Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:16 AM - Varnished wings--Pietenpol Fly-In (rhartwig11@juno.com)
2. 06:04 AM - lift strut angle (Oscar Zuniga)
3. 07:28 AM - Re: Accurate Wood List (Les Schubert)
4. 07:39 AM - Re: Varnished wings--Pietenpol Fly-In (Galen Hutcheson)
5. 08:17 AM - Re: Lift strut angle (Bill Church)
6. 11:59 AM - Static port (Norman Stapelberg)
7. 12:42 PM - Re: Static port (Phillips, Jack)
8. 01:34 PM - Re: Static port (walt evans)
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: | Varnished wings--Pietenpol Fly-In |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: rhartwig11@juno.com
The plane with the varnished wings is owned by Tom Brown. To get his
address, email the Brodhead Chapter webmaster by clicking on the link at
the bottom of their website.
Brodhead Chapter website is: http://www.eaa431.org
The Piet Fly-in is July 22-23, 2005.
Dick H.
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | lift strut angle |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags@hotmail.com>
Just to add one more data point to the growing pile, the wing lift struts on
NX41CC are right at 30 degrees from horizontal, and I believe the wing
cabanes are lengthened a bit to raise the wing. But I looked at the
geometry in CAD and tried moving the wing back down to stock location and it
only reduces the angle a degree or two. Twenty degrees wouldn't seem to be
correct in any case that I looked at.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
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: Accurate Wood List |
Derek
I bought a Piet wood kit from Aircraft Spruce. Just before it was ready to
ship they called me to say that the rib cap strip was not included in that
price and was extra. About this time I found a partly built Piet project so
I have never opened the boxes to inventory it, figured it was safer in the
crates as it came. I didn't buy the cap strip as I knew I wouldn't need it
at that time. Hope
this helps.
Les
At 04:35 PM 26/01/2005 +0000, you wrote:
>I've just received my plans and need to order the wood for a long bodied
>three piece wing aircamper. I'll be ordering from Aircraft Spruce and
>shipping to Europe so I want to avoid any mistakes. I've seen a wood list
>mentioned in the archives (Sep 04) and would appreciate it if someone
>would e-mail me a copy.
>
>Regards
>
>Derek Doyle
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 |
|
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=0rYSAKXtO7vJFweWpF9/ddwP70nf1IDIGYd+lkYHkc/QAN/6N9uVRS1wau5RXH3lZ97z4iBkzO9Neibq+TJor2AOnr+W4Ofc6K3VWFSB/rKFoM4vvCl+g0Aeo95t8wt7KQxZRvfkx2ytTFuSm0ebYR8hLESlNEMkwi2lmGQiGXA=
;
Subject: | Re: Varnished wings--Pietenpol Fly-In |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Galen Hutcheson <wacopitts@yahoo.com>
Dick, thanks for that info. I will contact them soon.
I hope to make it to Broadhead this year, if all goes
well, but I doubt my plane will be ready.
Doc
-
>
>
>
>
>
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
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: | Lift strut angle |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Bill Church <eng@canadianrogers.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Lift strut angle
Clif wrote:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854@shaw.ca>
Jim Wills plans?
Clif,
I believe Rod was referring to the Pietenpol plans modified by Jim Wills,
for PFA (UK) approval . I understand those plans have a few modifications
including a quick-disconnect for aileron connections (since the majority of
UK Piets will only be flown in summer and stored for the winter) and
built-up spars (because spar stock is scarce in the UK). There are likely
other modifications/corrections, and I believe that variation from any
details on those plans must be granted a concession by the PFA (correct me
if I'm wrong, anyone who knows better).
Bill
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: "Norman Stapelberg" <norshel@mweb.co.za>
Hello Fellow Piet pilots
Thought I'd pass this one out there, went flying in my plane with the
instructor, only to find that the air speed and VSI react as the power
setting is changed, it seems I have a problem with the static port.
I am currently using a pitot/ static tube, the static tube sits about 4"
below the wing with the pitot tube another 2"lower. The front cockpit
also has a ASI and Altimeter, these however are not connected to the
pilots static system, the front Altimeter reads 100' higher than the
rear cockpit, the ASI reads 10mph higher than the rear instruments.
My thoughts are to plumb all the instruments to the static system, and
then to use an alternate static port, my question is this where would
the best place to pick up a reliable static position.
To date we have flown 2hrs since the rebuild and everything else seems
in order.
Thanks
Norman Stapelberg
South Africa
ZS-VJA (121hrs)
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip@alarismed.com>
Hi Norman,
The first question that comes to mind is where are your pitot tube and
static tube in relation to the leading edge of the wing? If they are
behind the leading edge, 4" is probably not far enough away from the
wing to truly read "Free-stream" air. If you look at other similar
speed airplanes, such as a J-3 Cub, you will find that the pitot tube is
located considerably lower than that - about 12" as I recall from my old
Cub.
It is a good idea to use a static port, rather than just leaving the
instruments open to the air behind the instrument panel. Rarely does
the cockpit ambient pressure match the actual static pressure, with the
results that the instruments don't read accurately. But the location of
this port must be carefully chosen to make sure it is not influenced by
the airflow around the airplane. Putting the port out ahead of the lead
edge of the wing, and well outboard of the propwash is usually a good
choice.
In the book "Flight Testing Homebuilt Aircraft" by Vaughan Askue
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0813813085/qid=1106857699
/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-2003434-0024117?v=glance&s=books ) there is a
whole chapter on selecting a location for the pitot-static system, and
methods to calibrate it.
Most pitot tubes don't read accurately at high angles of attack,
generating airspeed readings considerably slower than the true airspeed.
One of the tips he gives in the book is to chamfer the edges of the
pitot tube, creating a slight funnel shape which tends to promote much
more acurate indications. When I test flew my Pietenpol (with a
chamfered pitot tube), I got an indicated airspeed at stall of about 42
mph. I was disturbed by comparing this to the speeds others were
quoting (stall speeds as low as 29 mph), until I started running some
calculations. For my plane to stall at 42 mph requires a maximum lift
coefficient of about 1.8, whcih is quite reasonable for an airfoil made
up by an amateur designer like BHP. For even a light weight Pietenpol
to stall at 29 mph would require a lift coefficient of over 3.2, which
is totally unrealistic without leading edge slats and double-slotted
flaps. The only conclusion is that the airspeed indications are faulty
and the actual airspeeds at stall are closer to 40 mph.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Norman Stapelberg"
<norshel@mweb.co.za>
Hello Fellow Piet pilots
Thought I'd pass this one out there, went flying in my plane with the
instructor, only to find that the air speed and VSI react as the power
setting is changed, it seems I have a problem with the static port.
I am currently using a pitot/ static tube, the static tube sits about 4"
below the wing with the pitot tube another 2"lower. The front cockpit
also has a ASI and Altimeter, these however are not connected to the
pilots static system, the front Altimeter reads 100' higher than the
rear cockpit, the ASI reads 10mph higher than the rear instruments.
My thoughts are to plumb all the instruments to the static system, and
then to use an alternate static port, my question is this where would
the best place to pick up a reliable static position.
To date we have flown 2hrs since the rebuild and everything else seems
in order.
Thanks
Norman Stapelberg
South Africa
ZS-VJA (121hrs)
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "walt evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net>
I took a shot at it, and guess got lucky. On the bottom of the rear
instrument panel, made a fitting with a small hole in it, to put the static
tube thru the ply, kind of down pointing at my right shin. No real
variations, and airspeed checks with GPS. easy installation too, 12"of
plastic
tubing.
Added a front ASI later and didn't add to the static system, and it has some
variations.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman Stapelberg" <norshel@mweb.co.za>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Static port
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Norman Stapelberg"
<norshel@mweb.co.za>
>
> Hello Fellow Piet pilots
>
> Thought I'd pass this one out there, went flying in my plane with the
> instructor, only to find that the air speed and VSI react as the power
> setting is changed, it seems I have a problem with the static port.
>
> I am currently using a pitot/ static tube, the static tube sits about 4"
> below the wing with the pitot tube another 2"lower. The front cockpit
> also has a ASI and Altimeter, these however are not connected to the
> pilots static system, the front Altimeter reads 100' higher than the
> rear cockpit, the ASI reads 10mph higher than the rear instruments.
>
> My thoughts are to plumb all the instruments to the static system, and
> then to use an alternate static port, my question is this where would
> the best place to pick up a reliable static position.
>
> To date we have flown 2hrs since the rebuild and everything else seems
> in order.
>
> Thanks
>
> Norman Stapelberg
> South Africa
> ZS-VJA (121hrs)
>
>
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! --
|