Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 11:41 AM - Don's post on Riblett pitching moment (Tim Willis)
2. 12:10 PM - Re: Don's post on Riblett pitching moment (Rick Holland)
3. 12:35 PM - Re: Don's post on Riblett pitching moment (Hans Vander Voort)
4. 12:40 PM - Re: Don's post on Riblett pitching moment (Hans Vander Voort)
5. 01:08 PM - Re: Don's post on Riblett pitching moment (Tim Willis)
6. 01:46 PM - Re: Don's post on Riblett pitching moment (Phillips, Jack)
7. 02:07 PM - Riblett airfoil (lshutks@webtv.net (Leon Stefan))
8. 02:08 PM - Don's airfoil post (HelsperSew@aol.com)
9. 02:44 PM - Re: Don's post on Riblett pitching moment (Rcaprd@aol.com)
10. 06:18 PM - Re: Don's post on Riblett pitching moment (HVandervoo@aol.com)
11. 06:34 PM - =?UTF-8?Q?you are a experimental airpl?= =?UTF-8?Q?ane builder if? (HVandervoo@aol.com)
12. 06:56 PM - =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IFBpZXRlbnBvbC1MaXN0OiB5b3UgYXJlIGEgZXhwZXJpbWVudGE=?= =?UTF-8?B?bCBhaXJwbGFuZSBidWlsZGVyIGlm4oCm? (Cory Emberson)
13. 07:09 PM - Re: Don's post on Riblett pitching moment (Clif Dawson)
14. 07:20 PM - Re: Riblett airfoil (Clif Dawson)
15. 07:34 PM - Re: you are a experimental airplane builder =?iso-8859-1?Q?if=85? (Dave and Connie)
16. 09:05 PM - Re: Don's airfoil post (gcardinal)
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: | Don's post on Riblett pitching moment |
Don,
This CG ~ pitching factor bothers me, too. ESPECIALLY me, as I will explain.
But I would like to use the Riblett foil. Following is a long post that BEGINS
to deal with it.
I got the Riblett plot months ago, had talked with Lowell and Roman then, and bought
the drawing from Roman. I own and have read Riblett's "GA Airfoils" text.
I've met Bill Rewey and admire his thinking. I think that Bill Rewey, Lowell
Frank, and Roman Bukolt are onto something here. I see that Corky is interested,
too. I respect their opinions, for they have done so much more than
I. I have been spending a lot of analytical cycles here, in particular because
of my own pitching moment issues. Overall, I conclude that adopting this airfoil
can have many BENEFITS for most Piet builders. The possible exceptions
are fat boys like me, and for these very CG ~ pitching moment reasons.
First, there's the Riblett airfoil to consider. It looks great to me, amateur
that I am. Here is what I have found:
1. Compared to the BP foil, each with a 60" inch chord, the Riblett is about an
inch taller above the chord, and an inch lower below the chord. If it has ANY
inverse camber on the lower surface, it is very slight. It looks much like
a NACA 2412 or NACA 4412, except with a 13.5% thickness, it is obviously thicker
than the others, which have a thickness at max. of 12% of chord. The Riblett
foil also seems, even given this, to have a disproportionately larger LE radius.
The Riblett foil stays thicker longer along its length, both above and
below the chord.
2. This shape should allow laminar air flow farther rearward on the surface--
both upper and lower-- than most "turbulent" airfoils-- all mentioned herein.
The combo of the the larger radius, more thickness, and less attenuation of that
thickness (esp. on upper surface) gives most the Riblett most of its the desirable
qualties.
3. The more streamlined lower surface (like some laminar airfoils, but not as
pronounced) gives some of Riblett's better L/D qualities. (Riblett's lower surface
has more streamlining than the flat lower surface of the Clark Y, for instance,
and we know about the parachute-like lift and drag qualities of the Piet
lower surface.)
4. My own observations do not come just from charts. I have laid one of the BP
style ribs against a couple of my own NACA plots (2412 and 4412), a Clark Y
plywood template (one I was given), my own Riblett plot, and Roman's Riblett rib
drawing. The differences between them all, and the possible advantages of
the Riblett, really jump out thus, when overlaid in full scale.
5. I conclude that the Riblett is a worthy airfoil. I believe from what I see
that it almost certainly will have at least these attributes-- faster speed,
better handling, a better glide ratio, and a softer stall. It should also have
comparable slow landing speeds to the BP foil. (We might only know this from
a side-by-side test.) It might well also have faster climb, from having perhaps
as much lift (maybe more) and far less drag in climb than the Piet foil.
It should have less sensitivity in its lift to the pilot's chosen angle of attack.
People who know a lot more about all this than I should chime in. First please
look at the data cited below.
I would like to use the Riblett airfoil. Not only does it look good on paper,
Riblett foils are supported by some USERS as well. Some of them are commercial.
I have attached an article (SEE ATTACHMENT, a "Word" doc) that I believe I
copied from Mike Schuck's airfoil.com website. It has some computations and
an endorsement by a pro.
Here's the only rub-- it almost certainly won't have the pitching moment of the
Piet, which is the BP foil's saving grace for fat boys like me. The foregiving
nature of the BP airfoil as a mitigating factor for fat boys is especially
needed, as I understand it, with the long fuze Piet. Such is my second fuze--
Corky's second Piet.
Don, you may recall my impressive girth when we met. (We were tent neighbors at
Brodhead.) It is no better now, I fear. I am adapting Corky's well built plane.
Corky built this plane for his lesser weight, and still moved the MM's forward
2-3" of BP's. I weigh 270, but have used 280 in my CG spreadsheets. With
the Piet airfoil and an A-65 engine, I am planning to move the motor mounts
10" forward of BP's (he weighed 130, I am told by a Pieter who met him), and
move the wings 4" back of vertical. By comparison I believe that Chuck Gantzer
moved his mounts 8" forward of BP's with an A-65 and with more pilot weight
than BP (less than mine), hit his CG computations empirically as well, and believes
his CG is right on the mark for handling.
I am still studying this. I am having a couple of other problems that are keeping
me from building anything right now, anyway, so it's OK for now. But I want
to start building quickly and well as soon as I can.
Were I to use the Riblett airfoil, I might move the engine forward another inch
(to 11" more than BP's) , add a 22# battery before the firewall for strobes and
more. I'll have to watch for a tipping point on the LG on the ground, though,
for the venue of a full tank and no pilot.
Moreover, I also might swing the wings back 5". To get the 5" swing, I would plan
to heighten the cabanes to 28"F, 27" R. This is almost 2" taller than any
other I know has done, so I would stiffen the forward struts to the firewall
and stiffen the front cabane. This cabane height, even with the wings so far
back, gives me room enough to better get my unwieldy body into the cockpit (missing
the left wing while negotiating the center wing flipper cavity), and lessens
the cabane angles to get the 5" rearward wing displacement.
In short, The sum of all these steps would likely get the CG closer in worst case
to the 25% mark than the maximum 33.3% percent of chord tolerated by the BP
foil. (It does, on paper, for now.) Emprically, when I KNOW what everything
weighs, and borrow my $1500 EAA chapter's digital scales, I would start swinging
the wings and messing with the cabanes, as needed. (I'd have a 20# temporary
weight for the tail handy for awhile, too.)
These steps still might not be enough to accommodate the Riblett. I don't yet
know its pitching moment relative to that of the BP foil.
Of course, if I can match the plane and its CG to my needs, I will have to add
50 pounds somewhere for my test pilot. A better solution for me, and with many
other positives, is a year-long love affair with Jenny Craig.
In any event, your point is VERY valid. Before I build the first Riblett rib,
I will have someone-- likely Mike Schuck-- run the Riblett foil through X-foil
and compare it to BP's. Mike has said he would do this. I need to get some
more data from him, but the ball is in my court right now. I will also talk with
Harry Riblett. And also several of the builders on the site. Thereafter
I will post the results of this and my amateur analysis on the Piet Matronics
site.
How does all this sound to you? And to others?
Tim in central TX
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: Don's post on Riblett pitching moment |
One other related question that would be interesting to run by Roman and the
more knowledgeable people on this group concerning the Riblett airfoil on a
Piet would be this, if someone had a completed Piet with a three piece wing
could he keep the center section and just build new left and right sections.
Especially if he had a CC fuel tank, flop, etc.
Rick
>
>
> I got the Riblett plot months ago, had talked with Lowell and Roman then,
> and bought the drawing from Roman. I own and have read Riblett's "GA
> Airfoils" text. I've met Bill Rewey and admire his thinking. I think that
> Bill Rewey, Lowell Frank, and Roman Bukolt are onto something here. I see
> that Corky is interested, too. I respect their opinions, for
>
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
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: Don's post on Riblett pitching moment |
Tim,
Rather than adapting other airfoils, redesigning wings or longer motor
mounts.
Would it not be much easier to move the rear seat forward ?
The gross weight of a Pietenpol is around 1100 lbs
Average empty weight being 650 Lbs
Leaves 375 Lbs for pilot(s) and 75 Lbs of fuel.
Heavy pilots will have to find (very) light passengers.
Convert the front seat space to baggage space and enjoy the Piet by
yourself.
Just my two cents.
Hans
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: Don's post on Riblett pitching moment |
Rick,
If I read Tim's e-mail correctly the Riblett airfoil is 2 higher.
A 2 higher Spar ?
The original center section would not look right.
On the other hand a 2" higher center section could hold a bigger fuel tank
and a 2 higher spar could be thinner (perhaps 1/2" rather than 3/4" spruce
boards)
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: Don's post on
Riblett pitching moment
12/19/2006 02:09
PM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
One other related question that would be interesting to run by Roman and
the more knowledgeable people on this group concerning the Riblett airfoil
on a Piet would be this, if someone had a completed Piet with a three
piece wing could he keep the center section and just build new left and
right sections. Especially if he had a CC fuel tank, flop, etc.
Rick
I got the Riblett plot months ago, had talked with Lowell and Roman then,
and bought the drawing from Roman. I own and have read Riblett's "GA
Airfoils" text. I've met Bill Rewey and admire his thinking. I think
that Bill Rewey, Lowell Frank, and Roman Bukolt are onto something here.
I see that Corky is interested, too. I respect their opinions, for
--
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: | Re: Don's post on Riblett pitching moment |
Hans,
Those are good points. Here's my take:
1. I want the Riblett wing, if I can use it, to have a better airplane (IMO).
2. I have to move the motor mounts forward, and the wings back, etc., no matter
which wing I am using, IF:
a) I am using the light Continental A-65 engine;
b) I continue to weigh too damned much;
c) as you say, I leave it a two-place airplane.
3. I have fleetingly thought of making it single-place, to solve these issues
in one fell swoop. [I would have had to do it with my earlier short fuzed Piet.]
Making it single-place would also allow for thicker and more comfortable
upholstery. Only one thing stops me-- where would I stow those Victoria Secret
models and the like, who, as well all know, are attracted to Pietenpols, and
can thus tolerate such an ugly pilot as me, for the ride?
On a more realistic (harumph) note, Corky had mounted the panel including instruments,
the stick, etc., with excellent placement, and I hate to mess with any
of that. And it might butcher the plane at this stage.
Thanks for the input, and I will keep it well in mind.
Argh. Every change ripples, and the ripples have ripples, and eddies of their
own.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
>From: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
>Sent: Dec 19, 2006 2:33 PM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Don's post on Riblett pitching moment
>
>
>Tim,
>
>Rather than adapting other airfoils, redesigning wings or longer motor
>mounts.
>
>Would it not be much easier to move the rear seat forward ?
>
>The gross weight of a Pietenpol is around 1100 lbs
>Average empty weight being 650 Lbs
>Leaves 375 Lbs for pilot(s) and 75 Lbs of fuel.
>
>Heavy pilots will have to find (very) light passengers.
>Convert the front seat space to baggage space and enjoy the Piet by
>yourself.
>
>Just my two cents.
>
>Hans
>
>
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: | Don's post on Riblett pitching moment |
Here's another ripple to consider (I never liked Ripple - I always
preferred Thunderbird):
Making the nose that much longer may adversely affect yaw stability. A
Pietenpol has a pretty small vertical fin and yaw stability in a long
fuse Piet is marginal at best. I know I can stomp on the rudder in mine
and take both feet off and it takes a long time for it to start pointing
into the wind again. I wonder how an extra 10" of nose would affect
that.
Jack Phillips
Intrigued by the notion of a better airfoil to get more climb out of my
heavy Piet
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Willis
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Don's post on Riblett pitching moment
--> <timothywillis@earthlink.net>
Hans,
Those are good points. Here's my take:
1. I want the Riblett wing, if I can use it, to have a better airplane
(IMO).
2. I have to move the motor mounts forward, and the wings back, etc.,
no matter which wing I am using, IF:
a) I am using the light Continental A-65 engine;
b) I continue to weigh too damned much;
c) as you say, I leave it a two-place airplane.
3. I have fleetingly thought of making it single-place, to solve these
issues in one fell swoop. [I would have had to do it with my earlier
short fuzed Piet.] Making it single-place would also allow for thicker
and more comfortable upholstery. Only one thing stops me-- where would
I stow those Victoria Secret models and the like, who, as well all know,
are attracted to Pietenpols, and can thus tolerate such an ugly pilot as
me, for the ride?
On a more realistic (harumph) note, Corky had mounted the panel
including instruments, the stick, etc., with excellent placement, and I
hate to mess with any of that. And it might butcher the plane at this
stage.
Thanks for the input, and I will keep it well in mind.
Argh. Every change ripples, and the ripples have ripples, and eddies of
their own.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
>From: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
>Sent: Dec 19, 2006 2:33 PM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Don's post on Riblett pitching moment
>
>--> <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
>
>Tim,
>
>Rather than adapting other airfoils, redesigning wings or longer motor
>mounts.
>
>Would it not be much easier to move the rear seat forward ?
>
>The gross weight of a Pietenpol is around 1100 lbs
>Average empty weight being 650 Lbs
>Leaves 375 Lbs for pilot(s) and 75 Lbs of fuel.
>
>Heavy pilots will have to find (very) light passengers. Convert the
>front seat space to baggage space and enjoy the Piet by yourself.
>
>Just my two cents.
>
>Hans
>
>
_________________________________________________
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 |
|
Tim Willis: Hans sort of has a good point, but even better how about
eliminating the rear cockpit all together, At 270 lbs I doubt your Piet
could ever carry a passenger very well at all. (no offense meant) I've
always thought a more practical Sky Scout is an Aircamper with only a
front cockpit. Leon S. In Ks. anticipating another big winter storm.
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: | Don's airfoil post |
Guys,
Seeing as it has taken me these six looooong years to get this far on my
Piet, with the wing being completed first, I myself am in no humor to make a new
wing. I still have a few years to go the way it is. I think I'll stick with
Bernie's wing and not upset the gods (my wife).
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Don's post on Riblett pitching moment |
In a message dated 12/19/2006 1:44:03 PM Central Standard Time,
timothywillis@earthlink.net writes:
This CG ~ pitching factor bothers me, too. ESPECIALLY me, as I will explain.
But I would like to use the Riblett foil.
You guys are ALL giving me a serious case of The Hiebie Jiebie's !!
Chuck G.
NX770CG
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Don's post on Riblett pitching moment |
Tim,
I did not realize you had your fuse already built
But Jack already mentioned it, adverse jaw is more of an issue than an
optimum airfoil.
I fly a long fuse Pietenpol and it has a lot of adverse jaw.
I would not recommend making the nose any longer.
If you must consider making rudder and fin larger too (this adds weight
again and at the wrong end)
Another option already mention by Leon, use the front cockpit.
On my W&B 20 Lbs equals about 5" rear cockpit is at 58" and I weigh 190
At 270 you will need to move forward 20" to maintain balance
With little shifting of the wing forward (cabanes neutral or leaning
forward) you could get there.
Pain to get in the front pit though.
Hans
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: | you are a experimental airpl?= =?UTF-8?Q?ane |
builder if?
Just cam across this on another list, had to share it.
You=99re an experimental airplane builder if
- You have ever had a conversation involving the words =9Cmi
l-spec=9D
and =9CAN.=9D
- The majority of your tools aren=99t available at Sears.
- You always have fresh scars on your hands, even though you have
a
desk job.
- People ask if you have a hobby and their follow up question is
=9C
are you nuts?=9D
- You have at least 15 unfinished projects that aren=99t air
planes.
- Your first reaction when purchasing any non-food item is
=9CI can
build that.=9D
- Your first reaction when purchasing any food item is =9CI
gotta get
some beer to go with that.=9D
- You know what Oshkosh is and where to find it.
- You know that Alodine is not a place in Texas.
- Someone says =9Chey look a Moose=9D and you look up
in the sky.
- You can=99t look at anything mechanical without thinking o
f a way
to =9Cimprove=9D the design.
- Cleveland is a brand, not a place in Ohio.
- You=99ll pay hundreds of dollars to save two pounds in avi
onics,
but you=99re 20 lbs overweight and somehow that=99s OK.
- When people ask what you got for Christmas you have to explain
what it is.
- A dragon fly isn=99t an insect.
- You know who Burt Rutan is and you think sideburns are kinda
cool.
- A lay up has nothing to do with basketball.
- You haven=99t parked your car in your garage in years.
Hans
Message 12
| 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: | =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IFBpZXRlbnBvbC1MaXN0OiB5b3UgYXJlIGEgZXhwZXJpbWVudGE=?= |
=?UTF-8?B?bCBhaXJwbGFuZSBidWlsZGVyIGlm4oCm?
Funny!
Thanks for posting that.
Do Not Archive
>
Message 13
| 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: Don's post on Riblett pitching moment |
Gyro and P-factor?
No mention of LG placement so far.
Once the wing position is decided upon
then the LG placement has to relate to the
Chord.
Piets look funny with trike landing gear.
Why not put a heavier engine in it? After
all, it was designed for a 244 lb Ford.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 1:46 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Don's post on Riblett pitching moment
> <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
>
> Here's another ripple to consider (I never liked Ripple - I always
> preferred Thunderbird):
>
> Making the nose that much longer may adversely affect yaw stability. A
> Pietenpol has a pretty small vertical fin and yaw stability in a long
> fuse Piet is marginal at best. I know I can stomp on the rudder in mine
> and take both feet off and it takes a long time for it to start pointing
> into the wind again. I wonder how an extra 10" of nose would affect
> that.
>
> Jack Phillips
> Intrigued by the notion of a better airfoil to get more climb out of my
> heavy Piet
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
> Willis
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 4:08 PM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Don's post on Riblett pitching moment
>
>
> --> <timothywillis@earthlink.net>
>
> Hans,
>
> Those are good points. Here's my take:
>
> 1. I want the Riblett wing, if I can use it, to have a better airplane
> (IMO).
>
> 2. I have to move the motor mounts forward, and the wings back, etc.,
> no matter which wing I am using, IF:
>
> a) I am using the light Continental A-65 engine;
> b) I continue to weigh too damned much;
> c) as you say, I leave it a two-place airplane.
>
> 3. I have fleetingly thought of making it single-place, to solve these
> issues in one fell swoop. [I would have had to do it with my earlier
> short fuzed Piet.] Making it single-place would also allow for thicker
> and more comfortable upholstery. Only one thing stops me-- where would
> I stow those Victoria Secret models and the like, who, as well all know,
> are attracted to Pietenpols, and can thus tolerate such an ugly pilot as
> me, for the ride?
>
> On a more realistic (harumph) note, Corky had mounted the panel
> including instruments, the stick, etc., with excellent placement, and I
> hate to mess with any of that. And it might butcher the plane at this
> stage.
>
> Thanks for the input, and I will keep it well in mind.
>
> Argh. Every change ripples, and the ripples have ripples, and eddies of
> their own.
>
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
>>Sent: Dec 19, 2006 2:33 PM
>>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Don's post on Riblett pitching moment
>>
>>--> <hans.vander.voort@alfalaval.com>
>>
>>Tim,
>>
>>Rather than adapting other airfoils, redesigning wings or longer motor
>>mounts.
>>
>>Would it not be much easier to move the rear seat forward ?
>>
>>The gross weight of a Pietenpol is around 1100 lbs
>>Average empty weight being 650 Lbs
>>Leaves 375 Lbs for pilot(s) and 75 Lbs of fuel.
>>
>>Heavy pilots will have to find (very) light passengers. Convert the
>>front seat space to baggage space and enjoy the Piet by yourself.
>>
>>Just my two cents.
>>
>>Hans
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________
>
>
> --
> 12/19/2006 1:17 PM
>
Message 14
| 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: Riblett airfoil |
Not quite. It's designed for a smaller engine.
Shorter wing.
Shorter fuse.
Lighter.
When dealing with engines and weight you should
REALLY study these formulie and punch some
numbers in. Remember, the real HP of Lycs and
Continentals is a minimum of 20% less than rated
and the "A" put out 36 hp.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/Part5/Standards/549/sub-b.htm#549.109
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leon Stefan" <lshutks@webtv.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 2:06 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Riblett airfoil
>
> Tim Willis: Hans sort of has a good point, but even better how about
> eliminating the rear cockpit all together, At 270 lbs I doubt your Piet
> could ever carry a passenger very well at all. (no offense meant) I've
> always thought a more practical Sky Scout is an Aircamper with only a
> front cockpit. Leon S. In Ks. anticipating another big winter storm.
>
>
> --
> 12/19/2006 1:17 PM
>
>
Message 15
| 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: you are a experimental airplane builder =?iso-8859-1?Q?if=85? |
At 09:32 PM 12/19/2006, you wrote:
>- You haven=99t parked your car in your garage in years.
A garage is for cars?
Dave
N36078 '41 BC-12-65
Message 16
| 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: Don's airfoil post |
Hey Dan,
Stick with the wing you've built. You won't be sorry. The flatlands of
Illinois don't require aggressive climb rates.
You will have fun no matter which airfoil you use. Don't think of the
BHP airfoil as inferior, think of it as unique.
NX18235 has the original airfoil and I'm perfectly happy.
Greg Cardinal
Minneapolis
----- Original Message -----
From: HelsperSew@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 4:07 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Don's airfoil post
Guys,
Seeing as it has taken me these six looooong years to get this far on
my Piet, with the wing being completed first, I myself am in no humor to
make a new wing. I still have a few years to go the way it is. I think
I'll stick with Bernie's wing and not upset the gods (my wife).
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
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! --
|