Pietenpol-List Digest Archive

Fri 03/09/07


Total Messages Posted: 37



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 04:09 AM - Re: A.S.S. Does it again. (Aircraft Spruce) (Gene & Tammy)
     2. 04:30 AM - Scott S's experiece w/ Aircraft Spruce (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC])
     3. 04:32 AM - Oscar (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC])
     4. 04:33 AM - model A carb  (Douwe Blumberg)
     5. 04:48 AM - Re: Axel location Clarifications (gcardinal)
     6. 04:49 AM - tailpost height above groun (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC])
     7. 05:17 AM - Re: Scott S's experiece w/ Aircraft Spruce (Glenn Thomas)
     8. 05:20 AM - Re: tailpost height above groun (Gene & Tammy)
     9. 06:57 AM - Weight and balance advise (Rick Holland)
    10. 07:29 AM - Take heart Chris: Wood Gear Leg Nighmares  (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC])
    11. 07:31 AM - Aircraft Spruce (KMHeide, BA, CPO, FAAOP)
    12. 07:31 AM - Tail wheel spring Part # (Dave Abramson)
    13. 07:48 AM - Re: Tail wheel spring Part # (Phillips, Jack)
    14. 08:44 AM - Take heart- gear leg nightmare (HelsperSew@aol.com)
    15. 09:39 AM - Dues (KMHeide, BA, CPO, FAAOP)
    16. 09:59 AM - Re: Dues (Steve Eldredge)
    17. 10:20 AM - Aircraft Spruce 15 years' exp (Steve Eldredge)
    18. 10:28 AM - Piet pics on the web (Bill Church)
    19. 10:52 AM - FW: Re: Main Landing Gear Length (Bill Church)
    20. 11:04 AM - Re: FW: Re: Main Landing Gear Length (Phillips, Jack)
    21. 11:29 AM - Re: Weight and balance advise (Gordon Bowen)
    22. 11:43 AM - Re: Aircraft Spruce 15 years' exp (Gordon Bowen)
    23. 11:43 AM - Re: Main Landing Gear Length (Steve Eldredge)
    24. 12:03 PM - Re: Weight and balance advise (amsafetyc@aol.com)
    25. 01:04 PM - Re: Main Landing Gear Length (Catdesigns)
    26. 02:42 PM - Steel vs Wood (Perry Rhoads)
    27. 03:06 PM - Re: Steel vs Wood (Gordon Bowen)
    28. 03:08 PM - Re: Steel vs Wood (Catdesigns)
    29. 03:10 PM - Re: Axel location Clarifications (Catdesigns)
    30. 04:28 PM - Re: Axel location Clarifications (BScott116@aol.com)
    31. 04:39 PM - Re: Steel vs Wood (Dave Abramson)
    32. 04:41 PM - Re: registration information (Dick Navratil)
    33. 04:53 PM - Re: FW: Re: Main Landing Gear Length (Eric Williams)
    34. 06:57 PM - Re: Main Landing Gear Length (Rick Holland)
    35. 07:22 PM - Re: Main Landing Gear Length- baby bear's view (Rick Holland)
    36. 08:07 PM - Re: Steel vs Wood (Roman Bukolt)
    37. 09:32 PM - Re: Main Landing Gear Length (Don Emch)
 
 
 


Message 1


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 04:09:35 AM PST US
    From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey@bellsouth.net>
    Subject: Re: A.S.S. Does it again. (Aircraft Spruce)
    Bottom line Aircraft Spruce may be learning, "Don't piss off the Pietenpolers, they stick together as a group and if you mess with them, you could lose a lot of customers." Gene ----- Original Message ----- From: Matt Reeves To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 6:12 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: A.S.S. Does it again. (Aircraft Spruce) I think it's awesome that builders' lists and idea forums get this type of customer service and follow up. Aircraft Spruce is truly on the "cutting edge" of listening to their customers and actually doing something about it. In this world of instant messaging, blogs, and communications, it's nice to have a company that really does care and realizes the importance of customer needs. Matt Rochester, NY Aircraft Spruce <info@aircraftspruce.com> wrote: A customer of ours recently posted a comment to the Pietenpol group about a backorder that was cancelled by Aircraft Spruce. Our Customer Service department attempted to contact the customer by phone to advise that the shipping on the one piece of tubing would be expensive, and to ask if we could cut it for shipping. When they id not receive a reply, they cancelled the backorder and notified the customer by email. Unfortunately, they did not identify the item that was on backorder, which led our customer to believe that other items (hardware) were backordered, when they actually were shipped. We have extended our apology to our customer and have shipped the backordered tubing at our expense. We greatly appreciate all the business we receive from Pietenpol builders and if there is ever a question or concern regarding an order, the Aircraft Spruce Customer Service department is ready to help. Contact us at 877-477-7823 or customerservice@aircraftspruce.com. Aircraft Spruce Customer Service ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.


    Message 2


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 04:30:13 AM PST US
    Subject: Scott S's experiece w/ Aircraft Spruce
    From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC]" <michael.d.cuy@nasa.gov>
    Scott's repeated difficulties with Aircraft Spruce mirror the issues that caused me to quickly stop purchasing ANYTHING from them unless nobody else carried it. I couldn't believe the utter incompetence and lack of communication, good aircraft part knowledge, and difficulty in getting incorrect or backordered issues resolved. I am encouraged to hear that some, like Walt Evans, have had better experiences with ACS and it appears that they are making attempts to improve customer satisfaction. After getting burned a few times from ACS I found that they had an outstanding Customer Service Center located near St. Louis called WICKS Aircraft !!!!!!! Mike C.


    Message 3


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 04:32:57 AM PST US
    Subject: Oscar
    From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC]" <michael.d.cuy@nasa.gov>
    Go flying, would you ? xoxoxo Mike C.


    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
    Time: 04:33:32 AM PST US
    From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg@earthlink.net>
    Subject: model A carb
    Oops, Just read my posting of yesterday and apologize for my typo. The weber carb used is a 3236. Douwe


    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
    Time: 04:48:34 AM PST US
    From: "gcardinal" <gcardinal@comcast.net>
    Subject: Re: Axel location Clarifications
    We must have been using rulers from Harbor Freight....... The axel location on NX18235 is 20" aft of the firewall. This was recorded during the W&B excercise. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Catdesigns" <catdesigns@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 12:14 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Axel location Clarifications > <catdesigns@comcast.net> > > Hi, it's me again. Just a few last questions. After searching the archives > there are some things that need to be clarified about axel placement. > > Greg Cardinal's and Dale Johnson's axel location sems to float around in > the archives. I've seen pictures of the plane and I know the axel is in a > fixed position.


    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
    Time: 04:49:12 AM PST US
    Subject: tailpost height above groun
    From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC]" <michael.d.cuy@nasa.gov>
    Chris, I don't have any measurements from the bottom of my tailpost to ground but perhaps this photo might help. The photo of Jack Phillips plane might help too if we can ask Jack what the height of his wheels (mains) are, then you can easily get a decent calculation of the height of his tailpost (bottom longerons) above ground. So we now have msl, agl, and atl: above tailwheel level. Mike C.


    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
    Time: 05:17:12 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Scott S's experiece w/ Aircraft Spruce
    From: "Glenn Thomas" <glennthomas@flyingwood.com>
    While I appreciate Aircraft Spruce's attempt to heroicly salvage a customer relationship before all of us potential customers on the forum, I have to say that I have made 2 orders for wood. One for my capstrip and one for a single piece of 1/2" x 1/2" capstrip (for the rib nose blocks). I scrutinize everything and it was obvious to me that both orders contained substandard would (grain density, grain inconsistencies, and imperfections/damage from the cutting process). Armed with information from their own site and AC43.13 I was unable to get them to replace anything. Once I sent them a link to pictures on my website and THEN things started to move. Glad some people didn't go through the hell I did but I echo Mike. To me great customer service doesn't mean they will be happy to make good on their screw-ups. It means a commitment to less screw-ups which I have seen no evidence of. I have yet to hear about anyone unhappy with Wicks. -------- Glenn Thomas N????? http://www.flyingwood.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=99606#99606


    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
    Time: 05:20:46 AM PST US
    From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey@bellsouth.net>
    Subject: Re: tailpost height above groun
    What a beautiful airplane! Gene N502R ----- Original Message ----- From: Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC] To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 6:48 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: tailpost height above groun Chris, I don't have any measurements from the bottom of my tailpost to ground but perhaps this photo might help. The photo of Jack Phillips plane might help too if we can ask Jack what the height of his wheels (mains) are, then you can easily get a decent calculation of the height of his tailpost (bottom longerons) above ground. So we now have msl, agl, and atl: above tailwheel level. Mike C.


    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
    Time: 06:57:00 AM PST US
    From: "Rick Holland" <at7000ft@gmail.com>
    Subject: Weight and balance advise
    Guys Have just done a preliminary weighting of my uncovered airframe to figure out where to place my corvair engine so I can make my motor mount. I want to try to keep my cabanes vertical. Question is where do I want my CG point to end up? Obviously between 15 and 20 inches aft of the LE. I am using a 17 gallon cowl fuel tank so I have calculated with me in the back seat (a little over 200 lbs) and minimal fuel (say 2 gallons, 12 lbs), if the CG is at the rear limit of 20" then with a full tank the CG will be in the center of the range around 17 1/2". However doing it this way could lead to a rearward CG problem with minimal fuel and heavier pilots (or a heavier me some day). So I can have the minimal fuel CG an inch ahead of the rear limit (19") and still be in the range with full fuel but that would limit lighter weight pilots with full fuel (although I don't know any lightweight pilots, what is the lightest Piet pilot you guys have ever seen?). Am leaning toward designing for the minimum fuel CG an inch ahead of the rear limit but would appreciate any advise. Rick -- Rick Holland "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"


    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
    Time: 07:29:38 AM PST US
    Subject: Take heart Chris: Wood Gear Leg Nighmares
    From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC]" <michael.d.cuy@nasa.gov>
    Chris, Maybe you can take comfort in the fact that your multiple attempts at making your wood gear legs wasn't done ALL in spruce like this dummy did. I thought I was good enough to make the first set right from spruce----Hah, yeah right ! Speaking of Wicks, they were really good to ship me out one set of spruce blanks after the other each time I screwed the gear legs up and finally on the third try I got the charm. Those compound angle cuts are totally unforgiving if you go the slightest bit too short---nothing fits. The wood gear legs (for me anyway) were the single most difficult part of the entire airplane but you can be assured that your type of gear legs with the wire wheels will set your airplane apart from every single other airplane and it is the very first thing that people will admire and enjoy talking about, looking at, and taking pictures of. Mike C. PS....the wood gear and wire wheels were well worth all the troubles, headaches, gnashing of teeth, and money.


    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
    Time: 07:31:11 AM PST US
    From: "KMHeide, BA, CPO, FAAOP" <kmheidecpo@yahoo.com>
    Subject: Aircraft Spruce
    Pieters..... Dan and I have ordered wood from Aircraft Spruce and did find some shortages in the order. They corrected the problem relatively quick. A.S.S. needs to understand the customers point of view and trust those of us who have problems rather than lump everyone into the category of "unbelievable" or "not our problem" attitude. Somewhere in my medical practice....we were once told that if you listen well the patient will diagnose themselves and tell you enough information to fix the problem....I believe it was called "Customer Service." Just my opinion..... Ken H Fargo, ND --------------------------------- Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.


    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
    Time: 07:31:30 AM PST US
    From: "Dave Abramson" <davea@symbolicdisplays.com>
    Subject: Tail wheel spring Part #
    Hello Everyone! Is there an "off the shelf" part # for a tail wheel leaf spring? I have seen quite a few people using them. Seems like a simpler and cleaner set up than the original. Thanks, Dave


    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
    Time: 07:48:51 AM PST US
    Subject: Tail wheel spring Part #
    From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
    I originally used a leaf spring type tailwheel spring until I damaged the gear in a forced landing. The resulting groundloop (after the main axle broke) wiped the tailwheel off the fuselage, damaging one of the longerons in the process. I had originally used a set of springs of a Piper PA-12 Super Cruiser and they worked fine. When I rebuilt it I went to the original Pietenpol swing-arm type design, modified for a tailwheel instead of a skid. I rebuilt it after my first attempt because it simply couldn't handle steering loads without twisting badly (per Steve Eldridge's comments a couple of days ago). The new version (which is still on the plane) has heavy .049" wall tubing with across member welded in place near the hinge points to keep it from twisting. Even with the heavy tubing, the Pietenpol design is lighter than a leaf spring (those things are really heavy), and it works better for a wooden structure. The leaf spring design works well for steel tubing fuselages, but the leaf spring puts an awful lot of load in just one place when heavy side loads are applied (e.g., in a groundloop). If you are certain you will never groundloop (no taildragger ever does that, right?), it is fine. Jack Phillips NX899JP -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Abramson Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 10:31 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Tail wheel spring Part # <davea@symbolicdisplays.com> Hello Everyone! Is there an "off the shelf" part # for a tail wheel leaf spring? I have seen quite a few people using them. Seems like a simpler and cleaner set up than the original. Thanks, Dave _________________________________________________


    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
    Time: 08:44:14 AM PST US
    From: HelsperSew@aol.com
    Subject: Take heart- gear leg nightmare
    Mike, I totally agree, that making those wood gear legs was the most difficult and frustrating thing about the whole airplane without a dout. I made mine four times, and although they look really good, I still could have been maybe one degree closer with my cuts. I also made the lower gear fittings three times. Here is some advice for those that have yet to make those lower gear fittings. Don't attempt to make them until you have the wood legs cut right. Then use paper patterns and make the fittings fit the gear legs that you have. Here is a pic that might help the fabrication process. Got some of these ideas from Mike C.and Jack P. (thank you). Dan Helsper Poplar Grove, IL Note two plumb bobs that piont to centerline drawn on 2 x 8 on floor. Ash cross pieces should "point" to the spot where the tail skid plate would be. (This according to the old timers at Brodhead) <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.


    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
    Time: 09:39:49 AM PST US
    From: "KMHeide, BA, CPO, FAAOP" <kmheidecpo@yahoo.com>
    Subject: Dues
    Matt, All of my posts are not showing up on the list for Pietenpolers. Do I need to pay for this service? Ken H Fargo, ND --------------------------------- Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.


    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
    Time: 09:59:09 AM PST US
    Subject: Dues
    From: "Steve Eldredge" <steve@byu.edu>
    Yes, please send Matt Dralle a donation in November. (even if you don't it should still work!) Steve E From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of KMHeide, BA, CPO, FAAOP Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 10:39 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Dues Matt, All of my posts are not showing up on the list for Pietenpolers. Do I need to pay for this service? Ken H Fargo, ND ________________________________ Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel <http://travel.yahoo.com/hotelsearchpage;_ylc=X3oDMTFtaTIzNXVjBF9TAzk3N D A3NTg5BF9zAzI3MTk0ODEEcG9zAzIEc2VjA21haWx0YWdsaW5lBHNsawNxMS0wNw--%0d%0a > to find your fit.


    Message 17


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 10:20:43 AM PST US
    Subject: Aircraft Spruce 15 years' exp
    From: "Steve Eldredge" <steve@byu.edu>
    No doubt others can top it, but I've been an Aircraft Spruce customer for 15 years. Just this morning as I was going through my receipts for my Stinson rebuild I flipped through probably 50-70 separate orders I've made to them. They have made some errors, I've made some too. They have made good on all the discrepancies. There was one time I mis-ordered and didn't discover it for over a month after receiving the 'wrong' parts. I called them up and they helped me fix my error. It was a $200 SIRS compass. They have priced matched a Comant antenna, and credited my CC after the sale $18. I have noticed that wood (spruce) sales have been a problem, but like others have said, they have corrected the issue. I don't recall having to get ill-tempered, though my patience has worn thin having to re-explain things as it goes up the chain. I have made several suggestions to them about their web site, and wishlists in particular. (a feature, buy the way that is really cool!) They have been courteous and respectful. I imagine there is a constant turn-over in front line order takers, and I think they are (on the whole) well trained. I have used Wicks, Dillsburg, WagAero, Chief, and others, and will continue to shop where I feel like. I think I hold suppliers up to a pretty tall standard, and most of the time AS&S measures up. What does it say about a company that will check its' pulse in the real world by monitoring groups like this? I know this isn't the first time. Check the archives and you might even find a post or two by Jim Irwin. No, they aren't perfect, but they sure are not among those who ignore their customers. I'm not paid or compensated for my opinions, and I know I'd be in a world of hurt without my free annual parts reference guide, er, AS&S catalog. Steve E.


    Message 18


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 10:28:28 AM PST US
    Subject: Piet pics on the web
    From: "Bill Church" <eng@canadianrogers.com>
    Just noticed that there are a batch of great new Pietenpol pictures on airport-data.com submitted by Mike Madrid (a professional photographer). Check out the shot of Chuck coming in for a landing in NX770CG! here's a link: http://www.airport-data.com/search/search3.html?code=pietenpol Bill C.


    Message 19


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 10:52:07 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: FW: Re: Main Landing Gear Length
    From: "Bill Church" <eng@canadianrogers.com>
    Here are a few pics that I imported into a CAD program, then sketched a few lines over the image, to approximate the "ground level" and the top longeron, then measured the angle. It's not really precise, since the pictures are not perfectly parallel to the planes, and the ground surface becomes "fuzzy" with grass, but it gives an approximation. One thing that becomes apparent is that there do seem to be variations in the resulting angles. About a 4 or 5 degree range, which backs up the calculations arrived at by Chris Tracy. Overall, I get the feeling that adegree or so this way or that from the target (13=B0) ain't gonna hurt. Bill C.


    Message 20


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 11:04:34 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: FW: Re: Main Landing Gear Length
    From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
    Pretty cool, Bill. Jack Phillips Hoping to fly NX899JP tomorrow -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-lis t-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Church Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 1:51 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: FW: Re: Main Landing Gear Length Here are a few pics that I imported into a CAD program, then sketched a few lines over the image, to approximate the "ground level" and the top longer on, then measured the angle. It's not really precise, since the pictures ar e not perfectly parallel to the planes, and the ground surface becomes "fuz zy" with grass, but it gives an approximation. One thing that becomes appar ent is that there do seem to be variations in the resulting angles. About a 4 or 5 degree range, which backs up the calculations arrived at by Chris T racy. Overall, I get the feeling that adegree or so this way or that from the tar get (13=B0) ain't gonna hurt. Bill C. _________________________________________________ This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privilege d, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it i n error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited. Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - N


    Message 21


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 11:29:22 AM PST US
    From: "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen@ptialaska.net>
    Subject: Re: Weight and balance advise
    Rick, I designed the motor mount about 4" longer than normal for a o-235 lyco so my weight (280lbs) with min. fuel would not get too close to the back end of the envelope. One of the guys that flys my Piete is about 150lbs and has to hold the nose up with back pressure on the stick when flying with full tanks (about 12" forward of LE wings). He has min. problems with authority of tail to control the plane's pitch. My trim tab could have been a bit bigger on the elevator to help with his problem, also a washer or two under the horiz stab front connecting point to fuse could help if lighter pilots fly plane most of the time. The flat plane of the horiz stab would act like a big trim tab if canted upward a few degrees at leading edge. I figure a light 100lb pilot would have trouble with my plane unless lead is added to the tail or the pilot sat on a block of lead. The most dangerous situation is not making the plane so it will always stall nose down. A flat tail heavy stall can't be recovered. So I recommend you extend the motor mount even more forward so you can fly from the back seat with max. 250 lbs, min. fuel and still not be back behind the cg envelope. Remember the coverings on the tail surfaces have a very long arm, plus the rear wheel has long arm. You could under compensate for this even with your 200lbs. It's easy to add weight to the tail later but harder to add weight to the nose area. Gordon ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Holland To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 5:55 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Weight and balance advise Guys Have just done a preliminary weighting of my uncovered airframe to figure out where to place my corvair engine so I can make my motor mount. I want to try to keep my cabanes vertical. Question is where do I want my CG point to end up? Obviously between 15 and 20 inches aft of the LE. I am using a 17 gallon cowl fuel tank so I have calculated with me in the back seat (a little over 200 lbs) and minimal fuel (say 2 gallons, 12 lbs), if the CG is at the rear limit of 20" then with a full tank the CG will be in the center of the range around 17 1/2". However doing it this way could lead to a rearward CG problem with minimal fuel and heavier pilots (or a heavier me some day). So I can have the minimal fuel CG an inch ahead of the rear limit (19") and still be in the range with full fuel but that would limit lighter weight pilots with full fuel (although I don't know any lightweight pilots, what is the lightest Piet pilot you guys have ever seen?). Am leaning toward designing for the minimum fuel CG an inch ahead of the rear limit but would appreciate any advise. Rick -- Rick Holland "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"


    Message 22


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 11:43:07 AM PST US
    From: "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen@ptialaska.net>
    Subject: Re: Aircraft Spruce 15 years' exp
    I too have to give Spruce a little credit they have due. Kinda hated to see Alexander Aero get sold to Spruce because it cut the competition and price stability. But been dealing with Spruce since mid-80's have had min. problems. Yes, a few order screw-ups but generally they were my fault, didn't ask the right questions about the item I was seeing in their catalog. Spruce always made good if it was their fault or mine. Always prompt return credits. It's a big complex business now, but it anyone is unhappy send a email directly to Jim Irwin or talk to him at Oshcash or SunFun. This homebuilding business would be totally lost without the likes of Spruce or Wicks etc. It took a lot of creativity for guys like Bernard Pietenpol and the other genius of the golden age of aviation to come up with flyable designs without the resource suppliers we homebuilders have today. Now if only the EAA worked as smoothly supporting scratch built homebuilders, it's a big business now too. Gordon Bowen ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Eldredge To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 9:20 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Aircraft Spruce 15 years' exp No doubt others can top it, but I've been an Aircraft Spruce customer for 15 years. Just this morning as I was going through my receipts for my Stinson rebuild I flipped through probably 50-70 separate orders I've made to them. They have made some errors, I've made some too. They have made good on all the discrepancies. There was one time I mis-ordered and didn't discover it for over a month after receiving the 'wrong' parts. I called them up and they helped me fix my error. It was a $200 SIRS compass. They have priced matched a Comant antenna, and credited my CC after the sale $18. I have noticed that wood (spruce) sales have been a problem, but like others have said, they have corrected the issue. I don't recall having to get ill-tempered, though my patience has worn thin having to re-explain things as it goes up the chain. I have made several suggestions to them about their web site, and wishlists in particular. (a feature, buy the way that is really cool!) They have been courteous and respectful. I imagine there is a constant turn-over in front line order takers, and I think they are (on the whole) well trained. I have used Wicks, Dillsburg, WagAero, Chief, and others, and will continue to shop where I feel like. I think I hold suppliers up to a pretty tall standard, and most of the time AS&S measures up. What does it say about a company that will check its' pulse in the real world by monitoring groups like this? I know this isn't the first time. Check the archives and you might even find a post or two by Jim Irwin. No, they aren't perfect, but they sure are not among those who ignore their customers. I'm not paid or compensated for my opinions, and I know I'd be in a world of hurt without my free annual parts reference guide, er, AS&S catalog. Steve E.


    Message 23


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 11:43:43 AM PST US
    Subject: Main Landing Gear Length
    From: "Steve Eldredge" <steve@byu.edu>
    Yep. I may be off on the tubing sizes. I increased both gauge and diameter, and added the cross member. Mine started failing due to the twist induced in turns on the ground. The 'V' cannot resist the torque, and bends just inboard of the spring near the V end. I couldn't imagine it until I saw it. Adding the cross member gives it the rigidity it needs. Steve E From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of HelsperSew@aol.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 2:02 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Main Landing Gear Length Steve, I used the.049 tubing. You still think it needs the extra member? Dan Helsper Poplar Grove, IL ________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL5326657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redir=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaol%2Ecom " target="_blank">AOL.com.


    Message 24


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 12:03:45 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Weight and balance advise
    From: amsafetyc@aol.com
    Okay Back on the road again in the later part of March. I'll be in the Atalanta area 25,26 and 27 then Tuscan 27,28,29 depart 30th am. Any flying piets or builders in the area that wouldn't mind showing off their piets or projects? Now that I have started building the plans are a little less user friendly and taking a look at a finished piet and getting measurements and pictures of a work in progress makes the task of understanding the drawings a bit more comprehensible. I look forward to visiting. Thanks John -----Original Message----- From: gbowen@ptialaska.net Sent: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 2:28 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Weight and balance advise Rick, I designed the motor mount about 4" longer than normal for a o-235 lyco so my weight (280lbs) with min. fuel would not get too close to the back end of the envelope. One of the guys that flys my Piete is about 150lbs and has to hold the nose up with back pressure on the stick when flying with full tanks (about 12" forward of LE wings). He has min. problems with authority of tail to control the plane's pitch. My trim tab could have been a bit bigger on the elevator to help with his problem, also a washer or two under the horiz stab front connecting point to fuse could help if lighter pilots fly plane most of the time. The flat plane of the horiz stab would act like a big trim tab if canted upward a few degrees at leading edge. I figure a light 100lb pilot would have trouble with my plane unless lead is added to the tail or the pilot sat on a block of lead. The most dangerous situation is not making the plane so it will always stall nose down. A flat tail heavy stall can 't be recovered. So I recommend you extend the motor mount even more forward so you can fly from the back seat with max. 250 lbs, min. fuel and still not be back behind the cg envelope. Remember the coverings on the tail surfaces have a very long arm, plus the rear wheel has long arm. You could under compensate for this even with your 200lbs. It's easy to add weight to the tail later but harder to add weight to the nose area. Gordon ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Holland Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 5:55 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Weight and balance advise Guys Have just done a preliminary weighting of my uncovered airframe to figure out where to place my corvair engine so I can make my motor mount. I want to try to keep my cabanes vertical. Question is where do I want my CG point to end up? Obviously between 15 and 20 inches aft of the LE. I am using a 17 gallon cowl fuel tank so I have calculated with me in the back seat (a little over 200 lbs) and minimal fuel (say 2 gallons, 12 lbs), if the CG is at the rear limit of 20" then with a full tank the CG will be in the center of the range around 17 1/2". However doing it this way could lead to a rearward CG problem with minimal fuel and heavier pilots (or a heavier me some day). So I can have the minimal fuel CG an inch ahead of the rear limit (19") and still be in the range with full fuel but that would limit lighter weight pilots with full fuel (although I don't know any lightweight pilots, what is the lightest Piet pilot you guys have ever seen?). Am leaning toward designing for the minimum fuel CG an inch ahead of the rear limit but would appreciate any advise. Rick -- Rick Holland "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad" href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.


    Message 25


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 01:04:13 PM PST US
    From: "Catdesigns" <catdesigns@comcast.net>
    Subject: Re: Main Landing Gear Length
    One more thing and I can't believe I forgot to mention this. The main reason for the 13 degree target is this is what the 1933 plans show. If you assume a 7-inch height to the tail skid using the height to the top longeron (51-inches) on Drawing 1 (Tall wheels) you can calculate a 13 degree deck angle. If you use the 48.5-inch measurement shown on drawing 3 for the smaller wheels it drops down to 12 degrees. These reduce to 12.5 and 11.5 if you assume a 8 inch skid height. If you use your protractor and measure the angle on the side view on Drawing 7 (small wheels), it is 12 degrees. However, when I measured the side view drawing on the cover sheet of the 1937 Air Camper with 1960 Corvair Engine, I only get 10 degrees. Chris Tracy Sacramento, Ca Website at http://www.Westcoastpiet.com


    Message 26


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 02:42:10 PM PST US
    From: "Perry Rhoads" <prhoads61@frontiernet.net>
    Subject: Steel vs Wood
    Gentlemen, I'm new to the Pietenpol world, and wonder why almost all of the Pietenpol photos I can find are of the wood fuselage and almost none with the steel tube fuselage. Are the steel tube versions less acceptable for some reason.? Are they heavier, lighter? Less "original Pietenpol"? Any comments on this subject would be appreciated. Perry Rhoads


    Message 27


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 03:06:50 PM PST US
    From: "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen@ptialaska.net>
    Subject: Re: Steel vs Wood
    Perry, N-1033B has a 4130 steel fuse, tail feathers, 0-235 engine and came in about 670 lbs with battery. Gordon ----- Original Message ----- From: Perry Rhoads To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 1:40 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Steel vs Wood Gentlemen, I'm new to the Pietenpol world, and wonder why almost all of the Pietenpol photos I can find are of the wood fuselage and almost none with the steel tube fuselage. Are the steel tube versions less acceptable for some reason.? Are they heavier, lighter? Less "original Pietenpol"? Any comments on this subject would be appreciated. Perry Rhoads


    Message 28


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 03:08:23 PM PST US
    From: "Catdesigns" <catdesigns@comcast.net>
    Subject: Re: Steel vs Wood
    Welcome to the group Perry I chose wood because I was familiar with wood working and didn't know how to weld. I would gather this is the reason why most choose the wood construction over steel. Chris Tracy Sacramento, Ca Website at http://www.Westcoastpiet.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Perry Rhoads To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 2:40 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Steel vs Wood Gentlemen, I'm new to the Pietenpol world, and wonder why almost all of the Pietenpol photos I can find are of the wood fuselage and almost none with the steel tube fuselage. Are the steel tube versions less acceptable for some reason.? Are they heavier, lighter? Less "original Pietenpol"? Any comments on this subject would be appreciated. Perry Rhoads


    Message 29


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 03:10:43 PM PST US
    From: "Catdesigns" <catdesigns@comcast.net>
    Subject: Re: Axel location Clarifications
    Thanks Greg Chris Tracy Sacramento, Ca Website at http://www.Westcoastpiet.com do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "gcardinal" <gcardinal@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 4:49 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Axel location Clarifications > > We must have been using rulers from Harbor Freight....... > > The axel location on NX18235 is 20" aft of the firewall. This was recorded > during the W&B excercise. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Catdesigns" <catdesigns@comcast.net> > To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com> > Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 12:14 AM > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Axel location Clarifications > > >> <catdesigns@comcast.net> >> >> Hi, it's me again. Just a few last questions. After searching the >> archives there are some things that need to be clarified about axel >> placement. >> >> Greg Cardinal's and Dale Johnson's axel location sems to float around in >> the archives. I've seen pictures of the plane and I know the axel is in >> a fixed position. > > >


    Message 30


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 04:28:00 PM PST US
    From: BScott116@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Axel location Clarifications
    Thanks for that information. I will be installing a Lambert 266 radial on my project--so will start from that number. Lowell Frank in Okauchee , WI has done this already , so I should ask him as well. Brent Scott <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.


    Message 31


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 04:39:43 PM PST US
    From: "Dave Abramson" <davea@symbolicdisplays.com>
    Subject: Steel vs Wood
    I have heard the steel tube fuselage is actually lighter than the wood! Believe it or not! Dave (Building with wood) -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Catdesigns Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 3:13 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Steel vs Wood Welcome to the group Perry I chose wood because I was familiar with wood working and didn't know how to weld. I would gather this is the reason why most choose the wood construction over steel. Chris Tracy Sacramento, Ca Website at http://www.Westcoastpiet.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Perry Rhoads <mailto:prhoads61@frontiernet.net> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 2:40 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Steel vs Wood Gentlemen, I'm new to the Pietenpol world, and wonder why almost all of the Pietenpol photos I can find are of the wood fuselage and almost none with the steel tube fuselage. Are the steel tube versions less acceptable for some reason.? Are they heavier, lighter? Less "original Pietenpol"? Any comments on this subject would be appreciated. Perry Rhoads href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronic s.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com


    Message 32


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 04:41:06 PM PST US
    From: "Dick Navratil" <horzpool@goldengate.net>
    Subject: Re: registration information
    So, if you fly under Sport Pilot, you still need bi-annual, right. I need both before the weather gets too good. Dick N. ----- Original Message ----- From: Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC] To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 1:31 PM Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: registration information Raymond-- I flew my piet under the Sport Pilot regs this past summer for a month while I was out of medical. I see no reason why you can't register your Piet as a regular airplane with a standard N number and if you want to fly it under the sport rule it already meets the criteria. Mike C.


    Message 33


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 04:53:55 PM PST US
    From: "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805@msn.com>
    Subject: Re: FW: Re: Main Landing Gear Length
    That's pretty clever Bill. Nice job. Eric W. (do not archive) >From: "Bill Church" <eng@canadianrogers.com> >To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com> >Subject: Pietenpol-List: FW: Re: Main Landing Gear Length >Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 13:51:25 -0500 > > >Here are a few pics that I imported into a CAD program, then sketched a few >lines over the image, to approximate the "ground level" and the top >longeron, then measured the angle. It's not really precise, since the >pictures are not perfectly parallel to the planes, and the ground surface >becomes "fuzzy" with grass, but it gives an approximation. One thing that >becomes apparent is that there do seem to be variations in the resulting >angles. About a 4 or 5 degree range, which backs up the calculations >arrived at by Chris Tracy. >Overall, I get the feeling that adegree or so this way or that from the >target (13) ain't gonna hurt. > >Bill C. ><< dnangle.jpg >> ><< ecvbangle.jpg >> ><< fpangle.jpg >> ><< jpangle.jpg >> ><< lwangle.jpg >> ><< smangle.jpg >> ><< wbangle.jpg >>


    Message 34


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:57:59 PM PST US
    From: "Rick Holland" <at7000ft@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: Main Landing Gear Length
    Hello Chris Mine is a long fuselage with split gear (8.0x6 tires) and a leaf spring tailwheel (like Mikeys), the deck angle is 11.5 degrees and here are the measurements: Vertical measure from floor to front landing gear attach fitting at longeron: 30" Rear attach fitting: 24" Floor to bottom of tail post: 12" Floor to center of main gear axles: 9" Distance front landing gear fitting to tailpost: 161" Rick On 3/8/07, Catdesigns <Catdesigns@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > Hi All, > > I am working on installing the wood style landing gear. According to my > calculations to get a deck angle of 13 degrees I need the bottom of the axel > to be 22 inches below the fuselage, measured down from the front fitting > perpendicular to the upper longeron with the upper longeron level. This > will require lengthening the wood landing gear 6.75 inches. If I compare > my axel location to the split axel gear, it is a 5-inch extension. The need > for this appears to be mostly due to the height of my tail wheel being 12 > inches, or 4.5-inches taller then the stock tail skid. > > Did anyone else lengthen the gear this much? Anyone see a problem in > adding this much length? I should also add I widened the gear 6-inches to > keep the same geometry in gear width. > > A search of the archives on this leads to some specific questions: > > Don Emch, you said you have a deck angle of 15 degrees and a tail > wheel. Did you lengthen your gear and if so how much. Or is your high deck > angle due only to the tall wheels. > > Jack Phillips, you mentioned having to add a step to get in with a 12 to > 13 degree deck angle, did you lengthen your gear and if so how much? > > Mike Cuy, searching the archives you say your plane sits at 13 degrees and > later say 11 to 12 degrees is where you set your deck angle. Which one is > it and did you have to lengthen your gear legs to get it? > > Rick Holland, you mentioned that your lower longeron is 32-inches from the > ground with a deck angle of 12 degrees. Where did you measure this from and > did you lengthen your gear? > > Thanks > > Chris Tracy > > -------- > Chris Tracy > WestCoastPiet.com > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=99477#99477 > > -- Rick Holland "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"


    Message 35


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:22:00 PM PST US
    From: "Rick Holland" <at7000ft@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: Main Landing Gear Length- baby bear's view
    Chris You are just like me as far as the "busines staff meeting Piet design sessions", I have more landing gear, fuel tank, etc. design diagrams in my work notebook than computer algorithms. Beats being bored stiff at work. Rick On 3/8/07, Catdesigns <catdesigns@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > Oscar, > > Your absolutely right. I tell my self to stop trying to be so perfect but > I > often refer to my self as the "Imperfect Perfectionist". I just have to > have it right or I don't like it and rarely do I like anything I do > because > I know I could do it better if I did it again. The new gear legs will be > the third set I will make. I've gotten quite good at it, if I do say so > my > self. The first set were out of pine (2x4's) and the second are spruce > but > to long. The last will be spruce. I will move on accepting that they may > not be perfect but I can live with that. > > Actually, I truly enjoy the planning, the thinking, and the endless > sketches > of airplane parts (usually at work during meetings). Everywhere in my > cube > are pictures of plane parts, notes on how to do this and how to do that, > old > NACA papers and old EAA articles. Do you have any idea how excited I was > to > find a copy of ANC 18 and 19? That was a good day.I think I enjoy this as > much as I enjoy thinking about flying it when its done. > > By the way, if I saved all this building for the winter, I don't how I > could > get all this work in the one month of winter here in California. Today's > high 60's Saturday mid 70's. Sunday maybe 80. > > Thanks for the dimensions and the kick in the butt to get er' done. I > waste > most of my time thinking way to much. > > Chris Tracy > Sacramento, Ca > Website at http://www.Westcoastpiet.com > Do not archive > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags@hotmail.com> > To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 7:32 PM > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Main Landing Gear Length- baby bear's view > > > > <taildrags@hotmail.com> > > > > Chris wrote- > > > >>Mike is at 13.5, Brian is just under 12 , Frank P. is just about 15 > >>degrees. > >>Knowing Mike to be closer to 12 degrees, I assume these estimates to be > >>a little steeper then reality. We know Jack is at 13 and Greg and Dale > >>are > >>at 12.5. Dom Emch has the steepest at 15. He also reported Frank P. > >>to be about the same as his. Chuck G. at 11 degrees said it was a bit > >>harder > >>to get a good full stall landing. > > > > Mama Bear's bed is too soft, Papa Bear's bed is too hard, but Baby > Bear's > > bed (NX41CC, at 12.2 degrees deck angle sitting in the hangar, top > > longeron) is just right! This airplane lands just about perfectly and I > > haven't hit the tailwheel first yet. Sitting in the hangar in normal > > trim, the dimension from the bottom of the aftmost edge of the tailpost > to > > the hangar floor is 12-1/2". > > > > What is funny is that I want to write in BIG, BOLD LETTERS the same > thing > > I heard so many times as long as I've been a homebuilder but never an > > experimental airplane flyer... "JUST FINISH THE AIRPLANE AND FLY > IT-! YOU > > WILL NEVER STOP SMILING!". Gone are the endless discussions about this > > and that, nuts and bolts, possible improvements. 41CC is pretty close > to > > a real authentic "Improved Plans Built" Air Camper and it flies > > beautifully. It isn't perfect, isn't the right airplane for everyone, > > isn't an instrument platform, will tax you on a long cross-country, but > if > > you know you're a Pietenpol person already, hurry up and finish your > > airplane because it will scratch your itch and tickle your fancy just > > right. Finish it and fly it, then you can improve and tweak it later! > > Winter time is for modifying and reworking, but we're now getting into > > springtime and that means flying so just put the glue on the wood or it > > will never start curing. > > > > Oscar Zuniga > > San Antonio, TX > > mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com > > website at http://www.flysquirrel.net > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more..then map the best > > route! http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag1&FORM=MGAC01 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Rick Holland "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"


    Message 36


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:07:22 PM PST US
    From: "Roman Bukolt" <conceptmodels@tds.net>
    Subject: Re: Steel vs Wood
    I have aPiet built from steel tubing powered with a Cont. A-65, and a 30 Ft. wing. It weighs 670 lb. Bill Rewey has a Piet built with all wood powered by a Cont. A-65 and a 30 ft. wing and It weighs 670 lb. About the one benefit my tube fuse has over the wood one is that it has a door for the front cockpit. Roman Bukolt NX20795 ----- Original Message ----- From: Gordon Bowen To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 5:06 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Steel vs Wood Perry, N-1033B has a 4130 steel fuse, tail feathers, 0-235 engine and came in about 670 lbs with battery. Gordon ----- Original Message ----- From: Perry Rhoads To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 1:40 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Steel vs Wood Gentlemen, I'm new to the Pietenpol world, and wonder why almost all of the Pietenpol photos I can find are of the wood fuselage and almost none with the steel tube fuselage. Are the steel tube versions less acceptable for some reason.? Are they heavier, lighter? Less "original Pietenpol"? Any comments on this subject would be appreciated. Perry Rhoads href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com


    Message 37


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 09:32:58 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Main Landing Gear Length
    From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir@aol.com>
    Hi Chris, My gear is the steel split axle basically right off of the plans. I'm using 19" rims with a 3.20/3.60 tire which makes the total tire height somewhere around 26". I went this route because of a picture I saw several years ago of Mr. Pietenpol's 12988 that he built. He used the split axle gear with wire wheels. My deck angle is around 15 degrees. Over the nose visibility isn't the best in the three-point but it's easy to get used to. The landing characteristics are really nice as long as I get it slow enough to stall into the three-point touchdown, which with a little headwind seems ridiculously slow. Not too long ago Frank Pavliga and I were discussing how similar our deck angles were and how the view out of each others ships on the ground is almost the same. He did mention that he used to have a different gear on his. It was intentionally built with the axle moved forward. They didn't like that so they built one with the correct proportions. They did make it proportional though to the longer fuselage. The Flying and Glider Manual gear was designed for the shorter Flying and Glider Manual fuelage. It is shorter than the short version of the 1933 plans. Frank said he simply took the measurements from that original gear and scaled them up to match the correct proportions of the longest fuselage (the Corvair '60s fuselage). This gave the deck angle on his that would have been similar to what would have been on the shortest fuselage Flying and Glider Manual ship. He is currently running 21" rims. He used to have 18" rims, but those are now on the Waco 9. My tailpost is probably somewhere around 9 or 10 inches off the ground. Probably a couple inces higher than just having a skid. It's a 4" wheel and I kept the spring pretty short. http://westcoastpiet.com/images/Don%20Emch/dscn0380_596.jpg Chris, I really enjoy your website. It's really great of you to provide this resource to everyone. I know I could not have built mine without being able to see other projects. Really looking forward to our field firming up a little so I can get it dirty again! Don Emch Nx899DE Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=99751#99751




    Other Matronics Email List Services

  • Post A New Message
  •   pietenpol-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm
  • Web Forum Interface To Lists
  •   http://forums.matronics.com
  • Matronics List Wiki
  •   http://wiki.matronics.com
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/pietenpol-list
  • Browse Pietenpol-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Live Online Chat!
  •   http://www.matronics.com/chat
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contribution

    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! --