Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:23 AM - Fuselage length, wing placement and wheel axle placement (long) (Andrea Vavassori)
2. 01:08 AM - Re: latex test square (long) (Gary Gower)
3. 06:20 AM - Re: Fuselage length, wing placement and wheel axle placement (long) (gcardinal)
4. 07:16 AM - Re: Fuselage length, wing placement and wheel axle placement (long) (Gene Rambo)
5. 08:06 AM - Re: Fuselage length, wing placement and wheel axle placement ... (Rcaprd@aol.com)
6. 08:25 AM - fuse survey (Michael D Cuy)
7. 09:48 AM - Re: fuse survey (Gene Rambo)
8. 10:33 AM - Re: fuse survey (Andrea Vavassori)
9. 12:53 PM - Re: fuse survey (gcardinal)
10. 02:30 PM - (Ed G.)
11. 07:41 PM - Re: Fuselage length, wing placement and wheel axle placement (long) (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 |
|
Subject: | Fuselage length, wing placement and wheel axle placement |
(long)
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Andrea Vavassori" <andrea@modelberg.it>
Hello to everybody!
First of all, a big THANK YOU to the list for the response to the first
bunch of questions! I collected and stored all the photos and documents
you guys provided, and I especially thank Chris Tracy who provided the
link to his website and to Chris Bobka's document about wheel axles
placement. Again, thanks!
Well, I decided to fire up the CAD and try to assemble a virtual Piet
with all the modifications/clarifications available so far. Not to
redesign the Piet itself but just to be a quick and clean method to
check dimensions and placements. And here is, obviously, where
confusion begins. :-(
Before getting into the hang of it, I want to explain a couple of
points which form the base for the whole discussion:
1) Our Piet is not going to enjoy any of the three de-facto "standard"
powerplants (Ford Model A, Corvair or Continental A65-8) simply because
none is available to us in Europe (even A65-8 are rarer than hen's
teeth these days, in spite of their past wide availability here).
Therefore, the powerplant will have to be something quite different,
probabily derived from a modern gas/diesel auto engine or something
like that. When time comes, appropriate calculations will be made for
engine placement, in order to obtain the correct Center of Gravity
range. I'm familiar with this procedure as I've already done it in the
past for two other airplanes, and they then checked correctly on the
scales.
2) Because of the aforementioned point, I decided to reference all my
work to the original 1933 Improved Plans i.e. considering the Piet as
having the wing position determined by the cabane struts at right
angles with the upper longeron. That is, with the important change of
the 172 3/8" long fuselage (because we believe we need the increased
tail arm as we assume a longer nose).
As already said, that's where confusion begins, because after looking
at all the photos I could see, reading Chris Bobka's comments, and even
checking the Weight and Balance sheet provided by Don Pietenpol, I saw
that the wing position can be quite different from the original one,
and not always the same. This is not very good from an engineering
standpoint, because every kind of W&B calculation assumes a CG range
with respect to the airplane Center of Lift, and not the other way
around. Not to mention the fact that, as wing placement change, so does
the tail arm length, which should be something to be taken very
seriously and not changed all too easily.
Chris Bobka's document is fine in that it works out a well-weighed
logical conclusion from a huge amount of data, but it does NOT mention
the WING anywhere. However, let's start working on BOTH fuselages
(standard and long) using some known data:
1) Standard fuselage: Bobka's axle distance from firewall: 17"
2) Long fuselage: Bobka's axle distance from firewall: 21"
3) Distance between firewall and wing leading edge, std fuselage: 6.8"
4) Distance between firewall and wing leading edge, long fuselage: 8.8"
5) Most rearward CG position (Don Pietenpol): 33% or 20" from LE
Okay, working out the math makes for TWO DIFFERENT distances between
wheel axle and most rearward C of G position for the two fuselages:
7.8" for the LONG fuselage, and 9.8" for the STANDARD fuselage.
Logic says that the distance should be the same for both fuselages, so
obviously one of them is not correct.
My own understanding says 7.8" is way too little. When the Piet is
sitting without pilots and with empty wing tank, the CG ought to be
very close to its most FORWARD position, which is probabily AHEAD of
the wheel axle in level flight, meaning the fuselage will barely stand
on the tailwheel (if it has not already tipped over). 9.8" does not
look really good either, but it's the closest (by 1/2" if I'm not
mistaken) to the measurements on the Improved 1933 Plans.
Again, I state that the wing is going to be exactly where shown on the
plans, and the correct placement of the powerplant will bring the CG
range within the correct limits. And none of the measurements for
placing Ford/Corvair/Continental engines will apply, as the powerplant
will NOT be either one of these.
So, where should I place my wheel axles?
All the Pieters out there, where is YOUR wheel axle and YOUR wing
leading edge with respect to the firewall, and HOW does your Piet
behave during landing and on the ground?
Thanks in advance for the answers.
SeeYa!
Andrea Vavassori
Volksplane VP-1 I-BYRA
EAA #348037
FCAP I-146
Homepage: http://andrea.modelberg.it
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: | latex test square (long) |
Good idea,about the ironing to remove it, Will try it next time I need a repair...
Hope not needed.
Is amazing how it keeps the color over the years and how easy is to repair and
repaint.
When I decided to use it was an experiment, making my mind to recover in a couple
of years. Now I am sure will last more than 10 years...
Thanks a lot. for the tip.
Saludos
Gary Gower.
Steve Eldredge <steve@byu.edu> wrote: v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape
{behavior:url(#default#VML);} st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
Hi all,
Im flying my piet that is starting its tenth year of life under latex finish.
Ive repaired it as well. I used the high gloss Sherwin Williams and dont regret
it. Check the archives for the process I used. Nice thing is, two years
ago when I needed to repair a wingtip, I marched down to the local paint store
and they mixed up a quart of the same color and you cant tell where the repair
is. An iron at about 250 will roll the old latex off exposing the underlying
fabric nicely. No sanding. Very cool.
Steve E
---------------------------------
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary Gower
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 12:00 PM
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: latex test square (long)
Hello Douwe and all,
Something that is missing here is that Nothing will "glue" to the Dacron (Ceconite)
how it holds on is by mechanical "grab" around the fiber, so the Latex
can be painted direct to the Dacron and it will hold forever, (once dried completly).
This is first hand experience, I had to make a hole (inspection window) in my
Ladder Pou to check inside the wing. It was painted 3 years ago and looks like
new.
Well, my first thought was just to wipe the old latex down to the cloth around
the patch area to (contact) glue the patch.
For my surprise, niether the Thinner or the Acetone will disolve the latex!!!
What I did was to sand the glueing area with coars sanding paper to get the glue
to grab (without touching the fibers). iron the patch as normal procedure,
then paint the latex (left over can and still in good condition 3 years later,
just well shaken), 3 hands in 90 degrees strokes. 5 days later, you can hardly
notice where the patch is.
This is my second experience with Latex, will never use anything else.
You want some gloss? just give a last hand of water based poliuretane clear barnish
and look like (or better than) the Big Bucks paint...
This is real first hand experience, but you can spend your money in any covering
procedure you wish :-)
Note: I use the "Generic" inexpensive Dacron from Spruce also...
Saludos
Gary Gower
Flying from Chapala, Mexico.
"La Bamba" Ladder Pou.
Douwe Blumberg <douweblumberg@earthlink.net> wrote:
Hey,
I don't remember who posted about his latex test square of ceconite, but I
had a thought. The post said he put two coats of butyrate then the latex. Just
remember on the actual plane, that butyrate doesn't stick to ceconite. You
have to use some coats of nitrate first, then your butyrate will stick to the
nitrate. Shouldn't matter on a test, but WILL matter on the real deal.
Douwe
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates.
---------------------------------
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Fuselage length, wing placement and wheel axle placement |
(long)
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "gcardinal" <gcardinal@mn.rr.com>
NX18235 has the wing LE 13.5 inches aft of the firewall. The axle is 20
inches aft of the firewall.
Ground handling is superb for a skid equipped brakeless aircraft.
Greg Cardinal
> So, where should I place my wheel axles?
>
> All the Pieters out there, where is YOUR wheel axle and YOUR wing
> leading edge with respect to the firewall, and HOW does your Piet
> behave during landing and on the ground?
>
> Thanks in advance for the answers.
>
> SeeYa!
>
> Andrea Vavassori
>
> Volksplane VP-1 I-BYRA
> EAA #348037
> FCAP I-146
> Homepage: http://andrea.modelberg.it
>
>
>
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Fuselage length, wing placement and wheel axle placement |
(long)
I would ask that everyone that replies gives fuselage and gear type,
please.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrea Vavassori<mailto:andrea@modelberg.it>
To: pietenpol discussion list<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 6:59 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage length, wing placement and wheel
axle placement (long)
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Andrea Vavassori"
<andrea@modelberg.it<mailto:andrea@modelberg.it>>
Hello to everybody!
First of all, a big THANK YOU to the list for the response to the
first
bunch of questions! I collected and stored all the photos and
documents
you guys provided, and I especially thank Chris Tracy who provided the
link to his website and to Chris Bobka's document about wheel axles
placement. Again, thanks!
Well, I decided to fire up the CAD and try to assemble a virtual Piet
with all the modifications/clarifications available so far. Not to
redesign the Piet itself but just to be a quick and clean method to
check dimensions and placements. And here is, obviously, where
confusion begins. :-(
Before getting into the hang of it, I want to explain a couple of
points which form the base for the whole discussion:
1) Our Piet is not going to enjoy any of the three de-facto "standard"
powerplants (Ford Model A, Corvair or Continental A65-8) simply
because
none is available to us in Europe (even A65-8 are rarer than hen's
teeth these days, in spite of their past wide availability here).
Therefore, the powerplant will have to be something quite different,
probabily derived from a modern gas/diesel auto engine or something
like that. When time comes, appropriate calculations will be made for
engine placement, in order to obtain the correct Center of Gravity
range. I'm familiar with this procedure as I've already done it in the
past for two other airplanes, and they then checked correctly on the
scales.
2) Because of the aforementioned point, I decided to reference all my
work to the original 1933 Improved Plans i.e. considering the Piet as
having the wing position determined by the cabane struts at right
angles with the upper longeron. That is, with the important change of
the 172 3/8" long fuselage (because we believe we need the increased
tail arm as we assume a longer nose).
As already said, that's where confusion begins, because after looking
at all the photos I could see, reading Chris Bobka's comments, and
even
checking the Weight and Balance sheet provided by Don Pietenpol, I saw
that the wing position can be quite different from the original one,
and not always the same. This is not very good from an engineering
standpoint, because every kind of W&B calculation assumes a CG range
with respect to the airplane Center of Lift, and not the other way
around. Not to mention the fact that, as wing placement change, so
does
the tail arm length, which should be something to be taken very
seriously and not changed all too easily.
Chris Bobka's document is fine in that it works out a well-weighed
logical conclusion from a huge amount of data, but it does NOT mention
the WING anywhere. However, let's start working on BOTH fuselages
(standard and long) using some known data:
1) Standard fuselage: Bobka's axle distance from firewall: 17"
2) Long fuselage: Bobka's axle distance from firewall: 21"
3) Distance between firewall and wing leading edge, std fuselage: 6.8"
4) Distance between firewall and wing leading edge, long fuselage:
8.8"
5) Most rearward CG position (Don Pietenpol): 33% or 20" from LE
Okay, working out the math makes for TWO DIFFERENT distances between
wheel axle and most rearward C of G position for the two fuselages:
7.8" for the LONG fuselage, and 9.8" for the STANDARD fuselage.
Logic says that the distance should be the same for both fuselages, so
obviously one of them is not correct.
My own understanding says 7.8" is way too little. When the Piet is
sitting without pilots and with empty wing tank, the CG ought to be
very close to its most FORWARD position, which is probabily AHEAD of
the wheel axle in level flight, meaning the fuselage will barely stand
on the tailwheel (if it has not already tipped over). 9.8" does not
look really good either, but it's the closest (by 1/2" if I'm not
mistaken) to the measurements on the Improved 1933 Plans.
Again, I state that the wing is going to be exactly where shown on the
plans, and the correct placement of the powerplant will bring the CG
range within the correct limits. And none of the measurements for
placing Ford/Corvair/Continental engines will apply, as the powerplant
will NOT be either one of these.
So, where should I place my wheel axles?
All the Pieters out there, where is YOUR wheel axle and YOUR wing
leading edge with respect to the firewall, and HOW does your Piet
behave during landing and on the ground?
Thanks in advance for the answers.
SeeYa!
Andrea Vavassori
Volksplane VP-1 I-BYRA
EAA #348037
FCAP I-146
Homepage: http://andrea.modelberg.it<http://andrea.modelberg.it/>
=========================
==========
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List<http://www.matronics.co
m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>
=========================
==========
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: | Re: Fuselage length, wing placement and wheel axle placement |
...
In a message dated 8/12/2006 2:25:11 AM Central Standard Time,
andrea@modelberg.it writes:
3) Distance between firewall and wing leading edge, std fuselage: 6.8"
Andrea,
Drawing No. 1 (Improved 1933 plans) shows the wing leading edge 7.5" behind
the firewall.
The Pietenpol is a forgiving design, in the dimensions of the final product,
evidenced by the wide variety of Flying airplanes out there. It is also
claimed to have had a wider variety of engines, than Any Other Airplane in History
!!
{ All the Pieters out there, where is YOUR wheel axle and YOUR wing
leading edge with respect to the firewall, and HOW does your Piet
behave during landing and on the ground? }
NX770CG has a plans built short fuselage, with the axle 17" aft of the
firewall. She has gone through many retrofits during 'er short life of 4 +
years (first certified 1/8/02). When first built, she had a Model A engine with
plans dimensions for the engine mount, tail skid, no brakes, and the cabanes
were vertical. I taxied 'er quite a bit in this configuration, however, with my
210 lbs weight, the C. of G. was too far aft for safe flight. It was very
easy to do a turnaround, almost pivoting on one wheel (remember no brakes). I
moved the wing back 3 1/2" from vertical, and added 14 lb ballast (cast from
lead and mounted to the bellhousing flange for the transmission), and got the C.
of G. within safe limits. This retrofit caused the ground handling to change
a little bit, in that I couldn't do quite as quick turnaround. Doug Bryant
did the first 3 flights in this configuration, and I logged 23 hours in this
configuration, but we couldn't get that pesky gremlin out of the Model A engine
- which caused Three deadstick landings. I wrestled with that engine the
entire year of '02, so the first 6 months of '03 was spent retrofitting the
firewall forward to accept a Continental A65 - 8 engine. In order to maintain
the
safe C. of G. range (15" to 20" aft of the leading edge), I built the engine
mount 8" longer than the Continental engine mount plans, but used the next size
wall thickness and same O.D. for the tubing. The cabanes are still 3 1/2"
aft of vertical. The ground handling did not change, but the empty weight was
reduced by 60 lbs, and the power was almost doubled. Needless to say, this was
a Very significant improvement in takeoff, climb and reliability. I haven't
had ANY problems with this Continental engine, and I truly LOVE that engine !!
Before flying to Brodhead and Oshkosh in '03, I added brakes, but not a
tailwheel, and finished flying the required 40 + hours of the test period.
Without brakes, it was very difficult to taxi on hard surface, but handled fine
in the grass. I thought I could steer with the brakes / tail skid after
landing on hard surface, but this proved to be WRONG !! During that cross country
flight, I ran off the hard surface runway at two different airports. I could
easily blame that on the stiff crosswind, and when I tried to steer with the
brakes, the tail came up abruptly, and I almost lost it both times...just let
'er go off the runway between the runway edge lights.
Before my America Tour '04, I added a tailwheel, and changed out the
bunji struts, for spring struts. That was a 3100 mile cross country trip !! No
problems with the ship, and the weather was great. She has been in this
configuration for the past two years, and I'm having a Blast with 'er !!
Chuck G.
NX770CG
Wichita, KS
http://nx770cg.com/
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
CUY NX48MC
1933 Improved Fuselage (shorter than the 1966 by about 9.5 inches)
Gear type wood/straight axle.
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 |
|
Andrea had asked for a axle/wing placement survey, and the first
response gave those figures without mentioning which fuselage or gear
types, which makes all of the difference in the world. Likewise, wink
wink, the fuselage and gear type does not do much without the axle/wing
placement info . . .
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael D Cuy<mailto:Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 11:24 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: fuse survey
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
<Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov<mailto:Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>>
CUY NX48MC
1933 Improved Fuselage (shorter than the 1966 by about 9.5 inches)
Gear type wood/straight axle.
=========================
==========
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List<http://www.matronics.co
m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>
=========================
==========
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Andrea Vavassori" <andrea@modelberg.it>
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:46:56 -0400, Gene Rambo wrote:
>Andrea had asked for a axle/wing placement survey, and the first response gave
those figures without mentioning which fuselage or gear types, which makes all
of the difference in the world. Likewise, wink wink, the fuselage and gear
type does not do much without the axle/wing placement info . . .
Gene,
Thanks so much for pointing that out. In fact I forgot to ask the
fuselage type in the first istance. However, It's not absolutely
necessary to know the gear type because axle distance from firewall
will suffice for doing the maths.
SeeYa!
Andrea Vavassori
Volksplane VP-1 I-BYRA
EAA #348037
FCAP I-146
Homepage: http://andrea.modelberg.it
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 |
|
Excellent clarification Gene.
NX18235 is a long fuselage with Jenny style gear. Wing LE is 13.5 inches
aft of the firewall. Axle is 20 inches aft of the firewall.
Greg C.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Rambo
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: fuse survey
Andrea had asked for a axle/wing placement survey, and the first
response gave those figures without mentioning which fuselage or gear
types, which makes all of the difference in the world. Likewise, wink
wink, the fuselage and gear type does not do much without the axle/wing
placement info . . .
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael D Cuy
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 11:24 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: fuse survey
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
<Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
CUY NX48MC
1933 Improved Fuselage (shorter than the 1966 by about 9.5 inches)
Gear type wood/straight
=========================
nbsp; Features Subscriptions http://www.mat
=========================
=========================
p; available via title=http://forums.matronics.com/
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
=========================
nbsp; Email List title=http://wiki.matronics.com/
=========================
=========================
nbsp; generous bsp;
title=http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
=========================
================
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Happy weekend Pieters.....I have two questions 1. ACS has a complete
overhaul kit for my Marvel Schebler MA3PA carb for $207.00 is that the
going price or is there someplace else that has better prices. I tried
Fresno air parts and they don't carry them...... 2. The total thickness
of my prop flange, Prop and crush plate measure within .001" of exactly
4". It amazes me that my new Tennessee prop's hub is that close to
perfectly 3 1/2". Prop bolts are available in 4" grip length. Sooo
should I go with a 4" grip length bolt or should I go the next step down
which would be 3 7/8". I've never dealt with a wood prop before.
everyone says they compress some under the pressure from the bolts but I
have no idea how much to expect and I don't want to end up with
excessive washers under the nuts. my guess is that 3 7/8" would be too
short but prop bolts are too expensive to guess at. Thanks in advance
and enjoy your weekend....Ed G in Florida starting to see a faint light
in the tunnel.
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Fuselage length, wing placement and wheel axle placement |
(long)
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil" <horzpool@goldengate.net>
I'll aswer as much as I can remember here at home.
I have the short Fuse, NX2RN. My wing is back 4.5" from vertical. I don't
recomend this as it isn't the easiest getting in and out of rear cockpit. I
also had to add a 25 lb battery and 4 gal fuel in the nose to get proper CG.
Axle is 19" aft of firewall.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrea Vavassori" <andrea@modelberg.it>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 5:59 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage length, wing placement and wheel axle
placement (long)
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Andrea Vavassori"
> <andrea@modelberg.it>
>
> Hello to everybody!
>
> First of all, a big THANK YOU to the list for the response to the first
> bunch of questions! I collected and stored all the photos and documents
> you guys provided, and I especially thank Chris Tracy who provided the
> link to his website and to Chris Bobka's document about wheel axles
> placement. Again, thanks!
>
> Well, I decided to fire up the CAD and try to assemble a virtual Piet
> with all the modifications/clarifications available so far. Not to
> redesign the Piet itself but just to be a quick and clean method to
> check dimensions and placements. And here is, obviously, where
> confusion begins. :-(
>
> Before getting into the hang of it, I want to explain a couple of
> points which form the base for the whole discussion:
>
> 1) Our Piet is not going to enjoy any of the three de-facto "standard"
> powerplants (Ford Model A, Corvair or Continental A65-8) simply because
> none is available to us in Europe (even A65-8 are rarer than hen's
> teeth these days, in spite of their past wide availability here).
> Therefore, the powerplant will have to be something quite different,
> probabily derived from a modern gas/diesel auto engine or something
> like that. When time comes, appropriate calculations will be made for
> engine placement, in order to obtain the correct Center of Gravity
> range. I'm familiar with this procedure as I've already done it in the
> past for two other airplanes, and they then checked correctly on the
> scales.
>
> 2) Because of the aforementioned point, I decided to reference all my
> work to the original 1933 Improved Plans i.e. considering the Piet as
> having the wing position determined by the cabane struts at right
> angles with the upper longeron. That is, with the important change of
> the 172 3/8" long fuselage (because we believe we need the increased
> tail arm as we assume a longer nose).
>
> As already said, that's where confusion begins, because after looking
> at all the photos I could see, reading Chris Bobka's comments, and even
> checking the Weight and Balance sheet provided by Don Pietenpol, I saw
> that the wing position can be quite different from the original one,
> and not always the same. This is not very good from an engineering
> standpoint, because every kind of W&B calculation assumes a CG range
> with respect to the airplane Center of Lift, and not the other way
> around. Not to mention the fact that, as wing placement change, so does
> the tail arm length, which should be something to be taken very
> seriously and not changed all too easily.
>
> Chris Bobka's document is fine in that it works out a well-weighed
> logical conclusion from a huge amount of data, but it does NOT mention
> the WING anywhere. However, let's start working on BOTH fuselages
> (standard and long) using some known data:
>
> 1) Standard fuselage: Bobka's axle distance from firewall: 17"
> 2) Long fuselage: Bobka's axle distance from firewall: 21"
> 3) Distance between firewall and wing leading edge, std fuselage: 6.8"
> 4) Distance between firewall and wing leading edge, long fuselage: 8.8"
> 5) Most rearward CG position (Don Pietenpol): 33% or 20" from LE
>
> Okay, working out the math makes for TWO DIFFERENT distances between
> wheel axle and most rearward C of G position for the two fuselages:
> 7.8" for the LONG fuselage, and 9.8" for the STANDARD fuselage.
>
> Logic says that the distance should be the same for both fuselages, so
> obviously one of them is not correct.
>
> My own understanding says 7.8" is way too little. When the Piet is
> sitting without pilots and with empty wing tank, the CG ought to be
> very close to its most FORWARD position, which is probabily AHEAD of
> the wheel axle in level flight, meaning the fuselage will barely stand
> on the tailwheel (if it has not already tipped over). 9.8" does not
> look really good either, but it's the closest (by 1/2" if I'm not
> mistaken) to the measurements on the Improved 1933 Plans.
>
> Again, I state that the wing is going to be exactly where shown on the
> plans, and the correct placement of the powerplant will bring the CG
> range within the correct limits. And none of the measurements for
> placing Ford/Corvair/Continental engines will apply, as the powerplant
> will NOT be either one of these.
>
> So, where should I place my wheel axles?
>
> All the Pieters out there, where is YOUR wheel axle and YOUR wing
> leading edge with respect to the firewall, and HOW does your Piet
> behave during landing and on the ground?
>
> Thanks in advance for the answers.
>
> SeeYa!
>
> Andrea Vavassori
>
> Volksplane VP-1 I-BYRA
> EAA #348037
> FCAP I-146
> Homepage: http://andrea.modelberg.it
>
>
>
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! --
|