Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 09:12 AM - Re: Steel tube fulelage vs Long wood fuselage (gbowen@ptialaska.net)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Steel tube fulelage vs Long wood fuselage |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "gbowen@ptialaska.net" <gbowen@ptialaska.net>
Jim,
My N-1033B has a 4130 tube fuselage. Wt came in with Aeronca wings and
O-235 engine at 680 lbs. I have the wood plans but think the 4130 gives
you a lot more flexiblity when it comes to moving braces around to account
for longer legs or broad shoulders, etc. Also you can put attachement tabs
and beefed up gear support points where needed more easily than wood. 4130
is easy to gas weld if you have the right equipment and good eyesight.
Quasi-Piete N1033B is in the hanger down in Palatka FL if you want to take
a look at a Piete re-design made from 4130, and rebuilt storebought wings.
Gordon Bowen
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Jim Lathrop jlathrop@gmail.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Steel tube fulelage vs Long wood fuselage
All,
I have been lurking on this group for about a year now and have started
building my Piet. I have the wing ribs completed, and while I'm waiting for
a shipment of spruce for the tail feathers, I got to thinking about the
fuselage.
I would like to go with the steel tube version because I like working with
metal more than wood and my next project after the Piet is a Bearhawk which
has a steel tube fuselage. I know that building the steel tube will be
slower due to the need to design the fittings which which aren't spelled out
in the plans for the steel tube version, but I am willing to accept that.
When talking to owners/pilots at Brodhead this year everyone said to go with
the long fuselage, it gives you more room.
I have made the following observations about the two fuselage designs from
the 1934 Improved Air Camper plans. Looking at the plans for both fuselages
I see that from the cross brace defining the back of the rear seat to the
cross brace defining the back of the front seat is 33" on the steel tube vs.
31" on the long wood. Similarly the front pit is 29" for the steel vs.
28.75for the long wood. Overall from firewall to the back seat cross
brace on the
steel tube is 74.5" and 76.25" for the long wood.
From all of this, I gather that space wise, I am sacrificing 1.75" of leg
room for the passenger and gaining a couple of inches for the pilot with the
steel tube version. The real difference between the two is from the rear
seat to the tail post. The long wood version is 9 5/8" longer than the steel
tube version. I do not have my pilots license yet, and this is where my
question comes in. Would not moving the tail feathers back nearly 10" inches
make them much more responsive than on the short version, or is this really
not a noticeable change? It seems to me that with a plane as light as the
Pietenpol, that extra leverage would be significant. Has anyone flown both
the long and short version (wood or steel) and have any input on the
differences?
Thanks,
Jim Lathrop
Columbus, OH
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|