Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:55 AM - iPad (Kringle)
2. 04:56 AM - Re: iPad (Ryan Mueller)
3. 05:35 AM - Counterweighting the Model A, and weight (Douwe Blumberg)
4. 06:41 AM - Re: Counterweighting the Model A, and weight (Billy McCaskill)
5. 07:14 AM - Re: Re: Counterweighting the Model A, and weight (KM Heide CPO/FAAOP)
6. 08:21 AM - Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (K5YAC)
7. 08:34 AM - Re: iPad (peterk48)
8. 08:48 AM - Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (Jim Markle)
9. 09:01 AM - Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (Kip and Beth Gardner)
10. 09:10 AM - Re: Re: iPad (Dan Yocum)
11. 09:14 AM - Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (TOM STINEMETZE)
12. 09:22 AM - Re: Re: Counterweighting the Model A, and weight (airlion)
13. 09:22 AM - Re: Last trips for the year (Dan Yocum)
14. 09:27 AM - Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (Kip and Beth Gardner)
15. 09:35 AM - Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (Harvey Rule)
16. 10:01 AM - Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (Ben Charvet)
17. 10:48 AM - Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (K5YAC)
18. 01:43 PM - Re: Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (Dan Yocum)
19. 03:02 PM - Fw: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (helspersew@aol.com)
20. 05:19 PM - Re: Fw: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (K5YAC)
21. 05:38 PM - Re: Re: Fw: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (Doug Dever)
22. 05:38 PM - Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (Doug Dever)
23. 05:52 PM - Another Turtle Deck Question (K5YAC)
24. 06:25 PM - Re: Another Turtle Deck Question (Gary Boothe)
25. 06:34 PM - Re: Leading edge material (Clif Dawson)
26. 06:41 PM - Re: Another Turtle Deck Question (Jim Markle)
27. 06:56 PM - Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (Clif Dawson)
28. 07:05 PM - Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels (Harvey Rule)
29. 07:08 PM - Re: Another Turtle Deck Question (K5YAC)
30. 07:55 PM - Re: graph paper (Clif Dawson)
31. 07:57 PM - Re: Another Turtle Deck Question (Pieti Lowell)
32. 08:34 PM - Re: Resaw Options (coxwelljon)
33. 10:10 PM - Re: Resaw Options (Billy McCaskill)
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 |
|
Has anyone considered mounting the iPad in their aircraft? Since I haven't laid
out my dash panel yet I'm thinking of a hard mount. Any thoughts?
Advantages would be flight maps, google earth maps, email, gps, radar...etc. Disadvantages
may be viewing in bright light.
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317293#317293
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 |
|
Slight edit: disadvantages will be glare and viewing in bright
sunlight. Not may be...will be, guaranteed. :P
Because of the large size it will be more difficult to get it in to a
position that affords the best viewability without getting in your
way.
You will have to get the 3G enabled version if you want it to be able
to retrieve any data in the air, so there's larger purchase price
(minimum $629) and at least $15 a mo to AT&T. For that money (actually
a little less) you can buy a purpose built handheld aviation GPS which
will be better suited for that role.
It's ok if you want an iPad just to play Angry Birds...you don't have
to justify that by trying to make it into a GPS replacement. ;)
Ryan
Sent from my mobile device
On Oct 28, 2010, at 5:57 AM, Kringle <Mrkringles@msn.com> wrote:
>
> Has anyone considered mounting the iPad in their aircraft? Since I haven't laid
out my dash panel yet I'm thinking of a hard mount. Any thoughts?
> Advantages would be flight maps, google earth maps, email, gps, radar...etc.
Disadvantages may be viewing in bright light.
>
> --------
> John
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317293#317293
>
>
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: | Counterweighting the Model A, and weight |
After lots of research, I like counterweighting the crank. It's only the
early engines that didn't use them, and they all went to it for a reason.
Smoother running, more concentric stresses on the bearings and more
potential power.
That being said, be sure it's done by someone who knows how, or buy a new
counterweighted crank from snyders, (but ck first on these as I"ve heard two
negatives, firstly the fillets weren't radiused, and secondly, there was
questions about proof of alloy)
Except for a bad job I can't see any drawbacks. It'll add about 12 lbs
maybe, which is in the nose, so that's a personal decision.
My engine was counterweighed and ran like a sewing machine, noticeably
smoother than stock.
$.02
Douwe
Do not archive
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: Counterweighting the Model A, and weight |
And as most Piets are tail-heavy, the extra weight of the counterweighted crank
is probably a good thing. And if it makes the engine run smoother, the plane
will be more comfortable to fly and also will make the airframe last a bit longer
too as the vibration levels will be much less. I can't think of a good reason
not to use a counterweighted crank, pretty much every engine ever made since
1930 has had counterweighted cranks for a reason.
--------
Billy McCaskill
Urbana, IL
tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317308#317308
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: Counterweighting the Model A, and weight |
Much agreement with Billy. Also, the liquid engine balancers are fantastic
if you have ever used one. Much smoother than a harmonic balancer.
-
Don't for get to have the prop balanced while running. I have had this done
on a few different airplanes. The mechanic uses a computer to dial in the
amount and placement of the washers to balance out the prop. I was a non-be
liever until I seen it done and the end results! Makes a-huge difference
in vibration and a really smooth running engine and prop.
-
.02 worth
-
KMHeide
-
--- On Thu, 10/28/10, Billy McCaskill <billmz@cox.net> wrote:
From: Billy McCaskill <billmz@cox.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Counterweighting the Model A, and weight
And as most Piets are tail-heavy, the extra weight of the counterweighted c
rank is probably a good thing.- And if it makes the engine run smoother,
the plane will be more comfortable to fly and also will make the airframe l
ast a bit longer too as the vibration levels will be much less.- I can't
think of a good reason not to use a counterweighted crank, pretty much ever
y engine ever made since 1930 has had counterweighted cranks for a reason.
--------
Billy McCaskill
Urbana, IL
tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317308#317308
le, List Admin.
=0A=0A=0A
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: | Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels |
I am getting ready to start on my turtle deck and I'm wondering if a modification
to the dimensions would be appropriate or acceptable. The plans show the turtle
deck to be an elliptical shape, or perhaps an offset radius, but due to
my size I was wondering if it would be suitable to cut a taller radius like a
complete half circle, which would make for a taller seat back and instrument panel.
For example, if the fuse width at the seat back is 24", can I just cut
a 12" radius, or will this not work for some reason? I know that it will make
the fuselage look taller and require me to raise the instrument panel to match,
but for the purpose of seat belts, panel visibility, etc., I'm thinking it
might be a good idea. Any suggestions or recommendations as to why I should not
do this?
Thanks!
--------
Mark Chouinard
Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317313#317313
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/turtle_back_108.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/inst_board_194.jpg
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 |
|
Correct...not really for inflight use. However, they are very good as a replacement
for paper charts if you fly any distances. There is an app called SkyChartsPro
for $19.99/year that keeps you in current charts...all of em. If you
have the 3g version you get GPS also and you will have a small airplane geo-ref'd
on your chart. You do not need to sign up for the AT&T svc to use the GPS.
All that said, they are a nice chart replacement but nothing compared to a
Garmin 496 for instance for following in the air.
Do not archive
--------
Pete
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317314#317314
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: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels |
Raise it. Not sure if people make it a full 12" radius but it does get raised.....if
you want, you can come measure mine to see what you think....
jm
-----Original Message-----
>From: K5YAC <hangar10@cox.net>
>Sent: Oct 28, 2010 10:18 AM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels
>
>
>I am getting ready to start on my turtle deck and I'm wondering if a modification
to the dimensions would be appropriate or acceptable. The plans show the
turtle deck to be an elliptical shape, or perhaps an offset radius, but due to
my size I was wondering if it would be suitable to cut a taller radius like a
complete half circle, which would make for a taller seat back and instrument
panel. For example, if the fuse width at the seat back is 24", can I just cut
a 12" radius, or will this not work for some reason? I know that it will make
the fuselage look taller and require me to raise the instrument panel to match,
but for the purpose of seat belts, panel visibility, etc., I'm thinking it
might be a good idea. Any suggestions or recommendations as to why I should
not do this?
>
>Thanks!
>
>--------
>Mark Chouinard
>Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317313#317313
>
>
>Attachments:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com//files/turtle_back_108.jpg
>http://forums.matronics.com//files/inst_board_194.jpg
>
>
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels |
Mark,
I am raising mine, not sure how much yet, but significantly above the plans. If
you do the same for the panels, you'll also want to look at raising the cabanes
by several inches (there is a limit to what's practical on that, not sure
what, but it's been discussed on the list at some point in the past). Also, Andrew
Pietenpol told me years ago that he thought 9 turtleneck stringers looked
better than the 7 the plans call for & that's what he was doing on the project
he was working on at the time.
Kip Gardner
On Oct 28, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Jim Markle wrote:
>
> Raise it. Not sure if people make it a full 12" radius but it does get raised.....if
you want, you can come measure mine to see what you think....
>
> jm
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: K5YAC <hangar10@cox.net>
>> Sent: Oct 28, 2010 10:18 AM
>> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels
>>
>>
>> I am getting ready to start on my turtle deck and I'm wondering if a modification
to the dimensions would be appropriate or acceptable. The plans show the
turtle deck to be an elliptical shape, or perhaps an offset radius, but due
to my size I was wondering if it would be suitable to cut a taller radius like
a complete half circle, which would make for a taller seat back and instrument
panel. For example, if the fuse width at the seat back is 24", can I just cut
a 12" radius, or will this not work for some reason? I know that it will make
the fuselage look taller and require me to raise the instrument panel to match,
but for the purpose of seat belts, panel visibility, etc., I'm thinking
it might be a good idea. Any suggestions or recommendations as to why I should
not do this?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> --------
>> Mark Chouinard
>> Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317313#317313
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Attachments:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com//files/turtle_back_108.jpg
>> http://forums.matronics.com//files/inst_board_194.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
On 10/28/2010 10:31 AM, peterk48 wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "peterk48"<peterk48@msn.com>
>
> Correct...not really for inflight use. However, they are very good as a replacement
for paper charts if you fly any distances. There is an app called SkyChartsPro
for $19.99/year that keeps you in current charts...all of em. If you
have the 3g version you get GPS also and you will have a small airplane geo-ref'd
on your chart. You do not need to sign up for the AT&T svc to use the GPS.
All that said, they are a nice chart replacement but nothing compared to
a Garmin 496 for instance for following in the air.
>
If you have an iPhone, don't get the Pro version! Get the normal
version for $9.99. For the additional $10 you get the courtesy of having
to pay for your chart upgrades when they expire. With the non-pro
version, chart upgrades are free.
That said, if you have an iPad, you will need to get the Pro version.
Dan
do not archive
--
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 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: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels |
Mark:
Some additional height is OK but don't overdo it. You do not want to
overly affect the airflow over your vertical stab. I believe Master Cuy
stated that he raised his by 2 inches which is why I built mine that way.
Mine has not yet flown, however, so take my advice with a grain or two of
salt. (whatever that means)
Tom Stinemetze
N328X
>>> "K5YAC" <hangar10@cox.net> 10/28/2010 10:18 AM >>>
I know that it will make the fuselage look taller and require me to raise
the instrument panel to match, but for the purpose of seat belts, panel
visibility, etc., I'm thinking it might be a good idea. Any suggestions
or recommendations as to why I should not do this?
Thanks!
--------
Mark Chouinard
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: Counterweighting the Model A, and weight |
----- Original Message ----
From: Billy McCaskill <billmz@cox.net>
Sent: Thu, October 28, 2010 9:38:59 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Counterweighting the Model A, and weight
And as most Piets are tail-heavy, the extra weight of the counterweighted crank
is probably a good thing. And if it makes the engine run smoother, the plane
will be more comfortable to fly and also will make the airframe last a bit
longer too as the vibration levels will be much less. I can't think of a good
reason not to use a counterweighted crank, pretty much every engine ever made
since 1930 has had counterweighted cranks for a reason.
--------
Billy McCaskill
Urbana, IL
tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317308#317308
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: Last trips for the year |
On 10/27/2010 02:43 PM, Gary Boothe wrote:
> I need that attorneys name? Does he also do marriage counseling?
I do not give marriage advice for the simple fact that someone will
always be unhappy. You're on your own, Gary!
do not archive
--
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 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: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels |
I've heard this mentioned before, but honestly, I wonder. I mean, most
guys bodies stick way up above the normal turtleneck & I'm sure that in
itself has a negative effect on the airflow to the vertical stabilizer.
I'd think that a higher turtleneck might actually result in improved
flow, with less turbulence, but I'm not the expert, so just thinking it
through as to what seems logical.
Chuck Gantzer has a secondary turtleneck on his Piet, I assume mainly as
a headrest, but maybe also to improve airflow & I believe his plane
flies just fine (haven't heard anything from Chuck on the list in a
couple of years, guess he's deep into his new project).
Kip Gardner
On Oct 28, 2010, at 12:12 PM, TOM STINEMETZE wrote:
> Mark:
>
> Some additional height is OK but don't overdo it. You do not want to
overly affect the airflow over your vertical stab. I believe Master Cuy
stated that he raised his by 2 inches which is why I built mine that
way. Mine has not yet flown, however, so take my advice with a grain or
two of salt. (whatever that means)
>
> Tom Stinemetze
> N328X
>
>
>
> >>> "K5YAC" <hangar10@cox.net> 10/28/2010 10:18 AM >>>
> I know that it will make the fuselage look taller and require me to
raise the instrument panel to match, but for the purpose of seat belts,
panel visibility, etc., I'm thinking it might be a good idea. Any
suggestions or recommendations as to why I should not do this?
>
> Thanks!
>
> --------
> Mark Chouinard
>
>
>
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: | Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels |
If the turtle deck is built high enough then one could think about putting
a bubble canopy on the old PIET.Now theres a real change to the old baby eh
!Would make it comfy for winter flying.
do not archive
From: kipandbeth@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels
I've heard this mentioned before=2C but honestly=2C I wonder. I mean=2C mo
st guys bodies stick way up above the normal turtleneck & I'm sure that in
itself has a negative effect on the airflow to the vertical stabilizer. I'
d think that a higher turtleneck might actually result in improved flow=2C
with less turbulence=2C but I'm not the expert=2C so just thinking it throu
gh as to what seems logical.
Chuck Gantzer has a secondary turtleneck on his Piet=2C I assume mainly as
a headrest=2C but maybe also to improve airflow & I believe his plane flies
just fine (haven't heard anything from Chuck on the list in a couple of ye
ars=2C guess he's deep into his new project).
Kip Gardner
On Oct 28=2C 2010=2C at 12:12 PM=2C TOM STINEMETZE wrote:
Mark:
Some additional height is OK but don't overdo it. You do not want to overl
y affect the airflow over your vertical stab. I believe Master Cuy stated
that he raised his by 2 inches which is why I built mine that way. Mine ha
s not yet flown=2C however=2C so take my advice with a grain or two of salt
. (whatever that means)
Tom Stinemetze
N328X
>>> "K5YAC" <hangar10@cox.net> 10/28/2010 10:18 AM >>>
I know that it will make the fuselage look taller and require me to raise t
he instrument panel to match=2C but for the purpose of seat belts=2C panel
visibility=2C etc.=2C I'm thinking it might be a good idea. Any suggestion
s or recommendations as to why I should not do this?
Thanks!
--------
Mark Chouinard
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/con
tribution
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: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels |
From reading the Bingelis books, it is best if the shoulder harness
exits at shoulder height to avoid spinal compression in a crash. That
said, if you are real tall it might be best to make a streamline
headrest to exit the harness. One of the benefits of plan building is
in the end it is YOUR airplane. Draw some sketches to see what the
different options will look like and go from there.
Ben
On 10/28/2010 11:18 AM, K5YAC wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "K5YAC"<hangar10@cox.net>
>
> I am getting ready to start on my turtle deck and I'm wondering if a modification
to the dimensions would be appropriate or acceptable. The plans show the
turtle deck to be an elliptical shape, or perhaps an offset radius, but due to
my size I was wondering if it would be suitable to cut a taller radius like
a complete half circle, which would make for a taller seat back and instrument
panel. For example, if the fuse width at the seat back is 24", can I just cut
a 12" radius, or will this not work for some reason? I know that it will make
the fuselage look taller and require me to raise the instrument panel to match,
but for the purpose of seat belts, panel visibility, etc., I'm thinking it
might be a good idea. Any suggestions or recommendations as to why I should
not do this?
>
> Thanks!
>
> --------
> Mark Chouinard
> Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317313#317313
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/turtle_back_108.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/inst_board_194.jpg
>
>
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: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels |
Thanks Kip (and others) for the comments. I do plan to raise the cabanes 2".
I think they could go higher, but others have said that it starts to look a little
different overall if raised more than 2", so for now I am sticking to that
measurement. Also, I have planned to install 9 stringers as well. I'm not
sure if I came to that conclusion by looking at photos or if someone told me to
consider using 9, none the less, I'm glad that I remembered that advise.
Now, as for the height of the turtle deck and instrument panels... I don't guess
it matters much how high it is as long as it doesn't protrude unnecessarily
into the slip stream. I am tall, so I'll be obstructing the air flow some with
my upper torso, plus, I plan to install wind shields (at least short ones, as
many do), so I don't guess it will make much difference whether it is my body
or the structure that is in the way. I'll try to keep it to a minimum, but
I'll obviously need to make some adjustments for my size.
kipandbeth(at)earthlink.n wrote:
> Mark,
>
> I am raising mine, not sure how much yet, but significantly above the plans.
If you do the same for the panels, you'll also want to look at raising the cabanes
by several inches (there is a limit to what's practical on that, not sure
what, but it's been discussed on the list at some point in the past). Also,
Andrew Pietenpol told me years ago that he thought 9 turtleneck stringers looked
better than the 7 the plans call for & that's what he was doing on the project
he was working on at the time.
>
> Kip Gardner
>
> On Oct 28, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Jim Markle wrote:
> Raise it. Not sure if people make it a full 12" radius but it does get raised.....if
you want, you can come measure mine to see what you think....
>
> jm
>
>
> --
--------
Mark Chouinard
Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317334#317334
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: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels |
The WACO CRG has a huge turtledeck - the top is even with the top of the
windscreen. It was designed to compete in the 1930 Ford Air Tour. It
doesn't look bad:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Waco-CRG/1231672/M/
Dan
On 10/28/2010 12:45 PM, K5YAC wrote:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "K5YAC"<hangar10@cox.net>
>
> Thanks Kip (and others) for the comments. I do plan to raise the cabanes 2".
I think they could go higher, but others have said that it starts to look a
little different overall if raised more than 2", so for now I am sticking to that
measurement. Also, I have planned to install 9 stringers as well. I'm not
sure if I came to that conclusion by looking at photos or if someone told me
to consider using 9, none the less, I'm glad that I remembered that advise.
>
> Now, as for the height of the turtle deck and instrument panels... I don't guess
it matters much how high it is as long as it doesn't protrude unnecessarily
into the slip stream. I am tall, so I'll be obstructing the air flow some with
my upper torso, plus, I plan to install wind shields (at least short ones,
as many do), so I don't guess it will make much difference whether it is my body
or the structure that is in the way. I'll try to keep it to a minimum, but
I'll obviously need to make some adjustments for my size.
>
>
> kipandbeth(at)earthlink.n wrote:
>> Mark,
>>
>> I am raising mine, not sure how much yet, but significantly above the plans.
If you do the same for the panels, you'll also want to look at raising the cabanes
by several inches (there is a limit to what's practical on that, not sure
what, but it's been discussed on the list at some point in the past). Also,
Andrew Pietenpol told me years ago that he thought 9 turtleneck stringers looked
better than the 7 the plans call for& that's what he was doing on the project
he was working on at the time.
>>
>> Kip Gardner
>>
>> On Oct 28, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Jim Markle wrote:
>> Raise it. Not sure if people make it a full 12" radius but it does get raised.....if
you want, you can come measure mine to see what you think....
>>
>> jm
>>
>>
>> --
>
>
> --------
> Mark Chouinard
> Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317334#317334
>
>
--
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 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: | Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels |
Gentlemen,
I did not raise my turtledeck. The way it was designed is just fine. If it
was good enough for Bernerd, it's good enough for me.
Dan Helsper,
Poplar Grove, IL.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth@earthlink.net>
Sent: Thu, Oct 28, 2010 11:24 am
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels
I've heard this mentioned before, but honestly, I wonder. I mean, most gu
ys bodies stick way up above the normal turtleneck & I'm sure that in itse
lf has a negative effect on the airflow to the vertical stabilizer. I'd
think that a higher turtleneck might actually result in improved flow, wi
th less turbulence, but I'm not the expert, so just thinking it through as
to what seems logical.
Chuck Gantzer has a secondary turtleneck on his Piet, I assume mainly as
a headrest, but maybe also to improve airflow & I believe his plane flies
just fine (haven't heard anything from Chuck on the list in a couple of
years, guess he's deep into his new project).
Kip Gardner
On Oct 28, 2010, at 12:12 PM, TOM STINEMETZE wrote:
Mark:
Some additional height is OK but don't overdo it. You do not want to over
ly affect the airflow over your vertical stab. I believe Master Cuy state
d that he raised his by 2 inches which is why I built mine that way. Mine
has not yet flown, however, so take my advice with a grain or two of salt
. (whatever that means)
Tom Stinemetze
N328X
>>> "K5YAC" <hangar10@cox.net> 10/28/2010 10:18 AM >>>
I know that it will make the fuselage look taller and require me to raise
the instrument panel to match, but for the purpose of seat belts, panel
visibility, etc., I'm thinking it might be a good idea. Any suggestions
or recommendations as to why I should not do this?
Thanks!
--------
Mark Chouinard
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
ref="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
ref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/con
tribution
========================
===========
-= - 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 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: Fwd: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels |
I understand Dan, and I am trying my best to adhere to the plans, but in reality,
I am 6'5" tall... something that Bernard didn't have to consider. I have sat
in my fuselage with a simple seat that should closely replicate my position
in the rear pit and I've found that the rear seat back/turtle deck front is way
too low to provide for effective safety harness installation, not to mention
the added comfort of an upper back rest.
Unfortunately, I have a much larger than average framework, but I don't intend
to keep that from letting me build or fly this airplane.
--------
Mark Chouinard
Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317357#317357
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: Fwd: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels |
Yeah=2C what you said too
Doug Dever
In beautiful Stow Ohio
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Fwd: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels
> From: hangar10@cox.net
> Date: Thu=2C 28 Oct 2010 17:17:22 -0700
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>
>
> I understand Dan=2C and I am trying my best to adhere to the plans=2C but
in reality=2C I am 6'5" tall... something that Bernard didn't have to cons
ider. I have sat in my fuselage with a simple seat that should closely repl
icate my position in the rear pit and I've found that the rear seat back/tu
rtle deck front is way too low to provide for effective safety harness inst
allation=2C not to mention the added comfort of an upper back rest.
>
> Unfortunately=2C I have a much larger than average framework=2C but I don
't intend to keep that from letting me build or fly this airplane.
>
> --------
> Mark Chouinard
> Wings=2C Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
>
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317357#317357
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
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: | Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels |
Keep in mind Mr Pietenpol was not a very tall fellow. Bingillis and others
have a valid point about the shoulder harness. I am not all that tall=2C
but I'm 6'3 when sitting. A little vertically challenged in the leg dept.
So that is a concern to me also.
Doug Dever
In beautiful Stow Ohio
Subject: Fwd: Pietenpol-List: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels
From: helspersew@aol.com
Gentlemen=2C
I did not raise my turtledeck. The way it was designed is just fine. If it
was good enough for Bernerd=2C it's good enough for me.
Dan Helsper=2C
Poplar Grove=2C IL.
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: | Another Turtle Deck Question |
Stringers... I don't see any mention of dimensions. I'm sure that length varies
due to different designs, but I am wondering more about width and height. Perhaps
it depends on the type of wood? I have a plank of Ash that the wife helped
me rip into nine 3/4" x 1/4" x 80-something inch long strips. Is this suitable?
They seem a little flimsy on their own, but when cut to ~74" and attached
to the formers, I think they should be pretty strong considering they are
primarily only used to support fabric.
What are you guys using? Of course, I would prefer spruce, especially out back
(due to weight), but I'm trying to use what I have. Concerns?
--------
Mark Chouinard
Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317361#317361
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: | Another Turtle Deck Question |
Mark
I increased my turtledecks 1 1/2". You can see that I have 11 stringers that
are slightly wider than 1/4". All is poplar....not flight tested.
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(22 ribs down.)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of K5YAC
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 5:50 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Another Turtle Deck Question
Stringers... I don't see any mention of dimensions. I'm sure that length
varies due to different designs, but I am wondering more about width and
height. Perhaps it depends on the type of wood? I have a plank of Ash that
the wife helped me rip into nine 3/4" x 1/4" x 80-something inch long
strips. Is this suitable? They seem a little flimsy on their own, but when
cut to ~74" and attached to the formers, I think they should be pretty
strong considering they are primarily only used to support fabric.
What are you guys using? Of course, I would prefer spruce, especially out
back (due to weight), but I'm trying to use what I have. Concerns?
--------
Mark Chouinard
Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317361#317361
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: Leading edge material |
Didn't know you where planing shavings out of the sky, did you?:-)
I have a chart of woods and their strength characteristics here;
http://clifdawson.ca/Tools_and_Tips.html
Halfway down the page.
Clif
>
> That's probably why they call it a plane! Thanks for the info.
> Bob
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: Another Turtle Deck Question |
I would try to use the lightest wood available. When oriented properly, structural
integrity will probably be more than adequate with spruce (450 kg/cu.m) or
even red cedar (380 kg/cu.m)...or probably a lot of different lightweight materials.
I would avoid ash (670 kg/cu.m) because of it's weight.
jm
-----Original Message-----
>From: K5YAC <hangar10@cox.net>
>Sent: Oct 28, 2010 7:49 PM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Another Turtle Deck Question
>
>
>Stringers... I don't see any mention of dimensions. I'm sure that length varies
due to different designs, but I am wondering more about width and height.
Perhaps it depends on the type of wood? I have a plank of Ash that the wife helped
me rip into nine 3/4" x 1/4" x 80-something inch long strips. Is this suitable?
They seem a little flimsy on their own, but when cut to ~74" and attached
to the formers, I think they should be pretty strong considering they are
primarily only used to support fabric.
>
>What are you guys using? Of course, I would prefer spruce, especially out back
(due to weight), but I'm trying to use what I have. Concerns?
>
>--------
>Mark Chouinard
>Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317361#317361
>
>
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: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels |
You mean like this?
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: Harvey Rule
If the turtle deck is built high enough then one could think about
putting a bubble canopy on the old PIET.Now theres a real change to the
old baby eh!Would make it comfy for winter flying.
do not archive
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: | Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels |
Yes that's the idea.One could use the old tiger moths canopy.
do not archive
From: CDAWSON5854@shaw.ca
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Turtle Deck and Instrument Panels
You mean like this?
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: Harvey Rule
If the turtle deck is built high enough then one could think about putting
a bubble canopy on the old PIET.Now theres a real change to the old baby eh
!Would make it comfy for winter flying.
do not archive
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: Another Turtle Deck Question |
I agree with ya Jim... I wouldn't mind buying more spruce but I can't remember
if the max length for ground shipping is 6' or 8'. If it's 8'. I'll just order
some, if I can only go 6' I'll have to look around locally.
--------
Mark Chouinard
Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317371#317371
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 |
|
I just discovered this. For those of us who have
Sudden Inspirational Thoughts that need drawing
out and no ruler in sight;
http://www.printfreegraphpaper.com/
Now you can design that Tigermoth/Pietenpol
canopy when the Boss isn't looking.
Clif
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: Another Turtle Deck Question |
May I ask a question,
How are you controlling your rudder and tail wheel ? If by the same rudder cables,
are the rudder and tail wheel control arms the same length ? as they must
turn equal radius to get full rudder control. If the tail wheel arms are shorter
the rudder will not swing fully.
Pieti Lowell
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317372#317372
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: Resaw Options |
gtche98 wrote:
> Question for those that milled their own cap strip, or are more experienced in
resawing than I am. I have been thinking lately about purchasing my spruce
from McCormick in Madison, and understand that they are selling 1" thick rough
cut.
>
> If that is the case, how many "layers" of cap strip could I resaw out of a 1"
thick board? I know I could get 2. Is it possible (for an amateur) to get 3
layers? With the thickness of the band saw blade, and the need to run everything
through the planner, I am worried that 3/32" of waste between layers wont
be enough. See attached picture that shows what I am talking about.
>
> Thanks in advance for your expertise!
If you have a bandsaw that is the only way to go. Get a woodslicer blade here http://www.highlandwoodworking.com/woodslicer-resaw-bandsaw-blades.aspx . This blade is expensive $30 + but it is amazing. The finish is nearly as good as if run through a planer or jointer. Lightly sand and you are done. With this blade you can easily get 3 cap strips out of a 1" board and not have to plane them. As an aside I cut all of the 1/4" planking for a wood strip canoe with a band saw and really saved a lot of material With the wood slicer blade I have cut as thin as 1/8" x 6" panels from a 1 x 6 maple board and they needed very little sanding.
--------
Jon Coxwell
GN-1 Builder
Recycle and preserve the planet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317374#317374
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: | Re: Resaw Options |
Ditto what Jon said about using the bandsaw for resawing thin strips vs. using
the table saw. I own both machines, and find it much safer and easier and get
far less kerf waste with the bandsaw.
I have consistently resawn veneers as thin as .030" on my Delta bandsaw but would
never try to get such thin slices on a table saw if there were any way around
it. The 1/8" kerf from the table saw blade is tremendously wasteful when trying
to maximize the amount of thin strips you can cut from a larger board.
The keft from a good bandsaw resawing blade is usually less than 1/16" and as
Jon said, if you use a good blade, planing is not necessary. A light sanding
is all you will need.
--------
Billy McCaskill
Urbana, IL
tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=317379#317379
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! --
|