Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:07 AM - Question about short fuse with a Corvair (Ryan Mueller)
2. 04:30 AM - Re: Question about short fuse with a Corvair (RAMPEYBOY@aol.com)
3. 07:20 AM - Re: Question about short fuse with a Corvair (Skip Gadd)
4. 07:22 AM - Re: Question about short fuse with a Corvair (Roman Bukolt)
5. 08:02 AM - Re: Question about short fuse with a Corvair (Ryan Mueller)
6. 08:08 AM - Re: Question about short fuse with a Corvair (RAMPEYBOY@aol.com)
7. 08:32 AM - Re: Question about short fuse with a Corvair (Max Hegler)
8. 08:35 AM - Re: Question about short fuse with a Corvair (Max Hegler)
9. 09:54 AM - Re: Question about short fuse with a Corvair (Ryan Mueller)
10. 10:18 AM - Re: Question about short fuse with a Corvair (Ryan Mueller)
11. 10:38 AM - Re: Question about short fuse with a Corvair (Roman Bukolt)
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: | Question about short fuse with a Corvair |
I have a question regarding the need for the long fuselage when using a Corvair
engine. Based on most of what I have read, the justification is that the long
fuselage was developed to meet W&B requirements when using the Corvair/Continentals.
What I fail to understand is how having a longer fuselage helps that issue, for
this reason: lengthening the fuselage increases the moments for any weight that
is moved aft. Therefore the structure of a long fuselage would have more wood
farther aft of the datum than not, for lack of better phrasing. In addition,
having the rear cockpit farther aft will only increase the arm of the pilot's
weight. I don't see how moving more weight farther aft to compensate for a lighter
engine up front computes.
I understand the long fuse has more room inside. I was able to sit in the Last
Original at Brodhead and had a generous amount of legroom, and my wife is shorter
than I was, so I don't think the short fuse would cramp us. We would then
be able to build a lighter aircraft. Finally, I would think at my weight (220)
I would have to take less drastic measures to get a short fuse Corvair Piet to
balance out than a long fuselage version. Any thoughts?
Ryan
---------------------------------
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news,
photos & more.
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: Question about short fuse with a Corvair |
Ryan, I'm glad you asked this question. I have been studying the Pietenpol
for a while now, and have wondered the same thing! I look forward to hearing
everyone's responses!
Boyce
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: | Question about short fuse with a Corvair |
Ryan,
The small Continentals may be lighter than a Model A, but if you put a starter
and charging system on a Corvair it will be about the same weight as the ford.
I am building the Flying & Glider fuselage which is almost a foot shorter than
the Corvair fuse and I am going to use the Corvair. I agree that the short fuse
should be easier to get the CG correct. The tail post of the corvair fuse is
over 5" further aft of the pilot then the shorter fuselages.
Skip
I have a question regarding the need for the long fuselage when using a Corvair
engine. Based on most of what I have read, the justification is that the long
fuselage was developed to meet W&B requirements when using the Corvair/Continentals.
Ryan
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: Question about short fuse with a Corvair |
The Corvair engine weight about 230 lbs.
The Continental weighs about 170 lbs.
To keep the C.G. no further aft then 33% of the chord, you must offset
the heavier Corvair with more weight in the the tail.
My Piet was originally built long to accomodate a Corvair. Even then
added weight was installed way back in the tail.
Then the Corvair froze up and and was replaced with a Cont. A-65. When
I bought the plane the C.G. was at 39%. Seriously tail heavy. Luckily
I had Bill Rewey doing the landings and take offs when we flew the plane
back to Madison, Wi. from Iowa.
Since then I corrected the C.G. by installing a 30lb. 12v battery on the
firewall.
The C.G. is the balance point. All the weight ahead of the C.G. must
equal all the weight aft of the C.G.
The heavier engine in front requires more weight aft. A longer moment
aft requires les weight than a short moment aft.
And lightness is a good thing.
Heaviness is not a good thing. The longer the moment, the less weight
required.
Roman Bukolt NX20795
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Mueller
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 6:06 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Question about short fuse with a Corvair
I have a question regarding the need for the long fuselage when using
a Corvair engine. Based on most of what I have read, the justification
is that the long fuselage was developed to meet W&B requirements when
using the Corvair/Continentals.
What I fail to understand is how having a longer fuselage helps that
issue, for this reason: lengthening the fuselage increases the moments
for any weight that is moved aft. Therefore the structure of a long
fuselage would have more wood farther aft of the datum than not, for
lack of better phrasing. In addition, having the rear cockpit farther
aft will only increase the arm of the pilot's weight. I don't see how
moving more weight farther aft to compensate for a lighter engine up
front computes.
I understand the long fuse has more room inside. I was able to sit in
the Last Original at Brodhead and had a generous amount of legroom, and
my wife is shorter than I was, so I don't think the short fuse would
cramp us. We would then be able to build a lighter aircraft. Finally, I
would think at my weight (220) I would have to take less drastic
measures to get a short fuse Corvair Piet to balance out than a long
fuselage version. Any thoughts?
Ryan
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: Question about short fuse with a Corvair |
Regarding what you said about offsetting the heaver Corvair with more weight in
the tail....
A Corvair engine is heavier than a Continental, yes. The long fuse was designed
with the Corvair in mind, but since the Corvair is approximately 15 to 20 pounds
lighter than Model A, why the need for the longer fuselage?
As best I can figure, a Corvair with a short fuselage would therefore potentially
be tail heavy (since there is a little less weight forward of the CG), which
would be corrected by lengthening the engine mount (to extend the moment of
the engine) and/or adjusting the cabane struts.
If, in order to correct it, you then lengthen the fuselage and put more structure
aft of the CG, in addition to moving the pilot slightly farther aft, this would
only exacerbate an already tail heavy condition. Am I confused in my thinking?
Ryan
Roman Bukolt <conceptmodels@tds.net> wrote: The Corvair engine weight about
230 lbs.
The Continental weighs about 170 lbs.
To keep the C.G. no further aft then 33% of the chord, you must offset the heavier
Corvair with more weight in the the tail.
My Piet was originally built long to accomodate a Corvair. Even then added weight
was installed way back in the tail.
Then the Corvair froze up and and was replaced with a Cont. A-65. When I bought
the plane the C.G. was at 39%. Seriously tail heavy. Luckily I had Bill
Rewey doing the landings and take offs when we flew the plane back to Madison,
Wi. from Iowa.
Since then I corrected the C.G. by installing a 30lb. 12v battery on the firewall.
The C.G. is the balance point. All the weight ahead of the C.G. must equal all
the weight aft of the C.G.
The heavier engine in front requires more weight aft. A longer moment aft requires
les weight than a short moment aft.
And lightness is a good thing.
Heaviness is not a good thing. The longer the moment, the less weight required.
Roman Bukolt NX20795
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Mueller
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 6:06 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Question about short fuse with a Corvair
I have a question regarding the need for the long fuselage when using a Corvair
engine. Based on most of what I have read, the justification is that the
long fuselage was developed to meet W&B requirements when using the Corvair/Continentals.
What I fail to understand is how having a longer fuselage helps that issue,
for this reason: lengthening the fuselage increases the moments for any weight
that is moved aft. Therefore the structure of a long fuselage would have
more wood farther aft of the datum than not, for lack of better phrasing.
In addition, having the rear cockpit farther aft will only increase the arm
of the pilot's weight. I don't see how moving more weight farther aft to
compensate for a lighter engine up front computes.
I understand the long fuse has more room inside. I was able to sit in the Last
Original at Brodhead and had a generous amount of legroom, and my wife is
shorter than I was, so I don't think the short fuse would cramp us. We would
then be able to build a lighter aircraft. Finally, I would think at my
weight (220) I would have to take less drastic measures to get a short fuse
Corvair Piet to balance out than a long fuselage version. Any thoughts?
Ryan
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
---------------------------------
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Question about short fuse with a Corvair |
Maybe the intentions were multi point. Maybe the motor mount is lengthened
to accommodate the lighter engine. While he was at it, he says to himself, hey
some of these guys would like a little more leg room, so why not make the
fuselage longer too....
So, the longer fuselage wasn't necessarily because of the engine change,
but rather a actual revision of the designed features? Just a guess!
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Question about short fuse with a Corvair |
Does anyone have the firewall-to-tailpost length for both fuselages?
Max
----- Original Message -----
From: RAMPEYBOY@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Question about short fuse with a Corvair
Maybe the intentions were multi point. Maybe the motor mount is
lengthened to accommodate the lighter engine. While he was at it, he
says to himself, hey some of these guys would like a little more leg
room, so why not make the fuselage longer too....
So, the longer fuselage wasn't necessarily because of the engine
change, but rather a actual revision of the designed features? Just a
guess!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
See what's n
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: | Re: Question about short fuse with a Corvair |
I thought lengthening the fuselage for the lighter engines was to offset
the moment arm for control purposes. Lighter engines required longer
engine mounts, thus resulting in longer "noses". This resulted in less
control response with the shorter fuselage. Airplanes with engines that
weigh as much as the Model "A" would not need any added length.
Of course, I'm no aeroplane engineer!
Take Care,
Max
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Mueller
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Question about short fuse with a Corvair
Regarding what you said about offsetting the heaver Corvair with more
weight in the tail....
A Corvair engine is heavier than a Continental, yes. The long fuse was
designed with the Corvair in mind, but since the Corvair is
approximately 15 to 20 pounds lighter than Model A, why the need for the
longer fuselage?
As best I can figure, a Corvair with a short fuselage would therefore
potentially be tail heavy (since there is a little less weight forward
of the CG), which would be corrected by lengthening the engine mount (to
extend the moment of the engine) and/or adjusting the cabane struts.
If, in order to correct it, you then lengthen the fuselage and put
more structure aft of the CG, in addition to moving the pilot slightly
farther aft, this would only exacerbate an already tail heavy condition.
Am I confused in my thinking?
Ryan
Roman Bukolt <conceptmodels@tds.net> wrote:
The Corvair engine weight about 230 lbs.
The Continental weighs about 170 lbs.
To keep the C.G. no further aft then 33% of the chord, you must
offset the heavier Corvair with more weight in the the tail.
My Piet was originally built long to accomodate a Corvair. Even
then added weight was installed way back in the tail.
Then the Corvair froze up and and was replaced with a Cont. A-65.
When I bought the plane the C.G. was at 39%. Seriously tail heavy.
Luckily I had Bill Rewey doing the landings and take offs when we flew
the plane back to Madison, Wi. from Iowa.
Since then I corrected the C.G. by installing a 30lb. 12v battery on
the firewall.
The C.G. is the balance point. All the weight ahead of the C.G.
must equal all the weight aft of the C.G.
The heavier engine in front requires more weight aft. A longer
moment aft requires les weight than a short moment aft.
And lightness is a good thing.
Heaviness is not a good thing. The longer the moment, the less
weight required.
Roman Bukolt NX20795
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Mueller
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 6:06 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Question about short fuse with a Corvair
I have a question regarding the need for the long fuselage when
using a Corvair engine. Based on most of what I have read, the
justification is that the long fuselage was developed to meet W&B
requirements when using the Corvair/Continentals.
What I fail to understand is how having a longer fuselage helps
that issue, for this reason: lengthening the fuselage increases the
moments for any weight that is moved aft. Therefore the structure of a
long fuselage would have more wood farther aft of the datum than not,
for lack of better phrasing. In addition, having the rear cockpit
farther aft will only increase the arm of the pilot's weight. I don't
see how moving more weight farther aft to compensate for a lighter
engine up front computes.
I understand the long fuse has more room inside. I was able to sit
in the Last Original at Brodhead and had a generous amount of legroom,
and my wife is shorter than I was, so I don't think the short fuse would
cramp us. We would then be able to build a lighter aircraft. Finally, I
would think at my weight (220) I would have to take less drastic
measures to get a short fuse Corvair Piet to balance out than a long
fuselage version. Any thoughts?
Ryan
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: Question about short fuse with a Corvair |
Max,
172 and 3/8" for the "long" fuselage, 163" for the "short" fuselage from the Improved
1933 plans, and 161 and 1/4" for the "shortest" fuselage from the original
F&G Manual plans. (Short and shortest figures derived from my addition of
dimensions from the plans, the long fuselage distance is already calculated on
the plans.)
Ryan
Max Hegler <MaxHegler@msn.com> wrote: Does anyone have the firewall-to-tailpost
length for both fuselages?
Max
----- Original Message -----
From: RAMPEYBOY@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Question about short fuse with a Corvair
Maybe the intentions were multi point. Maybe the motor mount is lengthened
to accommodate the lighter engine. While he was at it, he says to himself,
hey some of these guys would like a little more leg room, so why not
make the fuselage longer too....
So, the longer fuselage wasn't necessarily because of the engine change,
but rather a actual revision of the designed features? Just a guess!
---------------------------------
See what's n
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
---------------------------------
Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
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: Question about short fuse with a Corvair |
Roman,
I poked around Chris Tracy's site, to see pictures of your airplane (I couldn't
recall what yours looked like...kinda like putting a face to a name). Looking
at the rear cockpit shot from Brodhead 2007, I noticed that you have a steel
tube fuselage.
My conjecture would be that a Corvair powered steel tube fuselage Piet would be
markedly different when it come to W&B than a wood fuselage. Because the steel
tube is lighter than the wood, and all of the structure aft of the CG would
weigh less, it makes sense that it would come out light in the tail.
When you changed engines did you remove the weight that was added in the rear,
in addition to having to add the battery up front?
Roman Bukolt <conceptmodels@tds.net> wrote: The Corvair engine weight about
230 lbs.
The Continental weighs about 170 lbs.
To keep the C.G. no further aft then 33% of the chord, you must offset the heavier
Corvair with more weight in the the tail.
My Piet was originally built long to accomodate a Corvair. Even then added weight
was installed way back in the tail.
Then the Corvair froze up and and was replaced with a Cont. A-65. When I bought
the plane the C.G. was at 39%. Seriously tail heavy. Luckily I had Bill
Rewey doing the landings and take offs when we flew the plane back to Madison,
Wi. from Iowa.
Since then I corrected the C.G. by installing a 30lb. 12v battery on the firewall.
The C.G. is the balance point. All the weight ahead of the C.G. must equal all
the weight aft of the C.G.
The heavier engine in front requires more weight aft. A longer moment aft requires
les weight than a short moment aft.
And lightness is a good thing.
Heaviness is not a good thing. The longer the moment, the less weight required.
Roman Bukolt NX20795
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Mueller
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 6:06 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Question about short fuse with a Corvair
I have a question regarding the need for the long fuselage when using a Corvair
engine. Based on most of what I have read, the justification is that the
long fuselage was developed to meet W&B requirements when using the Corvair/Continentals.
What I fail to understand is how having a longer fuselage helps that issue,
for this reason: lengthening the fuselage increases the moments for any weight
that is moved aft. Therefore the structure of a long fuselage would have
more wood farther aft of the datum than not, for lack of better phrasing.
In addition, having the rear cockpit farther aft will only increase the arm
of the pilot's weight. I don't see how moving more weight farther aft to
compensate for a lighter engine up front computes.
I understand the long fuse has more room inside. I was able to sit in the Last
Original at Brodhead and had a generous amount of legroom, and my wife is
shorter than I was, so I don't think the short fuse would cramp us. We would
then be able to build a lighter aircraft. Finally, I would think at my
weight (220) I would have to take less drastic measures to get a short fuse
Corvair Piet to balance out than a long fuselage version. Any thoughts?
Ryan
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
---------------------------------
Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Question about short fuse with a Corvair |
When I bought the plane, it already had the Continental on it and the
builder/previous owner had removed the weight. Yet it was still tail
heavy. A steel tube fuselage is not lighter than a wood one. If
anything it is heavier. Before I added the battery, the empty weight
with the Cont. was 670 lbs. Bill Rewey's wood Piet weighs significantly
less with the same engine.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Mueller
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Question about short fuse with a Corvair
Roman,
I poked around Chris Tracy's site, to see pictures of your airplane (I
couldn't recall what yours looked like...kinda like putting a face to a
name). Looking at the rear cockpit shot from Brodhead 2007, I noticed
that you have a steel tube fuselage.
My conjecture would be that a Corvair powered steel tube fuselage Piet
would be markedly different when it come to W&B than a wood fuselage.
Because the steel tube is lighter than the wood, and all of the
structure aft of the CG would weigh less, it makes sense that it would
come out light in the tail.
When you changed engines did you remove the weight that was added in
the rear, in addition to having to add the battery up front?
Roman Bukolt <conceptmodels@tds.net> wrote:
The Corvair engine weight about 230 lbs.
The Continental weighs about 170 lbs.
To keep the C.G. no further aft then 33% of the chord, you must
offset the heavier Corvair with more weight in the the tail.
My Piet was originally built long to accomodate a Corvair. Even
then added weight was installed way back in the tail.
Then the Corvair froze up and and was replaced with a Cont. A-65.
When I bought the plane the C.G. was at 39%. Seriously tail heavy.
Luckily I had Bill Rewey doing the landings and take offs when we flew
the plane back to Madison, Wi. from Iowa.
Since then I corrected the C.G. by installing a 30lb. 12v battery on
the firewall.
The C.G. is the balance point. All the weight ahead of the C.G.
must equal all the weight aft of the C.G.
The heavier engine in front requires more weight aft. A longer
moment aft requires les weight than a short moment aft.
And lightness is a good thing.
Heaviness is not a good thing. The longer the moment, the less
weight required.
Roman Bukolt NX20795
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Mueller
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 6:06 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Question about short fuse with a Corvair
I have a question regarding the need for the long fuselage when
using a Corvair engine. Based on most of what I have read, the
justification is that the long fuselage was developed to meet W&B
requirements when using the Corvair/Continentals.
What I fail to understand is how having a longer fuselage helps
that issue, for this reason: lengthening the fuselage increases the
moments for any weight that is moved aft. Therefore the structure of a
long fuselage would have more wood farther aft of the datum than not,
for lack of better phrasing. In addition, having the rear cockpit
farther aft will only increase the arm of the pilot's weight. I don't
see how moving more weight farther aft to compensate for a lighter
engine up front computes.
I understand the long fuse has more room inside. I was able to sit
in the Last Original at Brodhead and had a generous amount of legroom,
and my wife is shorter than I was, so I don't think the short fuse would
cramp us. We would then be able to build a lighter aircraft. Finally, I
would think at my weight (220) I would have to take less drastic
measures to get a short fuse Corvair Piet to balance out than a long
fuselage version. Any thoughts?
Ryan
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
">Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
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! --
|