Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 11:04 AM - Piet Roster (Dick Carden)
2. 12:12 PM - Re: Riblett's Info (Tim Willis)
3. 12:30 PM - Piet Roster (Oscar Zuniga)
4. 12:34 PM - wing leding edge (airlion@bellsouth.net)
5. 12:41 PM - Re: Riblett's Info (Owen Davies)
6. 12:45 PM - another day of Pietenpoling (Oscar Zuniga)
7. 12:58 PM - Re: Riblett's Info (Tim Willis)
8. 01:15 PM - Re: Riblett's Info ()
9. 01:23 PM - Re: Piet Roster (Jack T. Textor)
10. 01:26 PM - Re: Riblett's Info (Owen Davies)
11. 01:31 PM - Re: Riblett's Info (outofthebox50@yahoo.com)
12. 01:55 PM - Re: Riblett's Info (Tim Willis)
13. 02:01 PM - Re: Riblett's Info (Tim Willis)
14. 02:34 PM - Re: Riblett's Info (Owen Davies)
15. 04:17 PM - Re: Riblett's Info (Michael Silvius)
16. 05:29 PM - Re: Riblett's Info (Owen Davies)
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 |
|
Is there a roster/list of Piet/GN-1 owners and builders, and if so, (1) can piet
list folks access it, and (2) if (1) is "yes", how can it be accessed. Dick
Carden
From: Pietenpol-List Digest Server <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 08/09/08
*
=================================================
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
=================================================
Today's complete Pietenpol-List Digest can also be found in either of the
two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
of the Pietenpol-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
such as Notepad or with a web browser.
HTML Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 08-08-09&Archive=Pietenpol
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 08-08-09&Archive=Pietenpol
===============================================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
===============================================
----------------------------------------------------------
Pietenpol-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Sat 08/09/08: 10
----------------------------------------------------------
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:01 AM - Autogas vs.Avgas (Oscar Zuniga)
2. 08:51 AM - Re: Plywood ()
3. 09:41 AM - Riblett's Info (Pieti Lowell)
4. 10:45 AM - Riblett's grafts (Pieti Lowell)
5. 01:21 PM - Re: Autogas vs.Avgas (Gene & Tammy)
6. 03:48 PM - Re: Plywood (Tim Willis)
7. 04:42 PM - Re: Riblett's Info (Tim Willis)
8. 07:38 PM - Re: Riblett's Info (Pieti Lowell)
9. 08:17 PM - Re: Riblett's Info (jeremy bramall)
10. 08:53 PM - Delaware, Ohio Fly-In (shad bell)
________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
Time: 08:01:30 AM PST US
From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags@hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Autogas vs.Avgas
>Of course, all Pietenpol owners drain their fuel system for the winter.
What is "winter"? Down here, we fly our airplanes year 'round ;o)
PS, I fly avgas in 41CC exclusively. It's an airplane, not a car ;o)
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
Time: 08:51:23 AM PST US
From: <catdesigns@att.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Plywood
It's what I used on my ribs. Lately I have found a lower quality plywood
being sold in my local hobby shop so be careful. I boiled and soaked the
good stuff in water just to check it first and it was just fine.
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
Website at http://www.WestCoastPiet.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "mr-fix-all" <jb.spiegel@us.schneider-electric.com>
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 11:34 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Plywood
> <jb.spiegel@us.schneider-electric.com>
>
> Question, is the 1/16 90 deg birch plywood that aircraft spruce the same
> 1/16 90 deg birch plywood that hobby stores sell.
>
> I received my riblett plans from Roman today and I need to order plywood.
>
> --------
> "Be who you are and say what you think, those that mind don't matter,
> and those that matter don't mind" Dr. Seuss
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197373#197373
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________
Time: 09:41:32 AM PST US
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Riblett's Info
From: "Pieti Lowell" <Lowellcfrank@yahoo.com>
Riblett's letter to Pieti Lowell, ref air foils for a Pietenpol
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197525#197525
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/riblett_p2_118.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/riblett_p1_976.jpg
________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________
Time: 10:45:24 AM PST US
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Riblett's grafts
From: "Pieti Lowell" <Lowellcfrank@yahoo.com>
The lift,stall and cruise of the Piet, 4412 & 612 airfoils are very interesting
to those that need more lift.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197529#197529
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/riblett_p3_653.jpg
________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________
Time: 01:21:51 PM PST US
From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Autogas vs.Avgas
Oscar, not getting to fly your Piet in the winter is like a pilot never
getting to watch "Waldo Pepper". They just don't know what their missing.
Gene
N502R (an all season bird).
>
> What is "winter"? Down here, we fly our airplanes year 'round ;o)
>
>>
> Oscar Zuniga
> Air Camper NX41CC
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
> --
> Checked by AVG.
> 5:54 AM
>
>
________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________
Time: 03:48:00 PM PST US
From: Tim Willis <timothywillis@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Plywood
The plywood of this sort here near Austin, TX, in both the Hobby Lobby (for sure)
and Michael's (as I recall, not so sure) says it is for hobby use only, and
not for aircraft use.
Go to Boulter plywood in greater Boston. They have a website. A 4X8 foot sheet
is $23 plus freight, on a special. and they will cut it into either 4X4 feet
or 2X8 feet. UPS may charge some special rates for either, but they will tell
you. This is good marine plywood, and very suitable for airplane use.
You may want quite a bit, for not only rib gussets, but for wing leading edges.
Add it up and see what you think.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: catdesigns@att.net
>Sent: Aug 9, 2008 10:51 AM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Plywood
>
>
>It's what I used on my ribs. Lately I have found a lower quality plywood
>being sold in my local hobby shop so be careful. I boiled and soaked the
>good stuff in water just to check it first and it was just fine.
>
>Chris Tracy
>Sacramento, Ca
>Website at http://www.WestCoastPiet.com
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "mr-fix-all" <jb.spiegel@us.schneider-electric.com>
>To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 11:34 AM
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Plywood
>
>
>> <jb.spiegel@us.schneider-electric.com>
>>
>> Question, is the 1/16 90 deg birch plywood that aircraft spruce the same
>> 1/16 90 deg birch plywood that hobby stores sell.
>>
>> I received my riblett plans from Roman today and I need to order plywood.
>>
>> --------
>> "Be who you are and say what you think, those that mind don't matter,
>> and those that matter don't mind" Dr. Seuss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197373#197373
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________
Time: 04:42:47 PM PST US
From: Tim Willis <timothywillis@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett's Info
Lowell,
Thanks for posting this. Some may not know of your experience with various airfoils.
Of course, you are one of the few (maybe the only one) who has changed
wings on the same plane with the same engine,and changed engines with the same
wing and plane, and then changed both. You can report empirical data on the
effect of each of the changes.
I think, based on talking with you about this earlier this year, and our more recent
discussions at Brodhead, many builders should use either a Riblett GA30U-612
or a GA30U-613.5 instead of BP's airfoil. I believe you agree with that
evaluation as a good decision for all but Piet purists. (Room for all instide
the tent.) And we have discussed the merits of both these Riblett airfoils.
I'd like to lay out some impressions of the 613.5, and see if you will confirm
or change this post, for the benefit of others considering these choices. I'll
ask you to pardon me in advance,if I am misinterpreting any of our discussions,
or if I have crossed them up with similar discussions with Bill Rewey or Roman
Bukolt.
As you know, and as we have discussed, the 613.5 is "fatter" than the other airfoils.
You and I have discussed its comparative merits.
For the benefit of others on the board, the 613.5 has more loft on the Y-axis and
a bigger radius, resulting in more camber. Otherwise it looks much like the
NACA 2412 or 4412 and the Riblett 612, all of them peaking "Y" at 30 percent
of the "X" (chord). All of these have better laminarity than BP's airfoil in
the early part of the airfoil, before the airflow "goes turbulent." (All are
characterized as "turbulent airfoils," but some are more turbulent than others.)
The Riblett GA30U-613.5 seems to me a better choice for a Piet with less powerful
engines, such as most Model A's (not your fuel-injected baby) or Continental
A-65s. I think you have agreed with this opinion, perhaps even postulated it
yourself.
The 613.5 would give the Piet builder a faster climb, better safe payload on hot
days, etc. A wing built with it would weigh a little more than one using a
612 airfoil-- how much more depending upon whether the builder uses filler blocks
at the top of each spar or a full-height built-up ply and wood spar.
Alternatively, the 612 might be better for higher hp Piets. With 100 hp or more
the pilot gets a faster climb in any event, and the 612 would have less drag
and allow a faster cruising speed than the 613.5. And as you and Mr. Riblett
have reported, there are no negatives associated with the 612 when compared to
BP's original "FC-10" airfoil. (We may not know that much about the pitching
moment of the 613.5 as yet.)
Do you agree with this discussion of the 613.5 vs. the 612? And with a 612 foir
higher hp Piets? Is this the right way//a right way to think of the choices?
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: Pieti Lowell <Lowellcfrank@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Aug 9, 2008 11:38 AM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Riblett's Info
>
>
>Riblett's letter to Pieti Lowell, ref air foils for a Pietenpol
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197525#197525
>
>
>Attachments:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com//files/riblett_p2_118.jpg
>http://forums.matronics.com//files/riblett_p1_976.jpg
>
>
________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________
Time: 07:38:20 PM PST US
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Riblett's Info
From: "Pieti Lowell" <Lowellcfrank@yahoo.com>
Tim , as per usual, you are on track, Riblitt's better design even over the 612
is the 613.5, As you know it is easy to see the difference . But you can also
carry a larger fuel tank in the 613.5.
Lowell
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197633#197633
________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________
Time: 08:17:44 PM PST US
From: jeremy bramall <outofthebox50@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett's Info
Alright, so if you had 90hp, not heavy or light, and wanted better stol characteristics,
which would you choose?
Jeremy in Dallas
Tim Willis <timothywillis@earthlink.net> wrote:
Lowell,
Thanks for posting this. Some may not know of your experience with various airfoils.
Of course, you are one of the few (maybe the only one) who has changed wings
on the same plane with the same engine,and changed engines with the same
wing and plane, and then changed both. You can report empirical data on the effect
of each of the changes.
I think, based on talking with you about this earlier this year, and our more recent
discussions at Brodhead, many builders should use either a Riblett GA30U-612
or a GA30U-613.5 instead of BP's airfoil. I believe you agree with that evaluation
as a good decision for all but Piet purists. (Room for all instide the
tent.) And we have discussed the merits of both these Riblett airfoils.
I'd like to lay out some impressions of the 613.5, and see if you will confirm
or change this post, for the benefit of others considering these choices. I'll
ask you to pardon me in advance,if I am misinterpreting any of our discussions,
or if I have crossed them up with similar discussions with Bill Rewey or Roman
Bukolt.
As you know, and as we have discussed, the 613.5 is "fatter" than the other airfoils.
You and I have discussed its comparative merits.
For the benefit of others on the board, the 613.5 has more loft on the Y-axis and
a bigger radius, resulting in more camber. Otherwise it looks much like the
NACA 2412 or 4412 and the Riblett 612, all of them peaking "Y" at 30 percent
of the "X" (chord). All of these have better laminarity than BP's airfoil in the
early part of the airfoil, before the airflow "goes turbulent." (All are characterized
as "turbulent airfoils," but some are more turbulent than others.)
The Riblett GA30U-613.5 seems to me a better choice for a Piet with less powerful
engines, such as most Model A's (not your fuel-injected baby) or Continental
A-65s. I think you have agreed with this opinion, perhaps even postulated it
yourself.
The 613.5 would give the Piet builder a faster climb, better safe payload on hot
days, etc. A wing built with it would weigh a little more than one using a 612
airfoil-- how much more depending upon whether the builder uses filler blocks
at the top of each spar or a full-height built-up ply and wood spar.
Alternatively, the 612 might be better for higher hp Piets. With 100 hp or more
the pilot gets a faster climb in any event, and the 612 would have less drag
and allow a faster cruising speed than the 613.5. And as you and Mr. Riblett have
reported, there are no negatives associated with the 612 when compared to
BP's original "FC-10" airfoil. (We may not know that much about the pitching moment
of the 613.5 as yet.)
Do you agree with this discussion of the 613.5 vs. the 612? And with a 612 foir
higher hp Piets? Is this the right way//a right way to think of the choices?
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: Pieti Lowell
>Sent: Aug 9, 2008 11:38 AM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Riblett's Info
>
>
>Riblett's letter to Pieti Lowell, ref air foils for a Pietenpol
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197525#197525
>
>
>Attachments:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com//files/riblett_p2_118.jpg
>http://forums.matronics.com//files/riblett_p1_976.jpg
>
>
________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________
Time: 08:53:27 PM PST US
From: shad bell <aviatorbell@yahoo.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Delaware, Ohio Fly-In
Hello Ohio Area-Pieters,- Just wondering if any Ohio Piets planned on a
ttending the Delaware, Ohio fly-in on Aug 16, 17.- If any one plans on go
ing send me an e-mail, and they can stop by Chapman Field in Centerburg Ohi
o for free donuts and coffee before we fly over to Delaware, ( before 9AM).
- Skipp G., Mike C., And Don Emch, let me know if you want to go I will w
ait for you and we can make a group arrival on Saturday Morning.- Dad say
s they are wanting fly-bys, so if you want to we can do some in-trail, or l
oose formation fly-bys low, and slow.
-
Shad=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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Riblett's Info |
Jeremy,
On a Pietenpol with 90hp, seeking more STOL characteristics, I would choose the
Riblett GA30U-613.5. On a much faster plane, such as a Zenith 601 or a KR-2,
the best choice would be another airfoil, and might be a NACA 4412. You are
seeking fast cruise in the latter case, not STOL.
Moreover, on your Piet, as Lowell points out, you can put more gas in the wing
tank space with the 613.5. Go nuts, widen the center wing to 36-40 inches, and
add a "Tiger Moth bulge" as well, and you would really increase the tank capacity.
And at the perfect spot, right at the CG. Your arse would never endure
the range you might thus achieve.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: jeremy bramall <outofthebox50@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Aug 9, 2008 10:17 PM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett's Info
>
>Alright, so if you had 90hp, not heavy or light, and wanted better stol characteristics,
which would you choose?
>
> Jeremy in Dallas
>
>Tim Willis <timothywillis@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Lowell,
>
>Thanks for posting this. Some may not know of your experience with various airfoils.
Of course, you are one of the few (maybe the only one) who has changed
wings on the same plane with the same engine,and changed engines with the same
wing and plane, and then changed both. You can report empirical data on the effect
of each of the changes.
>
>I think, based on talking with you about this earlier this year, and our more
recent discussions at Brodhead, many builders should use either a Riblett GA30U-612
or a GA30U-613.5 instead of BP's airfoil. I believe you agree with that
evaluation as a good decision for all but Piet purists. (Room for all instide
the tent.) And we have discussed the merits of both these Riblett airfoils.
>
>I'd like to lay out some impressions of the 613.5, and see if you will confirm
or change this post, for the benefit of others considering these choices. I'll
ask you to pardon me in advance,if I am misinterpreting any of our discussions,
or if I have crossed them up with similar discussions with Bill Rewey or Roman
Bukolt.
>
>As you know, and as we have discussed, the 613.5 is "fatter" than the other airfoils.
You and I have discussed its comparative merits.
>
>For the benefit of others on the board, the 613.5 has more loft on the Y-axis
and a bigger radius, resulting in more camber. Otherwise it looks much like the
NACA 2412 or 4412 and the Riblett 612, all of them peaking "Y" at 30 percent
of the "X" (chord). All of these have better laminarity than BP's airfoil in
the early part of the airfoil, before the airflow "goes turbulent." (All are characterized
as "turbulent airfoils," but some are more turbulent than others.)
>
>The Riblett GA30U-613.5 seems to me a better choice for a Piet with less powerful
engines, such as most Model A's (not your fuel-injected baby) or Continental
A-65s. I think you have agreed with this opinion, perhaps even postulated it
yourself.
>
>The 613.5 would give the Piet builder a faster climb, better safe payload on hot
days, etc. A wing built with it would weigh a little more than one using a
612 airfoil-- how much more depending upon whether the builder uses filler blocks
at the top of each spar or a full-height built-up ply and wood spar.
>
>Alternatively, the 612 might be better for higher hp Piets. With 100 hp or more
the pilot gets a faster climb in any event, and the 612 would have less drag
and allow a faster cruising speed than the 613.5. And as you and Mr. Riblett
have reported, there are no negatives associated with the 612 when compared to
BP's original "FC-10" airfoil. (We may not know that much about the pitching
moment of the 613.5 as yet.)
>
>Do you agree with this discussion of the 613.5 vs. the 612? And with a 612 foir
higher hp Piets? Is this the right way//a right way to think of the choices?
>
>Tim in central TX
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Pieti Lowell
>>Sent: Aug 9, 2008 11:38 AM
>>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Riblett's Info
>>
>>
>>Riblett's letter to Pieti Lowell, ref air foils for a Pietenpol
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Read this topic online here:
>>
>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197525#197525
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Attachments:
>>
>>http://forums.matronics.com//files/riblett_p2_118.jpg
>>http://forums.matronics.com//files/riblett_p1_976.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Dick;
There is a very useful and complete listing of Piets and GN-1s that is published
by Doc and Dee Mosher, editors of the BPA Newsletter. It is not available online.
The booklet lists the airplanes in several different formats for easy
searching.
You can get one of these by contacting Doc. Complete info is here: http://www.pietenpols.org/ , and while you're at it be sure to sign up for a subscription to the newsletter!
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
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: | wing leding edge |
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: Riblett's Info |
Tim Willis wrote:
> On a Pietenpol with 90hp, seeking more STOL characteristics, I would choose the
Riblett GA30U-613.5. On a much faster plane, such as a Zenith 601 or a KR-2,
the best choice would be another airfoil, and might be a NACA 4412.
It's not really Piet-related, but you bring up something that has
interested me for some time. A STOL KR-2 could be a really interesting
sport aircraft. I wonder whether the GA30U-613.5 would be suitable for
such an application? For the sake of argument, picture a Corvair on the
nose and stall and top speeds just within the LSA limit.
Owen
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: | another day of Pietenpoling |
Since the list has once again quieted down, I thought I'd just mention that I had another fine time in my Piet yesterday. Weather was typical hot August, wind was the usual slight x-wind out of the southeast, and the objective was Cannon Field, home of the International Liaison Pilot and Aircraft Association here in San Antonio ( http://www.centercomp.com/ILPA/ ). It's 25 statute miles from my home field, as the crow flies and if I don't violate the controlled airspace on the way.
I never made it to Cannon. Got distracted with the many sights to see, the air
was very nice (not too bumpy), everything is still green from the rains of a
few weeks ago, and I needed to practice laying down a nice swath of smoke on a
couple of fields along the way. It's easy if you pick fields with the rows lined
up with the wind, but trickier if they are cross wind or skewed. I don't
have smoke yet but a guy has to practice ;o)
The Piet was in top flying form, performance was great, so were my landings. Poor
Steve Dortch was down on the ground by his hangar, trying his level best to
make his old Suburban turn from a toad into a princess by the application of
a few meager coats of red paint, but between getting all wrapped up in blue masking
tape and fighting the heat and breeze, I think he and his painting buddies
got more paint on them than on the Suburban. By the way, the guy wielding
the spray gun (mostly) was Steve Jones, editor of the EAA Chapter 35 newsletter
that was nominated for one of the top five awards at Oshkosh for "best chapter
newsletter". He and his wife Freda are our next-hangar-neighbors and are
great folks. Not sure how the awards ended up but getting into the top five at
Oshkosh is plenty to be proud about.
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Riblett's Info |
As I recall, Mark Langford has documented EVERYTHING about his work on his Corvair-equipped
KR-2. He would be the guy to ask about the Riblett airfoil.
Tim in central TX
off subject-- do not archive
-----Original Message-----
>From: Owen Davies <owen5819@comcast.net>
>Sent: Aug 10, 2008 2:40 PM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett's Info
>
>
>Tim Willis wrote:
>> On a Pietenpol with 90hp, seeking more STOL characteristics, I would choose
the Riblett GA30U-613.5. On a much faster plane, such as a Zenith 601 or a KR-2,
the best choice would be another airfoil, and might be a NACA 4412.
>It's not really Piet-related, but you bring up something that has
>interested me for some time. A STOL KR-2 could be a really interesting
>sport aircraft. I wonder whether the GA30U-613.5 would be suitable for
>such an application? For the sake of argument, picture a Corvair on the
>nose and stall and top speeds just within the LSA limit.
>
>Owen
>
>
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Riblett's Info |
Tim and/or Lowell
How did you decide where is the CG is located and what angle of attack to
use when switching to a 613.5 airfoil?
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
Website at http://www.WestCoastPiet.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Willis" <timothywillis@earthlink.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett's Info
> <timothywillis@earthlink.net>
>
> Lowell,
>
> Thanks for posting this. Some may not know of your experience with
> various airfoils. Of course, you are one of the few (maybe the only one)
> who has changed wings on the same plane with the same engine,and changed
> engines with the same wing and plane, and then changed both. You can
> report empirical data on the effect of each of the changes.
>
> I think, based on talking with you about this earlier this year, and our
> more recent discussions at Brodhead, many builders should use either a
> Riblett GA30U-612 or a GA30U-613.5 instead of BP's airfoil. I believe you
> agree with that evaluation as a good decision for all but Piet purists.
> (Room for all instide the tent.) And we have discussed the merits of both
> these Riblett airfoils.
>
> I'd like to lay out some impressions of the 613.5, and see if you will
> confirm or change this post, for the benefit of others considering these
> choices. I'll ask you to pardon me in advance,if I am misinterpreting any
> of our discussions, or if I have crossed them up with similar discussions
> with Bill Rewey or Roman Bukolt.
>
> As you know, and as we have discussed, the 613.5 is "fatter" than the
> other airfoils. You and I have discussed its comparative merits.
>
> For the benefit of others on the board, the 613.5 has more loft on the
> Y-axis and a bigger radius, resulting in more camber. Otherwise it looks
> much like the NACA 2412 or 4412 and the Riblett 612, all of them peaking
> "Y" at 30 percent of the "X" (chord). All of these have better laminarity
> than BP's airfoil in the early part of the airfoil, before the airflow
> "goes turbulent." (All are characterized as "turbulent airfoils," but
> some are more turbulent than others.)
>
> The Riblett GA30U-613.5 seems to me a better choice for a Piet with less
> powerful engines, such as most Model A's (not your fuel-injected baby) or
> Continental A-65s. I think you have agreed with this opinion, perhaps
> even postulated it yourself.
>
> The 613.5 would give the Piet builder a faster climb, better safe payload
> on hot days, etc. A wing built with it would weigh a little more than one
> using a 612 airfoil-- how much more depending upon whether the builder
> uses filler blocks at the top of each spar or a full-height built-up ply
> and wood spar.
>
> Alternatively, the 612 might be better for higher hp Piets. With 100 hp
> or more the pilot gets a faster climb in any event, and the 612 would have
> less drag and allow a faster cruising speed than the 613.5. And as you
> and Mr. Riblett have reported, there are no negatives associated with the
> 612 when compared to BP's original "FC-10" airfoil. (We may not know that
> much about the pitching moment of the 613.5 as yet.)
>
> Do you agree with this discussion of the 613.5 vs. the 612? And with a
> 612 foir higher hp Piets? Is this the right way//a right way to think of
> the choices?
>
> Tim in central TX
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Pieti Lowell <Lowellcfrank@yahoo.com>
>>Sent: Aug 9, 2008 11:38 AM
>>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Riblett's Info
>>
>><Lowellcfrank@yahoo.com>
>>
>>Riblett's letter to Pieti Lowell, ref air foils for a Pietenpol
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Read this topic online here:
>>
>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197525#197525
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Attachments:
>>
>>http://forums.matronics.com//files/riblett_p2_118.jpg
>>http://forums.matronics.com//files/riblett_p1_976.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Dick,
Go to Glenn Thomas's very nice site www.flyingwood.com.
Jack
www.textors.com
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: Riblett's Info |
Tim Willis wrote:
> As I recall, Mark Langford has documented EVERYTHING about his work on his Corvair-equipped
KR-2. He would be the guy to ask about the Riblett airfoil.
Thanks, Tim. I know of Mark's plane, but did not think of him for the
Riblett airfoil. My impression was that he was trying to get high-end
performance out of his plane, while I am trying to limit the high end
and extend the bottom end just enough to make sure of being within the
LSA stall requirement.
Or would be, if this were anything more than a thought exercise. A Piet
is still my first priority--though it could wind up having the wing on
the bottom.
Owen
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: Riblett's Info |
I have spent some time researching the KR-2S. It might be our next build. If
you get the stall speed down, the builder can set his own VNE right?
Jeremy in Dallas
------Original Message------
From: Owen Davies
Sender: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
ReplyTo: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Aug 10, 2008 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett's Info
Tim Willis wrote:
> On a Pietenpol with 90hp, seeking more STOL characteristics, I would choose the
Riblett GA30U-613.5. On a much faster plane, such as a Zenith 601 or a KR-2,
the best choice would be another airfoil, and might be a NACA 4412.
It's not really Piet-related, but you bring up something that has
interested me for some time. A STOL KR-2 could be a really interesting
sport aircraft. I wonder whether the GA30U-613.5 would be suitable for
such an application? For the sake of argument, picture a Corvair on the
nose and stall and top speeds just within the LSA limit.
Owen
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
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: Riblett's Info |
Good question. Lowell can answer this better than I, for it's mostly theory for
me. But I'll try:
Most airfoils have far less pitching moment than the Piet. The Piet's reverse
pitching moment lets you move the CG back as far as 25 percent back on the airfoil,
as you likely know. Most airfoils are closer to the 20 percent mark (the
front limit on Piet's range). Accordingly, a BIG assumption might be to move
the CG froward a bit, into the 22-20 percent of the chord range when using the
Riblett airfoils.
Aren't you addressing the "angle of incidence," the angle of the chord of the wing
to the airplane's axis. This is the 2 degrees the airfoil is tilted up above
the upper longeron (exactly the 1 inch recommended taller front cabane on
the Piet) when using BP's airfoil. Piper Cubs have about this same 2 degrees
with another airfoil (Clark Y?), and a degree or two is common, I think, on Taylorcraft,
Aeroncas, and the like. (Someone else should confirm this.) So I'd
start there with a Riblett 613.5, too. The advantage of a Piet is that you
can change it some by cutting the cabanes-- start with them taller than you might
want, then whittle front or back down slightly and test again.
However, the word "test" is operative. Recall that when you change the design,
you (or someone) has just become a test pilot.
Lowell actually changed his wing, so he is the "go to guy" on this. Roman Bukolt
has, or will soon have, a Riblett 612 on his Piet, and he should be another
excellent source of information on this.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: catdesigns@att.net
>Sent: Aug 10, 2008 3:14 PM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett's Info
>
>
>Tim and/or Lowell
>
>How did you decide where is the CG is located and what angle of attack to
>use when switching to a 613.5 airfoil?
>
>Chris Tracy
>Sacramento, Ca
>Website at http://www.WestCoastPiet.com
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tim Willis" <timothywillis@earthlink.net>
>To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 4:42 PM
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett's Info
>
>
>> <timothywillis@earthlink.net>
>>
>> Lowell,
>>
>> Thanks for posting this. Some may not know of your experience with
>> various airfoils. Of course, you are one of the few (maybe the only one)
>> who has changed wings on the same plane with the same engine,and changed
>> engines with the same wing and plane, and then changed both. You can
>> report empirical data on the effect of each of the changes.
>>
>> I think, based on talking with you about this earlier this year, and our
>> more recent discussions at Brodhead, many builders should use either a
>> Riblett GA30U-612 or a GA30U-613.5 instead of BP's airfoil. I believe you
>> agree with that evaluation as a good decision for all but Piet purists.
>> (Room for all instide the tent.) And we have discussed the merits of both
>> these Riblett airfoils.
>>
>> I'd like to lay out some impressions of the 613.5, and see if you will
>> confirm or change this post, for the benefit of others considering these
>> choices. I'll ask you to pardon me in advance,if I am misinterpreting any
>> of our discussions, or if I have crossed them up with similar discussions
>> with Bill Rewey or Roman Bukolt.
>>
>> As you know, and as we have discussed, the 613.5 is "fatter" than the
>> other airfoils. You and I have discussed its comparative merits.
>>
>> For the benefit of others on the board, the 613.5 has more loft on the
>> Y-axis and a bigger radius, resulting in more camber. Otherwise it looks
>> much like the NACA 2412 or 4412 and the Riblett 612, all of them peaking
>> "Y" at 30 percent of the "X" (chord). All of these have better laminarity
>> than BP's airfoil in the early part of the airfoil, before the airflow
>> "goes turbulent." (All are characterized as "turbulent airfoils," but
>> some are more turbulent than others.)
>>
>> The Riblett GA30U-613.5 seems to me a better choice for a Piet with less
>> powerful engines, such as most Model A's (not your fuel-injected baby) or
>> Continental A-65s. I think you have agreed with this opinion, perhaps
>> even postulated it yourself.
>>
>> The 613.5 would give the Piet builder a faster climb, better safe payload
>> on hot days, etc. A wing built with it would weigh a little more than one
>> using a 612 airfoil-- how much more depending upon whether the builder
>> uses filler blocks at the top of each spar or a full-height built-up ply
>> and wood spar.
>>
>> Alternatively, the 612 might be better for higher hp Piets. With 100 hp
>> or more the pilot gets a faster climb in any event, and the 612 would have
>> less drag and allow a faster cruising speed than the 613.5. And as you
>> and Mr. Riblett have reported, there are no negatives associated with the
>> 612 when compared to BP's original "FC-10" airfoil. (We may not know that
>> much about the pitching moment of the 613.5 as yet.)
>>
>> Do you agree with this discussion of the 613.5 vs. the 612? And with a
>> 612 foir higher hp Piets? Is this the right way//a right way to think of
>> the choices?
>>
>> Tim in central TX
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>>From: Pieti Lowell <Lowellcfrank@yahoo.com>
>>>Sent: Aug 9, 2008 11:38 AM
>>>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Riblett's Info
>>>
>>><Lowellcfrank@yahoo.com>
>>>
>>>Riblett's letter to Pieti Lowell, ref air foils for a Pietenpol
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197525#197525
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Attachments:
>>>
>>>http://forums.matronics.com//files/riblett_p2_118.jpg
>>>http://forums.matronics.com//files/riblett_p1_976.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 13
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Riblett's Info |
I recall Oscar and someone else posting such postulates and some calculations.
This is altogether beyond my ken. IT might be a better discussion on the KR-2
board, but as Owen states about Mark L., most of those guys are trying to hit
200mph, not low and slow.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: outofthebox50@yahoo.com
>Sent: Aug 10, 2008 3:32 PM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett's Info
>
>
>I have spent some time researching the KR-2S. It might be our next build. If
you get the stall speed down, the builder can set his own VNE right?
>
>Jeremy in Dallas
>------Original Message------
>From: Owen Davies
>Sender: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>ReplyTo: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Sent: Aug 10, 2008 2:40 PM
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett's Info
>
>
>Tim Willis wrote:
>> On a Pietenpol with 90hp, seeking more STOL characteristics, I would choose
the Riblett GA30U-613.5. On a much faster plane, such as a Zenith 601 or a KR-2,
the best choice would be another airfoil, and might be a NACA 4412.
>It's not really Piet-related, but you bring up something that has
>interested me for some time. A STOL KR-2 could be a really interesting
>sport aircraft. I wonder whether the GA30U-613.5 would be suitable for
>such an application? For the sake of argument, picture a Corvair on the
>nose and stall and top speeds just within the LSA limit.
>
>Owen
>
>
>Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>
>
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: Riblett's Info |
outofthebox50@yahoo.com wrote:
> If you get the stall speed down, the builder can set his own VNE right?
I'm not sure how that works. I believe the phrase "prop-limited" has
some value. Ditto throttle stops. Yet, I'd hate to build a fast
airplane, hoping they would trust me to hold it under my stated VNE.
Could waste a lot of time and money that way.
Owen
Message 15
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Riblett's Info |
Owen:
If a low wing wood built LSA is what you are loking for:
http://www.menestrel.org.uk/
Like the Jodel D18 but without the coplexity of the bent wing
Michael in Maine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen Davies" <owen5819@comcast.net>
> Thanks, Tim. I know of Mark's plane, but did not think of him for the
> Riblett airfoil. My impression was that he was trying to get high-end
> performance out of his plane, while I am trying to limit the high end
> and extend the bottom end just enough to make sure of being within the
> LSA stall requirement.
>
> Or would be, if this were anything more than a thought exercise. A Piet
> is still my first priority--though it could wind up having the wing on
> the bottom.
>
> Owen
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: Riblett's Info |
Michael Silvius wrote:
> If a low wing wood built LSA is what you are loking for:
> http://www.menestrel.org.uk/
>
> Like the Jodel D18 but without the coplexity of the bent wing
It's not that I am specifically looking for a low-wing airplane, nor
even necessarily wood construction. I plan to build my Piet with the
steel-tube fuselage, for example. (This does feel like sacrilege, even
though the master designed it himself, but I really enjoy welding and it
will be good practice for any future projects, which almost surely will
be steel tube.) It's just that the KR-2 seems like such a natural place
to begin for a small, cheap, two-place LSA.
That Menestrel really is a pretty plane, though. It reminds me a lot of
the Emeraude, a plane I've always loved. And the construction looks
pretty simple.
The builders' group doesn't seem to have any U.S. members, though.
Thanks for pointing it out.
Owen
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! --
|