Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:21 AM - Re: Fedex Issues (KMHeide, BA, CPO, FAAOP)
2. 01:53 AM - Re Poly Fiber (Graham & Robin Hewitt)
3. 04:00 AM - Re: Re Poly Fiber (Lagowski Morrow)
4. 04:07 AM - Re: Re Poly Fiber (HelsperSew@aol.com)
5. 05:08 AM - Re: Re Poly Fiber (Jim Ash)
6. 05:27 AM - Re: GN-1 weight & balance (Gene & Tammy)
7. 05:54 AM - GN-1 weight & balance (Oscar Zuniga)
8. 05:56 AM - Re: Fedex Issues (Gene Rambo)
9. 06:10 AM - Re: Report from Roundup (Gene Rambo)
10. 06:22 AM - Re: Re Poly Fiber (Gene Rambo)
11. 06:33 AM - Re: Report from Roundup (TOM STINEMETZE)
12. 06:52 AM - Re: GN-1 weight & balance (Thomas Bernie)
13. 07:04 AM - Re: name tags at Brodhead (Bill Church)
14. 07:13 AM - Re: GN-1 weight & balance (bike.mike)
15. 07:40 AM - Re: GN-1 weight & balance (Thomas Bernie)
16. 08:18 AM - Re: Re Poly Fiber (Rick Holland)
17. 08:30 AM - Re: GN-1 weight & balance (Bill Church)
18. 09:01 AM - Re: GN-1 weight & balance (Thomas Bernie)
19. 09:05 AM - 1.7 oz (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXC0)[ASRC])
20. 09:30 AM - Re: GN-1 weight & balance (ALAN LYSCARS)
21. 09:32 AM - Re: 1.7 oz (Bill Church)
22. 09:37 AM - Re: GN-1 weight & balance (Bill Church)
23. 09:58 AM - Re: GN-1 weight & balance (Rick Holland)
24. 10:07 AM - Re: GN-1 weight & balance (Thomas Bernie)
25. 10:20 AM - Re: GN-1 weight & balance (ALAN LYSCARS)
26. 10:47 AM - Re: 1.7 oz (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXC0)[ASRC])
27. 10:52 AM - Re: Re Poly Fiber (airlion@bellsouth.net)
28. 11:18 AM - Re: 1.7 oz (TOM STINEMETZE)
29. 12:00 PM - Re: 1.7 oz (Bill Church)
30. 12:18 PM - drywall screws (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXC0)[ASRC])
31. 02:46 PM - Re: GN-1 weight & balance (H RULE)
32. 03:11 PM - Re: 1.7 oz (Gary Boothe)
33. 03:12 PM - Re: Instrument panels pilot and front cockpit (Gary Boothe)
34. 05:33 PM - Re: GN-1 weight & balance (Thomas Bernie)
35. 05:55 PM - rib gussets (TGSTONE236@aol.com)
36. 06:02 PM - Re: 1.7 oz (Scott Schreiber)
37. 06:28 PM - Re: rib gussets (Pastor M F Townsley)
38. 06:29 PM - Re: weight and balance (H RULE)
39. 06:54 PM - optical tach (Douwe Blumberg)
40. 07:06 PM - Re: rib gussets (Glenn Thomas)
41. 07:55 PM - Re: rib gussets (TGSTONE236@aol.com)
42. 08:09 PM - Re: Instrument panels pilot and front cockpit (MikeD)
43. 08:49 PM - Re: 1.7 oz (Clif Dawson)
44. 08:57 PM - Re: Re: Instrument panels pilot and front cockpit (Tim Willis)
45. 09:27 PM - Re: Report from Roundup (Clif Dawson)
46. 10:33 PM - cockpit combing aluminum (Michael Groah)
47. 11:10 PM - Weight and balance story... (KMHeide, BA, CPO, FAAOP)
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: Fedex Issues |
I understand the frustration and disappointment of the situation. Our compa
ny suffered a similar situation whereas the UPS driver left a package in an
empty garage (wrong house) by mistake and the package was then tossed into
the trash by the new home owners. We sought legal action to recover our lo
ss ($3500.00) but to no avail. Why?...Judge said he did deliver the package
and was not his fault even if he was supposed to get a signature as reques
ted!--
-
Never-the-less,-I now drive my packages to "Goin' Postal" shipping compan
y. they are popping up all over the states and allow for you to "choose" th
e best way to ship your package. You can ship either "best price" or "faste
st delivery." The best part is that you can compare pricing amongst 7-10 ca
rriers before you ship! With UPS as our shipper, it still cost more-to ha
ve-them pick up and ship from my location than it is for me to drive my p
ackage to Goin Postal and ship using UPS! Go figure?.. Either way, "Goin Po
stal" has all of my business and I do save many $$ when I they compare and
tell me the least expensive way to ship my package.
Kenneth M. Heide, BA, CPO, FAAOP
-
--- On Tue, 7/1/08, H RULE <harvey.rule@rogers.com> wrote:
From: H RULE <harvey.rule@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: name tags at Brodhead
Sue Fedex for the cost or at least approach them with some sort of an arran
gement.You should not have to bear the cost of their mistake. Right now you
are a load of bad advertisement for them and they should see that.I know I
just thought twice about ever using them now.If you don't get satisfaction
then tell them we will spread the word and see if we can bring their busin
ess down somewhat.
----- Original Message ----
From: Douwe Blumberg <douweblumberg@earthlink.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2008 9:00:29 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: name tags at Brodhead
link.net>
Hey everyone,
Let's all try to remember to wear our name tags during Brodhead.- I'd rea
lly
like to meet as many of you as possible, and nametags will greatly faciliat
e
that.- I'll try to remember mine each day.
Big discouragement.- Had finished building a beautiful set of drum brake
hubs, the kind where the drum will be hidden within the wire wheel.- Sent
the rims and hubs out to Buchannans for
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
=0A=0A=0A
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 |
|
What opinions do you have re using light weight (1.7 oz) poly fiber for
covering wings on a long fuse Piet? Most use 2.7 oz.
Has any one used an 0200 engine? if so was the Engine mount beefed up
from the std C90 type
Second wing almost finished first wing now in dining room, we eat in the
shed
Regards Graham
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Re Poly Fiber |
MessageMy EAA tech counselor, who has covered ~a dozen planes
recommended the 2.7 oz. fabric. I found it easy to use as a first time
coverer. I did use 1.7 for doilies.--Jim Lagowski
----- Original Message -----
From: Graham & Robin Hewitt
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 3:51 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re Poly Fiber
What opinions do you have re using light weight (1.7 oz) poly fiber
for covering wings on a long fuse Piet? Most use 2.7 oz.
Has any one used an 0200 engine? if so was the Engine mount beefed up
from the std C90 type
Second wing almost finished first wing now in dining room, we eat in
the shed
Regards Graham
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG.
7/1/2008 7:23 PM
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: Re Poly Fiber |
Graham,
I know Mike Cuy used 1.7 oz. fabric and was very happy with it. He says it
was easy to fill the weave with paint. Less paint, less weight.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
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: Re Poly Fiber |
Pardon me if this is old news, but Polyfiber fabric comes in three weights; light,
medium and heavy (1.7oz, 2.7oz, and 3.4oz, respectively). Per the instructors
at the weekend Polyfiber seminars, the 1.7oz is only approved for ultralights.
Standard type requires at least the medium, and I thought experimentals were
included in that same requirement.
Granted, you're the manufacturer and you can (kinda) do whatever you want, but
isn't an experimental builder responsible to follow (the FAA's definition of)
acceptable practices? Will a DAR sign off on a plane covered with 1.7?
Jim Ash
-----Original Message-----
>From: Graham & Robin Hewitt <grhewitt@globaldial.com>
>Sent: Jul 2, 2008 3:51 AM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re Poly Fiber
>
>What opinions do you have re using light weight (1.7 oz) poly fiber for
>covering wings on a long fuse Piet? Most use 2.7 oz.
>
>Has any one used an 0200 engine? if so was the Engine mount beefed up
>from the std C90 type
>
>Second wing almost finished first wing now in dining room, we eat in the
>shed
>
>Regards Graham
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: GN-1 weight & balance |
Tom. I can't speak for the Grega Aircamper but for the Piet you can move
the wings back to correct for C.G. problems.
Gene (just back from my motorcycle trip to the West Coast and still working
on my wife to let me go to Broadhead)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Bernie" <tsbernie@earthlink.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 9:13 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: GN-1 weight & balance
> <tsbernie@earthlink.net>
>
> Folks,
>
> I'm finishing my Grega Aircamper and attempting to estimate the c.g. with
> the understanding that if built to the plans, there is a tendency toward
> aft c.g. problems. If any GN-1 builders or owners on the list can help
> me with this I would appreciate it. The example weight and balance
> included in my CAD plans were done for N4705G on 9/17/65. The
> computations in the plans are in error, but using the weights and arms I
> ran the numbers. The empty c.g. is 31% aft (leading edge). Most forward
> 38% and most aft 41%. I saw a picture of this plane in flight??? My
> question is what has been done to all the flying GN-1's to correct this
> situation. I have a J3 motormount per the plans with a C-85. Looks to
> me like I'll need a longer mount. Any thoughts?
>
> (N4705G -- Left 326, Right 323, Tail 50, Leading edge datum, 7.5" arm to
> main wheels, 169" arm to tail wheel, oil arm -23", fuel arm -1.5", pilot
> arm 53", passenger arm 24")
>
>
> Regards,
> Tom Bernie
> Gloucester MA
> 978-281-8892
>
>
> --
> Date: 6/28/2008 7:00 AM
>
>
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: | GN-1 weight & balance |
Tom; I plugged your numbers into the spreadsheet that I used for the W&B on 41CC
(thanks, Bert and Corky!) and you're right... your Grega doesn't pencil out.
I guessed at a whole bunch of things, like your design gross (I used 1,088 as
in 41CC), fuel capacity (I used 16 gal., also like 41CC), and some other things
like pilot and passenger weight- but the one number that jumped out immediately
while I was plugging in numbers was the weight on your tailwheel. 41CC
had 29 lbs. on the tailwheel when empty, whereas 05G has 50. There's your problem.
Twenty more pounds on the tailwheel. Oh, and BTW- I sent the Excel spreadsheet
to Matt Dralle for posting on the file share, so it should be available
later today if you want it to do some what-ifs. You'll have to check all the
numbers and info in each cell or you'll get bad info out of it though.
That twenty extra pounds at a moment arm of 169" yields 3380 in-lbs. of moment.
Your C-85 weighs about 220 lbs. so you'd have to move the engine forward by
15" to offset that moment... which I don't think you would want to do. Time to
look at some other options for bringing it into balance. Think about heavy
stuff that you can move forward.
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
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: Fedex Issues |
You are never going to win taking FedEx to court. Always, ALWAYS, pay
the extra for insurance whenever shipping something valuable.
Gene
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: Report from Roundup |
this is a very interesting airplane. I can't put my finger on it, but
isn't the wing way forward? The cabane fittings should be further back,
shouldn't they, even if it is a short fuselage (like mine)? I can't
figure out why the radiator cuts into the wing like it does. Any ideas?
Note, some knucklehead put a vented cap on the radiator, wonder how well
THAT cools????
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Verthein<mailto:minoxphotographer@yahoo.com>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 8:32 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Report from Roundup
<minoxphotographer@yahoo.com<mailto:minoxphotographer@yahoo.com>>
We're here in Roundup, Montana.
Paid a visit to the "Roundup Piet" at the Musselshell Museum today.
The plane looks beautiiful indeed. First class workmanship throughout
as near as I can tell (not being an expert)
Sadly, I don't expect it will ever fly, since it's in a display
building that it can't be removed from without taking off the wing, but
the plane looks like it's ready to fly at a moments notice, and all the
work appears to be consistent with modern safety and construction
techniques.
Nice folks at the museum gave us a good tour of the whole facility,
and gave me access to get photos....as generally just looking in thru
the bars on the front of the door is all the general public is allowed.
I posted photos at:
http://www.edselmotors.com/rounduppiet.html<http://www.edselmotors.com/ro
unduppiet.html>
Tim in Bovey
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List<http://www.matronics.co
m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>
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: Re Poly Fiber |
The 1.7 is perfectly safe for use on a Piet, most people I know use it
on light weight craft, such as Piper E2/J2, etc. as well as homebuilts
It is no longer considered "certified" for use on certificated
airplanes, but on an experimental, you can do whatever you want (within
reason). The fact is that it used to be certified and allowed for
certificated aircraft. I have a scrap of 1.7 with a FAA-PMA certified
stamp right on it. I doubt if any DAR is going to know, or notice, the
difference. Don't tell. However, if I ever get questioned, I will whip
out the certified stamp, there is nothing they could do about it. The
main thing is that it is perfectly SAFE. I intend on using it for
weight savings.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Ash<mailto:ashcan@earthlink.net>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 8:05 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re Poly Fiber
<ashcan@earthlink.net<mailto:ashcan@earthlink.net>>
Pardon me if this is old news, but Polyfiber fabric comes in three
weights; light, medium and heavy (1.7oz, 2.7oz, and 3.4oz,
respectively). Per the instructors at the weekend Polyfiber seminars,
the 1.7oz is only approved for ultralights. Standard type requires at
least the medium, and I thought experimentals were included in that same
requirement.
Granted, you're the manufacturer and you can (kinda) do whatever you
want, but isn't an experimental builder responsible to follow (the FAA's
definition of) acceptable practices? Will a DAR sign off on a plane
covered with 1.7?
Jim Ash
-----Original Message-----
>From: Graham & Robin Hewitt
<grhewitt@globaldial.com<mailto:grhewitt@globaldial.com>>
>Sent: Jul 2, 2008 3:51 AM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re Poly Fiber
>
>What opinions do you have re using light weight (1.7 oz) poly fiber
for
>covering wings on a long fuse Piet? Most use 2.7 oz.
>
>Has any one used an 0200 engine? if so was the Engine mount beefed up
>from the std C90 type
>
>Second wing almost finished first wing now in dining room, we eat in
the
>shed
>
>Regards Graham
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List<http://www.matronics.co
m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>
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: Report from Roundup |
>Paid a visit to the "Roundup Piet" at the Musselshell Museum today. >
If you follow the link to the "Roundup Piet" you will see some great
photos. I did see one thing on it that I have not seen before. On both
the rudder and the elevators there were extra brace cables run from the
control horn to the rear corners of the surfaces. This looks like
overkill and extra weight just where you don't want it. They must have
just seemed too flimsy to him.
Tom S.
McPherson, KS.
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: GN-1 weight & balance |
Oscar,
The weight and balance example from the plans has to be disregarded.
The plans do however, specify a c.g. range of 18.1 to 20.7 (30.2% to
34.5%). I weighed my wing panels with scales at the strut attach
points and added the appropriate weight to my fuselage and did a
weight and balance. It came out 31% fwd and 34% aft. It's not exact
by any means, but it did end up close to the design numbers. I expect
the GN-1's built to plans are all operating at the back of the c.g.
envelope. I guess I'll have to make a new, longer, motor mount. I
have no intention of operating in the plans specified c.g. range.
I've got nothing to move but the engine. Thanks for posting the
spreadsheet that will come in handy. Over the last few days I have
generated a huge pile of paper and worn out my calculator, so the
spreadsheet will be useful for working out the mount. My plane has
30# on the tailwheel and an empty c.g. of 13.9. I need to move that
fwd a couple of inches. Thanks for the help.
Regards,
Tom
On Jul 2, 2008, at 8:51 AM, Oscar Zuniga wrote:
> >
>
>
> Tom; I plugged your numbers into the spreadsheet that I used for the
> W&B on 41CC (thanks, Bert and Corky!) and you're right... your Grega
> doesn't pencil out. I guessed at a whole bunch of things, like your
> design gross (I used 1,088 as in 41CC), fuel capacity (I used 16
> gal., also like 41CC), and some other things like pilot and
> passenger weight- but the one number that jumped out immediately
> while I was plugging in numbers was the weight on your tailwheel.
> 41CC had 29 lbs. on the tailwheel when empty, whereas 05G has 50.
> There's your problem. Twenty more pounds on the tailwheel. Oh, and
> BTW- I sent the Excel spreadsheet to Matt Dralle for posting on the
> file share, so it should be available later today if you want it to
> do some what-ifs. You'll have to check all the numbers and info in
> each cell or you'll get bad info out of it though.
>
> That twenty extra pounds at a moment arm of 169" yields 3380 in-lbs.
> of moment. Your C-85 weighs about 220 lbs. so you'd have to move
> the engine forward by 15" to offset that moment... which I don't
> think you would want to do. Time to look at some other options for
> bringing it into balance. Think about heavy stuff that you can move
> forward.
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> Air Camper NX41CC
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
Thomas Bernie
tsbe
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: | name tags at Brodhead |
Douwe,
Last year, the Brodhead Pietenpol Association Newsletter had a booth set up
where everyone could get a nametag (and renew their membership, if needed).
I believe they are planning to do the same this year. Nametags really help
identifying those who know each other via this list, but have not met
face-to-face.
As for your hubs getting mis-delivered, and subsequently discarded - that is
really disheartening.
Really inexcusable for Fedex and also for the company that actually received
the package. Surely they could have read the label and called either Fedex
or Buchanan's before they threw out your hubs.
Bill C.
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: GN-1 weight & balance |
Oscar,
My puzzlement is the same as Tom's; N4705G is/was a flying airplane, which I
don't think it would have been with a CG at 41%. Where did these numbers
really come from, and what was done to 05G to make it flyable?
It almost looks like those numbers either came before engine installation or
the airplane was weighed while tail-down.
Mike Hardaway
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 4:51 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: GN-1 weight & balance
>
>
> Tom; I plugged your numbers into the spreadsheet that I used for the W&B
on 41CC (thanks, Bert and Corky!) and you're right... your Grega doesn't
pencil out. I guessed at a whole bunch of things, like your design gross (I
used 1,088 as in 41CC), fuel capacity (I used 16 gal., also like 41CC), and
some other things like pilot and passenger weight- but the one number that
jumped out immediately while I was plugging in numbers was the weight on
your tailwheel. 41CC had 29 lbs. on the tailwheel when empty, whereas 05G
has 50. There's your problem. Twenty more pounds on the tailwheel. Oh,
and BTW- I sent the Excel spreadsheet to Matt Dralle for posting on the file
share, so it should be available later today if you want it to do some
what-ifs. You'll have to check all the numbers and info in each cell or
you'll get bad info out of it though.
>
> That twenty extra pounds at a moment arm of 169" yields 3380 in-lbs. of
moment. Your C-85 weighs about 220 lbs. so you'd have to move the engine
forward by 15" to offset that moment... which I don't think you would want
to do. Time to look at some other options for bringing it into balance.
Think about heavy stuff that you can move forward.
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> Air Camper NX41CC
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
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: GN-1 weight & balance |
Mike,
I can't explain how such bogus information could end up in a set of
plans. The specified center of gravity range on the plans could not
possibly have been achieved on N4705G.
However, my GN-1 looks like it will be close to the specified range of
30.2% to 34.5% -- the problem is, I don't want such a far aft c.g.
range.
Tom
On Jul 2, 2008, at 11:13 AM, bike.mike wrote:
> >
>
> Oscar,
> My puzzlement is the same as Tom's; N4705G is/was a flying airplane,
> which I
> don't think it would have been with a CG at 41%. Where did these
> numbers
> really come from, and what was done to 05G to make it flyable?
> It almost looks like those numbers either came before engine
> installation or
> the airplane was weighed while tail-down.
> Mike Hardaway
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags@hotmail.com>
> To: "Pietenpol List" <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 4:51 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: GN-1 weight & balance
>
>
>> >
>>
>>
>> Tom; I plugged your numbers into the spreadsheet that I used for
>> the W&B
> on 41CC (thanks, Bert and Corky!) and you're right... your Grega
> doesn't
> pencil out. I guessed at a whole bunch of things, like your design
> gross (I
> used 1,088 as in 41CC), fuel capacity (I used 16 gal., also like
> 41CC), and
> some other things like pilot and passenger weight- but the one
> number that
> jumped out immediately while I was plugging in numbers was the
> weight on
> your tailwheel. 41CC had 29 lbs. on the tailwheel when empty,
> whereas 05G
> has 50. There's your problem. Twenty more pounds on the
> tailwheel. Oh,
> and BTW- I sent the Excel spreadsheet to Matt Dralle for posting on
> the file
> share, so it should be available later today if you want it to do some
> what-ifs. You'll have to check all the numbers and info in each
> cell or
> you'll get bad info out of it though.
>>
>> That twenty extra pounds at a moment arm of 169" yields 3380 in-
>> lbs. of
> moment. Your C-85 weighs about 220 lbs. so you'd have to move the
> engine
> forward by 15" to offset that moment... which I don't think you
> would want
> to do. Time to look at some other options for bringing it into
> balance.
> Think about heavy stuff that you can move forward.
>>
>> Oscar Zuniga
>> Air Camper NX41CC
>> San Antonio, TX
>> mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
>> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Thomas Bernie
tsbe
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Re Poly Fiber |
I will be using 1.7 on mine also.
Rick
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 7:20 AM, Gene Rambo <generambo@msn.com> wrote:
> The 1.7 is perfectly safe for use on a Piet, most people I know use it on
> light weight craft, such as Piper E2/J2, etc. as well as homebuilts It is
> no longer considered "certified" for use on certificated airplanes, but on
> an experimental, you can do whatever you want (within reason). The fact is
> that it used to be certified and allowed for certificated aircraft. I have
> a scrap of 1.7 with a FAA-PMA certified stamp right on it. I doubt if any
> DAR is going to know, or notice, the difference. Don't tell. However, if I
> ever get questioned, I will whip out the certified stamp, there is nothing
> they could do about it. The main thing is that it is perfectly SAFE. I
> intend on using it for weight savings.
>
> Gene
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Jim Ash <ashcan@earthlink.net>
> *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 02, 2008 8:05 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Re Poly Fiber
>
>
> Pardon me if this is old news, but Polyfiber fabric comes in three weights;
> light, medium and heavy (1.7oz, 2.7oz, and 3.4oz, respectively). Per the
> instructors at the weekend Polyfiber seminars, the 1.7oz is only approved
> for ultralights. Standard type requires at least the medium, and I thought
> experimentals were included in that same requirement.
>
> Granted, you're the manufacturer and you can (kinda) do whatever you want,
> but isn't an experimental builder responsible to follow (the FAA's
> definition of) acceptable practices? Will a DAR sign off on a plane covered
> with 1.7?
>
> Jim Ash
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Graham & Robin Hewitt <grhewitt@globaldial.com>
> >Sent: Jul 2, 2008 3:51 AM
> >To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re Poly Fiber
> >
> >What opinions do you have re using light weight (1.7 oz) poly fiber for
> >covering wings on a long fuse Piet? Most use 2.7 oz.
> >
> >Has any one used an 0200 engine? if so was the Engine mount beefed up
> >from the std C90 type
> >
> >Second wing almost finished first wing now in dining room, we eat in the
> >shed
> >
> >Regards nbsp; Features Chat, --> http://www.matp; via the Web
> title=http://forums.matronics.com/
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
> title=http://www.matronics.com/contribution href="
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution">
> http://www.matronics.com/c================
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
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: | GN-1 weight & balance |
Tom,
I have read that the new CAD drawings for the GN-1 have quite a few errors.
This is likely one of them.
MAYBE this one is simply a "5" where a "3" should be (i.e. maybe the number
for the ailwheel should be 30 instead of 50).
Perhaps you could do the calculations using 30 in place of the 50, and see
what you get.
It's a lucky thing that you're smart enough to see that something isn't
right, and are doing something about it. Maybe this is one of the reasons
why the plans are no longer available for sale.
Bill C.
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: GN-1 weight & balance |
Bill,
WOW -- YOU GOT IT -- IT IS A TYPO -- WAY TO GO -- I should have picked
that up. Now my airplane matches the design example weights. The
computations on the plans are still bogus, but when done correctly the
results match mine and the design c.g. range. My aft c.g. problem
remains, however. Like I said previously, the design specified aft
c.g. limit of 34.5% is well aft of my comfort zone. These plans have
been a nightmare of errors.
Thanks,
Tom
On Jul 1, 2008, at 11:25 AM, Bill Church wrote:
> Tom,
>
> I have read that the new CAD drawings for the GN-1 have quite a few
> errors. This is likely one of them.
> MAYBE this one is simply a "5" where a "3" should be (i.e. maybe
> the number for the ailwheel should be 30 instead of 50).
>
> Perhaps you could do the calculations using 30 in place of the 50,
> and see what you get.
>
> It's a lucky thing that you're smart enough to see that something
> isn't right, and are doing something about it. Maybe this is one of
> the reasons why the plans are no longer available for sale.
>
> Bill C.
>
>
Thomas Bernie
tsbe
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 |
|
Finished my plane in Superflite non-certified 1.7 oz dacron. Main
reason is that it is cheaper---but comes from
the same mill as the PMA stuff. Secondly the weave fills faster, less
coats, less cost ---you get a lighter airplane, better performance.
Third reason is that the Superflite stuff was the widest available so I
was able to use the blanket/overlap method on my wings
rather than having to sew up a fabric envelope. Worked out great.
Buy yourself a good pair of pinking scissors at Wal Mart. Good
investment--doesn't fray the fabric.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: GN-1 weight & balance |
RE: Pietenpol-List: GN-1 weight & balanceTom,
I've been working with a set of the "CAD" Grega plans for about four
years.
I've offered, over that time, queries and suggestions concerning
questionable detail found in those drawings. At one time-I think about
three or four summers ago- Bob Grega was very responsive to those of us
on the list with these observations. Bob issued corrections to the
plans to all registered plans owners as he became aware of them from us
and when there was technical consensus for the change. Most of these
suggestions were minor in detail: one such, I remember, was a mislabled
turnbuckle assembly.
At some point Bob Grega, who was only reproducing plans for those who
wanted to buy them, stopped cold. I never found the reason why but,
considering all of the armchair quarterbacks and litigators instant in
our society today he may have, rightfully, gotten scared of being sued.
It's really a crying shame, too, for with the withdrawl of these plans
sets from the market a whole generation, or generations, of builders
will never come to be: at least with this design.
I always try to remind myself that as an experimental builder it is my
charge to myself to try to know or learn as much as I can about what I'm
doing. The fact that a few errors have been caught and corrected in
these plans is a real testament to our willingness to "get it right" to
the best of our collective ability.
After all, even young boys can put together a kit plane.
Sincerely,
Al Lyscars
Manchester, NH
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Church
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 11:25 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: GN-1 weight & balance
Tom,
I have read that the new CAD drawings for the GN-1 have quite a few
errors. This is likely one of them.
MAYBE this one is simply a "5" where a "3" should be (i.e. maybe the
number for the ailwheel should be 30 instead of 50).
Perhaps you could do the calculations using 30 in place of the 50, and
see what you get.
It's a lucky thing that you're smart enough to see that something
isn't right, and are doing something about it. Maybe this is one of the
reasons why the plans are no longer available for sale.
Bill C.
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 |
|
Didn't think you could buy a "good" anything at Wal Mart.
And, in the spirit of the late George Carlin, why can't you buy a single
"scissor"? They only sell them in pairs.
Kind of like pants... and underwear. Although pants and underwear don't cut
very well. Neither does one scissor...
Okay, I think it's time for me to take a break...
Do Not Archive
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 |
|
| Subject: | GN-1 weight & balance |
Speaking of typos, I just saw that my post refers to the "ailwheel". Doh!
Maybe if it weighs 50 pounds, that's actually the right name.
We all make mistakes. But I would think a set of plans for an airplane would
be proofread many times over before being sent to the printshop.
Bill C.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: GN-1 weight & balance |
In the interest of propagating the GN-1 design I have a set of the CAD GN-1
plans I will sell for what I paid for them if anyone is interested. I only
used them to reference the Cub-style gear I added to my Pietenpol.
Rick
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 10:26 AM, ALAN LYSCARS <alyscars@verizon.net> wrote:
> Tom,
>
> I've been working with a set of the "CAD" Grega plans for about four years.
>
> I've offered, over that time, queries and suggestions concerning
> questionable detail found in those drawings. At one time-I think about
> three or four summers ago- Bob Grega was very responsive to those of us on
> the list with these observations. Bob issued corrections to the plans to
> all registered plans owners as he became aware of them from us and when
> there was technical consensus for the change. Most of these suggestions
> were minor in detail: one such, I remember, was a mislabled turnbuckle
> assembly.
>
> At some point Bob Grega, who was only reproducing plans for those who
> wanted to buy them, stopped cold. I never found the reason why but,
> considering all of the armchair quarterbacks and litigators instant in our
> society today he may have, rightfully, gotten scared of being sued.
>
> It's really a crying shame, too, for with the withdrawl of these plans sets
> from the market a whole generation, or generations, of builders will never
> come to be: at least with this design.
>
> I always try to remind myself that as an experimental builder it is my
> charge to myself to try to know or learn as much as I can about what I'm
> doing. The fact that a few errors have been caught and corrected in these
> plans is a real testament to our willingness to "get it right" to the best
> of our collective ability.
>
> After all, even young boys can put together a kit plane.
>
> Sincerely,
> Al Lyscars
> Manchester, NH
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Bill Church <eng@canadianrogers.com>
> *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 01, 2008 11:25 AM
> *Subject:* RE: Pietenpol-List: GN-1 weight & balance
>
> Tom,
>
> I have read that the new CAD drawings for the GN-1 have quite a few
> errors. This is likely one of them.
> MAYBE this one is simply a "5" where a "3" should be (i.e. maybe the
> number for the ailwheel should be 30 instead of 50).
>
> Perhaps you could do the calculations using 30 in place of the 50, and see
> what you get.
>
> It's a lucky thing that you're smart enough to see that something isn't
> right, and are doing something about it. Maybe this is one of the reasons
> why the plans are no longer available for sale.
>
> Bill C.
>
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c*
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: GN-1 weight & balance |
Al,
You are absolutely right, this has certainly been a learning
experience for me. If Grega had kept selling and correcting the
plans, as well as making the drawings from the old plans available, we
would have a great GN-1 builder community. When I pointed out the
orientation of the vertical pieces in the aft fuselage were incorrect
he just disagreed with me? If you are ever coming to Gloucester,
give me a call and you can see my plane.
Regards,
Tom Bernie
978-281-8892
On Jul 2, 2008, at 12:26 PM, ALAN LYSCARS wrote:
> Tom,
>
> I've been working with a set of the "CAD" Grega plans for about four
> years.
>
> I've offered, over that time, queries and suggestions concerning
> questionable detail found in those drawings. At one time-I think
> about three or four summers ago- Bob Grega was very responsive to
> those of us on the list with these observations. Bob issued
> corrections to the plans to all registered plans owners as he became
> aware of them from us and when there was technical consensus for the
> change. Most of these suggestions were minor in detail: one such,
> I remember, was a mislabled turnbuckle assembly.
>
> At some point Bob Grega, who was only reproducing plans for those
> who wanted to buy them, stopped cold. I never found the reason why
> but, considering all of the armchair quarterbacks and litigators
> instant in our society today he may have, rightfully, gotten scared
> of being sued.
>
> It's really a crying shame, too, for with the withdrawl of these
> plans sets from the market a whole generation, or generations, of
> builders will never come to be: at least with this design.
>
> I always try to remind myself that as an experimental builder it is
> my charge to myself to try to know or learn as much as I can about
> what I'm doing. The fact that a few errors have been caught and
> corrected in these plans is a real testament to our willingness to
> "get it right" to the best of our collective ability.
>
> After all, even young boys can put together a kit plane.
>
> Sincerely,
> Al Lyscars
> Manchester, NH
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bill Church
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 11:25 AM
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: GN-1 weight & balance
>
> Tom,
>
> I have read that the new CAD drawings for the GN-1 have quite a few
> errors. This is likely one of them.
> MAYBE this one is simply a "5" where a "3" should be (i.e. maybe
> the number for the ailwheel should be 30 instead of 50).
>
> Perhaps you could do the calculations using 30 in place of the 50,
> and see what you get.
>
> It's a lucky thing that you're smart enough to see that something
> isn't right, and are doing something about it. Maybe this is one of
> the reasons why the plans are no longer available for sale.
>
> Bill C.
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://
> www.matronics.com/c
>
>
Thomas Bernie
tsbe
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: GN-1 weight & balance |
Bill,
In this case I'm afraid that complete proofreading and error checking
mightn't have happened.
Bob Grega's dad, John, designed those plans in the early sixites. They
were a hand-drafted set. Later, as CAD came into vogue, those plans
were translated/redrawn. I believe that by that time John had passed
away. It seems to me that there was no one at that time with the
absolute knowledge of the "redrawns'" accuracy. I don't know for a fact
that these errors weren't included in the original hand drafts.
And for all I know, I may be blowing smoke out of my "U-NO-WAT". I
wasn't there. All I can say is that I haven't been a party to any major
design flaws with these plans: only small, seldom occurring common
sense items needing correction (typos).
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Church
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 12:34 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: GN-1 weight & balance
Speaking of typos, I just saw that my post refers to the "ailwheel".
Doh!
Maybe if it weighs 50 pounds, that's actually the right name.
We all make mistakes. But I would think a set of plans for an airplane
would be proofread many times over before being sent to the printshop.
Bill C.
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 |
|
You know Bill my smoke system didn't come from ASS Co. or Wicks or some
fancy aerobatic manufacturer
but from the garden department at Wal Mart. A Better Homes & Garden
pump-up bug sprayer poly bottle.
Also if you buy pinking shears from Wal Mart there are two grades. El
Cheapo and expensive. I got the
expensive ones and used the daylights out of them. I lost them
somewhere along the line but I hope they
show up in one of those boxes I have in the attic someday because
they've got glue and goo, and cement
and fingerprints all over the handles and are sentimental in a way.
Beware of something when going thru the sewing department at Wal Mart
though. You must be secure
in your masculinity as the women there will look at you with a wary eye
and I'm assuming they either just
think we're getting something for our wives or are perverts !
Mike C.
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: Re Poly Fiber |
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 |
|
>Beware of something when going thru the sewing department at Wal Mart
though. You must be secure<
>in your masculinity as the women there will look at you with a wary eye
and I'm assuming they either just<
>think we're getting something for our wives or are perverts ! <
Mike:
I usually just go with my wife so I don't look too out-of-place. I have
developed this "I'm SOOO Bored" look that makes the other women in there
just avoid me altogether.
Tom S.
do not archive
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 |
|
Mike,
I was just kidding about the Wal Mart comment. They do have a lot of El
Cheapo stuff, but some is brand name at a good price. Like everything, you
get what you pay for.
I have much more experience in fabric stores than I'll ever need, as my wife
used to make her own line of children's clothing, and sometimes was required
to assist (read: carry). So, I know all too well the feeling of being in "no
man's land".
One thing I know for sure, is that when I do get to the fabric work, I'm
definitely going to get my own pair of pinking shears, as opposed to
"borrowing" my wife's. I may not be smart, but I'm not stupid.
Bill C.
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 |
|
You bet Bill--all in good fun and Wal Mart was just part of the building
process for me. Another was when my inspector
saw the drywall screws I used to safety wire a friction nut (from
Lowe's) in place on my trim system. "you went thru all
of this to make your plane decent and then use drywall screws here ?"
Yep. Worked like a charm and nobody ever sees
that under the seat. NAPA had the gallon size of MEK I needed for
some of my fabric cement and work. Valley City
lumber had the handrail banister material that I ripped up into my wing
leading edge. A little upholstery shop in Grafton
took some posterboard patterns I made up for vinyl cockpit covers and
sewed them up for me out of real imitation rich
Corinthian fake (did I mention imitation ?) brown vinyl. The Great Wok
in Grafton supplied many of my late night
dinners. Joe made a mean sesame chicken there.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: GN-1 weight & balance |
I fly aGN-1 aircamper and here are my figures:CofG=D+(RxL)=0A----
-------------------------
-------------------------
-------------------------
----------W=0Awhere Cof G =distance from datumto cent
er of gravity of the aircraft =14.6 in.=0A--------- W
------ =the weight of the aircraft at the time of weighing
=777 lbs (right wheel = 365lbs,left wheel =379 lbs and tail wheel =
33lbs=0A--------- D------- =horizontal di
stance from-datum to main weighing point =7.6 in.=0A------
--- L------- =horizontal distance from main wheel wei
ghing point to nose or tail weighing point =167 in.=0A------
--- R------- =the weight at the tail weighing point
=33 lbs=0A7.6+(33x167)=0A---------- 777----
-- =Cof G of 14.6- =0A=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom:
Thomas Bernie <tsbernie@earthlink.net>=0ATo: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
=0ASent: Wednesday, July 2, 2008 9:50:05 AM=0ASubject: Re: Pietenpol-List:
nie <tsbernie@earthlink.net>=0A=0AOscar,=0A=0AThe weight and balance exampl
e from the plans has to be disregarded.- =0AThe plans do however,- spec
ify a c.g. range of 18.1 to 20.7 (30.2% to- =0A34.5%).- I weighed my wi
ng panels with scales at the strut attach- =0Apoints and added the approp
riate weight to my fuselage and did a- =0Aweight and balance.- It came
out 31% fwd and 34% aft.- It's not exact- =0Aby any means, but it did e
nd up close to the design numbers.- I expect- =0Athe GN-1's built to pl
ans are all operating at the back of the c.g.- =0Aenvelope.- I guess I'
ll have to make a new, longer,- motor mount.- I- =0Ahave no intention
of operating in the plans specified c.g. range.- =0AI've got nothing to
move but the engine.- Thanks for posting the- =0Aspreadsheet that will
come in handy.- Over the last few days I have- =0Agenerated a huge pile
of paper and worn out my calculator, so the- =0Aspreadsheet will be usef
ul for working out the mount.- My plane has- =0A30# on the tailwheel an
d an empty c.g. of 13.9.- I need to move that- =0Afwd a couple of inche
s.- Thanks for the help.=0A=0ARegards,=0ATom=0A=0AOn Jul 2, 2008, at 8:51
Zuniga <taildrags@hotmail.com =0A> >=0A>=0A>=0A> Tom; I plugged your numbe
rs into the spreadsheet that I used for the- =0A> W&B on 41CC (thanks, Be
rt and Corky!) and you're right... your Grega- =0A> doesn't pencil out.
- I guessed at a whole bunch of things, like your- =0A> design gross (I
used 1,088 as in 41CC), fuel capacity (I used 16- =0A> gal., also like 4
1CC), and some other things like pilot and- =0A> passenger weight- but th
e one number that jumped out immediately- =0A> while I was plugging in nu
mbers was the weight on your tailwheel.- =0A> 41CC had 29 lbs. on the tai
lwheel when empty, whereas 05G has 50.- =0A> There's your problem.- Twe
nty more pounds on the tailwheel.- Oh, and- =0A> BTW- I sent the Excel
spreadsheet to Matt Dralle for posting on the- =0A> file share, so it sho
uld be available later today if you want it to- =0A> do some what-ifs.-
You'll have to check all the numbers and info in- =0A> each cell or you'
ll get bad info out of it though.=0A>=0A> That twenty extra pounds at a mom
ent arm of 169" yields 3380 in-lbs.- =0A> of moment.- Your C-85 weighs
about 220 lbs. so you'd have to move- =0A> the engine forward by 15" to o
ffset that moment... which I don't- =0A> think you would want to do.- T
ime to look at some other options for- =0A> bringing it into balance.-
Think about heavy stuff that you can move- =0A> forward.=0A>=0A> Oscar Zu
niga=0A> Air Camper NX41CC=0A> San Antonio, TX=0A> mailto: taildrags@hotmai
l.com=0A> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A=0ATh
===============
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 |
|
And don't forget to get your own iron, too. You can bet that if you borrow
hers, she'll want one twice as expensive as a replacement!
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion
Tail done, working on fuselage
(10 ribs down.)
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Church
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 11:57 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 1.7 oz
..One thing I know for sure, is that when I do get to the fabric work, I'm
definitely going to get my own pair of pinking shears, as opposed to
"borrowing" my wife's. I may not be smart, but I'm not stupid.
Bill 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 |
|
| Subject: | Instrument panels pilot and front cockpit |
You succeeded!!
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion
Tail done, working on fuselage
(10 ribs down=85)
Do not archive
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of santiago
morete
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 3:54 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Instrument panels pilot and front cockpit
We are trying to keep it simple
Saludos
Santiago
_____
=A1Busc=E1 desde tu celular! Yahoo! oneSEARCH ahora est=E1 en Claro
http://ar.mobile.yahoo.com/onesearch
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: GN-1 weight & balance |
Harvey,
Thanks for the numbers -- very helpful for me to see what c.g.'s
flying GN-1's have.
Best Regards,
Tom Bernie
Gloucester Mass
978-281-8892
On Jul 2, 2008, at 5:43 PM, H RULE wrote:
> I fly aGN-1 aircamper and here are my figures:CofG=D+(RxL)
>
>
W
>
> where Cof G =distance from datumto center of gravity of the aircraft
> =14.6 in.
>
> W =the weight of the aircraft at the time of
> weighing =777 lbs (right wheel = 365lbs,left wheel =379 lbs and tail
> wheel =33lbs
>
> D =horizontal distance from datum to main weighing
> point =7.6 in.
>
> L =horizontal distance from main wheel weighing
> point to nose or tail weighing point =167 in.
>
> R =the weight at the tail weighing point =33 lbs
>
>
> 7.6+(33x167)
>
> 777 =Cof G of 14.6
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Thomas Bernie <tsbernie@earthlink.net>
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2008 9:50:05 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: GN-1 weight & balance
>
> >
>
> Oscar,
>
> The weight and balance example from the plans has to be disregarded.
> The plans do however, specify a c.g. range of 18.1 to 20.7 (30.2% to
> 34.5%). I weighed my wing panels with scales at the strut attach
> points and added the appropriate weight to my fuselage and did a
> weight and balance. It came out 31% fwd and 34% aft. It's not exact
> by any means, but it did end up close to the design numbers. I expect
> the GN-1's built to plans are all operating at the back of the c.g.
> envelope. I guess I'll have to make a new, longer, motor mount. I
> have no intention of operating in the plans specified c.g. range.
> I've got nothing to move but the engine. Thanks for posting the
> spreadsheet that will come in handy. Over the last few days I have
> generated a huge pile of paper and worn out my calculator, so the
> spreadsheet will be useful for working out the mount. My plane has
> 30# on the tailwheel and an empty c.g. of 13.9. I need to move that
> fwd a couple of inches. Thanks for the help.
>
> Regards,
> Tom
>
> On Jul 2, 2008, at 8:51 AM, Oscar Zuniga wrote:
>
> > >
> >
> >
> > Tom; I plugged your numbers into the spreadsheet that I used for the
> > W&B on 41CC (thanks, Bert and Corky!) and you're right... your Grega
> > doesn't pencil out. I guessed at a whole bunch of things, like your
> > design gross (I used 1,088 as in 41CC), fuel capacity (I used 16
> > gal., also like 41CC), and some other things like pilot and
> > passenger weight- but the one number that jumped out immediately
> > while I was plugging in numbers was the weight on your tailwheel.
> > 41CC had 29 lbs. on the tailwheel when empty, whereas 05G has 50.
> > There's your problem. Twenty more pounds on the tailwheel. Oh, and
> > BTW- I sent the Excel spreadsheet to Matt Dralle for posting on the
> > file share, so it should be available later today if you want it to
> > do some what-ifs. You'll have to check all the numbers and info in
> > each cell or you'll get bad info out of it though.
> >
> > That twenty extra pounds at a moment arm of 169" yields 3380 in-lbs.
> > of moment. Your C-85 weighs about 220 lbs. so you'd have to move
> > the engine forward by 15" to offset that moment... which I don't
> > think you would want to do. Time to look at some other options for
> > bringing it into balance. Think about heavy stuff that you can move
> > forward.
> >
> > Oscar Zuniga
> > Air Camper NX41CC
> > San Antonio, TX
> > mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
> > website at
> _-
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> ======================
> _-
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> ======================
> _-
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> ======================
> _-
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> =
> 3D
> ======================
>
>
Thomas Bernie
tsbe
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 |
|
I bought a project in progress 2nd hand from an original estate sale.All
the work looked good ,fuselage ,tailfeathers etc.
I decided to check the stapled gussets on the ribs.As I pulled out the
staples the gussets came off. I could not tell that there had ever been any glue
put on them and if they had been it was it was not where I could tell it I
have already mounted all the ribs on the spars so I'm redoing every one of them
(at least 300). At least I'll know they are good when I finish redoing them.
It pays to double check everything reguardless of how good it looks to the
eye. After all that will be me and probably a friend depending on that wing to
bring us back to earth safely.
Ted Stone
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
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 |
|
For what it is worth;
Fair disclaimer, the plane has not yet flown. I did my first covering
job on the piet wings and used the 1.7 based on the math and comparison
to Grade A cotton. So far the process went flawlessly. It wasn't a
matter of money, Valhala knows I have spent twice as much to build my
Piet as most folks ordering all new and many PMA parts and not risking
anything. I just compared it to what Piets were born with and it came
out nicely. I followed the Polyfiber STC practices to the T and my
inspector had nothing bad to say, in fact after I saw the random beard
hair trapped under the fabric despite the tack cloth treatment I wanted
to throw a match on it. But my inspector said he would swear it was an
old timer's job. Not tooting my horn, just relaying that the 1.7 didn't
raise any red flags yet.
-Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Boothe
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 6:08 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 1.7 oz
And don't forget to get your own iron, too. You can bet that if you
borrow hers, she'll want one twice as expensive as a replacement!
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion
Tail done, working on fuselage
(10 ribs down.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Church
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 11:57 AM
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 1.7 oz
..One thing I know for sure, is that when I do get to the fabric work,
I'm definitely going to get my own pair of pinking shears, as opposed to
"borrowing" my wife's. I may not be smart, but I'm not stupid.
Bill C.
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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 |
|
Ted,
What glue did you use? Did you lightly sand the plywood gussets before
glueing them? Better ck the fuselage and tail gussetts too!
That is frustrating indeed!
Mike in Iowa
TGSTONE236@aol.com wrote:
> I bought a project in progress 2nd hand from an original estate
> sale.All the work looked good ,fuselage ,tailfeathers etc.
>
> I decided to check the stapled gussets on the ribs.As I pulled out the
> staples the gussets came off. I could not tell that there had ever
> been any glue put on them and if they had been it was it was not where
> I could tell it I have already mounted all the ribs on the spars so
> I'm redoing every one of them (at least 300). At least I'll know they
> are good when I finish redoing them. It pays to double check
> everything reguardless of how good it looks to the eye. After all that
> will be me and probably a friend depending on that wing to bring us
> back to earth safely.
>
> Ted Stone
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used
> cars <http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007>.
> *
>
>
> *
Message 38
| 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: weight and balance |
I also use an 80 hp franklin engine and at the time of weighing I didn't have any
gas or oil on board.I also have a faily large rear wheel.I have tried to send
pictures but to no avail.They are too large I guess.
Message 39
| 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 |
|
Hey,
I need to double ck my electronic (hooked into mag) tach. I don't think
it's telling the truth and I wondered if someone out there has an optical
tach I could borrow or some other great idea that would help me ck it out?
Douwe
Message 40
| 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 |
|
I second the motion. After that I wouldn't trust any of the rest of that
project without a thorough inspection. Did the project come with the rib
jig?
On 7/2/08, TGSTONE236@aol.com <TGSTONE236@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I bought a project in progress 2nd hand from an original estate sale.All
> the work looked good ,fuselage ,tailfeathers etc.
>
> I decided to check the stapled gussets on the ribs.As I pulled out the
> staples the gussets came off. I could not tell that there had ever been any
> glue put on them and if they had been it was it was not where I could tell
> it I have already mounted all the ribs on the spars so I'm redoing every
> one of them (at least 300). At least I'll know they are good when I finish
> redoing them. It pays to double check everything reguardless of how good it
> looks to the eye. After all that will be me and probably a friend depending
> on that wing to bring us back to earth safely.
>
> Ted Stone
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars<http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007>
> .
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Glenn Thomas
Storrs, CT
http://www.flyingwood.com
Message 41
| 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 |
|
I lightly sanded the gussets and the ribs where the gusset goes. Using t-88
In a message dated 7/2/2008 9:29:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
miket@southslope.net writes:
Ted,
What glue did you use? Did you lightly sand the plywood gussets before
glueing them? Better ck the fuselage and tail gussetts too!
That is frustrating indeed!
Mike in Iowa
_TGSTONE236@aol.com_ (mailto:TGSTONE236@aol.com) wrote:
I bought a project in progress 2nd hand from an original estate sale.All
the work looked good ,fuselage ,tailfeathers etc.
I decided to check the stapled gussets on the ribs.As I pulled out the
staples the gussets came off. I could not tell that there had ever been any glue
put on them and if they had been it was it was not where I could tell it I
have already mounted all the ribs on the spars so I'm redoing every one of them
(at least 300). At least I'll know they are good when I finish redoing them.
It pays to double check everything reguardless of how good it looks to the
eye. After all that will be me and probably a friend depending on that wing to
bring us back to earth safely.
Ted Stone
____________________________________
Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient _used cars_
(http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007) .
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
Message 42
| 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: Instrument panels pilot and front cockpit |
[quote="gcardinal(at)comcast.net"]Hi Tom,
It is burled black walnut. Book matched and they are successive sheets so every
burl in the pilots panel matches a burl in the passenger panel.
Dale spent many hours working out most of these details.
Greg
[quote]
Cool! That is exactly what I had in mind for ours, a Rolls-Royce dash type of appearance,
with a finish you can see yourself in.
Mike D.
--------
Piet-builder-who-hopes-to-be-flying-next-summer
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=191000#191000
Message 43
| 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 |
|
An old friend of mine, Max the trapper, liked to compare
birds and scissors to stupid people. As in " That scissorbill
never could do anything right!"
If a man is alone in the forest and he says something.
Is he still wrong?
Shouldn't one use heavier weight fabric on the bottom
of the fuselage where the sticks and stones get flung?
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Church
And, in the spirit of the late George Carlin,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG.
7/1/2008 7:23 PM
Message 44
| 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: Instrument panels pilot and front cockpit |
Put in a cheap mirror and save on costly burled walnut.
Just kidding. I have seen the Greg/Dale machine, and it's a knockout. We should
all aspire to such detail and craftsmanship.
-----Original Message-----
>From: MikeD <mjdt@auracom.com>
>Sent: Jul 2, 2008 11:03 PM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Instrument panels pilot and front cockpit
>
>
>[quote="gcardinal(at)comcast.net"]Hi Tom,
>
> It is burled black walnut. Book matched and they are successive sheets so every
burl in the pilots panel matches a burl in the passenger panel.
> Dale spent many hours working out most of these details.
>
> Greg
>
> [quote]
>
>Cool! That is exactly what I had in mind for ours, a Rolls-Royce dash type of
appearance, with a finish you can see yourself in.
>
>Mike D.
>
>--------
>Piet-builder-who-hopes-to-be-flying-next-summer
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=191000#191000
>
>
Message 45
| 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: Report from Roundup |
Nope, it's dead on. I think it looks that way due to the way the rad is
mounted.
He's just mounted the whole rad higher than normal with all of it above
the
fuselage instead of sunk ito it. No vent line from the top rad hose to
the front
of the engine either. As for the cables on the tail, The same thing was
done
on a number of planes, like the DH4. Maybe he thought it would look more
antiquey.
Clif
this is a very interesting airplane. I can't put my finger on it, but
isn't the wing way forward?
Gene
Message 46
| 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: | cockpit combing aluminum |
What gauge (thickness) have people been using for the aluminum around the cockpit
over the instrument panels? I'm about ready to make these up and thought I'd
ask for an opinion before I choose on my own.
Thanks
Message 47
| 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: | Weight and balance story... |
Members...
-
I recently sold my Challenger Light Sport Special (LSS) 2007 long wing two
place aircraft. When the buyer showed up to take possession and fly it back
to-Michigan, I handed him the weight and balance for the plane. I used a
standard pilot weight of 180lbs (based on visual calibrated eyeball calcul
ations of most people I see during the day).
-
When I asked him how much he weighed....he responded with..... 150lbs and 5
'8" tall wet! Needless-to-say, I had to add 30lbs of weight in the nose of
the plane to allow for the-CG to fall within acceptability. If anyone is
familiar with a Challenger aircraft, when you exit the- the plane, it res
t on the tail wheel similar to any tail dragger.... yet a tri-cycle gear se
t up. Talk about a aft-W/B plane using the pilot as the forward ballast f
or CG......
-
And you wonder why I was always eating during flight!
-
Kenneth M. Heide, BA, CPO, FAAOP
-
=0A=0A=0A
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! --
|