Chemicals in hand I do wonder:
1) Is there really any "right" way to set the tension on the drag wires?
I've tightened them to where I think they are "snug" but not so tight they twang.
They are cables with turnbuckles. I have safetied everything off.
Thanks, Bert
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: | More Pietenpol magazine articles..... |
The following two articles are now available in the "File Library" section of www.mykitplane.com:
September 1999 Kitplanes http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/filesList2.cfm?AlbumID45
July 1992 Kitplanes http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/filesList2.cfm?AlbumID44
Enjoy
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: Axle Dissertation |
Greg,
Thanks. I will add that to my growing file of useful info on things to do to mine
when the appropriate time comes.
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Cardinal
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Dale Johnson and I are building a long fuselage, A-65 powered with original style
gear. The axle on ours is 19" aft of the firewall. We have not taxied yet
but it does look right.
Cabanes are slanted back about 3 inches.
Greg Cardinal in Minneapolis (-10 F this morning)
----- Original Message -----
From: Alex Sloan
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Walt,
How far is your axle from your firewall? I ask as I am building the long fuselage.
I extended my engine mount 2" from the firewall. I will be using the
Corvair engine.
I am a long way from building the gear but assimilating as much info as this
old brain can hold.
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
I built the long fuselage with an A65 (mount extented about 1 3/4" to anticipate
my bodily weight of 215") And had to move the wing back (sorry, body
forward) 3 inches.
I used the split gear plans supplied. 14 gallon nose tank and 10 gal center
tank (usually run empty).
Had read an article by a "seat of the pants guy" who said something like
" if you can hold the plane on the mains with the tail up without a problem on
rollout, then the CG can't be far off.
When doing takeoff roll, no problem getting up on the mains, and after a
wheel landing, I can keep it on the mains for quite a while till it's quite slow.
Not like the tail slams to the ground.
If the wheel location was too far forward, wouldn't it show up in the rollout?
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
Good points Christian, and your datum point does sound logical. For people
building the long (172") version no axle placement info is provided with the
supplemental plans. Most people just assume it is placed the same a shown on
the original Ford plans, at least until they read several of the postings on
the subject the last few days. To give us a ballpark idea how about doing an
FAA standard 180 lb. pilot (and maybe even 2 180 lb occupants) calculation for
axle placement for the long fuselage with everything else "per the plans" (10
gal. wing tank, wing in standard position, corvair engine, etc.?) I would be
interested in seeing how far off it is from the short fuselage position.
RH
Christian Bobka wrote:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@compuserve.com>
Kirk,
First, let me recommend to you and everybody else we fly balance ships. Who
cares what the FAA says about 180 lb people. You are flying the plane and
it should balance with you in it.
Second, I recommend using something other than the wing leading edge as the
datum. It does not make any sense to do so. If you are moving the wing
around, then you are moving around the datum . The whole IDEA of the datum
is that it is a PLACE THAT DOES NOT MOVE. It is by definition, a fixed
reference point. I was at a loss as to what to use until some others
mentioned using the bolt on the left side were the front cabane attaches to
the fuselage. It seems that people will stretch and shorten the fuselage,
shift the wing forward and aft but this point seems to not get tampered
with. So let us use it going forth. If people give me good numbers, I will
calculate W and Balance for them if they think they can't do it. I agreee
that the Leading edge of the wing eventually becomes important because we
need to make sure the CG is within the fore and aft limits of the airfoil
but we can work that into the calculations later.
I suggest that you look in the archives under the discussions on axle
placement where one puts the axle at some angle forward from the vetical of
about 12-16 degrees with the angle measured at the longitudinal and vertical
CG point on the side of the fuselage. I forget what the number is and I
loaned the book out on it last night so I can't look it up. You will need
to compute the exact point on the aircraft where the CG is when looking at
it from the side. This means longitudinal (how far back from the bolt) and
vertical or up from the floor (Of course the aircraft is level
longitudinally and laterally). You are familiar with the longitudinal CG
but the vertical CG is new for most and this can be computed through a
method Hank Jarrett posted last week and I posted through Jim Markle where
he put it up at:
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID185
In short, yes, if you move the wing back, the axle needs to be moved back
too.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Huizenga" <Kirk.Huizenga@moundsviewschools.org>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Axle Dissertation
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Kirk Huizenga"
<Kirk.Huizenga@moundsviewschools.org>
Chris,
Thanks for the research. I have one question that I hope will be simply
answered. The question is what affect shifting the wing back would have on
the proper placement of the axle.
Example: For W&B reasons, one shifts the wing back 4in. In theory, this
doesn't change the CG much at all, but the center of lift changes enough to
allow for us that don't fit the FAA 180lb profile to fit leading edge datum
CG limits. Should this also cause a move rearward of the axle?
Thanks for your input
Kirk
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: progress report |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
Larry,
Is John Ficklen on this list ? Do you have his e-mail ? I need to send him
an infomation list to fill out on his Piet. Anyone that I missed, please
e-mail me direct, so I can send you the Pietenpol 'Infomation List' to fill out.
Chuck G.
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: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables. |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
In a message dated 1/22/04 8:35:58 PM Central Standard Time,
horzpool@goldengate.net writes:
<< Hey Bert
My opinion is the wires should have a twang. Harmonics are good indication
of tension. If you give them all the same sound your rig will be all equal.
Dick >>
That's how I did it. Not too tight, though. I put an inspection hole to be
able to adjust the turnbuckles, if needed. So far, after about 100 hrs, not
needed. They also need something to prevent chafe where they touch in the
middle of the 'X'. While we're on this subject, my drag / anti-drag cables
touched a few of the ribs. I notched the stick for clearance, and added support
on
the oposite side. Did this happen to any others ? The wing on Doug Bryant's
plane was the same way.
Chuck G.
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: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables. |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: <gcardinal@mn.rr.com>
Dale and I had some rib / wire interference. We did the same thing you did,
notch the rib and
add a doubler.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rcaprd@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables.
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 1/22/04 8:35:58 PM Central Standard Time,
> horzpool@goldengate.net writes:
>
> << Hey Bert
> My opinion is the wires should have a twang. Harmonics are good
indication
> of tension. If you give them all the same sound your rig will be all
equal.
> Dick >>
>
> That's how I did it. Not too tight, though. I put an inspection hole to
be
> able to adjust the turnbuckles, if needed. So far, after about 100 hrs,
not
> needed. They also need something to prevent chafe where they touch in the
> middle of the 'X'. While we're on this subject, my drag / anti-drag
cables
> touched a few of the ribs. I notched the stick for clearance, and added
support on
> the oposite side. Did this happen to any others ? The wing on Doug
Bryant's
> plane was the same way.
>
> Chuck G.
>
>
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: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables. |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
In a message dated 1/22/04 6:32:13 PM Central Standard Time, djv@imagedv.com
writes:
<< I am debating whether or not to use cables and turnbuckles or steel rod
with fork ends. >>
D.J.,
The steel rods would be required to have rolled threads, and built to
specific lengths. Probably end up being similar costs to the cables / turnbuckles.
Chuck G.
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: Adjusting tension in drag/antidrag cables. |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
In a message dated 1/22/04 5:53:01 PM Central Standard Time,
bconoly@earthlink.net writes:
<< As I stand here with fabric and Polyfiber Chemicals in hand I do wonder: >>
Bert,
I'll bet you also wonder if you should cover up such beautiful artwork !!!
Chuck G.
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: | [ Shawn Wolk ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Email List Photo Shares <pictures@matronics.com>
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Shawn Wolk <shawnwolk@sprint.ca>
Lists: Pietenpol-List
Subject: Pietenpol on skis
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/shawnwolk@sprint.ca.01.22.2004/index.html
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures@matronics.com
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 |
|
Available!
| Subject: | Re: [ Shawn Wolk ] : New Email List Photo Share |
Available!
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Clif Dawson <cdawson5854@shaw.ca>
Check out the tail feathers.
Clif
> A new Email List Photo Share is available:
>
> Poster: Shawn Wolk <shawnwolk@sprint.ca>
> >
>
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/shawnwolk@sprint.ca.01.22.2004/index.htm
l
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! --
|