Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:40 AM - Re: dihedral vs. no dihedral final outcome (BernadetteTS)
2. 05:46 AM - Fishermans Piet & Diehedral (Michael D Cuy)
3. 08:28 AM - Re: dihedral vs. no dihedral final outcome (Rick Holland)
4. 10:05 AM - Gordon's Piet (Michael D Cuy)
5. 10:21 AM - Re: dihedral vs. no dihedral final outcome (walt evans)
6. 11:04 AM - Re: Fishermans Piet & Diehedral (Galen Hutcheson)
7. 11:06 AM - Re: Fishermans Piet & Diehedral (Phillips, Jack)
8. 01:01 PM - Re: 0-235 (Norman Stapelberg)
9. 03:08 PM - dihedral vs. speed (walt evans)
10. 03:58 PM - Re: dihedral vs. speed (Michael D Cuy)
11. 05:15 PM - Re: Fishermans Piet & Diehedral (Galen Hutcheson)
12. 07:01 PM - Re: Gordon's Piet (Gordon Bowen)
13. 08:46 PM - Re: Re: dihedral vs. no dihedral final outcome (Rcaprd@aol.com)
14. 09:19 PM - Re: dihedral vs. speed (Rcaprd@aol.com)
15. 11:29 PM - Re: dihedral vs. speed (DJ Vegh)
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: dihedral vs. no dihedral final outcome |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: BernadetteTS <docfont@voyager.net>
>
>From: Rcaprd@aol.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: dihedral vs. no dihedral final outcome
>
>In a message dated 5/5/2005 7:53:32 AM Central Standard Time,
>Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov writes:
>"bird have it, so why argue with God ?"
>Mike C.
>
>PS.....I love irritating the crap out of the purist Pietenpol crowd !
>Yeah, but if God would have intended Pietenpols to have dihedral, he would
>have influenced Bernard Harold Pietenpol to put it in !! :)
>
>Chuck G.
>
Just like the logic that if God had wanted people to run around
naked, he would have made them that way.
DocFont
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: | Fishermans Piet & Diehedral |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Leon-- kinda like a Gilligan's Island-produced Air Camper, eh ? And for
Chuck G. and Galen....
the reason Bernie didn't put diehedral in is because as it says "our ways
are not His ways......."
I'm Mike Cuy, and I approve this message:)))
Mike C.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: dihedral vs. no dihedral final outcome |
How much did you raise each wing Walt?
On 5/4/05, walt evans <wbeevans@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Finished my "adding dihedral" change last evening. This morning did a
> final inspection and went flying. What a different airplane!!
> Without dihedral there didn't seem to be any distinct track. You could
> put in some rudder and the yaw would be happy to stay there whout any sign
> of a roll. Now with slight rudder inputs, the plane will gently bank and
> turn accordingly.
> Was worried that while in the hanger that when I got done it would look
> "clown like".
> But outside in the sunlight, I like it!
> And I'm glad I did it!
> After that I took my friend Don for a spin around the valley, and over his
> house.
> A fun time was had by all.
> Ain't life grand!!
> walt evans
> NX140DL
>
>
--
Rick Holland
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Gordon-- that is too cool. Your Piet sounds great. Not a bad empty
weight either-- not bad at all. Those Aeronca wings can sure lift.
So what is your wing span ? Our Champ used to be what, 35 feet ? That
can account for some good lifting capacity on your Piets part.
I like your line about taking meds.....
keep flying and hope the weather has broke for you in Alaska !
Mike C.
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: dihedral vs. no dihedral final outcome |
<ab80748b05050608283735e8f7@mail.gmail.com>
Rick,
I had made a "wedge" of 1 1/2 deg from 3 ft piece of 1X2 wood, and used that along
with a level to get the angle. Also my wings were a little negitive to start
with. With all that said, if you were starting with a flat wing, the numbers
come out to about 2.7" up on each wingtip.
Also , another plus, for whatever reason I'm getting an increase in cruise/top
speed, with the dihedral, of 6 mph at cruise.
With full power, my indicated is well over 90 mph. But checking with a GPS in
four directions found my airspeed is really 86/87. Still not too shabby.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: dihedral vs. no dihedral final outcome
How much did you raise each wing Walt?
On 5/4/05, walt evans <wbeevans@verizon.net> wrote:
Finished my "adding dihedral" change last evening. This morning did a final
inspection and went flying. What a different airplane!!
Without dihedral there didn't seem to be any distinct track. You could put
in some rudder and the yaw would be happy to stay there whout any sign of a
roll. Now with slight rudder inputs, the plane will gently bank and turn accordingly.
Was worried that while in the hanger that when I got done it would look "clown
like".
But outside in the sunlight, I like it!
And I'm glad I did it!
After that I took my friend Don for a spin around the valley, and over his
house.
A fun time was had by all.
Ain't life grand!!
walt evans
NX140DL
--
Rick Holland
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 |
|
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=xTZKQ6IXdEpgUgan3cSDl0vLH062vSjv4sJx1Rnob21j6LufajbeHfB+a0fG/nP8xJvHleauZu5Erj8nx8lbWC1DDhCvH6Vw4ClBS0ROEWRBdrH7H9O8Oj3G8QyBxN65msuubnFQiWHD+DoTIm1kXzZxckgzAH0o0a5Emqe9f9s=
;
| Subject: | Re: Fishermans Piet & Diehedral |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Galen Hutcheson <wacopitts@yahoo.com>
Hi Mike,
I'm all for diehedral (except for aerobatic planes)
and Charles A. Lindberg kept diehedral out of the
"Spirit" because he wanted the plane to be "unstable"
so he would have to fly the plane rather than go to
sleep (and the fact that he had kept the ailerons
small to prevent weakening the wing). Diehedral does
make planes stable and I'm not clear why Bernard would
not have added it to the Aircamper. Perhaps he was
just trying to keep the construction more simple.
Perhaps the roll rate was too sluggish in the Piet
wing and keeping out diehedral helped the roll rate.
Just guessing of course.
Doc (Galen)
Do Not Archive
--- Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
> <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
>
> Leon-- kinda like a Gilligan's Island-produced Air
> Camper, eh ? And for
> Chuck G. and Galen....
> the reason Bernie didn't put diehedral in is because
> as it says "our ways
> are not His ways......."
> I'm Mike Cuy, and I approve this message:)))
>
>
> Mike C.
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
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: | Fishermans Piet & Diehedral |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip@alarismed.com>
My guess is the one-piece wing dictated the lack of dihedral
Jack Phillips
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Galen Hutcheson
<wacopitts@yahoo.com>
Hi Mike,
I'm all for diehedral (except for aerobatic planes)
and Charles A. Lindberg kept diehedral out of the
"Spirit" because he wanted the plane to be "unstable"
so he would have to fly the plane rather than go to
sleep (and the fact that he had kept the ailerons
small to prevent weakening the wing). Diehedral does
make planes stable and I'm not clear why Bernard would
not have added it to the Aircamper. Perhaps he was
just trying to keep the construction more simple.
Perhaps the roll rate was too sluggish in the Piet
wing and keeping out diehedral helped the roll rate.
Just guessing of course.
Doc (Galen)
Do Not Archive
--- Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
> <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
>
> Leon-- kinda like a Gilligan's Island-produced Air
> Camper, eh ? And for
> Chuck G. and Galen....
> the reason Bernie didn't put diehedral in is because
> as it says "our ways
> are not His ways......."
> I'm Mike Cuy, and I approve this message:)))
>
>
> Mike C.
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
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 |
|
I have a 0-235 powered piet based in South Africa,attached is a pic I
get a cruise of 70 mph @ 2200rpm still busy with my tail consolidation.
I have just fitted a Vans RV6 cross over exhaust system, just waiting
for my instructor and we'll be flying again.
Norman Stapelberg
ZS-VJA (124hrs)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
WPTCorp@aol.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: 0-235
Has any one put 0-235 lycoming on a piet?
Here in Wyoming at 5500 feet the corvair is having a little trouble.
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: | dihedral vs. speed |
Since I put dihedral in the wings the cruise/top speed has increased. Probably
not due to the dihedral, but due to correction of wrong rigging before.
I'm just curious, what speeds are you guys seeing? I'm up around 90 full throttle
(checked with a GPS) are you guys getting around the same? I've got an A-65
with a certified Sensenich <sp> prop. I'm pretty light , 595# empty. When
I open the throttle, and slight nose down (to get it up on step) without losing
altitude, it really whirls.
but now with the new dihedral, it flies solid as a rock, not like a squirlly runaway
train like before.
what's the poop?
walt evans
NX140DL
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: dihedral vs. speed |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Walt-- I'm seeing 72 mph w/ a 65 hp. at 2150 cruise rpm and about 85-90
full throttle. Like when the controllers at
Oshkosh tell you to "keep up your speed" If they only knew I was already
at full throttle, but you don't talk as a pilot,
you just listen.....
Mike C.
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 |
|
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=Qw/54XyFlTRS6E+fD2wQiWEIRlnA1LTGHlazvsaPom8GKJa0zxIgprN0IdgNapJn9QrW92lScDvov/zmeOnavFMX+7TJeXMWGjKo+TJPqRG+8sCuJehpUIjg5TK9445/d7y/5LtH+VxpVeIIcTAKDg1+/cXs3NX9opeMkAV1muI=
;
| Subject: | Fishermans Piet & Diehedral |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Galen Hutcheson <wacopitts@yahoo.com>
My understanding is that you can put some diehedral in
a one piece wing, of course is can be wrong too.
Doc
--- "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip@alarismed.com> wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips,
> Jack" <jphillip@alarismed.com>
>
> My guess is the one-piece wing dictated the lack of
> dihedral
>
> Jack Phillips
>
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Galen
> Hutcheson
> <wacopitts@yahoo.com>
>
>
> >
> > do not archive
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > browse
> > Subscriptions page,
> > FAQ,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> mobile phone.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
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: Gordon's Piet |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen@ptialaska.net>
Mike,
Thanks, the guy that deserves the credit was an AP with Cessna in KS. He
built the Piete with 4130 steel, this made a very lite wgt plane. Aeronca
made three wings based on my research, 1100 thru 1300 lbs of lift. These
wings appear to come from the bigger payload based on size. My only real
contribution to this plane was the rebuild, recover, paint and engine
conversion after it set in the hanger for the last 8 years due to the wreck.
The guy that sold it to me (second owner/non-builder) made a couple
mistakes- first an most important--- not enough bungee for a hard landing.
And no safety straps on gear to insure they won't rotate out and up when
bungees are at full stretch. When wrecked the gear slipped out of the
expansion tube, bent up 90 degrees, bent up the wing struts and dipped the
wing into the ground. I think this amount of damage could have been avoided
with enough Cub like bungees, and cable stop straps. The wreck occurred due
to a thrown piston on C-85.
The O-235 was questionable due to fact everything was designed around C-85
wt. My building partner is 80 years old and didn't want to hand prop, and
I'm quite a number of lbs over the standard FAA 170 lb pilot. So wanted to
have plane that would balance with a fat boy in the pilot seat, without
ballast up front or in back. The Cozy is so tail heavy, you need to have
min. of 250 lbs in front seat to fly without ballast. Without 10 lbs in the
nose, it'll fall on it's prop if you don't park nose gear retracted. So had
some experience in trying to find balance.
The O-235 is an excellent engine for the Piete. It's available, cheap, has
a lot of accessory options. You just have to adjust for the excess weight
up front. The Piets a great design for mods. as long as you plan the mods
during the building process. I wish I had made the fuselage a little wider
while we were rewelding the wreck damage. Love the Piete, because of it's
versatility, even if I'm not a purest.
Gordon Bowen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gordon's Piet
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
<Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
>
> Gordon-- that is too cool. Your Piet sounds great. Not a bad empty
> weight either-- not bad at all. Those Aeronca wings can sure lift.
> So what is your wing span ? Our Champ used to be what, 35 feet ? That
> can account for some good lifting capacity on your Piets part.
> I like your line about taking meds.....
>
> keep flying and hope the weather has broke for you in Alaska !
>
> Mike C.
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: dihedral vs. no dihedral final outcome |
In a message dated 5/6/2005 6:43:51 AM Central Standard Time,
docfont@voyager.net writes:
Just like the logic that if God had wanted people to run around
naked, he would have made them that way.
DocFont
Hi Doc !!
That must be the logic they use at 'Party Cove' !! :)
Chuck G.
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: dihedral vs. speed |
Walt,
I'm seeing speeds very similar to Mike C., with my A65 and homebuilt 72 X
42 prop. The next time I have to pull the prop, I'll probably rework it a
little bit to get more RPM, for a better take-off and climb. I'm still very
intrigued with the Scimitar Prop, and hope to build one some day, using Eric
Clutton's guide. Full power level flight, my adjusted tach reading is 2200 RPM.
The A65 is rated at 2300 RPM. I have errors in my tach reading, as well as my
ASI, and have adjusted these errors to conclude the speeds. I've done a few
flight tests with the GPS, but neglected to put the results in my log...oh
well...guess I'll have to go do the tests again. Hey, theres a good reason to
go
fly !!
As far as your increased speed with the dihedral, I'm betting you had
some washout rigged into your original configuration, and don't have washout in
the re-rigged dihedral wing. The penalty for washout, is drag. The hershy bar
planform of the Pietenpol wing does Not need washout, because it naturally
stalls inboard first. That said, I think I saw somewhere that BHP did put a
tiny little bit of washout in the wing, probably just to err on the side of
washout.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: dihedral vs. speed |
i rigged my wings with .2=B0 of washout I'll be curious to see how she stalls.
DJ (just sprayed the tail feathers with polyspray) Vegh
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 9:18 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: dihedral vs. speed
Walt,
I'm seeing speeds very similar to Mike C., with my A65 and homebuilt 72 X
42 prop. The next time I have to pull the prop, I'll probably rework it a little
bit to get more RPM, for a better take-off and climb. I'm still very intrigued
with the Scimitar Prop, and hope to build one some day, using Eric Clutton's
guide. Full power level flight, my adjusted tach reading is 2200 RPM.
The A65 is rated at 2300 RPM. I have errors in my tach reading, as well as my
ASI, and have adjusted these errors to conclude the speeds. I've done a few
flight tests with the GPS, but neglected to put the results in my log...oh well...guess
I'll have to go do the tests again. Hey, theres a good reason to go
fly !!
As far as your increased speed with the dihedral, I'm betting you had some
washout rigged into your original configuration, and don't have washout in the
re-rigged dihedral wing. The penalty for washout, is drag. The hershy bar
planform of the Pietenpol wing does Not need washout, because it naturally stalls
inboard first. That said, I think I saw somewhere that BHP did put a tiny
little bit of washout in the wing, probably just to err on the side of washout.
Chuck G.
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! --
|