Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:17 AM - Re: Drag wires (Hans Vander Voort)
2. 09:05 AM - Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 19 Msgs - 03/23/06 (ANNCARLEK@aol.com)
3. 09:56 AM - Re: Drag wires (Mark Blackwell)
4. 11:31 AM - Re: Drag wires (Hans Vander Voort)
5. 02:47 PM - Drag wires/ stuctural integrity/ weight... (Graham Hansen)
6. 03:47 PM - Re: Added tailwheel pics to my Yahoo (Rick Holland)
7. 05:07 PM - Re: Added tailwheel pics to my Yahoo (The Schuerrs)
8. 05:47 PM - Re: Added tailwheel pics to my Yahoo (Bill Church)
9. 07:37 PM - Re: Drag wires (Mark Blackwell)
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
Guys,
We engineer airplanes to be safe for flying.
Looking at points of the airframe that break during a crash is not
necessarily relevant.
During a crash impact, loads are distributed on the airframe are completely
different.
But more importantly: if engineered to handle crash impacts, it will also
be to heavy to fly.
By the way, on my Pietenpol I used 3/32" stainless steel wire on all but
two places.
The cross bracing between the Lift struts is 1/8" and tail bracing wires
are 1/16".
Hans
"Rick Holland"
<at7000ft@gmail.c
om> To
Sent by: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
owner-pietenpol-l cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com Subject
Re: Pietenpol-List: Drag wires
03/23/2006 11:58
PM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
Graham
When I was talking to William Wayne about his Piet crash he mentioned that
the impact caused his 3/32" flying strut cables to break (the nicopress
held). He recommended 1/8" cable for these.
Rick H
On 3/23/06, Graham Hansen <grhans@cable-lynx.net> wrote:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Graham Hansen" <
grhans@cable-lynx.net>
Hans,
The original plans specify 3/32" cable for the drag/antidrag bracing. I
have
never heard of any breaking during normal operations.
About 15 years ago two Pietenpols met head-on, at a grass airstrip near
here, and each wound up with smashed right wings. The pilots were
uninjured,
but substantial damage to both aircraft resulted. An expensive lesson,
for
sure. Both a/c were soon repaired and are still in service.
No.1 Piet had 1/8" cable bracing and No.2 had 3/32" cable bracing. The
wing
of No.2 was virtually destroyed and the 3/32" inboard drag cable broke.
The
1/8" cable of the No.1 did not break, but did stretch somewhat, and its
wing
required a leading edge section repair, a new front spar (due to evidence
of
a tiny compression failure) and many rib repairs. The leading edge is
much
over-strength and this resulted in damage to most of the rib nose
sections
of both machines. While extensive, the damage to No.1's wing was light
compared to the wing of the other Pietenpol, which had to be totally
rebuilt
with new spars, ribs, etc. The leading edge "bone" of No.2 only required
a
new section about three feet long, and was the largest surviving wooden
part!
One could conclude from this episode that the 3/32" cable is adequate.
However, being of a suspicious nature, I had used 1/8" 7 x 19 galvanized
cable bracing on my Pietenpol for all internal and external wing bracing
long before the above incident happened. If I were to build another Piet
(which I won't), I would use 1/8" cable inboard and 3/32" cable for the
outboard bay in order to save a bit of weight--and I would use a sheet
aluminum, or 1/16" plywood, leading edge instead of the over-strength,
overweight "bone" for the same reason.
BTW, my own Pietenpol was not involved in this incident, and it still has
"no damage history" after 35 years (Touch wood!).
Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN in Alberta, Canada)
========================= - The Pietenpol-List Email = the many
List utilities such as the Subscriptions page,
www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
========================= - List Contribution Web Sip;
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
================================================
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 19 Msgs - 03/23/06 |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: ANNCARLEK@aol.com
In a message dated 3/24/06 4:08:46 AM, pietenpol-list-digest@matronics.com
writes:
<< Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Drag wires
Cc: shaun-s@sbcglobal.net
Adding a little "please" will not hurt...
Go to the bottom of this mail and follow simple instructions, please.
Saludos
Gary Gower.
Thank you Gary. I was struck by the unpleasentness of this message. do not
archive.
Carl at Compton Airport.
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Mark Blackwell" <markb1958@verizon.net>
Hans lots of airplanes are effectively designed to crash and they fly just
fine. Just look at most of the crop dusters working. They have heavy roll
cages built into a structure, and yes they weigh a lot more but they fly
well for what they do. The trick is to find the right balance for the type
of flying that one plans to do.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hans Vander Voort" <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 8:15 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Drag wires
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Hans Vander Voort
> <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
>
> Guys,
>
> We engineer airplanes to be safe for flying.
>
> Looking at points of the airframe that break during a crash is not
> necessarily relevant.
> During a crash impact, loads are distributed on the airframe are
> completely
> different.
>
> But more importantly: if engineered to handle crash impacts, it will also
> be to heavy to fly.
>
> By the way, on my Pietenpol I used 3/32" stainless steel wire on all but
> two places.
> The cross bracing between the Lift struts is 1/8" and tail bracing wires
> are 1/16".
>
> Hans
>
>
> "Rick Holland"
> <at7000ft@gmail.c
> om> To
> Sent by: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> owner-pietenpol-l cc
> ist-server@matron
> ics.com Subject
> Re: Pietenpol-List: Drag wires
>
> 03/23/2006 11:58
> PM
>
>
> Please respond to
> pietenpol-list@ma
> tronics.com
>
>
> Graham
>
> When I was talking to William Wayne about his Piet crash he mentioned that
> the impact caused his 3/32" flying strut cables to break (the nicopress
> held). He recommended 1/8" cable for these.
>
> Rick H
>
> On 3/23/06, Graham Hansen <grhans@cable-lynx.net> wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Graham Hansen" <
> grhans@cable-lynx.net>
>
> Hans,
>
> The original plans specify 3/32" cable for the drag/antidrag bracing. I
> have
> never heard of any breaking during normal operations.
>
> About 15 years ago two Pietenpols met head-on, at a grass airstrip near
> here, and each wound up with smashed right wings. The pilots were
> uninjured,
> but substantial damage to both aircraft resulted. An expensive lesson,
> for
> sure. Both a/c were soon repaired and are still in service.
>
> No.1 Piet had 1/8" cable bracing and No.2 had 3/32" cable bracing. The
> wing
> of No.2 was virtually destroyed and the 3/32" inboard drag cable broke.
> The
> 1/8" cable of the No.1 did not break, but did stretch somewhat, and its
> wing
> required a leading edge section repair, a new front spar (due to evidence
> of
> a tiny compression failure) and many rib repairs. The leading edge is
> much
> over-strength and this resulted in damage to most of the rib nose
> sections
> of both machines. While extensive, the damage to No.1's wing was light
> compared to the wing of the other Pietenpol, which had to be totally
> rebuilt
> with new spars, ribs, etc. The leading edge "bone" of No.2 only required
> a
> new section about three feet long, and was the largest surviving wooden
> part!
>
> One could conclude from this episode that the 3/32" cable is adequate.
> However, being of a suspicious nature, I had used 1/8" 7 x 19 galvanized
> cable bracing on my Pietenpol for all internal and external wing bracing
> long before the above incident happened. If I were to build another Piet
>
> (which I won't), I would use 1/8" cable inboard and 3/32" cable for the
> outboard bay in order to save a bit of weight--and I would use a sheet
> aluminum, or 1/16" plywood, leading edge instead of the over-strength,
> overweight "bone" for the same reason.
>
> BTW, my own Pietenpol was not involved in this incident, and it still has
> "no damage history" after 35 years (Touch wood!).
>
> Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN in Alberta, Canada)
> ========================= - The Pietenpol-List Email = the many
> List utilities such as the Subscriptions page,
>
> www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> ========================= - List Contribution Web Sip;
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> ================================================
>
>
> --
> Rick Holland
>
> "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
Mark,
You are correct in that you can design in survivability for the pilot
and/or other parts of the airplane.
Military airplanes are another example.
But these modifications weigh more and need lots of power to fly.
To make the whole airplane survive a crash it would weigh so much it would
never leave the runway.
Or you install a BRS system.
Hans.
"Mark Blackwell"
<markb1958@verizo
n.net> To
Sent by: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
owner-pietenpol-l cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com Subject
Re: Pietenpol-List: Drag wires
03/24/2006 11:54
AM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Mark Blackwell"
<markb1958@verizon.net>
Hans lots of airplanes are effectively designed to crash and they fly just
fine. Just look at most of the crop dusters working. They have heavy roll
cages built into a structure, and yes they weigh a lot more but they fly
well for what they do. The trick is to find the right balance for the type
of flying that one plans to do.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hans Vander Voort" <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 8:15 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Drag wires
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Hans Vander Voort
> <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
>
> Guys,
>
> We engineer airplanes to be safe for flying.
>
> Looking at points of the airframe that break during a crash is not
> necessarily relevant.
> During a crash impact, loads are distributed on the airframe are
> completely
> different.
>
> But more importantly: if engineered to handle crash impacts, it will
also
> be to heavy to fly.
>
> By the way, on my Pietenpol I used 3/32" stainless steel wire on all but
> two places.
> The cross bracing between the Lift struts is 1/8" and tail bracing wires
> are 1/16".
>
> Hans
>
>
> "Rick Holland"
> <at7000ft@gmail.c
> om> To
> Sent by: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> owner-pietenpol-l cc
> ist-server@matron
> ics.com Subject
> Re: Pietenpol-List: Drag wires
>
> 03/23/2006 11:58
> PM
>
>
> Please respond to
> pietenpol-list@ma
> tronics.com
>
>
> Graham
>
> When I was talking to William Wayne about his Piet crash he mentioned
that
> the impact caused his 3/32" flying strut cables to break (the nicopress
> held). He recommended 1/8" cable for these.
>
> Rick H
>
> On 3/23/06, Graham Hansen <grhans@cable-lynx.net> wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Graham Hansen" <
> grhans@cable-lynx.net>
>
> Hans,
>
> The original plans specify 3/32" cable for the drag/antidrag bracing. I
> have
> never heard of any breaking during normal operations.
>
> About 15 years ago two Pietenpols met head-on, at a grass airstrip near
> here, and each wound up with smashed right wings. The pilots were
> uninjured,
> but substantial damage to both aircraft resulted. An expensive lesson,
> for
> sure. Both a/c were soon repaired and are still in service.
>
> No.1 Piet had 1/8" cable bracing and No.2 had 3/32" cable bracing. The
> wing
> of No.2 was virtually destroyed and the 3/32" inboard drag cable broke.
> The
> 1/8" cable of the No.1 did not break, but did stretch somewhat, and its
> wing
> required a leading edge section repair, a new front spar (due to
evidence
> of
> a tiny compression failure) and many rib repairs. The leading edge is
> much
> over-strength and this resulted in damage to most of the rib nose
> sections
> of both machines. While extensive, the damage to No.1's wing was light
> compared to the wing of the other Pietenpol, which had to be totally
> rebuilt
> with new spars, ribs, etc. The leading edge "bone" of No.2 only required
> a
> new section about three feet long, and was the largest surviving wooden
> part!
>
> One could conclude from this episode that the 3/32" cable is adequate.
> However, being of a suspicious nature, I had used 1/8" 7 x 19 galvanized
> cable bracing on my Pietenpol for all internal and external wing bracing
> long before the above incident happened. If I were to build another
Piet
>
> (which I won't), I would use 1/8" cable inboard and 3/32" cable for the
> outboard bay in order to save a bit of weight--and I would use a sheet
> aluminum, or 1/16" plywood, leading edge instead of the over-strength,
> overweight "bone" for the same reason.
>
> BTW, my own Pietenpol was not involved in this incident, and it still
has
> "no damage history" after 35 years (Touch wood!).
>
> Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN in Alberta, Canada)
> ========================= - The Pietenpol-List Email = the many
> List utilities such as the Subscriptions page,
>
>
www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> ========================= - List Contribution Web Sip;
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> ================================================
>
>
> --
> Rick Holland
>
> "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
>
>
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 |
|
Subject: | Drag wires/ stuctural integrity/ weight... |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Graham Hansen" <grhans@cable-lynx.net>
Hans,
Of course you are correct when you say, "Looking at points of the airframe
that break during a crash is not necessarily relevant." The only place where
it is relevant is in the structure protecting the occupants. People have
survived some bad crashes with Pietenpols (BHP himself told me this when I
visited him in 1982), attesting to its toughness in this respect.
The Pietenpol design has demonstrated, for over 75 years, that it is amply
strong for normal operations and really doesn't need to be "beefed up"
anywhere. In the 1932 FLYING AND GLIDER MANUAL, P.31, engineering professor
Joseph Wise said of the wing, "No need to go through any analysis on that
job, unless you want to save weight."
Having said this, when I built mine (1959 - 1970), I had to compromise by
substituting Douglas Fir for Sitka Spruce in the wing spars and using
Aeronca and Taylorcraft strut material for the lift struts. I simply could
not afford the Sitka Spruce and proper sized streamline tubing at that time,
and scrounging was the name of the game. The availability of 1/8" cable "at
the right price" dictated its use instead of the 3/32" stuff specified for
the drag/antidrag bracing, etc. Poverty does circumscribe one's options!
Of course, this added some weight to an already adequate structure, so I
tried hard to save weight in non-critical areas to compensate for this. I
think I was reasonably successful because, at the last weighing, the dry
empty weight with a C85-8 engine was 630 lbs. Mine is the lightest of four
Piets in our area; the others are at least 30 lbs. heavier. Frankly, I don't
know where their extra weight came from.
Today, I feel confident that I could get the empty weight down to around 600
lbs.,should I build another Pietenpol. (That won't happen.) The lightest
Pietenpol I know of is Brian Kenney's CF-AUK in southern Ontario. Its empty
weight is significantly less than 600 lbs.! Obviously, he didn't "beef up"
anything--but he is a professional engineer and likely analysed the
structure, probably finding it more than adequate as designed.
Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN)
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Added tailwheel pics to my Yahoo |
>
> The "long" fuselage plans definitely leave a bit to be desired when it
> comes to details - such as a top or bottom view, or landing gear placement,
> etc. I guess the builders of the long fuselage get to "learn" more.
>
> Bill C.
>
Yea, tell me about it. But we long fuse builders try to look at the positive
side of it, we look it as 'learning opportunities', not inadequacies in the
plans. If you think about it Mr. Peitenpol probably left out these details
on purpose to help us learn as he did.
do not archive
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Added tailwheel pics to my Yahoo |
If a person buys the original plan and the "long" fuse plan, between the two, don't
they cover all one needs to know?
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Added tailwheel pics to my Yahoo
The "long" fuselage plans definitely leave a bit to be desired when it comes
to details - such as a top or bottom view, or landing gear placement, etc. I
guess the builders of the long fuselage get to "learn" more.
Bill C.
Yea, tell me about it. But we long fuse builders try to look at the positive
side of it, we look it as 'learning opportunities', not inadequacies in the plans.
If you think about it Mr. Peitenpol probably left out these details on purpose
to help us learn as he did.
do not archive
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
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 |
|
Subject: | Added tailwheel pics to my Yahoo |
Steve,
Just to make things clear for anyone contemplating purchasing a plan
set;
(The Pietenpol family sells all the plans described below
http://www.pressenter.com/~apietenp/ )
Original Air Camper plans (1933-1934)
these are also referred to as the "Improved Air Camper", as slight
modifications have been made from the Flying and Glider magazine plans.
These are the "short" fuselage plans and include ALL the details needed
to build an Air camper . Also has steel tube fuselage details and Ford
conversion details. (on nine 24" x 36" drawing sheets)
Original Air camper Supplemental plans (1966)
these include the "long" fuselage details - which basically consists of
two side views of the "long" fuselage, as well as motor mount details
for Continental and Corvair engines and some Corvair conversion parts.
You need the "short fuselage" plans to build - you cannot build solely
from these plans. (on five 24" x 36" drawing sheets)
The builder needs to do some extra thinking when using the "long"
fuselage plans as the entire plans have not been re-drawn to show all
the connection details, etc. In most cases, one simply needs to transfer
the info from the "short" to the "long", but there are a few areas where
things are not crystal clear. But then, how could anyone produce a set
of drawings that would account for a plane that can (and has,
successfully) accomodate dozens of different powerplants.
So, the basic answer to your question is...yes. (but you have to really
search for some of the details)
Bill C.
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of The
Schuerrs
Sent: March 24, 2006 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Added tailwheel pics to my Yahoo
If a person buys the original plan and the "long" fuse plan, between the
two, don't they cover all one needs to know?
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland <mailto:at7000ft@gmail.com>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Added tailwheel pics to my Yahoo
The "long" fuselage plans definitely leave a bit to be
desired when it comes to details - such as a top or bottom view, or
landing gear placement, etc. I guess the builders of the long fuselage
get to "learn" more.
Bill C.
Yea, tell me about it. But we long fuse builders try to look at
the positive side of it, we look it as 'learning opportunities', not
inadequacies in the plans. If you think about it Mr. Peitenpol probably
left out these details on purpose to help us learn as he did.
=09
do not archive
=09
--
Rick Holland
=09
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Mark Blackwell" <markb1958@verizon.net>
Hans did you know in the new I think its the Cirrus that when you pull the
handle for the chute, you total the airplane. The landing impact is such
that the airplane is sacrificed to protect you. Airplane is scrapped.
Ballastic chute landings are not soft landings, but they are ones you can
walk away from
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hans Vander Voort" <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Drag wires
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Hans Vander Voort
> <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
>
> Mark,
>
> You are correct in that you can design in survivability for the pilot
> and/or other parts of the airplane.
> Military airplanes are another example.
> But these modifications weigh more and need lots of power to fly.
>
> To make the whole airplane survive a crash it would weigh so much it would
> never leave the runway.
>
> Or you install a BRS system.
>
> Hans.
>
>
> "Mark Blackwell"
> <markb1958@verizo
> n.net> To
> Sent by: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> owner-pietenpol-l cc
> ist-server@matron
> ics.com Subject
> Re: Pietenpol-List: Drag wires
>
> 03/24/2006 11:54
> AM
>
>
> Please respond to
> pietenpol-list@ma
> tronics.com
>
>
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Mark Blackwell"
> <markb1958@verizon.net>
>
> Hans lots of airplanes are effectively designed to crash and they fly just
> fine. Just look at most of the crop dusters working. They have heavy
> roll
>
> cages built into a structure, and yes they weigh a lot more but they fly
> well for what they do. The trick is to find the right balance for the
> type
>
> of flying that one plans to do.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hans Vander Voort" <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 8:15 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Drag wires
>
>
>> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Hans Vander Voort
>> <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
>>
>> Guys,
>>
>> We engineer airplanes to be safe for flying.
>>
>> Looking at points of the airframe that break during a crash is not
>> necessarily relevant.
>> During a crash impact, loads are distributed on the airframe are
>> completely
>> different.
>>
>> But more importantly: if engineered to handle crash impacts, it will
> also
>> be to heavy to fly.
>>
>> By the way, on my Pietenpol I used 3/32" stainless steel wire on all but
>> two places.
>> The cross bracing between the Lift struts is 1/8" and tail bracing wires
>> are 1/16".
>>
>> Hans
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Rick Holland"
>> <at7000ft@gmail.c
>> om> To
>> Sent by: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>> owner-pietenpol-l cc
>> ist-server@matron
>> ics.com Subject
>> Re: Pietenpol-List: Drag wires
>>
>> 03/23/2006 11:58
>> PM
>>
>>
>> Please respond to
>> pietenpol-list@ma
>> tronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Graham
>>
>> When I was talking to William Wayne about his Piet crash he mentioned
> that
>> the impact caused his 3/32" flying strut cables to break (the nicopress
>> held). He recommended 1/8" cable for these.
>>
>> Rick H
>>
>> On 3/23/06, Graham Hansen <grhans@cable-lynx.net> wrote:
>> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Graham Hansen" <
>> grhans@cable-lynx.net>
>>
>> Hans,
>>
>> The original plans specify 3/32" cable for the drag/antidrag bracing. I
>> have
>> never heard of any breaking during normal operations.
>>
>> About 15 years ago two Pietenpols met head-on, at a grass airstrip near
>> here, and each wound up with smashed right wings. The pilots were
>> uninjured,
>> but substantial damage to both aircraft resulted. An expensive lesson,
>> for
>> sure. Both a/c were soon repaired and are still in service.
>>
>> No.1 Piet had 1/8" cable bracing and No.2 had 3/32" cable bracing. The
>> wing
>> of No.2 was virtually destroyed and the 3/32" inboard drag cable broke.
>> The
>> 1/8" cable of the No.1 did not break, but did stretch somewhat, and its
>> wing
>> required a leading edge section repair, a new front spar (due to
> evidence
>> of
>> a tiny compression failure) and many rib repairs. The leading edge is
>> much
>> over-strength and this resulted in damage to most of the rib nose
>> sections
>> of both machines. While extensive, the damage to No.1's wing was light
>> compared to the wing of the other Pietenpol, which had to be totally
>> rebuilt
>> with new spars, ribs, etc. The leading edge "bone" of No.2 only required
>> a
>> new section about three feet long, and was the largest surviving wooden
>> part!
>>
>> One could conclude from this episode that the 3/32" cable is adequate.
>> However, being of a suspicious nature, I had used 1/8" 7 x 19 galvanized
>> cable bracing on my Pietenpol for all internal and external wing bracing
>> long before the above incident happened. If I were to build another
> Piet
>>
>> (which I won't), I would use 1/8" cable inboard and 3/32" cable for the
>> outboard bay in order to save a bit of weight--and I would use a sheet
>> aluminum, or 1/16" plywood, leading edge instead of the over-strength,
>> overweight "bone" for the same reason.
>>
>> BTW, my own Pietenpol was not involved in this incident, and it still
> has
>> "no damage history" after 35 years (Touch wood!).
>>
>> Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN in Alberta, Canada)
>> ========================= - The Pietenpol-List Email = the many
>> List utilities such as the Subscriptions page,
>>
>>
> www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>
>> ========================= - List Contribution Web Sip;
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> ================================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rick Holland
>>
>> "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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! --
|