Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:16 AM - Re: Long-range planning (Mark Hodgson)
2. 07:27 AM - Re: videos (Jim Markle)
3. 07:35 AM - OT....sorry...... videos (Jim Markle)
4. 08:19 AM - Re: Long-range planning (Carbarvo@aol.com)
5. 09:01 AM - Re: Long-range planning (Kevin Holcomb)
6. 12:17 PM - Re: corvair conversion cost (Norman Stapelberg)
7. 01:33 PM - Re: more airfoil talk (Mike Whaley)
8. 03:31 PM - Fuel Tanks & Flying Story. (Rcaprd@aol.com)
9. 04:45 PM - Re: Fuel Tanks & Flying Story. (Peter W Johnson)
10. 07:18 PM - Re: Graham ! (and idea for storage in a Piet for x-country travel) (Graham Hansen)
11. 08:27 PM - Re: Re: more airfoil talk (Rcaprd@aol.com)
12. 09:07 PM - Re: Re: more airfoil talk (dave rowe)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Long-range planning |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark Hodgson <mhodgson@bu.edu>
Thanks again to the list for all the responses! This answers the main
question--"am I going to get killed financially AFTER the Piet's paid for,
rather than before?" Looks like there are a number of good options (all
involving protecting the structure in some way, of course). I've got
plenty of time to sort that out, and have several interesting leads to
follow up on in this Piet-scarce area. Hope I can get to Brodhead again
this year, BTW.
Mark
do not archive
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 |
|
Burning the CD now.....do you have a cell phone? Or we can just meet at the
museum.....
cu later
my cell: 469-371-0669
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Clif Dawson
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 12:00 AM
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: videos
Absolutely!! That's it! Thats great!
A CD will be just fine. Thank you Jim.
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jim Markle
Do you mean the site that had a lot of jpg's and a bunch of short video
clips? I copied them (and the entire site, actually) before the site went
down.....if that's the one you're referring to....
I'll burn a CD for you and bring it this weekend. If you prefer DVD,
let me know.
do not archive
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 |
|
My apologies to everyone....I meant to send this offline....oops
jm
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Markle
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 9:27 AM
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: videos
Burning the CD now.....do you have a cell phone? Or we can just meet at
the museum.....
cu later
my cell: 469-371-0669
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Clif Dawson
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 12:00 AM
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: videos
Absolutely!! That's it! Thats great!
A CD will be just fine. Thank you Jim.
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jim Markle
Do you mean the site that had a lot of jpg's and a bunch of short
video clips? I copied them (and the entire site, actually) before the site
went down.....if that's the one you're referring to....
I'll burn a CD for you and bring it this weekend. If you prefer DVD,
let me know.
do not archive
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: Long-range planning |
Pieters: The light at the end of the tunnel has alerted me to a need to house
this airplane somewhere. I have gotten interested in a company from Boone, NC
named US-Buildings..(800/463-6062). They have five styles of steel buildings
which appear to be simple to erect..(unlike some other aspects of my life).
One of these styles is reminiscent of B. Pietenpols hanger in Cherry Grove (now
at Oshkosh). I would be very interested to hear of any experiences any of you
may have with this company or with this style of building. At the prices they
were quoting, I figure it will pay for itself within five
years............CAVU Carl Vought
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: Long-range planning |
MARKETING_SUBJECT, MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART
I recently purchased a 50x50 straight sided quonset hut. There are a number of
companies with very similar products, all of them reluctant to initially quote
a price but eager to beat their competitors price. Spend a few months and play
them off each other. My experience was that the 'special, good this week
only price' was still available the next month. Expect a lot of carrying on,
'special deals', 'buy now before the price of steel goes up', etc from the salesmen.
Ignore all of the carrying on and just keep going back and forth. The
final price I paid was about half of the first quote I received.
My building is not complete yet, so far 17 out of 25 arches are up. I started
on Dec 26 and have worked evenings and weekends as I have a day job. An arch
per full day of work is about what it works out to. Mostly it has just been my
wife and I; you will need someone to hold the nuts. At least with my building
(which is 50 ft wide and thicker than usual to meet Florida's wind codes) I
found the instructions that show the arches being assembled on the ground to
be a joke as the arches would buckle under their own weight. Instead I have been
building the arches in place. With large holes in the metal and small bolts
most of them go through with little trouble. A couple of drift pins help a
lot. When you price the job out do not forget to add in the concrete for the
pad as that came to around 2/3 the cost of my building. Also expect to rent
a man lift (scissor type) for a couple of months during assembly and a forklift
for a day to unload the truck when it arrives. Doo
rs are also quite expensive. The good news is that there are no difficult skills
to master, no heavy lifting, and little heavy equipment.
A frame steel building with siding would probably have gone together faster, however
that would have involved heavy equipment that I do not have. The thought
of a collection of 50 ft beems being dropped in my yard and having to figure
out how to get them in position 16 feet in the air makes a quonset look great
to me.
Kevin
www.airminded.net
----- Original Message -----
From:
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Long-range planning
Pieters: The light at the end of the tunnel has alerted me to a need to house this
airplane somewhere. I have gotten interested in a company from Boone, NC named
US-Buildings..(800/463-6062). They have five styles of steel buildings which
appear to be simple to erect..(unlike some other aspects of my life). One
of these styles is reminiscent of B. Pietenpols hanger in Cherry Grove (now at
Oshkosh). I would be very interested to hear of any experiences any of you may
have with this company or with this style of building. At the prices they were
quoting, I figure it will pay for itself within five years............CAVU
Carl Vought
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: | corvair conversion cost |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Norman Stapelberg" <norshel@mweb.co.za>
Sorry just downloaded my messages; I should have also said that I am
running a Lycoming 0-235. When my test pilot did his test he got 2000RPM
static and unloaded to 2100RPM in the take of roll, he did a dive down
to the runway and she unloaded to 2200RPM at a max of 75kts, cruised at
55kts 2100RPM.
I agree that I have to much prop, I just got back home from the previous
owner, he gave me one of the previous props that was on the plane a GSC
72" dia, the original owner no longer has any of the props he had tested
on her.
Just some history, the plane did a nose over on landing in about 1984
and had not flown since, she has been recovered and the motor has been
majored with all the mandatory mods done. The 0-235 has of date 10Hrs
since major, airframe has 1.3Hrs since major.
<< Also what pitch and dia should I be using(currently 72X48) and only
getting 2000RPM >>
Norman,
Most of the Continental A65's that I've seen, including mine, has a
72 X
42 wooden prop. Sounds like you have too much prop.
Is that you on the business end, or in the driver's seat ?
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
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: more airfoil talk |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Mike Whaley" <MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com>
> it would be cool to have multiple wings (the standard set, a pair of
> speeders, a super high lift set, etc.), depending on the day's
application.
> It would be the Swiss army knife of AirCampers.
The heck with this 3-piece wing stuff. How about a 12-piece wing. Just pick
the speed you want to fly and take off as many sections as you dare. When
you can't lift off anymore, you went one step too far. :)
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: | Fuel Tanks & Flying Story. |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
In a message dated 1/30/04 11:55:41 PM Central Standard Time,
vk3eka@bigpond.net.au writes:
<< Thanks Chuck,
I presume the cowl tank would have to have a level indicating the capacity
of the wing tank. This would allow the cowl tank to use enough fuel to
enable the wing tank valve to be turned on and re-fill the cowl tank without
overflowing the cowl tank. Unless there was a float valve on the cowl tank
inlet from the wing tank.
I think may be a better idea would be to have the fuel valves on each tank
seperatley feeding the gascolator. You would also need some sort of wing
tank quantity guage.
What do you think? >>
Peter,
The beauty of a Pietenpol is in it's simplicity. Keep it simple. If it
isn't there, it can't break or leak. Bernard Harold Pietenpol maintained
this strategy throughout. He simply valved the line from the wing tank to the
cowl tank.
Use 3/8" aluminum fuel lines and 37 flaired aircraft grade 'B' nuts
throughout. You also need a 'Finger Screen' in the outlet of each tank. This
is
your third line of defense against getting crap in the carb. First line of
defense is use clean fuel, during re-fuel operation, and during storage, you
also need to cap the L shaped vent, with a flag that says 'Remove Before Flight'.
For some reason, wasps and other bugs don't seem to mind the odor of fuel.
Fourth line of defense is the fine mesh screen in the gascolator, and finally
the Very Fine screen in the inlet of the carburetor.
The Cowl tank is in fact the main tank. The Wing tank simply replenishes
the cowl tank, when you see the level of the wire / cork get low enough. In
flight, there is no need to see the quantity of the wing tank. This system
does, however, require fuel management during flight, because you can overflow
the cowl tank during an in flight re-fuel period. Ya gotta keep an eye on the
wire, during re-fuel.
Pre-flight fuel quantity indicator is a dip stick, one end for the cowl
tank, the other end of the stick is for the wing tank. To make the stick, have
the plane on level ground, and tail down. Start out with an empty tank, and
add 1 gallon increments, dip and mark the quantity on the stick at each
gallon line.
During each pre-flight, record the 'Fuel Onboard' in your pre-flight log,
along with the time, date, hour meter, etc. Check all this again at post
flight, and this enables you to determine your fuel burn rate.
I have a flying story about this system:
On my way back from Oshkosh last year, I was 30 miles southeast of Kansas
City, and the wire in the cowl tank showed me I was low enough to add some fuel.
Any time you move any fuel valve in any airplane, you should be within
gliding distance of an airport. I had a small airport within sight, so I reached
up
and turned the wing tank valve on, and settled back to enjoy the scenery and
unparalleled beauty of flying an open cockpit plane. It takes over 6 minutes
to empty my wing tank, and although I glanced at the wire as it came up, I
thought the entire contents of the wing tank, would fit in the cowl tank. NOT !!
A 1/4" stream of fuel began squirting out of the cowl tank vent, and
instantly covered my windshield with FUEL ! I squinted my eyes, reached up and
turned the valve off, went full power climb to try to use more fuel. Ducked down
in behind the windshield, with eyes squinted, I watched the left wing tip to
maintain wing level, and watched the airspeed to maintain a steep climb rate.
I was afraid of getting fuel in my eyes, which would have been DISASASTEROUS
!! It took about minute or so, before the fuel stopped covering my windshield.
Whew !! That was a close one !! Lesson Learned !!
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
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: | Fuel Tanks & Flying Story. |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka@bigpond.net.au>
Chuck,
Sounds like fun!!!
As I noted, a mark on the cowl fuel tank contents level to show when there
is enough space in the tank to take the contents of the wing tank would be
useful.
Thanks for the suggestions.
Peter.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Rcaprd@aol.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuel Tanks & Flying Story.
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
In a message dated 1/30/04 11:55:41 PM Central Standard Time,
vk3eka@bigpond.net.au writes:
<< Thanks Chuck,
I presume the cowl tank would have to have a level indicating the capacity
of the wing tank. This would allow the cowl tank to use enough fuel to
enable the wing tank valve to be turned on and re-fill the cowl tank without
overflowing the cowl tank. Unless there was a float valve on the cowl tank
inlet from the wing tank.
I think may be a better idea would be to have the fuel valves on each tank
seperatley feeding the gascolator. You would also need some sort of wing
tank quantity guage.
What do you think? >>
Peter,
The beauty of a Pietenpol is in it's simplicity. Keep it simple. If it
isn't there, it can't break or leak. Bernard Harold Pietenpol maintained
this strategy throughout. He simply valved the line from the wing tank to
the
cowl tank.
Use 3/8" aluminum fuel lines and 37 flaired aircraft grade 'B' nuts
throughout. You also need a 'Finger Screen' in the outlet of each tank.
This is
your third line of defense against getting crap in the carb. First line of
defense is use clean fuel, during re-fuel operation, and during storage, you
also need to cap the L shaped vent, with a flag that says 'Remove Before
Flight'.
For some reason, wasps and other bugs don't seem to mind the odor of fuel.
Fourth line of defense is the fine mesh screen in the gascolator, and
finally
the Very Fine screen in the inlet of the carburetor.
The Cowl tank is in fact the main tank. The Wing tank simply
replenishes
the cowl tank, when you see the level of the wire / cork get low enough. In
flight, there is no need to see the quantity of the wing tank. This system
does, however, require fuel management during flight, because you can
overflow
the cowl tank during an in flight re-fuel period. Ya gotta keep an eye on
the
wire, during re-fuel.
Pre-flight fuel quantity indicator is a dip stick, one end for the cowl
tank, the other end of the stick is for the wing tank. To make the stick,
have
the plane on level ground, and tail down. Start out with an empty tank,
and
add 1 gallon increments, dip and mark the quantity on the stick at each
gallon line.
During each pre-flight, record the 'Fuel Onboard' in your pre-flight
log,
along with the time, date, hour meter, etc. Check all this again at post
flight, and this enables you to determine your fuel burn rate.
I have a flying story about this system:
On my way back from Oshkosh last year, I was 30 miles southeast of Kansas
City, and the wire in the cowl tank showed me I was low enough to add some
fuel.
Any time you move any fuel valve in any airplane, you should be within
gliding distance of an airport. I had a small airport within sight, so I
reached up
and turned the wing tank valve on, and settled back to enjoy the scenery and
unparalleled beauty of flying an open cockpit plane. It takes over 6
minutes
to empty my wing tank, and although I glanced at the wire as it came up, I
thought the entire contents of the wing tank, would fit in the cowl tank.
NOT !!
A 1/4" stream of fuel began squirting out of the cowl tank vent, and
instantly covered my windshield with FUEL ! I squinted my eyes, reached up
and
turned the valve off, went full power climb to try to use more fuel.
Ducked down
in behind the windshield, with eyes squinted, I watched the left wing tip to
maintain wing level, and watched the airspeed to maintain a steep climb
rate.
I was afraid of getting fuel in my eyes, which would have been DISASASTEROUS
!! It took about minute or so, before the fuel stopped covering my
windshield.
Whew !! That was a close one !! Lesson Learned !!
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
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: Graham ! (and idea for storage in a Piet for x-country |
travel)
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Graham Hansen" <grhans@cable-lynx.net>
Michael,
For years, I used a metal cover over the front cockpit in cooler weather
and, when the a/c was hangared, keep out pests of various kinds. The sheet
metal covers were fine, but I had leave them at home when I went anywhere,
so I had covers made from fabric material used for sailboat sail covers.
Snap fasteners hold them in place and they can be rolled up and taken with
the airplane in the wing center section which has always been the small
baggage compartment on my Pietenpol (I have only the fuselage nose tank
holding about 15 US gallons of fuel).
I have never flown really long distances with my Pietenpol, but on occasion
have removed the front stick and secured stuff onto the front seat using the
lap belt and shoulder straps. I have thought of making a canvas sling,
similar to yours, but never got around to doing so. I find the Pietenpol
uncomfortable after about an hour "in the saddle" and like to land for a
little "walkabout" after perhaps 1.5 hours. If some extra fuel is required,
I strap a 5 gallon container onto the front seat and empty it into the fuel
tank during such a stop. I have always preferred to use only the top half of
the fuel in the tank, and to not make
serious demands on the lower half. So these stops fit my philosophy nicely.
At one time I was inclined to fly my Pietenpol to Oshkosh and/or Brodhead,
but never got things arranged so that I could get away. Nowadays, I am too
old for such an undertaking (Hint: I am the same age as the Pietenpol
design) and the distance is
simply too great. If I lived closer, say within 500 to 600 miles, you would
see me there, but 1600 to 1700 miles is at this stage a bit much. Besides,
border crossings have become a hassle and clearing Canadian Customs when
returning is awkward because many airports of entry are no longer available
on this side. With the Piet's limited range there could be problems and I
just don't need that sort of thing! Many years ago (It now seems to be in
another life) I used to fly old Bell helicopters from Edmonton to the
northern Yukon, Northwest Territories and Arctic coast, and back again.
Those Bell 47s were even slower than my Pietenpol, but we had practically
unlimited places to land and didn't have to play the Customs game. It was
somewhat
tiresome going north in the spring, but much more pleasant when returning in
the autumn. Today, people like Ted ("Iron Butt") Brousseau can do the honors
in my place!
Thanks for the tips, Mike. Cheers,
Graham (Pietenpol CF-AUN in chilly Alberta, where we now have LOTS of
snow for ski flying.)
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: more airfoil talk |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
Corky, Robert, et all,
When you change anything in an aircraft design, you will change a host of
other things, especially if it's the airfoil that you consider changing. The
'French Curve, Ten Minute' (FC-10) airfoil has been designed into the
Pietenpol for very good reasons. It allows the C.G. to be further aft, than any
airfoil that is not undercambered. It's a High Lift airfoil, that allows a low
power engine to be used. The down side of the high lift, is that it is High
Drag. The overall high drag of the Pietenpol also has it's advantages...it's
difficult to achieve a high enough speed for flutter to occur.
None of the flight control surfaces of a Pietenpol are mass balanced. If
a more efficient airfoil is used on the Pietenpol, higher speed will result.
This higher speed, will certainly approach the speed at which one of the
control surfaces will flutter. B.H.P. called out the Vne of the Piet at 90
m.p.h., and must be adhered to.
On three separate occations, I've wittnessed a model R.C. airplane
flutter one of the control surfaces. I could hear the sound - z z z Z Z Z Z as
it
went past, and it took just a couple of seconds before the control surface tore
itself loose from the plane, and the plane crashed into hundreds of pieces.
On two separate occasions, I've witnessed the results of an aft C.G. on a
model R.C. airplane. These two planes were of aerobatic design, and
maintaining the C.G. at the aft limits allows the plane to be Very agile, and also
increases it's efficiency. Both times, the pilot thought he would be all right
with the C.G. just a tiny bit behind the aft limit, and after entering a spin,
the plane would not come out of the spin, no matter what the pilot did with
the stick or power setting, and the model airplane spun all the way to the
ground, with disastrous results.
The Grega G1 has a larger radius on the leading edge, in an attempt to
soften the stall break. It's actually the rapid increase in 'Induced Drag' that
causes the Pietenpol to slow down quickly, and surpass the 'Critical Angle of
Attack. 'Parasite Drag' is at it's minimum during the slow flight of the
Landing.
On prototype certified aircraft, they have some underpaid experimental
test pilot, take the plane up for flutter tests. He dives it, in incremental
speed increases, until one of the control surfaces begins to flutter, and
immediately pulls power and eases the nose up, to slow down. If his prayers are
answered, the control surface will still be attached to the aircraft. The
designer then reduces this speed by 25%, and this is the Vne of the aircraft.
If
anything is changed to any of the flight control system, these flutter tests
must be re-done. Steve Wittman did these flutter tests on his design, down
very close to the frozen Lake Michigan. If a control surface would flutter and
come off, he would land at a very high speed, and slide to a stop. I don't
believe it ever did happen, though. Talk about Big Kahoona's !!!!
I am all for experimenting, and learning as much as possible as to why
things are designed the way they are, but you must understand all the
consequences before you make any changes to the aircraft.
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
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: more airfoil talk |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca>
Amen. A lot of us R/C guys have experimented and seen the results.
Much cheaper and the only thing hurt is our wallets! We once tried
overpowering our club piper clipped-wing cubs, and quickly tore the
horzontal stab from one. It took a complete redesign to allow us to fly
with the power we wanted for doing crazy things. I also experienced
flutter with a unlimited Sukhoi, fortunately just lost one elevater, and
was able to land without further incident! If you want to screw around,
build an R/C Pietenpol and have a blast, cheap way of trying new
things! I'm sure DJ Vegh will volunteer his . . .
Rcaprd@aol.com wrote:
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
>
> Corky, Robert, et all,
> When you change anything in an aircraft design, you will change a host of
> other things, especially if it's the airfoil that you consider changing. The
> 'French Curve, Ten Minute' (FC-10) airfoil has been designed into the
> Pietenpol for very good reasons. It allows the C.G. to be further aft, than
any
> airfoil that is not undercambered. It's a High Lift airfoil, that allows a low
> power engine to be used. The down side of the high lift, is that it is High
> Drag. The overall high drag of the Pietenpol also has it's advantages...it's
> difficult to achieve a high enough speed for flutter to occur.
> None of the flight control surfaces of a Pietenpol are mass balanced. If
> a more efficient airfoil is used on the Pietenpol, higher speed will result.
> This higher speed, will certainly approach the speed at which one of the
> control surfaces will flutter. B.H.P. called out the Vne of the Piet at 90
> m.p.h., and must be adhered to.
> On three separate occations, I've wittnessed a model R.C. airplane
> flutter one of the control surfaces. I could hear the sound - z z z Z Z Z Z
as it
> went past, and it took just a couple of seconds before the control surface tore
> itself loose from the plane, and the plane crashed into hundreds of pieces.
> On two separate occasions, I've witnessed the results of an aft C.G. on a
> model R.C. airplane. These two planes were of aerobatic design, and
> maintaining the C.G. at the aft limits allows the plane to be Very agile, and
also
> increases it's efficiency. Both times, the pilot thought he would be all right
> with the C.G. just a tiny bit behind the aft limit, and after entering a spin,
> the plane would not come out of the spin, no matter what the pilot did with
> the stick or power setting, and the model airplane spun all the way to the
> ground, with disastrous results.
> The Grega G1 has a larger radius on the leading edge, in an attempt to
> soften the stall break. It's actually the rapid increase in 'Induced Drag' that
> causes the Pietenpol to slow down quickly, and surpass the 'Critical Angle of
> Attack. 'Parasite Drag' is at it's minimum during the slow flight of the
> Landing.
> On prototype certified aircraft, they have some underpaid experimental
> test pilot, take the plane up for flutter tests. He dives it, in incremental
> speed increases, until one of the control surfaces begins to flutter, and
> immediately pulls power and eases the nose up, to slow down. If his prayers
are
> answered, the control surface will still be attached to the aircraft. The
> designer then reduces this speed by 25%, and this is the Vne of the aircraft.
If
> anything is changed to any of the flight control system, these flutter tests
> must be re-done. Steve Wittman did these flutter tests on his design, down
> very close to the frozen Lake Michigan. If a control surface would flutter and
> come off, he would land at a very high speed, and slide to a stop. I don't
> believe it ever did happen, though. Talk about Big Kahoona's !!!!
> I am all for experimenting, and learning as much as possible as to why
> things are designed the way they are, but you must understand all the
> consequences before you make any changes to the aircraft.
>
> Chuck Gantzer
> NX770CG
>
>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|