Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:50 AM - Re: Long fuse (dpaul)
2. 06:54 AM - Re: wind tunnel (Robert Haines)
3. 07:39 AM - Re: Center of Gravity Computations (Robert Haines)
4. 07:49 AM - Re: Center of Gravity Computations (Robert Haines)
5. 07:52 AM - Re: Center of Gravity Computations (Robert Haines)
6. 08:07 AM - Re: Re: wind tunnel (John Dilatush)
7. 09:06 AM - Landing Gear location (John Dilatush)
8. 10:23 AM - Center of Gravity (Ted Tuckerman)
9. 10:49 AM - Re: Center of Gravity (DJ Vegh)
10. 11:55 AM - Re: Re: wind tunnel (Alex Sloan)
11. 11:55 AM - Re: Question of the week???????????? (Alex Sloan)
12. 06:02 PM - Magazines (Isablcorky@aol.com)
13. 06:05 PM - Re: Magazines (Andimaxd@aol.com)
14. 06:13 PM - Re: Magazines (Isablcorky@aol.com)
15. 06:40 PM - Re: Magazines (Doyle K. Combs)
16. 06:45 PM - Re: Magazines (Isablcorky@aol.com)
17. 07:44 PM - Center of Gravity, One More Thing (Ted Tuckerman)
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "dpaul" <dpaul@fidnet.com>
Thanks Chuck. That's exactly the kind of help I needed. Dave
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rcaprd@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Long fuse
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Rcaprd@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 2/15/04 12:20:12 PM Central Standard Time,
> dpaul@fidnet.com writes:
>
> << Is anyone flying a Piet with the long fuselage, who extended the
front
> a few inches, and is using a Continental 65hp for power? After looking at
a
> lot of Piets and reading list opinions, I added 6 inches to the front of
my
> fuse. (Which I can cut off later if it turns out to be a mistake).
Anyway,
> before I permanently attach my wood landing gear w/motorcycle wheels, I
would
> like to know for sure where the center of the axle should be in relation
to the
> firewall. One of the list members, a few weeks ago, said that the center
of
> the wheel should be back 21" from the firewall on the long fuse. The note
said
> something about a PhD, so with respect, I've got mine ready to go - 21"
back
> from where the ORIGINAL firewall would have been. Opinions would be very
> welcome. Thanks. >>
>
> Dave,
> The axle placement is a measurement from the firewall, but it's
> relationship is to the wing - on a taildragger, it's usually about 16% or
17% chord,
> behind the leading edge.
> The front 6" extension you have will greatly reduce the possibility
of
> needing to move your wing back from vertical, to get the C.G. correct -
> especially if you weigh over 200 lbs.
> On the 'Improved AirCamper', short fuse, the axle is 17" aft of datum
> (firewall), and the wing leading edge is 7 1/2" aft of datum. This puts
the axle
> 16% aft of the leading edge. On my short fuse, I moved the wing back 3
1/2",
> which puts the axles at 6" or 10% aft of the leading edge, but I have
brakes
> and it reduces the possibility of nose over. However, I never use the
brakes
> to slow down the landing roll...only use them to do a run - up, and for
> taxiing in tight quarters.
> On the 'Long fuselage', 3" is added to the forward station. Assuming
the
> wing is in the plans location, 21 inches behind this firewall location
puts
> the axle at 10 1/2" behind the wing leading edge, which is 1" farther back
than
> the plans call out, and is close to the aft limit of axle
placement...unless
> you tilt the cabane struts and move your wing aft, but then you already
have
> that 6" fuse extension...
>
> Chuck G.
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk@hotmail.com>
Chris,
The SIU wind tunnel is atmospheric with a test section of 24" in width. A
scale wing I believe would be too small to incorporate detail or an accurate
wing section. My inclination is to make a section 6" in cord and the full
24" in width. This would be focused toward developing wing section
information as opposed to a three dimensional study.
Also, I have been working with DesignFOIL and have been in discussion with
Kevin Holcomb regarding his results with XFoil. Apparently, there is a lot
to be desired with low cost (free) wing section analysis software. I have
results from DesignFOIL, but they are substantially different from the
XFoil. Suffice it to say that there is a difference in location of the
center of pressure of over 10% cord for a given angle of attack between the
two programs (imagine designing and building an aircraft and finding that
you have to move the wing 6", not good).
Although I'm an engineer, I don't have any direct experience in wind tunnel
tests and would appreciate any suggestions to achieve the most accurate
results.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
> From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@compuserve.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: wind tunnel
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka"
<bobka@compuserve.com>
>
> Robert,
>
> Sorry to take a while to get back to you on this topic.
>
> I would be very interested in seeing a properly executed wind tunnel
> analysis of the Piet airfoil. This has come up a number of times on this
> venue and we never seem to be able to organize well enough to do it.
>
> I know Greg Cardinal would like to see it as well as Holcomb and a few
> others.
>
> What chord size and width are you contemplating? Would you make the
airfoil
> just like the real one with ribstitches and everything to have the surface
> as close to actual as possible? I believe the holcomb's Aerodrome website
> has an analysis of the airfoil using one of the canned programs. Does the
> wind tunnel at SIU work at MSL density or is it pressurized?
>
> Chris Bobka
>
>
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: Center of Gravity Computations |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk@hotmail.com>
Regarding the location of Datum, although I would normally argue for the
firewall, this situation would be better suited to a Datum of the leading
edge.
The firewall is a great location for an individual aircraft to work out
weight and balance. You could change engines or relocate the wing and the
Datum does not change. Also during the building process, the firewall Datum
is physically available once the fuselage takes shape, which is well before
the engine or wings get mounted. It's hard to hang a tape measure on a
spinner tip when the engine is not mounted.
Although, for this database which is being compiled, the most helpful
information would be a compairison of the CG and it's location on the cord
between different aircraft. Specifically, a trend could be seen in that
most well flying aircraft all have their CG at the same cord location. This
could be used as a indicator to identify that an new aircraft may have a
problem if it's CG with respect to the cord is outside of the norm.
Also, I use "cord" here as opposed to mean aerodynamic cord (MAC) simply
because there is no taper to this wing and why confuse the issue. Also, it
is my understanding that no one deviates from a wing with a 60" cord, so
using the leading edge as a Datum provides a stable location for stating CG
location and their relationship (i.e. if I mention that CG is 15" from LE,
it's safe to say that it's at 25% since the assumption is that cord is 60").
Also, empty weight CG is not desirable since pilot weight is designed into
the aircraft. If a pilot were somewhat heavy and compensated for with a
forward relocation of a battery or a weight, the EWCG would be forward when
compaired to other aircraft.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
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: Center of Gravity Computations |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk@hotmail.com>
One additional thing about why I suggest listing CG from LE in inches (this
is in response to Ted's email), it's easier for the individuals and
decreases the likelihood of error. It is safer to personally have the raw
data and perform the calculations oneself than to have multiple individuals
all performing a single calculation. The individuals would only then have
to operate a tape measure and a plumb bob. Not trying to say that the group
can't do math, it's simply a scientifically smarter thing to do.
Also, it should be stated at what position the aircraft is in when the
measurement is taken (it is assumed that the top longeron should be level,
but again, this should be stated for record).
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Center of Gravity Computations
> Regarding the location of Datum, although I would normally argue for the
> firewall, this situation would be better suited to a Datum of the leading
> edge.
>
> The firewall is a great location for an individual aircraft to work out
> weight and balance. You could change engines or relocate the wing and the
> Datum does not change. Also during the building process, the firewall
Datum
> is physically available once the fuselage takes shape, which is well
before
> the engine or wings get mounted. It's hard to hang a tape measure on a
> spinner tip when the engine is not mounted.
>
> Although, for this database which is being compiled, the most helpful
> information would be a compairison of the CG and it's location on the cord
> between different aircraft. Specifically, a trend could be seen in that
> most well flying aircraft all have their CG at the same cord location.
This
> could be used as a indicator to identify that an new aircraft may have a
> problem if it's CG with respect to the cord is outside of the norm.
>
> Also, I use "cord" here as opposed to mean aerodynamic cord (MAC) simply
> because there is no taper to this wing and why confuse the issue. Also,
it
> is my understanding that no one deviates from a wing with a 60" cord, so
> using the leading edge as a Datum provides a stable location for stating
CG
> location and their relationship (i.e. if I mention that CG is 15" from LE,
> it's safe to say that it's at 25% since the assumption is that cord is
60").
> Also, empty weight CG is not desirable since pilot weight is designed into
> the aircraft. If a pilot were somewhat heavy and compensated for with a
> forward relocation of a battery or a weight, the EWCG would be forward
when
> compaired to other aircraft.
>
>
> Robert Haines
> Du Quoin, Illinois
>
>
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: Center of Gravity Computations |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk@hotmail.com>
Coffee just kicked in....
What the heck was I thinking?! You can't measure CG with a tape measure!
Gesh,
Robert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Center of Gravity Computations
> One additional thing about why I suggest listing CG from LE in inches
(this
> is in response to Ted's email), it's easier for the individuals and
> decreases the likelihood of error. It is safer to personally have the raw
> data and perform the calculations oneself than to have multiple
individuals
> all performing a single calculation. The individuals would only then have
> to operate a tape measure and a plumb bob. Not trying to say that the
group
> can't do math, it's simply a scientifically smarter thing to do.
>
> Also, it should be stated at what position the aircraft is in when the
> measurement is taken (it is assumed that the top longeron should be level,
> but again, this should be stated for record).
>
>
> Robert Haines
> Du Quoin, Illinois
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk@hotmail.com>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 9:39 AM
> Subject: Re: Center of Gravity Computations
>
>
> > Regarding the location of Datum, although I would normally argue for the
> > firewall, this situation would be better suited to a Datum of the
leading
> > edge.
> >
> > The firewall is a great location for an individual aircraft to work out
> > weight and balance. You could change engines or relocate the wing and
the
> > Datum does not change. Also during the building process, the firewall
> Datum
> > is physically available once the fuselage takes shape, which is well
> before
> > the engine or wings get mounted. It's hard to hang a tape measure on a
> > spinner tip when the engine is not mounted.
> >
> > Although, for this database which is being compiled, the most helpful
> > information would be a compairison of the CG and it's location on the
cord
> > between different aircraft. Specifically, a trend could be seen in that
> > most well flying aircraft all have their CG at the same cord location.
> This
> > could be used as a indicator to identify that an new aircraft may have a
> > problem if it's CG with respect to the cord is outside of the norm.
> >
> > Also, I use "cord" here as opposed to mean aerodynamic cord (MAC) simply
> > because there is no taper to this wing and why confuse the issue. Also,
> it
> > is my understanding that no one deviates from a wing with a 60" cord, so
> > using the leading edge as a Datum provides a stable location for stating
> CG
> > location and their relationship (i.e. if I mention that CG is 15" from
LE,
> > it's safe to say that it's at 25% since the assumption is that cord is
> 60").
> > Also, empty weight CG is not desirable since pilot weight is designed
into
> > the aircraft. If a pilot were somewhat heavy and compensated for with a
> > forward relocation of a battery or a weight, the EWCG would be forward
> when
> > compaired to other aircraft.
> >
> >
> > Robert Haines
> > Du Quoin, Illinois
> >
> >
>
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "John Dilatush" <dilatush@amigo.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk@hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: wind tunnel
==================================
Robert and Chris,
If I may get in on this discussion, could one of you answer a question that
I have regarding airfoil testing and the real world?
The tested airfoil is a reproduction of the profile at the rib and yet in
the real world the fabric sags somewhat between the ribs therefore changing
the profile somewhat. How is this discrepency accounted for in the final
results? Or must the test section also incorporate these deformities
between the ribs?
Just a dumb mechanical engineer trying to get smarter.
John
==================================
jPietenpol-List message posted by: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk@hotmail.com>
>
> Chris,
>
> The SIU wind tunnel is atmospheric with a test section of 24" in width. A
> scale wing I believe would be too small to incorporate detail or an
accurate
> wing section. My inclination is to make a section 6" in cord and the full
> 24" in width. This would be focused toward developing wing section
> information as opposed to a three dimensional study.
>
> Also, I have been working with DesignFOIL and have been in discussion with
> Kevin Holcomb regarding his results with XFoil. Apparently, there is a
lot
> to be desired with low cost (free) wing section analysis software. I have
> results from DesignFOIL, but they are substantially different from the
> XFoil. Suffice it to say that there is a difference in location of the
> center of pressure of over 10% cord for a given angle of attack between
the
> two programs (imagine designing and building an aircraft and finding that
> you have to move the wing 6", not good).
>
> Although I'm an engineer, I don't have any direct experience in wind
tunnel
> tests and would appreciate any suggestions to achieve the most accurate
> results.
>
>
> Robert Haines
> Du Quoin, Illinois
>
>
> > From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka@compuserve.com>
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: wind tunnel
> >
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka"
> <bobka@compuserve.com>
> >
> > Robert,
> >
> > Sorry to take a while to get back to you on this topic.
> >
> > I would be very interested in seeing a properly executed wind tunnel
> > analysis of the Piet airfoil. This has come up a number of times on
this
> > venue and we never seem to be able to organize well enough to do it.
> >
> > I know Greg Cardinal would like to see it as well as Holcomb and a few
> > others.
> >
> > What chord size and width are you contemplating? Would you make the
> airfoil
> > just like the real one with ribstitches and everything to have the
surface
> > as close to actual as possible? I believe the holcomb's Aerodrome
website
> > has an analysis of the airfoil using one of the canned programs. Does
the
> > wind tunnel at SIU work at MSL density or is it pressurized?
> >
> > Chris Bobka
> >
> >
>
>
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: | Landing Gear location |
Pieters,
I have been recently reading the e-mails about landing gear location again and
it's location relative to the firewall or other parts of the plane such as wing
leading edge etc. I think using any reference other that the mass CG location
of the plane is wrong, especially because the wing is movable on a Piet. Each
Piet is different, but the CG of the wing must be within the same limits for
them to fly well, and therefore the mass CG of the entire plane will be close,
relative to the wing, beween various Pietenpols.
On January 13th I wrote and suggested:
"The CG of the entire plane is a combination of the horizontal and vertical centers
of gravity. From this point a line may be drawn to the ground contact point
of the landing gear. The angle of this line is usually 16.5 degrees forward
from the vertical if the plane is equiped with brakes, somewhat less if the
plane has no brakes. It might be neccessary to increase this angle if the thrust
line is high, so as to prevent nose over during run up and rough field operation.
However, the heavier the tail load is, the more of a tendency for ground
looping upon landing.
On "Mountain Piet" this angle is about 12 degrees and this seems to work out OK,
both for rough fields and no ground looping tendencies."
Chris Bobka also pointed out that the plane should be leveled up when determining
the CG of the plane. And additionally, Chris wrote a good explanation of the
same subject in another e-mail on about January 24. Look it up in the archives.
Then, as I remember, there was also some discussion about how to figure the CG
of the entire mass of the plane by weighing the plane both in a three point position
and level position from Hank Jarrett.
Hope that this is helpful.
John
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: | Center of Gravity |
Folks:
I'll make a couple more comments on CG, and then shut up. I'll stick by my original
recommendation to express and compare center of gravity as a percentage
of MAC (or simply "chord," if you prefer, since we assume a rectangular Hershey-bar
wing), and here's why: using "inches aft of wing leading edge" is fine if
you assume everyone sticks to the plans and builds an identical "FC-10" airfoil
with a 60" chord. I'm not sure that is necessarily a valid assumption. Note
that recently there has been discussion on the list about using different
airfoils. As soon as someone "improves" on BHP's design and goes to a 59" chord,
or a 63" chord, or whatever, your "inches aft of the leading edge" comparisons
become meaningless.
Deriving your safe operating CG range based on percentage of chord is consistent
with well-established aeronautical engineering practice. You might want to
search the archives for a post on this subject by Doc Mosher back on 4 Jul 2000,
in which he references the old CAM 18 standards for monoplanes as allowing
an operating CG range of 22% to 34% of chord. Of course, BHP's limits of 25%
to 33 1/3% are right in there. For loading graph purposes, you just convert to
inches from the datum, like on a factory-built aircraft. The math is pretty
simple, really.
Actually, I'm not sure why the comparison of airplane A to airplane B does anything
for you. What you want to compare is your airplane against the established
objective engineering standard (i.e., operating CG within 25% to 33 1/3% chord.)
Just because someone might manage to get a Piet with a 60" FC-10 to slither
around the sky with the CG at, say, 25" aft of the leading edge doesn't mean
it's "O.K."
Of more use than comparing airplanes is computing the extreme fore and aft loading
conditions for your particular aircraft, and making sure the aircraft can't
be loaded outside the allowable CG range, or else developing a set of loading
restrictions to keep yourself in the safe range. AC 43.13-1B, chapter 10 tells
all about it. If you want to maximize your safety, you're going to have to
do some math.
Ted Tuckerman
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: Center of Gravity |
Ted,
I agree with everything you have said in that post. Particularly the point about
doing what it takes to make "YOUR" plane balance at the proper CG. these planes
get changed so much... pulling here, stretching there, etc.
Who really cares what others balance at in inches aft of firewall, leading edge,
front cabane, whatever. IMO it's 100% useless info that can eventually cause
someone to make a serious mistake.
The real deal about CG is make YOUR loaded plane balance at 25-33% of MAC (FC10).
PERIOD. and that works whether your wing is 6" aft of plans or 50 feet forward
of the plans. a wing is a wing is a wing..... it's center of pressure
has no clue how much fuse is in front of it or behind it.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Ted Tuckerman
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Center of Gravity
Folks:
I'll make a couple more comments on CG, and then shut up. I'll stick by my original
recommendation to express and compare center of gravity as a percentage
of MAC (or simply "chord," if you prefer, since we assume a rectangular Hershey-bar
wing), and here's why: using "inches aft of wing leading edge" is fine if
you assume everyone sticks to the plans and builds an identical "FC-10" airfoil
with a 60" chord. I'm not sure that is necessarily a valid assumption. Note
that recently there has been discussion on the list about using different
airfoils. As soon as someone "improves" on BHP's design and goes to a 59" chord,
or a 63" chord, or whatever, your "inches aft of the leading edge" comparisons
become meaningless.
Deriving your safe operating CG range based on percentage of chord is consistent
with well-established aeronautical engineering practice. You might want to
search the archives for a post on this subject by Doc Mosher back on 4 Jul 2000,
in which he references the old CAM 18 standards for monoplanes as allowing
an operating CG range of 22% to 34% of chord. Of course, BHP's limits of 25%
to 33 1/3% are right in there. For loading graph purposes, you just convert to
inches from the datum, like on a factory-built aircraft. The math is pretty
simple, really.
Actually, I'm not sure why the comparison of airplane A to airplane B does anything
for you. What you want to compare is your airplane against the established
objective engineering standard (i.e., operating CG within 25% to 33 1/3% chord.)
Just because someone might manage to get a Piet with a 60" FC-10 to slither
around the sky with the CG at, say, 25" aft of the leading edge doesn't mean
it's "O.K."
Of more use than comparing airplanes is computing the extreme fore and aft loading
conditions for your particular aircraft, and making sure the aircraft can't
be loaded outside the allowable CG range, or else developing a set of loading
restrictions to keep yourself in the safe range. AC 43.13-1B, chapter 10 tells
all about it. If you want to maximize your safety, you're going to have to
do some math.
Ted Tuckerman
=
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 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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1@bellsouth.net>
Robert,
From one Saluki to another, I look forward to results of a wind tunnel test
on a Pietenpol airfoil. I am just getting my foot in the door on building
the Piet and am looking forward to the thrill of the "First Flight".
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk@hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: wind tunnel
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Robert Haines"
<robertsjunk@hotmail.com>
>
> Yikes, I hate to think that that's the only response I get from my post!
>
> Anyway, last night after sending the following email, I downloaded a full
> featured demo version of DesignFOIL. The demo only lasts five days, but
> that's all I need to get some data on the FC-10. It looks to be an easier
> and equally valid solution to models in a wind tunnel.
>
> Again, if anyone else has generated wing section data for the FC-10,
please
> share.
>
>
> Robert Haines
> Du Quoin, Illinois
>
>
> > Time: 03:15:04 PM PST US
> > From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk@hotmail.com>
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: wind tunnel
> >
> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Robert Haines"
> <robertsjunk@hotmail.com>
> >
> > This morning, I dropped by my alma mater, Southern Illinois University,
to
> > track down the wind tunnel that was in the Fluid Dynamics Lab. It has
> been
> > over a decade since I took the class and the university has since
> renovated
> > the School of Engineering so I would have been lucky to find it in the
> same
> > place. I had the assistant dean calling several departments to track it
> > down and it was evidently horse traded to the School of Aviation (where
it
> > should have been in the first place). So I drove out to the airport. I
> met
> > the department head and he gave me the grand tour and there it was,
right
> > next to the supersonic wind tunnel, between several cut-away jet
engines,
> > and next to enough airplane stuff to make me want to quit my job and
just
> > hang out there every day. He said that they don't use it much, but
> > considering that it had the same sample wing section in it as it did 14
> > years ago, I would say they haven't used it at all. He said that if I
> > wanted to make some wing sections, I could have full access to it. He
> also
> > said that if I needed some help, they have these things called
> undergraduate
> > students.
> >
> > The only problem is that it only has the instrumentation to do lift and
> > drag. It would need an additional equipment, such as a third load cell,
> to
> > determine center of pressure, which in a university setting is not hard
to
> > drum up. Since there has been so much debate regarding the moment
> generated
> > by the FC-10 and it other characteristics, I thought a full set of
charts
> on
> > the airfoil might be nice to have.
> >
> > My questions for the group are: has anyone already produced this
> > information? Is there a computer software package available that
analyzes
> > wing sections so building models is not necessary? Not that I wouldn't
> love
> > to do this, it's just my time is pretty scare already and I'd hate to
> waste
> > it.
> >
> > Robert Haines
> > Du Quoin, Illinois
> >
> >
>
>
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: Question of the week???????????? |
Corky,
Have you ever been to an antique tractor show? They have one event that is a hoot.
It is called the "Slowest Tractor Race". Last one across the finish line
wins. That is what the Sport Pilot issue is like. The slow tractor race speed
is what I expected when it all came about. Like you, my flying days are
closing in on me. I sold my RV-6 and started the Pietenpol hoping I could use
it under the Sport Pilot issue some day. Time will tell.
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: Isablcorky@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 10:44 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Question of the week????????????
Alex,
It looks like this waiting on this issue is going to outlast me. When it began
I was troting, then I slowed to a walk. Now I'm on a cane but still optimist.
I honestly think that it's all politics so certain people can gather the credit.
Corky in La and will keep waiting
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 |
|
Pieters,
Isabelle and I are clearing the house of everything not immediately needed.
Found about 40 copies of Sport Aviation, some back in the 70's. Anyone willing
to pay the shipping can have them.
Corky in La cleaning house
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 |
|
Corky
I'll just drop in and pick them up sometime and get that ride...
Max Davis
Arlington
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 |
|
Better wait until it warms up a bit but I'll keep them for you
Corky
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 |
|
I am sure you already have takers, but I will gladly pay the postage.
Doyle Combs
Lometa, Texas
----- Original Message -----
From: Isablcorky@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 8:01 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Magazines
Pieters,
Isabelle and I are clearing the house of everything not immediately needed. Found
about 40 copies of Sport Aviation, some back in the 70's. Anyone willing
to pay the shipping can have them.
Corky in La cleaning house
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 |
|
Yes Sir, A man in Arlington was the first.
Corky
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: | Center of Gravity, One More Thing |
Folks:
In my last post, I referenced a 4 Jul 2000 post by Doc Mosher, in which he quoted
CAM 18 as giving CG limits for monoplanes as 22% to 34% of MAC. To clarify,
this refers to high-wing monoplanes; for low- and mid-wing monoplanes, CAM 18
says 18% to 30%. If you want to read more, search the archives for Doc's post
#19453, dated 1 Oct 2002, subject: "Ancient CAA recommendations for CG limits"
Cheers,
Ted Tuckerman
P.S.: Thanks, DJ
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! --
|