---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 08/12/06: 11 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:23:32 AM PST US From: "Andrea Vavassori" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage length, wing placement and wheel axle placement (long) --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Andrea Vavassori" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:08:10 AM PST US From: Gary Gower Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:20:17 AM PST US From: "gcardinal" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage length, wing placement and wheel axle placement (long) --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "gcardinal" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:16:56 AM PST US From: "Gene Rambo" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 To: pietenpol discussion list 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" > 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://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List ========================= ========== ========================= ========== ========================= ========== ========================= ========== http://www.matronics.com/contribution ========================= ========== ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 08:06:14 AM PST US From: Rcaprd@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:25:40 AM PST US From: Michael D Cuy Subject: Pietenpol-List: fuse survey --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy CUY NX48MC 1933 Improved Fuselage (shorter than the 1966 by about 9.5 inches) Gear type wood/straight axle. ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 09:48:19 AM PST US From: "Gene Rambo" 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 > 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.com/contribution ========================= ========== ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 10:33:00 AM PST US From: "Andrea Vavassori" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: fuse survey --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Andrea Vavassori" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:53:26 PM PST US From: "gcardinal" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: fuse survey 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:30:45 PM PST US From: "Ed G." Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:41:11 PM PST US From: "Dick Navratil" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage length, wing placement and wheel axle placement (long) --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dick Navratil" 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" 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" > > > 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 > > >