Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:51 AM - Re: Re: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol (Tim Willis)
2. 04:51 AM - Prop choices for A-65 (Ryan Mueller)
3. 05:09 AM - Re: Chapter 1218 Pietenpol? (Tim Willis)
4. 06:39 AM - Re: engine turning alum, warping (Jack Phillips)
5. 06:39 AM - Re: Chapter 1218 Pietenpol? (Jack Phillips)
6. 06:56 AM - Re: Re: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol (AMsafetyC@aol.com)
7. 07:10 AM - Re: Chapter 1218 Pietenpol? (Ryan Mueller)
8. 07:11 AM - Re: Prop choices for A-65 (Skip Gadd)
9. 07:11 AM - Re: Prop choices for A-65 (Lagowski Morrow)
10. 07:39 AM - Re: Re: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol (Ryan Mueller)
11. 08:11 AM - Re: Re: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol (AMsafetyC@aol.com)
12. 08:42 AM - Re: Re: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol (Gary Boothe)
13. 09:12 AM - Re: Re: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol (AMsafetyC@aol.com)
14. 09:12 AM - Re: Re: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol (David Paule)
15. 11:13 AM - Re: Re: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol (Ken Howe)
16. 12:20 PM - Re: strut stress (ivan.todorovic)
17. 12:35 PM - Re: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol (Catdesigns)
18. 12:59 PM - Tail feather drain holes (at7000ft)
19. 01:38 PM - Re: Prop choices for A-65 (Jack Phillips)
20. 01:46 PM - Re: strut stress (K5YAC)
21. 01:53 PM - Re: Re: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol (Ken Howe)
22. 01:54 PM - Re: Prop choices for A-65 (Ryan Mueller)
23. 02:04 PM - Skis (Matt Keyes)
24. 02:28 PM - Re: [piet] Re: Chapter 1218 Pietenpol? (Mike Whaley)
25. 02:28 PM - Re: Re: strut stress (Bill Church)
26. 02:40 PM - Re: Re: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol (Mike Tunnicliffe)
27. 02:42 PM - Re: Re: strut stress (Ken Howe)
28. 02:44 PM - Re: strut stress (ivan.todorovic)
29. 02:50 PM - Re: Prop choices for A-65 (Gene Rambo)
30. 03:03 PM - Re: Prop choices for A-65 (Ryan Mueller)
31. 03:27 PM - Re: Re: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol (David Paule)
32. 05:04 PM - Props for A 65 (Gene & Tammy)
33. 05:24 PM - Prop choices for A-65 (helspersew@aol.com)
34. 05:31 PM - Re: Props for A 65 (Tim Willis)
35. 05:42 PM - Re: Props for A 65 (Gary Boothe)
36. 05:52 PM - Re: Prop choices for A-65 (Gary Boothe)
37. 06:45 PM - Re: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol (Bill Church)
38. 06:46 PM - Re: Prop choices for A-65 (Skip Gadd)
39. 07:24 PM - Re: Prop choices for A-65 (Tim Willis)
40. 07:28 PM - Re: Re: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol (Robert Ray)
41. 07:43 PM - Re: Re: strut stress (Clif Dawson)
42. 07:54 PM - Re: Jay Anderson prop (Jeff Boatright)
43. 08:02 PM - Re: Prop choices for A-65 (Dick N.)
44. 08:03 PM - Re: Tail feather drain holes (Dick N.)
45. 08:26 PM - Re: Re: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol this is a long one (AMsafetyC@aol.com)
46. 10:11 PM - Prince Q-tip prop for sale for A-75 w/tapered shaft - 68x42 (Steve Ruse)
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: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol |
That's right, the jury struts keep the lift struts from buckling in compression.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
>From: coxwelljon <coxwelljon@frontiernet.net>
>Sent: Oct 19, 2009 11:46 PM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol
>
>
>Thanks for that explanation. My own understanding of architectural structures
tells me that this member is going to be critical in compression. I will work
out the angles in cad and measure where the jury struts attach based on the
way my wings are built. I believe the main reason for the jury struts is to shorten
the L/R ratio for the strut action in compression.
>
>Thanks again
>
>--------
>Jon Coxwell
>Recycle and preserve the planet
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268648#268648
>
>
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: | Prop choices for A-65 |
Good morning all,
There will be an A-65-8 making it's way to our shop in a couple of weeks. I
am contemplating it's future. It is complete, and should be a runner;
however it does not come with a prop. I would prefer to have a wood prop on
the Piet. Can those of you that have wood props flying on A-65's on your
Pietenpol's comment on the make, size, and pitch that you are running, or
you experiences in the past with varying configurations? Thanks much, and
have a good morning.
Ryan
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: Chapter 1218 Pietenpol? |
A lot of this project is remarkable.
Some change in looks certainly comes from the metal construction, which leads to
very unfamiliar appearance of much of the project. We are accustomed to wood.
Some of the wing looks very familiar, as you would expect on a (mostly?) wooden
wing, but even the ribs look a little different. Are they wood? I'd have
to spend a lot of time looking at all the details to be able to put my finger
on the changes.
Almost all of this will be covered up, as on all Piets. The biggest difference
in finished appearance will be the much larger VStab and rudder, which is obviously
derived bu altered from BP design. Now it seems to overpower the looks
of the rest of the plane. That will be less the case when the wings, windshield,
and firewall-forward all go on, changing overall visual proportions.
Whatever it is, the workmanship looks good. I would have liked to see it before
it was covered, to see exactly what they did. Interesting, but any purist would
cringe at the changes. I suspect that many of the changes reflect what its
builders had previously built, leveraging their experience and skills. I can
barely imagine building a Piet this way, with as many departures from customary
practice.
I don't know how many found or read the chapter's writeup, which states that the
chapter had five nearly full-time experienced builders working on it for 3 months.
The plan had been to fly the plane to Oshkosh for the 80th anniversary.
Lacking that progress in time, they intended to take the project to Oshkosh
to show what a Piet's innards looked like, but the EAA HQ was unsupportive of
that.
Tim in central TX
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: helspersew@aol.com
Sent: Oct 19, 2009 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Chapter 1218 Pietenpol?
Dan,
I am sitting here scratching my head looking at those pictures. Nothing I see looks
like a Pietenpol to me. Am I crazy? This is NOT a Pietenpol.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Yocum <yocum@fnal.gov>
Sent: Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:25 am
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Chapter 1218 Pietenpol?
Hi all,
Anyone on here from EAA Chapter 1218 in Missouri?
I just ran across their Pietenpol build pages and am flabbergasted - they started
builing on April 28th and covered it in early September! WOW!
http://www.eaa1218.org/index.php/chapter-projects/37-pietenpol
It's also the biggest vertical stabilizer I've ever seen on a Piet (well, except
for that Piet on floats up in Canada).
And side doors - it's got side doors!
Cheers,
Dan
-- Dan Yocum
Fermilab 630.840.6509
yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
====================================
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
====================================
://forums.matronics.com
====================================
lank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
====================================
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | engine turning alum, warping |
You don't have to bear down very hard. I was using alclad 2024-T3, and you
just want to scuff the alcald alyer, but not penetrate it or you can get
corrosion problems later. I don't recall heat being an issue, but
understand I did this about 10 years ago.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of shad bell
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 8:38 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: engine turning alum, warping
Jack, I have messed around with engine turning a couple times with "down
time projects" at work. We have 2 inch scotch brite wheels that go in the
special arbor, wheel. How do you keep the piece from warping from the
localized heat? It seems this makes the aluminum harder, and more likely to
crack. My technique probably needs refined I imagine. Just courious, might
want to turn something in the future.
Shad
______________________________________
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: | Chapter 1218 Pietenpol? |
I'm not sure it is a Pietenpol. The landing gear strut attach points look
more like a Grega than a Piet.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Willis
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Chapter 1218 Pietenpol?
<timothywillis@earthlink.net>
A lot of this project is remarkable.
Some change in looks certainly comes from the metal construction, which
leads to very unfamiliar appearance of much of the project. We are
accustomed to wood. Some of the wing looks very familiar, as you would
expect on a (mostly?) wooden wing, but even the ribs look a little
different. Are they wood? I'd have to spend a lot of time looking at all
the details to be able to put my finger on the changes.
Almost all of this will be covered up, as on all Piets. The biggest
difference in finished appearance will be the much larger VStab and rudder,
which is obviously derived bu altered from BP design. Now it seems to
overpower the looks of the rest of the plane. That will be less the case
when the wings, windshield, and firewall-forward all go on, changing overall
visual proportions.
Whatever it is, the workmanship looks good. I would have liked to see it
before it was covered, to see exactly what they did. Interesting, but any
purist would cringe at the changes. I suspect that many of the changes
reflect what its builders had previously built, leveraging their experience
and skills. I can barely imagine building a Piet this way, with as many
departures from customary practice.
I don't know how many found or read the chapter's writeup, which states that
the chapter had five nearly full-time experienced builders working on it for
3 months. The plan had been to fly the plane to Oshkosh for the 80th
anniversary. Lacking that progress in time, they intended to take the
project to Oshkosh to show what a Piet's innards looked like, but the EAA HQ
was unsupportive of that.
Tim in central TX
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: helspersew@aol.com
Sent: Oct 19, 2009 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Chapter 1218 Pietenpol?
Dan,
I am sitting here scratching my head looking at those pictures. Nothing I
see looks like a Pietenpol to me. Am I crazy? This is NOT a Pietenpol.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Yocum <yocum@fnal.gov>
Sent: Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:25 am
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Chapter 1218 Pietenpol?
Hi all,
Anyone on here from EAA Chapter 1218 in Missouri?
I just ran across their Pietenpol build pages and am flabbergasted - they
started builing on April 28th and covered it in early September! WOW!
http://www.eaa1218.org/index.php/chapter-projects/37-pietenpol
It's also the biggest vertical stabilizer I've ever seen on a Piet (well,
except for that Piet on floats up in Canada).
And side doors - it's got side doors!
Cheers,
Dan
-- Dan Yocum
Fermilab 630.840.6509
yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
===================================
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
===================================
://forums.matronics.com
===================================
lank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===================================
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: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol |
Not being an engineer of any sort type or configuration or disciplines,
rocket scientist or mathematician. The explanation is great as is sharing the
equation. And knowing the compression factors and or forces is a really
nice piece of information. However that assumes one knows or can anticipate
the loading, which brings me to my question.
How do we determine the loading values or amounts such that we are able to
compare design and materials yield based upon a calculated or anticipated
need of in flight loading ? Naturally that assumes that the need is the
exact amount of stress applied to a particular structural member during full
and repeated loading? What are the effects of shape, materials,
laminations, composites and metals on their ability to support the load and resist
failure?
For me, not being math savvy, are considered complex concepts and
calculations that are well beyond my simple math skills and aerodynamic calculation
capabilities. I would like someone to provide a simple but effective way
for me and other mathematically challenged builders to determine the
efficacy of our material choices and their ability to respond to a range of loads
without failure?
In short we, correction, I speak for those of us that do not have a death
wish but are mathematically challenged and of a mature age who just want to
fly a safe aircraft, how do we determine those factors pre test flight
rather then post or during test flight activities? I suspect that learning
about catastrophic material failure during a test flight is not a good thing
and may be subject to screwing up ones entire day.
John
In a message dated 10/20/2009 12:33:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
tkreiner@gmail.com writes:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "tkreiner" <tkreiner@gmail.com>
Guys,
As a Consulting Mechanical Engineer, I'm going to jump in here, and make a
few observations, as not all of us have the same background.
When a stressed member is being discussed, it might be helpful to add the
equations needed so anyone can use them in the future. In the case of the
struts being discussed, we have several concepts which, although understood
by engineers and those really familiar with the issue being discussed, can
become confusing and/or confused.
First, the Yield Strength of 4130 is somewhat less than the 95,000 psi
given. It turns out that 95,000 psi is generally given as the Ultimate
Strength of 4130. The Yield Strength, however, defined to be that level of
stress at which permanent deformation (stretching) takes place, is around 75,000
psi. (When doing stress calculations, most engineers will use the Yield
Strength, not the Ultimate, or breaking strength. We not only don't want
the member to permanently stretch, we damn sure don't want it to break. )
The equation describing the strength of any member in tension, and a
limited amount of cases in compression, is:
s = P/A, where s is the Yield Strength, P is the load in pounds, and A is
the cross-sectional area of the member.
In the case of the strut in the discussion, we are looking for the load
the member will carry, so we rearrange the equation, then "plug & chug" to
get:
P = s x A = 75,000 x .149 = 11,175 pounds.
This will work very nicely in the case of a member being loaded in
tension. If that member is a slender bar, shaft, tube, etc., however, column
buckling equations come into play.
If the member is a strut at an angle.... we must first apply a little Trig
to determine the vector load on the member prior to determining the load
carrying capacity of that member.
Hope this helps.
--------
Tom Kreiner
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268647#268647
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Chapter 1218 Pietenpol? |
They appear more like Grega, but they're not really even that. At least with
the Grega gear, I believe the front landing gear fitting and wing strut
fitting are supposed to still be at the same station. They've moved the
front gear attach point to just aft of the front wing strut fitting.
The basic fuselage structure, in the pics of it before covering, appears
roughly similar to the steel tube plans in the F&G manual. Well, from the
rear cockpit aft at least. Their lower longerons appear to be straight from
the tailpost to the rear wing strut fittings, instead of having the gentle
curvature shown in the plans. Then they added doors, and there's the whole
issue of the morphadite, cartoonish vertical stab and rudder. I think
someone forgot their reading glasses the day they pulled measurements from
the plans.
It definitely looks to be nice workmanship, especially for having been
constructed at an accelerated pace. It is a nice example of lightplane
construction that is loosely based on the Pietenpol design, but having it on
display at OSH as an example of how a Pietenpol is constructed would be a
bit of a stretch.
Ryan
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:24 AM, Jack Phillips <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>wrote:
> pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
>
> I'm not sure it is a Pietenpol. The landing gear strut attach points look
> more like a Grega than a Piet.
>
> Jack Phillips
> NX899JP
> Raleigh, NC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Willis
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 8:00 AM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Chapter 1218 Pietenpol?
>
> <timothywillis@earthlink.net>
>
> A lot of this project is remarkable.
>
> Some change in looks certainly comes from the metal construction, which
> leads to very unfamiliar appearance of much of the project. We are
> accustomed to wood. Some of the wing looks very familiar, as you would
> expect on a (mostly?) wooden wing, but even the ribs look a little
> different. Are they wood? I'd have to spend a lot of time looking at all
> the details to be able to put my finger on the changes.
>
> Almost all of this will be covered up, as on all Piets. The biggest
> difference in finished appearance will be the much larger VStab and rudder,
> which is obviously derived bu altered from BP design. Now it seems to
> overpower the looks of the rest of the plane. That will be less the case
> when the wings, windshield, and firewall-forward all go on, changing
> overall
> visual proportions.
>
> Whatever it is, the workmanship looks good. I would have liked to see it
> before it was covered, to see exactly what they did. Interesting, but any
> purist would cringe at the changes. I suspect that many of the changes
> reflect what its builders had previously built, leveraging their experience
> and skills. I can barely imagine building a Piet this way, with as many
> departures from customary practice.
>
> I don't know how many found or read the chapter's writeup, which states
> that
> the chapter had five nearly full-time experienced builders working on it
> for
> 3 months. The plan had been to fly the plane to Oshkosh for the 80th
> anniversary. Lacking that progress in time, they intended to take the
> project to Oshkosh to show what a Piet's innards looked like, but the EAA
> HQ
> was unsupportive of that.
> Tim in central TX
> do not archive
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: helspersew@aol.com
> Sent: Oct 19, 2009 6:44 PM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Chapter 1218 Pietenpol?
>
>
> Dan,
>
> I am sitting here scratching my head looking at those pictures. Nothing I
> see looks like a Pietenpol to me. Am I crazy? This is NOT a Pietenpol.
>
> Dan Helsper
> Poplar Grove, IL.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Yocum <yocum@fnal.gov>
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:25 am
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Chapter 1218 Pietenpol?
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Anyone on here from EAA Chapter 1218 in Missouri?
>
> I just ran across their Pietenpol build pages and am flabbergasted - they
> started builing on April 28th and covered it in early September! WOW!
>
> http://www.eaa1218.org/index.php/chapter-projects/37-pietenpol
>
> It's also the biggest vertical stabilizer I've ever seen on a Piet (well,
> except for that Piet on floats up in Canada).
>
> And side doors - it's got side doors!
>
> Cheers,
> Dan
>
> -- Dan Yocum
> Fermilab 630.840.6509
> yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
> Fermilab. Just zeros and ones.
>
> ===================================
> target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> ===================================
> ://forums.matronics.com
> ===================================
> lank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ===================================
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Prop choices for A-65 |
Ryan,
Have had 2 props on Felix the GN-1, A-65, plane weighs 720 lbs.
1. McCauley Met-L-Prop 74-43. Climbs good can handle pac up to 220 if is not too
hot. Cruse at 2150 68 to 70 MPH. Max RPM 2375.
2. Hegy I got from Don E. 72-44 Climbs not as good can handle pac up to 180. Curse
at 1950 72 MPH. Max RPM 2150.
Interestingly, the plane seems to get 3.8 GPH with ether prop.
I would like to have a Sensenich 72-42.
Skip
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Mueller
Sent: 10/20/2009 7:59:17 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Prop choices for A-65
Good morning all,
There will be an A-65-8 making it's way to our shop in a couple of weeks. I am
contemplating it's future. It is complete, and should be a runner; however it
does not come with a prop. I would prefer to have a wood prop on the Piet. Can
those of you that have wood props flying on A-65's on your Pietenpol's comment
on the make, size, and pitch that you are running, or you experiences in the
past with varying configurations? Thanks much, and have a good morning.
Ryan
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: Prop choices for A-65 |
I have used 2 props, 72x42 with, for me, satisfactory results. A
compromise between climb and cruise Note that Sensenich wood props in
Catalogs for a 65 Cont. are listed as 72x42 for a std. prop and 72x44
for a cruise prop.--Jim Lagowski, NX221PT ( sometimes known as one Piet)
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Mueller
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 7:51 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Prop choices for A-65
Good morning all,
There will be an A-65-8 making it's way to our shop in a couple of
weeks. I am contemplating it's future. It is complete, and should be a
runner; however it does not come with a prop. I would prefer to have a
wood prop on the Piet. Can those of you that have wood props flying on
A-65's on your Pietenpol's comment on the make, size, and pitch that you
are running, or you experiences in the past with varying configurations?
Thanks much, and have a good morning.
Ryan
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: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol |
John,
If one is going to depart from the plans in such a way that most don't, for
example with the use of round tubing for wing struts instead of streamlined,
then the only way to know for sure which size tubing would be suitable is to
figure out the math and perform the calculations. You may save money on
materials, but you will have to spend the time to figure out what to
substitute.
Personally I prefer to save the time and fretting, and just go with the
plans, or consult the 80 years of empirical knowledge that have been
accumulated about how to build a Piet. The plans work, so that ought to be
option #1. If you deviate from the plans either because of the need to
address a perceived issue or maybe because materials (such as the streamline
tubing Bernard had) are no longer available, and you do not want to have to
perform the engineering to know for sure whether your change will work, then
you ought to just copy what others have done successfully. Maybe they did
the calculations, flew it, and it works. Or maybe they just eyeballed it,
flew it, and it still worked. Either way someone else bore the risk of test
flying the concept for you. Again, if not wanting to do the calculations
yourself, I would think that would be the route to go. For what it's
worth... :P
Have a good day,
Ryan
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:40 AM, <AMsafetyC@aol.com> wrote:
> Not being an engineer of any sort type or configuration or disciplines,
> rocket scientist or mathematician. The explanation is great as is sharing
> the equation. And knowing the compression factors and or forces is a really
> nice piece of information. However that assumes one knows or can anticipate
> the loading, which brings me to my question.
>
> How do we determine the loading values or amounts such that we are able to
> compare design and materials yield based upon a calculated or anticipated
> need of in flight loading ? Naturally that assumes that the need is the
> exact amount of stress applied to a particular structural member during full
> and repeated loading? What are the effects of shape, materials, laminations,
> composites and metals on their ability to support the load and resist
> failure?
>
> For me, not being math savvy, are considered complex concepts and
> calculations that are well beyond my simple math skills and aerodynamic
> calculation capabilities. I would like someone to provide a simple but
> effective way for me and other mathematically challenged builders to
> determine the efficacy of our material choices and their ability to respond
> to a range of loads without failure?
>
> In short we, correction, I speak for those of us that do not have a death
> wish but are mathematically challenged and of a mature age who just want to
> fly a safe aircraft, how do we determine those factors pre test flight
> rather then post or during test flight activities? I suspect that learning
> about catastrophic material failure during a test flight is not a good thing
> and may be subject to screwing up ones entire day.
>
> John
>
> In a message dated 10/20/2009 12:33:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> tkreiner@gmail.com writes:
>
>
> Guys,
>
> As a Consulting Mechanical Engineer, I'm going to jump in here, and make a
> few observations, as not all of us have the same background.
>
> When a stressed member is being discussed, it might be helpful to add the
> equations needed so anyone can use them in the future. In the case of the
> struts being discussed, we have several concepts which, although understood
> by engineers and those really familiar with the issue being discussed, can
> become confusing and/or confused.
>
> First, the Yield Strength of 4130 is somewhat less than the 95,000 psi
> given. It turns out that 95,000 psi is generally given as the Ultimate
> Strength of 4130. The Yield Strength, however, defined to be that level of
> stress at which permanent deformation (stretching) takes place, is around
> 75,000 psi. (When doing stress calculations, most engineers will use the
> Yield Strength, not the Ultimate, or breaking strength. We not only don't
> want the member to permanently stretch, we damn sure don't want it to break.
> )
>
> The equation describing the strength of any member in tension, and a
> limited amount of cases in compression, is:
>
> s = P/A, where s is the Yield Strength, P is the load in pounds, and
> A is the cross-sectional area of the member.
>
> In the case of the strut in the discussion, we are looking for the load the
> member will carry, so we rearrange the equation, then "plug & chug" to get:
>
> P = s x A = 75,000 x .149 = 11,175 pounds.
>
> This will work very nicely in the case of a member being loaded in
> tension. If that member is a slender bar, shaft, tube, etc., however,
> column buckling equations come into play.
>
> If the member is a strut at an angle.... we must first apply a little Trig
> to determine the vector load on the member prior to determining the load
> carrying capacity of that member.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> --------
> Tom Kreiner
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268647#268647==============================================
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
> ================================================ - List
> Contribution Web Site sp;
> ==================================================
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol |
Ryan,
Thanks for the info.
Actually the question was more to what are the calculations in a simple
format. I will spend the time doing them if I knew what to do.
Although being an admitted plan deviate offender, motivated,not for money
or weight but for style and appearance preferences. I really wasn't asking
for someone to do my work for me but rather to point me in the right
direction with an equation that I can use myself or with little coaching to make
those calculations for my own theoretical piece of mind.
As a safety professional for more than 30 years in the discipline and 15 or
so in consulting I have always advocated a simple but effective
operational model, " never expect someone else to do what you are not willing
to do
yourself". The philosophy has served me well and has protected many people
from accident, injury, occupational illness and the inadvertent acts or
errant and emotionally unstable individuals.
But still not an engineer, rocket scientist, mathematical genius or
marathon runner, always a good idea to know and live within ones physical and
intellectual limitations.
John
In a message dated 10/20/2009 10:40:41 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rmueller23@gmail.com writes:
John,
If one is going to depart from the plans in such a way that most don't,
for example with the use of round tubing for wing struts instead of
streamlined, then the only way to know for sure which size tubing would be suitable
is to figure out the math and perform the calculations. You may save money
on materials, but you will have to spend the time to figure out what to
substitute.
Personally I prefer to save the time and fretting, and just go with the
plans, or consult the 80 years of empirical knowledge that have been
accumulated about how to build a Piet. The plans work, so that ought to be option
#1. If you deviate from the plans either because of the need to address a
perceived issue or maybe because materials (such as the streamline tubing
Bernard had) are no longer available, and you do not want to have to perform
the engineering to know for sure whether your change will work, then you
ought to just copy what others have done successfully. Maybe they did the
calculations, flew it, and it works. Or maybe they just eyeballed it, flew it,
and it still worked. Either way someone else bore the risk of test flying
the concept for you. Again, if not wanting to do the calculations yourself, I
would think that would be the route to go. For what it's worth... :P
Have a good day,
Ryan
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:40 AM, <_AMsafetyC@aol.com_
(mailto:AMsafetyC@aol.com) > wrote:
Not being an engineer of any sort type or configuration or disciplines,
rocket scientist or mathematician. The explanation is great as is sharing the
equation. And knowing the compression factors and or forces is a really
nice piece of information. However that assumes one knows or can anticipate
the loading, which brings me to my question.
How do we determine the loading values or amounts such that we are able to
compare design and materials yield based upon a calculated or anticipated
need of in flight loading ? Naturally that assumes that the need is the
exact amount of stress applied to a particular structural member during full
and repeated loading? What are the effects of shape, materials,
laminations, composites and metals on their ability to support the load and resist
failure?
For me, not being math savvy, are considered complex concepts and
calculations that are well beyond my simple math skills and aerodynamic calculation
capabilities. I would like someone to provide a simple but effective way
for me and other mathematically challenged builders to determine the
efficacy of our material choices and their ability to respond to a range of loads
without failure?
In short we, correction, I speak for those of us that do not have a death
wish but are mathematically challenged and of a mature age who just want to
fly a safe aircraft, how do we determine those factors pre test flight
rather then post or during test flight activities? I suspect that learning
about catastrophic material failure during a test flight is not a good thing
and may be subject to screwing up ones entire day.
John
In a message dated 10/20/2009 12:33:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
_tkreiner@gmail.com_ (mailto:tkreiner@gmail.com) writes:
(mailto:tkreiner@gmail.com) >
Guys,
As a Consulting Mechanical Engineer, I'm going to jump in here, and make a
few observations, as not all of us have the same background.
When a stressed member is being discussed, it might be helpful to add the
equations needed so anyone can use them in the future. In the case of the
struts being discussed, we have several concepts which, although
understood by engineers and those really familiar with the issue being discussed,
can become confusing and/or confused.
First, the Yield Strength of 4130 is somewhat less than the 95,000 psi
given. It turns out that 95,000 psi is generally given as the Ultimate
Strength of 4130. The Yield Strength, however, defined to be that level of
stress at which permanent deformation (stretching) takes place, is around
75,000 psi. (When doing stress calculations, most engineers will use the Yield
Strength, not the Ultimate, or breaking strength. We not only don't want
the member to permanently stretch, we damn sure don't want it to break. )
The equation describing the strength of any member in tension, and a
limited amount of cases in compression, is:
s = P/A, where s is the Yield Strength, P is the load in pounds, and A is
the cross-sectional area of the member.
In the case of the strut in the discussion, we are looking for the load
the member will carry, so we rearrange the equation, then "plug & chug" to
get:
P = s x A = 75,000 x .149 = 11,175 pounds.
This will work very nicely in the case of a member being loaded in
tension. If that member is a slender bar, shaft, tube, etc., however, column
buckling equations come into play.
If the member is a strut at an angle.... we must first apply a little Trig
to determine the vector load on the member prior to determining the load
carrying capacity of that member.
Hope this helps.
--------
Tom Kreiner
Read this topic online here:
_http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268647#268647=================
====_
(http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268647#268647======================)
Use the ties Day ======================= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
======================= - List Contribution Web Site sp;
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol |
John,
I'm with you. I am also a "deviate" for the purpose of style and appearance
(for my Piet, that is). It would be very nice to have all the math and
engineering to back up my ideas (wood cabanes and struts). Clif Dawson sent
me some interesting calc's that confirmed that wood cabanes were indeed well
within the safe limits. But I know just enough to be dangerous, such as:
What are the effects of side-ways loads? Compression? What are the
contributions of the cables to compliment the struts? The latter alone
brings up a whole bunch of other calculations, merely showing that the
struts certainly do not act alone.
In the end, I followed Ryan's sage advice and just copied what has shown to
be successful. Too bad I haven't followed that same advice on the financial
end. My model is: Buy high.sell cheap! Someday it may pay off - who knows?
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, mounted
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(15 ribs down.)
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
AMsafetyC@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol
Ryan,
Thanks for the info.
Actually the question was more to what are the calculations in a simple
format. I will spend the time doing them if I knew what to do.
Although being an admitted plan deviate offender, motivated,not for money or
weight but for style and appearance preferences. I really wasn't asking for
someone to do my work for me but rather to point me in the right direction
with an equation that I can use myself or with little coaching to make those
calculations for my own theoretical piece of mind.
As a safety professional for more than 30 years in the discipline and 15 or
so in consulting I have always advocated a simple but effective operational
model, " never expect someone else to do what you are not willing to do
yourself". The philosophy has served me well and has protected many people
from accident, injury, occupational illness and the inadvertent acts or
errant and emotionally unstable individuals.
But still not an engineer, rocket scientist, mathematical genius or marathon
runner, always a good idea to know and live within ones physical and
intellectual limitations.
John
In a message dated 10/20/2009 10:40:41 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rmueller23@gmail.com writes:
John,
If one is going to depart from the plans in such a way that most don't, for
example with the use of round tubing for wing struts instead of streamlined,
then the only way to know for sure which size tubing would be suitable is to
figure out the math and perform the calculations. You may save money on
materials, but you will have to spend the time to figure out what to
substitute.
Personally I prefer to save the time and fretting, and just go with the
plans, or consult the 80 years of empirical knowledge that have been
accumulated about how to build a Piet. The plans work, so that ought to be
option #1. If you deviate from the plans either because of the need to
address a perceived issue or maybe because materials (such as the streamline
tubing Bernard had) are no longer available, and you do not want to have to
perform the engineering to know for sure whether your change will work, then
you ought to just copy what others have done successfully. Maybe they did
the calculations, flew it, and it works. Or maybe they just eyeballed it,
flew it, and it still worked. Either way someone else bore the risk of test
flying the concept for you. Again, if not wanting to do the calculations
yourself, I would think that would be the route to go. For what it's
worth... :P
Have a good day,
Ryan
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:40 AM, <AMsafetyC@aol.com> wrote:
Not being an engineer of any sort type or configuration or disciplines,
rocket scientist or mathematician. The explanation is great as is sharing
the equation. And knowing the compression factors and or forces is a really
nice piece of information. However that assumes one knows or can anticipate
the loading, which brings me to my question.
How do we determine the loading values or amounts such that we are able to
compare design and materials yield based upon a calculated or anticipated
need of in flight loading ? Naturally that assumes that the need is the
exact amount of stress applied to a particular structural member during full
and repeated loading? What are the effects of shape, materials, laminations,
composites and metals on their ability to support the load and resist
failure?
For me, not being math savvy, are considered complex concepts and
calculations that are well beyond my simple math skills and aerodynamic
calculation capabilities. I would like someone to provide a simple but
effective way for me and other mathematically challenged builders to
determine the efficacy of our material choices and their ability to respond
to a range of loads without failure?
In short we, correction, I speak for those of us that do not have a death
wish but are mathematically challenged and of a mature age who just want to
fly a safe aircraft, how do we determine those factors pre test flight
rather then post or during test flight activities? I suspect that learning
about catastrophic material failure during a test flight is not a good thing
and may be subject to screwing up ones entire day.
John
In a message dated 10/20/2009 12:33:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
tkreiner@gmail.com writes:
Guys,
As a Consulting Mechanical Engineer, I'm going to jump in here, and make a
few observations, as not all of us have the same background.
When a stressed member is being discussed, it might be helpful to add the
equations needed so anyone can use them in the future. In the case of the
struts being discussed, we have several concepts which, although understood
by engineers and those really familiar with the issue being discussed, can
become confusing and/or confused.
First, the Yield Strength of 4130 is somewhat less than the 95,000 psi
given. It turns out that 95,000 psi is generally given as the Ultimate
Strength of 4130. The Yield Strength, however, defined to be that level of
stress at which permanent deformation (stretching) takes place, is around
75,000 psi. (When doing stress calculations, most engineers will use the
Yield Strength, not the Ultimate, or breaking strength. We not only don't
want the member to permanently stretch, we damn sure don't want it to break.
)
The equation describing the strength of any member in tension, and a limited
amount of cases in compression, is:
s = P/A, where s is the Yield Strength, P is the load in pounds, and
A is the cross-sectional area of the member.
In the case of the strut in the discussion, we are looking for the load the
member will carry, so we rearrange the equation, then "plug & chug" to get:
P = s x A = 75,000 x .149 = 11,175 pounds.
This will work very nicely in the case of a member being loaded in tension.
If that member is a slender bar, shaft, tube, etc., however, column
buckling equations come into play.
If the member is a strut at an angle.... we must first apply a little Trig
to determine the vector load on the member prior to determining the load
carrying capacity of that member.
Hope this helps.
--------
Tom Kreiner
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268647#268647==================
==
Use the ties Day ======================= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
======================= - List Contribution Web Site sp;
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===================================
t
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
===================================
ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
===================================
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===================================
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: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol |
Gary,
That's the flaw in the logic, its buy high, sell low and make it up in
volume!
Actually I am using wood for the lift struts, cabanes and landing gear
laminated with metal inserts at connection points that are slightly more
stout
than streamline tubing. There are some of those flying so empirical
information may be available I again would like to see how those values
are
calculated for my own edification and piece of mind. That being said they
look
great!
I have pics of the lift struts and landing gear, not great looking form th
e
pic but impressive in person. The cabanes have stainless tubing embedded
to add metallic strength but also to conceal utilities, plumbing and wiri
ng.
got to reduce the drag hide the junk and build a more attractive cleaner
piet.
All the exterior wood is being finished by that polyurethane top coat I
bought from Rick, wow that stuff is really nice and with a number of coats
I
suspect it will be bullet proof. My spray technique and paint area is stil
l
in need of technique perfection and technological advancements but that
again is an in time issue. for the moment I am getting a good coat on the
wood
to protect of from shop hazards, oils colorants and greasy fingered
grandson shop assistants who at the ripe old age of 4.999 years will more
then
likely insist upon being awarded the repairman's certificate..
John
In a message dated 10/20/2009 11:43:05 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
gboothe5@comcast.net writes:
John,
I=99m with you. I am also a =9Cdeviate=9D for the purpo
se of style and
appearance (for my Piet, that is). It would be very nice to have all the
math and
engineering to back up my ideas (wood cabanes and struts). Clif Dawson se
nt
me some interesting calc=99s that confirmed that wood cabanes were
indeed
well within the safe limits. But I know just enough to be dangerous, such
as:
What are the effects of side-ways loads? Compression? What are the
contributions of the cables to compliment the struts? The latter alone br
ings up a
whole bunch of other calculations, merely showing that the struts
certainly do not act alone.
In the end, I followed Ryan=99s sage advice and just copied what ha
s shown
to be successful. Too bad I haven=99t followed that same advice on
the
financial end. My model is: Buy highsell cheap! Someday it may
pay off =93 who
knows?
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, mounted
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(15 ribs down)
____________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of AMsafetyC
@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol
Ryan,
Thanks for the info.
Actually the question was more to what are the calculations in a simple
format. I will spend the time doing them if I knew what to do.
Although being an admitted plan deviate offender, motivated,not for money
or weight but for style and appearance preferences. I really wasn't askin
g
for someone to do my work for me but rather to point me in the right
direction with an equation that I can use myself or with little coaching
to make
those calculations for my own theoretical piece of mind.
As a safety professional for more than 30 years in the discipline and 15
or so in consulting I have always advocated a simple but effective
operational model, " never expect someone else to do what you are not wil
ling to do
yourself". The philosophy has served me well and has protected many peopl
e
from accident, injury, occupational illness and the inadvertent acts or
errant and emotionally unstable individuals.
But still not an engineer, rocket scientist, mathematical genius or
marathon runner, always a good idea to know and live within ones physical
and
intellectual limitations.
John
In a message dated 10/20/2009 10:40:41 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rmueller23@gmail.com writes:
John,
If one is going to depart from the plans in such a way that most don't,
for example with the use of round tubing for wing struts instead of
streamlined, then the only way to know for sure which size tubing would
be suitable
is to figure out the math and perform the calculations. You may save mone
y
on materials, but you will have to spend the time to figure out what to
substitute.
Personally I prefer to save the time and fretting, and just go with the
plans, or consult the 80 years of empirical knowledge that have been
accumulated about how to build a Piet. The plans work, so that ought to
be option
#1. If you deviate from the plans either because of the need to address
a
perceived issue or maybe because materials (such as the streamline tubing
Bernard had) are no longer available, and you do not want to have to perf
orm
the engineering to know for sure whether your change will work, then you
ought to just copy what others have done successfully. Maybe they did the
calculations, flew it, and it works. Or maybe they just eyeballed it, fle
w it,
and it still worked. Either way someone else bore the risk of test flying
the concept for you. Again, if not wanting to do the calculations yoursel
f,
I would think that would be the route to go. For what it's worth... :P
Have a good day,
Ryan
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:40 AM, <_AMsafetyC@aol.com_
(mailto:AMsafetyC@aol.com) > wrote:
Not being an engineer of any sort type or configuration or disciplines,
rocket scientist or mathematician. The explanation is great as is sharing
the
equation. And knowing the compression factors and or forces is a really
nice piece of information. However that assumes one knows or can anticipa
te
the loading, which brings me to my question.
How do we determine the loading values or amounts such that we are able
to
compare design and materials yield based upon a calculated or anticipate
d
need of in flight loading ? Naturally that assumes that the need is the
exact amount of stress applied to a particular structural member during
full
and repeated loading? What are the effects of shape, materials,
laminations, composites and metals on their ability to support the load
and resist
failure?
For me, not being math savvy, are considered complex concepts and
calculations that are well beyond my simple math skills and aerodynamic
calculation
capabilities. I would like someone to provide a simple but effective way
for me and other mathematically challenged builders to determine the
efficacy of our material choices and their ability to respond to a range
of loads
without failure?
In short we, correction, I speak for those of us that do not have a death
wish but are mathematically challenged and of a mature age who just want
to fly a safe aircraft, how do we determine those factors pre test flight
rather then post or during test flight activities? I suspect that learni
ng
about catastrophic material failure during a test flight is not a good th
ing
and may be subject to screwing up ones entire day.
John
In a message dated 10/20/2009 12:33:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
_tkreiner@gmail.com_ (mailto:tkreiner@gmail.com) writes:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "tkreiner" <_tkreiner@gmail.com_
(mailto:tkreiner@gmail.com) >
Guys,
As a Consulting Mechanical Engineer, I'm going to jump in here, and make
a
few observations, as not all of us have the same background.
When a stressed member is being discussed, it might be helpful to add the
equations needed so anyone can use them in the future. In the case of th
e
struts being discussed, we have several concepts which, although
understood by engineers and those really familiar with the issue being di
scussed,
can become confusing and/or confused.
First, the Yield Strength of 4130 is somewhat less than the 95,000 psi
given. It turns out that 95,000 psi is generally given as the Ultimate
Strength of 4130. The Yield Strength, however, defined to be that level
of
stress at which permanent deformation (stretching) takes place, is around
75,000 psi. (When doing stress calculations, most engineers will use the
Yield
Strength, not the Ultimate, or breaking strength. We not only don't want
the member to permanently stretch, we damn sure don't want it to break.
)
The equation describing the strength of any member in tension, and a
limited amount of cases in compression, is:
s = P/A, where s is the Yield Strength, P is the load in pounds, and A
is
the cross-sectional area of the member.
In the case of the strut in the discussion, we are looking for the load
the member will carry, so we rearrange the equation, then "plug & chug"
to
get:
P = s x A = 75,000 x .149 = 11,175 pounds.
This will work very nicely in the case of a member being loaded in
tension. If that member is a slender bar, shaft, tube, etc., however,
column
buckling equations come into play.
If the member is a strut at an angle.... we must first apply a little Tri
g
to determine the vector load on the member prior to determining the load
carrying capacity of that member.
Hope this helps.
--------
Tom Kreiner
Read this topic online here:
_http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268647#268647====
=============
====_
(http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268647#268647====
==================)
Use the ties Day ==================
===== - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
=======================
- List Contribution Web Site sp;
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
========================
===========
t
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
========================
===========
ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
========================
===========
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
========================
===========
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
========================
============
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List)
========================
============
========================
============
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
========================
============
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol |
Words of wisdom!
David Paule
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Mueller
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol
John,
If one is going to depart from the plans in such a way that most
don't, for example with the use of round tubing for wing struts instead
of streamlined, then the only way to know for sure which size tubing
would be suitable is to figure out the math and perform the
calculations. You may save money on materials, but you will have to
spend the time to figure out what to substitute.
Personally I prefer to save the time and fretting, and just go with
the plans, or consult the 80 years of empirical knowledge that have been
accumulated about how to build a Piet. The plans work, so that ought to
be option #1. If you deviate from the plans either because of the need
to address a perceived issue or maybe because materials (such as the
streamline tubing Bernard had) are no longer available, and you do not
want to have to perform the engineering to know for sure whether your
change will work, then you ought to just copy what others have done
successfully. Maybe they did the calculations, flew it, and it works. Or
maybe they just eyeballed it, flew it, and it still worked. Either way
someone else bore the risk of test flying the concept for you. Again, if
not wanting to do the calculations yourself, I would think that would be
the route to go. For what it's worth... :P
Have a good day,
Ryan
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:40 AM, <AMsafetyC@aol.com> wrote:
Not being an engineer of any sort type or configuration or
disciplines, rocket scientist or mathematician. The explanation is great
as is sharing the equation. And knowing the compression factors and or
forces is a really nice piece of information. However that assumes one
knows or can anticipate the loading, which brings me to my question.
How do we determine the loading values or amounts such that we are
able to compare design and materials yield based upon a calculated or
anticipated need of in flight loading ? Naturally that assumes that the
need is the exact amount of stress applied to a particular structural
member during full and repeated loading? What are the effects of shape,
materials, laminations, composites and metals on their ability to
support the load and resist failure?
For me, not being math savvy, are considered complex concepts and
calculations that are well beyond my simple math skills and aerodynamic
calculation capabilities. I would like someone to provide a simple but
effective way for me and other mathematically challenged builders to
determine the efficacy of our material choices and their ability to
respond to a range of loads without failure?
In short we, correction, I speak for those of us that do not have a
death wish but are mathematically challenged and of a mature age who
just want to fly a safe aircraft, how do we determine those factors pre
test flight rather then post or during test flight activities? I
suspect that learning about catastrophic material failure during a test
flight is not a good thing and may be subject to screwing up ones entire
day.
John
In a message dated 10/20/2009 12:33:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
tkreiner@gmail.com writes:
<tkreiner@gmail.com>
Guys,
As a Consulting Mechanical Engineer, I'm going to jump in here,
and make a few observations, as not all of us have the same background.
When a stressed member is being discussed, it might be helpful to
add the equations needed so anyone can use them in the future. In the
case of the struts being discussed, we have several concepts which,
although understood by engineers and those really familiar with the
issue being discussed, can become confusing and/or confused.
First, the Yield Strength of 4130 is somewhat less than the 95,000
psi given. It turns out that 95,000 psi is generally given as the
Ultimate Strength of 4130. The Yield Strength, however, defined to be
that level of stress at which permanent deformation (stretching) takes
place, is around 75,000 psi. (When doing stress calculations, most
engineers will use the Yield Strength, not the Ultimate, or breaking
strength. We not only don't want the member to permanently stretch, we
damn sure don't want it to break. )
The equation describing the strength of any member in tension, and
a limited amount of cases in compression, is:
s = P/A, where s is the Yield Strength, P is the load in
pounds, and A is the cross-sectional area of the member.
In the case of the strut in the discussion, we are looking for the
load the member will carry, so we rearrange the equation, then "plug &
chug" to get:
P = s x A = 75,000 x .149 = 11,175 pounds.
This will work very nicely in the case of a member being loaded in
tension. If that member is a slender bar, shaft, tube, etc., however,
column buckling equations come into play.
If the member is a strut at an angle.... we must first apply a
little Trig to determine the vector load on the member prior to
determining the load carrying capacity of that member.
Hope this helps.
--------
Tom Kreiner
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268647#268647=====
================
Use the ties Day
=======================
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
=======================
- List Contribution Web Site sp;
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">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: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol |
I'd like to add to Tom's engineering discourse. Some this is from back (OK,
waaay back) when I was studying for my Aero degree.
For a complete structural analysis of aircraft you have to understand your
component strengths for both the yield and ultimate strengths. All aircraft
have to be designed to some limit load factor. For 'normal' category
aircraft that is +3.8 g's and -1.52 g's (those numbers come from a link I
just looked up.) The FAA's certification standards require that an
additional safety factor of 1.5 be met. So to simplify, the structure (all
parts, fittings and fasteners) is designed so that all the parts stay under
the yield strength at required limit loads (+3.8, -1.52). To meet the 1.5
safety factor the loads must be recalculated at +5.9g, -2.28g. These loads
can exceed the material yield strength but cannot exceed the ultimate
strength.
Each material is different in that the spread between yield and ultimate
varies greatly as a percentage of the strength. For instance, for most
woods, the difference between yield and ultimate is pretty small. You apply
a load and not much happens until suddenly it breaks. At any time until it
breaks you can relax the load and the piece returns to it's original form
(i.e. unbends completely) Soft aluminum on the other hand has a very large
soread between yield and ultimate. It would not take much load until the
piece starts to take a permanent set, but you can add quite a bit more load
before it breaks. On top of that materials act differently in compression,
tension and shear.
What this means is that your well designed aircraft can safely go maneuver,
fly into gusts, or whatever, staying below 3.8 g's, and you can keep doing
it. However, when you start doing outside snaps in your Piet and exceed the
magic 3.8, -1.52, but stay within the 1.5 safety factor, then some
components may permanently deform, but nothing should break. You'll get
back safely on the ground, but it may be the last flight for that airplane.
Of course the Pietenpol was not designed this way. Back then they use
empirical data for many light aircraft designs. Look at something
similarly sized and with similar performance and and make your parts the
same way. Sure, calculate some basic beam bending loads on the spars and
other major parts, and call it good. This resulted in some overbuilt
airplanes. For instance look at our ribs compared to some others; 1/4" x
1/4" rib trusses. They really look flimsy after building my Piet ribs.
My philosophy for Piet building is therefore: If it's been built that way
before, safely, and on several aircraft, then it's OK. If I decide to do it
differently (size of lift struts, material substitutions, etc.) then I'll
make at least some basic load calculations. There are several old articles
in Sport Aviation (search the EAA's online archives for 'structural
analysis'). One in particular (mid 60's maybe?) specifically addresses
loads in a high wing strut braced monoplane. They show examples in a
tabular 'spreadsheet' format (long before spread sheets were invented) that
could be implemented pretty easily.
--Ken
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:32:39 -0700, "tkreiner" <tkreiner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
> As a Consulting Mechanical Engineer, I'm going to jump in here, and make
a
> few observations, as not all of us have the same background.
>
> When a stressed member is being discussed, it might be helpful to add the
> equations needed so anyone can use them in the future. In the case of
the
> struts being discussed, we have several concepts which, although
understood
> by engineers and those really familiar with the issue being discussed,
can
> become confusing and/or confused.
>
> First, the Yield Strength of 4130 is somewhat less than the 95,000 psi
> given. It turns out that 95,000 psi is generally given as the Ultimate
> Strength of 4130. The Yield Strength, however, defined to be that level
of
> stress at which permanent deformation (stretching) takes place, is around
> 75,000 psi. (When doing stress calculations, most engineers will use the
> Yield Strength, not the Ultimate, or breaking strength. We not only
don't
> want the member to permanently stretch, we damn sure don't want it to
> break. )
>
> The equation describing the strength of any member in tension, and a
> limited amount of cases in compression, is:
>
> s = P/A, where s is the Yield Strength, P is the load in pounds,
and
> A is the cross-sectional area of the member.
>
> In the case of the strut in the discussion, we are looking for the load
the
> member will carry, so we rearrange the equation, then "plug & chug" to
get:
>
> P = s x A = 75,000 x .149 = 11,175 pounds.
>
> This will work very nicely in the case of a member being loaded in
tension.
> If that member is a slender bar, shaft, tube, etc., however, column
> buckling equations come into play.
>
> If the member is a strut at an angle.... we must first apply a little
Trig
> to determine the vector load on the member prior to determining the load
> carrying capacity of that member.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> --------
> Tom Kreiner
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268647#268647
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: strut stress |
CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca wrote:
> ...
> I finaly scanned them for you guys strutting about.
> ...
It was hardly readable for me, so I've run it through my OCR software, here is
the result:
---
Stress Analysis Made Painless
by Raoul J. Hoffman
Aeronautical Designing Engineer
Airplane members, subjected to axial compression loads, are called posts, columns
or struts.
No formula has yet been found which will give you the exact load permissible under
various conditions. There are two formulas commonly used for strut calculations
-- one for short struts and one for long members.
Usually, Johnson's parabolic formula is used for short struts and Euler's formula
for long struts. These formulae are based on the assumptions that the strut
is straight, of homogenous material and that the load is applied at the center
of gravity of the strut.
The formulae shown on the chart are simplified for ready use. (P) denotes the load
permissible in pounds and (A) the cross-sectional area in square inches. Therefore,
P/A will give you the average stress per square inch. (L) denotes the
free length, (r) the radius of gyration. (L/r) the slenderness ratio and (E)
the modulus of elasticity.
The modulus of elasticity is a constant factor of elongation. taken within the
elastic limit and may be expressed as the theoretical load required to elongate
a rod to twice the original length, having a cross-sectional area of one square
inch. The elastic limit is the limit of stress within which the deformation
or elongation disappears after removing the stress.
The area of cross-section is easily found by measuring. We calibrated a special
scale for the weight of a one foot length of steel tubing to use instead of tire
area. (L), the free length. is the unsupported length or the bar between the
points of inflection, or the points where the curvature of the flexed strut
reverses. The free Length of a strut, with pin ends or rounded ends, is equal
to the total length of the strut. For a strut with fixed ends (restrained), the
free length would be 50 percent of its actual length, but in airplane work
we should seldom be below 70 percent.
The radius of gyration is a factor depending on the outline and area or the strut
cross-section. These multiplication constants are noted on the chart for a
few standard strut sections. Multiply the outside dimension by the constant and
you will have the radius of gyration. always take the smaller for (r) dimension,
specially in case of a rectangular section, except when you are sure the
strut is braced or notable to deflect in the perpendicular direction.
The slenderness ratio (L/r) is the ratio of the free length of the strut to the
radius of gyration. The selection of the formula depends on the slenderness ratio,
which will also determine the average stress per square inch. Both formulae
are valid as long as the ratio of the outside dimension to the wall thickness
does not go beyond a certain value.
Estimating an engine-mount vie use the total length for the free length, even if
the ends are restrained at the connections. For fuselage members, we use 70
percent to 100 percent for the free length, depending on the judgment of the designer.
Do not go beyond a slenderness ratio of 150 for carbon steel nor beyond
180 for chrome molybdenum steel which may be subjected to an external load,
and not over 200 in case the member is protected from external load.
The minimum wall thickness for steel tubing should not be less than .035 in., except
for the rear end of a cabin or for fuselage members other than longerons
where .028 in. tubing can be used. A margin of safety of 50 percent must be maintained
throughout.
Scale No 1 on our chart shows the slenderness ratio for spruce on the lower part
and for mild carbon and chrome molybdenum on the upper part, with the corresponding
maximum loads per square inch on scale No. 4.
The calibrations for both steels over 130 are the same, involving an error of 3
percent, the percentage difference between their respective modulus of elasticity.
By following the example you are able to design your own strut by changing
the cross-sectional area of the strut until it can carry the load required.
---
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268707#268707
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: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol |
Go to http://www.westcoastpiet.com/construction.htm
The second link down,"Simplified Wing Stress Analysis.pdf "is probably the article
Ken is thinking about. It's a 10 meg PDF so be warned.
Chris
--------
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, CA
WestCoastPiet.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268709#268709
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: | Tail feather drain holes |
Question for anyone who has finished covering. How many drain grommets did you
put on your tail feather panels and where did you put them?
Thanks
Rick, busy rib lacing.
--------
Rick Holland
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268710#268710
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: | Prop choices for A-65 |
I've got a Sensenich 72-42 and am not all that happy with it. I have a St
Croix 76-36 that I have never tried but will some day.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Skip Gadd
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:09 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Prop choices for A-65
Ryan,
Have had 2 props on Felix the GN-1, A-65, plane weighs 720 lbs.
1. McCauley Met-L-Prop 74-43. Climbs good can handle pac up to 220 if is not
too hot. Cruse at 2150 68 to 70 MPH. Max RPM 2375.
2. Hegy I got from Don E. 72-44 Climbs not as good can handle pac up to 180.
Curse at 1950 72 MPH. Max RPM 2150.
Interestingly, the plane seems to get 3.8 GPH with ether prop.
I would like to have a Sensenich 72-42.
Skip
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Mueller <mailto:rmueller23@gmail.com>
Sent: 10/20/2009 7:59:17 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Prop choices for A-65
Good morning all,
There will be an A-65-8 making it's way to our shop in a couple of weeks. I
am contemplating it's future. It is complete, and should be a runner;
however it does not come with a prop. I would prefer to have a wood prop on
the Piet. Can those of you that have wood props flying on A-65's on your
Pietenpol's comment on the make, size, and pitch that you are running, or
you experiences in the past with varying configurations? Thanks much, and
have a good morning.
Ryan
<>
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: strut stress |
Uhhh...
--------
Mark - working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268715#268715
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/say_what_168.jpg
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: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol |
Yes Chris, that's the one I was thinking of. You've got a lot of got stuff
referenced there.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:35:20 -0700, "Catdesigns" <Catdesigns@att.net>
wrote:
>
> Go to http://www.westcoastpiet.com/construction.htm
>
>
> The second link down,"Simplified Wing Stress Analysis.pdf "is probably
the
> article Ken is thinking about. It's a 10 meg PDF so be warned.
>
> Chris
>
> --------
> Chris Tracy
> Sacramento, CA
> WestCoastPiet.com
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268709#268709
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Prop choices for A-65 |
Dan Y. mentioned to me that a number of people (Jeff Boatright, Gene, etc)
are using Jay Anderson (Cloudcars) scimitar props, and they seem to enjoy
the performance. The scimitar props do have a nice 'antiquey' look to them.
I think 76x38 was the size they have used. Anyone with a Jay Anderson prop
care to comment? Any ground clearance issues with the longer blades?
What about the Sensenich are you not happy with, Jack?
Ryan
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Jack Phillips <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>wrot
e:
> I=92ve got a Sensenich 72-42 and am not all that happy with it. I have
a
> St Croix 76-36 that I have never tried but will some day.
>
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> NX899JP
>
> Raleigh, NC
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Skip Gadd
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:09 AM
>
> *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: Pietenpol-List: Prop choices for A-65
>
>
> Ryan,
>
> Have had 2 props on Felix the GN-1, A-65, plane weighs 720 lbs.
>
> 1. McCauley Met-L-Prop 74-43. Climbs good can handle pac up to 220 if is
> not too hot. Cruse at 2150 68 to 70 MPH. Max RPM 2375.
>
> 2. Hegy I got from Don E. 72-44 Climbs not as good can handle pac up to
> 180. Curse at 1950 72 MPH. Max RPM 2150.
>
> Interestingly, the plane seems to get 3.8 GPH with ether prop.
>
> I would like to have a Sensenich 72-42.
>
> Skip
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Ryan Mueller <rmueller23@gmail.com>
>
> *To: *pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>
> *Sent:* 10/20/2009 7:59:17 AM
>
> *Subject:* Pietenpol-List: Prop choices for A-65
>
>
> Good morning all,
>
>
> There will be an A-65-8 making it's way to our shop in a couple of weeks.
I
> am contemplating it's future. It is complete, and should be a runner;
> however it does not come with a prop. I would prefer to have a wood prop
on
> the Piet. Can those of you that have wood props flying on A-65's on your
> Pietenpol's comment on the make, size, and pitch that you are running, or
> you experiences in the past with varying configurations? Thanks much, and
> have a good morning.
>
>
> Ryan
>
> *<>*
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
> *
>
===========
w.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
===========
===========
com/contribution
===========
> *
>
>
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 |
|
I have a set of skis very similar to the picture from the West Coast Piet s
ite for my Quicksilver MXII, with one addition, small wheels for taxiing on
the pavement.- The wheels are off a snowmobile, I think, (I did not make
the skis, think aluminum pulleys with a solid rubber guide).- The skis a
re set up just like the photo that was posted, except uses heavy plastic fo
r the runner instead of wood, with a metal skid plate for reenforcement.-
The wheels protrude through the center about 1/2 inch-via-a small cut o
ut.-They work quite welll in soft snow as long as it isn't too deep, but
the wheels do dig in a bit and I'm careful about not landing on crusty snow
, for fear of breaking through.-They slip over the axle the same as in th
e photo from the West Coast Piet site.-I don't think I have a picture tha
t shows the wheels, but I can post one if anyone is interested.-
-
Matt Keyes
Richland Center, WI=0A=0A=0A
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: Chapter 1218 Pietenpol? |
That's the first time I think I've ever seen EAAers describe successfully
completing an aircraft project in a few months as a "total failure"... what
the heck...
Mike Whaley
MerlinFAC@cfl.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Church" <eng@canadianrogers.com>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 10:51 PM
Subject: [piet] RE: Pietenpol-List: Chapter 1218 Pietenpol?
I'm with you, dan.
That tail... UGH!
Looks like they decided to make the tail out of steel tube, but something
went awry. YUK.
Some things shouldn't be messed with.
Personally, I don't like the look of the vertical fin faired into the
fuselage on a Pietenpol. But that's just my opinion. Well, I'm probably not
the only one who thinks that (I hope).
Bill C.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of
helspersew@aol.com
Sent: Mon 19/10/2009 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Chapter 1218 Pietenpol?
Dan,
I am sitting here scratching my head looking at those pictures. Nothing I
see looks like a Pietenpol to me. Am I crazy? This is NOT a Pietenpol.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
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: strut stress |
The text in the body of the article was not a problem to read - it's the
little stuff in the chart that's a challenge .
Bet your OCR software can't figure that stuff out.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
ivan.todorovic
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 3:20 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: strut stress
--> <tosha@sezampro.rs>
CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca wrote:
> ...
> I finaly scanned them for you guys strutting about.
> ...
It was hardly readable for me, so I've run it through my OCR software,
here is the result:
---
Stress Analysis Made Painless
by Raoul J. Hoffman
Aeronautical Designing Engineer
Airplane members...
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol |
Hi John, there is no simple equation to tell you the various loads that
a strut will see under all flight and landing conditions. However you
can get close if you make several assumptions, such as the chord wise
load distribution at maximum lift which will determine the difference in
loads that the front and rear struts will see. Also the span wise load
distribution at maximum lift which will determine the ratio of the load
shared between the main struts and the cabane struts. If you have used
longer cabane struts and some dihedral the angle of the main struts will
be different as will the tension and compression loads they see. Using a
different airfoil will change the chordwise load distribution. Building
the wing a bay longer will change the loads the lift struts see. The
weight and balance of aircraft has an influence. As you can see the
calculations need to be done for each particular aircraft. This is not
an attempt to discourage you, as I intend to use round tube for my
struts as streamline tube is difficult and expensive to get where I
live, however the math for my aircraft may not suit yours.
Regards Mike T.
----- Original Message -----
From: AMsafetyC@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 2:40 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol
For me, not being math savvy, are considered complex concepts and
calculations that are well beyond my simple math skills and aerodynamic
calculation capabilities. I would like someone to provide a simple but
effective way for me and other mathematically challenged builders to
determine the efficacy of our material choices and their ability to
respond to a range of loads without failure?
John
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: strut stress |
I've got that book stashed away somewhere at home. I'll dig it out and see
if my copy is any more readable as a scan or photo.
--Ken
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:28:14 -0400, "Bill Church" <eng@canadianrogers.com>
wrote:
> <eng@canadianrogers.com>
>
>
> The text in the body of the article was not a problem to read - it's the
> little stuff in the chart that's a challenge .
> Bet your OCR software can't figure that stuff out.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> ivan.todorovic
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 3:20 PM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: strut stress
>
> --> <tosha@sezampro.rs>
>
>
> CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca wrote:
>> ...
>> I finaly scanned them for you guys strutting about.
>> ...
>
>
> It was hardly readable for me, so I've run it through my OCR software,
> here is the result:
>
> ---
> Stress Analysis Made Painless
>
> by Raoul J. Hoffman
> Aeronautical Designing Engineer
>
> Airplane members...
>
>
>
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: strut stress |
eng(at)canadianrogers.com wrote:
> Bet your OCR software can't figure that stuff out.
You won a cigar.
do not archive.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268726#268726
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: Prop choices for A-65 |
I do not know if you are referring to me when you said "Gene", but while
I do have a Jay Anderson prop, I have not run it yet. My prop is
somewhat different from most he made as he wanted to experiment and make
mine a little thicker in chord and longer than most. Jay thinks that
the Model A will produce more torque than is being asked of them with
most props and wanted to try something, mostly because he had a blank
that was longer than usual. We'll see, one day, and he offered to
change it back to the more traditional profile if it does not perform
well.
Gene Rambo
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Mueller<mailto:rmueller23@gmail.com>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Prop choices for A-65
Dan Y. mentioned to me that a number of people (Jeff Boatright, Gene,
etc) are using Jay Anderson (Cloudcars) scimitar props, and they seem to
enjoy the performance. The scimitar props do have a nice 'antiquey' look
to them. I think 76x38 was the size they have used. Anyone with a Jay
Anderson prop care to comment? Any ground clearance issues with the
longer blades?
What about the Sensenich are you not happy with, Jack?
Ryan
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Jack Phillips
<pietflyr@bellsouth.net<mailto:pietflyr@bellsouth.net>> wrote:
I=92ve got a Sensenich 72-42 and am not all that happy with it. I
have a St Croix 76-36 that I have never tried but will some day.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From:
owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com<mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-ser
ver@matronics.com>
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com<mailto:owner-pietenpol-
list-server@matronics.com>] On Behalf Of Skip Gadd
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:09 AM
To:
pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Prop choices for A-65
Ryan,
Have had 2 props on Felix the GN-1, A-65, plane weighs 720 lbs.
1. McCauley Met-L-Prop 74-43. Climbs good can handle pac up to 220
if is not too hot. Cruse at 2150 68 to 70 MPH. Max RPM 2375.
2. Hegy I got from Don E. 72-44 Climbs not as good can handle pac up
to 180. Curse at 1950 72 MPH. Max RPM 2150.
Interestingly, the plane seems to get 3.8 GPH with ether prop.
I would like to have a Sensenich 72-42.
Skip
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Mueller<mailto:rmueller23@gmail.com>
To:
pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: 10/20/2009 7:59:17 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Prop choices for A-65
Good morning all,
There will be an A-65-8 making it's way to our shop in a couple of
weeks. I am contemplating it's future. It is complete, and should be a
runner; however it does not come with a prop. I would prefer to have a
wood prop on the Piet. Can those of you that have wood props flying on
A-65's on your Pietenpol's comment on the make, size, and pitch that you
are running, or you experiences in the past with varying configurations?
Thanks much, and have a good morning.
Ryan
<>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List<http://www.matronics.co
m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>http://forums.matronics.com<http://forums.matr
onics.com/>http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com
/contribution>
"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List<http:
//www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
a>http://forums.matronics.com<http://forums.matronics.com/>
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/co
ntribution>
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 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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Prop choices for A-65 |
Sorry Gene R...I think it was 'Gene and Tammy in Tennesee' Gene. Should hav
e
specified...
Ryan
do not archive
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Gene Rambo <generambo@msn.com> wrote:
> I do not know if you are referring to me when you said "Gene", but while
> I do have a Jay Anderson prop, I have not run it yet. My prop is somewha
t
> different from most he made as he wanted to experiment and make mine a
> little thicker in chord and longer than most. Jay thinks that the Model
A
> will produce more torque than is being asked of them with most props and
> wanted to try something, mostly because he had a blank that was longer th
an
> usual. We'll see, one day, and he offered to change it back to the more
> traditional profile if it does not perform well.
>
> Gene Rambo
>
> do not archive
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Ryan Mueller <rmueller23@gmail.com>
> *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 20, 2009 4:51 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Prop choices for A-65
>
> Dan Y. mentioned to me that a number of people (Jeff Boatright, Gene, etc
)
> are using Jay Anderson (Cloudcars) scimitar props, and they seem to enjoy
> the performance. The scimitar props do have a nice 'antiquey' look to the
m.
> I think 76x38 was the size they have used. Anyone with a Jay Anderson pro
p
> care to comment? Any ground clearance issues with the longer blades?
> What about the Sensenich are you not happy with, Jack?
>
> Ryan
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Jack Phillips <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>wr
ote:
>
>> I=92ve got a Sensenich 72-42 and am not all that happy with it. I have
a
>> St Croix 76-36 that I have never tried but will some day.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jack Phillips
>>
>> NX899JP
>>
>> Raleigh, NC
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:
>> owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Skip Gadd
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:09 AM
>>
>> *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>> *Subject:* RE: Pietenpol-List: Prop choices for A-65
>>
>>
>>
>> Ryan,
>>
>> Have had 2 props on Felix the GN-1, A-65, plane weighs 720 lbs.
>>
>> 1. McCauley Met-L-Prop 74-43. Climbs good can handle pac up to 220 if is
>> not too hot. Cruse at 2150 68 to 70 MPH. Max RPM 2375.
>>
>> 2. Hegy I got from Don E. 72-44 Climbs not as good can handle pac up to
>> 180. Curse at 1950 72 MPH. Max RPM 2150.
>>
>> Interestingly, the plane seems to get 3.8 GPH with ether prop.
>>
>> I would like to have a Sensenich 72-42.
>>
>> Skip
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> *From:* Ryan Mueller <rmueller23@gmail.com>
>>
>> *To: *pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>>
>> *Sent:* 10/20/2009 7:59:17 AM
>>
>> *Subject:* Pietenpol-List: Prop choices for A-65
>>
>>
>>
>> Good morning all,
>>
>>
>>
>> There will be an A-65-8 making it's way to our shop in a couple of weeks
.
>> I am contemplating it's future. It is complete, and should be a runner;
>> however it does not come with a prop. I would prefer to have a wood prop
on
>> the Piet. Can those of you that have wood props flying on A-65's on your
>> Pietenpol's comment on the make, size, and pitch that you are running, o
r
>> you experiences in the past with varying configurations? Thanks much, an
d
>> have a good morning.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ryan
>>
>> *<>*
>>
>> * *
>>
>> * *
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List*
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *
>>
>> " target="_blank"> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> a> <http://forums.matronics.com>http://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank"> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com
/contribution
>> *
>>
>>
> *
>
> title=http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List href="http://
www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Naviga
tor?Pietenpol-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> *
>
> *
>
===========
w.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
===========
===========
com/contribution
===========
>
> *
>
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol |
Not only each aircraft if they aren't built to the plans, but each of
the several loading conditions -
Stall at maneuvering speed,
Gust at max cruise,
Max gs at Vne,
And these again for negative loads. Certainly the chordwise loads change
for each of these. The spanwise loads might, too.
No one said it was easy!
David Paule
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Tunnicliffe
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol
Hi John, there is no simple equation to tell you the various loads
that a strut will see under all flight and landing conditions. However
you can get close if you make several assumptions, such as the chord
wise load distribution at maximum lift which will determine the
difference in loads that the front and rear struts will see. Also the
span wise load distribution at maximum lift which will determine the
ratio of the load shared between the main struts and the cabane struts.
If you have used longer cabane struts and some dihedral the angle of the
main struts will be different as will the tension and compression loads
they see. Using a different airfoil will change the chordwise load
distribution. Building the wing a bay longer will change the loads the
lift struts see. The weight and balance of aircraft has an influence. As
you can see the calculations need to be done for each particular
aircraft. This is not an attempt to discourage you, as I intend to use
round tube for my struts as streamline tube is difficult and expensive
to get where I live, however the math for my aircraft may not suit
yours.
Regards Mike T.
----- Original Message -----
From: AMsafetyC@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 2:40 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol
For me, not being math savvy, are considered complex concepts and
calculations that are well beyond my simple math skills and aerodynamic
calculation capabilities. I would like someone to provide a simple but
effective way for me and other mathematically challenged builders to
determine the efficacy of our material choices and their ability to
respond to a range of loads without failure?
John
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 |
|
Ryan, here is a photo of my 76 X 38 Jay Anderson Scimitar prop. Before
it, I used a Sterba 74 X 38 which was good, but I like the Scimitar a
lot better. It "bites" very well for climb and then seems to flatens
out for cruise at 2150. Clears the ground with no problem.
We held a Aviation Day here at OM4 on the 10th of this month and had a
large number of WW II war birds plus the EAA B17, Aluminum Overcast,
show up. I put my Ol' Piet out on the ramp, just in case someone
wanted to see a real airplane. The B17 and the Piet stole the show!
Crowd loved them both. Lots of comments on both the piet and the prop.
The crew of the B17 invited me to take a flight with them and I must say
it was a thrill. I sat in the jump seat behind the pilot. I offered to
let him fly my Piet if he would let me fly the 17. He didn't answer.
Gene in Beautiful sunny Tennessee. (For the first time in several weeks
I'll have a day off tomorrow and the sun is suppose to shine. I'll
spend most of it flying N502R and the rest of it riding the Gold Wing.)
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Prop choices for A-65 |
Hello all you good people,
When I tested my self-carved prop on my model A, I measured (with an over-
sized fish scale) the thrust to be 265 lbs. at full throttle. I would be
curious to know what others have measured, with A-65's or Corvairs or wha
tever. I understand that this is probably an unconventional way to measure
performance, but it makes a whole "lot o" sense to me, especially before
the first flight. http://s564.photobucket.com/albums/ss83/dhelsper/?actio
n=view¤t=1ststart-upmodelAwithcarvedprop.flv
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Props for A 65 |
Gene,
Your plane is a knockout, and the prop really helps the effect. I can believe
that you and the B-17 were the stars.
A couple of unrelated questions:
-- Which color white and green on your paint, is the green "Cubby Trainer Green"?
-- Do we see heat muffs on each side for rear exhausts, and if so, how plumbed,
one for carb, one for cockpit heat? Are your stacks stainless, and where sourced?
(I like your lack of merging exhausts, keeping good flow, and avoiding custom
complexity.)
(I am planning white for my wing and much metal work [have that white 2-part epoxy],
and still considering many different bright and/or darker colors for contrast.)
Tim in central TX
(still missing TN)
-----Original Message-----
From: Gene & Tammy
Sent: Oct 20, 2009 7:01 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Props for A 65
Ryan, here is a photo of my 76 X 38 Jay Anderson Scimitar prop. Before it, I used
a Sterba 74 X 38 which was good, but I like the Scimitar a lot better. It
"bites" very well for climb and then seems to flatens out for cruise at 2150.
Clears the ground with no problem.
We held a Aviation Day here at OM4 on the 10th of this month and had a large number
of WW II war birds plus the EAA B17, Aluminum Overcast, show up. I put
my Ol' Piet out on the ramp, just in case someone wanted to see a real airplane.
The B17 and the Piet stole the show! Crowd loved them both. Lots of comments
on both the piet and the prop. The crew of the B17 invited me to take a
flight with them and I must say it was a thrill. I sat in the jump seat behind
the pilot. I offered to let him fly my Piet if he would let me fly the 17.
He didn't answer.
Gene in Beautiful sunny Tennessee. (For the first time in several weeks I'll have
a day off tomorrow and the sun is suppose to shine. I'll spend most of it
flying N502R and the rest of it riding the Gold Wing.)
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 |
|
Great story, Gene. I'm sure that pilot was intimidated by that open cockpit
flying machine!
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, mounted
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(15 ribs down.)
Do not archive
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gene & Tammy
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 5:02 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Props for A 65
Ryan, here is a photo of my 76 X 38 Jay Anderson Scimitar prop. Before it,
I used a Sterba 74 X 38 which was good, but I like the Scimitar a lot
better. It "bites" very well for climb and then seems to flatens out for
cruise at 2150. Clears the ground with no problem.
We held a Aviation Day here at OM4 on the 10th of this month and had a large
number of WW II war birds plus the EAA B17, Aluminum Overcast, show up. I
put my Ol' Piet out on the ramp, just in case someone wanted to see a real
airplane. The B17 and the Piet stole the show! Crowd loved them both.
Lots of comments on both the piet and the prop. The crew of the B17 invited
me to take a flight with them and I must say it was a thrill. I sat in the
jump seat behind the pilot. I offered to let him fly my Piet if he would
let me fly the 17. He didn't answer.
Gene in Beautiful sunny Tennessee. (For the first time in several weeks
I'll have a day off tomorrow and the sun is suppose to shine. I'll spend
most of it flying N502R and the rest of it riding the Gold Wing.)
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: | Prop choices for A-65 |
Dan,
Still love that video!! And, Yes, I think your thrust test has merit, at
least to a country boy.
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, mounted
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(15 ribs down.)
Do not archive
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
helspersew@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 5:23 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Prop choices for A-65
Hello all you good people,
When I tested my self-carved prop on my model A, I measured (with an
over-sized fish scale) the thrust to be 265 lbs. at full throttle. I would
be curious to know what others have measured, with A-65's or Corvairs or
whatever. I understand that this is probably an unconventional way to
measure performance, but it makes a whole "lot o" sense to me, especially
before the first flight.
http://s564.photobucket.com/albums/ss83/dhelsper/?action=view
<http://s564.photobucket.com/albums/ss83/dhelsper/?action=view¤t=1stst
art-upmodelAwithcarvedprop.flv> ¤t=1ststart-upmodelAwithcarvedprop.flv
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
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: | Re: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol |
John (PM Danger),
Here I was, thinking that you wanted to know a simple method to determine whether
a certain size of round 4130 tubing could be substituted for the 1934 special
streamline tubing shown in the plans, and I was thinking about how there is
NO SIMPLE ANSWER or formula to give, and then you tell us you're talking about
wooden struts. There are so many variables (without even getting int the specifics
of your unique plane)! There's the species of wood, the "quality" of the
particular pieces of wood used, the size and shape of the struts, the thickness
and number of laminations, the glue used, not to mention the "metal inserts".
You mention that you are not an engineer. Well, as you know, I am an engineer,
but I'm not an aeronautical engineer. Despite my background, I do not feel qualified
to determine the suitability of wooden flying struts for my Piet, let alone
someone else's. I think your best option would be to track down a builder
that has successfully built and flown (for a significant amount of time) a wooden-strutted
Piet, and borrow that design (if they are willing to share it with
you).
It sounds like you have built a set of struts based on "that looks about right".
The flying struts are WAY too important to be approached in that manner. Like
you say, a catastrophic failure in flight would really screw up your day. Be
very careful with this stuff.
As much as I like the look of wooden struts I will be using steel struts on my
plane.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268755#268755
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: | Prop choices for A-65 |
Jack, What numbers do you get with the Sensenich? The reason I have been wanting
one is because they do pretty good on Cubs, and they are nice and fat and user
friendly for hand propping.
Skip
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Phillips
Sent: 10/20/2009 4:42:50 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Prop choices for A-65
Ive got a Sensenich 72-42 and am not all that happy with it. I have a St Croix
76-36 that I have never tried but will some day.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Skip Gadd
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:09 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Prop choices for A-65
Ryan,
Have had 2 props on Felix the GN-1, A-65, plane weighs 720 lbs.
1. McCauley Met-L-Prop 74-43. Climbs good can handle pac up to 220 if is not too
hot. Cruse at 2150 68 to 70 MPH. Max RPM 2375.
2. Hegy I got from Don E. 72-44 Climbs not as good can handle pac up to 180. Curse
at 1950 72 MPH. Max RPM 2150.
Interestingly, the plane seems to get 3.8 GPH with ether prop.
I would like to have a Sensenich 72-42.
Skip
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Mueller
Sent: 10/20/2009 7:59:17 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Prop choices for A-65
Good morning all,
There will be an A-65-8 making it's way to our shop in a couple of weeks. I am
contemplating it's future. It is complete, and should be a runner; however it
does not come with a prop. I would prefer to have a wood prop on the Piet. Can
those of you that have wood props flying on A-65's on your Pietenpol's comment
on the make, size, and pitch that you are running, or you experiences in the
past with varying configurations? Thanks much, and have a good morning.
Ryan
<>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: Prop choices for A-65 |
Dan,
I love the video, esp. as you do a little victory dance. I would, too. I think
your personally carved prop is just amazing. Great plane. We have seen your
cowl shots, too. You are getting so close to being done.
Tim in central TX
-----Original Message-----
From: helspersew@aol.com
Sent: Oct 20, 2009 7:22 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Prop choices for A-65
Hello all you good people,
When I tested my self-carved prop on my model A, I measured (with an over-sized fish scale) the thrust to be 265 lbs. at full throttle. I would be curious to know what others have measured, with A-65's or Corvairs or whatever. I understand that this is probably an unconventional way to measure performance, but it makes a whole "lot o" sense to me, especially before the first flight. http://s564.photobucket.com/albums/ss83/dhelsper/?action=view¤t=1ststart-upmodelAwithcarvedprop.flv
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol |
I remember some one did this and there was a picture of the plane in the
experimenter. I'll see if I can find the issue and get your address I will
mail
the picture to you if I can find it.
Russell
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Bill Church <billspiet@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> billspiet@sympatico.ca>
>
> John (PM Danger),
> Here I was, thinking that you wanted to know a simple method to determine
> whether a certain size of round 4130 tubing could be substituted for the
> 1934 special streamline tubing shown in the plans, and I was thinking about
> how there is NO SIMPLE ANSWER or formula to give, and then you tell us
> you're talking about wooden struts. There are so many variables (without
> even getting int the specifics of your unique plane)! There's the species of
> wood, the "quality" of the particular pieces of wood used, the size and
> shape of the struts, the thickness and number of laminations, the glue used,
> not to mention the "metal inserts".
> You mention that you are not an engineer. Well, as you know, I am an
> engineer, but I'm not an aeronautical engineer. Despite my background, I do
> not feel qualified to determine the suitability of wooden flying struts for
> my Piet, let alone someone else's. I think your best option would be to
> track down a builder that has successfully built and flown (for a
> significant amount of time) a wooden-strutted Piet, and borrow that design
> (if they are willing to share it with you).
> It sounds like you have built a set of struts based on "that looks about
> right". The flying struts are WAY too important to be approached in that
> manner. Like you say, a catastrophic failure in flight would really screw up
> your day. Be very careful with this stuff.
> As much as I like the look of wooden struts I will be using steel struts on
> my plane.
>
> Bill C.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268755#268755
>
>
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: strut stress |
I'm running windows XP but what I'm saying here should
have an equivalent in other systems.
The article was scanned as a jpeg and sent to my picture
file. In there I can double click any image and it comes up
in it's own window. This image can then be enlarged up to
400%. So enlarging the chart till it's comfortable makes
it quite readable. For me that's 150-200%. Beyond that it
begins to get fuzzy.
Clif
Marriage is a relationship in which one person is always right and the other
is usually the husband.
> <eng@canadianrogers.com>
> The text in the body of the article was not a problem to read - it's the
> little stuff in the chart that's a challenge .
> Bet your OCR software can't figure that stuff out.
>
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: Jay Anderson prop |
Ryan,
Sorry, had a long day of work and chores, but ended up at the airport
practicing wheelies in the Piet. Not a bad day!
We had a 70x38 Valley Engineering/Culver prop originally. It did OK,
giving us a solid 6-700 fpm climb with the C-85. Switched to a
Cloudcars (Jay Anderson) 76x38, which easily gave 850-900 fpm. There
is A LOT more thrust. Another "measure" is that at idle the old prop
didn't pull the plane forward. With the new prop, the plane will
actually pull up a modest hill at idle! Plus, the new prop looks cool
and sounds mean!
Our wire wheels are only 17" diameter, so with tires only 21"
diameter total. That's actually not all that tall. I wish we had 21"
wheels and 4" tires, mainly because we're not in a full stall in the
three-point attitude. Sometimes I land tailwheel first.
That said, ground clearance might be an issue for you. Check the
Bingelis books or ask the list, but I think that in level attitude on
the ground, the prop tip should be 9" above the ground. You could
easily measure this once you have the fuselage on the gear and the
engine hung.
Jay at Cloudcars was easy to work with. You can sometimes get a
discount if he already has a prop made up and he's looking to sell
fast. That's how we got the 76X38, which he bills as a climb prop for
an A65. With the C-85, it's a rocket prop. He offered to trade for
something he thought was better matched for a C-85 if we didn't like
the 76x38, but we like the climb rate and the top end revs are about
the same and produce nearly identical speeds, so we kept it and we're
very happy with it.
HTH,
Jeff
At 2:17 PM -0500 10/20/09, Ryan Mueller wrote:
>Good afternoon Jeff,
>
>My wife and I are building a Piet up near Chicago. We were going to
>power it with a Corvair, but I stumbled across a good deal on a
>relatively low-time A-65 while looking for Cub wheels, so we went
>ahead and bought it. It was removed from a flying Cub for an engine
>upgrade. Unfortunately it does not come with a prop, so I am
>investigating our options there. A couple of people replied to a
>question on the list this AM, saying that 72x42 appears to be the
>standard Sensenich for the A65 on similar performing aircraft. Dan
>Yocum pointed out to me that you and Gene (from the list, can't
>recall the last name) both have Jay Anderson (Cloudcars) scimitar
>props, and a look in the archives confirms both that and the fact
>that you enjoy the performance.
>
>If you had a more "standard" prop on your Piet before, could you
>elaborate on the differences in performance that the Jay Anderson
>prop affords? The scimitar prop really looks sharp, and I just
>wanted to get your synopsis of how it's worked for you thus far. If
>I recall correctly, you have tall wire wheels on your Piet? Do you
>recall if there was any potential concern about ground clearance
>with a 4" longer prop than usual (assuming the 72" Sensenich is more
>'usual')? Our Piet will be wearing 800x4 Piper Cub wheels, so we may
>not have as much ground clearance when level as you do.
>
>Anyhow, any information you may be able to send our way would be
>appreciated. Thanks for your time, and have a good day.
>
>Ryan Mueller
--
---
Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
Emory University School of Medicine
Editor-in-Chief
Molecular Vision
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Prop choices for A-65 |
Hi Skip
I'm not Jack but I have an A-65 and Sensenich 72x42 also. I cruise at
75-76 mph, climb at 150-200 fpm.
For anyone else, Culver Props does very nice work, is very customer
responsive and much cheaper. I have one on the radial Piet.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Skip Gadd
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 8:28 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Prop choices for A-65
Jack, What numbers do you get with the Sensenich? The reason I have
been wanting one is because they do pretty good on Cubs, and they are
nice and fat and user friendly for hand propping.
Skip
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Phillips
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: 10/20/2009 4:42:50 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Prop choices for A-65
I've got a Sensenich 72-42 and am not all that happy with it. I
have a St Croix 76-36 that I have never tried but will some day.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Skip
Gadd
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:09 AM
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Prop choices for A-65
Ryan,
Have had 2 props on Felix the GN-1, A-65, plane weighs 720 lbs.
1. McCauley Met-L-Prop 74-43. Climbs good can handle pac up to 220
if is not too hot. Cruse at 2150 68 to 70 MPH. Max RPM 2375.
2. Hegy I got from Don E. 72-44 Climbs not as good can handle pac up
to 180. Curse at 1950 72 MPH. Max RPM 2150.
Interestingly, the plane seems to get 3.8 GPH with ether prop.
I would like to have a Sensenich 72-42.
Skip
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Mueller
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: 10/20/2009 7:59:17 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Prop choices for A-65
Good morning all,
There will be an A-65-8 making it's way to our shop in a couple of
weeks. I am contemplating it's future. It is complete, and should be a
runner; however it does not come with a prop. I would prefer to have a
wood prop on the Piet. Can those of you that have wood props flying on
A-65's on your Pietenpol's comment on the make, size, and pitch that you
are running, or you experiences in the past with varying configurations?
Thanks much, and have a good morning.
Ryan
<>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listhttp://forums.matronics.
comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tail feather drain holes |
Hi Rick
I put one next to each rib and on the rudder at the very bottom point.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "at7000ft" <at7000ft@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:58 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Tail feather drain holes
>
> Question for anyone who has finished covering. How many drain grommets did
> you put on your tail feather panels and where did you put them?
>
> Thanks
>
> Rick, busy rib lacing.
>
> --------
> Rick Holland
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268710#268710
>
>
>
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: lift struts for GN-1 /Pietenpol this is a long |
one
That would be great, thanks. Not to diminish the important's of what's been
said regarding the wooden struts. I believe 2 years ago at brodhead the
Canadian Goose had wooden struts. They looked great. Mine are already made
and are 3 linear layers of wood clear white ash in the middle with black
walnut on the outer sandwich. They were laminated using the T88, clamped
straight and allowed to set cure under clamp and Jig in a square shape larger
than the streamline tubing. The lamination has metal imbedded into the middle
of the lamination at 3 locations each and at the connection point of the
jury strut to prevent the bolts from pulling out of thru or splitting out
the wood. The struts were shaped using the dimensions of the tubing in the
drawings except slightly wider and longer than the metal tubing.
Understanding the relationship of the wing to the strut and relative
loading and stresses created during normal flight. Here is where my non
engineering background really comes into play. If there wing in normal condition
exerts a static load of X lets say for argument sake x is = to 160 lbs over
all. And at 8 loading connections two at the flying strut, 2 at the jury
strut and 2 at the cabane struts that static load exerted by a non flying
wing on the struts would be Y. Lets also assume in gross numbers the fuse at
full capacity weighs 700 lbs. what is the static load on the struts?
Now that we have a static load on the struts shared by all 8 connections
not calculate the dynamic loads positive and negative or compression and
extension in flight, that value being SL. The strut load would be that amount
of weight or pressure that the strut system is required to support in and
under normal flight conditions now to calculate side loads and combined
loads to determine then highest amount of loading the struts will ever be
exposed to by an aircraft who's total weight is 1000 lbs at full load and
flying. That becomes the comparator for strut materials selection. The strut
must be capable of handling loads of a value we call UL ultimate loading.
Now we can look at the strut material separately as a beam or structural
member and either copy form the materials book the load capacity of 4130
round and streamline, T6 aluminum round pipe or streamline, composite and
laminated wood.
All of which are arbitrary values based on none other than the design
weights in the Bernerd POA specs section of the instructions. So if airplane 1
weighs 1050 at the curb how much stress will the struts be required to
safely and regularly handle?
Again not being a computer scientist, however just barely able to type a
cogent paragraph my self. We are all using a device that is not less than
10,000 times more capable sophisticated and faster than the computers used to
put a man on the moon. It sounds almost cook book type to come up with the
equations that when we builders now and in the future want to look at a
specific Piet design or system that we can punch in some easy numbers and get
out an answer from the computer.
Seems like with all the talent real and inferred that 2 engineers with
AutoCAD to model and excel to come up with a series of questions that when
answered with real data will provide an answer. At a bare minimum then the
builder can select an amount of over build as a margin of safety and have a
clue as to what's needed for his or her build.
That's where I am going with this, there is no need for each of us to try
to reinvent the wheel each time someone has an idea or a question that goes
contrary to the conventional build or design. After all we are talking
experimental here. The It Girl of the Sky put it best, " you're both starvin,
why not try to help each other"
Go in peace the service has ended
No for the other news I just got my copy of Barnstormers and watched it a n
hour ago, wow that was great I am impressed and want to be invited if I
can survive my own creative experimental endeavors and the did pay homage to
TGW when they looked towards the heavens and asked WWD? What Would Waldo Do
the answer was a resounding the show must go on!
John
In a message dated 10/20/2009 10:28:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rray032003@gmail.com writes:
I remember some one did this and there was a picture of the plane in the
experimenter. I'll see if I can find the issue and get your address I will
mail
the picture to you if I can find it.
Russell
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Bill Church <_billspiet@sympatico.ca_
(mailto:billspiet@sympatico.ca) > wrote:
<_billspiet@sympatico.ca_ (mailto:billspiet@sympatico.ca) >
John (PM Danger),
Here I was, thinking that you wanted to know a simple method to determine
whether a certain size of round 4130 tubing could be substituted for the
1934 special streamline tubing shown in the plans, and I was thinking about
how there is NO SIMPLE ANSWER or formula to give, and then you tell us
you're talking about wooden struts. There are so many variables (without even
getting int the specifics of your unique plane)! There's the species of wood,
the "quality" of the particular pieces of wood used, the size and shape of
the struts, the thickness and number of laminations, the glue used, not to
mention the "metal inserts".
You mention that you are not an engineer. Well, as you know, I am an
engineer, but I'm not an aeronautical engineer. Despite my background, I do not
feel qualified to determine the suitability of wooden flying struts for my
Piet, let alone someone else's. I think your best option would be to track
down a builder that has successfully built and flown (for a significant
amount of time) a wooden-strutted Piet, and borrow that design (if they are
willing to share it with you).
It sounds like you have built a set of struts based on "that looks about
right". The flying struts are WAY too important to be approached in that
manner. Like you say, a catastrophic failure in flight would really screw up
your day. Be very careful with this stuff.
As much as I like the look of wooden struts I will be using steel struts
on my plane.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
_http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268755#268755_
(http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268755#268755)
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.
====
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
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: | Prince Q-tip prop for sale for A-75 w/tapered shaft - |
68x42
New this prop is about $1,900 according to the Prince website, it was
custom made for a Pietenpol. I'd sell it for a lot less than $1,900.
Does anyone need a prop for an A-75? It is in near new condition, and
probably has less than 100hrs on it, although I don't know the exact
number. If anyone is interested I'll take some good quality pictures,
just send me an e-mail - steve@wotelectronics.com. It turns about 2,500
static on my A-75 I believe.
Here is a picture from a few years ago, it is not on the plane now:
http://www.wotelectronics.com/flying/GN1/dsc24.jpg
Manufacturer:
http://www.princeaircraft.com/
Steve Ruse
Norman, OK
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! --
|