Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:17 AM - Re: Re: RV10-List: WRECKED A340-600 at TULOUSE FRANCE 11-07 (James)
2. 05:43 AM - Plywood Spar Webs (Pietsrneat@aol.com)
3. 06:25 AM - Re: Spruce Alternatives (Jack T. Textor)
4. 07:15 AM - Re: Spruce Alternatives (Owen Davies)
5. 07:28 AM - Re: Spruce Alternatives (Ryan Mueller)
6. 08:16 AM - Re: Plywood Spar Webs (Owen Davies)
7. 08:24 AM - Re: Spruce Alternatives (Owen Davies)
8. 08:59 AM - Re: Spruce Alternatives (Owen Davies)
9. 09:10 AM - Center Struts (Gary Boothe)
10. 09:14 AM - Re: Spruce Alternatives (Jack T. Textor)
11. 10:56 AM - Re: Spruce Alternatives (Skip Gadd)
12. 11:04 AM - Re: Center Struts (Rick Holland)
13. 11:38 AM - Re: Spruce Alternatives (AmsafetyC@aol.com)
14. 11:44 AM - Re: Plywood Spar Webs (AmsafetyC@aol.com)
15. 12:34 PM - Re: Plywood Spar Webs (Pietsrneat@aol.com)
16. 02:26 PM - Re: Center Struts (Gary Boothe)
17. 02:47 PM - Re: [!! SPAM] Re: Plywood Spar Webs (Owen Davies)
18. 03:12 PM - Re: Spruce Alternatives (jimboyer@hughes.net)
19. 03:12 PM - Re: Spruce Alternatives (jimboyer@hughes.net)
20. 03:13 PM - Re: Center Struts (Ryan Mueller)
21. 03:31 PM - Re: Center Struts (jimboyer@hughes.net)
22. 04:19 PM - Re: Center Struts (Gary Boothe)
23. 05:41 PM - Re: Center Struts (Skip Gadd)
24. 06:03 PM - Re: Center Struts (Gary Boothe)
25. 06:43 PM - Re: Center Struts (Rick Holland)
26. 07:25 PM - Re: Center Struts (Ryan Mueller)
27. 07:58 PM - Re: Spruce Alternatives (Don Emch)
28. 08:05 PM - Re: Center Struts (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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV10-List: WRECKED A340-600 at TULOUSE FRANCE |
11-07
Let that be a lesson to all who wish to do "non-computer assisted" runups.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of MikeD
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 9:05 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: RV10-List: WRECKED A340-600 at TULOUSE FRANCE
11-07
Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal wrote:
> I found this on the RV-10 list this morning and thought I'd pass it
> on. This is what happens when you let computers control airplanes.
> Glad I decided not to put the fly-by-wire and flight control computers
> in my Pietenpol.
>
> Jack Phillips
> Shivering in 34 degree rain in North Carolina
>
> --
Oopsy. This happened during a ground run-up. The brakes were full on, then
something happened and it broke loose. There were 7-8 test personnel on
board and a few were injured. The airplane is a bit messed up!
Mike
--------
Piet-builder-who-hopes-to-be-flying-next-summer
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=165547#165547
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: | Plywood Spar Webs |
Owen,
I am planning on using a plywood web as well. What size are you using? I
bought 1/8, 45 degree but am wondering now whether it is hefty enough. I am
currently working on the metal and the gear, so I've got plenty of time to get
input and figure it out.
Ron
In a message dated 2/22/2008 7:18:36 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
owen5819@comcast.net writes:
Of course, my current plan is to save weight by using a one-piece wing,
and a plywood-web spar would save a little bit more. It also avoids
having to plane down 5/4 or 2x stock because 1x is not even an honest
3/4 these days.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
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: | Spruce Alternatives |
Hi all,
This poplar question has me wondering. First of all, I could be all
wet, but...After checking all of Tony's books and other EAA
publications, I can't find any reference to poplar being a suitable
substitution to spruce for structural applications. If it is, great!
Just wanted to be sure someone has checked it out.
Jack
www.textors.com
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: Spruce Alternatives |
Jack T. Textor wrote:
> This poplar question has me wondering. First of all, I could be all
> wet, but...After checking all of Tony's books and other EAA
> publications, I can't find any reference to poplar being a suitable
> substitution to spruce for structural applications. If it is, great!
> Just wanted to be sure someone has checked it out.
You'll find it in AC.43-13a (or whatever the number is. I swear, it was
right here on my hard drive not five...er, years ago.)
In any case, the approved woods are really just a list of what was good
enough, cheap, and easy to get back when they did the testing. For
example, Sitka spruce was commercially available and inexpensive, so
they specified that. Black spruce is just as good. Back then, it wasn't
a commercial product, so it wasn't listed. These days it's a lot
cheaper--if you can be sure what you are getting. Unfortunately, I'm not
enough of a wood scientist to go through the SPF pile at the Borg and be
sure it's the right species. That pretty much limits me to DF and poplar.
Fundamentally, you can use anything you darned well feel like, so long
as it meets your design specs. Following the rules just saves you the
trouble of testing.
Owen
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: | Spruce Alternatives |
Jack,
Here is a link to an article by Ron Alexander, discussing aircraft wood. He lists
the various advisory circulars and mil-specs to use for reference. He also
does mention Yellow Poplar in his list of alternatives to spruce.
http://www.sportair.com/articles/2Aircraft%20Wood%20-%20Part%20One.html
Ryan
Hi all,
This poplar question has me wondering. First of all, I could be all
wet, but...After checking all of Tony's books and other EAA
publications, I can't find any reference to poplar being a suitable
substitution to spruce for structural applications. If it is, great!
Just wanted to be sure someone has checked it out.
Jack
www.textors.com
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
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: Plywood Spar Webs |
Pietsrneat@aol.com wrote:
> I am planning on using a plywood web as well. What size are you
> using? I bought 1/8, 45 degree but am wondering now whether it is
> hefty enough. I am currently working on the metal and the gear, so
> I've got plenty of time to get input and figure it out.
My understanding is that the PFA-approved plans call for 1/8. Not sure
if it's 45-degree, it that would make sense, of course. This is with the
web on the front side and some parts of the back, especially the center
section and perhaps 18 inches centered on the strut attach fittings.
Using an I-beam structure, I don't know what you would need.
FWIW, Paul Best's article from the April 1961 edition of Sport Aviation
shows a solid spruce spar 6 x 1-5/8 inches as having a bending strength
of 60,000 lb. A version with a 1/8 birch plywood web and spruce caps
made up from 1 x 3/4 spruce (2-1/8 total spar thickness) is quoted at
the same strength. So is a version with a 3/32-inch mahogany plywood web
and caps made from 1 x 1-1/4 mahogany (2-3/32 total spar thickness.) His
illustration shows 45-degree grain, and the text mentions cutting and
splicing from 90-degree marine plywood.
The interesting difference is the weight. Best shows the plank spar as
weighing 1.827 lb per foot. The 1/8 ply with spruce comes in at 1.340
lb/ft, the mahogany/ply version at only 1.200 lb/ft. For a Piet, the
mahogany/ply spar saves over 17.5 lb.
A correction appended to the article modifies all of the above slightly,
but the basic concepts remain correct.
Here is the part I love: Best quotes the price of spruce at $1.05 per
foot, with the spruce/birch ply coming in at $0.97 per foot and the
mahogany/mahogany ply at just $0.65! We may need to adjust those figures
slightly.
Incidentally, the article quotes ANC 18 as recommending lamination of
spar caps to eliminate the risk that hidden defects will compromise the
spar.
There is a reference to NACA Report 344, "The Design of Plywood Webs for
Airplane Wing Beams," which sounds well worth having. I believe it
should be available online, though I can't recall where. If anyone has
the URL, I'd love to know.
Ah. Just found it at a UK mirror site:
http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/report.php?NID=908. There are a
number of other really interesting reports linked from
http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/citations/1931-cit.html. I am
downloading some of them now!
Owen
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: Spruce Alternatives |
For further information on this, see NACA Report 354, available at
http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1931/naca-report-354.pdf.
Its list of woods "now common in aircraft service" includes white ash;
balsa; basswood; yellow birch; mahogany; sugar maple; oak; white pine;
yellow poplar; red, Sitka, and white spruce; and black walnut. This
paper mentions only the spruces for spars, but AC43.13a is more inclusive.
Owen
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: Spruce Alternatives |
Clif Dawson wrote:
> Sorry Bill, your mixing things up. The glue joint is only
> stronger when you try to pull it apart or twist it. In which case
> the wood will BREAK and splinter before the glue itself
> will separate. ...
Yup.
> The sole purpose of laminating is to use smaller, shorter,
> narrower, etc. material to save material and cost.
Not really. It also eliminates much of the risk from hidden defects. Not
only do you get a much finer look at the wood--N times as many
opportunities to find trouble, where N is the number of laminations--but
if a hidden weakness in one lamination does break there is a good chance
the next layer will stop the crack and keep you in the air.
> I have found that around here it's easy to find very nice
> flat grain boards.
Wish I could say that!
Back in New Hampshire, much too long ago, I did cut my rib sticks from
some beautiful flat-sawn pine. The long pieces for top and bottom warped
like pretzels and had to be discarded.
Owen
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 |
|
In reading comments by Mr. Pietenpol about the longer version fuselage, I
notice that he recommends 4" longer struts and slanted back 3". Would anyone
on the list care to comment about those recommendations?
Gary Boothe
Cool, CA
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: | Spruce Alternatives |
Ryan and Owen,
Good reference info, thanks!
Jack
www.textors.com
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ryan
Mueller
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 9:24 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Spruce Alternatives
Jack,
Here is a link to an article by Ron Alexander, discussing aircraft wood.
He lists the various advisory circulars and mil-specs to use for
reference. He also does mention Yellow Poplar in his list of
alternatives to spruce.
http://www.sportair.com/articles/2Aircraft%20Wood%20-%20Part%20One.html
Ryan
"Jack T. Textor" <jtextor@thepalmergroup.com> wrote:
Hi all,
This poplar question has me wondering. First of all, I could be all
wet, but...After checking all of Tony's books and other EAA
publications, I can't find any reference to poplar being a suitable
substitution to spruce for structural applications. If it is, great!
Just wanted to be sure someone has checked it out.
Jack
www.textors.com
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: | Spruce Alternatives |
Jack and all,
I got to see Larry Harrison's Poplar Piet. I noticed the longerons were
spruce and asked him about it. He said he did not use poplar for longerons
or spars.
I would not use poplar for any part of the airplane that is very long or
needs to flex. The fibers in poplar are allot shorter than they are in any
type of spruce. To test this take a piece of each and rip it on the band
saw. The sawdust from poplar is just that, dust, the sawdust from spruce is
long and stringy. Poplar is great to work with and would be great for the
V-blocks in the fuse side where you want a hard place to drill a hole or
anyplace that needs to be strong mainly in compression. It is also great
for drawer sides, but that has nothing to do with airplanes.
Skip
> [Original Message]
> From: Jack T. Textor <jtextor@thepalmergroup.com>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Date: 2/23/2008 9:28:17 AM
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Spruce Alternatives
>
<jtextor@thepalmergroup.com>
>
> Hi all,
> This poplar question has me wondering. First of all, I could be all
> wet, but...After checking all of Tony's books and other EAA
> publications, I can't find any reference to poplar being a suitable
> substitution to spruce for structural applications. If it is, great!
> Just wanted to be sure someone has checked it out.
> Jack
> www.textors.com
>
>
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: | Re: Center Struts |
Are you talking about flying struts? Never heard this before.
Rick
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Gary Boothe <gboothe@calply.com> wrote:
> In reading comments by Mr. Pietenpol about the longer version fuselage, I
> notice that he recommends 4" longer struts and slanted back 3". Would anyone
> on the list care to comment about those recommendations?
>
>
> Gary Boothe
>
> Cool, CA
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
ObjectAge Ltd.
Castle Rock, Colorado
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: Spruce Alternatives |
Jack
There a few tables that show all the useable woods and their strength,weight and
features. By comparison yellow poplar was listed with almost identical numbers
as the spruce. With that info and local availability the poplar met my needs
John
Piet in poplar
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: "Jack T. Textor" <jtextor@thepalmergroup.com>
To:<pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Spruce Alternatives
Ryan and Owen,
Good reference info, thanks!
Jack
www.textors.com
----------------
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mueller
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 9:24 AM
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Spruce Alternatives
Jack,
Here is a link to an article by Ron Alexander, discussing aircraft wood. He lists
the various advisory circulars and mil-specs to use for reference. He also
does mention Yellow Poplar in his list of alternatives to spruce.
http://www.sportair.com/articles/2Aircraft%20Wood%20-%20Part%20One.html
Ryan
"Jack T. Textor" <jtextor@thepalmergroup.com> wrote:
Hi all,
This poplar question has me wondering. First of all, I could be all
wet, but...After checking all of Tony's books and other EAA
publications, I can't find any reference to poplar being a suitable
substitution to spruce for structural applications. If it is, great!
Just wanted to be sure someone has checked it out.
Jack
www.textors.com
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: Plywood Spar Webs |
I am seriously considering 1 8th Aluminium web with poplar top and bottom flanges
I believe the last time I checked the metal was rated at almost 10 times the wood
John
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Owen Davies <owen5819@comcast.net>
To:pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Plywood Spar Webs
Pietsrneat@aol.com wrote:
> I am planning on using a plywood web as well. What size are you
> using? I bought 1/8, 45 degree but am wondering now whether it is
> hefty enough. I am currently working on the metal and the gear, so
> I've got plenty of time to get input and figure it out.
My understanding is that the PFA-approved plans call for 1/8. Not sure
if it's 45-degree, it that would make sense, of course. This is with the
web on the front side and some parts of the back, especially the center
section and perhaps 18 inches centered on the strut attach fittings.
Using an I-beam structure, I don't know what you would need.
FWIW, Paul Best's article from the April 1961 edition of Sport Aviation
shows a solid spruce spar 6 x 1-5/8 inches as having a bending strength
of 60,000 lb. A version with a 1/8 birch plywood web and spruce caps
made up from 1 x 3/4 spruce (2-1/8 total spar thickness) is quoted at
the same strength. So is a version with a 3/32-inch mahogany plywood web
and caps made from 1 x 1-1/4 mahogany (2-3/32 total spar thickness.) His
illustration shows 45-degree grain, and the text mentions cutting and
splicing from 90-degree marine plywood.
The interesting difference is the weight. Best shows the plank spar as
weighing 1.827 lb per foot. The 1/8 ply with spruce comes in at 1.340
lb/ft, the mahogany/ply version at only 1.200 lb/ft. For a Piet, the
mahogany/ply spar saves over 17.5 lb.
A correction appended to the article modifies all of the above slightly,
but the basic concepts remain correct.
Here is the part I love: Best quotes the price of spruce at $1.05 per
foot, with the spruce/birch ply coming in at $0.97 per foot and the
mahogany/mahogany ply at just $0.65! We may need to adjust those figures
slightly.
Incidentally, the article quotes ANC 18 as recommending lamination of
spar caps to eliminate the risk that hidden defects will compromise the
spar.
There is a reference to NACA Report 344, "The Design of Plywood Webs for
Airplane Wing Beams," which sounds well worth having. I believe it
should be available online, though I can't recall where. If anyone has
the URL, I'd love to know.
Ah. Just found it at a UK mirror site:
http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/report.php?NID=908. There are a
number of other really interesting reports linked from
http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/citations/1931-cit.html. I am
downloading some of them now!
Owen
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: Plywood Spar Webs |
I was going to use it on an I-beam spar. I read the article below and
thought it would be substantial enough. However, once I looked at the 1/8" up
close, it just didn't seem like it would fly.
Ron
_http://westcoastpiet.com/images/Construction/I%20Beam%20Analysis.pdf_
(http://westcoastpiet.com/images/Construction/I%20Beam%20Analysis.pdf)
In a message dated 2/23/2008 11:16:54 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
owen5819@comcast.net writes:
Using an I-beam structure, I don't know what you would need.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
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 |
|
Rick,
This is on page 2 of the =93Converting the Corvair Engine=94 guide,
under
=93MODIFICATIONS.=94 BHP discusses extending the fuse and a few other
things.
The exact quote is, =93The center struts were made 4=94 longer and
slanted back
3.=94
In this section, he also states that the =93=85.wing spars were made of
seven =BE=94
x =BE=94 strips and 1/8=94 plywood plates on the sides, where all the
fittings and
ribs are located=85=94
Gary
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Holland
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Center Struts
Are you talking about flying struts? Never heard this before.
Rick
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Gary Boothe <gboothe@calply.com>
wrote:
In reading comments by Mr. Pietenpol about the longer version fuselage,
I
notice that he recommends 4" longer struts and slanted back 3". Would
anyone
on the list care to comment about those recommendations?
Gary Boothe
Cool, CA
--
Rick Holland
ObjectAge Ltd.
Castle Rock, Colorado
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Plywood Spar Webs |
AmsafetyC@aol.com wrote:
>
> I am seriously considering 1 8th Aluminium web with poplar top and bottom flanges
How would you attach the poplar to the aluminum? Do remember that when
you glue to aluminum, unless you take some fairly challenging
precautions, you wind up gluing to the thin layer of aluminum oxide that
forms almost instantly when the metal is exposed to the air, not to the
metal itself. It's really not the kind of bond you want.
Owen
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Spruce Alternatives |
Hi Owen,
Here is the URL for Peter's site. I am so used to looking at it I
forgot to include the URL. His is a very good web site for Piet
builders.
http://www.cpc-world.com/main.php?insert_file=wing2.php
Cheers, Jim
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 |
|
| Subject: | Spruce Alternatives |
Thank you Peter. I look at your site quite alot and find it very
useful. Should have included it with my original message.
Thanks, Jim
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 |
|
Gary,
I'm pretty sure he is referring to the cabane struts. The four vertical struts
that connect the wing to the fuselage. Extending them four inches would give you
more headroom when entering or exiting the cockpits. Slanting them back would
be a technique used to get the CG within limits.
I don't think those statements are meant to be taken as recommendations when building
the long fuselage. Whether or not your struts end up slanted back would
depend on how your particular airplane weighs out, and if you need to do that
to bring the CG within limits. I believe raising the struts beyond plans would
be a matter of personal preference, as to whether or not you want the room getting
in or out. Others with more experience can comment on this; this is what
I've gleaned thus far. Have a good one,
Ryan
Gary Boothe <gboothe5@comcast.net> wrote: v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape
{behavior:url(#default#VML);} st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
Rick,
This is on page 2 of the Converting the Corvair Engine guide, under MODIFICATIONS.
BHP discusses extending the fuse and a few other things. The exact quote
is, The center struts were made 4 longer and slanted back 3.
In this section, he also states that the .wing spars were made of seven x strips
and 1/8 plywood plates on the sides, where all the fittings and ribs are
located
Gary
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Center Struts |
Hi Gary,
Try getting in a Piet built to Bernie's original lenght cabane struts versus those
that are 3 to 4 inches longer. Big difference; especially when your legs aren't
as limber as when you were 18 to 30.
Jim
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 |
|
Ryan,
That was my take, too. He is definitely talking about weight and balance
issues concerning the stretched version. He went on to discuss moving
the
landing gear forward about 4=94, but I don=92t think very many have.
Thanks, Gary
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ryan
Mueller
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 3:11 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Center Struts
Gary,
I'm pretty sure he is referring to the cabane struts. The four vertical
struts that connect the wing to the fuselage. Extending them four inches
would give you more headroom when entering or exiting the cockpits.
Slanting
them back would be a technique used to get the CG within limits.
I don't think those statements are meant to be taken as recommendations
when
building the long fuselage. Whether or not your struts end up slanted
back
would depend on how your particular airplane weighs out, and if you need
to
do that to bring the CG within limits. I believe raising the struts
beyond
plans would be a matter of personal preference, as to whether or not you
want the room getting in or out. Others with more experience can comment
on
this; this is what I've gleaned thus far. Have a good one,
Ryan
Gary Boothe <gboothe5@comcast.net> wrote:
Rick,
This is on page 2 of the =93Converting the Corvair Engine=94 guide,
under
=93MODIFICATIONS.=94 BHP discusses extending the fuse and a few other
things.
The exact quote is, =93The center struts were made 4=94 longer and
slanted back
3.=94
In this section, he also states that the =93=85.wing spars were made of
seven =BE=94
x =BE=94 strips and 1/8=94 plywood plates on the sides, where all the
fittings and
ribs are located=85=94
Gary
_____
Be a better friend, newshound, and
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 |
|
Gary,
Bill Rewey says to move the axle forward 3" if you have brakes, thats what I did.
Skip
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Boothe
He went on to discuss moving the landing gear forward about 4, but I dont think
very many have.
Thanks, Gary
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 |
|
Skip,
Thanks! That was Mr. Pietenpol's advice, too. Did you leave the attach
points the same and just change the geometry?
Gary Boothe
Cool, CA
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Skip
Gadd
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 5:39 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Center Struts
Gary,
Bill Rewey says to move the axle forward 3" if you have brakes, thats
what I
did.
Skip
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Boothe <mailto:gboothe5@comcast.net>
He went on to discuss moving the landing gear forward about 4=14, but I
don=12t
think very many have.
Thanks, Gary
_____
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Center Struts |
That's what I did also. Don't change the attachments, just the geometry.
According to Bill Rewey its needed if you install brakes.
Rick
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Skip Gadd <skipgadd@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Gary,
> Bill Rewey says to move the axle forward 3" if you have brakes, thats what
> I did.
> Skip
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Gary Boothe <gboothe5@comcast.net>
>
>
> He went on to discuss moving the landing gear forward about 4", but I
> don't think very many have.
>
> Thanks, Gary
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
ObjectAge Ltd.
Castle Rock, Colorado
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Center Struts |
Pietenpol, in the notes, mentions that the gear were moved 7 inches forward so
a modified Cub landing gear gear and brakes could be installed. He said this was
too far forward. He felt the plans location provided the best landing characteristics,
but if you used the brakes for anything other than low speed taxying
(sic) this was too far back. He felt that splitting the difference was the
best course of action if you wanted to use brakes. Thusly, the 3 inches would
be appropriate. Hope that helps,
Ryan
Rick Holland <at7000ft@gmail.com> wrote: That's what I did also. Don't change the
attachments, just the geometry. According to Bill Rewey its needed if you install
brakes.
Rick
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Skip Gadd <skipgadd@earthlink.net> wrote:
Gary,
Bill Rewey says to move the axle forward 3" if you have brakes, thats what I did.
Skip
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Boothe
He went on to discuss moving the landing gear forward about 4", but I don't
think very many have.
Thanks, Gary
---------------------------------
--
Rick Holland
ObjectAge Ltd.
Castle Rock, Colorado
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Spruce Alternatives |
I met and talked with Larry Harrison too. He's a great guy with a tremendous amount
of common sense and know-how. And like Skip said he didn't use poplar for
spars or longerons. Please be careful and know what you are putting into your
airplane. When you are bouncing around in nasty butt-puckering turbulence,
you and your passenger will be thankful!
Don Emch
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=165894#165894
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Center Struts |
I believe later on Mr. Pietenpol felt that 4" was too much of an extension on the
cabanes because it gave somewhat of a pendulum effect with power changes.
He said 2" was probably a better amount to lengthen them. That's what I did and
many others have done. Decent head room getting in and out and behaves normally
with power changes.
Don Emch
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=165895#165895
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! --
|