Pietenpol-List Digest Archive

Sat 12/17/05


Total Messages Posted: 3



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 10:09 AM - Building Video (Rcaprd@aol.com)
     2. 12:42 PM - Re: Building Video (Lou Wither)
     3. 02:54 PM - Re: Building Video (Dick Navratil)
 
 
 


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: 10:09:42 AM PST US
    From: Rcaprd@aol.com
    Subject: Building Video
    Well, the list is kind of slow, so I present to you a request for some help. As most of you know, I'm putting together a Pietenpol Building Video, and I want to make it as complete, and comprehensive as possible. I need some help to hear what everyone thinks should be included in the video. I'm going to include a detailed look at the plans. There has NEVER been a set of plans, for ANY type of airplane, that does not have errors in them, and in my humble opinion, I think the plans should NOT be changed. They fit the era of the aircraft you are building, and are a part of the whole history of the Pietenpol. Quite often, it is concluded that an error exists, but upon further study, and some questions asked, the light bulb goes off, and it becomes crystal clear. Granted there are errors in the plans, but given the enormous amount of information that is included in the plans, the errors are not that many. Having said that, builders NEED to know what, and where the errors are. They also need clarification in some areas. Done correctly, and with good workmanship, in the 76 year history of the Pietenpol, there has NEVER been an airframe failure (at least none that has been reported). I can make that claim, because a couple years ago, I did an extensive, and exhaustive study=20of all the NTSB accident reports, back as far as they go, found about 80 reports, and NO airframe failures, if it was built to the plans. Hence, the reason for this e-mail. I'd like to ask everyone who knows of an area of the plans that are confusing, or has an error, to let the list know. Here are the things I've come up with: 1) The scarf splice shown on Dwg 5, shows the scarf to be horizontal. The scarf should be a 12 to 1, as a reference to AC 43.13 publication. 2) The angle of the lift strut fitting, on Dwg 4 (lower left corner), and Dwg 5 (at the bottom) should NOT be at the angle indicated. The angle should be what ever the angle the lift strut is, so as to be in alignment with the lift strut. This angle is determined by the length of the cabane struts, and is on an individual airplane basis, because the length of the cabane struts are altered so often. 3) The cabane strut fitting that bolts to the spar, on Dwg 4, (lower left corner) is open to interpolation. It shows the a U strap around under the spar, with a tab welded on each side, which is 3 pieces total for each fitting. If you are not all that good of a weldor, then I think this fitting should be built with two U straps, that fit inside each other. 4) The belly strap should be included at the front & rear, between the lift strut / gear lug fittings. On Dwg 3 (lower left corner) it shows the tab should be bent up 20=BA, but is should read closer to 30=BA, but again, this angle is determined by the length of the cabane struts. 5) The cross piece at the forward lower fuselage, shown to be a 3/4 X 3/4 spruce on Dwg 1(lower right hand portion of the page), is held short of going all the way to the inside of the longerons, as shown on Dwg 6 (lower edge of the page), it says "Cut off end of cross strut", to allow the inside engine mount fitting to install on the inboard side of the longeron. 6) If you loft the dimension numbers of the rib Dwg 5, it makes a little curve down on the top, just past the 50% chord. You should just blend that little curve out. 7) I think there must be a dimension on the leading edge of the rudder, that when added up, it causes the rudder to extend about 1/2" below the bottom of the fuselage. When laying out the locations of the rudder hinges, you MUST accommodate the thickness of the fabric on the top of the fuselage, top and bottom of the horizontal stab, and the fabric on the bottom of the vertical=20stab, BEFORE you locate the bottom rudder hinge. These are some of the things I'm going show in my video. If anyone can think of anything else that needs to be addressed in the plans, or anything about building the airplane, please make the comment to the list, and lets talk about it. Chuck G. NX770CG


    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: 12:42:32 PM PST US
    From: Lou Wither <nav8799h@sbcglobal.net>
    Subject: Re: Building Video
    I think the most confusing thing in the build was not the errors in the plans but the weight and balance. The weight and balance issue is a real problem and it can not always be addressed by just moving the wing. I spoke to a few people when I put mine together and I moved the engine (C-85) out 5" further than shown on the motor mount drawing. I also moved the wing back 2" in the construction process keeping my cabanes vertical. When it was all said in done my weight came in not too bad (680 lbs) but my CG as built is only good really for a 170 lb pilot when there is no fuel in the fuselage tank. I weigh considerably more than that. That ultimately left me with some options, all of which were not very attractive. A metal prop would take care of the problem (just doesn't fit a Piet), ballast attached to the engine mount (current solution), or reinstall the starter and generator that I initially didn't install (the future solution). I think Piets should be hand proped, but as long as I have to haul extra weight I might just as well have it usefull. Now that I am done, I pretty much enjoyed building to the plans, once I came to that they had some errors. It make you think before you leap and that is the beauty of building a plane to this type of plans. I maintain if someone want cookie cutter build a RV, insert part A into slot B and rivet with type C. Sounds pretty boring to me. Lou Wither N799LJ


    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: 02:54:58 PM PST US
    From: "Dick Navratil" <horzpool@goldengate.net>
    Subject: Re: Building Video
    An addition When making fixed gear leg fittings, as per Flying Glider Manual, increase dinmensions to clear the ash brace on the floor. Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: Rcaprd@aol.com To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 12:08 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Building Video Well, the list is kind of slow, so I present to you a request for some help. As most of you know, I'm putting together a Pietenpol Building Video, and I want to make it as complete, and comprehensive as possible. I need some help to hear what everyone thinks should be included in the video. I'm going to include a detailed look at the plans. There has NEVER been a set of plans, for ANY type of airplane, that does not have errors in them, and in my humble opinion, I think the plans should NOT be changed. They fit the era of the aircraft you are building, and are a part of the whole history of the Pietenpol. Quite often, it is concluded that an error exists, but upon further study, and some questions asked, the light bulb goes off, and it becomes crystal clear. Granted there are errors in the plans, but given the enormous amount of information that is included in the plans, the errors are not that many. Having said that, builders NEED to know what, and where the errors are. They also need clarification in some areas. Done correctly, and with good workmanship, in the 76 year history of the Pietenpol, there has NEVER been an airframe failure (at least none that has been reported). I can make that claim, because a couple years ago, I did an extensive, and exhaustive study of all the NTSB accident reports, back as far as they go, found about 80 reports, and NO airframe failures, if it was built to the plans. Hence, the reason for this e-mail. I'd like to ask everyone who knows of an area of the plans that are confusing, or has an error, to let the list know. Here are the things I've come up with: 1) The scarf splice shown on Dwg 5, shows the scarf to be horizontal. The scarf should be a 12 to 1, as a reference to AC 43.13 publication. 2) The angle of the lift strut fitting, on Dwg 4 (lower left corner), and Dwg 5 (at the bottom) should NOT be at the angle indicated. The angle should be what ever the angle the lift strut is, so as to be in alignment with the lift strut. This angle is determined by the length of the cabane struts, and is on an individual airplane basis, because the length of the cabane struts are altered so often. 3) The cabane strut fitting that bolts to the spar, on Dwg 4, (lower left corner) is open to interpolation. It shows the a U strap around under the spar, with a tab welded on each side, which is 3 pieces total for each fitting. If you are not all that good of a weldor, then I think this fitting should be built with two U straps, that fit inside each other. 4) The belly strap should be included at the front & rear, between the lift strut / gear lug fittings. On Dwg 3 (lower left corner) it shows the tab should be bent up 20=BA, but is should read closer to 30=BA, but again, this angle is determined by the length of the cabane struts. 5) The cross piece at the forward lower fuselage, shown to be a 3/4 X 3/4 spruce on Dwg 1(lower right hand portion of the page), is held short of going all the way to the inside of the longerons, as shown on Dwg 6 (lower edge of the page), it says "Cut off end of cross strut", to allow the inside engine mount fitting to install on the inboard side of the longeron. 6) If you loft the dimension numbers of the rib Dwg 5, it makes a little curve down on the top, just past the 50% chord. You should just blend that little curve out. 7) I think there must be a dimension on the leading edge of the rudder, that when added up, it causes the rudder to extend about 1/2" below the bottom of the fuselage. When laying out the locations of the rudder hinges, you MUST accommodate the thickness of the fabric on the top of the fuselage, top and bottom of the horizontal stab, and the fabric on the bottom of the vertical stab, BEFORE you locate the bottom rudder hinge. These are some of the things I'm going show in my video. If anyone can think of anything else that needs to be addressed in the plans, or anything about building the airplane, please make the comment to the list, and lets talk about it. Chuck G. NX770CG




    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! --