Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:50 AM - Re: Thanks Chris-- ! Mike Cuy Sketches and Pictures (Robert Ray)
2. 02:12 AM - Re: Re: No RPM drop on mag check?? (Gene & Tammy)
3. 04:22 AM - Re: electric engine (H RULE)
4. 05:08 AM - Re: Spar splice (Gene Rambo)
5. 05:41 AM - Re: electric engine (H RULE)
6. 05:42 AM - Re: Vortex Generators (airlion)
7. 06:11 AM - Wood testing to failure, a little off topic (shad bell)
8. 06:23 AM - Re: Spar splice (shad bell)
9. 08:05 AM - Re: Vortex Generators (Dan Yocum)
10. 08:08 AM - Re: Vortex Generators (Dan Yocum)
11. 08:18 AM - Re: electric engine (Dortch, Steven D MAJ NG NG NGB)
12. 08:21 AM - Re: Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc. (Tim Willis)
13. 08:25 AM - Re: Vortex Generators - Broadhead Banner (Ross Alexander)
14. 08:34 AM - Re: electric engine (mike)
15. 08:48 AM - Re: Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc. (John Hofmann)
16. 09:21 AM - Re: Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc. (AMsafetyC@aol.com)
17. 09:55 AM - Re: Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc. (Jeff Boatright)
18. 09:57 AM - Re: Vortex Generators - Broadhead Banner (K5YAC)
19. 10:13 AM - Re: Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc. (Jack)
20. 10:55 AM - Re: Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc. (John Hofmann)
21. 10:55 AM - Re: Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc. (John Hofmann)
22. 11:03 AM - Re: Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc. (Ryan Mueller)
23. 11:21 AM - Re: Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc. (John Hofmann)
24. 11:36 AM - Re: Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc. (Dan Yocum)
25. 12:07 PM - Re: Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc. (John Hofmann)
26. 12:12 PM - Re: Spar splice (Michael McGowan)
27. 12:14 PM - Re: electric engine (Michael McGowan)
28. 12:20 PM - Re: electric engine (Wayne Bressler)
29. 12:21 PM - Re: electric engine (Michael McGowan)
30. 12:54 PM - Re: Spar splice (Gene Rambo)
31. 01:14 PM - Re: Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc. (Jack Phillips)
32. 01:26 PM - Re: Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc. (John Hofmann)
33. 01:43 PM - Re: Spar splice (mike)
34. 01:53 PM - Re: electric engine (mike)
35. 03:59 PM - Re: Spar splice (Michael McGowan)
36. 04:39 PM - Thank goodness for Dee Mosher (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation])
37. 04:53 PM - Elevator travel adjustment (helspersew@aol.com)
38. 04:53 PM - Riblett 612 Leading Edge (Dave and Connie)
39. 05:01 PM - Re: Elevator travel adjustment (Tim Willis)
40. 05:47 PM - Spar splice (santiago morete)
41. 06:14 PM - Re: Vortex Generators - Broadhead Banner (Ross Alexander)
42. 06:22 PM - Re: Gap Seal - Vortex Generators - Broadhead Banner (gwread@aol.com)
43. 06:37 PM - Re: Spar splice (Gene Rambo)
44. 08:39 PM - Spar splice (santiago morete)
45. 09:41 PM - Re: electric engine (Clif Dawson)
46. 11:34 PM - Re: Riblett 612 Leading Edge (Robert Ray)
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: Thanks Chris-- ! Mike Cuy Sketches and Pictures |
Micheal,
Heck man I'll take a left over pork chop any time, may be biscuit with it!
Russell
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace
Corporation] <michael.d.cuy@nasa.gov> wrote:
> Aerospace Corporation]" <michael.d.cuy@nasa.gov>
>
>
> For some who were interested in a CD of some of my chicken-scratch sketches
> and detailed photos please don't
> send me any money, stock options, or leftover pork chops but go to the site
> that Chris Tracy has mentioned
> below.
>
> What a great resource Chris ! I'm always learning something new when I
> look at other people's photos that you
> have graciously posted on your web site.
>
> Book mark this site and save money now ! I'm offering TWO of my sketch
> CD's and photo CD's for the price of one now !!! Shipping is free too !
>
> Let's see how many write to me now wanting to see if they can get a CD.
>
> Money says at least one, maybe two.
>
> Mike C.
>
>
> _______________________________________
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [
> owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of catdesigns@att.net[
> catdesigns@att.net]
> Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 12:11 AM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Mike Cuy Sketches and Pictures
>
>
> I have added Mike Cuy's pictures and sketches to the website. If you are
> like me and were inspired by Mike plane you will find the numerouse
> pictures
> and sketches Mike sent in to be really helpfull. I know I have found a
> thing or two I was curious about. The pictures can be found here.
>
> http://westcoastpiet.com/mike_cuy_page_2.htm
>
> His sketches can be found here.
>
> http://westcoastpiet.com/design_sketches.htm
>
> Thanks Mike for taking the time to send the pictures.
>
> As always, anyone who wants to send pictures or information to include on
> WestCoastPiet.com feel free to send them to me.
>
> Chris
> Sacramento, CA
> WestCoastPiet.com
>
>
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: No RPM drop on mag check?? |
Congrats Dan, sounds like your getting everything in order.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Yocum" <yocum@fnal.gov>
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: No RPM drop on mag check??
>
> Just a quick note on this subject - during our flight on Thursday we
> stopped in at friend's airfield and he lent me his digital rpm reader -
> I don't recall the official name of it at the moment.
>
> I have to do some more methodical tests, but what I did see suggests
> that the tachometer is low by about 11.4%. That is, at 1000RPM
> indicated on the tachometer, the prop was actually spinning at 1140RPM.
> So, at 2050RPM (which I do achieve when I lean it out) it's actually
> spinning at around 2280. That's close enough to redline for my tastes.
>
> When Tres delivered the plane he mentioned that at one point in the past
> the tach pegged itself at the high end. Turns out that some oil got up
> inside the tachometer from the cable. He cleaned the tachometer up, but
> apparently didn't recalibrate it. So, mystery solved on that one.
>
> Cheers,
> Dan
>
>
> Robert Ray wrote:
>> Why don't you disconnect both mags all input and out put wiring taps,
>> take an olmmeter and measure resistance across the coils, measure
>> the resistance to ground hopfully infinity, if they don't match there
>> it is.
>> Or if they don't match with in say < or > 15%
>>
>> Russell
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Dan Yocum <yocum@fnal.gov
>> <mailto:yocum@fnal.gov>> wrote:
>>
>> <mailto:yocum@fnal.gov>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> tkreiner wrote:
>>
>> <tkreiner@gmail.com <mailto:tkreiner@gmail.com>>
>>
>> Dan,
>>
>> Without fully understanding what's going on, and without an
>> extensive knowledge of your engine, it's somewhat difficult to
>> figure out what's going on. A few questions might inform the
>> audience.
>>
>> Are the mags and ignition harnesses, & spark plugs - new, used,
>> worn out? Explain their condition, as it might help.
>>
>>
>> One mag is new in the last year. One plug is new 'cause the A&P
>> broke the old one during the last Annual. The harness is probably
>> the original from 1979 and probably before.
>>
>>
>>
>> How about the mechanical condition of the engine? Rebuilt?
>> Describe.
>>
>>
>> 400 SMOH, ~800 hour since new (estimated). Logs are incomplete from
>> before 1965, hence the reason for the overhaul. One cylinder was
>> cracked and replaced in '65 with "the same oversize." Compressions
>> are all in the mid to high 70's.
>>
>> I sent out a sample of the oil for analysis and no red flags were
>> found.
>>
>> This plane and engine has flown over 150 tach hours in the last 18
>> months and 50 hours in the 2 weeks leading up to Oshkosh!
>>
>>
>>
>> What fuel are you using?
>>
>>
>> 100LL with one shot of Marvel Mystery Oil per 15 gallons.
>>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps there's no problem at all. Even though our expectation
>> is that the engine SHOULD show an rpm drop, that is not always
>> the case... On a plane I fly regularly, the entire ignition
>> system was recently replaced, i.e., new mags, harnesses, plugs,
>> and correctly timed. When the plane was put back into service,
>> there was an imperceptible rpm drop.
>>
>> It turned out, with a near perfect ignition system, clean fuel,
>> etc., the engine was burning so clean and completely that there
>> was no discernible drop in rpm during mag check.
>>
>>
>> That's what I'm leaning toward, too. When Tres flew it from
>> California they flew it flat out as fast and lean as it would go for
>> as long as possible.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hope this adds some insight.
>>
>>
>> It does! I'm a glass half-full kind of guy but I like to make sure
>> there aren't any holes in the glass, too.
>>
>> The fact that at least one other engine out there in the world
>> exhibits the same sort of behaviour suggests that mine isn't
>> completely alone. 2 data points are always better than 1 (but still
>> not great...).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dan Yocum
>> Fermilab 630.840.6509
>> yocum@fnal.gov <mailto:yocum@fnal.gov>, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
>> <http://fermigrid.fnal.gov/>
>> Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
>> s List Un/Subscription,
>> www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List"
>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> ronics.com/" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> ====
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
> --
> Dan Yocum
> Fermilab 630.840.6509
> yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
> Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
05:51:00
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: tenpol-List:electric engine |
I guess I'll just have to wait for a stronger lighter battery to be invente
d.Great stuff you figured out there though.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A_________________
_______________=0AFrom: mike <bike.mike@comcast.net>=0ATo: pietenpol-list@m
atronics.com=0ASent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:06:53 PM=0ASubject: RE:
Pietenpol-List:electric engine=0A=0A=0AThat much power (300 Hp) would be s
pectacularly awesome in a Piet...for a few minutes of flight time.- =0A(M
ath is easier for me if we just go with 100 Hp, a more reasonable number fo
r Piets, so that is what I use here initially.)=0AThe best energy storage d
ensity of lithium-ion batteries these days-is around 200 W-hr/Kg, or abou
t 0.12 Hp-Hr/Lb.- To get 100 Hp for one-hour would require about 850 Lb
s of batteries (at an unattainable-100% efficiency).- =0AA Piet needs a
bout 30-40 Hp to cruise straight and level at a relatively slow speed.- C
onsider that two hours of gasoline (at 5 gph) is about 60 lbs.- I'm guess
ing that the electric motor weighs something less than a 100 Hp aircraft mo
tor so assume a motor that weighs 100 lb less than its internal combustion
counterpart.- To cruise electrically for two hours, you would need about
600 Lb of lithium-ion batteries (with something more for takeoff).- Minus
the motor and gas weight savings, that adds 440Lb to your existing takeoff
weight.- With a pre-existing-650 Lb empty weight and 200 lbs of pilot,
you have a 1300 Lb airplane.- That might upset the stress analysis guys,
but a Piet is pretty strong.- And, with 300 Hp of takeoff power, 1300 lb
will get off the ground right smartly.=0AHowever, every time you climb, yo
u eat up cruising time.- =0A-=0AEveryone, please feel free to critique
my reasoning.=0AMike Hardaway=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFr
om: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-
server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of H RULE=0A>Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2
009 5:08 AM=0A>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com=0A>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-L
ist:electric engine=0A>=0A>=0A>What do you think of putting this engine in
a Piet?I peronally think it would be awsome!=0A>-=0A>=0A>=0A>WOW........
=0A>-=0A>Check this out.----=0A>www.opb.org/programs/ofg/videos/v
========
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 |
|
The old version of 43.13 said a splice had to be 10:1 minimum, 12:1
preferred. As it has been pointed out, the original plans for the center
splice is not the best way to go although I suppose you could, it is an
experimental after all.
I am building a one piece wing. If you draw it out, using the
proper-sized plates on both sides of the splice, a 12:1 splice won't
work and still keep the splice plates out from under the cabane fittings
as is also required under 43.13 (the splice is 12", and the splice
plates are supposed to be 6" on either side of the splice line, making
the whole thing 24" from end to end, and the cabane fittings are not
that far apart) For this reason, I made my splice 10:1. This way, it
is legal and keeps the splice plates away from the cabane fittings (10"
splice, plates 5" either side of the splice line for a 20" total splice,
the ends are about 1" from the cabane fittings).
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: helspersew@aol.com<mailto:helspersew@aol.com>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Spar splice
Shad,
AC43-13 was revised a few years ago, and before the revision the spar
splice angle was always 12:1. I can't figure out why after many years it
had to be increased. When I made the spar splices on my one-piece wing I
referenced my old copy and made it 12:1. Oh well, I guess it will hold
together.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
-----Original Message-----
From: shad bell <aviatorbell@yahoo.com>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:19 pm
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Spar splice
Acording to 43-13 spar splice needs to be at a 15:1 angle of
the spar thickness. The length of the scarf would be 15 times 3/4(or 1
inch if you use 1inch spars) of an inch or 11 1/4 inches long on each
side (spar half) of the joint. then a reinforcement plate should be
placed over the splice. really you should look up ac43-13 online or buy
a copy, there is a diagram in there that shows it better than I can
explain it. There are a few other particulars in there. My advise is
buy spar matrial the full length, scarf joints add weight, and lots of
tedious precision work. If it were a repair to an exsisting airplane I
would say ok splice it but this is a new airplane, so it would be worth
the extra couple hundred bucks to not fuss with the splice.
Just my 2 cents worth,
Shad
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 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: tenpol-List:electric engine |
One thing the guy mentioned in the video was the torque generated by the el
ectric engine as compared to the gas engine.Perhaps a different prop of new
er design than the old style might be of help here.I noticed on smaller mod
el electric planes that the prop has quite a bite to it.Also consider just
asking for 80 hp as in my plane instead of 100 hp.The problem in my case wo
uld be that there is no place to plug in the batteries at the airfield.A sm
all prop driven generater between the landing gear could generate power to
charge as-I fly along adding to the cause.The weight of the engine and no
gas tank and gas-is greatly diminished giving more room for the weight o
f the batteries.Batterries could be placed in the wings as well.I don't car
ry passengers so I could carry more batteries of the lithium type of coarse
.I may be able to solar charge those batteries now that I think of it.Cover
the whole top of the wing surface in solar chargers also adding to
the cause as I fly along.What do you think?=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________
________________=0AFrom: H RULE <harvey.rule@rogers.com>=0ATo: pietenpol-li
st@matronics.com=0ASent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:17:43 AM=0ASubject
: Re: Pietenpol-List:electric engine=0A=0A=0AI guess I'll just have to wait
for a stronger lighter battery to be invented.Great stuff you figured out
there though.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: mike <
bike.mike@comcast.net>=0ATo: pietenpol-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Tuesday,
September 29, 2009 10:06:53 PM=0ASubject: RE: Pietenpol-List:electric engin
e=0A=0A=0AThat much power (300 Hp) would be spectacularly awesome in a Piet
...for a few minutes of flight time.- =0A(Math is easier for me if we jus
t go with 100 Hp, a more reasonable number for Piets, so that is what I use
here initially.)=0AThe best energy storage density of lithium-ion batterie
s these days-is around 200 W-hr/Kg, or about 0.12 Hp-Hr/Lb.- To get 100
Hp for one-hour would require about 850 Lbs of batteries (at an unattain
able-100% efficiency).- =0AA Piet needs about 30-40 Hp to cruise straig
ht and level at a relatively slow speed.- Consider that two hours of gaso
line (at 5 gph) is about 60 lbs.- I'm guessing that the electric motor we
ighs something less than a 100 Hp aircraft motor so assume a motor that wei
ghs 100 lb less than its internal combustion counterpart.- To cruise elec
trically for two hours, you would need about 600 Lb of lithium-ion batterie
s (with something more for takeoff).- Minus the motor and gas weight savi
ngs, that adds 440Lb to your existing takeoff weight.- With a pre-existin
g-650 Lb empty weight and 200 lbs of pilot, you have a 1300 Lb airplane.
- That might upset the stress analysis guys, but a Piet is pretty strong.
- And, with 300 Hp of takeoff power, 1300 lb will get off the ground righ
t smartly.=0AHowever, every time you climb, you eat up cruising time.-
=0A-=0AEveryone, please feel free to critique my reasoning.=0AMike Hardaw
ay=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: owner-pietenpol-list-se
rver@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Be
half Of H RULE=0A>Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:08 AM=0A>To: pietenpo
l-list@matronics.com=0A>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:electric engine=0A>=0A>
=0A>What do you think of putting this engine in a Piet?I peronally think it
would be awsome!=0A>-=0A>=0A>=0A>WOW........=0A>-=0A>Check this out.
----=0A>www.opb.org/programs/ofg/videos/view/56-Electric-Drag-Racin
g=0A>=0A>=0A>>-http://www.matronics.co://forums.matronics.com/" rel=nof
ollow target=_blank>http://forums.matr --> http://www.matronics.com/Navig
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: Vortex Generators |
How wide should the dimple tape be, and where should it be applied on the wing
and elevator? Cheers, Gardiner Mason
----- Original Message ----
From: Dan Yocum <yocum@fnal.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:24:06 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Vortex Generators
Gary,
In the last BPA newsletter Bill Rewey talks about dimple tape and his experiences
using it on his props (~10% increase in performance, quieter operation, less
fuel burn, etc.).
The page at http://www.dimpletape.com says you can put the stuff on your wings, too. It might be worth a try and it's not nearly as noticeable as VGs.
There's something to this stuff - the following is a research paper on increasing
the L/D (lift over drag) coefficient on a high performance sailplane by 7-11%
in general and by up to 20% in specific speed regions by placing a deturbulator
strip on the wing at the correct location. This deturbulator creates a "slip
layer" a couple of microns thick which increases the efficiency of the wing:
http://www.sinhatech.com/AIAA-2006.pdf
Now, I'm not one to take food out of an honest man's mouth, but on a recent foray
into a local sign making shop, I noticed that they sold dimpled adhesive backed
vinyl in large rolls for quite a bit less than $4.95 per foot...
Cheers,
Dan
tengulfromeo wrote:
>
> I recently sealed my elevator gap which improved control response. (I strongly
recommend gap seals on ailerons, rudder and elevator on the Pietenpol).
> Just for kicks this weekend I added vortex generators to the underside of my
horizontal stabilizer and definitely noticed improved elevator authority on landing
flare.
> Crazy I know, and if they didn't look so darn noticeable and out of character
for an antique, but still it has me thinking........has anyone had experience
with vortex generators on the Piet wing?
> Gary N10GR
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265239#265239
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-- Dan Yocum
Fermilab 630.840.6509
yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
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: | Wood testing to failure, a little off topic |
Guys, I am not too worried about glue joints failing after a little friendl
y competition at work.- Me and another guy had a contest to see who could
build a stronger bridge out of toungue depressors.- It had to span 12" a
nd we hung the weight off the botom of the bridges.- Only glue we could u
se was epoxy, just 30 toungue depressors, and 5 min epoxy.- My 1st bridge
held 95 lbs (just a quick throw togeather), his held 195lbs.- Well not t
o be out done I built another and tested it yesterday and it held 450lbs, a
nd broke at 500lbs.- The relivance here to piets is out of all 3 bridges
not one glue joint failure, and popcickle sticks even feel kind of "waxy" a
nd smooth.- Rember, gluejonts are strongest in shear loads, weakest in pe
el, and tension loads.- It made me feel-even better about wooden airpla
nes and T-88.
-
Shad=0A=0A=0A
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 |
|
Dan, I doubt very many spars have been splice repaired since the revision a
ny how.- Even 12:1 ratio is a very big glue joint.- The scarf joint in
the plans from top to bottom with a nail in each side still scares me thoug
h.- But I guess it works, and the cabanes carry most of the load there an
y how.- I guess people from the good'ol'days Knew how to build and test t
heir creations to their satisfaction.
-
Shad
=0A=0A=0A
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: Vortex Generators |
Here's the picture I was referring to:
http://westcoastpiet.com/images/Bill Rewey/IMG_0391.JPG
Cheers,
Dan
Dan Yocum wrote:
> There are pictures of the dimple tape applied on Bill's Piet on the
> westcoastpiet.com web site and the original Sport Aviation article is on
> the dimpletape.com page which shows pictures, too.
>
> I'd guesstimate that the tape is 1" wide (count the holes) and the
> article says to apply it where the airfoil cord is thickest.
>
> Dan
>
>
> airlion wrote:
>>
>> How wide should the dimple tape be, and where should it be applied on
>> the wing and elevator? Cheers, Gardiner Mason
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Dan Yocum <yocum@fnal.gov>
>> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:24:06 PM
>> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Vortex Generators
>>
>>
>> Gary,
>>
>> In the last BPA newsletter Bill Rewey talks about dimple tape and his
>> experiences using it on his props (~10% increase in performance,
>> quieter operation, less fuel burn, etc.).
>>
>> The page at http://www.dimpletape.com says you can put the stuff on
>> your wings, too. It might be worth a try and it's not nearly as
>> noticeable as VGs.
>>
>> There's something to this stuff - the following is a research paper on
>> increasing the L/D (lift over drag) coefficient on a high performance
>> sailplane by 7-11% in general and by up to 20% in specific speed
>> regions by placing a deturbulator strip on the wing at the correct
>> location. This deturbulator creates a "slip layer" a couple of microns
>> thick which increases the efficiency of the wing:
>>
>> http://www.sinhatech.com/AIAA-2006.pdf
>>
>> Now, I'm not one to take food out of an honest man's mouth, but on a
>> recent foray into a local sign making shop, I noticed that they sold
>> dimpled adhesive backed vinyl in large rolls for quite a bit less than
>> $4.95 per foot...
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>> tengulfromeo wrote:
>>>
>>> I recently sealed my elevator gap which improved control response. (I
>>> strongly recommend gap seals on ailerons, rudder and elevator on the
>>> Pietenpol). Just for kicks this weekend I added vortex generators to
>>> the underside of my horizontal stabilizer and definitely noticed
>>> improved elevator authority on landing flare. Crazy I know, and if
>>> they didn't look so darn noticeable and out of character for an
>>> antique, but still it has me thinking........has anyone had
>>> experience with vortex generators on the Piet wing? Gary N10GR
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265239#265239
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- Dan Yocum
>> Fermilab 630.840.6509
>> yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
>> Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Dan Yocum
Fermilab 630.840.6509
yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
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: Vortex Generators |
There are pictures of the dimple tape applied on Bill's Piet on the
westcoastpiet.com web site and the original Sport Aviation article is on
the dimpletape.com page which shows pictures, too.
I'd guesstimate that the tape is 1" wide (count the holes) and the
article says to apply it where the airfoil cord is thickest.
Dan
airlion wrote:
>
> How wide should the dimple tape be, and where should it be applied on the wing
and elevator? Cheers, Gardiner Mason
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Dan Yocum <yocum@fnal.gov>
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:24:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Vortex Generators
>
>
> Gary,
>
> In the last BPA newsletter Bill Rewey talks about dimple tape and his experiences
using it on his props (~10% increase in performance, quieter operation, less
fuel burn, etc.).
>
> The page at http://www.dimpletape.com says you can put the stuff on your wings, too. It might be worth a try and it's not nearly as noticeable as VGs.
>
> There's something to this stuff - the following is a research paper on increasing
the L/D (lift over drag) coefficient on a high performance sailplane by 7-11%
in general and by up to 20% in specific speed regions by placing a deturbulator
strip on the wing at the correct location. This deturbulator creates a
"slip layer" a couple of microns thick which increases the efficiency of the wing:
>
> http://www.sinhatech.com/AIAA-2006.pdf
>
> Now, I'm not one to take food out of an honest man's mouth, but on a recent foray
into a local sign making shop, I noticed that they sold dimpled adhesive
backed vinyl in large rolls for quite a bit less than $4.95 per foot...
>
> Cheers,
> Dan
>
>
>
> tengulfromeo wrote:
>>
>> I recently sealed my elevator gap which improved control response. (I strongly
recommend gap seals on ailerons, rudder and elevator on the Pietenpol).
>> Just for kicks this weekend I added vortex generators to the underside of my
horizontal stabilizer and definitely noticed improved elevator authority on landing
flare.
>> Crazy I know, and if they didn't look so darn noticeable and out of character
for an antique, but still it has me thinking........has anyone had experience
with vortex generators on the Piet wing?
>> Gary N10GR
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265239#265239
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- Dan Yocum
> Fermilab 630.840.6509
> yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
> Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
>
>
>
>
>
--
Dan Yocum
Fermilab 630.840.6509
yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
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: tenpol-List:electric engine |
I did some math on electric planes and looking at converting older systems (like
a Piet or Bonanza) to use an electric engine. Purely amature since "I ain't
no alectronic jenious!" but rather an infantryman.
It came down to weight and speed. Electric motors tend to like higher RPMs. So
they need a reduction and they tend to not like lower speeds. So the concept works
better for a sleek little speedster like a sonex rather than a barn door
like a Piet.
I have a 1948 Bonanza and there the problem is not speed but rather the weight
of the aircraft and the HP of the motor needed. Taking out the old engine and
gas tanks provides about 450-500 pounds. Getting a light/strong electric motor
is not hard. Getting enough batteries for enough range to be useable is the
problem. Batteries are HEAVY. So putting enough batteries into the plane to get
enough range would eat up all of my useable weight and even then the range
would be marginal. The same applies to a piet as far as weight.
If you look at the current electric planes they are very limited on weight carrying
and range. Range is often 20 minutes to 1.5 hours. Not much reserve for
any trip even just fun flying.
Also there is not much potential for a quick turnaround due to recharge times.
I love the idea of flying a much quieter airplane that does not pollute. I do think
it is on the not too distant horizon but there will be adjustments.
I am more than willing to be wrong on this subject. This was just my conclusions
after discussions that I had with some electric motor gurus.
Blue Skies,
Steve D
----- Original Message -----
From: H RULE <harvey.rule@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:electric engine
> One thing the guy mentioned in the video was the torque generated
> by the electric engine as compared to the gas engine.Perhaps a
> different prop of newer design than the old style might be of help
> here.I noticed on smaller model electric planes that the prop has
> quite a bite to it.Also consider just asking for 80 hp as in my
> plane instead of 100 hp.The problem in my case would be that there
> is no place to plug in the batteries at the airfield.A small prop
> driven generater between the landing gear could generate power to
> charge asI fly along adding to the cause.The weight of the engine
> and no gas tank and gasis greatly diminished giving more room for
> the weight of the batteries.Batterries could be placed in the
> wings as well.I don't carry passengers so I could carry more
> batteries of the lithium type of coarse.I may be able to solar
> charge those batteries now that I think of it.Cover the whole top
> of the wing surface in solar chargers also adding to
> the cause as I fly along.What do you think?
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: H RULE <
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:17:43 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:electric engine
>
>
> I guess I'll just have to wait for a stronger lighter battery to be invented.Great
stuff you figured out there though.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mike <
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:06:53 PM
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List:electric engine
>
>
> That much power (300 Hp) would be spectacularly awesome in a Piet...for a few
minutes of flight time.
> (Math is easier for me if we just go with 100 Hp, a more reasonable number for
Piets, so that is what I use here initially.)
> The best energy storage density of lithium-ion batteries these daysis around
200 W-hr/Kg, or about 0.12 Hp-Hr/Lb. To get 100 Hp for onehour would require about
850 Lbs of batteries (at an unattainable100% efficiency).
> A Piet needs about 30-40 Hp to cruise straight and level at a relatively slow
speed. Consider that two hours of gasoline (at 5 gph) is about 60 lbs. I'm guessing
that the electric motor weighs something less than a 100 Hp aircraft motor
so assume a motor that weighs 100 lb less than its internal combustion counterpart.
To cruise electrically for two hours, you would need about 600 Lb of
lithium-ion batteries (with something more for takeoff). Minus the motor and
gas weight savings, that adds 440Lb to your existing takeoff weight. With a pre-existing650
Lb empty weight and 200 lbs of pilot, you have a 1300 Lb airplane.
That might upset the stress analysis guys, but a Piet is pretty strong. And,
with 300 Hp of takeoff power, 1300 lb will get off the ground right smartly.
> However, every time you climb, you eat up cruising time.
>
> Everyone, please feel free to critique my reasoning.
> Mike Hardaway
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of H RULE
> >Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:08 AM
> >To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:electric engine
> >
> >
> >What do you think of putting this engine in a Piet?I peronally think it would
be awsome!
> >
> >
> >
> >WOW........
> >
> >Check this out.
> >www.opb.org/programs/ofg/videos/view/56-Electric-Drag-Racing
> >
> >
> >>http://www.matronics.co://forums.matronics.com/" rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://forums.matr --> http://www.matronics.com/Navig
Message 12
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc. |
Answering some questions, not about dimple tape.
Grega and Cub: The Grega plans call for Cub wings if available, otherwise the
Grega ribs one makes from Graga plans look like BP's FC10 on the lower surface,
and like a Clark Y or USA35b on the top surface. The Cub itself used a USA35b
airfoil.
VG placement: The instructions on VGs on wings typically have them placed at about
10 percent of the chord-- more or less that far back from the leading edge.
Instructions vary.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: Dan Yocum <yocum@fnal.gov>
>Sent: Sep 29, 2009 10:24 PM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Vortex Generators
>
>
>Gary,
>
>In the last BPA newsletter Bill Rewey talks about dimple tape and his
>experiences using it on his props (~10% increase in performance, quieter
>operation, less fuel burn, etc.).
>
>The page at http://www.dimpletape.com says you can put the stuff on your
>wings, too. It might be worth a try and it's not nearly as noticeable
>as VGs.
>
>There's something to this stuff - the following is a research paper on
>increasing the L/D (lift over drag) coefficient on a high performance
>sailplane by 7-11% in general and by up to 20% in specific speed regions
>by placing a deturbulator strip on the wing at the correct location.
>This deturbulator creates a "slip layer" a couple of microns thick which
>increases the efficiency of the wing:
>
>http://www.sinhatech.com/AIAA-2006.pdf
>
>Now, I'm not one to take food out of an honest man's mouth, but on a
>recent foray into a local sign making shop, I noticed that they sold
>dimpled adhesive backed vinyl in large rolls for quite a bit less than
>$4.95 per foot...
>
>Cheers,
>Dan
>
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: Vortex Generators - Broadhead Banner |
I guess you will have to send them direct to my email, as an attachment. Al
l I saw was the horizontal stabilizer photo. Ross=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A__________
______________________=0AFrom: "gwread@aol.com" <gwread@aol.com>=0ATo: piet
enpol-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 9:50:10 PM=0AS
ubject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Vortex Generators - Broadhead Banner=0A=0AI att
ached pictures of the package, showing the dimensions. Did they come throug
h on the original email or do I need to post them somewhere?=0A=0A-----Orig
inal Message-----=0AFrom: Ross Alexander <karbath1@yahoo.ca>=0ATo: pietenpo
l-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Tue, Sep 29, 2009 8:47 pm=0ASubject: Re: Piete
npol-List: Vortex Generators - Broadhead Banner=0A=0A=0A =0AI am not famili
ar with this material called MD rubber weather seal. What store sells it? W
hat are it's dimensions? Width, thickness, lengths? Appreciate any info. Th
anx Ross=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: Thomas Be
rnie <tsbernie@earthlink.net>=0ATo: pietenpol-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Tu
esday, September 29, 2009 6:20:56 PM=0ASubject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Vortex
Generators - Broadhead Banner=0A=0AGuys, =0AAnother way is to use fabric wh
en covering, but you can't take the elevators off without cutting them.=0AR
egards,=0ATom=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Sep 29, 2009, at 3:42 PM, gwread@aol.com wro
te:=0A=0A>=0A>>=0A>=0A>>I used 3/8" M-D rubber weather seal. I have attache
d a pixture of the package that you can pick up at your local big box home
improvement center. I just used the stick surface it came with as I wasnt s
ure I would like the results but it worked! Also a picture of the end resul
t. Gap sealed.=0A>I also included a picture of "Rocky" with the Broadhead b
anner my wife won at the Brodhead fly in this year=0A>Gary=0A>N10GR=0A>=0A>
>-----Original Message-----=0A>>From: Ross Alexander <karbath1@yahoo.ca>=0A
>>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com=0A>>Sent: Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:52 pm=0A>>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Vortex Generators=0A>=0A>=0A>>=0A>>=0A>How did
you sealo the gaps on the vertical and horizontal stabilizer? Duct tape or
what would you suggest. Ross in Orangeville, Ontario, Canada C-FTJM=0A>=0A
>=0A>=0A>=0A________________________________=0A From: tengulfromeo <gwread@
aol.com>=0A>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com=0A>Sent: Sunday, September 27,
2009 7:04:50 PM=0A>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Vortex Generators=0A>=0A>>-->
Pietenpol-List message posted by: "tengulfromeo" <gwread@aol.com>=0A>=0A>>I
recently sealed my elevator gap which improved control response. (I strong
ly recommend gap seals on ailerons, rudder and elevator on the Pietenpol).
=0A>=0A>>Just for kicks this weekend I added vortex generators to the under
side of my horizontal stabilizer and definitely noticed improved elevator a
uthority on landing flare. =0A>=0A>>Crazy I know, and if they didn't look s
o darn noticeable and out of character for an antique, but still it has me
thinking........has anyone had experience with vortex generators on the Pie
t wing? =0A>=0A>>Gary =0A>>N10GR=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>>Read this topic online
here:=0A>=0A>http://forums.matronics.com/vsp; --> http://www.matronics.com
/Navigator?Pietenpol-List=0A>>_ref="http://forums.matronics.com" target
="_blank">http://forums.matronibsp; Thank you for your generous nbsp;
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A> >=0A>=0A____________
____________________=0A =0A>Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on
the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now!<IMG00308.jpg><
IMG00307.jpg><IMG00223.jpg>=0A=0A________________________________=0A Instan
t message from any web browser! Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the
Web BETA =0A=0A=0A __________________________________________________
________________=0AThe new Internet Explorer=AE 8 - Faster, safer, easier.
Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/c
a/internetexplorer/
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: | tenpol-List:electric engine |
Power is the product of torque times rotational velocity. It takes a
certain amount of power to maintain a particular flight condition, whether
the power comes at high rpm on a small prop or low rpm on a big one.
Efficiency, which is measured by how much comes out vs how much is put in,
is affected a lot by rpm vs. torque, but it is flight conditions that
dictate long prop slow or short prop fast. A Piet at 60 mph can fly quite
well on a long prop at low rpm but an RV-4 at 200 mph rpm cannot.
The solar panels on top of the wing would, of course, add some weight but
would help recharging. However, the wind-driven generator idea is a no-go.
It takes more power to drag it through the air than you get out of it in
electricity.
The example I used earlier gets 1300# without a passenger, adding a flying
buddy would make for a 1500# or so takeoff weight. You might save a few lb
by sizing for a smaller motor, but not enough to obviate the need for
takeoff power to get 1200-1300# off the ground.
What really makes the electric airplane a possibility is reduction in drag
(not a Piet's long suit). There are some really clean and light airplanes
that take only a few horsepower to maintain straight and level flight.
Motor gliders seem to be the reasonable focus for electrification and do
well with much less battery weight than we would need in a Piet.
Mike Hardaway
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of H RULE
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 5:27 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:electric engine
One thing the guy mentioned in the video was the torque generated by the
electric engine as compared to the gas engine.Perhaps a different prop of
newer design than the old style might be of help here.I noticed on smaller
model electric planes that the prop has quite a bite to it.Also consider
just asking for 80 hp as in my plane instead of 100 hp.The problem in my
case would be that there is no place to plug in the batteries at the
airfield.A small prop driven generater between the landing gear could
generate power to charge as I fly along adding to the cause.The weight of
the engine and no gas tank and gas is greatly diminished giving more room
for the weight of the batteries.Batterries could be placed in the wings as
well.I don't carry passengers so I could carry more batteries of the lithium
type of coarse.I may be able to solar charge those batteries now that I
think of it.Cover the whole top of the wing surface in solar chargers also
adding to the cause as I fly along.What do you think?
_____
From: H RULE <harvey.rule@rogers.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:17:43 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:electric engine
I guess I'll just have to wait for a stronger lighter battery to be
invented.Great stuff you figured out there though.
_____
From: mike <bike.mike@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:06:53 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List:electric engine
That much power (300 Hp) would be spectacularly awesome in a Piet...for a
few minutes of flight time.
(Math is easier for me if we just go with 100 Hp, a more reasonable number
for Piets, so that is what I use here initially.)
The best energy storage density of lithium-ion batteries these days is
around 200 W-hr/Kg, or about 0.12 Hp-Hr/Lb. To get 100 Hp for one hour
would require about 850 Lbs of batteries (at an unattainable 100%
efficiency).
A Piet needs about 30-40 Hp to cruise straight and level at a relatively
slow speed. Consider that two hours of gasoline (at 5 gph) is about 60 lbs.
I'm guessing that the electric motor weighs something less than a 100 Hp
aircraft motor so assume a motor that weighs 100 lb less than its internal
combustion counterpart. To cruise electrically for two hours, you would
need about 600 Lb of lithium-ion batteries (with something more for
takeoff). Minus the motor and gas weight savings, that adds 440Lb to your
existing takeoff weight. With a pre-existing 650 Lb empty weight and 200
lbs of pilot, you have a 1300 Lb airplane. That might upset the stress
analysis guys, but a Piet is pretty strong. And, with 300 Hp of takeoff
power, 1300 lb will get off the ground right smartly.
However, every time you climb, you eat up cruising time.
Everyone, please feel free to critique my reasoning.
Mike Hardaway
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of H RULE
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:08 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:electric engine
What do you think of putting this engine in a Piet?I peronally think it
would be awsome!
WOW........
Check this out.
www.opb.org/programs/ofg/videos/view/56-Electric-Drag-Racing
http://www.matronics.co://forums.matronics.com/" rel=nofollow
target=_blank>http://forums.matr -->
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
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: Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc. |
Here are a couple of shots that show the VGs on my Cub.
-john-
John Hofmann
Vice-President, Information Technology
The Rees Group, Inc.
2810 Crossroads Drive, Ste 3800
Madison, WI 53718
Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150
Fax: 608.443.2474
Email: jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com
On Sep 30, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Tim Willis wrote:
> >
>
> Answering some questions, not about dimple tape.
>
> Grega and Cub: The Grega plans call for Cub wings if available,
> otherwise the Grega ribs one makes from Graga plans look like BP's
> FC10 on the lower surface, and like a Clark Y or USA35b on the top
> surface. The Cub itself used a USA35b airfoil.
>
> VG placement: The instructions on VGs on wings typically have them
> placed at about 10 percent of the chord-- more or less that far back
> from the leading edge. Instructions vary.
>
> Tim in central TX
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dan Yocum <yocum@fnal.gov>
>> Sent: Sep 29, 2009 10:24 PM
>> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Vortex Generators
>>
>>
>> Gary,
>>
>> In the last BPA newsletter Bill Rewey talks about dimple tape and his
>> experiences using it on his props (~10% increase in performance,
>> quieter
>> operation, less fuel burn, etc.).
>>
>> The page at http://www.dimpletape.com says you can put the stuff on
>> your
>> wings, too. It might be worth a try and it's not nearly as
>> noticeable
>> as VGs.
>>
>> There's something to this stuff - the following is a research paper
>> on
>> increasing the L/D (lift over drag) coefficient on a high performance
>> sailplane by 7-11% in general and by up to 20% in specific speed
>> regions
>> by placing a deturbulator strip on the wing at the correct location.
>> This deturbulator creates a "slip layer" a couple of microns thick
>> which
>> increases the efficiency of the wing:
>>
>> http://www.sinhatech.com/AIAA-2006.pdf
>>
>> Now, I'm not one to take food out of an honest man's mouth, but on a
>> recent foray into a local sign making shop, I noticed that they sold
>> dimpled adhesive backed vinyl in large rolls for quite a bit less
>> than
>> $4.95 per foot...
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Dan
>>
>
>
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: Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc. |
"its an inferior model but it will do for my purposes"
Like most others an open invitation is hardly worth passing up
John
do not archive,
In a message dated 9/30/2009 11:50:37 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com writes:
Here are a couple of shots that show the VGs on my Cub.
-john-
John Hofmann
Vice-President, Information Technology
The Rees Group, Inc.
2810 Crossroads Drive, Ste 3800
Madison, WI 53718
Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150
Fax: 608.443.2474
Email: _jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com_ (mailto:jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com)
On Sep 30, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Tim Willis wrote:
<_timothywillis@earthlink.net_ (mailto:timothywillis@earthlink.net) >
Answering some questions, not about dimple tape.
Grega and Cub: The Grega plans call for Cub wings if available, otherwise
the Grega ribs one makes from Graga plans look like BP's FC10 on the lower
surface, and like a Clark Y or USA35b on the top surface. The Cub itself
used a USA35b airfoil.
VG placement: The instructions on VGs on wings typically have them placed
at about 10 percent of the chord-- more or less that far back from the
leading edge. Instructions vary.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Yocum <_yocum@fnal.gov_ (mailto:yocum@fnal.gov) >
Sent: Sep 29, 2009 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Vortex Generators
(mailto:yocum@fnal.gov) >
Gary,
In the last BPA newsletter Bill Rewey talks about dimple tape and his
experiences using it on his props (~10% increase in performance, quieter
operation, less fuel burn, etc.).
The page at _http://www.dimpletape.com_ (http://www.dimpletape.com/) says
you can put the stuff on your
wings, too. It might be worth a try and it's not nearly as noticeable
as VGs.
There's something to this stuff - the following is a research paper on
increasing the L/D (lift over drag) coefficient on a high performance
sailplane by 7-11% in general and by up to 20% in specific speed regions
by placing a deturbulator strip on the wing at the correct location.
This deturbulator creates a "slip layer" a couple of microns thick which
increases the efficiency of the wing:
_http://www.sinhatech.com/AIAA-2006.pdf_
(http://www.sinhatech.com/AIAA-2006.pdf)
Now, I'm not one to take food out of an honest man's mouth, but on a
recent foray into a local sign making shop, I noticed that they sold
dimpled adhesive backed vinyl in large rolls for quite a bit less than
$4.95 per foot...
Cheers,
Dan
http://www.matr &n - &nbs -->
_http://www.matronics.com/co================
_ (http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
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: Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc. |
Wow, those are a lot closer to the leading edge than mine. Mine are 6
inches back. Did installing the VGs change any speeds?
--
Jeff Boatright
"Now let's think about this..."
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: Vortex Generators - Broadhead Banner |
Never mind the vortex generators... check out that banner!
--------
Mark - working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265737#265737
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: | Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc. |
Hey John.if you forget the prop-lock on preflight those generators won't be
necessary! :-)
Jack Textor
29 SW 58th Drive
Des Moines, IA 50312
www.textors.com
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Hofmann
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc.
Here are a couple of shots that show the VGs on my Cub.
-john-
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
10:35:00
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: Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc. |
Hi Jeff,
They are forward! Here are my observations.
When you sit in a Cub on the ground, with the birdcage and all the
cabin around, if feels like a ridiculous angle. Given that, with the
VGs I am able to climb and sustain a ridiculous angle as well. Stalls
don't really seem to happen. It just kind of gets mushy, nods its head
and loses altitude. There is no real break. I haven't spun it yet so
not sure how those are affected.
Now I am not the highest time Cub pilot in the world as I probably
only have 60 hours in them. This is the fourth one I have flown and
like Cubs (and all airplanes) each one is exactly the same --- they
are all different. This had the VGs on it when purchased so I can't
attest to the flying qualities before they were installed but I can
match it against the 20 or so hours I have in other Cubs. Please also
note that I don't really fly by airspeed indicator but how the
airplane feels, sounds, reference points, etc.
So, compared to the three other Cubs I have flown, the sweet spot on
climb is 50 indicated compared to 60 indicated in the others. I cruise
around 70 and that seems a bit low to me with an A-75 but it is a
dirty old Cub with a 980 hour engine. I can approach like a rock at
40-45. The stall speed is placarded at 23 mph. I don't know how that
number was attained. One thing I really like is in a gusty crosswind,
I can horse it off the ground very quickly, establish my crab angle
and continue out. I seem to be able to handle more of a crosswind that
way. The only thing I really don't like is I have to fly the plane all
the way to the hangar. The wing always seems to be close to flying.
That may be my low time but I still pay a lot of attention to control
position when taxiing in any sort of wind.
Jeff, what do you think of yours and how does this compare?
-john-
John Hofmann
Vice-President, Information Technology
The Rees Group, Inc.
2810 Crossroads Drive, Ste 3800
Madison, WI 53718
Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150
Fax: 608.443.2474
Email: jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com
On Sep 30, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Jeff Boatright wrote:
> >
>
> Wow, those are a lot closer to the leading edge than mine. Mine are
> 6 inches back. Did installing the VGs change any speeds?
> --
>
> Jeff Boatright
> "Now let's think about this..."
>
>
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: | Re: Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc. |
That is actually the new B&S pull starter I am working on :)
John Hofmann
Vice-President, Information Technology
The Rees Group, Inc.
2810 Crossroads Drive, Ste 3800
Madison, WI 53718
Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150
Fax: 608.443.2474
Email: jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com
On Sep 30, 2009, at 12:13 PM, Jack wrote:
> Hey John=85if you forget the prop-lock on preflight those generators
> won=92t be necessary! J
>
> Jack Textor
> 29 SW 58th Drive
> Des Moines, IA 50312
> www.textors.com
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Hofmann
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 9:48 AM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc.
>
> Here are a couple of shots that show the VGs on my Cub.
>
> -john-
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> 09/30/09 10:35:00
>
>
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: Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc. |
I look forward to the hint video covering that installation.
Ryan
do not archive
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:55 PM, John Hofmann <jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com>wrote:
> That is actually the new B&S pull starter I am working on :)
>
> John Hofmann
> Vice-President, Information Technology
> The Rees Group, Inc.
> 2810 Crossroads Drive, Ste 3800
> Madison, WI 53718
> Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150
> Fax: 608.443.2474
> Email: jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com
>
>
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: Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc. |
One other think I forgot to mention. I seem to run out of elevator in
the flare. That may be my stomach but I have heard this from other Cub
drivers with VGs. There is a new set of tail VGs out that I am
thinking of installing this Winter to see how they work. I have also
lost five pounds so that may help. Almost a gallon of gas.
A few pictures.
Our own Jack Phillips and Glenn Thomas when I went to pick up the plane
Ready for the big adventure from North Carolina to Wisconsin
Virginia Tech off the wing and ready for the mountains
Ground speed was 27 mph when this was taken. Mountains and clouds. "I
DIDN'T LIKE IT MUCH!"
Photo by J. Phillips. Me testing my civil war general beard.
Reward at the end of the trip
-john-
John Hofmann
Vice-President, Information Technology
The Rees Group, Inc.
2810 Crossroads Drive, Ste 3800
Madison, WI 53718
Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150
Fax: 608.443.2474
Email: jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com
On Sep 30, 2009, at 12:54 PM, John Hofmann wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> They are forward! Here are my observations.
>
> When you sit in a Cub on the ground, with the birdcage and all the
> cabin around, if feels like a ridiculous angle. Given that, with the
> VGs I am able to climb and sustain a ridiculous angle as well.
> Stalls don't really seem to happen. It just kind of gets mushy, nods
> its head and loses altitude. There is no real break. I haven't spun
> it yet so not sure how those are affected.
>
> Now I am not the highest time Cub pilot in the world as I probably
> only have 60 hours in them. This is the fourth one I have flown and
> like Cubs (and all airplanes) each one is exactly the same --- they
> are all different. This had the VGs on it when purchased so I can't
> attest to the flying qualities before they were installed but I can
> match it against the 20 or so hours I have in other Cubs. Please
> also note that I don't really fly by airspeed indicator but how the
> airplane feels, sounds, reference points, etc.
>
> So, compared to the three other Cubs I have flown, the sweet spot on
> climb is 50 indicated compared to 60 indicated in the others. I
> cruise around 70 and that seems a bit low to me with an A-75 but it
> is a dirty old Cub with a 980 hour engine. I can approach like a
> rock at 40-45. The stall speed is placarded at 23 mph. I don't know
> how that number was attained. One thing I really like is in a gusty
> crosswind, I can horse it off the ground very quickly, establish my
> crab angle and continue out. I seem to be able to handle more of a
> crosswind that way. The only thing I really don't like is I have to
> fly the plane all the way to the hangar. The wing always seems to be
> close to flying. That may be my low time but I still pay a lot of
> attention to control position when taxiing in any sort of wind.
>
> Jeff, what do you think of yours and how does this compare?
>
> -john-
>
> John Hofmann
> Vice-President, Information Technology
> The Rees Group, Inc.
> 2810 Crossroads Drive, Ste 3800
> Madison, WI 53718
> Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150
> Fax: 608.443.2474
> Email: jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com
>
> On Sep 30, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Jeff Boatright wrote:
>
>> >
>>
>> Wow, those are a lot closer to the leading edge than mine. Mine are
>> 6 inches back. Did installing the VGs change any speeds?
>> --
>>
>> Jeff Boatright
>> "Now let's think about - The --> http://
>> www.matr &n - &nbs --
>> > http://www.matronics.com/co================
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc. |
John Hofmann wrote:
> Ground speed was 27 mph when this was taken. Mountains and clouds. "I
> DIDN'T LIKE IT MUCH!"
My guess is that you could have throttled back, pointed the nose down,
and still kept climbing! Looks like it would have been a heck of a wave
soaring day if you were in a glider.
--
Dan Yocum
Fermilab 630.840.6509
yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
do not archive
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: Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc. |
It was pretty wild. I surfed the mountain peaks at a 45 and a couple
of times had to go around and try again. The wind pushed me further
west than I had planned but finally let it. About three hours out of
Virginia Tech (the Cub had 34 gallons of gas), the winds had died and
I reached the Ohio River and out of the mountains. As the worm guys
say in MIB II, "Awaayy from the bullets." It was smooth and peaceful
for a few minute but the ceiling came down. I was at Cub height anyway
(about 700 AGL) and working a small valley and around clouds, just
north of Charleston, West Virginia when I had had enough. I used the
"nearest" button on the GPS and found Galipolis, OH about 10 miles
away. It was getting pretty nasty when a bridge and the airport
appeared right in front of me at about two miles. I did a quick base
leg, a landing that made Angels weep (why is no one ever around to see
those) and tied down. Ten minutes after I was secure, the rains let
go. I called my wife to say I had landed. She said "Where are you?". I
believe my reply was, "I don't have a clue." I called Mike Cuy and he
let me know where I was. I slept well that night.
Do not archive.
John Hofmann
Vice-President, Information Technology
The Rees Group, Inc.
2810 Crossroads Drive, Ste 3800
Madison, WI 53718
Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150
Fax: 608.443.2474
Email: jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com
On Sep 30, 2009, at 1:35 PM, Dan Yocum wrote:
>
>
> John Hofmann wrote:
>
>> Ground speed was 27 mph when this was taken. Mountains and clouds.
>> "I DIDN'T LIKE IT MUCH!"
>
> My guess is that you could have throttled back, pointed the nose
> down, and still kept climbing! Looks like it would have been a heck
> of a wave soaring day if you were in a glider.
>
>
> --
> Dan Yocum
> Fermilab 630.840.6509
> yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
> Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
>
> do not archive
>
>
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 |
|
Would it not be acceptable to continue the splice plates further outbord
so they also became the reinforcement plate under the cabane fittings?
The actual splice would be away from the fittings, the plywood piece
would be larger and stronger and the whole spar should be stronger. Also
at the very center both the bending loads and shear loads are smallest.
Mike going to buid a one piece wing
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Rambo
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:07 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Spar splice
The old version of 43.13 said a splice had to be 10:1 minimum, 12:1
preferred. As it has been pointed out, the original plans for the center
splice is not the best way to go although I suppose you could, it is an
experimental after all.
I am building a one piece wing. If you draw it out, using the
proper-sized plates on both sides of the splice, a 12:1 splice won't
work and still keep the splice plates out from under the cabane fittings
as is also required under 43.13 (the splice is 12", and the splice
plates are supposed to be 6" on either side of the splice line, making
the whole thing 24" from end to end, and the cabane fittings are not
that far apart) For this reason, I made my splice 10:1. This way, it
is legal and keeps the splice plates away from the cabane fittings (10"
splice, plates 5" either side of the splice line for a 20" total splice,
the ends are about 1" from the cabane fittings).
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: helspersew@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Spar splice
Shad,
AC43-13 was revised a few years ago, and before the revision the
spar splice angle was always 12:1. I can't figure out why after many
years it had to be increased. When I made the spar splices on my
one-piece wing I referenced my old copy and made it 12:1. Oh well, I
guess it will hold together.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
-----Original Message-----
From: shad bell <aviatorbell@yahoo.com>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:19 pm
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Spar splice
Acording to 43-13 spar splice needs to be at a 15:1 angle of
the spar thickness. The length of the scarf would be 15 times 3/4(or 1
inch if you use 1inch spars) of an inch or 11 1/4 inches long on each
side (spar half) of the joint. then a reinforcement plate should be
placed over the splice. really you should look up ac43-13 online or buy
a copy, there is a diagram in there that shows it better than I can
explain it. There are a few other particulars in there. My advise is
buy spar matrial the full length, scarf joints add weight, and lots of
tedious precision work. If it were a repair to an exsisting airplane I
would say ok splice it but this is a new airplane, so it would be worth
the extra couple hundred bucks to not fuss with the splice.
Just my 2 cents worth,
Shad
title=http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
Message 27
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: tenpol-List:electric engine |
Paul McCready did it with solar cells but he had a lot bigger wing to
cover with the cells. Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: H RULE
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:electric engine
I guess I'll just have to wait for a stronger lighter battery to be
invented.Great stuff you figured out there though.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: mike <bike.mike@comcast.net>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:06:53 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List:electric engine
That much power (300 Hp) would be spectacularly awesome in a
Piet...for a few minutes of flight time.
(Math is easier for me if we just go with 100 Hp, a more reasonable
number for Piets, so that is what I use here initially.)
The best energy storage density of lithium-ion batteries these days is
around 200 W-hr/Kg, or about 0.12 Hp-Hr/Lb. To get 100 Hp for one hour
would require about 850 Lbs of batteries (at an unattainable 100%
efficiency).
A Piet needs about 30-40 Hp to cruise straight and level at a
relatively slow speed. Consider that two hours of gasoline (at 5 gph)
is about 60 lbs. I'm guessing that the electric motor weighs something
less than a 100 Hp aircraft motor so assume a motor that weighs 100 lb
less than its internal combustion counterpart. To cruise electrically
for two hours, you would need about 600 Lb of lithium-ion batteries
(with something more for takeoff). Minus the motor and gas weight
savings, that adds 440Lb to your existing takeoff weight. With a
pre-existing 650 Lb empty weight and 200 lbs of pilot, you have a 1300
Lb airplane. That might upset the stress analysis guys, but a Piet is
pretty strong. And, with 300 Hp of takeoff power, 1300 lb will get off
the ground right smartly.
However, every time you climb, you eat up cruising time.
Everyone, please feel free to critique my reasoning.
Mike Hardaway
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of H RULE
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:08 AM
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:electric engine
What do you think of putting this engine in a Piet?I peronally think
it would be awsome!
WOW........
Check this out.
www.opb.org/programs/ofg/videos/view/56-Electric-Drag-Racing
http://www.matronics.co://forums.matronics.com/" rel=nofollow
target=_blank>http://forums.matr -->
Message 28
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: tenpol-List:electric engine |
Steve,
I appreciate your research on this topic. For me, the allure of
electric flight is not environmental, it's purely financial. The
dream would be to charge your aircraft using solar cells on the hangar
roof and "fly for free".
It will happen in my lifetime, and I will fly one. For reference, I'm
31.
Don't get me wrong, boys, I still love the sound of an A-65 and the
smell of burnt 100LL! But technology sure is cool, too!
Wayne Bressler Jr.
Taildraggers, Inc.
taildraggersinc.com
Sent from the phone that made the Blackberry obsolete.
Message 29
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: tenpol-List:electric engine |
The electric tractor conversions I am familar with use series wound motors
which put out maximum torque at zero rpm. They are happy at low rpm. Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dortch, Steven D MAJ NG NG NGB" <steven.d.dortch@us.army.mil>
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:electric engine
<steven.d.dortch@us.army.mil>
I did some math on electric planes and looking at converting older systems
(like a Piet or Bonanza) to use an electric engine. Purely amature since "I
ain't no alectronic jenious!" but rather an infantryman.
It came down to weight and speed. Electric motors tend to like higher RPMs.
So they need a reduction and they tend to not like lower speeds. So the
concept works better for a sleek little speedster like a sonex rather than a
barn door like a Piet.
I have a 1948 Bonanza and there the problem is not speed but rather the
weight of the aircraft and the HP of the motor needed. Taking out the old
engine and gas tanks provides about 450-500 pounds. Getting a light/strong
electric motor is not hard. Getting enough batteries for enough range to be
useable is the problem. Batteries are HEAVY. So putting enough batteries
into the plane to get enough range would eat up all of my useable weight and
even then the range would be marginal. The same applies to a piet as far as
weight.
If you look at the current electric planes they are very limited on weight
carrying and range. Range is often 20 minutes to 1.5 hours. Not much
reserve for any trip even just fun flying.
Also there is not much potential for a quick turnaround due to recharge
times.
I love the idea of flying a much quieter airplane that does not pollute. I
do think it is on the not too distant horizon but there will be adjustments.
I am more than willing to be wrong on this subject. This was just my
conclusions after discussions that I had with some electric motor gurus.
Blue Skies,
Steve D
----- Original Message -----
From: H RULE <harvey.rule@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:electric engine
> One thing the guy mentioned in the video was the torque generated
> by the electric engine as compared to the gas engine.Perhaps a
> different prop of newer design than the old style might be of help
> here.I noticed on smaller model electric planes that the prop has
> quite a bite to it.Also consider just asking for 80 hp as in my
> plane instead of 100 hp.The problem in my case would be that there
> is no place to plug in the batteries at the airfield.A small prop
> driven generater between the landing gear could generate power to
> charge as I fly along adding to the cause.The weight of the engine
> and no gas tank and gas is greatly diminished giving more room for
> the weight of the batteries.Batterries could be placed in the
> wings as well.I don't carry passengers so I could carry more
> batteries of the lithium type of coarse.I may be able to solar
> charge those batteries now that I think of it.Cover the whole top
> of the wing surface in solar chargers also adding to
> the cause as I fly along.What do you think?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: H RULE <
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:17:43 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:electric engine
>
>
> I guess I'll just have to wait for a stronger lighter battery to be
> invented.Great stuff you figured out there though.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mike <
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:06:53 PM
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List:electric engine
>
>
> That much power (300 Hp) would be spectacularly awesome in a Piet...for a
> few minutes of flight time.
> (Math is easier for me if we just go with 100 Hp, a more reasonable number
> for Piets, so that is what I use here initially.)
> The best energy storage density of lithium-ion batteries these days is
> around 200 W-hr/Kg, or about 0.12 Hp-Hr/Lb. To get 100 Hp for one hour
> would require about 850 Lbs of batteries (at an unattainable 100%
> efficiency).
> A Piet needs about 30-40 Hp to cruise straight and level at a relatively
> slow speed. Consider that two hours of gasoline (at 5 gph) is about 60
> lbs. I'm guessing that the electric motor weighs something less than a 100
> Hp aircraft motor so assume a motor that weighs 100 lb less than its
> internal combustion counterpart. To cruise electrically for two hours, you
> would need about 600 Lb of lithium-ion batteries (with something more for
> takeoff). Minus the motor and gas weight savings, that adds 440Lb to your
> existing takeoff weight. With a pre-existing 650 Lb empty weight and 200
> lbs of pilot, you have a 1300 Lb airplane. That might upset the stress
> analysis guys, but a Piet is pretty strong. And, with 300 Hp of takeoff
> power, 1300 lb will get off the ground right smartly.
> However, every time you climb, you eat up cruising time.
>
> Everyone, please feel free to critique my reasoning.
> Mike Hardaway
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of H RULE
> >Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:08 AM
> >To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:electric engine
> >
> >
> >What do you think of putting this engine in a Piet?I peronally think it
> >would be awsome!
> >
> >
> >
> >WOW........
> >
> >Check this out.
> >www.opb.org/programs/ofg/videos/view/56-Electric-Drag-Racing
> >
> >
> >> http://www.matronics.co://forums.matronics.com/" rel=nofollow
> >> target=_blank>http://forums.matr --> http://www.matronics.com/Navig
Message 30
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Well, first of all yes, the bending and shear loads are very low in the
center of the one-piece wing. That is why the original splice probably
worked fine, and most likely still would, although I would never splice
it that way. There are a couple of reasons not to extend the splice
plates under the cabane fittings. First, because 43.13 and prior
practice specifically states that the plates shall not extend under any
fitting. I've never seen anything say "unless you artificially extend
the plates longer than required to make them go under a fitting."
Second, it adds weight for no benefit whatsoever. The cabane fittings
don't need plates under them, (even if they did, you would only be
adding a plate on one side) and now the fitting has to be wider and the
bolts longer (more weight) for no real reason. If you are talking about
extending the plates the full width on BOTH sides of the spar, why not
extend them all the way out to the wingtips? Not trying to be funny,
but just stating that the same logic would apply.
Remember, keep it light. You can add this or that "to make it a little
stronger," when it does not need it, until it won't fly anymore.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael McGowan<mailto:shadetree@socket.net>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Spar splice
Would it not be acceptable to continue the splice plates further
outbord so they also became the reinforcement plate under the cabane
fittings? The actual splice would be away from the fittings, the plywood
piece would be larger and stronger and the whole spar should be
stronger. Also at the very center both the bending loads and shear loads
are smallest.
Mike going to buid a one piece wing
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Rambo<mailto:generambo@msn.com>
To:
pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:07 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Spar splice
The old version of 43.13 said a splice had to be 10:1 minimum, 12:1
preferred. As it has been pointed out, the original plans for the center
splice is not the best way to go although I suppose you could, it is an
experimental after all.
I am building a one piece wing. If you draw it out, using the
proper-sized plates on both sides of the splice, a 12:1 splice won't
work and still keep the splice plates out from under the cabane fittings
as is also required under 43.13 (the splice is 12", and the splice
plates are supposed to be 6" on either side of the splice line, making
the whole thing 24" from end to end, and the cabane fittings are not
that far apart) For this reason, I made my splice 10:1. This way, it
is legal and keeps the splice plates away from the cabane fittings (10"
splice, plates 5" either side of the splice line for a 20" total splice,
the ends are about 1" from the cabane fittings).
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: helspersew@aol.com<mailto:helspersew@aol.com>
To:
pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Spar splice
Shad,
AC43-13 was revised a few years ago, and before the revision the
spar splice angle was always 12:1. I can't figure out why after many
years it had to be increased. When I made the spar splices on my
one-piece wing I referenced my old copy and made it 12:1. Oh well, I
guess it will hold together.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
-----Original Message-----
From: shad bell <aviatorbell@yahoo.com>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:19 pm
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Spar splice
Acording to 43-13 spar splice needs to be at a 15:1 angle
of the spar thickness. The length of the scarf would be 15 times 3/4(or
1 inch if you use 1inch spars) of an inch or 11 1/4 inches long on each
side (spar half) of the joint. then a reinforcement plate should be
placed over the splice. really you should look up ac43-13 online or buy
a copy, there is a diagram in there that shows it better than I can
explain it. There are a few other particulars in there. My advise is
buy spar matrial the full length, scarf joints add weight, and lots of
tedious precision work. If it were a repair to an exsisting airplane I
would say ok splice it but this is a new airplane, so it would be worth
the extra couple hundred bucks to not fuss with the splice.
Just my 2 cents worth,
Shad
title=http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
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 31
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc. |
I've seen you in action. I know you've got more than a gallon of gas. More
like a couple of cubic yards.
Those pictures look mighty familiar - the same terrain I fly over every time
I take the Piet to Brodhead. I always sort of have a sigh of relief when I
fly over the Ohio River and get into "easy flyin' country".
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
Do Not Archive
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Hofmann
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc.
One other think I forgot to mention. I seem to run out of elevator in the
flare. That may be my stomach but I have heard this from other Cub drivers
with VGs. There is a new set of tail VGs out that I am thinking of
installing this Winter to see how they work. I have also lost five pounds so
that may help. Almost a gallon of gas.
A few pictures.
Message 32
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc. |
Two words: Dutch Oven!
Do not archive
John Hofmann
Vice-President, Information Technology
The Rees Group, Inc.
2810 Crossroads Drive, Ste 3800
Madison, WI 53718
Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150
Fax: 608.443.2474
Email: jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com
On Sep 30, 2009, at 3:13 PM, Jack Phillips wrote:
> I=92ve seen you in action. I know you=92ve got more than a gallon of
> gas. More like a couple of cubic yards=85
>
> Those pictures look mighty familiar ' the same terrain I fly over
> every time I take the Piet to Brodhead. I always sort of have a
> sigh of relief when I fly over the Ohio River and get into =93easy
> flyin=92 country=94.
>
> Jack Phillips
> NX899JP
> Raleigh, NC
>
> Do Not Archive
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Hofmann
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 2:19 PM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Vortex Generators/ Cub wings/ etc.
>
> One other think I forgot to mention. I seem to run out of elevator
> in the flare. That may be my stomach but I have heard this from
> other Cub drivers with VGs. There is a new set of tail VGs out that
> I am thinking of installing this Winter to see how they work. I have
> also lost five pounds so that may help. Almost a gallon of gas.
>
> A few pictures.
>
>
Message 33
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Right on.
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gene Rambo
[snip]
Remember, keep it light. You can add this or that "to make it a little
stronger," when it does not need it, until it won't fly anymore.
Gene
[snip]
Message 34
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | tenpol-List:electric engine |
When I was working for NASA, we flew McCready's Gossamer Penguin, the
battery-powered predecessor to the Solar Challenger, out on Rogers Lake bed.
The bird flew so slow that we could almost run alongside and it carried a
cute-as-a-button ninety-pound pilot named Janice Brown for only a few
minutes of flight. A huge wing and extremely light construction made for a
plane that could hold straight and level on about one Hp.
That was twenty-seven years ago, way back in the steady progression of motor
and battery technology.
Mike Hardaway
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
McGowan
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:electric engine
Paul McCready did it with solar cells but he had a lot bigger wing to cover
with the cells. Mike
Message 35
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
You're right Thanks Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Rambo
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Spar splice
Well, first of all yes, the bending and shear loads are very low in
the center of the one-piece wing. That is why the original splice
probably worked fine, and most likely still would, although I would
never splice it that way. There are a couple of reasons not to extend
the splice plates under the cabane fittings. First, because 43.13 and
prior practice specifically states that the plates shall not extend
under any fitting. I've never seen anything say "unless you
artificially extend the plates longer than required to make them go
under a fitting." Second, it adds weight for no benefit whatsoever.
The cabane fittings don't need plates under them, (even if they did, you
would only be adding a plate on one side) and now the fitting has to be
wider and the bolts longer (more weight) for no real reason. If you are
talking about extending the plates the full width on BOTH sides of the
spar, why not extend them all the way out to the wingtips? Not trying
to be funny, but just stating that the same logic would apply.
Remember, keep it light. You can add this or that "to make it a
little stronger," when it does not need it, until it won't fly anymore.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael McGowan
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Spar splice
Would it not be acceptable to continue the splice plates further
outbord so they also became the reinforcement plate under the cabane
fittings? The actual splice would be away from the fittings, the plywood
piece would be larger and stronger and the whole spar should be
stronger. Also at the very center both the bending loads and shear loads
are smallest.
Mike going to buid a one piece wing
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Rambo
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:07 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Spar splice
The old version of 43.13 said a splice had to be 10:1 minimum,
12:1 preferred. As it has been pointed out, the original plans for the
center splice is not the best way to go although I suppose you could, it
is an experimental after all.
I am building a one piece wing. If you draw it out, using the
proper-sized plates on both sides of the splice, a 12:1 splice won't
work and still keep the splice plates out from under the cabane fittings
as is also required under 43.13 (the splice is 12", and the splice
plates are supposed to be 6" on either side of the splice line, making
the whole thing 24" from end to end, and the cabane fittings are not
that far apart) For this reason, I made my splice 10:1. This way, it
is legal and keeps the splice plates away from the cabane fittings (10"
splice, plates 5" either side of the splice line for a 20" total splice,
the ends are about 1" from the cabane fittings).
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: helspersew@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Spar splice
Shad,
AC43-13 was revised a few years ago, and before the revision the
spar splice angle was always 12:1. I can't figure out why after many
years it had to be increased. When I made the spar splices on my
one-piece wing I referenced my old copy and made it 12:1. Oh well, I
guess it will hold together.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
-----Original Message-----
From: shad bell <aviatorbell@yahoo.com>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:19 pm
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Spar splice
Acording to 43-13 spar splice needs to be at a 15:1 angle
of the spar thickness. The length of the scarf would be 15 times 3/4(or
1 inch if you use 1inch spars) of an inch or 11 1/4 inches long on each
side (spar half) of the joint. then a reinforcement plate should be
placed over the splice. really you should look up ac43-13 online or buy
a copy, there is a diagram in there that shows it better than I can
explain it. There are a few other particulars in there. My advise is
buy spar matrial the full length, scarf joints add weight, and lots of
tedious precision work. If it were a repair to an exsisting airplane I
would say ok splice it but this is a new airplane, so it would be worth
the extra couple hundred bucks to not fuss with the splice.
Just my 2 cents worth,
Shad
title=http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
title=http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
Message 36
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Thank goodness for Dee Mosher |
Doc and Dee Mosher publish our Brodhead Pietenpol Association Newsletter. In
the latest issue Dee outlined the amazing
biography of her husband pilot/mechanic (and probably father and grandfather)
and I want to congratulate Dee for twisting
Doc's arm in allowing her to publish the MUCH deserved awards that Doc rec'd recently
in the Fourth Quarter, 2009 Issue of the BPAN
that I just read tonight.
Normally at every Brodhead event I listen to new jokes that Doc has heard over
the past year and try to surprise Doc with
a few new ones of my own but tonight when I read the article that Dee published
about Doc's bio and FAA awards it
really set me back in my seat.
I have the highest regards for Doc--despite all of the rations of baloney that
we have joked about over the years. I am very
grateful for your and Dee's dedication to producing and sending our BPAN newsletter
out every four quarters and want to
salute you on your "Forrest Gump of Aviation" article where Dee highlighted Doc's
1994 FAA Charles Taylor "Master Mechanic
Award" (for having your A&P for more than 50 years) and just this past summer
at Oshkosh for Doc receiving the Wright
Brother's Master Pilot Award. Whereby both awards require "no actions or accidents
logged against any certificates"
We are very fortunate to have Doc and Dee putting up with us and publishing this
fine newsletter four times a year.
After all, wouldn't you think that Doc, at 84 might want to retire sometime ?
(Dee is too young...she's 59)
My favorite quote from Doc happened during Oshkosh 2009 when we were watching the
Rutan/Branson White Knight II
fly-by's one afternoon. Doc said: "boy, those guys sure are flying a nice, tight
formation, aren't they ?"
Mike C.
Message 37
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Elevator travel adjustment |
I seem to run out of elevator in the flare
John,
This was happening on my Aeronca for several years after I bought it. A friend
of mine (IA) suggested I check the elevator stops per the data sheets. Sure enough
it was set wrong, and once adjusted, it flared like a dream.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
Message 38
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Riblett 612 Leading Edge |
Since I am thinking of restarting my project I started looking at the
other airfoils. Looking at the plots of the Riblett airfoils they look
to get taller in the leading edge quicker than the FC-10.
For you guys building with the 612 airfoil - what are you doing about
the leading edge? Do you use a taller piece of wood the same thickness
as on the original (and gain a bunch of weight) or are you keeping the
same height and a thinner piece (less weight but weaker)?
Dave
Message 39
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Elevator travel adjustment |
Dan,
Your Aeronca Sedan IS a dream. What a plane-- what a wing-- like Packards and
Pierce Arrows, too bad they don't make 'em anymore.
Tim in central TX
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: helspersew@aol.com
Sent: Sep 30, 2009 6:46 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Elevator travel adjustment
I seem to run out of elevator in the flare
John,
This was happening on my Aeronca for several years after I bought it. A friend
of mine (IA) suggested I check the elevator stops per the data sheets. Sure enough
it was set wrong, and once adjusted, it flared like a dream.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
Message 40
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hello,
-
Mike, we did exactly what you suggest, with a 15:1 splice joint, but we are
using 3/4" spars, so we needed the 1/8 plywood-plates under the cabane
-fittings anyway.- There is nothing wrong-on doing it this way.
Saludos
-
Santiago=0A=0A=0A Yahoo! Cocina=0A=0AEncontra las mejores recetas con
Yahoo! Cocina.=0A=0A=0Ahttp://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
Message 41
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Vortex Generators - Broadhead Banner |
YES, I FOUND THE PHOTO'S IN THE NEXT EMAIL. GOT IT! HAVE BEEN TO HOME DEPOT
AND FOUND SIMILAR MATERIAL. WILL GIVE IT A GO. THANKS AGAIN ROSS=0A=0A
=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: "gwread@aol.com" <gwread@
aol.com>=0ATo: pietenpol-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Tuesday, September 29,
2009 9:50:10 PM=0ASubject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Vortex Generators - Broadhea
d Banner=0A=0AI attached pictures of the package, showing the dimensions. D
id they come through on the original email or do I need to post them somewh
ere?=0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: Ross Alexander <karbath1@yahoo
.ca>=0ATo: pietenpol-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Tue, Sep 29, 2009 8:47 pm
=0ASubject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Vortex Generators - Broadhead Banner=0A=0A
=0A =0AI am not familiar with this material called MD rubber weaqther seal.
What store sells it? What are it's dimensions? Width, thickness, lengths?
Appreciate any info. Thanx Ross=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A____________________________
____=0A From: Thomas Bernie <tsbernie@earthlink.net>=0ATo: pietenpol-list@m
atronics.com=0ASent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 6:20:56 PM=0ASubject: Re:
Pietenpol-List: Vortex Generators - Broadhead Banner=0A=0AGuys, =0AAnother
way is to use fabric when covering, but you can't take the elevators off wi
thout cutting them.=0ARegards,=0ATom=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Sep 29, 2009, at 3:42
PM, gwread@aol.com wrote:=0A=0A>=0A>>=0A>=0A>>I used 3/8" M-D rubber weath
er seal. I have attached a pixture of the package that you can pick up at y
our local big box home improvement center. I just used the stick surface it
came with as I wasnt sure I would like the results but it worked! Also a p
icture of the end result. Gap sealed.=0A>I also included a picture of "Rock
y" with the Broadhead banner my wife won at the Brodhead fly in this year
=0A>Gary=0A>N10GR=0A>=0A>>-----Original Message-----=0A>>From: Ross Alexand
er <karbath1@yahoo.ca>=0A>>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com=0A>>Sent: Mon,
Sep 28, 2009 9:52 pm=0A>>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Vortex Generators=0A>
=0A>=0A>>=0A>>=0A>How did you sealo the gaps on the vertical and horizontal
stabilizer? Duct tape or what would you suggest. Ross in Orangeville, Onta
rio, Canada C-FTJM=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A________________________________=0A Fr
om: tengulfromeo <gwread@aol.com>=0A>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com=0A>Se
nt: Sunday, September 27, 2009 7:04:50 PM=0A>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Vorte
gwread@aol.com>=0A>=0A>>I recently sealed my elevator gap which improved co
ntrol response. (I strongly recommend gap seals on ailerons, rudder and ele
vator on the Pietenpol). =0A>=0A>>Just for kicks this weekend I added vorte
x generators to the underside of my horizontal stabilizer and definitely no
ticed improved elevator authority on landing flare. =0A>=0A>>Crazy I know,
and if they didn't look so darn noticeable and out of character for an anti
que, but still it has me thinking........has anyone had experience with vor
tex generators on the Piet wing? =0A>=0A>>Gary =0A>>N10GR=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>
=0A>>Read this topic online here:=0A>=0A>http://forums.matronics.com/vsp; -
-> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List=0A>>_ref="http://for
ums.matronics.com" target="_blank">http://forums.matronibsp; Thank you fo
r your generous nbsp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin.=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>
=0A> >=0A>=0A________________________________=0A =0A>Yahoo! Canada Toolbar
: Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Downlo
ad it now!<IMG00308.jpg><IMG00307.jpg><IMG00223.jpg>=0A=0A_________________
_______________=0A Instant message from any web browser! Try the new Yahoo!
Canada Messenger for the Web BETA =0A=0A=0A _________________________
_________________________________________=0ALooking for the perfect gift? G
ive the gift of Flickr! =0A=0Ahttp://www.flickr.com/gift/
Message 42
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Gap Seal - Vortex Generators - Broadhead Banner |
great Ross. I washed the plane this afternoon and have about 5 hours now
=C2-with them "stuck on"=C2-and no sign of coming off yet.=C2-
Gary
N10GR
-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Alexander <karbath1@yahoo.ca>
Sent: Wed, Sep 30, 2009 9:13 pm
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Vortex Generators - Broadhead Banner
YES, I FOUND THE PHOTO'S IN THE NEXT EMAIL. GOT IT! HAVE BEEN TO HOME DEPO
T AND FOUND SIMILAR MATERIAL. WILL GIVE IT A GO.=C2-=C2- THANKS AGAIN
=C2- ROSS
From: "gwread@aol.com" <gwread@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 9:50:10 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Vortex Generators - Broadhead Banner
I attached pictures of the package, showing the dimensions. Did they come
through on the original email or do I need to post them somewhere?
-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Alexander <karbath1@yahoo.ca>
Sent: Tue, Sep 29, 2009 8:47 pm
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Vortex Generators - Broadhead Banner
I am not familiar with this material called MD rubber weaqther seal. What
store sells it? What are it's dimensions? Width, thickness, lengths? Appr
eciate any info. Thanx=C2- Ross
From: Thomas Bernie <tsbernie@earthlink.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 6:20:56 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Vortex Generators - Broadhead Banner
Guys,
Another way is to use fabric when covering, but you can't take the elevato
rs off without cutting them.
Regards,
Tom
On Sep 29, 2009, at 3:42 PM, gwread@aol.com wrote:
I used 3/8" M-D rubber weather seal. I have attached a pixture of the pack
age that you can pick up at your local big box home improvement center. I
=C2-just used the stick surface it came with as I wasnt sure I would lik
e the results but it worked! Also a picture of the end result. Gap sealed.
I also included a picture of "Rocky" with the Broadhead banner my wife won
at the Brodhead fly in this year
Gary
N10GR
-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Alexander <karbath1@yahoo.ca>
To:=C2-pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:52 pm
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Vortex Generators
How did you sealo the gaps on the vertical and horizontal stabilizer? Duct
tape or what would you suggest. Ross in Orangeville, Ontario, Canada C-FT
JM
From:=C2-tengulfromeo <gwread@aol.com>
To:=C2-pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent:=C2-Sunday, September 27, 2009 7:04:50 PM
Subject:=C2-Pietenpol-List: Vortex Generators
I recently sealed my elevator gap which improved control response. (I stro
ngly recommend gap seals on ailerons, rudder and elevator on the Pietenpol
).=C2-
Just for kicks this weekend I added vortex generators to the underside of
my horizontal stabilizer and definitely noticed improved elevator authori
ty on landing flare.=C2-
Crazy I know, and if they didn't look so darn noticeable and out of charac
ter for an antique, but still it has me thinking........has anyon
e had experience with vortex generators on the Piet wing?=C2-
Gary=C2-
N10GR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/vsp; -->=C2-http://www.matronics.com/Navigat
or?Pietenpol-List
_ref="http://forums.matronics.com" target="_blank">http://forums.matro
nibsp; Thank you for your generous nbsp; =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2
- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar :=C2-Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark
your favourite sites. Download it now!<IMG00308.jpg><IMG00307.jpg><IMG002
23.jpg>
Instant message from any web browser! Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger
for the Web BETA
The new Internet Explorer=C2=AE 8 - Faster, safer, easier. Optimized for
Yahoo! Get it Now for Free!
Message 43
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Santiago, I still say you do the most beautiful work! . . .
The only things I would say about your post is that if you used only
1/8" plywood, it was not per "the book" which calls for the splice plate
to be 1/4 thickness of the spar (although perfectly adequate, I'm sure).
I also don't know that you "need" ply under the cabane fitting. Having
said that, don't listen to me, I only aspire to have my airplane turn
out as beautiful as yours!
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: santiago morete<mailto:moretesantiago@yahoo.com.ar>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:47 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Spar splice
Hello,
Mike, we did exactly what you suggest, with a 15:1 splice joint,
but we are using 3/4" spars, so we needed the 1/8 plywood plates under
the cabane fittings anyway. There is nothing wrong on doing it this
way.
Saludos
Santiago
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Encontra las mejores recetas con Yahoo! Cocina.
http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/<http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/>
Message 44
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Come on Gene! I do-know your airplane will be far beautiful than mine!
-
Yes, you are right, the plates are not per "the book", we used 1/8 plywood
because we wanted to match the-1"-cabane fittings thicknes.- In fact,
I'm sure you don't even need reinforcement plates with that splice, but do
n't tell anybody.
-
I fully agree with you about keeping it light.- We watched the weight-i
n-every piece we made and we are happy with the results so far, the plane
as you can see in-the picture and with-a few more things on it,-weig
hs about 278lbs.
Saludos
-
Santiago=0A=0A=0A Yahoo! Cocina=0A=0AEncontra las mejores recetas con
Yahoo! Cocina.=0A=0A=0Ahttp://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
Message 45
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: tenpol-List:electric engine |
You could always put a baseball card in the fan. :-)
Clif
>
> Don't get me wrong, boys, I still love the sound of an A-65 and the
> smell of burnt 100LL! But technology sure is cool, too!
>
> Wayne Bressler Jr.
Message 46
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Riblett 612 Leading Edge |
I'm using the 23012 airfoil, I truss and designed exactly like the Grega,
it's stronger than heck. I used the cut out for leading edge
the exact same dimension.
I had a member of EAA chapter 775 that had built and designed
several planes and had been featured in some of the EAA magazines,
he was the reason I changed from the Piet airfoil to the 23012.
He was also a super scrounger he had to be living on his SS check,
I admired him greatly for he always had time to sit down over a
cup of coffee and be helpful, he had jumped from a B-24 in WW-2
and shot down several Zeros from the nose of a B-24,
The lumber yards new him by first name and he would spend
hours going through a pile of lumber for his build projects
which he usually finished with in a year. He loved this airfoil
and thats what I'm using.
After building the ribs I read where the stall can sometimes
break pretty good so I asked him about it, he just grinned
and said YEAH DOGGIES it can, fun fun fun.
Russell
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Dave and Connie <dmatt@frontiernet.net>wrote:
> dmatt@frontiernet.net>
>
> Since I am thinking of restarting my project I started looking at the other
> airfoils. Looking at the plots of the Riblett airfoils they look to get
> taller in the leading edge quicker than the FC-10.
> For you guys building with the 612 airfoil - what are you doing about the
> leading edge? Do you use a taller piece of wood the same thickness as on
> the original (and gain a bunch of weight) or are you keeping the same height
> and a thinner piece (less weight but weaker)?
>
> Dave
>
>
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! --
|