---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 07/14/05: 31 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 05:16 AM - PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST Piet fuselage (Christian Bobka) 2. 05:58 AM - Re: Spins (John Dilatush) 3. 06:43 AM - Re: engines... (Robert Gow) 4. 06:45 AM - Re: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST Piet fuselage (Rick Holland) 5. 06:49 AM - Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 31 Msgs - 07/13/05 (Brad Smith) 6. 07:27 AM - Re: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST Piet fuselage (Rick Holland) 7. 09:38 AM - Re: engines... (Dick Navratil) 8. 09:56 AM - Re: anydoy spin it? (Jim Ash) 9. 10:14 AM - List Digest Truncation Fixed!! (Matt Dralle) 10. 10:18 AM - Re: engines... (bike.mike) 11. 10:26 AM - Re: anydoy spin it? (Mark) 12. 03:33 PM - Re: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST Piet fuselage (Christian Bobka) 13. 03:33 PM - Re: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 31 Msgs - 07/13/05 (Christian Bobka) 14. 03:38 PM - Re: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST Piet fuselage (Christian Bobka) 15. 03:41 PM - Re: engines... (Christian Bobka) 16. 05:26 PM - Re: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST Piet fuselage (Rick Holland) 17. 05:30 PM - Re: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST Piet fuselage (Rick Holland) 18. 05:54 PM - Re: anydoy spin it? (Galen Hutcheson) 19. 06:06 PM - Three different fuselages exist (Christian Bobka) 20. 06:06 PM - Re: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST Piet fuselage (Christian Bobka) 21. 06:09 PM - Re: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST Piet fuselage (Christian Bobka) 22. 06:30 PM - we need to do 40 on account of the prop (Christian Bobka) 23. 07:19 PM - Re: Brodhead Sustinence (Larry Nelson) 24. 07:57 PM - Re: engines... (Dick Navratil) 25. 08:02 PM - Re: engines... (Dick Navratil) 26. 08:26 PM - Re: engines... (Christian Bobka) 27. 08:46 PM - Re: engines... (bike.mike) 28. 09:15 PM - Re: engines... (Stephen!) 29. 09:15 PM - Re: engines... (Stephen!) 30. 09:40 PM - Re: anydoy spin it? (Jim Ash) 31. 11:50 PM - Re: anydoy spin it? (Galen Hutcheson) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 05:16:03 AM PST US d="scan'208,217"; a="1297273399:sNHT29218682" From: "Christian Bobka" Subject: Pietenpol-List: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST Piet fuselage Rick, The following is related to your issue and I hope becomes a classic posting that is referenced by many for years to come. I wrote it 6.5 years ago almost to the day in response to a question posed by Greg Cardinal. It was about 5 hours of research and headscratching. Of course, it will prompt some controversy. This was supposed to have been published in MacLaren's BPA newsletter. I sent it to him but he never came out with the next edition. It appears that the 1932 fuselage has the wood gear axle about 13.5 inches aft of the firewall. The 1933 Improved Air Camper has the axle 17 inches aft of the firewall. The weight and balance sheet I have from Don Pietenpol shows the axle on the "1937 Air Camper with Corvair engine" (metal split axle gear on a 163 inch fuselage) at 16.5 inches aft of the firewall. The question Dale is asking is how far aft of the firewall should the axle be on the longEST fuselage for which we have no help from the drawings? The 1932 fuselage (Hoopman drawings and 1932 Flying and Glider Manual) is 161 inches long. The 1933 Improved Air Camper fuselage is 163 inches long. The longEST fuselage is 172.375 inches long. This is the one I understand you have built. It appears that the intersection of the first truss verticals with the lower longeron on the 1932 fuselage is 8.375 or 8.5 inches aft of the firewall, depending on which set of plans you look at. On the 1933 Improved fuselage, it is 10 inches, and on the longEST fuselage, it is 12 inches. This would mean that the wood gear, unmodified from the 1932 plans and as mounted on the longEST fuselage, would put the axle 12-8.5 or 3.5 inches farther aft on the longEST fuselage than on the 1932 fuselage. It would be at 13.5 (see paragraph 1 sentence 1) + 3.5 or 17 inches aft of the firewall. Is this a good place for it? Frank Pavliga. who did this to his longEST fuselage, said it was too far forward at 17 inches aft of the firewall so he moved it aft when he did an engine switch from the Model A to the A-65. A better indicator of proper gear position is comparing it to the rear seat back position in the particular fuselage since this indicates the shift aft of the CG position as the fuselages have been stretched. The rear seat back (at the top longeron) in the 1932 fuselage is 70.5 inches aft of the firewall. The rear seat back in the 1933 Improved fuselage is 72.25 inches aft of the firewall. The rear seat back of the longEST fuselage is 76.25 inches aft of the firewall. This is a substantial shift aft in the position of the CG versus the axle position as the fuselage is stretched. Therefore, the axle on the 1932 fuselage is 70.5 -13.5 or 57 inches forward of the rear seat back. The axle on the 1933 Improved is 72.25 -17 or 55.25 inches forward of the rear seat back. Let us ignore the value from the 1932 fuselage for reasons to be discussed later. Using the number from 1933 and applying this to the longEST fuselage, we should have the axle at 76.25 - 55.25 or 21 inches aft of the firewall. Two paragraphs ago we determined that it will actually wind up at 17 inches aft of the firewall with the wood gear, unmodified, and Frank P. says this is too far forward. Therefore, it appears that we need to redesign the gear so that the axle will sit farther aft in the V to the tune of about 21 -17 or 4 inches. As we noted above, if you look at the sweep of the V in the 1932 plans, you will note that the front attach of the V is at 8.5 inches aft of the firewall. We know that the axle is about 13.5 inches aft of the firewall. Therefore, the sweep is 13.5 - 8.5 or 5 inches for the wood gear. Doing the same analysis for the 1933 Improved Air Camper, we know the front attach of the V is at 10 inches aft of the firewall and the axle is at 17 inches aft of the firewall. Therefore the sweep is 17 -10 or 7 inches for the split axle gear. The next sentence is important. If you put the 1932 wood gear on a 1933 Improved fuselage, you would have an axle that will be 7 - 5 or 2 inches forward of where it would have been if you had used the split axle gear!!!! So the gears are not necessarily interchangeable!!! Logic says that it does not matter which style gear you use. The axle should always be in the same relative position. I see this as an admission by BP that the original 1932 axle was too far forward by 2 inches. And now we know what Frank P. was talking about!!!! It is obvious that BP saw fit, when designing the 1933 Improved Air Camper, that if he lengthened the fuselage from 161 to 163 inches and moved the pilot's rear seat back aft by 1.75 inches, then he must move the axle aft by 17 -13.5 - 2 or 1.5 inches. (Consider 2 of the 3.5 inch difference between 17 and 13.5 as a design correction and the remaining 1.5 of the 3.5 inches to be an adjustment for the new fuselage length and movement aft of the rear seat back.) So what would BP do if he made the fuselage 172.375 inches long (a whopping 9.375 inches longer) and moved the rear seat back aft yet another 76.25 -72.25 or 4 inches? As mentioned before, I propose a redesign of the V to allow the axle to sit 4 inches further aft of where it sits in the 1932 V. This makes sense. As just discussed, the original sweep was 5 inches. The new proposed sweep is 5 + 4 or 9 inches. This is reasonable compared to BP's increase of sweep in the split axle gear to 7 inches for a slightly longer fuselage with a repositioned pilot. Adding even more length for the longEST fuselage and moving the pilot an astounding 4 more inches aft over the 1933 fuselage and 5.75 more inches aft over the 1932 fuselage definitely calls for an adjustment in the sweep of the wood V. As I see it, after BP's design correction is factored in, if you want to use a wood straight axle gear in the short 161 inch long 1932 fuselage, then the axle should be at 13.5+2 (the 2 inch correction) or 15.5 inches aft of the firewall (the V has a 7 inch sweep). If you want to use a wood straight axle gear in the 163 inch long Improved Air Camper fuselage, then the axle should be at the same location as in the split axle gear, 17 inches aft of the firewall (the V has a 7 inch sweep). If you want to use a wood straight axle gear in the 172.375 inch long longEST fuselage, then the axle should be 21 inches aft of the firewall (the V should have a 9 inch sweep). Frank P. started with 5 inch sweep and ended up with 7 inch sweep after his engine swap and gear modification. I propose that a 9 inch sweep is optimal but you could probably get by just fine with the 7 inch sweep. Either way, I would not use the 1932 gear as it is on the drawings for the longEST fuselage. Does this help? I rest my case and am going to bed. Chris Bobka ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:58:48 AM PST US From: "John Dilatush" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Spins ----- Original Message ----- From: Rcaprd@aol.com To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 10:13 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Spins Chuck, I really can't give you a diffinitive answer about the horsepower output because I used manifold pressure to determine power settings. According to the book, the engine at max power pulled about 110 hp in the US version at 4800 rpm and 45" of manifold pressure. The Japanese version ran up to 5500 rpm and produced 135 hp. At the field elevation, (7946 ft) I would pull about 42 to 44 inches depending on temp. As I climbed out the manifold pressure would drop and I would guess at 15,000 plus feet it was down to only about 38 inches. I either didn't look or don't remember now because of the cold. Assuming that I was pulling 110 hp at takeoff, and if manifold pressure has a linear relationship to hp, then I probably was producing about 90 to 95 hp. A normally aspirated engine loses power at about 3% per 1,000 ft . If we assume that you are putting out 65 hp at sea level, and assuming it would take 45 hp to maintain a Piet in level flight; then your ceiling should be about 10,000 ft. Let me know how it turns out. Cordially, John . In a message dated 7/13/2005 9:33:55 AM Central Standard Time, dilatush@amigo.net writes: In another matter, I noticed on the list some discussion about the ceiling of a Piet. I would like to claim the record here if I may, 15,300 feet! Of course I had a turbocharged Subaru engine. Is this cheating? The plane was still climbing at this altitude, but I was so damn'd cold, I terminated the experiment. Cordially, John Well John, ya probably got me there !! How much horsepower do you suppose the engine was putting out at 15,000 feet ? No doubt, my 65 hp would run out of Umph, before I got 'er up that high. Chuck G. Planning on some high altitude tests this weekend. Will report results. ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:43:51 AM PST US From: "Robert Gow" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: engines... --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Robert Gow" I've wondered the same about my K100 engine (BMW motorcycle). It's a small water-cooled package that provides over 100 HP in later versions. Bob. -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Stephen! Subject: Pietenpol-List: engines... --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Stephen!" Has anyone tried putting a BMW motorcycle boxer engine in one of these machines? -- IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:45:56 AM PST US From: Rick Holland Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST Piet fuselage Wow! Yes this helps a whole bunch. And yes Christian, I would vote to make you a PhD in Pietology after a dissertation like this. So with my longEST fuselage we are talking about putting the axles 9" behind the front ash cross strut (9" sweep). I hate to add another independent variable to our algorithm by people have brought up the issue of brakes and tail wheel before, mentioning that all of BP's plans are without them and that the gear needs to move forward some if brakes and tail wheel are used. Any opinion how this fits into the equation? Thanks Chris Rick H (rookie landing gear designer) On 7/14/05, Christian Bobka wrote: > > Rick, > The following is related to your issue and I hope becomes a classic > posting that > is referenced by many for years to come. I wrote it 6.5 years ago almost > to the > day in response to a question posed by Greg Cardinal. It was about 5 hours > of research and headscratching. Of course, it will prompt some > controversy. > This was supposed to have been published in MacLaren's BPA newsletter. I > sent > it to him but he never came out with the next edition. > ... > -- Rick Holland ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:49:23 AM PST US s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=nAcseNheMVC2TYpD2cJt1kTAdSKg6ZX0aMWoWXz3hc/sUUHeTSX/lSFQTXh6sxRczbXmbec8T1xZjPIyjMBggV92nkg+lg2gI4ZzZxzIhpnqdbWk90yLacuvAk/DCcQXEBkt2EXklLJXVjH4oFoTlT+jiucfLDn61o9r22eRAu4= ; From: Brad Smith Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 31 Msgs - 07/13/05 --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Brad Smith Time: 03:40:37 PM PST US From: "walt evans" Subject: Pietenpol-List: need input for my new exhaust stacks Right now I have swept back stacks with a heat muff on both sides, fashioned after Tony B's heat muff design. All works great, with ample heat for carb and cabin. Problem is that now that I'm taking passengers, the stacks exit about 24 inches from their mic and the conversation is very limited. ( after 2 flights, my throat is horse) Just ordered the flanges and bent pipe pieces from JC Whitney to make a new design. I'm thinking of an Areonca type design (two pipes into one and going down to the lower fuse cowling to dump the sound out the bottom.) Even thought of a small muffler on each stack, but the right size doesn't seem to be available. Anyone have any tidbits of information to add to make the design better? Thanks, walt evans NX140DL Walt, One of the guys one one of the lists mentioned something about "stingers." Essentially it is a section of tubing 8" long the same size as the main exhaust, squeezed to about a 1/4" flat opening, then with a plate welded in to fill that opening. Holes are then drilled along the sides to slightly exceed the area of the original outlet. His tests indicated NO power loss and a significant noise reduction. This was on a VW with 28" primary tubes, 4 into 4, so on another engine you might see different results. Dick Starks is about to try this on the new engine that he hung on his Nieuport. If I hear more I'll let you know. Brad ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 07:27:13 AM PST US From: Rick Holland Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST Piet fuselage Just one more variable in this landing gear design thing is deck angle and I think Mike Cuy answered this one in a couple archive messages indicating that building your gear to result in a top longeron deck angle of 12-13 degrees works well. I believe I will design to this. Rick H. On 7/14/05, Christian Bobka wrote: > > Rick, > The following is related to your issue and I hope becomes a classic > posting that > is referenced by many for years to come. I wrote it 6.5 years ago almost > to the > day in response to a question posed by Greg Cardinal. It was about 5 hours > of research and headscratching. Of course, it will prompt some > controversy. > This was supposed to have been published in MacLaren's BPA newsletter. I > sent > it to him but he never came out with the next edition. > ........ > > -- Rick Holland ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 09:38:05 AM PST US From: "Dick Navratil" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines... --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil" I'm not aware of a BMW installation. I did some checking into using a variety of 4 cyl motorcycle engines a few years ago. I main issue always came back to them being too light and turning too fast. Between the issues of extending the mount way out and engineering a reduction drive, I settled on an A-65. Now however there is a company called Hog Air that has a package with a Harley Davidson engine. Engine, mount and reduction drive goes for about $11k. With all accessories that should weigh in about right. Dick N. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen!" Subject: Pietenpol-List: engines... > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Stephen!" > > > > Has anyone tried putting a BMW motorcycle boxer engine in one of these > machines? > > -- > IBA# 11465 > http://imagesdesavions.com > > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 09:56:05 AM PST US From: Jim Ash Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: anydoy spin it? DNA: do not archive Its-Bogus: do not forward to list - No Plain-Text Section --- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found --- A message with no text/plain MIME section was received. The entire body of the message was removed. Please resend the email using Plain Text formatting. HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section in their client's default configuration. If you're using HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text". --- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found --- ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 10:14:12 AM PST US From: Matt Dralle Subject: Pietenpol-List: List Digest Truncation Fixed!! --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Matt Dralle Dear Listers, I finally figured out today what was causing the occasional truncation of the daily List Digest emails. Seems that every once in a while a message would contain a single "." (period) on line all by itself. The mailers would see this and assume that this was the universal emailer signal for "end of message", and consequently wouldn't process any of the rest of the Digest message. I've put in a filter today to remove any of these sequences so we should be back in business on the Digests. Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Admin. Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 10:18:07 AM PST US d="gif'147?scan'147,208,146,147"; a="1219219754:sNHT68288898" From: "bike.mike" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines... BMW R100 ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 10:26:31 AM PST US From: Mark Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: anydoy spin it? SpamAssassin (score=-2.566, required 3, autolearn=not spam, AWL 0.03, BAYES_00 -2.60) --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark Jim Ash wrote: > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jim Ash > There are really two questions here; what are the plane's spin > characteristics, and do you know how to do it? > > As for me, I would rather know how to spin under planned > circumstances, than find out under unplanned circumstances. The > knowledge of having done spins (and recoveries) has saved my bacon at > least once (in a certificated airplane). It all happened so fast there > wasn't much time to even think about it. > > As for the plane, I personally am not getting in any plane if I'm not > comfortable I can get out of it in a manner I prefer. > > > Jim Ash > Well Jim I would respectivefully disagree. First is spinning under planned circumstances. With an experimental airplanes there is no such thing. An 1/8 of an inch somewhere may totally change the spin characteristics. A certificated airplane is built and tested to be both predictable and consistent. One J3 loaded the same as the next will have simular spins. That does not apply with a Piet or any other airplane. Each is different. The thing that would bother me about spinning a Piet is that most of them are flown so near the rearward CG point. That means it is far more likely to flatten out as one person has already pointed out. Rarely will anyone get into a spin at an altitude that is high enough for a reasonable chance of recovery in an unplanned situation. The usual place is the base to final turn and one thing is for sure. Anyone sharp enough to recover from an accidental spin, especially at low altitude, is easily sharp enough to prevent it from happening in the first place. ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 03:33:19 PM PST US d="scan'208,217"; a="1287205987:sNHT48674078" From: "Christian Bobka" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST Piet fuselage Rick, Dale and I measured today and it looks like they used 7" for the sweep. This is a good, empirically derived location and would be good for brake equipped as well. What kind of brakes? Chris Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Holland To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 8:42 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST Piet fuselage Wow! Yes this helps a whole bunch. And yes Christian, I would vote to make you a PhD in Pietology after a dissertation like this. So with my longEST fuselage we are talking about putting the axles 9" behind the front ash cross strut (9" sweep). I hate to add another independent variable to our algorithm by people have brought up the issue of brakes and tail wheel before, mentioning that all of BP's plans are without them and that the gear needs to move forward some if brakes and tail wheel are used. Any opinion how this fits into the equation? Thanks Chris Rick H (rookie landing gear designer) On 7/14/05, Christian Bobka wrote: Rick, The following is related to your issue and I hope becomes a classic posting that is referenced by many for years to come. I wrote it 6.5 years ago almost to the day in response to a question posed by Greg Cardinal. It was about 5 hours of research and headscratching. Of course, it will prompt some controversy. This was supposed to have been published in MacLaren's BPA newsletter. I sent it to him but he never came out with the next edition. ... -- Rick Holland ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 03:33:52 PM PST US d="scan'208"; a="1129281542:sNHT74536906" From: "Christian Bobka" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 31 Msgs - 07/13/05 --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" Brad, Please do let us know about the stingers and how they sound. chris Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad Smith" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 31 Msgs - 07/13/05 > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Brad Smith > > Time: 03:40:37 PM PST US > From: "walt evans" > Subject: Pietenpol-List: need input for my new exhaust > stacks > > Right now I have swept back stacks with a heat muff on > both sides, > fashioned after > Tony B's heat muff design. All works great, with > ample heat for carb > and > cabin. Problem is that now that I'm taking > passengers, the stacks exit > about > 24 inches from their mic and the conversation is very > limited. ( after > 2 flights, > my throat is horse) > Just ordered the flanges and bent pipe pieces from JC > Whitney to make a > new design. > I'm thinking of an Areonca type design (two pipes into > one and going > down > to the lower fuse cowling to dump the sound out the > bottom.) Even > thought of > a small muffler on each stack, but the right size > doesn't seem to be > available. > Anyone have any tidbits of information to add to make > the design > better? > Thanks, > > walt evans > NX140DL > > Walt, > > One of the guys one one of the lists mentioned > something about "stingers." Essentially it is a > section of tubing 8" long the same size as the main > exhaust, squeezed to about a 1/4" flat opening, then > with a plate welded in to fill that opening. Holes > are then drilled along the sides to slightly exceed > the area of the original outlet. His tests indicated > NO power loss and a significant noise reduction. This > was on a VW with 28" primary tubes, 4 into 4, so on > another engine you might see different results. > > Dick Starks is about to try this on the new engine > that he hung on his Nieuport. If I hear more I'll let > you know. > > Brad > > __________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 03:38:29 PM PST US d="scan'208,217"; a="1296021385:sNHT42580204" From: "Christian Bobka" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST Piet fuselage Rick, What kind of wheels? You may want to increase the length of the struts to get the deck angle up a little. With the spoked wheels, the plane will full stall at aft stick and all three will kiss simultaneously so it looks like this ship has a good deck angle. I will bring my smart level tomarrow and measure a bunch of things like deck angle in three point, deck angle in cruise, and I will also use a specific part of the underside of the centersection to use as a basis for determining the angle of the wing to level when in cruise etc. Need those numbers.... Chris Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Holland To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:24 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST Piet fuselage Just one more variable in this landing gear design thing is deck angle and I think Mike Cuy answered this one in a couple archive messages indicating that building your gear to result in a top longeron deck angle of 12-13 degrees works well. I believe I will design to this. Rick H. On 7/14/05, Christian Bobka wrote: Rick, The following is related to your issue and I hope becomes a classic posting that is referenced by many for years to come. I wrote it 6.5 years ago almost to the day in response to a question posed by Greg Cardinal. It was about 5 hours of research and headscratching. Of course, it will prompt some controversy. This was supposed to have been published in MacLaren's BPA newsletter. I sent it to him but he never came out with the next edition. ........ -- Rick Holland ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 03:41:26 PM PST US d="scan'208"; a="1296048725:sNHT391961972" From: "Christian Bobka" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines... --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" Dick, Just think of what a good day you would have if one jug on your A-65 stuck a valve or swallowed one. Just think how far you could fly. Quite a long way.... No just think what a better day you would have if you lost one jug on a two banger....You are going down now.... Chris Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dick Navratil" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines... > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil" > > I'm not aware of a BMW installation. I did some checking into using a > variety of 4 cyl motorcycle engines a few years ago. I main issue always > came back to them being too light and turning too fast. Between the issues > of extending the mount way out and engineering a reduction drive, I settled > on an A-65. > Now however there is a company called Hog Air that has a package with a > Harley Davidson engine. Engine, mount and reduction drive goes for about > $11k. With all accessories that should weigh in about right. > Dick N. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stephen!" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:21 PM > Subject: Pietenpol-List: engines... > > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Stephen!" > > > > > > > > Has anyone tried putting a BMW motorcycle boxer engine in one of these > > machines? > > > > -- > > IBA# 11465 > > http://imagesdesavions.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 05:26:13 PM PST US From: Rick Holland Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST Piet fuselage Haven't decided on wheel type yet, am trying to get all these design questions answered first. Will go with either 6x6 aircraft wheels or motorcycle wheels. Figure I will kind of reverse engineer the gear by building it to provide the proper deck angle. So I really appreciate the data from your Piet as it sounds like you built yours right on the money. Also, which fuselage do you have? And what does the 'EST' in longEST stand for? Thanks again Rick On 7/14/05, Christian Bobka wrote: > > *Rick,* > ** > *What kind of wheels?* > ** > *You may want to increase the length of the struts to get the deck angle > up a little. With the spoked wheels, the plane will full stall at aft stick > and all three will kiss simultaneously so it looks like this ship has a good > deck angle. I will bring my smart level tomarrow and measure a bunch of > things like deck angle in three point, deck angle in cruise, and I will also > use a specific part of the underside of the centersection to use as a basis > for determining the angle of the wing to level when in cruise etc.* > ** > *Need those numbers....* > ** > *Chris* > ** > Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Rick Holland > *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com > *Sent:* Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:24 AM > *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the > longEST Piet fuselage > > Just one more variable in this landing gear design thing is deck angle and > I think Mike Cuy answered this one in a couple archive messages indicating > that building your gear to result in a top longeron deck angle of 12-13 > degrees works well. I believe I will design to this. > > Rick H. > > > On 7/14/05, Christian Bobka wrote: > > > > Rick, > > The following is related to your issue and I hope becomes a classic > > posting that > > is referenced by many for years to come. I wrote it 6.5 years ago almost > > to the > > day in response to a question posed by Greg Cardinal. It was about 5 > > hours > > of research and headscratching. Of course, it will prompt some > > controversy. > > This was supposed to have been published in MacLaren's BPA newsletter. I > > sent > > it to him but he never came out with the next edition. > > ........ > > > > > > > > > -- > Rick Holland > > -- Rick Holland ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 05:30:08 PM PST US From: Rick Holland Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST Piet fuselage I am planning on using hydraulic disk brakes. The 7" sweep you measured today, is that for a longEST? RIck On 7/14/05, Christian Bobka wrote: > > *Rick,* > ** > *Dale and I measured today and it looks like they used 7" for the sweep. > This is a good, empirically derived location and would be good for brake > equipped as well. What kind of brakes?* > ** > *Chris* > ** > ** > Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Rick Holland > *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com > *Sent:* Thursday, July 14, 2005 8:42 AM > *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the > longEST Piet fuselage > > Wow! Yes this helps a whole bunch. And yes Christian, I would vote to make > you a PhD in Pietology after a dissertation like this. So with my longEST > fuselage we are talking about putting the axles 9" behind the front ash > cross strut (9" sweep). > > I hate to add another independent variable to our algorithm by people have > brought up the issue of brakes and tail wheel before, mentioning that all of > BP's plans are without them and that the gear needs to move forward some if > brakes and tail wheel are used. Any opinion how this fits into the equation? > > Thanks Chris > > Rick H (rookie landing gear designer) > > On 7/14/05, Christian Bobka wrote: > > > > Rick, > > The following is related to your issue and I hope becomes a classic > > posting that > > is referenced by many for years to come. I wrote it 6.5 years ago almost > > to the > > day in response to a question posed by Greg Cardinal. It was about 5 > > hours > > of research and headscratching. Of course, it will prompt some > > controversy. > > This was supposed to have been published in MacLaren's BPA newsletter. I > > sent > > it to him but he never came out with the next edition. > > ... > > > > > -- > Rick Holland > > -- Rick Holland ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 05:54:13 PM PST US s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=OgrfEXN/zgUUZwVt10YFCr4ZyMW56BYIqOk0nIenJXlr3Z96IzgKVUEIDrblosK1KQht8fPcG6CRUO2rNznjdzYYoLUzWHtTGRCWzwqT8hqBIIKkmxovlSuSSIhaLJavCu0GeKUw0gBuV3e4sJz9392Pq2wD162OJaSN5b9/aq4= ; From: Galen Hutcheson Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: anydoy spin it? --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Galen Hutcheson Well, I guess I can add my two cents. Spins are a fact of life in aviation. Fear of spins prevents pilots from becoming proficient in executing spins safely and refexley. At low altitudes, where most fatal spins occur, reflex recovery is about all that can save you if you enter an incipient spin. This has happened to me and I have over ten thousand flying hours with over 1000 of those hours in acro. ANYONE can get into a spin accidently, but not every pilot can recover from a spin safely and in a timely fashion. The only way to learn spins is through an experienced pilot or instructor and then practice them until you can do them without having to think about them. I disagree that only certificated aircraft are safe to spin. I have spun more experimentals than I have certified aircraft. As a general rule, and depending on the wing airfoil, experimentals stall break quicker and therefore are easier to spin than certified aircraft. Each airplane can have enough different variables, even certified aircraft, that the spin characteristics may change some. However, almost all aircraft can spin, and therefor those aircraft can recover from spins (if the CG isn't too far toward the tail to prevent it). No Pilot should ever fly an aircraft knowing it has a significient reward CG, to me that is a no-brainer. To do so is just asking for trouble. In spite of the fact that no two Pietenpols are exactly the same, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be spun. But they should only be spin tested by a pilot experienced in spins. He then could teach the more in-experienced pilot how to do spins safely in his personal plane. A pilot who is afraid of spins needs to do something to get proficiency. I don't care what the FAA says about this matter, spins should be an intergal part of all flight training. That is my two cents, so take it for what it is worth. Dicussion is a healthy thing, but when it comes to flying safely, there is no substitute for experience. Doc H. Do No Archive --- Mark wrote: > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark > > > Jim Ash wrote: > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jim Ash > > There are really two questions here; what are the > plane's spin > > characteristics, and do you know how to do it? > > > > As for me, I would rather know how to spin under > planned > > circumstances, than find out under unplanned > circumstances. The > > knowledge of having done spins (and recoveries) > has saved my bacon at > > least once (in a certificated airplane). It all > happened so fast there > > wasn't much time to even think about it. > > > > As for the plane, I personally am not getting in > any plane if I'm not > > comfortable I can get out of it in a manner I > prefer. > > > > > > Jim Ash > > > Well Jim I would respectivefully disagree. First is > spinning under > planned circumstances. With an experimental > airplanes there is no such > thing. An 1/8 of an inch somewhere may totally > change the spin > characteristics. A certificated airplane is built > and tested to be both > predictable and consistent. One J3 loaded the same > as the next will > have simular spins. That does not apply with a Piet > or any other > airplane. Each is different. The thing that would > bother me about > spinning a Piet is that most of them are flown so > near the rearward CG > point. That means it is far more likely to flatten > out as one person > has already pointed out. > > Rarely will anyone get into a spin at an altitude > that is high enough > for a reasonable chance of recovery in an unplanned > situation. The > usual place is the base to final turn and one thing > is for sure. Anyone > sharp enough to recover from an accidental spin, > especially at low > altitude, is easily sharp enough to prevent it from > happening in the > first place. > > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > > > > > > > > > > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 06:06:04 PM PST US d="scan'208,217"; a="1296589602:sNHT29942672" From: "Christian Bobka" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Three different fuselages exist Did you not read the dissertation? Here it is again: The 1932 fuselage (Hoopman drawings and 1932 Flying and Glider Manual) is 161 inches long. The 1933 Improved Air Camper fuselage is 163 inches long. The longEST fuselage is 172.375 inches long. This is the one I understand you have built. Chris Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Holland To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 7:22 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST Piet fuselage Haven't decided on wheel type yet, am trying to get all these design questions answered first. Will go with either 6x6 aircraft wheels or motorcycle wheels. Figure I will kind of reverse engineer the gear by building it to provide the proper deck angle. So I really appreciate the data from your Piet as it sounds like you built yours right on the money. Also, which fuselage do you have? And what does the 'EST' in longEST stand for? Thanks again Rick On 7/14/05, Christian Bobka wrote: Rick, What kind of wheels? You may want to increase the length of the struts to get the deck angle up a little. With the spoked wheels, the plane will full stall at aft stick and all three will kiss simultaneously so it looks like this ship has a good deck angle. I will bring my smart level tomarrow and measure a bunch of things like deck angle in three point, deck angle in cruise, and I will also use a specific part of the underside of the centersection to use as a basis for determining the angle of the wing to level when in cruise etc. Need those numbers.... Chris Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Holland To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:24 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST Piet fuselage Just one more variable in this landing gear design thing is deck angle and I think Mike Cuy answered this one in a couple archive messages indicating that building your gear to result in a top longeron deck angle of 12-13 degrees works well. I believe I will design to this. Rick H. On 7/14/05, Christian Bobka wrote: Rick, The following is related to your issue and I hope becomes a classic posting that is referenced by many for years to come. I wrote it 6.5 years ago almost to the day in response to a question posed by Greg Cardinal. It was about 5 hours of research and headscratching. Of course, it will prompt some controversy. This was supposed to have been published in MacLaren's BPA newsletter. I sent it to him but he never came out with the next edition. ........ -- Rick Holland -- Rick Holland ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 06:06:35 PM PST US d="scan'208,217"; a="1129994620:sNHT61737656" From: "Christian Bobka" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST Piet fuselage longEST because it is the longest. For emphasis... chris Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Holland To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 7:22 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST Piet fuselage Haven't decided on wheel type yet, am trying to get all these design questions answered first. Will go with either 6x6 aircraft wheels or motorcycle wheels. Figure I will kind of reverse engineer the gear by building it to provide the proper deck angle. So I really appreciate the data from your Piet as it sounds like you built yours right on the money. Also, which fuselage do you have? And what does the 'EST' in longEST stand for? Thanks again Rick On 7/14/05, Christian Bobka wrote: Rick, What kind of wheels? You may want to increase the length of the struts to get the deck angle up a little. With the spoked wheels, the plane will full stall at aft stick and all three will kiss simultaneously so it looks like this ship has a good deck angle. I will bring my smart level tomarrow and measure a bunch of things like deck angle in three point, deck angle in cruise, and I will also use a specific part of the underside of the centersection to use as a basis for determining the angle of the wing to level when in cruise etc. Need those numbers.... Chris Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Holland To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:24 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST Piet fuselage Just one more variable in this landing gear design thing is deck angle and I think Mike Cuy answered this one in a couple archive messages indicating that building your gear to result in a top longeron deck angle of 12-13 degrees works well. I believe I will design to this. Rick H. On 7/14/05, Christian Bobka wrote: Rick, The following is related to your issue and I hope becomes a classic posting that is referenced by many for years to come. I wrote it 6.5 years ago almost to the day in response to a question posed by Greg Cardinal. It was about 5 hours of research and headscratching. Of course, it will prompt some controversy. This was supposed to have been published in MacLaren's BPA newsletter. I sent it to him but he never came out with the next edition. ........ -- Rick Holland -- Rick Holland ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 06:09:45 PM PST US d="scan'208,217"; a="1163231489:sNHT33793676" From: "Christian Bobka" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST Piet fuselage yes. It is for the longEST fuselage. I will send you pictures. Chris Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Holland To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 7:27 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST Piet fuselage I am planning on using hydraulic disk brakes. The 7" sweep you measured today, is that for a longEST? RIck On 7/14/05, Christian Bobka wrote: Rick, Dale and I measured today and it looks like they used 7" for the sweep. This is a good, empirically derived location and would be good for brake equipped as well. What kind of brakes? Chris Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Holland To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 8:42 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST Piet fuselage Wow! Yes this helps a whole bunch. And yes Christian, I would vote to make you a PhD in Pietology after a dissertation like this. So with my longEST fuselage we are talking about putting the axles 9" behind the front ash cross strut (9" sweep). I hate to add another independent variable to our algorithm by people have brought up the issue of brakes and tail wheel before, mentioning that all of BP's plans are without them and that the gear needs to move forward some if brakes and tail wheel are used. Any opinion how this fits into the equation? Thanks Chris Rick H (rookie landing gear designer) On 7/14/05, Christian Bobka wrote: Rick, The following is related to your issue and I hope becomes a classic posting that is referenced by many for years to come. I wrote it 6.5 years ago almost to the day in response to a question posed by Greg Cardinal. It was about 5 hours of research and headscratching. Of course, it will prompt some controversy. This was supposed to have been published in MacLaren's BPA newsletter. I sent it to him but he never came out with the next edition. ... -- Rick Holland -- Rick Holland ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 06:30:35 PM PST US d="scan'208,217"; a="1121790085:sNHT22532312" From: "Christian Bobka" Subject: Pietenpol-List: we need to do 40 on account of the prop Pieters, I flew 5 hours in Greg and Dale's Piet today and 3 yesterday for a total of 8 in two days for those in Rio Linda. I did about 40 Circuit and Bumps as well. I came up with good numbers: 40 on approach and over the hedge. Vx and Vy are about the same at 37 and the thing stalls at 30 power off or on. These are all indicated airspeed as shown on the highly calibrated Johnson Airspeed Indicator. We have 24 hours on the ship now and 6 days to go until it heads out to Brodhead.... Chris ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 07:19:55 PM PST US s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=DZZslq9eCoa9wydUo/MeJEaS6HYkrnl+Jng1QQKOWWvM/yGBF8kKV3sKpNsmB8p6OSo5tjosfLEBrTbs4FCmb71Vv3404u0l8vOj2dWb39HESapxKlwIOfoZQ6SNSgbSfA69GnzLqVThJhbgLZ+fkvm6iN5OrH8UXUdga7M+JA4= ; From: Larry Nelson Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead Sustinence --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Larry Nelson Sounds good but we will be "afoot". --- Dennis Engelkenjohn wrote: > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dennis > Engelkenjohn" > > There is a pretty good coffee/sandwich shop in > downtown Brodhead, just past > the square. > Dennis in St.Louis...who will be wearing a tie dyed > shirt. It is too late to > get my motto printed on a shirt: " Sanity is highly > overrated!" > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Larry Nelson" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 5:21 PM > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead Sustinence > > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Larry Nelson > > > > > > > > > Last year, my buds and me starved whilst many were > > feasting. Why? Because we neglected to buy our > meal > > tickets. So, this year, we don't want that to > happen. > > As I recall, the local chapter serves meals all > day > > with one big feast. Yes? > > > > I will be flying my C-195 but my heart will be > with > > N444MH, Howard Henderson's old plane which I own, > but > > have yet to fly, although I have completed the > > relocation of the wing 3" aft. My name is also > Larry > > and I always have "Larry" written on MY forehead, > so > > please don't mistake me for the better looking > Larry > > who may also have "Larry" written on HIS forehead. > > > > We will be there Friday afternoon. Save some food. > > Then it is to OSH Sunday morning. > > > > > > > > Larry Nelson > > Springfield, MO > > Beechcraft Bonanza V-35B N2980A > > Pietenpol Air Camper N444MH > > 1963 GMC 4106-1618 > > SV/ Spirit of America > > ARS WB0JOT > > > > __________________________________________________ > protection around > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > > > > > > > > > > Larry Nelson Springfield, MO Beechcraft Bonanza V-35B N2980A Pietenpol Air Camper N444MH 1963 GMC 4106-1618 SV/ Spirit of America ARS WB0JOT ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 07:57:26 PM PST US From: "Dick Navratil" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines... --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil" Chris I looked at those options in the past. With all that I have going on now, I'm not building anything else now. Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Bobka" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines... > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" > > > Dick, > > Just think of what a good day you would have if one jug on your A-65 stuck > a > valve or swallowed one. Just think how far you could fly. Quite a long > way.... > > No just think what a better day you would have if you lost one jug on a > two > banger....You are going down now.... > > Chris > > Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dick Navratil" > To: > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 11:34 AM > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines... > > >> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil" > >> >> I'm not aware of a BMW installation. I did some checking into using a >> variety of 4 cyl motorcycle engines a few years ago. I main issue always >> came back to them being too light and turning too fast. Between the > issues >> of extending the mount way out and engineering a reduction drive, I > settled >> on an A-65. >> Now however there is a company called Hog Air that has a package with a >> Harley Davidson engine. Engine, mount and reduction drive goes for about >> $11k. With all accessories that should weigh in about right. >> Dick N. >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Stephen!" >> To: >> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:21 PM >> Subject: Pietenpol-List: engines... >> >> >> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Stephen!" >> > >> > >> > >> > Has anyone tried putting a BMW motorcycle boxer engine in one of >> > these >> > machines? >> > >> > -- >> > IBA# 11465 >> > http://imagesdesavions.com >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 08:02:11 PM PST US From: "Dick Navratil" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines... --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil" Mike Just looking at this engine, it doesn't appear heavy enough to balance. What does it weigh? Dick N. ----- Original Message ----- From: "bike.mike" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines... > BMW R100 ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 08:26:42 PM PST US d="scan'208"; a="1288768097:sNHT23293340" From: "Christian Bobka" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines... --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" that is why you went with a radial! Chris Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dick Navratil" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines... > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil" > > Chris > I looked at those options in the past. With all that I have going on now, > I'm not building anything else now. > Dick > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Christian Bobka" > To: > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 5:39 PM > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines... > > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Christian Bobka" > > > > > > Dick, > > > > Just think of what a good day you would have if one jug on your A-65 stuck > > a > > valve or swallowed one. Just think how far you could fly. Quite a long > > way.... > > > > No just think what a better day you would have if you lost one jug on a > > two > > banger....You are going down now.... > > > > Chris > > > > Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Dick Navratil" > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 11:34 AM > > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines... > > > > > >> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil" > > > >> > >> I'm not aware of a BMW installation. I did some checking into using a > >> variety of 4 cyl motorcycle engines a few years ago. I main issue always > >> came back to them being too light and turning too fast. Between the > > issues > >> of extending the mount way out and engineering a reduction drive, I > > settled > >> on an A-65. > >> Now however there is a company called Hog Air that has a package with a > >> Harley Davidson engine. Engine, mount and reduction drive goes for about > >> $11k. With all accessories that should weigh in about right. > >> Dick N. > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Stephen!" > >> To: > >> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:21 PM > >> Subject: Pietenpol-List: engines... > >> > >> > >> > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Stephen!" > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Has anyone tried putting a BMW motorcycle boxer engine in one of > >> > these > >> > machines? > >> > > >> > -- > >> > IBA# 11465 > >> > http://imagesdesavions.com > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 08:46:39 PM PST US d="scan'208"; a="1122306088:sNHT22181458" From: "bike.mike" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines... --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "bike.mike" I'm not sure of the specs on the various BMW motorcycle engine conversions. There are three sites I've found: two in the UK at http://www.microlightsport.co.uk/Catalogue/bmwengine.htm (R1100 Oil head) and http://www.bmw.flyer.co.uk/ and one here in the US at http://www.airdale.com/bmw_engines.htm These last folks claim 78 Hp from an R100 air cooled boxer but I can't find a weight...it took some fooling around to read their web pages. The font was the same color as the background in my browser. Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dick Navratil" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines... > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil" > > Mike > Just looking at this engine, it doesn't appear heavy enough to balance. > What does it weigh? > Dick N. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "bike.mike" > To: > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 12:21 PM > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines... > > > > BMW R100 > > ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 09:15:06 PM PST US From: "Stephen!" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines... --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Stephen!" Robert Gow wrote: > I've wondered the same about my K100 engine (BMW motorcycle). It's a small > water-cooled package that provides over 100 HP in later versions. If yer K100 is anything like my K11 you'd certainly need a reduction unit. My K11 doesn't start hitting its power until it's spinning at 4000 RPM... When it does, though, you'd better hang on! ;) I was thinking the boxer engine would work well because it has so much more lower end torque. It's also a rather simple engine so maintenance and repair issues should be fairly easy... -- IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 09:15:46 PM PST US From: "Stephen!" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines... --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Stephen!" bike.mike wrote: > BMW R100 Heh... THERE ya go! Nice... :) -- IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 09:40:38 PM PST US From: Jim Ash Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: anydoy spin it? --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jim Ash I didn't want to fuel a religious war here, but I'm with Doc. The one unintentional spin I'd done was right after transitioning to a single-seat glider (a SGS 1-26) and I wasn't comfortably familiar the the aircraft yet. I was trying to wring a little life out of a weak thermal at a low altitude, so I was set up for the classic spin; slow and turning with a pretty good bank angle. The spin cracked so fast I didn't know what hit me, and my left wing dropped like it had broken off. I mashed the rudder fast enough I don't even think I got a half-turn out of it, but it honestly was all so quick I don't remember. Other than finding myself a little too low and having to do an abbreviated pattern, it wasn't really that big a deal. I would have been toast were it not for the drilling of spin recovery at the insistence of my instructor. Experimental or not, I'm not a perfect person and I screw up more frequently than I care to admit. I'm not an aerobatic pilot, but knowing how to spin and knowing the plane I'm in can recover from one gives me an option if/when I do screw up. I try to know where my margins are, and assuming I can't fly the perfect pattern every time, I have to understand the circumstances when I overshoot that base-to-final turn and I'm trying to fix the mess I've just made. Knowing this is one of the classic places to make a bad mistake, I really watch my airspeed at this point, and maybe even make the turn a bit hotter than some, just in case, then bleed it off on final. As for the Piet (or any other airplane), where your CG is when you fly is a personal choice, not necessarily a fact of the particular design (although it's admittedly more problematic with some designs than others). Some gliders have big steel blocks they can stuff in the front to pull the CG forward when a lightweight flys in them. Come time for me to fly any plane I build, I'll have weights or sandbags or something up front if need be to prevent my CG from going too far aft. If I can't pull my CG forward enough to be safe without going over gross, I don't plan on building or getting in one. As for flight testing a Piet that I build, I'll have a good CG and a parachute, then run it up to a serious altitude and make it happen. I guess I'd rather wreck my plane than my physiology. I also took some lessons and did a few parachute jumps to understand what that's about, in case I had to bail out of a plane some time in the future. Like spinning, I figured it might be handy to know the dynamics of it so I could remove that element of the unknown from a potentially complicated problem while in the heat of battle. Pardon me if this sounds like a bunch of over-zealous safety crap. Many years ago a close friend was PIC carrying three passengers that crashed and burned in a landing accident, all fatal. The plane was magnesium (a Grunman Tiger), so the fire was amazingly intense. I was the one to ID a couple of the charred bodies, help the coroner sort out the mess, and help his parents with a lot of the arrangements afterwards. It kinda left a lasting impression. The final report (which I knew in the first few hours, after talking to a few witnesses) from the NTSB was pilot error. I was rated a few years before that, and I've continued to fly, but with much more of an eye towards safety. Jim Ash At 7/14/2005 05:51 PM -0700, you wrote: >--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Galen Hutcheson > >Well, I guess I can add my two cents. Spins are a >fact of life in aviation. Fear of spins prevents >pilots from becoming proficient in executing spins >safely and refexley. At low altitudes, where most >fatal spins occur, reflex recovery is about all that >can save you if you enter an incipient spin. This has >happened to me and I have over ten thousand flying >hours with over 1000 of those hours in acro. ANYONE >can get into a spin accidently, but not every pilot >can recover from a spin safely and in a timely >fashion. The only way to learn spins is through an >experienced pilot or instructor and then practice them >until you can do them without having to think about >them. I disagree that only certificated aircraft are >safe to spin. I have spun more experimentals than I >have certified aircraft. As a general rule, and >depending on the wing airfoil, experimentals stall >break quicker and therefore are easier to spin than >certified aircraft. Each airplane can have enough >different variables, even certified aircraft, that the >spin characteristics may change some. However, almost >all aircraft can spin, and therefor those aircraft can >recover from spins (if the CG isn't too far toward the >tail to prevent it). No Pilot should ever fly an >aircraft knowing it has a significient reward CG, to >me that is a no-brainer. To do so is just asking for >trouble. In spite of the fact that no two Pietenpols >are exactly the same, that doesn't mean that they >shouldn't be spun. But they should only be spin >tested by a pilot experienced in spins. He then could >teach the more in-experienced pilot how to do spins >safely in his personal plane. A pilot who is afraid >of spins needs to do something to get proficiency. I >don't care what the FAA says about this matter, spins >should be an intergal part of all flight training. > >That is my two cents, so take it for what it is worth. >Dicussion is a healthy thing, but when it comes to >flying safely, there is no substitute for experience. > >Doc H. > >Do No Archive > >--- Mark wrote: > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark > > > > > > Jim Ash wrote: > > > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jim Ash > > > There are really two questions here; what are the > > plane's spin > > > characteristics, and do you know how to do it? > > > > > > As for me, I would rather know how to spin under > > planned > > > circumstances, than find out under unplanned > > circumstances. The > > > knowledge of having done spins (and recoveries) > > has saved my bacon at > > > least once (in a certificated airplane). It all > > happened so fast there > > > wasn't much time to even think about it. > > > > > > As for the plane, I personally am not getting in > > any plane if I'm not > > > comfortable I can get out of it in a manner I > > prefer. > > > > > > > > > Jim Ash > > > > > Well Jim I would respectivefully disagree. First is > > spinning under > > planned circumstances. With an experimental > > airplanes there is no such > > thing. An 1/8 of an inch somewhere may totally > > change the spin > > characteristics. A certificated airplane is built > > and tested to be both > > predictable and consistent. One J3 loaded the same > > as the next will > > have simular spins. That does not apply with a Piet > > or any other > > airplane. Each is different. The thing that would > > bother me about > > spinning a Piet is that most of them are flown so > > near the rearward CG > > point. That means it is far more likely to flatten > > out as one person > > has already pointed out. > > > > Rarely will anyone get into a spin at an altitude > > that is high enough > > for a reasonable chance of recovery in an unplanned > > situation. The > > usual place is the base to final turn and one thing > > is for sure. Anyone > > sharp enough to recover from an accidental spin, > > especially at low > > altitude, is easily sharp enough to prevent it from > > happening in the > > first place. > > > > > > > > > > browse > > Subscriptions page, > > FAQ, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________ >http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > > ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 11:50:00 PM PST US s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=VisHTcazaP4zZHusf8yFvDUQ+UHQKUPQ5o1+sXutT0tHfjkS/66d6CPnS6zpKNAANfeJ22e1PGMRO7y7R0yk3SGzmLyhcMNMehHNqkt11ziHHqPtrXME2iyYeaAUSdM46FxqgsCIpN+rSj6bIn5LEiFmgExL/SXgPbI2J01sU90= ; From: Galen Hutcheson Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: anydoy spin it? --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Galen Hutcheson Jim, I don't think that any of what you wrote sounds like over-zealous safety crap, rather it is pure common sense. Flying, as in many activities, has some inherent danger. To enjoy our flying, we as pilots, have to learn to correct bad situations we sometimes get ourselves into while flying. A low altitude spin is a very potentially dangerous situation that requires quick reaction. If you have to think about what is happening, then most likely you won't have the time or altitude enough to recover before impacting the ground. The only way you can recover quickly, as you mentioned, is to be so comfortable with spins that you can recover through almost pure reflex action. To give one example, which I personally experienced, once occured when I was flying an airshow doing a torque roll with a tail-slide recovery. It was a hot, humid day with a high density altitude so when I neared the top of my vertical climb, rolling all the way up, I did not have the altitude I needed to safely complete the maneuver. The plane torqued, but when I started the rolling tail slide recovery, the plane dropped on its back and began an inverted flat spin. I was less than 1000 ft. AGL (much less) when the spin started. Without having to think about what was happening, I was able to recover in about 3/4 of a rotation (I have this captured on video tape) and was able to recover without anyone really knowing what had happened. Had it not been for the hundreds of spins I'd practiced, both upright and inverted, I could have easily spun into to ground. This is only one example of several, where having practiced a recovery to some unusual attitude, saved my life. I do wish to stress the point that a pilot who is not comfortable doing spins should not test them on his home-built without first going out and gaining proficency with someone who is qualified in spins and then practicing them until he is comfortable before trying them solo in his own plane. Doc H. --- Jim Ash wrote: > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jim Ash > > > I didn't want to fuel a religious war here, but I'm > with Doc. > > The one unintentional spin I'd done was right after > transitioning to a > single-seat glider (a SGS 1-26) and I wasn't > comfortably familiar the the > aircraft yet. I was trying to wring a little life > out of a weak thermal at > a low altitude, so I was set up for the classic > spin; slow and turning with > a pretty good bank angle. The spin cracked so fast I > didn't know what hit > me, and my left wing dropped like it had broken off. > I mashed the rudder > fast enough I don't even think I got a half-turn out > of it, but it honestly > was all so quick I don't remember. Other than > finding myself a little too > low and having to do an abbreviated pattern, it > wasn't really that big a > deal. I would have been toast were it not for the > drilling of spin recovery > at the insistence of my instructor. > > Experimental or not, I'm not a perfect person and I > screw up more > frequently than I care to admit. I'm not an > aerobatic pilot, but knowing > how to spin and knowing the plane I'm in can recover > from one gives me an > option if/when I do screw up. I try to know where my > margins are, and > assuming I can't fly the perfect pattern every time, > I have to understand > the circumstances when I overshoot that > base-to-final turn and I'm trying > to fix the mess I've just made. Knowing this is one > of the classic places > to make a bad mistake, I really watch my airspeed at > this point, and maybe > even make the turn a bit hotter than some, just in > case, then bleed it off > on final. > > As for the Piet (or any other airplane), where your > CG is when you fly is a > personal choice, not necessarily a fact of the > particular design (although > it's admittedly more problematic with some designs > than others). Some > gliders have big steel blocks they can stuff in the > front to pull the CG > forward when a lightweight flys in them. Come time > for me to fly any plane > I build, I'll have weights or sandbags or something > up front if need be to > prevent my CG from going too far aft. If I can't > pull my CG forward enough > to be safe without going over gross, I don't plan on > building or getting in > one. > > As for flight testing a Piet that I build, I'll have > a good CG and a > parachute, then run it up to a serious altitude and > make it happen. I guess > I'd rather wreck my plane than my physiology. I also > took some lessons and > did a few parachute jumps to understand what that's > about, in case I had to > bail out of a plane some time in the future. Like > spinning, I figured it > might be handy to know the dynamics of it so I could > remove that element of > the unknown from a potentially complicated problem > while in the heat of battle. > > Pardon me if this sounds like a bunch of > over-zealous safety crap. Many > years ago a close friend was PIC carrying three > passengers that crashed and > burned in a landing accident, all fatal. The plane > was magnesium (a Grunman > Tiger), so the fire was amazingly intense. I was the > one to ID a couple of > the charred bodies, help the coroner sort out the > mess, and help his > parents with a lot of the arrangements afterwards. > It kinda left a lasting > impression. The final report (which I knew in the > first few hours, after > talking to a few witnesses) from the NTSB was pilot > error. I was rated a > few years before that, and I've continued to fly, > but with much more of an > eye towards safety. > > Jim Ash > > > > > At 7/14/2005 05:51 PM -0700, you wrote: > >--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Galen > Hutcheson > > > >Well, I guess I can add my two cents. Spins are a > >fact of life in aviation. Fear of spins prevents > >pilots from becoming proficient in executing spins > >safely and refexley. At low altitudes, where most > >fatal spins occur, reflex recovery is about all > that > >can save you if you enter an incipient spin. This > has > >happened to me and I have over ten thousand flying > >hours with over 1000 of those hours in acro. > ANYONE > >can get into a spin accidently, but not every pilot > >can recover from a spin safely and in a timely > >fashion. The only way to learn spins is through an > >experienced pilot or instructor and then practice > them > >until you can do them without having to think about > >them. I disagree that only certificated aircraft > are > >safe to spin. I have spun more experimentals than > I > >have certified aircraft. As a general rule, and > >depending on the wing airfoil, experimentals stall > >break quicker and therefore are easier to spin than > >certified aircraft. Each airplane can have enough > >different variables, even certified aircraft, that > the > >spin characteristics may change some. However, > almost > >all aircraft can spin, and therefor those aircraft > can > >recover from spins (if the CG isn't too far toward > the > >tail to prevent it). No Pilot should ever fly an > >aircraft knowing it has a significient reward CG, > to > >me that is a no-brainer. To do so is just asking > for > >trouble. In spite of the fact that no two > Pietenpols > >are exactly the same, that doesn't mean that they > >shouldn't be spun. But they should only be spin > >tested by a pilot experienced in spins. He then > could > >teach the more in-experienced pilot how to do spins > >safely in his personal plane. A pilot who is > afraid > >of spins needs to do something to get proficiency. > I > >don't care what the FAA says about this matter, > spins > >should be an intergal part of all flight training. > > > >That is my two cents, so take it for what it is > worth. > >Dicussion is a healthy thing, but when it comes to > >flying safely, there is no substitute for > experience. > > > >Doc H. > > > >Do No Archive > > > >--- Mark wrote: > > > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark > > > > > > > > > Jim Ash wrote: > > > > > > > --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jim Ash > > > > There are really two questions here; what are > the > > > plane's spin > > > > characteristics, and do you know how to do it? > > > > > > > > As for me, I would rather know how to spin > under > > > planned > > > > circumstances, than find out under unplanned > > > circumstances. The > > > > knowledge of having done spins (and > recoveries) > > > has saved my bacon at > > > > least once (in a certificated airplane). It > all > > > happened so fast there > > > > wasn't much time to even think about it. > > > > > > > > As for the plane, I personally am not getting > in > === message truncated ===