Pietenpol-List Digest Archive

Tue 02/10/04


Total Messages Posted: 20



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 12:11 AM - Re: Re: Another change of subject. . . Rib Lacing (Fred Weaver)
     2. 05:08 AM - Re: thinking about airfoils (Robert Holly)
     3. 08:07 AM - Have I missed anyone???? (Jim Markle)
     4. 08:14 AM - HIPEC (Shawn Wolk)
     5. 08:16 AM - CG limits on the "long" fuselage (Doc Mosher)
     6. 11:10 AM - Re: HIPEC (dave rowe)
     7. 11:12 AM - Re: Re: Another change of subject. . . (dave rowe)
     8. 11:31 AM - Re: Re: Another change of subject. . . (dave rowe)
     9. 11:53 AM - Rib Stitching (Michael D Cuy)
    10. 12:08 PM - Re: HIPEC (DJ Vegh)
    11. 12:38 PM - Maroon Ford Piet had no rib stitching (Michael D Cuy)
    12. 12:41 PM - Re: HIPEC (Duane)
    13. 12:49 PM - Re: HIPEC (Cy Galley)
    14. 12:50 PM - Re: CG limits on the 'long' fuselage ()
    15. 02:19 PM - Re: HIPEC (dave rowe)
    16. 02:24 PM - Re: HIPEC (dave rowe)
    17. 03:03 PM - Re: CG limits on the 'long' fuselage (John Dilatush)
    18. 03:25 PM - Re: CG limits on the 'long' fuselage (BARNSTMR@aol.com)
    19. 06:11 PM - Re: CG limits on the 'long' fuselage (John Dilatush)
    20. 10:42 PM - Re: HIPEC (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
    Time: 12:11:32 AM PST US
    From: "Fred Weaver" <Mytyweav@earthlink.net>
    Subject: Re: RE: Another change of subject. . . Rib Lacing
    Nice job Bert.... ----- Original Message ----- From: Bert Conoly To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 8:40 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: RE: Another change of subject. . . Rib Lacing It's not THAT bad. I can do one in about 35 to 40 minutes. I've been building for 8 years and 10 months. I figure another few hours won't really make a difference. I do have a couple of tips for those thinking about rib lacing. 1) Make sure you leave just enough gap between your rib and any associated compression struts to get the needle through - else you have to "rib stitch" the fabric to EACH cap strip (top and bottom) instead of lacing it up and down through the entire wing. This is a pain. 2) plan your rib lacing around spars and aileron cables carefully. requirements for a Piet type plane are rib lacing (or stitches) every 2 1/2 inches within the prop wash area an 3 1/2 inches outside the prop wash area. It never fails that ONE of those lacings will need to go through a spar, gussett , or pulley. Take a halogen flood light and lay it on the floor - turn it on and you can see through the wing like it's saran wrap. 3) Rib lacing is really easy - Polyfiber has a video that shows it really well. It's just "muscle memory" and takes about an hour to figure it out. 4) The undercamber (concave) bottom is alittle tricky. You have to glue the fabric to the botton rib cap , heat to 250 degrees, lace, and THEN brush coat the wing (Polyfiber) - I don't know about the other processes. There are lots of really neat tricks to it that make it kinda fun. It's like woodwork, welding, engines, etc. Another neat skill to learn. I respect people who want to leave it out - but I think it's just one more of the neat little things that make a fabric plane interesting. Also Polyester fabric is really strong- it's the peel potential that can get you - lacing every 2 1/2 inches may mean the difference in limping home and impersonating an anvil. My 2 cents - only because i'm right here at his very moment. Bert ----- Original Message ----- From: Jack Phillips To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 10:57 PM Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: RE: Another change of subject. . . Rib stitching is fun, and it's a skill uncommon in today's modern world. Why risk death just to avoid acquiring a unique skill? I would hate to be thinking to myself as i plunged to my death - "Damn! I sure wish I'd rib-stitched it!" Another fact that I'm sure doesn't figure into the Avid or Kitfox is the undercamber in the Pietenpol's wing. If you just glue it and don't ribstitch before fully tautening the fabric, it may pull away from the ribs on the bottom of the wing. Jack -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of KRSBtv@aol.com Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 10:37 PM To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: RE: Another change of subject. . . Avids and the Kitfox are wing fabrics are generally glued, not rib-stitched and I'm not aware of a single one having fabric separation on a wing. In fact, Jim Metzger, former General Manager of Avid did fairly extensive spins, loops, snap rolls in the Avid Speedwing over the course of several years and never had a problem. This was a Ceconite process. The capstrips on the Avid are about 3/4 inch wide if memory serves me correct. The above mentioned ribs are/were diecut from spruce plywood and in the Avid, the rib was glued to the front spar using a 2-part epoxy glue for the Speedwing and heavy-hauler wings. In the case of the Speedwing Avid, the plane easily cruised better than 100 mph. I'm not advocating that people avoid rib stitching, but the glue on process worked well on the Avids.


    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
    Time: 05:08:52 AM PST US
    From: "Robert Holly" <pietenpols@hotmail.com>
    Subject: Re: thinking about airfoils
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Robert Holly" <pietenpols@hotmail.com> Mike- I'd love to see your test data. Mainly just to stisfy my curiosity. Best regards, Robert Holly New list member contemplating a Piet. >From: "Mike Whaley" <MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com> >Reply-To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com >To: "Pietenpol List" <pietenpol-list@matronics.com> >Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: thinking about airfoils >Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 23:54:51 -0500 > >--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Mike Whaley" <MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com> > > > > not having access to a wind tunnel isn't really a limitation if someone > > wants to test the FC-10, since automobile highway speeds are a pretty > > good match for Pietenpol airspeeds. If you had the proper test rig, you > > could mount an airfoil section in, say, the bed of a pickup truck, > > poking up well above the cab to get it into clean air, and collect data > > at night on a smooth section of rural highway. > >I've done the truck-testing bit, a friend and I wanted to know the real >forces put onto the servo actuating an R/C Pattern plane's rudder, with and >without balance tabs (the difference was dramatic). Back in high school, I >also did some real wind-tunnel testing in a Florida Tech's low-speed tunnel >(at the time, it was one of the best in the country) for a science fair >project with variable-camber airfoild (took first place at state, so I >guess >I wasn't complete clueless back then.) My guess is that the truck method >could give you some OK data, but if you're serious about getting really >good >data, then you really would need to do a bit more and go for the tunnel. >The >problem is that the fine differences between two airfoils (or to get a good >baseline on the FC-10) would need to be measured with very smooth, laminar >airflow and sensitive instruments, you need to know not only the airspeed >but precise AOA, pressure, and forces acting on teh wing section. More >importantly, the conditions need to be identical between the control test >with the old airfoild, and the experimental test with the new one. As we >discovered with the rudder test, you have very strong boundary layer and >other effects generated by the vehicle itself that will destroy your >ability >to get really good data. In our case, we figured this out and built a >boundary layer diverter (similar to that found on the intake of an F-15 or >similar jet) but we still had some effects of the vehicle. You could put a >test section on a long truss way out in front of the truck to get better >results, but then every bump will be magnified and really screw up the >force >balance or whatever you're using to measure the forces. Plus, turbulence >from other vehicles, wind, fog, etc. will all affect things too. > >Here's what I would do (and no, I'm not volunteering as my plate is too >full >already...) I would get in touch with a college with an aeronautical >program >and a wind tunnel. You want to figure out the typical Reynolds number that >the Piet flies at (low and high speeds) and then find a tunnel that can do >that. Then try to find a sympathetic prof to work with you and connect you >with a group of students so that they can learn, while generating useful >data. Dr. Michael Selig has done a lot of work at UIUC (I think) so that >might be one place to start. I think the guy I was working with went to >Purdue. (BTW, for those who don't know, the Reynold's number basically just >takes into account the size of an airfoil, the air density, speed, >viscosity, etc. and adjusts it for scale effects, thus allowing you to >compare airfoils of different sizes. With some exceptions and >modifications, >you will get very close to the same performance as the full-size aircraft >has by adjusting the speed and density of the air passing over a >small-scale >test model such that it has the same Reynold's number as the real one does >in flight. That's how they can test planes like the C-5 and 747 in a >regular >tunnel.) As the test section's chord is a factor in the Reynold's number, >and it's impractical to build a test section at too small a scale, you'd >need to figure all this out to get teh right combination to be both >rpactical to build as well as what will suit the tunnel that's available. I >don't think it would be too hard to find someplace that could test a half- >or third- scale test section properly. > >Bear in mind that a wind-tunnel test is typically going to produce 2-D test >data, which is invaluable, but not the whole story. The Piet, like all >planes, has a lot of 3-D effects going on... not only at the wingtips, but >a >lot of interesting stuff may be happening between the wing and fuselage, >especially for a plane with a radiator there. There may well be a >significant difference between having a cut-out and a wing flap too. You'll >even get different wing sections where the covering sags between the ribs, >which could be significantly better or worse than the section on a rib. So >don't expect any single test to yield all-encompassing results. But it will >allow you to validly compare to other airfoils. > >If anyone is interested in the full story of the truck testing I took part >in, let me know privately and I will send it to you (the list server >doesn't >like ZIP file attachments.) It contains a writeup with our test results and >description of how we did it, as well as the test data. At highway speeds, >several times, the airflow on the standard rudder section was stronger than >I was... I pity those poor little servos trying to move the typical pattern >plane rudder! > >Just some thoughts, >Mike > >Mike Whaley merlin@ov-10bronco.net >Webmaster, OV-10 Bronco Association >http://www.ov-10bronco.net/ > > overload! http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/


    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
    Time: 08:07:20 AM PST US
    From: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle@mindspring.com>
    Subject: Have I missed anyone????
    A couple folks have requested picture/video cd's from me recently (and not so recently) and I have a feeling I've missed someone's request..... So, if you've asked (and even if I've said I'll take care of it...) but haven't received (except you, Gene).....tell me again..... Work has been really busy lately and I just don't want to forget the REALLY important stuff! Jim in Plano.......


    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
    Time: 08:14:43 AM PST US
    From: "Shawn Wolk" <shawnwolk@sprint.ca>
    Subject: HIPEC
    You will find it at Falconar avia in Edmonton AB Canada. Website is www.falconaravia.com . Shawn Wolk


    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
    Time: 08:16:18 AM PST US
    From: Doc Mosher <docshop@tds.net>
    Subject: CG limits on the "long" fuselage
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Doc Mosher <docshop@tds.net> Hi Richard - The length of the fuselage does not change the basic characteristics of the airfoil as far as CG limits are concerned. The wing is the thing, although other factors enter into the equation to a small degree. Tony Bingelis, in his classic "The Sportplane Builder" uses 16% to 28% of the mean aerodynamic chord (MAC) as an example of CG limits. Years ago, the CAA suggested 22% to 34% of the MAC for high wing monoplanes, and said so in the old Manual 18. Having a nose heavy airplane can generate some stability problems. Racing planes traditionally have a very forward CG, and can run out of elevator on landing. They sometimes build a larger than normal horizontal tail plane for this reason. Having a tail heavy airplane gets into some serious stall/spin recovery problems, which are pretty lethal. Using an undercambered airfoil such as the Piet allows the rear limit to move a bit aft when compared to other airfoils. Taylorcrafts, for example, are "floaters" on landing. This may be the reason many Piets get away with a rearward CG limit that is slightly further aft than other similar parasol aircraft. The Piet, with its undercambered airfoil, is not known as a floater. Using lead weight ballast to bring the CG within limits is a self-defeating answer. Forget for a moment that the Piet wing, due to its installation atop four cabane struts can be moved fore and aft. If the wing were nailed to the fuselage, regardless of the length of the fuselage, you have to balance the weight of the airplane around the estimated CG. If you had a Cub or Aeronca, you would not be able to move the wing, would you? Slanting the cabanes is viewed by some (certainlly not me) as an admission that proper homework was not done before assembly. Yes, I know that this ignites a whole firestorm that "Bernie did it." When the Great Lakes biplane was originally built, a real problem occurred with entry to the front cockpit (sound familiar?). The answer was to move the top wing forward to get it out of the way for front cockpit entry. OK. That solved the cockpit entry problem. But now the airplane was tailheavy! What to do? Well, with the center section nailed in place that allowed front seat accessibility, they swept the outer wing panels back to place the MAC where it belonged. This resulted in a racier looking biplane, and sales immediately started to grow. The same thing could be done, of course, with the Piet, which would also produce a racier look, but Piet people would disclaim such a bastard son. I have always wondered about the logic behind the move to lengthen the fuselage rearward when the heavier Ford engine was replaced with the lighter Corvair engine. The lengthening takes place in the cockpit area, when the lengthening should have taken place ahead of the wing. The fact remains that we all (well, most of us) love the Piet for what it is. As a result, we try to keep the fuselage construction behind the wing as light as possible, keep the tail surface construction as light as possible, and keep the tailwheel assembly as light as possible. Some people today are lengthening the fuselage by moving the firewall forward, giving more legroom in the front seat, and allowing a larger fuselage fuel tank. Others accept the standard plans location of the firewall and simply add to the length of the engine mount. From what I hear and see, the lengthening of the engine mount is the most popular fix. I acknowledge that these comments will fire up a religious rant. Something about recovering from a slip low to the ground will surface (who wants to do that anyway, especially in a Piet?). If you move the wing back, you have effectively moved the side area of the fuselage forward. So the idea that the extension of the engine mount has adverse effects on the flight characteristics pales into insignificance. When EAA installed a heavier engine (Continental R-680) in the TravelAire 4000 at Pioneer Airport, it made the airplane noseheavy. The answer? Fortunately, with a little shop floor engineering, the top wing (mounted on cabanes) was moved forward as far as it would go. Voila! It was no longer noseheavy! Incidentally, there are no CAA/FAA center of gravity limits published in the TravelAire 4000 Type Certificate Data Sheet. In those days, the CAA allowed you to set your own CG limits! This was before Corky's bureaucracy got so smart. So, with a 337 and a logbook entry and my IA signature, I established that particular TravelAire's CG limits according to the old CAA Manual 18. So you can see that I am not saying never move the wing. In the case of the Pietenol's endemic tailheavy condition (especially with the "long" fuselage), simply extending the engine mount will accomplish establishing the CG where it belongs. Mike Cuy's Piet is beautiful with his slightly canted cabanes. Jim Vandevoort has to empty his pockets to keep his CG within limits, even with his severely canted cabanes. But hey! The Piets are all "experimental" They are each a statement of the owner's place in the universe. There is no "wrong" Pietenpol or GN-1 unless it is dangerous. So do observe the common sense CG rules and have a lot of fun. See you all at Sun'n'Fun! Doc Mosher Oshkosh USA


    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
    Time: 11:10:17 AM PST US
    From: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca>
    Subject: Re: HIPEC
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca> Type it in on a search, should find it. I am still weighing the options. There are many users who swear by it, and reports such as DJ's of an accident in an a/c using no rib stitching, I will have toread the whole report to see if HiPec was involved, or if it even mentions that. I have flown giant scale aircraft for overt 20 yrs, and not once have I lost ironed on or adhesive fabric. Some of these aircraft were 10-12' wingspan, and capable of speeds in excess of 100 mph, pulling many G's, positive and neg. I suspect it's like most things. Do your homework, read and follow all of the instructions to the letter. A simple thing like having a fabric edge wrapped the wrong way, i.e. leaving the edge exposed to the fwd flow of air, vice wrapped underneath, can lead to catasrophe. I wouldn't discount HiPec as a method, without rib-stitching. Even if you wanted to rib-stitch and use HiPec, you would have to contact the manufacturer and ensure that is an acceptable practice with that system!! Others for comment?? > Richard Navratil wrote: > > I havent heard of HIPEC that is being discussed. Is it in the > catalougs? I checked ACS and didnt see it. > Whats the 2 cent story about this. > Dick


    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
    Time: 11:12:14 AM PST US
    From: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca>
    Subject: Re: RE: Another change of subject. . .
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca> That is my only concern, the undercamber. Let's hear more on this, I will try to cantact the Canadian rep by phone, and discuss the issue.


    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
    Time: 11:31:08 AM PST US
    From: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca>
    Subject: Re: RE: Another change of subject. . .
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca> I've just talked to the manager at Falconar Avia Inc, the Cdn dealer for HiPec, they also have a spuer line of wood/fabric bush planes, Chris the developer of HiPec is on vacation til the 25th, but their manual should be at my doorstep any day. They emphatically state that they have had NO failures of any sort with this covering process, and that includes undercambered wings. I will have to wait until the book arrives to get more info, but if you wish to inquire directly to them, the can be reached at telephone, 1-780-465-2024, or e-mail falconar@tic.ab.ca. Note they won't be able to answer specifics on Hipec til after the 25th. Hope this helps, anyone wishing data from the book, e-mail me direct with your questions, and I'll fire off answers once the book is in my hands!


    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
    Time: 11:53:53 AM PST US
    From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
    Subject: Rib Stitching
    and fabric work were the most enjoyable parts of the building process for me. Perhaps it was the fumes, I dunno. Rib stitching takes more time than digging a grave but....... There are enough ways to die in a plane already. Mike C.


    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
    Time: 12:08:08 PM PST US
    From: "DJ Vegh" <djv@imagedv.com>
    Subject: Re: HIPEC
    in regards to the accident of Joe Carter and his Celebrity... the Fabric was not HiPec. I believe it was a Poly-Fiber process or similar. I will say though that the covering on that aircraft was about 10 yrs old.... and it took that long for the fabric to begin delaminating. The way I see it rib stitching is just something you do to a fabric covered airplane.... BUT if there is a TESTED and PROVEN method that does not require it... I suppose one could go that route. Tested and Proven are the key words. It would be well worth the effort to trace the test data of the HiPec process and see just exactly how it holds up and under what conditions/wing loadings/etc. Nothing wrong with evolution and change but it's got to be PROVEN! DJ ----- Original Message ----- From: dave rowe Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: HIPEC --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca> Type it in on a search, should find it. I am still weighing the options. There are many users who swear by it, and reports such as DJ's of an accident in an a/c using no rib stitching, I will have toread the whole report to see if HiPec was involved, or if it even mentions that. I have flown giant scale aircraft for overt 20 yrs, and not once have I lost ironed on or adhesive fabric. Some of these aircraft were 10-12' wingspan, and capable of speeds in excess of 100 mph, pulling many G's, positive and neg. I suspect it's like most things. Do your homework, read and follow all of the instructions to the letter. A simple thing like having a fabric edge wrapped the wrong way, i.e. leaving the edge exposed to the fwd flow of air, vice wrapped underneath, can lead to catasrophe. I wouldn't discount HiPec as a method, without rib-stitching. Even if you wanted to rib-stitch and use HiPec, you would have to contact the manufacturer and ensure that is an acceptable practice with that system!! Others for comment?? > Richard Navratil wrote: > > I havent heard of HIPEC that is being discussed. Is it in the > catalougs? I checked ACS and didnt see it. > Whats the 2 cent story about this. > Dick = 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 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
    Time: 12:38:07 PM PST US
    From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
    Subject: Maroon Ford Piet had no rib stitching
    <40292E13.16555785@shaw.ca> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov> A few years ago there was a dark maroon Ford Piet at Brohead in one of the back hangars----no stitching anywhere. I don't know who built it or owns it or where he was from but it looked fairly new about 3 years ago. Didn't see it at last summer's gathering.......but that doesn't mean it's not around. Mike C.


    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
    Time: 12:41:29 PM PST US
    From: Duane <duane@mo-net.com>
    Subject: Re: HIPEC
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Duane <duane@mo-net.com> If you don't want to rib stitch don't do it, bet your life on weather cement will hold or not. I will rib stitch. Duane dave rowe wrote: > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca> > > Type it in on a search, should find it. I am still weighing the > options. There are many users who swear by it, and reports such as DJ's > of an accident in an a/c using no rib stitching, I will have toread the > whole report to see if HiPec was involved, or if it even mentions that. > I have flown giant scale aircraft for overt 20 yrs, and not once have I > lost ironed on or adhesive fabric. Some of these aircraft were 10-12' > wingspan, and capable of speeds in excess of 100 mph, pulling many G's, > positive and neg. I suspect it's like most things. Do your homework, > read and follow all of the instructions to the letter. A simple thing > like having a fabric edge wrapped the wrong way, i.e. leaving the edge > exposed to the fwd flow of air, vice wrapped underneath, can lead to > catasrophe. I wouldn't discount HiPec as a method, without > rib-stitching. Even if you wanted to rib-stitch and use HiPec, you > would have to contact the manufacturer and ensure that is an acceptable > practice with that system!! Others for comment?? > > > Richard Navratil wrote: > > > > I havent heard of HIPEC that is being discussed. Is it in the > > catalougs? I checked ACS and didnt see it. > > Whats the 2 cent story about this. > > Dick > >


    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
    Time: 12:49:01 PM PST US
    From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
    Subject: Re: HIPEC
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org> Rib stitching is an acceptable method for any fabric aerodynamic surface according to AC 43-13.1B It can be used in place of screws, rivets. or clips. ----- Original Message ----- From: "dave rowe" <rowed044@shaw.ca> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: HIPEC > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca> > > Type it in on a search, should find it. I am still weighing the > options. There are many users who swear by it, and reports such as DJ's > of an accident in an a/c using no rib stitching, I will have toread the > whole report to see if HiPec was involved, or if it even mentions that. > I have flown giant scale aircraft for overt 20 yrs, and not once have I > lost ironed on or adhesive fabric. Some of these aircraft were 10-12' > wingspan, and capable of speeds in excess of 100 mph, pulling many G's, > positive and neg. I suspect it's like most things. Do your homework, > read and follow all of the instructions to the letter. A simple thing > like having a fabric edge wrapped the wrong way, i.e. leaving the edge > exposed to the fwd flow of air, vice wrapped underneath, can lead to > catasrophe. I wouldn't discount HiPec as a method, without > rib-stitching. Even if you wanted to rib-stitch and use HiPec, you > would have to contact the manufacturer and ensure that is an acceptable > practice with that system!! Others for comment?? > > > Richard Navratil wrote: > > > > I havent heard of HIPEC that is being discussed. Is it in the > > catalougs? I checked ACS and didnt see it. > > Whats the 2 cent story about this. > > Dick > >


    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
    Time: 12:50:42 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: CG limits on the 'long' fuselage
    From: <at7000ft@speedtrail.net>
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: <at7000ft@speedtrail.net> > Slanting the cabanes is viewed by some (certainlly not me) as an > admission that proper homework was not done before assembly. Yes, I > know that this ignites a whole firestorm that "Bernie did it." > ..... > > I have always wondered about the logic behind the move to lengthen the > fuselage rearward when the heavier Ford engine was replaced with the > lighter Corvair engine. The lengthening takes place in the cockpit > area, when the lengthening should have taken place ahead of the wing. I have not heard of anyone on this newsgroup yet who has completed a long fuselage Piet who has not had to move his wing back to make CG (correct me if I am wrong), this is probably why in later years Bernie recommended extending the front of the long fuselage six inches. Although I have not talked to anyone yet who has extended their fuselage six inches and not had to move their wing back either (again please correct me if I am off base on this). Rick H > > > Live List Chat: http://www.matronics.com/chat > >


    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
    Time: 02:19:08 PM PST US
    From: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca>
    Subject: Re: HIPEC
    <001a01c3f011$3c269e60$0564a8c0@rdci.az.home.com> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca> Agree totaly. I won't consider using it until I get some serious facts and testimonials to back up their claims.


    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
    Time: 02:24:04 PM PST US
    From: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca>
    Subject: Re: HIPEC
    <4029446F.2A1407A5@mo-net.com> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca> Again, thanks all for the discussion, I will investigate further, and report any findings to the group. HiPec looks attractive, and is less expensive and easier to get for us Canadians, but we know for a fact that rib-stitching in the tried and true method works. Hopefully I will be able to find out more soon. Hey someone should make a test wing section, and bolt it to the top of their car for a few years, and let us know how it goes. I would like to volunteer, but the neighbors are getting worried about me as it is . . . .


    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
    Time: 03:03:46 PM PST US
    From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush@amigo.net>
    Subject: Re: CG limits on the 'long' fuselage
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "John Dilatush" <dilatush@amigo.net> ----- Original Message ----- From: <at7000ft@speedtrail.net> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: CG limits on the 'long' fuselage ================================ Rick, My struts are vertical with the long fuselage. I simply substituted a heavier engine/pru unit to move the cg foward without moving the struts. The extra hp from the engine has proved to be beneficial to the performance of the Piet. The wing loading increased slightly, but was more than offset by the decrease in the power loading. About the only negative to this change is a higher stall speed. John ================================ > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: <at7000ft@speedtrail.net> > > > > Slanting the cabanes is viewed by some (certainlly not me) as an > > admission that proper homework was not done before assembly. Yes, I > > know that this ignites a whole firestorm that "Bernie did it." > > > ..... > > > > I have always wondered about the logic behind the move to lengthen the > > fuselage rearward when the heavier Ford engine was replaced with the > > lighter Corvair engine. The lengthening takes place in the cockpit > > area, when the lengthening should have taken place ahead of the wing. > > I have not heard of anyone on this newsgroup yet who has completed a long > fuselage Piet who has not had to move his wing back to make CG (correct me > if I am wrong), this is probably why in later years Bernie recommended > extending the front of the long fuselage six inches. Although I have not > talked to anyone yet who has extended their fuselage six inches and not had > to move their wing back either (again please correct me if I am off base on > this). > > Rick H > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Live List Chat: http://www.matronics.com/chat > > > > > >


    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
    Time: 03:25:48 PM PST US
    From: BARNSTMR@aol.com
    Subject: Re: CG limits on the 'long' fuselage
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: BARNSTMR@aol.com John, I was looking at your airplane pictures on Oscar's site. I like your nose fuel tank. How much does it hold? Terry B


    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
    Time: 06:11:36 PM PST US
    From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush@amigo.net>
    Subject: Re: CG limits on the 'long' fuselage
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "John Dilatush" <dilatush@amigo.net> ----- Original Message ----- From: <BARNSTMR@aol.com> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: CG limits on the 'long' fuselage ===================================== Terry, Cowl tank has 10 gallons usable and the wing tank has 12 gallons usable. Both made of .040 aluminum. John ===================================== > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: BARNSTMR@aol.com > > > John, > I was looking at your airplane pictures on Oscar's site. I like your nose fuel tank. How much does it hold? > Terry B > >


    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
    Time: 10:42:40 PM PST US
    From: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca>
    Subject: Re: HIPEC
    <013d01c3f017$9b95b6a0$f004fea9@new> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: dave rowe <rowed044@shaw.ca> Just a general follow up to a couple of discussions, the first being the use of HiPec, and rib stitching or not. I received their product use book, and I mean book! It is very detailed and informative. If anyone has specific questions, feel free and I'll look them up and fire them off. Their take on stitching is as fols, for aircraft with under 10 lbs/sq/ft wing loading, and under 130 mph, the strength of the adhesive alone give a safety factor of over 9 Gs. The product has been in use since 1964, with no reported failures. They have test pieces from the 60s, that still pass the required tests. Several test pieces were submerged in water for many months, still passed. All attempts at separating the fabric from 1/4 to 3/4 inch ribs resulted in tearing of the wood fibre, the glue joint remained intact. The product is certified for use with several certified airframes. If the aircraft is of heavy wing loading, or fully aerobatic, then data is provided on the recommended spacing, and placement of stitching. I have to conclude after reading this, and getting very positive feedback from many builders who have used the system that it is one of the easiest to use, strongest, and most long lasting. They do understand that traditionalists may be reticent in accepting their product, but they have very compelling data that it is equal to or better than any other covering system. Food for thought. There has been some discussion of the use of aluminum vice steel for fittings. I'm a bit of an aluminum proponent, I enjoy working with it, and prefer it's corrosion resistance. I also fly in a 40yr old aluminum helicopter, so I have to have faith!! I did some research on MatWeb, really good data there. 6061T6 is the preferred aluminum for aircraft fittings, due to its " high strength, good workability, and high resistance to corrosion". Also made mention is it's "excellent joining characteristics." Applications: Aircraft fittings, marine fittings and hardware, hydraulic pistons, brake pistons, magneto parts, etc. etc. I was able to get comparative data for this metal vice 4130 steel, which allows one to determine thickness required to meet or exceed the steel equivalent. Also convenient to use is a gauge to in to mm chart, which I found at www.slotcar.com/drs/gachart.htm, very handy for those of us who are gauge impaired, and had the metric system shoved down our throats! Hope some of this rambling is of use, should fuel the fires of debate for a bit. I must add that I very much appreciate all who have commented, positive or negative, I refuse to make decisions on what method or material without soliciting input from others. I value ALL opinions, and use them to help in the process. Thanks, Dave Rowe




    Other Matronics Email List Services

  • Post A New Message
  •   pietenpol-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm
  • Full Archive Search Engine
  •   http://www.matronics.com/search
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/pietenpol-list
  • Browse Pietenpol-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Live Online Chat!
  •   http://www.matronics.com/chat
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contributions

    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! --