---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 02/23/08: 28 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:17:00 AM PST US From: "James" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:43:54 AM PST US From: Pietsrneat@aol.com Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:25:05 AM PST US Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Spruce Alternatives From: "Jack T. Textor" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:15:40 AM PST US From: Owen Davies Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:28:01 AM PST US From: Ryan Mueller 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:16:10 AM PST US From: Owen Davies 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 7 _____________________________________ Time: 08:24:50 AM PST US From: Owen Davies Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:59:00 AM PST US From: Owen Davies Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:10:04 AM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Center Struts 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:14:10 AM PST US Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Spruce Alternatives From: "Jack T. Textor" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:56:09 AM PST US From: "Skip Gadd" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 > To: > Date: 2/23/2008 9:28:17 AM > Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 12 ____________________________________ Time: 11:04:05 AM PST US From: "Rick Holland" 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:38:29 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Spruce Alternatives From: AmsafetyC@aol.com 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" To: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:44:18 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Plywood Spar Webs From: AmsafetyC@aol.com 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:34:56 PM PST US From: Pietsrneat@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:26:17 PM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Center Struts 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:47:28 PM PST US From: Owen Davies Subject: Re: [!! SPAM] Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:12:03 PM PST US From: "jimboyer@hughes.net" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:12:50 PM PST US From: "jimboyer@hughes.net" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:13:39 PM PST US From: Ryan Mueller 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:31:36 PM PST US From: "jimboyer@hughes.net" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:19:43 PM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Center Struts 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:41:57 PM PST US From: "Skip Gadd" 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 He went on to discuss moving the landing gear forward about 4, but I dont think very many have. Thanks, Gary ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 06:03:46 PM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Center Struts 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:43:16 PM PST US From: "Rick Holland" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 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 ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 07:25:39 PM PST US From: Ryan Mueller Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:58:41 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Spruce Alternatives From: "Don Emch" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:05:03 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Center Struts From: "Don Emch" 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/pietenpol-list Browse 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.