---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 06/06/05: 9 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 06:57 AM - Re: Stabilizer incidence (Jim Markle) 2. 07:25 AM - Tail wheel placement (lshutks@webtv.net (Leon Stefan)) 3. 08:45 AM - Re: Stabilizer incidence (Gordon Bowen) 4. 11:19 AM - Re: Tailwheel placement (Carl Vought) 5. 03:16 PM - Plans on Ebay (Alan Lyscars) 6. 07:24 PM - Re: Stabilizer incidence (Wizzard187@AOL.COM) 7. 08:16 PM - Re: Tailwheel placement (Dick Navratil) 8. 09:26 PM - Re: Stabilizer incidence (Rcaprd@aol.com) 9. 11:55 PM - Re: Stabilizer incidence (Clif Dawson) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 06:57:50 AM PST US From: Jim Markle Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Stabilizer incidence DNA: do not archive Its-Bogus: do not forward to list --- MIME Errors --- A message with no text/plain section was received. The entire body of the message was removed. Please resend the email using plaintext formatting. NOTE! This error can also occur when the poster of the message has a specific type of computer virus. This virus WAS NOT forwarded on to the List. The poster should be informed of the potential problem with their system as soon as possible. --- MIME Errors --- ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 07:25:12 AM PST US ETAuAhUAp5+Mo+97d6IDyo3sh2B2JezqONUCFQC3shLAbPXw9zEo2sX9sVOjie1RSA== From: lshutks@webtv.net (Leon Stefan) Subject: Pietenpol-List: Tail wheel placement --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: lshutks@webtv.net (Leon Stefan) I'm using the 2 leaf set up also,.I set it as far forward as possible. It sets about 6' behind the fus. tail post insted of 12". or the stocl location. (which sets slightly foreward of the tail post) I also went with the "homebuiler tail wheel' as seen in the supply catalogs, with the hard rubber wheel. It is lighter than the Matco. To further lighten the tail, I replaced the 6" wheel with a 4"er, saving around another pound. It may have even been 1 1/2 lb. I did add extensions to the steering arms to lessen the rudder bar authority over the tail wheel. Unfortunately that added extra weight back there. Leon S. ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 08:45:48 AM PST US From: "Gordon Bowen" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Stabilizer incidence I'd expect just about every Piete that is being flown at or near the back edge of acceptable CG limits (about 20" aft of LE wing) would need to have a little lift developed by the horizonal stab and the elevator. Drooping elevator would change the "airfoil" shape of the combo H.stab/elevator, therefore develop lift, and lots of unnecessary drag. No lift coming from tail plane, nose pitches up because of where the weight is vs the center of lift on the wing. Putting incidence in H.stab, would only make permanent the drag. Still think the best move is to have normally loaded CG somewhere more forward, ca. 16". Allowing for fat pilots like me to shift the CG back to close to aft limit, when needed, but only when needed. The only way to move "normally loaded", CG forward is to put weight out in the engine area, much forward of the empty CG, thus minimal additional drag, ie. a battery or a chuck of lead attached to the engine mounts. OR move the wing further back during the building process. Gordon Bowen ----- Original Message ----- From: Rcaprd@aol.com To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 9:29 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Stabilizer incidence In a message dated 6/5/2005 2:56:37 PM Central Standard Time, lnawms@msn.com writes: Take a look at inflight photos of Piets and notice that many of them have a drooping elevator! I know mine does and I have seen some others in the Brodhead pattern that do also. Hi Larry !! Good to hear from you. My plane fly's straight level flight, with the elevator (flippers) slightly low. I noticed this same thing in one of the pictures that Corky sent me of his first plane (NX41CC) in flight. I can turn around and watch, and if I pull back on the stick to make the flippers in line with the stab, it pitches up to a very nose up attitude. This is kind of baffling. It's one of the reasons I installed trim tabs on the flippers, and took ALL the negative incidence out of the stab. I think the weight of the flippers being behind the hinge (no mass balance) is at least some of the reason for it. It still fly's straight & level with the drooping flippers, though. It's in trim at 1850 to 1900 rpm indicated, but my tach reads 100 rpm to low, compared to an electronic hand held tach. If I add 100 rpm she climbs, and if I pull 100 rpm out, she descends and picks up speed. Those early planes, like the Bleriot Monoplane, are the only planes I know of with an undercambered stabilizer. It seems they carry a portion of the weight with the stab, so the C of G can be farther aft and it would also be much more induced drag than later designs. Just think what would happen if the stab would stall...the nose will pitch up abruptly past the Critical Angle of Attack, and stall the main wing. Chuck G. It was an absolutely beautiful evening to fly. Clear blue sky, light south wind, mid 80's. I did the River Run, then over an hour of slow flight at about 50 mph, with the power pulled back to 1700 rpm indicated, then did a Smokin' Fly By at Beech Field. It's amazing how just put put putting around the sky can clear all the cob webs out of my brain !! ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 11:19:29 AM PST US From: "Carl Vought" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Tailwheel placement --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Carl Vought" I'm replacing the tailwheel on my Piete for two reasons: 1) it adds too much weight in the wrong place and 2) it places the tailwheel under the rudder. I figure on a hard landing, there's a good chance of it damaging the rudder. The tailwheel I plan to use will be forward of the rudder, as in the original drawings. Make sense???....Carl Vought ----- Original Message ----- From: "Galen Hutcheson" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Tailwheel placement > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Galen Hutcheson > > Rick, short wheel-based tail-draggers are more > difficult to handle on the ground, ie. the Pitts as an > example. The further the tailwheel is from the main > gear the better it will handle. The Pietenpol has a > pretty short fuselage so I would vote on the 12" aft > position. Just my opinion. > > Doc > > --- Rick Holland wrote: > > > Hey guys, I am using a two leaf leaf spring and a > > Matco tailwheel and was > > wondering where the best position for the tailwheel > > was. The plans-built > > tailwheel show the wheel center maybe three or four > > inches forward of the > > back end of the fuselage. With the leaf spring setup > > the wheel center will > > end up around 12" behind the rear end of the > > fuselage. Naturally this is a > > negative as far as adding to tail heavyness but > > doesn't a longer wheelbase > > (distance from main gear to tailwheel) improve > > ground handling stability? > > Most factory taildraggers are setup this way for > > some reason (Cubs, 140s, > > 180s, etc). > > > > Thanks > > > > > > -- > > Rick Holland > > Ribs, tailfeathers, center section done, fuselage > > ready for gear now. > > > > > __________________________________ > http://discover.yahoo.com/ > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 03:16:00 PM PST US From: "Alan Lyscars" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Plans on Ebay FYI: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd1&item4554489017&category26441&sspagenameWDVW Alan ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 07:24:04 PM PST US From: Wizzard187@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Stabilizer incidence Pieters, Back in the sixtys I built a casssutt and had a lot of forward stick pressure on the first flight and I am sure I raised the leading edge to correct it. Now that was forty years ago but I am sure this is what I did. Now this is a mid wing and I am sure I set the hort. streight with the thrust line. Ken Conrad in hot iowa ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 08:16:28 PM PST US From: "Dick Navratil" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Tailwheel placement --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil" Carl I did the same thing last winter. I removed the sinle leaf spring and Matco tailwheel and built a V type assy with a extra light wheel from a dolly. When I weighed them side by side, I had saved 3 lb. Then I had to consider what to remove on the nose, 3 lb at the tail equals 12 lb at the firewall. The most obvious thing was the 25 lb battery on the firewall. But I installed a belly strobe and the battery also is a backup for the GPS and VHF. Soooo, I considered very carefully till the weather suddenly got nice and I put it all back together the way it was. Maybe next year. Dick N. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Vought" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Tailwheel placement > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Carl Vought" > > I'm replacing the tailwheel on my Piete for two reasons: 1) it adds too > much > weight in the wrong place and 2) it places the tailwheel under the > rudder. > I figure on a hard landing, there's a good chance of it damaging the > rudder. > The tailwheel I plan to use will be forward of the rudder, as in the > original drawings. Make sense???....Carl Vought > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Galen Hutcheson" > To: > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 12:49 AM > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Tailwheel placement > > >> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Galen Hutcheson > >> >> Rick, short wheel-based tail-draggers are more >> difficult to handle on the ground, ie. the Pitts as an >> example. The further the tailwheel is from the main >> gear the better it will handle. The Pietenpol has a >> pretty short fuselage so I would vote on the 12" aft >> position. Just my opinion. >> >> Doc >> >> --- Rick Holland wrote: >> >> > Hey guys, I am using a two leaf leaf spring and a >> > Matco tailwheel and was >> > wondering where the best position for the tailwheel >> > was. The plans-built >> > tailwheel show the wheel center maybe three or four >> > inches forward of the >> > back end of the fuselage. With the leaf spring setup >> > the wheel center will >> > end up around 12" behind the rear end of the >> > fuselage. Naturally this is a >> > negative as far as adding to tail heavyness but >> > doesn't a longer wheelbase >> > (distance from main gear to tailwheel) improve >> > ground handling stability? >> > Most factory taildraggers are setup this way for >> > some reason (Cubs, 140s, >> > 180s, etc). >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Rick Holland >> > Ribs, tailfeathers, center section done, fuselage >> > ready for gear now. >> > >> >> >> >> >> __________________________________ >> http://discover.yahoo.com/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 09:26:18 PM PST US From: Rcaprd@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Stabilizer incidence In a message dated 6/6/2005 8:58:40 AM Central Standard Time, jim_markle@mindspring.com writes: Maybe mounting your new camera setup pointing aft would tell some interesting tales.....I plan on doing a little flying with a camera pointed outboard along the ailerons so I can get an idea about deflection, etc.... Maybe some video of your tail (your AIRPLANE'S tail, that is...) would answer some questions... JM Hey Jim, great idea !! I have video pointing aft, from both sides of the cockpit, watching the smoke trail. Ya can't really see the position of the flippers very well, because of the angle of the camera, but it does appear to be slightly down, and I didn't note how much fuel was onboard when I did those flights. I will do several more flights, paying particular attention to the camera angle, and fuel onbd / C.G. location. One thing I've learned from all these flights with the video camera mounted, is that in normal bumps of turbulence, the camera exaggerates the movements. Quite often, it looks like I'm bouncing all over the place...on second thought, maybe I am, and I'm just used to it. It's very challenging to shoot good video while flying the plane trying to keep the subject in the viewfinder. I have to slip & skid circling a target, causing the ball to bounce back & fourth (the one on the panel). I have some really great video of three hot air balloons landing, and deflating. I circled them for about 15 minutes during their operation, with the camera pointing out the left side. I still have to do a flight with the camera pointing directly at the instrument panel. I'm splicing and editing all this video, to give the impression of many cameras mounted on the airframe. I'm really learning a lot, about what it takes to get good in flight video. It's looking pretty good, but I've been having problems with the video editing program (Pinnacle Studio 9). I've been in contact with them, and I have to un-install, and re-install it. That's a scary thought, because I don't want to loose any of the many hours of video I have on the computer. I still haven't got any of the video's to a finished point yet, but I do some stuff to them almost every day. They're all looking pretty good, though...if I can just get this editing program to do the stuff I tell it to do !! Chuck G. NX770CG ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 11:55:59 PM PST US From: Clif Dawson Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Stabilizer incidence OK, so now we have cameras. Next step is to tape bits of yarn all over the tail, particularly the rudder, fin and fuselage to show the vertical flow. Taping to the stab and elevator for horizontal flow and possibly any stagnant areas on the bottom. Don't forget to have a few guys standing around in white lab coats with clip boards, horn rim glasses and those plastic pen thingies in their pockets. :-) :-) Clif Maybe some video of your tail (your AIRPLANE'S tail, that is...) would answer some questions... JM Hey Jim, great idea !! I have video pointing aft, from both sides of the cockpit, watching the smoke trail. Ya can't really see the position of the flippers very well, because of the angle of the camera, but it does appear to be slightly down, and I didn't note how much fuel was onboard when I did those flights. I will do several more flights, paying particular attention to the camera angle, and fuel onbd / C.G. location. One thing I've learned from all these flights with the video camera mounted, is that in normal bumps of turbulence, the camera exaggerates the movements. Quite often, it looks like I'm bouncing all over the place...on second thought, maybe I am, and I'm just used to it. It's very challenging to shoot good video while flying the plane trying to keep the subject in the viewfinder. I have to slip & skid circling a target, causing the ball to bounce back & fourth (the one on the panel). I have some really great video of three hot air balloons landing, and deflating. I circled them for about 15 minutes during their operation, with the camera pointing out the left side. I still have to do a flight with the camera pointing directly at the instrument panel. I'm splicing and editing all this video, to give the impression of many cameras mounted on the airframe. I'm really learning a lot, about what it takes to get good in flight video. It's looking pretty good, but I've been having problems with the video editing program (Pinnacle Studio 9). I've been in contact with them, and I have to un-install, and re-install it. That's a scary thought, because I don't want to loose any of the many hours of video I have on the computer. I still haven't got any of the video's to a finished point yet, but I do some stuff to them almost every day. They're all looking pretty good, though...if I can just get this editing program to do the stuff I tell it to do !! Chuck G. NX770CG