Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:16 AM - Re: Plywoods (Clif Dawson)
2. 04:09 AM - Re: Preventing axle rotation Was:Plywoods (gcardinal)
3. 04:51 AM - Re: seeing the instruments (Isablcorky@aol.com)
4. 05:00 AM - Re: seeing the instruments (Jack Phillips)
5. 06:09 AM - buick v8 (Douwe Blumberg)
6. 06:50 AM - Re: Re: Fuselage length (Jim Markle)
7. 08:52 AM - Re: Re: Fuselage length (AMsafetyC@aol.com)
8. 08:52 AM - Re: Found My Engine!! (TOPGUN)
9. 08:55 AM - Re: Found My Engine!! (TOPGUN)
10. 09:27 AM - Re: Re: seeing the instruments (Jim)
11. 09:41 AM - Re: Re: seeing the instruments (Jim)
12. 01:43 PM - Keeping the C.G. from getting to far aft (Don Emch)
13. 02:07 PM - Re: Re: Fuselage length (Dan Yocum)
14. 02:39 PM - Re: OSH (Dale Johnson)
15. 03:05 PM - Re: Re: Fuselage length (Jack Phillips)
16. 03:38 PM - Re: Re: Fuselage length (Bill Church)
17. 04:22 PM - it's alive! (skellytown flyer)
18. 05:08 PM - Re: Fuselage length (Will42)
19. 05:35 PM - Re: Keeping the C.G. from getting to far aft (Will42)
20. 06:48 PM - Re: Re: Fuselage length (Gene Rambo)
21. 07:47 PM - W&B (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation])
22. 08:04 PM - Re: Re: Fuselage length (Ryan Mueller)
23. 08:04 PM - Re: Keeping the C.G. from getting to far aft (Don Emch)
24. 08:22 PM - Re: Fuselage length (Don Emch)
25. 11:24 PM - Re: Fuselage length (K5YAC)
26. 11:26 PM - Re: buick v8 (Mike Tunnicliffe)
27. 11:26 PM - Re: Preventing axle rotation Was:Plywoods (Mike Tunnicliffe)
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 |
|
This cable holds the brake from rotating.
I'm going to use this idea.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Tunnicliffe
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Plywoods
Regards Mike T.
ps. I'm assembling the wooden undercart and would like to fit brakes,
the problem is stopping the axle turning whilst not restricting the axle
movement, I have seen the peg and socket idea but wondered if there were
any alternatives that someone may have come up with?
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: tenpol-List:Preventing axle rotation Was:Plywoods |
Check out how John Dilatush prevented axle rotation on Mountain Piet.
http://www.westcoastpiet.com/images/John%20Dilatush%27s%20Subaru-Powered%
20Pietenpol/DSC00049.JPG
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Tunnicliffe
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Plywoods
Hi, I am using the 1.5 mm okume for sheeting the leading edge of the
wing, I feel it is too weak for any other part of a pietenpol. Okume ply
seems to be used for the structure of several French designs that
require light weight, but of course they would be engineered to take
account of the lower strength of the ply. It is soft and easily dented.
Regards Mike T.
ps. I'm assembling the wooden undercart and would like to fit brakes,
the problem is stopping the axle turning whilst not restricting the axle
movement, I have seen the peg and socket idea but wondered if there were
any alternatives that someone may have come up with?
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: seeing the instruments |
Jim,
That slanted instrument panel idea is by far the best suggestion I've seen
on this net in years. I guess the biggest shock or disappointment I had
with 41CC was when I first climbed in the reat pit, sat there and saw how
close everythig was to my big nose. As I flew it became more annoying. I
thought, look at all that room ahead in the front pit. How could some of
that
space be transferred back here. I'm thinking hard on that subject now bef
ore I
begin my third Piet.
Corky, always bringing up controversial thoughts in HOT, HOT Louisiana
**************Dell Summer Savings: Cool Deals on Popular Laptops =93
Shop
Now!
=http:%2F%2Faltfarm.mediaplex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D81939%2D1629%2D1)
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: | seeing the instruments |
My solution to that was to put a few instruments in the front panel -
compass, airspeed, altimeter and a slip indicator. Works great until I put
a passenger in there - then at least they get to know how low we are and how
slow we're going.
You really don't look at the instruments very much - this is a "seat of the
pants" airplane. This past spring, my pitot tube got clogged with pollen,
which I didn't notice until I was climbing out after takeoff (apparently I
don't refer to the airspeed indicator for rotation speed). Not a terribly
big problem to fly the airplane with no airspeed indicator. There are many
clues to speed, including the way the stick feels, the sound of the wind in
the wires, etc.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Isablcorky@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 7:44 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: seeing the instruments
Jim,
That slanted instrument panel idea is by far the best suggestion I've seen
on this net in years. I guess the biggest shock or disappointment I had with
41CC was when I first climbed in the reat pit, sat there and saw how close
everythig was to my big nose. As I flew it became more annoying. I thought,
look at all that room ahead in the front pit. How could some of that space
be transferred back here. I'm thinking hard on that subject now before I
begin my third Piet.
Corky, always bringing up controversial thoughts in HOT, HOT Louisiana
_____
Dell
p:%2F%2Faltfarm.mediaplex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D81939%2D1629%2D1> Summer
Savings: Cool Deals on Popular Laptops - Shop Now!
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 |
|
Hello all,
For those who expressed interest in the aluminum buick v-8, I just hung up
with Steve Cavanagh in Australia who actually built and flew one.
He took it right out of the car without even a rebuild, the only mod was an
enlarged sump. Kept the standard ignition and starter. Bolted a metal prop
from an "aerobatic Cessna 150" right onto the crank. Says the thrust
bearing is in the middle of the crank. Remembers max rpm as around 2800,
and got 1,000meters climb. Had over 300 hrs when he sold it four years ago,
he's now 89. Didn't have any trouble. Said it used about 7 gallons per
hour and probably weighed 300 lbs. Had a 30 gallon tank to keep it fed.
Said the Piet performed great with the heavy engine. Said he started with
standard wings then build longer wings and said it "it didn't make a
difference". Estimates 130hp at 2800
Sounds pretty interesting except for the fuel consumption!
Douwe
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: Fuselage length |
John, instead of using a name badge at Brodhead, you might want to just get a Tshirt
with:
"The contents of this message are corrupt. We cannot view this message."
printed on it.......
do not archive
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: Fuselage length |
How about "Stinkin Blackberry"
**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
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: Found My Engine!! |
some smaller pics
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251143#251143
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/cimg1224_211.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/cimg0648_160.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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Found My Engine!! |
some more
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251144#251144
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/cimg1238_120.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/cimg1242_123.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/cimg1252_244.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/cimg1238_138.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/cimg1240_189.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/cimg1238_175.jpg
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: seeing the instruments |
Jim Boyer
Santa Rosa, CA
Pietenpol builder with Corvair
Thanks Corky,
It does make it easier to see the instruments at a glance. Before I slanted the
panel I had to move my head back to see them kinda like a chicken moves its head;
gave me a kink in the neck. Its just an inch back at the top and does a lot
more than you would think to improve the view.
Jim
On Jul 2, 2009, Isablcorky@aol.com wrote:
Jim,
That slanted instrument panel idea is by far the best suggestion I've seen
on this net in years. I guess the biggest shock or disappointment I had with
41CC was when I first climbed in the reat pit, sat there and saw how close
everythig was to my big nose. As I flew it became more annoying. I thought, look
at all that room ahead in the front pit. How could some of that space be
transferred back here. I'm thinking hard on that subject now before I begin my
third Piet.
Corky, always bringing up controversial thoughts in HOT, HOT
Louisiana
Dell Summer Savings: Cool Deals on Popular Laptops - Shop Now!
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: seeing the instruments |
Jim Boyer
Santa Rosa, CA
Pietenpol builder with Corvair
Hi Jack,
I remember seeing you last year at Brodhead and you are much taller than I am.
I have to stretch to make 5' 6" and my problem will be seeing over the cowl to
the front cockpit and nose of the Piet. I used to instruct in an Aeronca Champ
and had one student about your height but he was quite heavy. It reminded me
of Lindbergh flying the ocean; all I could see was to the sides and the guys
back like a wall in front of me.
A friend of mine had a Corben Baby Ace and let me fly it for a couple of weeks
while he was out of town. Thats what made me want to build a Pietenpol; it was
so much fun to fly that open cockpit airplane and it looks pretty much like
a small Piet. I thought a Piet made more sense as I could take someone else with
me to enjoy the flight too.
Jim
On Jul 2, 2009, pietflyr@bellsouth.net wrote:
My solution to that was to put a few
instruments in the front panel compass, airspeed, altimeter and a slip
indicator. Works great until I put a passenger in there then at
least they get to know how low we are and how slow were going.
You really dont look at the
instruments very much this is a seat of the pants
airplane. This past spring, my pitot tube got clogged with pollen, which
I didnt notice until I was climbing out after takeoff (apparently I dont
refer to the airspeed indicator for rotation speed). Not a terribly big
problem to fly the airplane with no airspeed indicator. There are many clues
to speed, including the way the stick feels, the sound of the wind in the wires,
etc.
Jack
Phillips
NX899JP
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Isablcorky@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 7:44
AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:
seeing the instruments
Jim,
That slanted instrument panel idea is by
far the best suggestion I've seen on this net in years. I guess the biggest
shock or disappointment I had with 41CC was when I first climbed in the reat
pit, sat there and saw how close everythig was to my big nose. As I flew it
became more annoying. I thought, look at all that room ahead in the front pit.
How could some of that space be transferred back here. I'm thinking hard on
that subject now before I begin my third Piet.
Corky, always bringing up controversial
thoughts in HOT, HOT Louisiana
Dell
Summer Savings: Cool Deals on Popular Laptops - Shop Now!
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: | Keeping the C.G. from getting to far aft |
I think the intent for the longer fuselage was really to gain some leg room and
possibly add some pitch stability. A lot of the length is added from the rear
cabane back to the tail. So the making it longer for lighter engines idea doesn't
really make sense. I kinda like the looks of the earlier short version,
but I went ahead and used the longer version on mine because I'm kinda long
myself (about 6' 3" actually). I moved my wing back 4" and am really happy with
the balance. As far as the C.G. is concerned we really aren't moving the wing
back, we really are moving the fuselage forward because the C.G. is determined
based on the chord of the wing. Which makes sense to do rather than lengthening
the engine mount. I think this is true because in lengthening the engine
mount by 4" you are only setting that much weight out there 4" more. By moving
the entire fuselage forward (or moving the wing back) 4" you are moving
all of the weight (fuselage structure, landing gear, fuel tank if in the fuselage,
etc.) of the fuselage ahead of the C.G. forward. If I confused you don't
worry because I confuse myself all the time!
As far as the 33% of chord for aft C.G. goes, I think it is very important. However,
I do think the fantastic Pietenpol wing is fairly tolerant of aft C.G.
I watched my airplane fly with a 37% of chord C.G. Kind of a long story but
a test pilot friend wanted to show me that it would fly fine with that far aft
of a C.G. and I guess it did. He said he definitely wouldn't spin it like that
but otherwise it flew fine. Myself, I wouldn't ever spin my Piet, but I guess
others do. Enough rambling!
Hoping to see some of the list guys at Brodhead!
Don Emch
NX899DE
NX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251204#251204
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: Fuselage length |
[Let's try this again with a link to the image instead of the image - my
apologies to everyone on 9600 baud modems]
Jack,
Jack Phillips wrote:
> tail). Far easier is to shift the wing aft. Even though moving the wing
> aft tends to move the CG aft as well (just slightly, due to the mass of the
> wing which has moved aft) it moves the acceptable CG range aft and allows
> the CG to fall within the acceptable range. Very few airplane designs can
> be modified in this way - it is one of the great advantages of the Pietenpol
You and others have said in this thread that "it's easy to move the
wing." Please excuse the naivety of the following question but, "How
easy is it?"
I can imagine that the forward bracing struts (ahead of the cabanes)
would have to be lengthened, all the strut attach brackets on the wings
and and fuselage would have to be replaced, and new wires would have to
be built if there's not enough play in the turnbuckles. Then there's
re-routing the fuel and pitot lines and opening the holes ahead of the
pilot's instrument panel for the those support wires...
Or is it easier than what I'm imagining?
The reason I ask is because it appears that N8031 has a CG issue. See
the image and look at the position of the elevator:
http://5n429glenoak.homelinux.net/gallery/airplanes/DSC_4167
Every picture I've seen of her in cruise flight, the elevator is angled
a bit down.
Thanks,
Dan
--
Dan Yocum
Fermilab 630.840.6509
yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
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 |
|
Dick
I reserved space at OSH.
Dale
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick N.
Sent: 7/1/2009 9:49:22 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: OSH
I waited too long and forgot about the camping reservations thru Bill Rewey. Is
anyone else planning on pre reserving space for camping at OSH?
Dick N.
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: Fuselage length |
Dan,
Have you run a weight and balance to see where your CG (with you in the
airplane) is with respect to the cord of the wing?
Moving the wing is very simple, if you made the diagonal cabane struts with
some adjustment for length. The rest of the bracing wires have enough
adjustment in the turnbuckles. Like many others on the list, my wing is aft
of vertical by 4". Anticipating that I would have an aft CG problem, I
built my cabane diagonals with adjustment built in.
Jack Phillips
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Yocum
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Fuselage length
[Let's try this again with a link to the image instead of the image - my
apologies to everyone on 9600 baud modems]
Jack,
Jack Phillips wrote:
> tail). Far easier is to shift the wing aft. Even though moving the wing
> aft tends to move the CG aft as well (just slightly, due to the mass of
the
> wing which has moved aft) it moves the acceptable CG range aft and allows
> the CG to fall within the acceptable range. Very few airplane designs can
> be modified in this way - it is one of the great advantages of the
Pietenpol
You and others have said in this thread that "it's easy to move the
wing." Please excuse the naivety of the following question but, "How
easy is it?"
I can imagine that the forward bracing struts (ahead of the cabanes)
would have to be lengthened, all the strut attach brackets on the wings
and and fuselage would have to be replaced, and new wires would have to
be built if there's not enough play in the turnbuckles. Then there's
re-routing the fuel and pitot lines and opening the holes ahead of the
pilot's instrument panel for the those support wires...
Or is it easier than what I'm imagining?
The reason I ask is because it appears that N8031 has a CG issue. See
the image and look at the position of the elevator:
http://5n429glenoak.homelinux.net/gallery/airplanes/DSC_4167
Every picture I've seen of her in cruise flight, the elevator is angled
a bit down.
Thanks,
Dan
--
Dan Yocum
Fermilab 630.840.6509
yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
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: Fuselage length |
I have read before that requiring a bit of down elevator in flight is
common among Pietenpols.
http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=47733925?KEY
S
=hansen&flippers?LISTNAME=Pietenpol?HITNUMBER=1?SERIAL=1535591842
4?SHOWB
UTTONS=YES
One other thing to consider is whether the down elevator is required if
you cut the power and glide. Maybe the thrust angle of the engine needs
a bit of adjustment.
Bill C.
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 |
|
Well my Corvair really does run after all. I never tried to start it after bringing
it home from Arizona over 2 years ago.and I guess it had been at least a
year or two before when DJ ran it last.the tank and lines were really stunk up
with soured up gas.I got everything ready today and put some avgas in-opened
the cut-off valve and heard something hitting the floor-looked over and gas was
pouring out of the carb. I took it off and removed the top and cleaned it out
and put it back. finally after several attempts it fired up. the throttle stops
weren't set right and I probably had 1/4 throttle or close.good for getting
the oil pressure and blood pressure up. the tied tail held and I shut it down.
after 3 tries I got the throttle stop set right and it purrs like a kitten.
I always heard the corvair is smooth but never was close to one running on a
plane before.I like it!! now I can't wait to get all the other things sorted out
starting with the cowl. I am not looking forward to that but it has to be done.I
even got the digital panel to work after some messing with the right wires.
I don't like it-doesn't really belong on a Piet but till I fly it some I am
not interested it spending time and money changing anything.but if someone wants
to come to the Texas panhandle and bring good steam gages and swap them out
they are welcome to the digital one.the oil pressure seemed lower than I expected.
I was seeing about 37 lb. at about 1100 RPM or less.who knows how accurate
the digital unit is if it isn't calibrated to the sender.I have a mechanical
pressure gage somewhere I can rig to check that.Raymond
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251228#251228
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuselage length |
conceptmodels(at)tds.net wrote:
> Doesn't moving the wing back move the CG forward relative to the
> leading edge?
> Moving the wing back creates a longer nose moment.
> On Jul 1, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Jack Phillips wrote:
>
>
> --
I don't know about the "relative to the leading edge" bit, but if you look at a
weight and balance work sheet, you will see that any weight aft of the datum
line is a + and any weight forward is a -; likewise, any weight moved aft adds
to the + and any weight moved forward adds to the -; assuming that the wing has
weight, and surely it does, then it stands to reason that moving the weight
of the wing aft moves the CG aft by a relative amount. Moving the wing aft will
lighten the tail in flight no doubt, but CG is figured on the ground and level.
Moving the wing back does not necessarily lengthen the nose moment; it depends
on where the datum line is.
Will
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251237#251237
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: Keeping the C.G. from getting to far aft |
I don't know who did the weight and balance sheet on your Piet, but if you will
take a look at it, no where on it does it refer to the length of the wing cord,
in fact it does not mention the wing. Weight and balance is determined by weighing
the main gear and nose or tail wheel; using those weights and arms to
determine moments, then adding fuel, oil, pilot, passenger and baggage/freight
weights and arms to determine their moments and then enter all info on the weight
and balance work sheet to determine the CG.
The wing has a center of lift ( typically about 33% of cord) that works with the
CG to produce safe loading conditions but neither the wing nor the wing cord
determines the CG.
Will
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251240#251240
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: Fuselage length |
Guys, forget about the datum. You can make the datum anything you want
it to be, and it does not matter. If you want to use all positive
numbers, not negative, make it the tip of your spinner.
Don't even specify a datum and weigh the airplane. You can calculate
the CG as being XX inches aft of the center of the main wheels. (if it
is forward, you have a REAL problem) What you then need to calculate is
where the CG lands on the wing (so you compare the location of the wing
to the CG you just located). This is why most use the leading edge of
the wing as a datum, to make this calculation easier.
Then, express the location of the CG as a % of the chord. Say you find
it is 33% of chord. This is meaningless unless you have published
numbers for the CG limits for your specific airfoil which, for the
Pietenpol is, surprise, unknown. CAM 18 (who remembers this??) gives
the old-time rule of thumb for guessing at a reasonable CG range. Jack
stated it correctly, and I don't have it in front of me, but if it is
roughly around 33%, give or take a few inches, you are probably all
right.
This has become way harder than it should be.
BTW, everything Jack said is correct.
Gene
(ducking for cover)
----- Original Message -----
From: Will42<mailto:will@cctc.net>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 8:07 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Fuselage length
<will@cctc.net<mailto:will@cctc.net>>
conceptmodels(at)tds.net wrote:
> Doesn't moving the wing back move the CG forward relative to the
> leading edge?
> Moving the wing back creates a longer nose moment.
> On Jul 1, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Jack Phillips wrote:
>
>
> --
I don't know about the "relative to the leading edge" bit, but if you
look at a weight and balance work sheet, you will see that any weight
aft of the datum line is a + and any weight forward is a -; likewise,
any weight moved aft adds to the + and any weight moved forward adds to
the -; assuming that the wing has weight, and surely it does, then it
stands to reason that moving the weight of the wing aft moves the CG aft
by a relative amount. Moving the wing aft will lighten the tail in
flight no doubt, but CG is figured on the ground and level.
Moving the wing back does not necessarily lengthen the nose moment; it
depends on where the datum line is.
Will
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251237#251237<http://forums
.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251237#251237>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List<http://www.matronics.co
m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>
Message 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 |
|
I hadn't done a weight and balance since getting my private ticket back in 1981
when I finished my Pietenpol and didn't ask a single question
or ask for help.
I went to the TONY BINGELIS books and he explained it all in simple terms and gave
you several ways to do it and to see if your numbers were any good.
I used the tip of the prop as my datum---all the numbers are positive then making
the math simple. I could not believe how EASY it was. There is nothing
mysterious or magical about CG or doing a W&B. Jack's teeter-totter example was
a good one.
At one Brodhead back in the mid 90's they had a hangar all setup to weigh any Piets
that were there and then measured things like long fuse, short fuse,
engine type, overall weight, and published it in the then Grant MacLaren newsletter.
Was pretty interesting to see all the various configurations
and results.
Nice thing is that no matter what engine/fuselage/pilot weight you've got going----there's
someone out there who has been there, done that and can
tell you how their CG worked out and what they would have (if anything) done differently
to make it come out better.
Mike C.
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: Fuselage length |
Gene,
Actually, we do have one published CG limit; in the "Notes" section in the
manual from the Pietenpol family, item 17 (wing struts). The text states
that "not under any condition should this airplane be flown with the CG more
than 20" from the leading edge" (there's your 33%).
Ryan
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Gene Rambo <generambo@msn.com> wrote:
> Guys, forget about the datum. You can make the datum anything you want
> it to be, and it does not matter. If you want to use all positive numbers,
> not negative, make it the tip of your spinner.
>
> Don't even specify a datum and weigh the airplane. You can calculate the
> CG as being XX inches aft of the center of the main wheels. (if it is
> forward, you have a REAL problem) What you then need to calculate is where
> the CG lands on the wing (so you compare the location of the wing to the CG
> you just located). This is why most use the leading edge of the wing as a
> datum, to make this calculation easier.
>
> Then, express the location of the CG as a % of the chord. Say you find it
> is 33% of chord. This is meaningless unless you have published numbers for
> the CG limits for your specific airfoil which, for the Pietenpol
> is, surprise, unknown. CAM 18 (who remembers this??) gives the old-time
> rule of thumb for guessing at a reasonable CG range. Jack stated it
> correctly, and I don't have it in front of me, but if it is roughly around
> 33%, give or take a few inches, you are probably all right.
>
> This has become way harder than it should be.
>
> BTW, everything Jack said is correct.
>
> Gene
> (ducking for cover)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Will42 <will@cctc.net>
> *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 02, 2009 8:07 PM
> *Subject:* Pietenpol-List: Re: Fuselage length
>
>
>
> conceptmodels(at)tds.net wrote:
> > Doesn't moving the wing back move the CG forward relative to the
> > leading edge?
> > Moving the wing back creates a longer nose moment.
> > On Jul 1, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Jack Phillips wrote:
> >
> >
> > --
>
>
> I don't know about the "relative to the leading edge" bit, but if you look
> at a weight and balance work sheet, you will see that any weight aft of the
> datum line is a + and any weight forward is a -; likewise, any weight moved
> aft adds to the + and any weight moved forward adds to the -; assuming that
> the wing has weight, and surely it does, then it stands to reason that
> moving the weight of the wing aft moves the CG aft by a relative amount.
> Moving the wing aft will lighten the tail in flight no doubt, but CG is
> figured on the ground and level.
>
> Moving the wing back does not necessarily lengthen the nose moment; it
> depends on where the datum line is.
>
> Will
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251237#251237
>
>
> http://www.matnbsp; via the Web title=http://forums.matronics.com/href="
> http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> _p; generous bsp; title
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution href="
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution">
> http://www.matronics.com/c================
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Keeping the C.G. from getting to far aft |
I did a very thorough weight and balance on my airplane. I suggest that anyone
who does their weight and balance fully understand it before they tackle it.
I've seen guys on the list try to get a weight and balance spread sheet from
others who have done theirs so they can plug numbers in. Not a good idea on my
part. Actually leveling the airplane and weighing at measured points (usually
landing gear) then finding locations for each arm. Then creating your own
work sheet is important. Many use arms like the center of the seats for passenger
and pilot. Not an accurate or good idea. Much more accurate to actually
weigh the airplane with yourself or a person while positioned on the seat and
do the math to figure where the arm is
The wing or wing chord itself does not determine the C.G. However if the C.G.
is behind the C.L. you are going to have serious problem. Therefore since the
C.L. is determined as a % of the chord we typically use the chord as a reference
to determine the % for the C.G. Since Pietenpol wings are seldom positioned
in the same place on each and every one we can't just figure where the C.G.
is according to the fuselage and gear or weighing points. So in the Pietenpol's
case it is very important to know where the wing is. Knowing what % of the
chord that the C.G. of the airplane is, is extremely important.
I usually don't pipe up about too many things but a good understanding of weight
and balance is very important. I apologize for not being able to explain all
that well but as long as you yourself have a good understanding of it is all
that matters.
Don Emch
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251257#251257
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: Fuselage length |
Thank you Gene! You expressed it better than I could. Knowing where the C.G.
falls on the wing (or what % of chord) is what it's all about. Who cares where
it is according to anything else on the airplane.
Moving the wing back does not move the C.G. back, only moves it forward, at least
for aerodynamic purposes. I suppose as it sits on the ground the C.G. will
get more aft, but for flight purposes we aren't worried about that. What we
really are doing is moving the fuselage forward in relation to the wing. It's
all about the wing. It's all about the wing.
Okay, getting off my soap box now and ducking for cover with Gene!
Don Emch
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251262#251262
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: Fuselage length |
Yep this is making more sense... CG in relation to the wing. I was originally
thinking of overall CG and the effect on it when moving components.
--------
Mark - working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251276#251276
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 |
|
Thanks, that answers most of my questions.
Regards Mike T.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg@earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 12:57 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: buick v8
> <douweblumberg@earthlink.net>
>
> Hello all,
>
> For those who expressed interest in the aluminum buick v-8, I just hung up
> with Steve Cavanagh in Australia who actually built and flew one.
>
> He took it right out of the car without even a rebuild, the only mod was
> an
> enlarged sump. Kept the standard ignition and starter. Bolted a metal
> prop
> from an "aerobatic Cessna 150" right onto the crank. Says the thrust
> bearing is in the middle of the crank. Remembers max rpm as around 2800,
> and got 1,000meters climb. Had over 300 hrs when he sold it four years
> ago,
> he's now 89. Didn't have any trouble. Said it used about 7 gallons per
> hour and probably weighed 300 lbs. Had a 30 gallon tank to keep it fed.
> Said the Piet performed great with the heavy engine. Said he started with
> standard wings then build longer wings and said it "it didn't make a
> difference". Estimates 130hp at 2800
>
> Sounds pretty interesting except for the fuel consumption!
>
> Douwe
>
>
>
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: tenpol-List:Preventing axle rotation Was:Plywoods |
Thanks, this forum has a great helpfull bunch of guys.
regards Mike T.
----- Original Message -----
From: gcardinal
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:Preventing axle rotation Was:Plywoods
Check out how John Dilatush prevented axle rotation on Mountain Piet.
http://www.westcoastpiet.com/images/John%20Dilatush%27s%20Subaru-Powered%
20Pietenpol/DSC00049.JPG
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Tunnicliffe
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Plywoods
Hi, I am using the 1.5 mm okume for sheeting the leading edge of the
wing, I feel it is too weak for any other part of a pietenpol. Okume ply
seems to be used for the structure of several French designs that
require light weight, but of course they would be engineered to take
account of the lower strength of the ply. It is soft and easily dented.
Regards Mike T.
ps. I'm assembling the wooden undercart and would like to fit
brakes, the problem is stopping the axle turning whilst not restricting
the axle movement, I have seen the peg and socket idea but wondered if
there were any alternatives that someone may have come up with?
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! --
|