Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:02 AM - Re: Gross weight rating and modifications... (H RULE)
2. 06:37 AM - Re: Gross weight rating and modifications... (Michael Perez)
3. 07:52 AM - Pfeifer Sport plans (Darrel Jones)
4. 08:45 AM - Re: Pfeifer Sport plans (Rick Holland)
5. 08:48 AM - Re: Gross weight, and pilot wt (shad bell)
6. 10:08 AM - Re: Pfeifer Sport plans (AMsafetyC@aol.com)
7. 10:19 AM - Re: Pfeifer Sport plans (brian.e.jardine@l-3com.com)
8. 10:32 AM - Re: Pfeifer Sport plans (JohnC)
9. 12:56 PM - Re: Gross weight, and pilot wt (Rick Holland)
10. 01:19 PM - Re: Gross weight, and pilot wt (Mark Roberts)
11. 02:17 PM - Re: Gross weight rating and modifications... (Jack Phillips)
12. 02:46 PM - lift strut sizes (Richard Schreiber)
13. 02:46 PM - Re: Gross weight rating and modifications... (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation])
14. 02:50 PM - Re: Pfeifer Sport plans (Will42)
15. 03:55 PM - gross weight and pilot wt. (walt)
16. 04:04 PM - Re: Gross weight rating and modifications... (Bill Church)
17. 04:13 PM - Re: Gross weight rating and modifications... (Mark Roberts)
18. 05:05 PM - Re: lift strut sizes (Skip Gadd)
19. 05:52 PM - Re: Re: Pfeifer Sport plans (Darrel Jones)
20. 05:52 PM - Re: Re: Pfeifer Sport plans (Darrel Jones)
21. 05:59 PM - Re: Gross weight rating and modifications... (Jack Phillips)
22. 06:19 PM - Re: gross weight and pilot wt. (Mark Roberts)
23. 06:43 PM - Re: Re: Gross weight rating and modifications... (Jim)
24. 06:49 PM - Re: Re: Gross weight rating and modifications... (Jim)
25. 07:28 PM - Re: Gross weight rating and modifications... (Mark Roberts)
26. 07:54 PM - Re: gross weight and pilot wt. (ALAN LYSCARS)
27. 08:12 PM - Re: Re: Pfeifer Sport plans (Ray Krause)
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: Gross weight rating and modifications... |
Leave the wife and just take the overnight bag and you'll be fine;-)
do not archive
________________________________
From: Mark Roberts <mark.rbrts1@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:22:01 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Hey All:
I have been looking for some of the weight specs for the Piet, and have a couple
of questions.
I would like to have something closer to 1200 lbs total gross weight for the plane.
I think I saw on a website I found tonight that the gross was at somewhere
around 1050. I've only found one site that lists the Piet's specs, and as I
am 255 or so, I want to know if I can fly this bird with my 150 lb wife and an
over night bag...
May be a great reason for the stomach by-pass surgery and a tummy tuck, but crud,
if I'm gonna spend that much money I should get a kit plane :o\
Is the gross weight established by the 'designer' or by the builder based on having
a corvair engine vs. the 65 hp types when the builder registers it with the
FAA...
Thanks for the clairification and help!
Mark
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: Gross weight rating and modifications... |
Losing weight/staying in shape is always a win/win idea even without a plan
e in the picture.
-
Since you will be building your plane, you have control over it's weight. A
lways build as light as you can/are comfortable with. This will yield the b
est performance given whatever engine/electronics, etc you install. Start n
ow at the beginning and think light through the entire build and you'll hav
e the best chance for a good performer.
-
-
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: | Pfeifer Sport plans |
I just received another request for a copy of the Pfeifer Sport plans,
so thought I would check and make sure that everyone who requested a
copy received them. So far I have sent out about 30 discs and heard back
from about a third of those who requested the copies.
Let me know if you asked for one but didn't receive it.
See you at Brodhead!
Darrel Jones
Sonoma, CA
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: Pfeifer Sport plans |
Darrel
I received the disc, thank you. Do you have a paypal account so I can pay
you for it? And is $5 enough?
Rick Holland
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Darrel Jones <wd6bor@vom.com> wrote:
>
> I just received another request for a copy of the Pfeifer Sport plans, so
> thought I would check and make sure that everyone who requested a copy
> received them. So far I have sent out about 30 discs and heard back from
> about a third of those who requested the copies.
>
> Let me know if you asked for one but didn't receive it.
>
> See you at Brodhead!
>
> Darrel Jones
> Sonoma, CA
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
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: Gross weight, and pilot wt |
Guys, Isn't it ironic that we try so hard to save an ounce here and there w
hile building, but most of us are still trying to loose the same 10-20 lbs
for years and years.- You could build the Piet 20 lbs heavy and have more
gizmos,(if you-wanted them)-if we lost the 20lbs.- Or we could incre
ase the performance of our airplanes by not doing anything to the airplane
itself, but just getting serious about or diet, excercise.- I guess that
is the way it has been for a long time, and really, I don't think it's ever
gonna change,- but for those that do make the commitment to slim it up,
they wil have the better performing airplane, no matter whose airplane they
fly.
-
Off my soap box now (before I break it)
-
Shad=0A=0A=0A
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: Pfeifer Sport plans |
Hey Darrel,
Thanks I did get mine too. I don't care much for pay pal, however I have
problem sending you a check. Please confirm that the 5er will do the job.
Thanks
John
**************Limited Time Offers: Save big on popular laptops at Dell
%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215221161%3B37268813%3By)
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: | Pfeifer Sport plans |
Darrel,
I got my CD thanks, I hope you got the $5 I sent by snail mail.
Brian
SLC, UT
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
AMsafetyC@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pfeifer Sport plans
Hey Darrel,
Thanks I did get mine too. I don't care much for pay pal, however I have
problem sending you a check. Please confirm that the 5er will do the
job.
Thanks
John
________________________________
Limited Time Offers: Save big on popular laptops at Dell
=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215221161%3B37268813%3By>
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: Pfeifer Sport plans |
I got mine, hope you got the cash I sent back!
John Calvert
--------
I just hope when it's my turn to reach up and touch the face of God, I don't poke
him in the eye on accident.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246801#246801
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: Gross weight, and pilot wt |
You do make a good point Shad. I think homebuilders and pilots in general
keep themselves in a little leaner and fitter than average. And not
necessary to attract the hot chicks (which is the reason I do it), its
primarily due to having the thought of flunking their flight physical
constantly hanging over there head (kind of a Sword of Damocles). Must be
real stressful for pilots that make there living flying.
Rick
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:37 AM, shad bell <aviatorbell@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Guys, Isn't it ironic that we try so hard to save an ounce here and there
> while building, but most of us are still trying to loose the same 10-20 lbs
> for years and years. You could build the Piet 20 lbs heavy and have more
> gizmos,(if you wanted them) if we lost the 20lbs. Or we could increase the
> performance of our airplanes by not doing anything to the airplane itself,
> but just getting serious about or diet, excercise. I guess that is the way
> it has been for a long time, and really, I don't think it's ever gonna
> change, but for those that do make the commitment to slim it up, they wil
> have the better performing airplane, no matter whose airplane they fly.
>
> Off my soap box now (before I break it)
>
> Shad
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
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: Gross weight, and pilot wt |
You know, since I brought this up, you guys have made some good points
about the weight around the midsection (can't do much with the
fathead... I'm stuck with that). At 48 now, I need to be more aware of
my health. The reason I am building a piet (well, ONE reason) is that
it is an LSA qualified plane. I am diabetic and I don't pay as close
attention as I needed to my condition. For the vast majority of my
life I could not gain weight at all. 6'4" and skinny. Not so now. So,
the encouragement to loose weight is well taken, and not just an
aside. I still have my medical approved on a six year FAA variance
(not sure that's the right term), but I have to have a physical every
2 years as normal, but a review/sign off every year. My problem is
weight and no exercise (well, I DO fight the water pressure from the
shower head every morning). So, I can do something about it still...
Mark Roberts
On Jun 4, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Rick Holland <at7000ft@gmail.com> wrote:
> You do make a good point Shad. I think homebuilders and pilots in
> general keep themselves in a little leaner and fitter than average.
> And not necessary to attract the hot chicks (which is the reason I
> do it), its primarily due to having the thought of flunking their
> flight physical constantly hanging over there head (kind of a Sword
> of Damocles). Must be real stressful for pilots that make there
> living flying.
>
> Rick
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:37 AM, shad bell <aviatorbell@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> Guys, Isn't it ironic that we try so hard to save an ounce here and
> there while building, but most of us are still trying to loose the
> same 10-20 lbs for years and years. You could build the Piet 20 lbs
> heavy and have more gizmos,(if you wanted them) if we lost the
> 20lbs. Or we could increase the performance of our airplanes by not
> doing anything to the airplane itself, but just getting serious
> about or diet, excercise. I guess that is the way it has been for a
> long time, and really, I don't think it's ever gonna change, but
> for those that do make the commitment to slim it up, they wil have
> the better performing airplane, no matter whose airplane they fly.
>
> Off my soap box now (before I break it)
>
> Shad
>
>
> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
> --
> Rick Holland
> Castle Rock, Colorado
>
>
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: | Gross weight rating and modifications... |
Mark,
You got a lot of replies but little infornation. I'll try to answer your
questions:
You as the builder can specify whatever gross weight you desire. If you
want to say your Pietenpol can fly at 1400 lbs, nobody can stop you. I
believe the plans say 1050, but that makes it pretty much useless as a two
seat aircraft, since even lightweight Pietenpols tend to weigh in the 600 -
630 lb range. If your empty weight is 600, by the time you add a useful
amount of fuel (at least 10 gallons) you are up to 660. You (255) and your
wife (150) with full fuel will put you at 1065, and that is with NO baggage,
no handheld radio (unless you included it in your empty weight). The plane
will fly well at that weight.
Mine is one of the heavier Pietenpols at 745 lbs empty. There are a number
of reasons, some of which I would do again (I like having comfortable seats,
and instruments in the front panel - they are easier for me to read than the
ones in the rear panel). I set my gross weight so that if I flew with full
fuel, and myself and my wife I would be right at gross. With me by myself
and full fuel, I'm pretty close to that 1050 figure, and the plane flies
very well.
Empty Wt 745
Full Fuel 90
Me 200
Wife 160
Total - 1195
I set my Gross weight as 1200, but then I did a few basic stress
calculations to convince myself that the wing was actually strong enough to
withstand 4.8 G's (3.2 G's with a 50% safety factor). I feel 1200 is really
pushing it for this airplane. I've flown it at that weight, but it feels
very heavy and won't climb well. At Brodhead, I will not carry any
passenger that weighs over 175 (runway's too short). Fortunately, that
tends to limit my passengers to young attractive females.
If you don't want to lose some weight (and we're not talking 5 lbs here),
then you will need to build your plane as light as possible. I can give you
some suggestions, which may or may not be feasible for you:
1. Don't make the fuselage any wider. Every inch of extra width
requires more spruce, more plywood, more fabric, and more paint. And more
money.
2. Add about 4 to 6 feet to the wingspan. That would put it on par
with a Piper Cub, and would decrease the wing loading. The longer wing will
weigh a bit more but will lift a lot more. Six feet would add 20% to the
wing area.
3. Build the standard fuselage - not the "Long" fuselage. People will
tell you you can't put a Continental on a short fuselage, but somehow Mike
Cuy managed to do so and his Piet (632 lbs) flies very well and looks
beautiful
4. Build the "Improved" (don't say "Cub-Style", since it predated the
Cub by about 5 years) landing gear, not the straight axle wire wheel type.
The straight axle is heavy, and wire wheels are very strong (and look cool),
but if they were light race cars would still be running them.
5. The steel tube fuselage is considerably lighter than the wood
fuselage
6. Build with sitka spruce, not douglas fir. Fir is stronger, but
heavier. If you use fir, each piece can be resized somewhat smaller to take
advantage of the strength and to try to lose some of the extra weight.
Spruce has the best strength to weight ratio of any wood except balsa.
7. Use mahogany instead of birch plywood.
8. Use Resorcinol instead of T-88. Lighter and stronger, but much more
difficult to use
9. Use lightweight (uncertified) dacron fabric, not the medium weight
that everyone says you need - not only is the fabric lighter, but it
requires less coating material (whether dope, polybrush or whatever the
Stewart System uses). For Heaven's sake, don't use polyurethane paint (60
lbs of my plane's 745 lbs are in paint). Walt Evans used the lightweight
fabric on his, and his plane is the lightest Piet I know of (595 lbs).
10. Obviously, avoid adding radios, electrical systems, starters,
in-flight movies, de-icing boots and retractable landing gear. You might
suggest your wife fly naked - ladies clothes are notoriously heavy
I kept a spreadsheet where I recorded the weight of every piece that went on
my plane, along with its position with respect to a datum on the airframe,
so I wasn't totally surprised by my high empty weight. However, I was more
than a bit ticked off when I weighed the fuselage, wings and tail after
painting and realized how much that polyurethane with its nice glossy finish
cost me. By then it was too late, unless I wanted to re-cover and repaint
the entire airplane.
All in all, it might be easier (and healthier) for you to lose 75 lbs than
to do all these things. I've lost 75 lbs this year - unfortunately, I've
lost the same 5lbs 15times.
Good Luck and hope to see you at Brodhead next month,
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:22 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Hey All:
I have been looking for some of the weight specs for the Piet, and have a
couple of questions.
I would like to have something closer to 1200 lbs total gross weight for the
plane. I think I saw on a website I found tonight that the gross was at
somewhere around 1050. I've only found one site that lists the Piet's specs,
and as I am 255 or so, I want to know if I can fly this bird with my 150 lb
wife and an over night bag...
May be a great reason for the stomach by-pass surgery and a tummy tuck, but
crud, if I'm gonna spend that much money I should get a kit plane :o\
Is the gross weight established by the 'designer' or by the builder based on
having a corvair engine vs. the 65 hp types when the builder registers it
with the FAA...
Thanks for the clairification and help!
Mark
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: | lift strut sizes |
Over the past couple of years, there has been a few posts talking about using streamline
lift struts with a dimension of 1.78 x 1.06 x .049 from Wag Aero. The
reports were that Bill Rewey stated that this size was perfectly adequate for
a Pietenpol. I was wondering if anyone has used struts in this size range or
would care to offer an opinion on the suitability for use.
Rick Schreiber
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: | Gross weight rating and modifications... |
Mark-add wingspan. Cubs and Champs have six more feet of wing and can l
ift more on the same horsepower due to more
wing area.
Jack's suggestions are very good and in addition I would add not to use any
aluminum anywhere for cowlings/cockpit covers
over .025" thick. Keep your fastener sizes for the cowling to a minimum an
d don't space them too closely. Sometimes less is
better---my seat and seat back are held in with three small Phillips screws
. (the thing is hinged so I can inspect behind the seat
and remove the seat center easily for inspections and finding sunglasses, g
um, and other lost items during flight) Try to avoid
adding gadgets unless you absolutely need them. Don't use 1/8" cables fo
r rudder controls, tailfeather bracing, or aileron cables---
they are way overkill and weigh much more than 3/32" cables. (same for t
ailwheel steering cables) Fill your tires with helium too.
So Mark-are you a private pilot, do you have a tailwheel endorsement or hav
e you had tailwheel experience, dual ? Just curious.
A mockpit is a good idea if you're a tall guy. I believe that Bill Church
from Canada just completed a mockup cockpit as he's a fairly
tall gent such as yourself.
Mike C. in Ohio
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: Pfeifer Sport plans |
Darrel; I got the disc you sent and paid by return mail.
Thanks so much for sharing the plans. They will be a great source of info when
I start the tube Piet.
Will
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246841#246841
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: | gross weight and pilot wt. |
sorry to rehash this,
But my my Mentor, ( the designer and AP for Leo Leodenschlager<sp>) who
I'm so glad to have ever met, always told me to build light.
Build light, build light, he would say.
My Piet, built to plans, execpt for a few little things, came in at
595#.
I'm so glad cause it climbs like a rocket.
No more white knuckle climeouts for me
with an A-65
I'm 230# at least and can take anyone. Sure climbs a little slower, but
no problem.
Ain't Life Grand.
walt evans
NX140DL
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: | Gross weight rating and modifications... |
Hi Mark,
I'm the "fairly tall gent" from Canada that Mike Cuy mentioned in his
last post.
As Mike said, I have just built a "mockpit", which is basically the
front 8 or 10 feet of the fuselage structure, but made from lumberyard
spruce, ripped to size with the table saw, and glued together with
carpenter's glue. I have about $30 invested in materials to build it. My
main reason for building it was to see if I needed to make any
alterations to the basic design, due to my height (6'-2"). But overall
height is not the only factor, as some people have longer legs, and
others have a longer torso. Two people of equal height may not fit into
a particular airplane in the same way - one may not have enough legroom,
while the other is fine. I've already decided that I'm going with the
"long fuselage" because I have a "long fuselage", and the legroom seems
all right, but I find the seatback to be too vertical (for me). I built
the mockpit "to the plans", so that even if I was pretty sure I would
need to change something, I would be able to see how I fit in the
original design, without any changes. The fewer changes you make to the
plans, the better, as every small alteration can impact on many other
things. Building a mockpit will give you a real feel for how you will
wear your plane, and whether you need to make any alterations to ensure
that you will fit in the plane you build. It also gives you a good
"practice run" at building the fuselage - we all generally do a slightly
better job on the second attempt (of whatever).
Bill C. (from Canada)
PS: I have photos of my mockpit posted on the Mykitplane.com website,
but it seems that the Builder's Logs are not accessible right now. The
Photos and Files sections work fine, but the Builder's Logs do not. I
was going to cut and paste a link to the photos, but I just get an error
message when I try to access my Build Log. Anybody know what's up with
that?
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Gross weight rating and modifications... |
Wow! Thanks Jack. That's exactly the info I was looking for. Dog gone
weight. Besides the obvious pounds I need to lose in the belly, I was
not sure what I would be looking at all together as a gross weight.
Did some searching on the net, but saw some conflicting numbers and
now I can see why, as builders post differing weights on their sites.
Well, I didn't know the steel tubing version would be lighter. That
might make a difference as to which way I go. I just found out an
aquaintance at church is a master TIG welder, and offered to help me
if I needed him. That's a lot of work to ask, but if it is a large
amount of difference it would be worth the try.
While I am asking for advice, would the extra power of the 100+ HP
corvair engine make a difference in the weight capabilities? More
power equals higher gross weight rating? (Seems to work that way on
some of the kit planes websites..)...
So, would going steel buy me a lot of weight savings, and would 100 HP
be enough to get me decent performance with a 1200 pound gross max
(maybe 1250) :o/
Mark Roberts
On Jun 4, 2009, at 2:15 PM, "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
> Mark,
>
>
> You got a lot of replies but little infornation. I=99ll try to
answer
> your questions:
>
>
> You as the builder can specify whatever gross weight you desire. If
> you want to say your Pietenpol can fly at 1400 lbs, nobody can stop
> you. I believe the plans say 1050, but that makes it pretty much
> useless as a two seat aircraft, since even lightweight Pietenpols
> tend to weigh in the 600 =93 630 lb range. If your empty weight
is 60
> 0, by the time you add a useful amount of fuel (at least 10 gallons)
> you are up to 660. You (255) and your wife (150) with full fuel wi
> ll put you at 1065, and that is with NO baggage, no handheld radio (
> unless you included it in your empty weight). The plane will fly we
> ll at that weight.
>
>
> Mine is one of the heavier Pietenpols at 745 lbs empty. There are a
> number of reasons, some of which I would do again (I like having
> comfortable seats, and instruments in the front panel =93 they
are eas
> ier for me to read than the ones in the rear panel). I set my gross
> weight so that if I flew with full fuel, and myself and my wife I w
> ould be right at gross. With me by myself and full fuel, I=99m
pretty
> close to that 1050 figure, and the plane flies very well.
>
>
> Empty Wt 745
>
> Full Fuel 90
>
> Me 200
>
> Wife 160
>
> Total - 1195
>
>
> I set my Gross weight as 1200, but then I did a few basic stress
> calculations to convince myself that the wing was actually strong
> enough to withstand 4.8 G=99s (3.2 G=99s with a 50% safety
factor).
> I feel 1200 is really pushing it for this airplane. I=99ve
flown it a
> t that weight, but it feels very heavy and won=99t climb well.
At Bro
> dhead, I will not carry any passenger that weighs over 175 (runway
=99s
> too short). Fortunately, that tends to limit my passengers to youn
> g attractive females.
>
>
> If you don=99t want to lose some weight (and we=99re not
talking 5
> lbs here), then you will need to build your plane as light as possib
> le. I can give you some suggestions, which may or may not be feasib
> le for you:
>
>
> Don=99t make the fuselage any wider. Every inch of extra width
requir
> es more spruce, more plywood, more fabric, and more paint. And more
> money.
> Add about 4 to 6 feet to the wingspan. That would put it on par
> with a Piper Cub, and would decrease the wing loading. The longer
> wing will weigh a bit more but will lift a lot more. Six feet would
> add 20% to the wing area.
> Build the standard fuselage =93 not the =9DLong=9D
fuselage. People
> will tell you you can=99t put a Continental on a short fuselage,
but s
> omehow Mike Cuy managed to do so and his Piet (632 lbs) flies very w
> ell and looks beautiful
> Build the =9CImproved=9D (don=99t say
=9CCub-Style=9D, since it
> predated the Cub by about 5 years) landing gear, not the straight ax
> le wire wheel type. The straight axle is heavy, and wire wheels are
> very strong (and look cool), but if they were light race cars would
> still be running them.
> The steel tube fuselage is considerably lighter than the wood fuselage
> Build with sitka spruce, not douglas fir. Fir is stronger, but
> heavier. If you use fir, each piece can be resized somewhat smaller
> to take advantage of the strength and to try to lose some of the
> extra weight. Spruce has the best strength to weight ratio of any
> wood except balsa.
> Use mahogany instead of birch plywood.
> Use Resorcinol instead of T-88. Lighter and stronger, but much more
> difficult to use
> Use lightweight (uncertified) dacron fabric, not the medium weight
> that everyone says you need =93 not only is the fabric lighter,
but it
> requires less coating material (whether dope, polybrush or whatever
> the Stewart System uses). For Heaven=99s sake, don=99t
use
> polyurethane paint (60 lbs of my plane=99s 745 lbs are in
paint). Wal
> t Evans used the lightweight fabric on his, and his plane is the lig
> htest Piet I know of (595 lbs).
> Obviously, avoid adding radios, electrical systems, starters, in-
> flight movies, de-icing boots and retractable landing gear. You
> might suggest your wife fly naked =93 ladies clothes are
notoriously h
> eavy
>
>
> I kept a spreadsheet where I recorded the weight of every piece that
> went on my plane, along with its position with respect to a datum on
> the airframe, so I wasn=99t totally surprised by my high empty
weight.
> However, I was more than a bit ticked off when I weighed the fusel
> age, wings and tail after painting and realized how much that polyur
> ethane with its nice glossy finish cost me. By then it was too late
> , unless I wanted to re-cover and repaint the entire airplane.
>
>
> All in all, it might be easier (and healthier) for you to lose 75
> lbs than to do all these things. I=99ve lost 75 lbs this year
=93
> unfortunately, I=99ve lost the same 5lbs 15times.
>
>
> Good Luck and hope to see you at Brodhead next month,
>
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> NX899JP
>
> Raleigh, NC
>
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> ] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:22 PM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
>
>
> Hey All:
>
>
> I have been looking for some of the weight specs for the Piet, and
> have a couple of questions.
>
>
> I would like to have something closer to 1200 lbs total gross weight
> for the plane. I think I saw on a website I found tonight that the
> gross was at somewhere around 1050. I've only found one site that
> lists the Piet's specs, and as I am 255 or so, I want to know if I
> can fly this bird with my 150 lb wife and an over night bag...
>
>
> May be a great reason for the stomach by-pass surgery and a tummy
> tuck, but crud, if I'm gonna spend that much money I should get a
> kit plane :o\
>
>
> Is the gross weight established by the 'designer' or by the builder
> based on having a corvair engine vs. the 65 hp types when the
> builder registers it with the FAA...
>
>
> Thanks for the clairification and help!
>
>
> Mark
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
==============
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
============ y>
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: | lift strut sizes |
I belive you are talking about the mild steel streamline tubing. I am using it
for lift and cabane struts, but haven't finished or flown mine yet. Dwane Talba's
silver and black Corvair and Jim Kinsella's A65 Piets both use mild steel
struts and I think Dwane's Piet is over 800 lbs.
I believe they are suitable for a Piet.
Skip
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Schreiber
Sent: 6/4/2009 5:49:00 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: lift strut sizes
Over the past couple of years, there has been a few posts talking about using streamline
lift struts with a dimension of 1.78 x 1.06 x .049 from Wag Aero. The
reports were that Bill Rewey stated that this size was perfectly adequate for
a Pietenpol. I was wondering if anyone has used struts in this size range or
would care to offer an opinion on the suitability for use.
Rick Schreiber
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pfeifer Sport plans |
Will
I got your payment. Thanks and enjoy the plans.
Darrel
Will42 wrote:
>
> Darrel; I got the disc you sent and paid by return mail.
>
> Thanks so much for sharing the plans. They will be a great source of info when
I start the tube Piet.
>
> Will
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246841#246841
>
>
>
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: Pfeifer Sport plans |
John,
I got your payment. Thanks and enjoy the plans.
Darrel
JohnC wrote:
>
> I got mine, hope you got the cash I sent back!
>
> John Calvert
>
> --------
> I just hope when it's my turn to reach up and touch the face of God, I don't
poke him in the eye on accident.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246801#246801
>
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Gross weight rating and modifications... |
Extra power would be a good thing but bigger engines add weight, too. The
Corvair engine is significantly heavier than a 100 HP O-200 Continental, and
far less reliable.
Jack
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Wow! Thanks Jack. That's exactly the info I was looking for. Dog gone
weight. Besides the obvious pounds I need to lose in the belly, I was not
sure what I would be looking at all together as a gross weight. Did some
searching on the net, but saw some conflicting numbers and now I can see
why, as builders post differing weights on their sites.
Well, I didn't know the steel tubing version would be lighter. That might
make a difference as to which way I go. I just found out an aquaintance at
church is a master TIG welder, and offered to help me if I needed him.
That's a lot of work to ask, but if it is a large amount of difference it
would be worth the try.
While I am asking for advice, would the extra power of the 100+ HP corvair
engine make a difference in the weight capabilities? More power equals
higher gross weight rating? (Seems to work that way on some of the kit
planes websites..)...
So, would going steel buy me a lot of weight savings, and would 100 HP be
enough to get me decent performance with a 1200 pound gross max (maybe 1250)
:o/
Mark Roberts
On Jun 4, 2009, at 2:15 PM, "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Mark,
You got a lot of replies but little infornation. I'll try to answer your
questions:
You as the builder can specify whatever gross weight you desire. If you
want to say your Pietenpol can fly at 1400 lbs, nobody can stop you. I
believe the plans say 1050, but that makes it pretty much useless as a two
seat aircraft, since even lightweight Pietenpols tend to weigh in the 600 -
630 lb range. If your empty weight is 600, by the time you add a useful
amount of fuel (at least 10 gallons) you are up to 660. You (255) and your
wife (150) with full fuel will put you at 1065, and that is with NO baggage,
no handheld radio (unless you included it in your empty weight). The plane
will fly well at that weight.
Mine is one of the heavier Pietenpols at 745 lbs empty. There are a number
of reasons, some of which I would do again (I like having comfortable seats,
and instruments in the front panel - they are easier for me to read than the
ones in the rear panel). I set my gross weight so that if I flew with full
fuel, and myself and my wife I would be right at gross. With me by myself
and full fuel, I'm pretty close to that 1050 figure, and the plane flies
very well.
Empty Wt 745
Full Fuel 90
Me 200
Wife 160
Total - 1195
I set my Gross weight as 1200, but then I did a few basic stress
calculations to convince myself that the wing was actually strong enough to
withstand 4.8 G's (3.2 G's with a 50% safety factor). I feel 1200 is really
pushing it for this airplane. I've flown it at that weight, but it feels
very heavy and won't climb well. At Brodhead, I will not carry any
passenger that weighs over 175 (runway's too short). Fortunately, that
tends to limit my passengers to young attractive females.
If you don't want to lose some weight (and we're not talking 5 lbs here),
then you will need to build your plane as light as possible. I can give you
some suggestions, which may or may not be feasible for you:
1. Don't make the fuselage any wider. Every inch of extra width
requires more spruce, more plywood, more fabric, and more paint. And more
money.
2. Add about 4 to 6 feet to the wingspan. That would put it on par
with a Piper Cub, and would decrease the wing loading. The longer wing will
weigh a bit more but will lift a lot more. Six feet would add 20% to the
wing area.
3. Build the standard fuselage - not the "Long" fuselage. People will
tell you you can't put a Continental on a short fuselage, but somehow Mike
Cuy managed to do so and his Piet (632 lbs) flies very well and looks
beautiful
4. Build the "Improved" (don't say "Cub-Style", since it predated the
Cub by about 5 years) landing gear, not the straight axle wire wheel type.
The straight axle is heavy, and wire wheels are very strong (and look cool),
but if they were light race cars would still be running them.
5. The steel tube fuselage is considerably lighter than the wood
fuselage
6. Build with sitka spruce, not douglas fir. Fir is stronger, but
heavier. If you use fir, each piece can be resized somewhat smaller to take
advantage of the strength and to try to lose some of the extra weight.
Spruce has the best strength to weight ratio of any wood except balsa.
7. Use mahogany instead of birch plywood.
8. Use Resorcinol instead of T-88. Lighter and stronger, but much more
difficult to use
9. Use lightweight (uncertified) dacron fabric, not the medium weight
that everyone says you need - not only is the fabric lighter, but it
requires less coating material (whether dope, polybrush or whatever the
Stewart System uses). For Heaven's sake, don't use polyurethane paint (60
lbs of my plane's 745 lbs are in paint). Walt Evans used the lightweight
fabric on his, and his plane is the lightest Piet I know of (595 lbs).
10. Obviously, avoid adding radios, electrical systems, starters,
in-flight movies, de-icing boots and retractable landing gear. You might
suggest your wife fly naked - ladies clothes are notoriously heavy
I kept a spreadsheet where I recorded the weight of every piece that went on
my plane, along with its position with respect to a datum on the airframe,
so I wasn't totally surprised by my high empty weight. However, I was more
than a bit ticked off when I weighed the fuselage, wings and tail after
painting and realized how much that polyurethane with its nice glossy finish
cost me. By then it was too late, unless I wanted to re-cover and repaint
the entire airplane.
All in all, it might be easier (and healthier) for you to lose 75 lbs than
to do all these things. I've lost 75 lbs this year - unfortunately, I've
lost the same 5lbs 15times.
Good Luck and hope to see you at Brodhead next month,
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: <mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com>
owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:22 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Hey All:
I have been looking for some of the weight specs for the Piet, and have a
couple of questions.
I would like to have something closer to 1200 lbs total gross weight for the
plane. I think I saw on a website I found tonight that the gross was at
somewhere around 1050. I've only found one site that lists the Piet's specs,
and as I am 255 or so, I want to know if I can fly this bird with my 150 lb
wife and an over night bag...
May be a great reason for the stomach by-pass surgery and a tummy tuck, but
crud, if I'm gonna spend that much money I should get a kit plane :o\
Is the gross weight established by the 'designer' or by the builder based on
having a corvair engine vs. the 65 hp types when the builder registers it
with the FAA...
Thanks for the clairification and help!
Mark
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
<http://forums.matronics.com> http://forums.matronics.com
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: | Re: gross weight and pilot wt. |
Thanks Walt. After years of building Model Airplanes, I know the value of
saving weight and building light...
As far rehashing is concerned, I'm new to the group, so I hope I am not
asking annoying questions. If someone can direct me to any archives that are
searchable, I'll make sure I check there for info first.
Thanks again!
Mark
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 3:53 PM, walt <waltdak@verizon.net> wrote:
> sorry to rehash this,
> But my my Mentor, ( the designer and AP for Leo Leodenschlager<sp>) who I'm
> so glad to have ever met, always told me to build light.
> Build light, build light, he would say.
> My Piet, built to plans, execpt for a few little things, came in at 595#.
> I'm so glad cause it climbs like a rocket.
> No more white knuckle climeouts for me
> with an A-65
> I'm 230# at least and can take anyone. Sure climbs a little slower, but no
> problem.
>
> Ain't Life Grand.
>
>
> walt evans
> NX140DL
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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: Gross weight rating and modifications... |
Hi Jack and all,
I'm building a Piet with a Corvair and disagree with you analysis of Corvair being
less reliable than the 0-200. William Wynne on his website tested both on
a dyno and weighed them both. The 0-200 weighed (my memory) 240 lbs with accessories
and the Corvair with all accessories including a starter weighed 245 lbs.
On the dyno the 0-200 only pulled around 75 horsepower and the Corvair exceeded
100 hp; however I have also been told that at the rpm Corvairs are cruised at
in Piets they are really making about 85 to 90 hp (still more than the 0-200).
Admittedly mine is not yet running or flying so can only go by what is documented
on Williams web site.
Cheers,
Jim Boyer
Santa Rosa, CA
On Jun 4, 2009, pietflyr@bellsouth.net wrote:
Extra power would be a good thing but
bigger engines add weight, too. The Corvair engine is significantly heavier
than a 100 HP O-200 Continental, and far less reliable.
Jack
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:13
PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross
weight rating and modifications...
Wow! Thanks Jack. That's exactly the info I was looking for. Dog gone
weight. Besides the obvious pounds I need to lose in the belly, I was not sure
what I would be looking at all together as a gross weight. Did some searching
on the net, but saw some conflicting numbers and now I can see why, as builders
post differing weights on their sites.
Well, I didn't know the steel tubing version would be lighter. That
might make a difference as to which way I go. I just found out an aquaintance
at church is a master TIG welder, and offered to help me if I needed him.
That's a lot of work to ask, but if it is a large amount of difference it would
be worth the try.
While I am asking for advice, would the extra power of the 100+ HP
corvair engine make a difference in the weight capabilities? More power equals
higher gross weight rating? (Seems to work that way on some of the kit planes
websites..)...
So, would going steel buy me a lot of weight savings, and would 100 HP
be enough to get me decent performance with a 1200 pound gross max (maybe 1250)
:o/
Mark Roberts
On Jun 4, 2009, at 2:15 PM, "Jack Phillips"
<pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
Mark,
You got a lot of replies but little infornation. Ill try to
answer your questions:
You as the builder can specify whatever gross weight you
desire. If you want to say your Pietenpol can fly at 1400 lbs, nobody can
stop you. I believe the plans say 1050, but that makes it pretty much
useless as a two seat aircraft, since even lightweight Pietenpols tend to weigh
in the 600 630 lb range. If your empty weight is 600, by the time you
add a useful amount of fuel (at least 10 gallons) you are up to 660. You
(255) and your wife (150) with full fuel will put you at 1065, and that is with
NO baggage, no handheld radio (unless you included it in your empty
weight). The plane will fly well at that weight.
Mine is one of the heavier Pietenpols at 745 lbs empty. There
are a number of reasons, some of which I would do again (I like having
comfortable seats, and instruments in the front panel they are easier for me
to read than the ones in the rear panel). I set my gross weight so that
if I flew with full fuel, and myself and my wife I would be right at
gross. With me by myself and full fuel, Im pretty close to that 1050
figure, and the plane flies very well.
Empty Wt 745
Full
Fuel 90
Me
200
Wife
160
Total -
1195
I set my Gross weight as 1200, but then I did a few basic stress
calculations to convince myself that the wing was actually strong enough to
withstand 4.8 Gs (3.2 Gs with a 50% safety factor). I feel 1200 is
really pushing it for this airplane. Ive flown it at that weight, but it
feels very heavy and wont climb well. At Brodhead, I will not carry any
passenger that weighs over 175 (runways too short). Fortunately, that
tends to limit my passengers to young attractive females.
If you dont want to lose some weight (and were not talking 5 lbs
here), then you will need to build your plane as light as possible. I can
give you some suggestions, which may or may not be feasible for you:
Dont make the fuselage any
wider. Every inch of extra width requires more spruce, more plywood,
more fabric, and more paint. And more money.
Add about 4 to 6 feet to the
wingspan. That would put it on par with a Piper Cub, and would
decrease the wing loading. The longer wing will weigh a bit more but
will lift a lot more. Six feet would add 20% to the wing area.
Build the standard fuselage
not the Long fuselage. People will tell you you cant put a
Continental on a short fuselage, but somehow Mike Cuy managed to do so and
his Piet (632 lbs) flies very well and looks beautiful
Build the Improved (dont say
Cub-Style, since it predated the Cub by about 5 years) landing gear, not
the straight axle wire wheel type. The straight axle is heavy, and
wire wheels are very strong (and look cool), but if they were light race
cars would still be running them.
The steel tube fuselage is
considerably lighter than the wood fuselage
Build with sitka
spruce, not douglas fir. Fir is stronger, but heavier. If you
use fir, each piece can be resized somewhat smaller to take advantage of
the strength and to try to lose some of the extra weight. Spruce has
the best strength to weight ratio of any wood except balsa.
Use mahogany instead of birch
plywood.
Use Resorcinol instead of
T-88. Lighter and stronger, but much more difficult to use
Use lightweight (uncertified)
dacron fabric, not the medium weight that everyone says you need not
only is the fabric lighter, but it requires less coating material (whether
dope, polybrush or whatever the Stewart System uses). For Heavens
sake, dont use polyurethane paint (60 lbs of my planes 745 lbs are in
paint). Walt Evans used the lightweight fabric on his, and his plane
is the lightest Piet I know of (595 lbs).
Obviously, avoid adding radios,
electrical systems, starters, in-flight movies, de-icing boots and
retractable landing gear. You might suggest your wife fly naked
ladies clothes are notoriously heavy
I kept a spreadsheet where I recorded the weight of every piece
that went on my plane, along with its position with respect to a datum on the
airframe, so I wasnt totally surprised by my high empty weight. However,
I was more than a bit ticked off when I weighed the fuselage, wings and tail
after painting and realized how much that polyurethane with its nice glossy
finish cost me. By then it was too late, unless I wanted to re-cover and
repaint the entire airplane.
All in all, it might be easier (and healthier) for you to lose 75
lbs than to do all these things. Ive lost 75 lbs this year
unfortunately, Ive lost the same 5lbs 15times.
Good Luck and hope to see you at Brodhead next month,
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]
On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009
11:22 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gross
weight rating and modifications...
Hey All:
I have been
looking for some of the weight specs for the Piet, and have a couple of questions.
I would like to
have something closer to 1200 lbs total gross weight for the plane. I think I
saw on a website I found tonight that the gross was at somewhere around 1050.
I've only found one site that lists the Piet's specs, and as I am 255 or so, I
want to know if I can fly this bird with my 150 lb wife and an over night bag...
May be a great
reason for the stomach by-pass surgery and a tummy tuck, but crud, if I'm gonna
spend that much money I should get a kit plane :o\
Is the gross
weight established by the 'designer' or by the builder based on having a
corvair engine vs. the 65 hp types when the builder registers it with the FAA...
Thanks for the
clairification and help!
Mark
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: Gross weight rating and modifications... |
Hi again Jack and all,
I forgot to comment on the Corvair as less reliable than the 0-200. I don't have
any information that says that is true. The 0-200 definitely has been around
longer but Corvairs have been used in Piets since 1961 I believe and several
have accumulated 500 to 700 hours of flight time to date. Corvairs now being
used in KR's with one of the new 5th bearings have also now accumulated time of
350 and 400 plus hours. Having been a family member of a Cessna dealership we
don't have any great records for Continentals or Lycomings.
Jim Boyer
Santa Rosa, CA
PS. I really liked your and Mike's comments about building light.
On Jun 4, 2009, pietflyr@bellsouth.net wrote:
Extra power would be a good thing but
bigger engines add weight, too. The Corvair engine is significantly heavier
than a 100 HP O-200 Continental, and far less reliable.
Jack
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:13
PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross
weight rating and modifications...
Wow! Thanks Jack. That's exactly the info I was looking for. Dog gone
weight. Besides the obvious pounds I need to lose in the belly, I was not sure
what I would be looking at all together as a gross weight. Did some searching
on the net, but saw some conflicting numbers and now I can see why, as builders
post differing weights on their sites.
Well, I didn't know the steel tubing version would be lighter. That
might make a difference as to which way I go. I just found out an aquaintance
at church is a master TIG welder, and offered to help me if I needed him.
That's a lot of work to ask, but if it is a large amount of difference it would
be worth the try.
While I am asking for advice, would the extra power of the 100+ HP
corvair engine make a difference in the weight capabilities? More power equals
higher gross weight rating? (Seems to work that way on some of the kit planes
websites..)...
So, would going steel buy me a lot of weight savings, and would 100 HP
be enough to get me decent performance with a 1200 pound gross max (maybe 1250)
:o/
Mark Roberts
On Jun 4, 2009, at 2:15 PM, "Jack Phillips"
<pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
Mark,
You got a lot of replies but little infornation. Ill try to
answer your questions:
You as the builder can specify whatever gross weight you
desire. If you want to say your Pietenpol can fly at 1400 lbs, nobody can
stop you. I believe the plans say 1050, but that makes it pretty much
useless as a two seat aircraft, since even lightweight Pietenpols tend to weigh
in the 600 630 lb range. If your empty weight is 600, by the time you
add a useful amount of fuel (at least 10 gallons) you are up to 660. You
(255) and your wife (150) with full fuel will put you at 1065, and that is with
NO baggage, no handheld radio (unless you included it in your empty
weight). The plane will fly well at that weight.
Mine is one of the heavier Pietenpols at 745 lbs empty. There
are a number of reasons, some of which I would do again (I like having
comfortable seats, and instruments in the front panel they are easier for me
to read than the ones in the rear panel). I set my gross weight so that
if I flew with full fuel, and myself and my wife I would be right at
gross. With me by myself and full fuel, Im pretty close to that 1050
figure, and the plane flies very well.
Empty Wt 745
Full
Fuel 90
Me
200
Wife
160
Total -
1195
I set my Gross weight as 1200, but then I did a few basic stress
calculations to convince myself that the wing was actually strong enough to
withstand 4.8 Gs (3.2 Gs with a 50% safety factor). I feel 1200 is
really pushing it for this airplane. Ive flown it at that weight, but it
feels very heavy and wont climb well. At Brodhead, I will not carry any
passenger that weighs over 175 (runways too short). Fortunately, that
tends to limit my passengers to young attractive females.
If you dont want to lose some weight (and were not talking 5 lbs
here), then you will need to build your plane as light as possible. I can
give you some suggestions, which may or may not be feasible for you:
Dont make the fuselage any
wider. Every inch of extra width requires more spruce, more plywood,
more fabric, and more paint. And more money.
Add about 4 to 6 feet to the
wingspan. That would put it on par with a Piper Cub, and would
decrease the wing loading. The longer wing will weigh a bit more but
will lift a lot more. Six feet would add 20% to the wing area.
Build the standard fuselage
not the Long fuselage. People will tell you you cant put a
Continental on a short fuselage, but somehow Mike Cuy managed to do so and
his Piet (632 lbs) flies very well and looks beautiful
Build the Improved (dont say
Cub-Style, since it predated the Cub by about 5 years) landing gear, not
the straight axle wire wheel type. The straight axle is heavy, and
wire wheels are very strong (and look cool), but if they were light race
cars would still be running them.
The steel tube fuselage is
considerably lighter than the wood fuselage
Build with sitka
spruce, not douglas fir. Fir is stronger, but heavier. If you
use fir, each piece can be resized somewhat smaller to take advantage of
the strength and to try to lose some of the extra weight. Spruce has
the best strength to weight ratio of any wood except balsa.
Use mahogany instead of birch
plywood.
Use Resorcinol instead of
T-88. Lighter and stronger, but much more difficult to use
Use lightweight (uncertified)
dacron fabric, not the medium weight that everyone says you need not
only is the fabric lighter, but it requires less coating material (whether
dope, polybrush or whatever the Stewart System uses). For Heavens
sake, dont use polyurethane paint (60 lbs of my planes 745 lbs are in
paint). Walt Evans used the lightweight fabric on his, and his plane
is the lightest Piet I know of (595 lbs).
Obviously, avoid adding radios,
electrical systems, starters, in-flight movies, de-icing boots and
retractable landing gear. You might suggest your wife fly naked
ladies clothes are notoriously heavy
I kept a spreadsheet where I recorded the weight of every piece
that went on my plane, along with its position with respect to a datum on the
airframe, so I wasnt totally surprised by my high empty weight. However,
I was more than a bit ticked off when I weighed the fuselage, wings and tail
after painting and realized how much that polyurethane with its nice glossy
finish cost me. By then it was too late, unless I wanted to re-cover and
repaint the entire airplane.
All in all, it might be easier (and healthier) for you to lose 75
lbs than to do all these things. Ive lost 75 lbs this year
unfortunately, Ive lost the same 5lbs 15times.
Good Luck and hope to see you at Brodhead next month,
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]
On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009
11:22 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gross
weight rating and modifications...
Hey All:
I have been
looking for some of the weight specs for the Piet, and have a couple of questions.
I would like to
have something closer to 1200 lbs total gross weight for the plane. I think I
saw on a website I found tonight that the gross was at somewhere around 1050.
I've only found one site that lists the Piet's specs, and as I am 255 or so, I
want to know if I can fly this bird with my 150 lb wife and an over night bag...
May be a great
reason for the stomach by-pass surgery and a tummy tuck, but crud, if I'm gonna
spend that much money I should get a kit plane :o\
Is the gross
weight established by the 'designer' or by the builder based on having a
corvair engine vs. the 65 hp types when the builder registers it with the FAA...
Thanks for the
clairification and help!
Mark
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: Gross weight rating and modifications... |
Thanks Mike, Jack and Bill....
Well, it's like a balancing act, and I know that's part of the game.
Nothing will be just the right way for everyone, and I can see from
what you guys say, that adjustments in one area change the dynamics in
another. All this designing and changing stuff is second nature to me
when I am hacking out balsa wood and foam for model airplanes, but
when I hang my fat hiney in the seat and it is life and death, I begin
to question my own knowledge very carefully (and rightly so according
to you guys on the list here, and that's why I'ma askin' all these
questions...).
I've not done this before, so I don't want to make a big mistake and
cost me or my family my life. Moving a seat back a few inches and such
I can understand easily enough, but adding wing panels to the span and
the like is uncharted territory for me, and I wonder what you guys
think:
Does adding additional length to the wingspan change the strength
considerations to the spar? If I am adding say, 6 feet to the over
all length, do I need to beef up the spars to carry the extra bays?
While reducing the wing loading, does it also increase the stress on
the spar's strength?
Also, do the struts attach at the same point on the wing, or a bay
further out to equalize the load a bit more?
I know using a lighter engine like the continental would be better,
but the Rotax 912s is a light one and would need the fuse lengthened
in the nose toaccommodatethe difference without adding 'dead'
weight. I've seen the 912 discussed briefly here as well, so while
more expensive than a used Continental, it might be worth it if it
will buy me more gross weight capacity.
However, there's that balancing act again: Dollars spent or weight
saved... I know a new Rotax is more expensive than say a good
Continental that's rebuilt...
Mike: to your question as to tail wheel experience, no, I have none
at this point. I do not have an endorsement, and I would require
training for actually flying the plane verses just making engine noise
in my mockpit.... :o) I will be flying this under LSA rules, but for
all of the points above, I need training. (Actually, I can already
make airplane noises, so I don't need further help there...). And
frankly, the lack of tailwheel experience has stopped me for years
from looking closely at 'draggers'. I got my pilot's licence in 2005
in a Cessna 172, and I have several hours in an LSA (An FPNA 'Valor';
a tri-cycle landing gear nice flying LSA). But alas, not tail dragger
experience. So, when looking for a plane to build, I looked at trikes,
and not a 'dragger' like the piet. I convinced myself that I didn't
have the skill set to fly a tail dragger, and of course, that's true
now, but when I thought about it, I realized it was a dumb reason to
not look carefully at them. I can just get trained.
Overall, I think the Piet will work. I will need to lose weight
anyway, but even if I got back to my college weight, I'd only save 50
or so pounds. Nothing to sneeze at, and it'd save me money in
medications as well. But, I am trying to learn what parameters can be
changed safely with the Piet to allow for a higher weight loading.
At the risk of blathering on, I broke out my EAA books last night, and
began looking into steel tubing again. I don't weld, and something
about welding a fuse as a training project scares me a bit. Gluing
wood is one thing, welding 4130 is another all together.
Sorry for being long winded. Thanks for all the great advice guys!
Mark
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: gross weight and pilot wt. |
Mark..
Please don't worry about "rehashing" on this List. We've all been new
to this at one point in time, and I know you'll find these fellows to be
a most patient lot. And, after all, there's no such thing as stupid
questions.
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Roberts
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: gross weight and pilot wt.
Thanks Walt. After years of building Model Airplanes, I know the value
of saving weight and building light...
As far rehashing is concerned, I'm new to the group, so I hope I am
not asking annoying questions.
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: Pfeifer Sport plans |
Darrel,
I received the Cd and sent you a cash payment, did you get it? Thanks so
much for your generous help. The Cd is a great addition to my "collection".
Thanks,
Ray Krause
N51YX, Waiex, TD, Jab 3300 (1197), AeroCarb, Sensinich 54X62 wood prop,
Dynon D-180, Garmin SL-30, 327, 296, 105 hrs.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darrel Jones" <wd6bor@vom.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pfeifer Sport plans
>
> Will
>
> I got your payment. Thanks and enjoy the plans.
>
> Darrel
>
> Will42 wrote:
>>
>> Darrel; I got the disc you sent and paid by return mail.
>> Thanks so much for sharing the plans. They will be a great source of info
>> when I start the tube Piet.
>> Will
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246841#246841
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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! --
|