Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 09:05 AM - performance numbers and stall speeds vs. a/c weight (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation])
2. 09:12 AM - Kringle's Curious Question about projects (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation])
3. 09:40 AM - Re: performance numbers and stall speeds vs. a/c weight (Ryan Mueller)
4. 10:35 AM - Re: performance numbers and stall speeds vs. a/c weight (dgaldrich)
5. 10:49 AM - Re: performance numbers and stall speeds vs. a/c weight (Jack Phillips)
6. 11:43 AM - Re: Kringle's Curious Question about projects (Kringle)
7. 12:06 PM - Re: performance numbers and stall speeds vs. a/c weight (shad bell)
8. 12:33 PM - What Prop is on your A-75? (kmordecai001@comcast.net)
9. 01:19 PM - Re: performance numbers and stall speeds vs. a/c weight (Matt Wash)
10. 01:22 PM - Re: performance numbers and stall speeds vs. a/c weight (Matt Wash)
11. 01:52 PM - Tail weight (skellytown flyer)
12. 02:00 PM - Re: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs (skellytown flyer)
13. 02:13 PM - Re: Tail weight (Perry Rhoads)
14. 02:19 PM - Re: Tail weight (skellytown flyer)
15. 02:32 PM - Re: Re: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs (Ryan Mueller)
16. 02:32 PM - Re: Tail weight (Skip Gadd)
17. 03:00 PM - Re: Re: Tail weight (Perry Rhoads)
18. 03:13 PM - Re: Tail weight (skellytown flyer)
19. 04:21 PM - Re: Re: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs (Jeff Boatright)
20. 04:31 PM - Re: Re: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs (Lagowski Morrow)
21. 04:33 PM - Corvair powered Piet in Spain... (Michael Silvius)
22. 04:34 PM - Re: Tail weight (Thomas Bernie)
23. 05:18 PM - elt regulations (shad bell)
24. 05:38 PM - Before Radar (Allan Macklem)
25. 05:52 PM - Re: Corvair powered Piet in Spain... (John Hofmann)
26. 06:01 PM - Re: Corvair powered Piet in Spain... (Ryan Mueller)
27. 06:32 PM - Re: Re: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs (helspersew@aol.com)
28. 06:52 PM - Re: Before Radar (shad bell)
29. 07:13 PM - Re: Re: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs (Matt Wash)
30. 08:12 PM - Re: Re: performance numbers and stall speeds vs. a/c weight (Clif Dawson)
31. 08:42 PM - Re: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs (Paul N. Peckham)
32. 08:49 PM - Re: Before Radar (Clif Dawson)
33. 09:09 PM - couple of new guy questions... (j_dunavin)
34. 09:22 PM - prevent splinters with duct tape (Dan Yocum)
35. 09:28 PM - Re: couple of new guy questions... (j_dunavin)
36. 09:49 PM - Re: Re: couple of new guy questions... (Matt Wash)
37. 10:04 PM - Re: Re: couple of new guy questions... (Gerry Holland)
38. 10:06 PM - Re: Re: couple of new guy questions... (Gerry Holland)
39. 10:07 PM - Re: performance numbers and stall speeds vs. a/c weight (GliderMike)
40. 10:19 PM - Re: Corvair powered Piet in Spain... (GliderMike)
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: | performance numbers and stall speeds vs. a/c weight |
After fixing some ignition and timing issues and installing new lower plugs
I did some performance numbers last night with
the airplane.
Takeoff weight with me and full fuel was 1034 lbs. 80F OAT and climbing
at 40-45 mph yielded 500 fpm rate of climb.
Power off stall at 29 mph, power on stall didn't even happen when the air s
peed was well below 30 and I didn't have the guts
to pull it back to make it break.
Thinking my conservative climb speed of 55-60 is making my angle of climb (
and rate) too anemic. Still learning after 12 years
of flying it.
Not remembering much of anything from ground school and private pilot theor
y classes, does an airplane's power on stall speed
increase with gross weight ? So say I went up and tried more power on s
talls with a 170 lb. passenger given the same conditions
as I flew last night ?
I know air density makes a difference in indicated air speed as on colder d
ays I appear to have a faster cruise speed...and maybe I do
with the prop/engine being more efficient in dense air.
Also for the record I did a full-throttle, level flight run to see where I
would place in a speed dash with Dan Yocum and would come in
second place. Max throttle yielded 2350 rpm and 84 mph.
Mike C.
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: | Kringle's Curious Question about projects |
Dear John,
Sometimes partially built Pietenpol projects are put on display at Brodhead but
normally this isn't the case.
To see hundreds of photos of Pietenpols in various stages of construction you don't
even had to leave your
computer, run your camper generator, or hope for WiFi at Brodhead but just check
out Chris Tracy's fantastic
photo collection he's graciously posted for us:
http://www.westcoastpiet.com/
Mike C.
Headwinds, rough mags, warm beer, and full port-a-potties
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: performance numbers and stall speeds vs. a/c weight |
We must remember that Dan's Piet is a bonafide air racer....he's flying with
a stacked deck. :)
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace
Corporation] <michael.d.cuy@nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> Also for the record I did a full-throttle, level flight run to see where I
> would place in a speed dash with Dan Yocum and would come in
> second place. Max throttle yielded 2350 rpm and 84 mph.
>
> Mike C.
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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: performance numbers and stall speeds vs. a/c weight |
So the logic goes like this: Let's say you have two identical aircraft, one weighing
900 lbs and one weighing 1000 lbs. The heavier aircraft will need higher
total lift, given steady state conditions, like cruise at 70 mph. Since lift
varies almost directly with angle of attack, the heavier one needs a higher
angle of attack (more lift) to stay even.
Airfoils stall at a particular and specific angle of attack regardless of gross
weight. The air flowing over the top of the airfoil separates and lift goes
away and it doesn't matter what the weight is. As you slow the aircraft down,
the angle of attack increases but the heavier aircraft started with a higher
angle so it reaches "stall" first.
Power-on stall occurs a a slower airspeed because the engine is providing a significant
amount of lift due to the nose high attitude so the airfoil sees what
it thinks is a lighter gross weight. If you have enough power, you can't induce
a power-on stall. I wonder if I can hang one of Sean Tucker's AEIOU and sometimes
Y 580's on my Piet. Would certainly solve the tail heavy issue once
and for all. Might have to drink more beer.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302039#302039
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: | performance numbers and stall speeds vs. a/c weight |
Stall speed (either power-on or power-off) occurs at a HIGHER airspeed at
higher weight. That's why performance figures for certified aircraft are
typically shown at gross weight. Think about it, if the stall speed went
down as the weight goes up, you could therorectically add enough weight so
it would never stall, and the fatter the pilot the better the shortfield
performance would be. The stall actually occurs at the critical angle of
attack (which is a function of the airfoil design), regardless of airspeed.
That's why you can get into an accelerated stall at high airspeeds (such as
entering a snap roll, or pulling out of a steep dive). For this reason, an
AOA meter is a better indication of impending stall than an airspeed
indicator, but since they tend to be more expensive, we use the airspeed as
the indication.
I've always climbed my Piet at 50 - 55 mph, and get between 100 and 500 fpm
depending on loading and density altitude. Maybe tomorrow I'll do some test
flying and try it at 40 - 45 and see if I can get better climb.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Cuy, Michael
D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation]
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 10:49 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: performance numbers and stall speeds vs. a/c weight
After fixing some ignition and timing issues and installing new lower plugs
I did some performance numbers last night with
the airplane.
Takeoff weight with me and full fuel was 1034 lbs. 80F OAT and climbing
at 40-45 mph yielded 500 fpm rate of climb.
Power off stall at 29 mph, power on stall didn't even happen when the air
speed was well below 30 and I didn't have the guts
to pull it back to make it break.
Thinking my conservative climb speed of 55-60 is making my angle of climb
(and rate) too anemic. Still learning after 12 years
of flying it.
Not remembering much of anything from ground school and private pilot theory
classes, does an airplane's power on stall speed
increase with gross weight ? So say I went up and tried more power on
stalls with a 170 lb. passenger given the same conditions
as I flew last night ?
I know air density makes a difference in indicated air speed as on colder
days I appear to have a faster cruise speed.and maybe I do
with the prop/engine being more efficient in dense air.
Also for the record I did a full-throttle, level flight run to see where I
would place in a speed dash with Dan Yocum and would come in
second place. Max throttle yielded 2350 rpm and 84 mph.
Mike C.
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: Kringle's Curious Question about projects |
Awesome website! Thanks Mike
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302055#302055
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: | performance numbers and stall speeds vs. a/c weight |
Mike, one thing I remember about aircraft C/G that can help performance, An airplane
with a aft c/g will stall slower and fly faster than the same aircraft with
a fwd c/g. Controlability, and stability will however suffer if the c/g gets
out of the allowed range. If I remember correctly, it is an effect of less
drag (from the downward "lift") being generated by the horiztal stab/elevator
to keep the nose down at high speed, and more downward force is available to
keep the tail down when close to stall, the full aerodynamic downforce of the
horiz tail, and the force from the c/g being further aft.
I don't know if anyone on here even cares about this, but there it is.
Shad
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: | What Prop is on your A-75? |
Lorin,
What prop are you running on your A-75?=C2- I have a Hegy 72 x 42, which
is too much prop for the A-75, and=C2-a Performance Props 73 x 39, which
is a little too flat......it sounds like yours is right on the money!
Dave Mordecai
NX520SF
Panacea, FL
As I'm feeling this plane out, getting a better idea of performance. With t
he climb
prop on, she gets to pattern altitude pretty quick. That being said - cruis
e
at 2350 rpm gives me an indicated airspeed of 83-85 mph. WOT shows a little
over 90 and 2550 rpm. I like this Continental A-75! Fresh overhall two year
s
ago, 50 hours on it now, and compressions are testing at 78/80 across the b
oard.
--------
Lorin Miller
Waiex N81YX
GN-1 N30PP
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: performance numbers and stall speeds vs. a/c weight |
Shad,
You're correct. With a forward CoG you are increasing your AoA due to the
downward force on the tail. Increased AoA means a reduced stall, increased
downward force means more drag.
That said, stall recovery of an an aircraft that has an aft CoG will be more
difficult (read, higher spin potential) than one with a forward CoG.
Regards,
~Matt
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:04 PM, shad bell <aviatorbell@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Mike, one thing I remember about aircraft C/G that can help performance, An
> airplane with a aft c/g will stall slower and fly faster than the same
> aircraft with a fwd c/g. Controlability, and stability will however suffer
> if the c/g gets out of the allowed range. If I remember correctly, it is an
> effect of less drag (from the downward "lift") being generated by the
> horiztal stab/elevator to keep the nose down at high speed, and more
> downward force is available to keep the tail down when close to stall, the
> full aerodynamic downforce of the horiz tail, and the force from the c/g
> being further aft.
>
> I don't know if anyone on here even cares about this, but there it is.
>
> Shad
>
>
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: performance numbers and stall speeds vs. a/c weight |
Pardon my failure to proofread.
Should read "means an *increased *stall speed."
~Matt
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Matt Wash <mattwash@mattwash.com> wrote:
> Shad,
>
> You're correct. With a forward CoG you are increasing your AoA due to the
> downward force on the tail. Increased AoA means a reduced stall, increased
> downward force means more drag.
>
> That said, stall recovery of an an aircraft that has an aft CoG will be
> more difficult (read, higher spin potential) than one with a forward CoG.
>
> Regards,
> ~Matt
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:04 PM, shad bell <aviatorbell@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Mike, one thing I remember about aircraft C/G that can help performance,
>> An airplane with a aft c/g will stall slower and fly faster than the same
>> aircraft with a fwd c/g. Controlability, and stability will however suffer
>> if the c/g gets out of the allowed range. If I remember correctly, it is an
>> effect of less drag (from the downward "lift") being generated by the
>> horiztal stab/elevator to keep the nose down at high speed, and more
>> downward force is available to keep the tail down when close to stall, the
>> full aerodynamic downforce of the horiz tail, and the force from the c/g
>> being further aft.
>>
>> I don't know if anyone on here even cares about this, but there it is.
>>
>> Shad
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
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 |
|
OK help me guys- I have come to a point where I have about 99% of the airplane
is together. lacking a lot of screws and a few strips of gap seal. but had to
see where I was at with my weight and balance.and the talk about more aft CG giving
better speed with less down elevator required.or at least that is what I
think I heard. and I hear of a lot of birds flying with 30 to 50 pounds on the
tail.I ran my numbers several times and every way I figured it fits within the
limits of 22% to 34% of chord but close to the back. I am waiting till about
the last thing to permanently install the battery because by my thinking it
is easier to shift it than add needless weight.anyway- I'll admit it-I am at 13
pounds tail weight empty and that sounds extremely low to me.I have done everything
I can to level the plane and repeat weigh it and use different scales
but the tail wheel is that light. maybe due to the distance from the wing to the
tail being a GN-1 and altered some by DJ it would be different.I was even lighter
and I removed the nose tank and made and installed a center section tank
and it is just bugging me that maybe I'm missing something here.but if anyone
is willing to e-mail me and check my figures I would appreciate a second opinion.for
what it's worth- they are as follows. datum firewall. leading edge 18"
back. main wheels 24 1/4" back tail-wheel 185 1/2" back. passenger arm 37 1/2"
pilot arm 71" fuel arm 42 1/2" it will hold 15 gallons.I weigh 210 and figured
a 180# passenger for full load and most rear CG with full fuel. thanks for
any help. Raymond
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302078#302078
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: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs |
I don't know if this will allow me to go ahead and get my phase 1 Airworthiness
without going bankrupt or not-but here may be one loophole for me at the start.
There may be another loop-hole. FAR 91.207 (f)(3)...
(f) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to
(3) Aircraft while engaged in training operations conducted entirely within a
50-nautical mile radius of the airport from which such local flight operations
began;
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302079#302079
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 |
|
Need the weight of each main when the airplane is level to figure w/b.
Perry Rhoads
N12939
----- Original Message -----
From: "skellytown flyer" <skellflyer1@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 3:51 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Tail weight
> <skellflyer1@yahoo.com>
>
> OK help me guys- I have come to a point where I have about 99% of the
> airplane is together. lacking a lot of screws and a few strips of gap
> seal. but had to see where I was at with my weight and balance.and the
> talk about more aft CG giving better speed with less down elevator
> required.or at least that is what I think I heard. and I hear of a lot of
> birds flying with 30 to 50 pounds on the tail.I ran my numbers several
> times and every way I figured it fits within the limits of 22% to 34% of
> chord but close to the back. I am waiting till about the last thing to
> permanently install the battery because by my thinking it is easier to
> shift it than add needless weight.anyway- I'll admit it-I am at 13 pounds
> tail weight empty and that sounds extremely low to me.I have done
> everything I can to level the plane and repeat weigh it and use different
> scales but the tail wheel is that light. maybe due to the distance from
> the wing to the tail being a GN-1 and altered some by DJ it would!
> be different.I was even lighter and I removed the nose tank and made and
> installed a center section tank and it is just bugging me that maybe I'm
> missing something here.but if anyone is willing to e-mail me and check my
> figures I would appreciate a second opinion.for what it's worth- they are
> as follows. datum firewall. leading edge 18" back. main wheels 24 1/4"
> back tail-wheel 185 1/2" back. passenger arm 37 1/2" pilot arm 71" fuel
> arm 42 1/2" it will hold 15 gallons.I weigh 210 and figured a 180#
> passenger for full load and most rear CG with full fuel. thanks for any
> help. Raymond
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302078#302078
>
>
>
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 |
|
You know I was thinking I left that out as soon as I hit send. the right is 373#
and left 365#.
she is a Sow but still I think flight is possible.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302084#302084
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: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs |
Only problem there is that you would not be engaged in training....you can'
t
give yourself flight training in your own airplane. :P
(f)(4) says: Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to design
and testing.
That would probably be the line that would allow you to get by without one
for Phase I. However you would have to have one for phase II; anecdotal
statements out there on the 'net seem to indicate that the DAR/FAA rep may
very well only give you a Limited Airworthiness Certificate for Phase I
flight with no ELT, and may want to come back out to inspect the ELT
installation before issuing your Special Airworthiness Cert. Since you are
going to have to spend the money anyway it might be worth it to get the ELT
and install it before the airplane is finished, to avoid hassle later on
It may be worthwhile to figure out which FSDO/DAR you will be using, and
give them a call and run it by them as well.
Ryan
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:59 PM, skellytown flyer <skellflyer1@yahoo.com>wr
ote:
> skellflyer1@yahoo.com>
>
> I don't know if this will allow me to go ahead and get my phase 1
> Airworthiness without going bankrupt or not-but here may be one loophole
for
> me at the start.
>
> There may be another loop-hole. FAR 91.207 (f)(3)...
> (f) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to=97
>
> (3) Aircraft while engaged in training operations conducted entirely with
in
> a
> 50-nautical mile radius of the airport from which such local flight
> operations
> began;
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302079#302079
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
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 |
|
Raymond,
The tail weight(the scale under the tail wheel) is strictly a function of
the placement of the main gear, nothing to do with the CG. My GN1 tail
weight is 24 lbs level and about 55 lbs at 3 point attitude.
Skip
> From: skellytown flyer <skellflyer1@yahoo.com>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Date: 6/22/2010 4:55:07 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Tail weight
>
<skellflyer1@yahoo.com>
>
> OK help me guys- I have come to a point where I have about 99% of the
airplane is together. lacking a lot of screws and a few strips of gap seal.
but had to see where I was at with my weight and balance.and the talk about
more aft CG giving better speed with less down elevator required.or at
least that is what I think I heard. and I hear of a lot of birds flying
with 30 to 50 pounds on the tail.I ran my numbers several times and every
way I figured it fits within the limits of 22% to 34% of chord but close to
the back. I am waiting till about the last thing to permanently install the
battery because by my thinking it is easier to shift it than add needless
weight.anyway- I'll admit it-I am at 13 pounds tail weight empty and that
sounds extremely low to me.I have done everything I can to level the plane
and repeat weigh it and use different scales but the tail wheel is that
light. maybe due to the distance from the wing to the tail being a GN-1 and
altered some by DJ it would!
> be different.I was even lighter and I removed the nose tank and made
and installed a center section tank and it is just bugging me that maybe
I'm missing something here.but if anyone is willing to e-mail me and check
my figures I would appreciate a second opinion.for what it's worth- they
are as follows. datum firewall. leading edge 18" back. main wheels 24 1/4"
back tail-wheel 185 1/2" back. passenger arm 37 1/2" pilot arm 71" fuel arm
42 1/2" it will hold 15 gallons.I weigh 210 and figured a 180# passenger
for full load and most rear CG with full fuel. thanks for any help. Raymond
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 |
|
Raymond,
Using your weights and measurements, you're 37.20 aft of datum with that
loading of 1231 gross. If you have a 60"chord, 34% is 20.40, or 38.40 aft of
datum. You're in!
These figures have been done out of boredom at work, so please don't go by
anything I say.
Perry Rhoads
N12939
----- Original Message -----
From: "skellytown flyer" <skellflyer1@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 4:19 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tail weight
> <skellflyer1@yahoo.com>
>
> You know I was thinking I left that out as soon as I hit send. the right
> is 373# and left 365#.
> she is a Sow but still I think flight is possible.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302084#302084
>
>
>
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 |
|
Thanks Perry-that was my results too. I guess like the previous message indicated
a lot of the reason for my light tail is the mains are father back in relation
to the CG. I just hadn't thought of that.the biggest drawback i see there
is it will be easier to flip it on it's nose if I go to sleep and don't keep the
stick back on the ground or get aggressive with the disc brakes. kinda wish
I had a set of those weak band brakes myself.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302090#302090
Message 19
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs |
What's an ELT?
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: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs |
An extra long tongue
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Boatright" <jboatri@emory.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs
>
> What's an ELT?
>
>
>
>
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: | Corvair powered Piet in Spain... |
http://asociacionaviacionexperimental.com/index.php/revista
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 |
|
Raymond,
Look in the archives you'll see discussions about the aft cg issues I had with
my GN-1. I had to make a motor mount 5" longer than the plans called for, ( after
the C-85 was mounted on the J-3 mount and the cowling was in progress).
One thing I did that helped, was to derive the correct pilot and passenger moments
by actual weighing and in my case they were shorter than the plans said.
If you do the w&b correctly, the numbers don't lie. At some point you have to
draw the line on the maximum allowable aft cg.
Tom
On Jun 22, 2010, at 4:51 PM, skellytown flyer wrote:
>
> OK help me guys- I have come to a point where I have about 99% of the airplane
is together. lacking a lot of screws and a few strips of gap seal. but had to
see where I was at with my weight and balance.and the talk about more aft CG
giving better speed with less down elevator required.or at least that is what
I think I heard. and I hear of a lot of birds flying with 30 to 50 pounds on
the tail.I ran my numbers several times and every way I figured it fits within
the limits of 22% to 34% of chord but close to the back. I am waiting till about
the last thing to permanently install the battery because by my thinking it
is easier to shift it than add needless weight.anyway- I'll admit it-I am at
13 pounds tail weight empty and that sounds extremely low to me.I have done everything
I can to level the plane and repeat weigh it and use different scales
but the tail wheel is that light. maybe due to the distance from the wing to
the tail being a GN-1 and altered some by DJ it would!
> be different.I was even lighter and I removed the nose tank and made and installed
a center section tank and it is just bugging me that maybe I'm missing
something here.but if anyone is willing to e-mail me and check my figures I would
appreciate a second opinion.for what it's worth- they are as follows. datum
firewall. leading edge 18" back. main wheels 24 1/4" back tail-wheel 185 1/2"
back. passenger arm 37 1/2" pilot arm 71" fuel arm 42 1/2" it will hold 15 gallons.I
weigh 210 and figured a 180# passenger for full load and most rear CG
with full fuel. thanks for any help. Raymond
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302078#302078
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 haven't read it for a while but I know single place aircraft are not required
to carry one.
Shad
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 |
|
Interesting to know how potention air attacks were detected before
Radar. Some of you may have used this equipment, but it was
considerably before my time.:-))
Allan Macklem
"I have the plans"
These look like a joke, but were actual
"hearing aids" to detect airplanes.....
Before Radar, How Were Air Attacks Detected?
With old time hearing aids!
STRANGE ACOUSTIC "EARS" BEFORE RADAR -ON A SWIVEL
STRANGE ACOUSTIC "EARS" BEFORE RADAR -GERMAN
STRANGE ACOUSTIC "EARS" BEFORE RADAR -ON WHEELS
STRANGE ACOUSTIC "EARS" BEFORE RADAR -ENGLAND
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
13:35:00
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
36:00
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: Corvair powered Piet in Spain... |
I don't much care for his struts.
El Pietenpol. That is Spanish for "The Pietenpol."
please do not archive.
John Hofmann
Vice-President, Information Technology
The Rees Group, Inc.
2424 American Lane
Madison, WI 53704
Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150
Fax: 608.443.2474
Email: jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com
On Jun 22, 2010, at 7:28 PM, Michael Silvius wrote:
>
> http://asociacionaviacionexperimental.com/index.php/revista
>
>
>
>
>
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: Corvair powered Piet in Spain... |
With a "Cig=FCe=F1al Romperse Corvair", no less... :P
do not archive
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 7:20 PM, John Hofmann <jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com>wr
ote:
> I don't much care for his struts.
>
> El Pietenpol. That is Spanish for "The Pietenpol."
>
> please do not archive.
>
>
> John Hofmann
> Vice-President, Information Technology
> The Rees Group, Inc.
> 2424 American Lane
> Madison, WI 53704
> Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150
> Fax: 608.443.2474
> Email: jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com
>
> On Jun 22, 2010, at 7:28 PM, Michael Silvius wrote:
>
>
> http: - The --> &n===========
============
>
>
> <http://asociacionaviacionexperimental.com/index.php/revista>
>
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
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: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs |
If those FCC clowns think I am going to shell out $750.00 for a worthless
pile of crap then they have another thing coming. I will be a law breaker
if this is not repealed by cooler heads. DON'T get me started!!!!
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Mueller <rmueller23@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, Jun 22, 2010 4:27 pm
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs
Only problem there is that you would not be engaged in training....you can
't give yourself flight training in your own airplane. :P
(f)(4) says: Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to desig
n and testing.
That would probably be the line that would allow you to get by without one
for Phase I. However you would have to have one for phase II; anecdotal
statements out there on the 'net seem to indicate that the DAR/FAA rep ma
y very well only give you a Limited Airworthiness Certificate for Phase I
flight with no ELT, and may want to come back out to inspect the ELT inst
allation before issuing your Special Airworthiness Cert. Since you are goi
ng to have to spend the money anyway it might be worth it to get the ELT
and install it before the airplane is finished, to avoid hassle later on
It may be worthwhile to figure out which FSDO/DAR you will be using, and
give them a call and run it by them as well.
Ryan
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:59 PM, skellytown flyer <skellflyer1@yahoo.com>
wrote:
o.com>
I don't know if this will allow me to go ahead and get my phase 1 Airworth
iness without going bankrupt or not-but here may be one loophole for me at
the start.
There may be another loop-hole. FAR 91.207 (f)(3)...
(f) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to=94
(3) Aircraft while engaged in training operations conducted entirely withi
n a
50-nautical mile radius of the airport from which such local flight operat
ions
began;
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302079#302079
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
http://forums.matronics.com
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
========================
===========
-= - The Pietenpol-List Email Forum -
-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
-= Photoshare, and much much more:
-
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
-
-========================
========================
===========
-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
-
-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
-
-========================
========================
===========
-= - List Contribution Web Site -
-= Thank you for your generous support!
-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-========================
========================
===========
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: Before Radar |
That's what I need after a 30 min flight in the corvair, and the line boy asks
if I need fuel. My wife would swear I need tose hearing aids as well, when she
asks me to take out the trash.
Shad
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: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs |
You could go for 90 days following your phase 2 or longer depending how
important seat #2 is.
*(9) Aircraft equipped to carry not more than one person. *
*(10) An aircraft during any period for which the transmitter has been
temporarily removed for inspection, repair, modification, or replacement,
subject to the following: *
*(i) No person may operate the aircraft unless the aircraft records contain
an entry which includes the date of initial removal, the make, model, seria
l
number, and reason for removing the transmitter, and a placard located in
view of the pilot to show "ELT not installed." *
*(ii) No person may operate the aircraft more than 90 days after the ELT is
initially removed from the aircraft; and *
You could stretch it 90 days while your 121.5 ELT is removed for
replacement.
You could stretch it forever if you removed the front seatbelt since I thin
k
this would create an "Aircraft equipped to carry not more than one person."
.
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part91-207-FAR.shtml
~Matt
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Ryan Mueller <rmueller23@gmail.com> wrote:
> Only problem there is that you would not be engaged in training....you
> can't give yourself flight training in your own airplane. :P
>
> (f)(4) says: Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to desi
gn
> and testing.
>
> That would probably be the line that would allow you to get by without on
e
> for Phase I. However you would have to have one for phase II; anecdotal
> statements out there on the 'net seem to indicate that the DAR/FAA rep ma
y
> very well only give you a Limited Airworthiness Certificate for Phase I
> flight with no ELT, and may want to come back out to inspect the ELT
> installation before issuing your Special Airworthiness Cert. Since you ar
e
> going to have to spend the money anyway it might be worth it to get the E
LT
> and install it before the airplane is finished, to avoid hassle later on
>
> It may be worthwhile to figure out which FSDO/DAR you will be using, and
> give them a call and run it by them as well.
>
> Ryan
>
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:59 PM, skellytown flyer <skellflyer1@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
>> skellflyer1@yahoo.com>
>>
>> I don't know if this will allow me to go ahead and get my phase 1
>> Airworthiness without going bankrupt or not-but here may be one loophole
for
>> me at the start.
>>
>> There may be another loop-hole. FAR 91.207 (f)(3)...
>> (f) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to=97
>>
>> (3) Aircraft while engaged in training operations conducted entirely
>> within a
>> 50-nautical mile radius of the airport from which such local flight
>> operations
>> began;
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302079#302079
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> ==========
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> le, List Admin.
>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
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: performance numbers and stall speeds vs. a/c weight |
With power on the inner six ft or so has a much faster and
straighter flow of air over it so may not ever see a stall
speed airflow thus at least a bit of the wing thinks it's still
flying merrily along. ( Now about that radiator!) :-)
The Lockheed P3 Orion has half the wingspan behind
prop blades. It could be slowed down to a GROUNDSPEED
of considerably less than power off stall. I have talked
to a couple of retired Canadian Forces SAR pilots that
flew these things. This was a routine procedure out off
both coasts on SAR missions. The rpm would be brought
up high with high AOA when there was need to go slow.
So much direct flow over the wing they could almost
hover. Now wouldn't that be a sight!
Clif
> <dgaldrich@embarqmail.com>
>
> So the logic goes like this: Let's say you have two identical aircraft,
> one weighing 900 lbs and one weighing 1000 lbs. The heavier aircraft will
> need higher total lift, given steady state conditions, like cruise at 70
> mph. Since lift varies almost directly with angle of attack, the heavier
> one needs a higher angle of attack (more lift) to stay even.
>
> Airfoils stall at a particular and specific angle of attack regardless of
> gross weight. The air flowing over the top of the airfoil separates and
> lift goes away and it doesn't matter what the weight is. As you slow the
> aircraft down, the angle of attack increases but the heavier aircraft
> started with a higher angle so it reaches "stall" first.
>
> Power-on stall occurs a a slower airspeed because the engine is providing
> a significant amount of lift due to the nose high attitude so the airfoil
> sees what it thinks is a lighter gross weight. If you have enough power,
> you can't induce a power-on stall. I wonder if I can hang one of Sean
> Tucker's AEIOU and sometimes Y 580's on my Piet. Would certainly solve
> the tail heavy issue once and for all. Might have to drink more beer.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302039#302039
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
11:36:00
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: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs |
Eloquently stated Dan. I'd like to add another (to paraphrase Davy Crockett):
They can all go to hell. I'm going to Brodhead.
Paul
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302149#302149
Message 32
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Before Radar |
And then, of course, there was "Radar". What would Mash have been
without him?
Clif
Interesting to know how potention air attacks were detected before
Radar. Some of you may have used this equipment, but it was
considerably before my time.:-))
Allan Macklem
"I have the plans"
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: | couple of new guy questions... |
I tried a search and found a lot of info, but had some specific questions.
1. what are the performance numbers, with a corvair motor. As in fuel burn, clime
rate, cruse, CG issues, the need of a special carb, can i burn 100LL, ect.?
2. Is there a standard set up for wire wheels and brakes? I've seen talk about
buying this hub here and getting a rim there. Are there a set of known good motorcycle
wheels to use?
3. This may go with question 1, but what about gross weight? I'm concerned that
my dad and I both will not be able to fly in there as he is about 200 and I'm
225. Will we be OK so long as the gross weight does not exceed X number? Is that
number fluid, in that since we will have extra power with the corvair motor
we'll be ok?
4. I've seen a lot of guys use the O200... what are the advantages there?
Thanks for any input
Joe
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302154#302154
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: | prevent splinters with duct tape |
I believe Mr. Kringle asked about preventing splinters in plywood.
Today I cut a few hundred gusset pieces by first ripping long 7/8" wide
strips (with the grain - no splinters), then stacking them up and duct
taping them together with looong strips of duct tape. I only applied
tape to the rear side of the stack which is where the ply likes to
splinter. Voila! No splinters (well, considerably fewer).
I also use a circular saw blade with 60 teeth - considerably more than a
normal table saw blade.
So, there ya go. Is there nothing duct tape can't be used for?
Dan
PS in the picture you can see some of the pieces I didn't duct tape
together - splinters!
--
Dan Yocum
Fermilab 630.840.6509
yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov
"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: couple of new guy questions... |
also.. anyone know where i can buy vintage looking instruments?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302160#302160
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: | Re: couple of new guy questions... |
http://www.aviation-antiques.com/instruments-1.html
I haven't dealt with them personally, but they have actual vintage items.
~Matt
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:28 PM, j_dunavin <j_dunavin@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> also.. anyone know where i can buy vintage looking instruments?
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302160#302160
>
>
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: couple of new guy questions... |
> also.. anyone know where i can buy vintage looking instruments?
Barnstormers, Ebay.
Look at: www.aviation-antiques.com
www.preferredairparts.com/homebuilt.htm
Try Google for 'Antique Aircraft Gauges'
There are plenty about but they need to be working (obvious...sorry) or
repairable and be ready to pay some serious money in some cases. For the
Pietenpol you might want to look at Vintage Vehicle sites to for Oil
Pressure and Temp. You can get retro looking modern stuff too.
Regards
Gerry
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: | Re: couple of new guy questions... |
http://www.aviation-antiques.com/instruments-1.html
I haven't dealt with them personally, but they have actual vintage items.
I have and I found them to be very helpful and I purchased oil pressure
gauge and they also have some old style =8CContinental=B9 Engine Stickers.
Regards
Gerry in UK
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: performance numbers and stall speeds vs. a/c weight |
I disagree with the statement that an aircraft will stall at a lower airspeed with
an aft cg. I knew skydivers that wouldn't jump a "Lodestall," oops, I meant
a Lodestar, because they tended to stall if the airspeed was reduced much during
exits. As the jumpers moved to the back of the aircraft, the cg became
very much aft. I've heard more than one story about a Lodestar rolling over on
its back like a cheap hooker as a group of skydivers got out. Beech 18's were
bad about that also, but not as bad as the "Lodestall."
--------
HOMEBUILDER
Will WORK for Spruce
Long flights, smooth air, and soft landings,
GliderMike, aka Mike Glasgow
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302166#302166
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: Corvair powered Piet in Spain... |
There is a photo (only one) of a Piet that is blue and white. I think maybe a
different airplane than the one that comes up on the link. The one in the photo
looks to have the wing much higher, or the upper longeron much lower than a
standard Piet. My Spanish is extremely weak, but I was able to find it. It
looks like they have a pretty wide variety of aircraft in the club/association.
--------
HOMEBUILDER
Will WORK for Spruce
Long flights, smooth air, and soft landings,
GliderMike, aka Mike Glasgow
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302169#302169
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! --
|