Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:52 AM - Re: Re: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error (Robert Ray)
2. 03:51 AM - Re: Prop Choices A-65 ()
3. 04:54 AM - rib/spar orientation (vman1922)
4. 05:18 AM - Re: built up spars (Jim Markle)
5. 05:19 AM - Re: rib/spar orientation (Ameet Savant)
6. 05:36 AM - Re: rib/spar orientation (Pieti Lowell)
7. 07:28 AM - Re: built up spars (ivan.todorovic)
8. 08:21 AM - Re: rib/spar orientation (ivan.todorovic)
9. 08:22 AM - Re: shipping aluminum sheet (Gene Rambo)
10. 10:50 AM - Bernard Pietenpol - Corvair Oil Pan Conversion (dwilson)
11. 11:55 AM - Re: Re: rib/spar orientation (David Paule)
12. 01:31 PM - rib/spar orientation (Oscar Zuniga)
13. 02:32 PM - static thrust (skellytown flyer)
14. 02:34 PM - Re: Re: built up spars (Peter W Johnson)
15. 04:22 PM - Re: built up spars (ivan.todorovic)
16. 04:50 PM - Re: static thrust (helspersew@aol.com)
17. 05:36 PM - Re: Re: built up spars (Peter W Johnson)
18. 05:37 PM - Re: static thrust (gliderx5@comcast.net)
19. 06:17 PM - 106 years ago today- Prelude to fight (helspersew@aol.com)
20. 06:18 PM - Re: static thrust (David Paule)
21. 06:22 PM - Re: Re: built up spars (Clif Dawson)
22. 06:52 PM - Re: static thrust (gliderx5@comcast.net)
23. 06:58 PM - G-BUCO engine failure (Douwe Blumberg)
24. 07:45 PM - Re: Re: built up spars (Robert Ray)
25. 08:53 PM - Re: static thrust (David Paule)
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: Upper Flying Strut Fitting, Possibe Plans Error |
Finer thaan frog hair!
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 2:47 AM, <catdesigns@att.net> wrote:
> Seeing as I started this thread I should show what I ended up doing.
>
> On both sides of the spar under the fitting I added 1/8-inch Birch plywood
> plates 12-inches long tapered on both ends to avoid sudden change in spare
> cross section. I did not weld the two straps together.
>
> Chris
> Sacramento, CA
> WestCoastPiet.com
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Prop Choices A-65 |
I flew an A-65 Champ with a Sensenich W72 CK44 wooden prop, and in the Cincinnati
summer heat it was a real dog with two on board.
Switching to the recommended metal "climb" prop, a Sensenich 74CK-0-44, transformed
that Champ into a real nice performer even a full gross on the hottest summer
days!
Has anybody tried one of those sweet Sensenich ground adjustable composite props
on a Piet?
Paul
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: | rib/spar orientation |
In the layout of a 612 rib template I am not sure what to use as a vertical reference
for the spar. Should it be 90 degrees from the cord line or 90 degrees
from the bottom wing surface????????
I believe this would also affect the angle of incidence.
Thanks! You all make this a great place to exchange info!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273696#273696
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: built up spars |
>For us cheapskates still trying to use thinner and
>less expensive stock and either scarfing or laminating
>things so we don't have to use long expensive pieces of
>clear wood, and trying to use plywood for the web rather
>than spruce planks, the approach becomes one of
>engineering a built-up section with equivalent strength.
>This is where I am right now, and Jim Markle knows why ;o)
>
WHAT? Who, me???? Uhhh, I'll just say that lighter (with equivalent strength)
is always better!
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: rib/spar orientation |
IMHO, considering incidence is measured with respect to chord line, making
the spar perpendicular to the chord would make it easier (mathematically) to
select the strut lengths. Having said that, I don't think it is hard at all
to figure out what the lengths would be in case the spar was perpendicular
to the bottom of the airfoil.
Ameet
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 6:54 AM, vman1922 <kkamp72@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> In the layout of a 612 rib template I am not sure what to use as a vertical
> reference for the spar. Should it be 90 degrees from the cord line or 90
> degrees from the bottom wing surface????????
>
> I believe this would also affect the angle of incidence.
>
> Thanks! You all make this a great place to exchange info!
>
>
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: rib/spar orientation |
Mr V
I used the 90 Deg, from the cord line as Mr R. suggested. He also suggested 1 Deg.
angle of incidence on the 612. I would go with 1/2 Degree AoI, I also have
the short version Piet, My long version worked well with 1-1/2deg.
Pieti Lowell
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273701#273701
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: built up spars |
Peter,
Please check if I've messed the dimensions for the front spar on the drawings below.
Maybe it is a stupid question, but better safe than sorry: spar face with full
plywood web goes in the wing-tip direction for both spars, front and rear, right?
There is a small drawing near the right edge of your sketch that made me uncertain
about that.
One other thing: vertical stiffeners position on the spar inside edge would need
a hint or two, there are several dimensions (7 1/2), (1/2 + 8 1/2) that are
a bit confusing.
Regards,
Ivan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273710#273710
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/frontsparinside_144.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/frontspartip_262.jpg
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: rib/spar orientation |
Mr Lowell,
Have you changed the spar positions when you've changed the airfoil, or you have
left them exactly where they are on FC10?
Regards,
Ivan Todorovic
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273718#273718
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: shipping aluminum sheet |
It would look like a Tarantino movie . . . lots of blood and not pretty
Gene
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Phillips<mailto:pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 6:52 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: shipping aluminum sheet
Don't you wish you had that on video?
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] On
Behalf Of Gene Rambo
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 6:08 PM
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: shipping aluminum sheet
3003 comes in 4x12 too. It can be had in differing hardnesses, I
think 1/2 hard is the norm for cowlings, etc (can't say the T_ number).
I am going to a local place within the week to buy a piece for my
cowlings.
Talking about something that unwinds with a fury, though, if anyone is
using hard wire (or music wire) for tail bracing or wing drag wires, I
made the mistake of holding a roll and cutting off the brass-wire ties.
It had the ends bent back 180 degrees, so as it started uncoiling, it
dug those sharp ends into my hands. I only then realized that I had no
option but to put my foot on it, cover my face, and jump off . . . it
slapped me about ten times before I got out of reach. Damn near kilt
me!
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: hvandervoo@aol.com<mailto:hvandervoo@aol.com>
To:
pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: shipping aluminum sheet
Gene,
Oscar is looking for 4' x 12' sheets, My Piet used less 4' x 4'
He is clearly building an all aluminum Pietenpol, or.....
B-T-W
3003 is very soft.
6061 is twice as stiff
and 2024 is three time stiffer than 6061.
Regards
Hans
All wood Pietenpol NX15KV, with some steel and aluminum parts all
wrapped in Polyfiber
-----Original Message-----
From: Gene Rambo <generambo@msn.com>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:16 pm
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: shipping aluminum sheet
why "aircraft grade" aluminum? Regular old 3003 aluminum is what
has been used since the Wrights and works perfectly fine for anything on
a Piet. Can buy locally, is cheap, and is easy to work with.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: hvandervoo@aol.com<mailto:hvandervoo@aol.com>
To:
pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: shipping aluminum sheet
What's that Oscar, building a spam can ?
I have bought and rolled upto .040 with out a problem.
But did not buy from Aircraft spruce, I got my stuff local.
Try Trident metals (Houston and Austin locations) they carry
aircraft grade aluminum, including mill certification.
Pick it up yourself, with sales tax still much less than Aircraft
spruce, Wicks or Airparts
Good luck
Hans
NX15KV
-----Original Message-----
From: Oscar Zuniga
<taildrags@hotmail.com<mailto:taildrags@hotmail.com>>
To: Pietenpol List
<pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>>
Sent: Wed, Nov 18, 2009 10:11 am
Subject: Pietenpol-List: shipping aluminum sheet
<taildrags@hotmail.com<mailto:taildrags@hotmail.com>> Aircraft Spruce
and others indicate that 4'x12' sheetsof aluminum up to about .030" can
be shipped as onepiece by rolling and boxing. They caution that
theydon't guarantee that the heavier gauge material willunroll
completely flat when shipped this way. Hasanyone ordered sheet stock
that was shipped rolledthis way, and what was your experience with it?
Oscar ZunigaAir Camper NX41CCSan Antonio, TXmailto:
taildrags@hotmail.com<mailto:taildrags@hotmail.com>website at
http://www.flysquirrel.net<http://www.flysquirrel.net/>
=_blank>www.aeroelectric.com<http://www.aeroelectric.com/>m/"
target=_blank>www.buildersbooks.com<http://www.buildersbooks.com/>=_b
lank>www.homebuilthelp.com<http://www.homebuilthelp.com/>_blank>http://ww
w.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>t"
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List<http://
www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>tp://forums.matronics.com
=
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com<http://www.aeroelectric.com/>">www.ae
roelectric.com<http://www.aeroelectric.com/>title=http://www.buildersbo
oks.com/<http://www.buildersbooks.com/>
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com<http://www.buildersbooks.com/>">www.
buildersbooks.com<http://www.buildersbooks.com/>href="http://www.homebu
ilthelp.com<http://www.homebuilthelp.com/>">www.homebuilthelp.com<http://
www.homebuilthelp.com/>href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http
://www.matronics.com/contribution>">http://www.matronics.com/ctitle=htt
p://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List<http://www.matronics.com/c
title=http:/www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List<http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?P
ietenpol-List<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>href="h
ttp://forums.matronics.com<http://forums.matronics.com/>">http://forums.m
atronics.com<http://forums.matronics.com/>
=_blank>www.aeroelectric.comm/"
target=_blank>www.buildersbooks.com=_blank>www.homebuilthelp.com_blan
k>http://www.matronics.com/contributiont"
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listtp://for
ums.matronics.com
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.comtitle=http://w
ww.buildersbooks.com/
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.comhref="http:/
/www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.comhref="http://www.matronics
.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/ctitle=http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">h
ttp://forums.matronics.com
www.aeroelectric.comwww.homebuilthelp.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contrib
ution
www.aeroelectric.com<http://www.aeroelectric.com/>
www.buildersbooks.com<http://www.buildersbooks.com/>
www.homebuilthelp.com<http://www.homebuilthelp.com/>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List<http://www.matronics.co
m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
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: | Bernard Pietenpol - Corvair Oil Pan Conversion |
Here are a couple of Pictures of a Corvair Oil Pan that had the ears welded on
by Mr. Pietenpol.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273744#273744
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/pan2_173.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/pan1_189.jpg
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: rib/spar orientation |
The spars won't care if they are a few degrees one way or the other. But if
you happened to get the rib lay-out from the Pietenpol family, it shows
where those uprights are intended to be. However, the strength of the wing
isn't very sensitive to that angle, as long as it's not too far off.
Just to be clear, I'm talking about the angle of the spar with regard to the
chord or the bottom of the wing. I'm not talking about the angle of
incidence.
David Paule
> <Lowellcfrank@yahoo.com>
>
> I used the 90 Deg, from the cord line as Mr R. suggested.....
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: | rib/spar orientation |
My own take on it is that the spar orientation should be
relative to the chord line of the selected airfoil. The
quirk in the deal is that some of the older airfoils were
referenced to a line along the bottom, which made some sense
with flat-bottomed airfoils like the USA35. However,
camber and cusp change the picture, plus the fact that all
modern airfoils and all analysis programs reference the
mean aerodynamic chord (I believe). In any case, the Riblett
is not a flat-bottomed airfoil and all of its published
characteristics are referenced to the chord.
I wish the world was simple again, like it used to be ;o)
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
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 |
|
if anybody is interested enough to spend some money for a tester-there is one on
E-bay that looks pretty nice in the aircraft parts site.it has a 400# range.probably
imported but should b fairly accurate. Raymond
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273788#273788
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: built up spars |
Ivan,
Comments embedded.........
Please check if I've messed the dimensions for the front spar on the
drawings below.
................all look good.
Maybe it is a stupid question, but better safe than sorry: spar face with
full plywood web goes in the wing-tip direction for both spars, front and
rear, right? There is a small drawing near the right edge of your sketch
that made me uncertain about that.
................do you mean the grain of the plywood? If so yes main grain
is along the length of the spar
One other thing: vertical stiffeners position on the spar inside edge would
need a hint or two, there are several dimensions (7 1/2), (1/2 + 8 1/2) that
are a bit confusing.
................Not sure what you mean here, the wing join ends are 7 1/2",
the center (wing spar strut fitting) 25 1/2", the wing tip 4 1/2". There is
blocking at each wing rib position, pulley fixing position and compression
strut fitting.
................Does all that help?
Cheers
Peter
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: built up spars |
Peter,
I've looked at Piet plans and it helped to clarify some dimensions, I'm drawing
on, give me a day or two to finish it.
My question was so stupid - you haven't seen what is puzzling me, but let me embarace
my self again and put it differently: when you build the whole front spar,
and the spar box has so called "U" shape, do you rotate the bottom of the
letter "U" towards the tip of the wing, not towards the rear spar?
Regards,
Ivan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273802#273802
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: static thrust |
Gentlemen,
Has anyone done a static thrust test on their flying airplane (or almost
flying?). I have measured 265 lbs. with my Model A and my 76/46 prop. I
would be curious how this stands up to others.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
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: built up spars |
Ivan,
Sorry, check out page 6 of the build pictures. They show the ply side on the
inside of the wing.
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi Australia
http://www.cpc-world.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
ivan.todorovic
Sent: Friday, 20 November 2009 11:22 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: built up spars
Peter,
I've looked at Piet plans and it helped to clarify some dimensions, I'm
drawing on, give me a day or two to finish it.
My question was so stupid - you haven't seen what is puzzling me, but let me
embarace my self again and put it differently: when you build the whole
front spar, and the spar box has so called "U" shape, do you rotate the
bottom of the letter "U" towards the tip of the wing, not towards the rear
spar?
Regards,
Ivan
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: static thrust |
Dan
I have the results of my static thrust testing at http://home.comcast.net/~mmorrison123/engine_test.html. Corvair with a homemade prop. 2500 RPM static giving 280 lbs thrust. I spoke with William Wynne at Oshkosh, and he indicated that for a Piet I should be more like 2700 RPM and 350 lbs thrust. I may look at getting a Warp prop. It is highly likely that the factory can make a better prop than I can.
Malcolm Morrison
----- Original Message -----
From: helspersew@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 7:49:50 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: static thrust
Gentlemen,
Has anyone done a static thrust test on their flying airplane (or almost flying?).
I have measured 265 lbs. with my Model A and my 76/46 prop. I would be curious
how this stands up to others.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
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: | 106 years ago today- Prelude to fight |
>From the diary of Orville Wright:
November 19, 1903
Kitty Hawk, N.C.
On arising found ponds about camp frozen, also water in basin. Coldest nig
ht we have had so far. Gathered several logs of oak for firewood. Wind blo
wing 6 to 8 meters. Too cold for work.
"However we are entirely comfortable, and have no trouble keeping warm at
nights. In additions to the classifications of last year, to wit, 1,2,3,
and 4 blanket nights, we now have 5 blanket nights, and 5 blankets and 2
quilts. Next comes 5 blankets, 2 quilts, & fire, & hot water jug. This is
as far as we have got so far. Next comes the addition of sleeping without
undressing, then shoes and hats, and finally overcoats. We intend to be
comfortable when we are here." (Wilbur Wright to Bishop Milton Wright, No
v. 23, 1903.)
do not archive
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: static thrust |
A lower-pitch prop will give you higher static RPM and greater static
thrust. If you are otherwise happy with the prop, that's the only change
needed. Besides, your next prop will be faster to make and possibly
better, right?
David Paule
----- Original Message -----
From: gliderx5@comcast.net
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: static thrust
Dan
I have the results of my static thrust testing at
http://home.comcast.net/~mmorrison123/engine_test.html. Corvair with a
homemade prop. 2500 RPM static giving 280 lbs thrust. I spoke with
William Wynne at Oshkosh, and he indicated that for a Piet I should be
more like 2700 RPM and 350 lbs thrust. I may look at getting a Warp
prop. It is highly likely that the factory can make a better prop than
I can.
Malcolm Morrison
----- Original Message -----
From: helspersew@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 7:49:50 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada
Eastern
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: static thrust
Gentlemen,
Has anyone done a static thrust test on their flying airplane (or
almost flying?). I have measured 265 lbs. with my Model A and my 76/46
prop. I would be curious how this stands up to others.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
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: built up spars |
Ah, Ivan, When you say "tip" do you mean the "leading edge",
or front of the wing?
> Peter,
when you build the whole front spar, and the spar box has so called "U"
shape, do you rotate the bottom of the letter "U" towards the tip of the
wing, not towards the rear spar?
>
> Regards,
> Ivan
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: static thrust |
David
All true. I must admit that making the prop (per Alvin Schubert) was probab
ly my favorite part of building the Piet so far. I did build it 66 inches,
with the intent of trimming an inch or two to get more RPM if needed. I wil
l have to see what more RPMs but a smaller disk does to the thrust. Experim
ental aircraft right!
Malcolm Morrison
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Paule" <dpaule@frii.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 9:17:49 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: static thrust
=EF=BB
A lower-pitch prop will give you higher static RPM and greater static thrus
t. If you are otherwise happy with the prop, that's the only change needed.
Besides, your next prop will be faster to make and possibly better, right?
David Paule
----- Original Message -----
From: gliderx5@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: static thrust
Dan
I have the results of my static thrust testing at http://home.comcast.net/~
mmorrison123/engine_test.html . Corvair with a homemade prop. 2500 RPM stat
ic giving 280 lbs thrust. I spoke with William Wynne at Oshkosh, and he ind
icated that for a Piet I should be more like 2700 RPM and 350 lbs thrust. I
may look at getting a Warp prop. It is highly likely that the factory can
make a better prop than I can.
Malcolm Morrison
----- Original Message -----
From: helspersew@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 7:49:50 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: static thrust
Gentlemen,
Has anyone done a static thrust test on their flying airplane (or almost fl
ying?). I have measured 265 lbs. with my Model A and my 76/46 prop. I would
be curious how this stands up to others.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chr
ef="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
=======
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | G-BUCO engine failure |
Darn those certified aircraft engines!!
Douwe
Do not archive!!!
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: built up spars |
I think what they are talking about is a d-cell thats an upper case D
imagine the D being the leading edge of the wing and the top of the
D is a material such as a wooden spare with a thin piece of plywood
wrapped around to the bottom of the spare.
I imagine that the hold concept would be stronger and more rigid
but then I'm not an engineer,
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 7:22 PM, ivan.todorovic <tosha@sezampro.rs> wrote:
>
> Peter,
>
> I've looked at Piet plans and it helped to clarify some dimensions, I'm
> drawing on, give me a day or two to finish it.
>
> My question was so stupid - you haven't seen what is puzzling me, but let
> me embarace my self again and put it differently: when you build the whole
> front spar, and the spar box has so called "U" shape, do you rotate the
> bottom of the letter "U" towards the tip of the wing, not towards the rear
> spar?
>
> Regards,
> Ivan
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273802#273802
>
>
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: static thrust |
As long as the diameter is not too large for the maximum rpm, greater
diameter is more efficient.
If you imagine a graph of speed on the horizontal axis and efficiency on
the vertical axis, increasing the diameter causes the efficiency to go
up. Lowering the pitch causes the efficiency to occur at a lower speed.
Of course you've got to make sure that your prop isn't too long for the
engine. And that takes a balance between pitch and diameter, plus some
of the art of building props. And that art, alas, is beyond me. I'm
merely an engineer.
David Paule
----- Original Message -----
From: gliderx5@comcast.net
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: static thrust
David
All true. I must admit that making the prop (per Alvin Schubert) was
probably my favorite part of building the Piet so far. I did build it
66 inches, with the intent of trimming an inch or two to get more RPM if
needed. I will have to see what more RPMs but a smaller disk does to
the thrust. Experimental aircraft right!
Malcolm Morrison
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Paule" <dpaule@frii.com>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 9:17:49 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada
Eastern
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: static thrust
=EF=BB
A lower-pitch prop will give you higher static RPM and greater static
thrust. If you are otherwise happy with the prop, that's the only change
needed. Besides, your next prop will be faster to make and possibly
better, right?
David Paule
----- Original Message -----
From: gliderx5@comcast.net
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: static thrust
Dan
I have the results of my static thrust testing at
http://home.comcast.net/~mmorrison123/engine_test.html. Corvair with a
homemade prop. 2500 RPM static giving 280 lbs thrust. I spoke with
William Wynne at Oshkosh, and he indicated that for a Piet I should be
more like 2700 RPM and 350 lbs thrust. I may look at getting a Warp
prop. It is highly likely that the factory can make a better prop than
I can.
Malcolm Morrison
----- Original Message -----
From: helspersew@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 7:49:50 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada
Eastern
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: static thrust
Gentlemen,
Has anyone done a static thrust test on their flying airplane (or
almost flying?). I have measured 265 lbs. with my Model A and my 76/46
prop. I would be curious how this stands up to others.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
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! --
|