Pietenpol-List Digest Archive

Wed 06/08/05


Total Messages Posted: 19



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 03:53 AM - Re: Video while flying (harvey.rule@bell.ca)
     2. 05:20 AM - wanted-- wire wheel Continental powered Piet  (Michael D Cuy)
     3. 05:26 AM - Re: Cruise speed... (Michael D Cuy)
     4. 06:51 AM - Re: Cruise speed... (Phillips, Jack)
     5. 07:11 AM - Re: Cruise speed... (Isablcorky@aol.com)
     6. 07:25 AM - Re: Cruise speed... (Steve Ruse)
     7. 08:58 AM - Re: Cruise speed... (Gordon Bowen)
     8. 09:00 AM - Re: Cruise Speed (Shawn Wolk)
     9. 09:07 AM - Re: Re: Cruise Speed (harvey.rule@bell.ca)
    10. 10:07 AM - Re: Stabilizer incidence (Christian Bobka)
    11. 10:21 AM - Re: Stabilizer incidence (Christian Bobka)
    12. 10:25 AM - Re: Stabilizer incidence (Christian Bobka)
    13. 10:45 AM - Re: Cruise speed... (walt evans)
    14. 11:16 AM - cruise speeds  (Michael D Cuy)
    15. 11:30 AM - Re: cruise speeds (harvey.rule@bell.ca)
    16. 12:49 PM - Re: cruise speeds (Steve Ruse)
    17. 03:08 PM - Re: Cruise speed... (Rcaprd@aol.com)
    18. 03:49 PM - Re: Cruise speed... (bike.mike)
    19. 08:52 PM - Re: Re: Cruise Speed (Shawn Wolk)
 
 
 


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: 03:53:24 AM PST US
    Subject: Video while flying
    From: harvey.rule@bell.ca
    FILETIME=[2757AF40:01C56C18] Thank God for diddlers and money waisters! ________________________________ From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clif Dawson Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Video while flying Stupidity is sometimes only in the mind of the beholder. The Wrights were a couple of stupid bicycle diddlers that didn't know you needed suspenders to hold everything up. Then there was Edyson, Bell, Watt, etc. All stupid time and money wasters. Clif ----- Original Message ----- From: Rcaprd@aol.com To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 4:13 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Video while flying Sounds like a fertile mind to me !!


    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: 05:20:42 AM PST US
    From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
    Subject: wanted-- wire wheel Continental powered Piet
    c56abb$ca4b7aa0$7281d618@knology.net> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov> Guys-- a local IA is looking to buy one. Any out there--lemmie know. thank you, Mike C. He's open to GN-1's as well if not too heavy


    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: 05:26:45 AM PST US
    From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
    Subject: Re: Cruise speed...
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov> Steve-- Lonnie Prince should have a sticker or embossed serial no. on your prop which has within its contents the length and pitch of your prop. It should be on the hub area on the height of the hub sides. I can get you his home phone offline if you like. Mike C.


    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: 06:51:27 AM PST US
    Subject: Cruise speed...
    From: "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip@alarismed.com>
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip@alarismed.com> That's about what I see with mine. 65 - 70 mph with a 65 Continental and a Sensenich 72 x 42 prop. A lot depends on your airspeed indicator, and whether or not you have a real static port or just leave the instruments open to ambient in the cockpit. Try to check your speed by timing it both ways over a known distance, or use a GPS. Jack Phillips, PE Sr. Manager, Disposables Product Development Clinical Technologies and Services Cardinal Health Creedmoor, NC (919) 528-5212 -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve Ruse Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cruise speed... --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Steve Ruse <steve@wotelectronics.com> The more reading I do, the more I see GN-1s and Pietenpols with claimed cruise speeds of 70, 80, & 90+ MPH. My GN-1 with an A-75 cruises at about 65mph at 2,200 RPM. Going to 2,400 or so will net me maybe an additional 5mph. Nowhere near the 80+ MPH I see some people claiming. Now I understand I'm in a Pietenpol, and getting somewhere fast is not a concern, but I'm wondering if other people's numbers are real, or if the prop (or some other factor) is making my plane slow. The prop on my plane is a fancy Prince "Q-tip" composite/wood prop, I don't know the exact numbers, but I am trying to get them from Prince. The previous owner told me this is a climb prop, and the plane came with an extra prop that he said was more of a cruise prop, and would give maybe 70mph. Is the prop I'm using possibly slowing me down? The plane is right at 600lbs, I'm only ~170lbs, and the airfoil is the original Pietenpol airfoil. I see some people claiming 80-85mph in GN-1s with A-65s. The higher cruise RPM of my A-75 should give me an advantage over them. What am I missing? Should I really expect to get 80+mph in cruise? Thanks! Steve Ruse N6383J - KFTW


    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: 07:11:08 AM PST US
    From: Isablcorky@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Cruise speed...
    Pieters and interesters, The way I see it there are only two ways to get a Piet over 70 mph, lie about it or straight down. Someone in Louisiana


    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: 07:25:12 AM PST US
    From: Steve Ruse <steve@wotelectronics.com>
    Subject: Re: Cruise speed...
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Steve Ruse <steve@wotelectronics.com> Thanks Mike, I was just going to contact Prince and see what the specifics were for this serial number. I didn't think that the length and pitch would actually be part of the serial number. Makes sense though. I'll have to check the numbers tonight, and do the math that Fred was talking about. I'm guessing that higher drag planes like Pietenpols typically see greater prop slip numbers than a plane with more "average" drag? I'd be interested in hearing the cruise speeds that some people are getting with 65-85 horsepower, particularly if you are getting greater than 80MPH cruise. I'm going to make a ~600SM trip in my GN-1 this weekend (weather permitting), should be fun. I'm going to Odessa (KODO), and when I called to inquire about hangar space there, they told me there was a Pietenpol on field there. Any chance that person is on the list? Thanks for the help, Steve Ruse N6383J - KFTW Quoting Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>: > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy > <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov> > > Steve-- Lonnie Prince should have a sticker or embossed serial no. on your > prop which > has within its contents the length and pitch of your prop. It should be on > the hub area > on the height of the hub sides. I can get you his home phone offline if > you like. > > Mike C.


    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: 08:58:06 AM PST US
    From: "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen@ptialaska.net>
    Subject: Re: Cruise speed...
    Third way, put on a diff type of NACA wing design, like any old Piper or Aeronca high winger (they're laying around hangers/garages in airports all across America), that undercambered original Piete wing design may have a tad more drag than needed for the amount of lift created. You can pick these old wings up for a lot cheaper than you can build them, rebuild and recover. Kick up the HP to 100+ and then lie about getting 100kts (instead of true 90) out of your modified Piete. Purist need not apply. Gordon Bowen ----- Original Message ----- From: Isablcorky@aol.com To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 6:10 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cruise speed... Pieters and interesters, The way I see it there are only two ways to get a Piet over 70 mph, lie about it or straight down. Someone in Louisiana


    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: 09:00:31 AM PST US
    From: "Shawn Wolk" <shawnwolk@sprint.ca>
    Subject: Re: Cruise Speed
    I was getting 76 mph with a Sensenich Wood prop that limited rpm to 2200 flat out with an A-65. Now I still get 76 mph with a two blade warp drive pitched to throttle back to 2250 rpm and better fuel economy. My ASI reads high. These numbers are based on many tests using a GPS in 4 directions. Shawn Wolk C-FRAZ Pietenpol Aircamper C-GZOT Skyhopper 2


    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: 09:07:02 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Cruise Speed
    From: harvey.rule@bell.ca
    FILETIME=[05BA0460:01C56C44] Is that a ground adjustible prop?If it is you may want to check the stems for cracks.Ground adjustable props don't do very well with direct drive engines.Something to do with the torgue at the stems being excessive. ________________________________ From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Shawn Wolk Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Cruise Speed I was getting 76 mph with a Sensenich Wood prop that limited rpm to 2200 flat out with an A-65. Now I still get 76 mph with a two blade warp drive pitched to throttle back to 2250 rpm and better fuel economy. My ASI reads high. These numbers are based on many tests using a GPS in 4 directions. Shawn Wolk C-FRAZ Pietenpol Aircamper C-GZOT Skyhopper 2


    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: 10:07:51 AM PST US
    d="scan'208,217"; a="1082982086:sNHT452585918"
    From: "Christian Bobka" <sbobka@charter.net>
    Subject: Re: Stabilizer incidence
    Larry, Good to here from you. You wrote: 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 The reason for the drooped elevator on the Piet is that it weighs something and gravity pulls down on it. You could call it "gravitational" trimming. If the elevator control system had a counterweight in it that counterbalanced the weight of the elevators, the droop would not exist and the ship would fly with more noseup tendency. To put it another way, if you flew your ship inverted, the elevator would still droop. The Sleek Streak that I still have from 40 years ago shows a distinct leading edge low position for the horizontal stab. I do not think that it is a lifting stab. See a classic book called "Aero Science of Free Flight" by Charles Hampson Grant available for about 10 bucks on ebay or www.bookfinder.com for discussion of lifting stabs and an otherwise unsurpassed discussion on empirically determining flight characteristics. You wrote: One other extreme example is the Bleriot Monoplane that has an undercambered stab. Early designers had erroneously assumed that both surfaces lifted. That was my elusion to the early Fleet biplanes having the camber on the top of the stabiliser in one of the flight reports. A handful of Waco Model 10s, mostly those destined for seaplane use, used in inverted camber airfoil on the stab to increase effectiveness. Chris Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren ----- Original Message ----- From: LAWRENCE WILLIAMS To: Pietenpol-List Digest Server Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 2:54 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Stabilizer incidence I just got back and have been wading through several days worth of posts. Interesting to note the comments about the stab incidence and various "fixes" as well as the standard aerodynamics 101 explanations. I noticed as a kid that some old, slow free-flight models, especially the ones with undercambered airfoils had LIFTING stabs. Sort of goes against what we claim to be gospel in today's world. The reasoning was that with CG could be moved further aft and not be burdened by stalls, snap-rolls and possible resulting spins. So, how might this apply to our Piets? They are slow and have an ubdercambered wing also. 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. One other extreme example is the Bleriot Monoplane that has an undercambered stab. Let's not be too hasty in having new builders camber their stabs either on top or on the bottom. Remember all this website does is exchange ideas and, even though they might sound logical, it's not the poster that has his butt on the line when it's time to go....... Larry


    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: 10:21:48 AM PST US
    d="jpg'145?scan'145,208,145,217"; a="1161401593:sNHT44024402"
    From: "Christian Bobka" <sbobka@charter.net>
    Subject: Re: Stabilizer incidence
    Here are two images of the Fleet Model 2 showing the horizontal stab with the camber on the top! It would have performed beter if they had flipped it over! Also note the different incidence angles of the wings in the photo which does not appear in the drawing. This could be an error in repair of the fuselage at sme point or it could be the way it really was.... Chris Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren ----- Original Message ----- From: Rcaprd@aol.com To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 12:29 AM 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 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: 10:25:44 AM PST US
    d="scan'208,217"; a="1172574888:sNHT58600262"
    From: "Christian Bobka" <sbobka@charter.net>
    Subject: Re: Stabilizer incidence
    Do not confuse center of lift with pitching moment..... Chris Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren ----- Original Message ----- From: Gordon Bowen To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 10:44 AM 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 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: 10:45:02 AM PST US
    From: "walt evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net>
    Subject: Re: Cruise speed...
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "walt evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net> Steve, I had posted my speeds after adding dihedral to the wings. ( that probably didn't affect speed though) . At full throttle with an A65 and a sensinech prop of 72x42, I indicated well over 90. But checking with a GPS in four directions the actual was 86/87. Try nosing down slightly to get the wing up on step ( that's what I call it) You'll seem like you are in a gentle dive, but you'll actually not loose altitude. Also I find that even in straight and level flight, a slight touch on the right rudder will give you a few more knots walt evans NX140DL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Ruse" <steve@wotelectronics.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cruise speed... > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Steve Ruse <steve@wotelectronics.com> > > The more reading I do, the more I see GN-1s and Pietenpols with claimed cruise > speeds of 70, 80, & 90+ MPH. My GN-1 with an A-75 cruises at about 65mph at > 2,200 RPM. Going to 2,400 or so will net me maybe an additional 5mph. Nowhere > near the 80+ MPH I see some people claiming. Now I understand I'm in a > Pietenpol, and getting somewhere fast is not a concern, but I'm wondering if > other people's numbers are real, or if the prop (or some other factor) is > making my plane slow. > > The prop on my plane is a fancy Prince "Q-tip" composite/wood prop, I don't know > the exact numbers, but I am trying to get them from Prince. The previous owner > told me this is a climb prop, and the plane came with an extra prop that he > said was more of a cruise prop, and would give maybe 70mph. > > Is the prop I'm using possibly slowing me down? The plane is right at 600lbs, > I'm only ~170lbs, and the airfoil is the original Pietenpol airfoil. I see > some people claiming 80-85mph in GN-1s with A-65s. The higher cruise RPM of my > A-75 should give me an advantage over them. What am I missing? Should I > really expect to get 80+mph in cruise? > > Thanks! > > Steve Ruse > N6383J - KFTW > >


    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: 11:16:42 AM PST US
    From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
    Subject: cruise speeds
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov> Steve-- I'm running the same engine (65 Continental) as Walt Evans and the same prop length and pitch 72"x42P and verified by opposing gps runs at 2150 rpm, I'm seeing 70-71 mph cruise and about 85-87 mph at full throttle. (where I had the throttle set when the Fisk controller near Oshkosh said "black and white high wing, keep up your speed.") Mike C.


    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: 11:30:39 AM PST US
    Subject: cruise speeds
    From: harvey.rule@bell.ca
    FILETIME=[184E1760:01C56C58] --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: harvey.rule@bell.ca Does anybody know what prop you would use for an 80hp Franklin(wood prop)?At this time I am using a metal prop and it has been suggested to me to switch to a wood prop to save the engine in case of a tip forward.I am no where near flying situation as yet.I finished putting the tail back together and I have yet to install the wings.It needs carb heat,seat belts,jury struts,controls moved to the left side and a few other alligators which havn't shown their ugly head as yet.I'm looking forward to assembling it and finishing her off.She is a real beauty and when I'm finished I'll post some pictures. -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael D Cuy Subject: Pietenpol-List: cruise speeds --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov> Steve-- I'm running the same engine (65 Continental) as Walt Evans and the same prop length and pitch 72"x42P and verified by opposing gps runs at 2150 rpm, I'm seeing 70-71 mph cruise and about 85-87 mph at full throttle. (where I had the throttle set when the Fisk controller near Oshkosh said "black and white high wing, keep up your speed.") Mike C.


    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: 12:49:38 PM PST US
    From: Steve Ruse <steve@wotelectronics.com>
    Subject: Re: cruise speeds
    --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Steve Ruse <steve@wotelectronics.com> Thanks Mike, At what RPM do you cruise? How long are your take-off rolls, and what do you climb at (FPM)? Also, what static RPM do you normally see? Thanks! Steve Quoting Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>: > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy > <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov> > > Steve-- I'm running the same engine (65 Continental) as Walt Evans and the > same prop length and pitch > 72"x42P and verified by opposing gps runs at 2150 rpm, I'm seeing 70-71 mph > cruise and about 85-87 mph > at full throttle. (where I had the throttle set when the Fisk controller > near Oshkosh said "black and white high wing, > keep up your speed.") > > Mike C.


    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: 03:08:18 PM PST US
    From: Rcaprd@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Cruise speed...
    In a message dated 6/8/2005 8:52:45 AM Central Standard Time, jphillip@alarismed.com writes: That's about what I see with mine. 65 - 70 mph with a 65 Continental and a Sensenich 72 x 42 prop. A lot depends on your airspeed indicator, and whether or not you have a real static port or just leave the instruments open to ambient in the cockpit. Try to check your speed by timing it both ways over a known distance, or use a GPS. Steve, I have a similar set up as Jack, but mine is a short fuselage, with similar performance. After adding the fairings to the gear legs, and jury struts, the speed increased only slightly...a couple of mph. Another way I like to check airspeed, is to fly the same speed as traffic on the turnpike. The speed limit is 70, so I figure traffic is going to be between 70 and 75. I like to try to keep the shadow of my plane, right on the pavement just ahead of, and keeping track with a chosen vehicle. It's a lot more difficult than you would think, and I often wonder what is going through the driver's mind, when he / she sees a big shadow on the road up ahead !! Chuck G. NX770CG


    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: 03:49:29 PM PST US
    d="scan'208,217"; a="999772173:sNHT306070736"
    From: "bike.mike" <bike.mike@charter.net>
    Subject: Re: Cruise speed...
    ----- Original Message ----- From: Rcaprd@aol.com [snip] I often wonder what is going through the driver's mind, when he / she sees a big shadow on the road up ahead !! Someone I won't name was flying an Aeronca Champ over oil country in Califonia, trying to keep the shadow on an oil tanker. On a whim, out on a private, paved, oil company haul road, "someone" did a touch and go in front of the tanker, leaving the wheels on the road for several hundred feet. "Someone" then flew straight away, hoping the driver didn't get a look at the 3" N-numbers. "Someone" wonders, every now and then, if that driver still tells the story in some bar in Kern county.


    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: 08:52:32 PM PST US
    From: "Shawn Wolk" <shawnwolk@sprint.ca>
    Subject: Re: RE: Re: Cruise Speed
    Now don't paint all ground adjustable props with the same brush. At our field there are many small continentals and Lycomings up to 0-320 using Warp Drives and no one has had any problems. There has been a report that I've seen about a Rotax 912S about hub cracking. The Rotax 912S has high compression and I don't believe it was the 'HP' hub. The Warp drive with the 'HP' hub is a solid very nicely machined item. I won't comment on other ground adjustable props. Only that I am very happy with the Warp Drive and have a 2-blade for the Pietenpol (hand propping...a must) and a 3-blade for my Skyhopper 2. I haven't mentioned the take off roll in the previous post because I've never really measured it. Its fairly short, and of course is slightly extended with a full fuel load or carrying passengers. On a smooth grass runway (home field) or a paved strip. It's kind of fun to do a sprayplane style T/O and hold the stick forward to build up speed. When the stick is pulled back at climb speed it really hops off and climbs. I have the A-65 powered Piet set up for 2250-2275 static. She will go to about 2375 flat out, so I commonly throttle back for economy. Again this provided 76 mph at 2250-2275 rpm. When I had the Piet on floats. I pitched the prop for 2425 static. It would go up to 2525 in level flight. Throttling just a wee bit back to about 2350 gave me 72 mph. I left the prop in this position for 1 flight after returning the Piet to wheels. It was the same top speed 72 mph at the same rpm. But did it climb. Surprised the %&$# out of me. I have found that the current static pitch provided a good balance of climb and speed for me. Shawn Wolk C-FRAZ Pietenpol Aircamper C-GZOT Skyhopper 2




    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! --