Today's Message Index:
----------------------
0. 12:52 AM - [Please Read] - Last Official Day of List Fund Raiser! (Matt Dralle)
1. 01:35 AM - Re: Re: dhyedral (Jack Phillips)
2. 02:53 AM - Re: dhyedral (giacummo)
3. 02:58 AM - Re: Piet progress pix (Clif Dawson)
4. 03:37 AM - Re: Re: dhyedral (Ameet Savant)
5. 03:56 AM - Re: Piet progress pix (Charles Campbell)
6. 04:39 AM - Re: Re: dhyedral (Charles Campbell)
7. 05:00 AM - Re: dhyedral (Jerry Dotson)
8. 06:36 AM - Re: Re: dhyedral (hvandervoo@aol.com)
9. 07:38 AM - Re: Re: dhyedral (AMsafetyC@aol.com)
10. 08:03 AM - Re: Re: dhyedral (Gary Wilson)
11. 08:54 AM - Re: Re: dhyedral (Kenneth Howe)
12. 10:05 AM - Re: Re: dhyedral (AMsafetyC@aol.com)
13. 10:30 AM - Re: Re: dhyedral (Jim Markle)
14. 12:15 PM - rib fabircators (early builder)
15. 04:15 PM - ready to go smoke system (Douwe Blumberg)
16. 04:53 PM - Re: rib fabircators (Dangerous Dave)
17. 07:51 PM - Re: Re: rib fabircators (Kimball Isaac)
18. 09:36 PM - Re: ready to go smoke system (jorge lizarraga)
19. 10:16 PM - Re: dhyedral (GliderMike)
Message 0
| 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: | [Please Read] - Last Official Day of List Fund Raiser! |
Dear Listers,
Its November 30th and that means at least two things. For better or worse, its
my 47th birthday! But it also means that its that last official day of the
Matronics Email List Fund Raiser! If you been drooling over one of the really
nice gifts that are available this year with a qualifying Contribution, then
now is the time to jump on one!!
If you've been meaning to make a Contribution this month but have been putting
it off for some reason, NOW is the time!
I will be posting the List of Contributors in a few days, so you'll probably want
to be known as a person that supported the Lists!
I want to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution this year in
support of our Lists. It is your generosity that keeps this operation running
and I don't ever forget it. Hopefully everyone feels the same.
The List Contribution Web Site is fast and easy. Please support our habit by making
your Contribution right now:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, by dropping a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
Thank you to all in advance!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
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 |
|
I=92ve flown Pietenpols with and without dihedral and can=92t tell much
difference in stability. I have about =BD=94 dihedral per side in my
Pietenpol,
and its stability is no better than the straight wing Piets I=92ve
flown. You
would probably need several inches per side to be able to get much
stability, and that much would look funny, like a model airplane.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP =93Icarus Plummet=94
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Harvey
Rule
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 10:20 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: dhyedral
It's really up to you as to how much or how little you want.A couple of
inches is really all you'll ever need just to give you some stability.If
you
go to far like about 6 inches then you have more than enough and the
plane
will be so stable that you'll fall asleep flying it.Fighter planes have
anhyedral because they want them very unstable for doing things in the
air
that fighters have to do to get out of situations.The first plane I ever
flew was a Quicksilver ultralight and it had a lot of dhyedral.Probably
too
much.As I recall it would practically fly itself.
It's your personal preference really.It's your airplane.What do you want
it
to do?
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: dhyedral
> From: mario.giacummo@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:47:23 -0800
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>
<mario.giacummo@gmail.com>
>
> So, why some airplanes have and some no? how much is too much, which
things you have to take in account to do it with or without? I do not
find
anything about this configuration...
>
> Regards
>
> Mario
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=321657#321657
>
>
> ====================
> _========
>
>
>
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 |
|
OK, thanks all for the answers
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=321763#321763
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: Piet progress pix |
Tarheels, hmmmm. You want a unique paint scheme?
One that has history to boot?
http://www.bentwings.com/vf/tarheel/tarheelhal.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: Charles Campbell
Jack, I don't know if BPA can stan two tarheels. I live in
Winston-Salem.
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 |
|
Mario,
Not having dihedral does not mean the plane is unstable. There are other
ways to attain stability. For our purposes, a Piet being a high wing
airplane has a center of gravity lower than the wing. This will reduce over
banking and make it easy to return back to wing level.
As an extreme example. Take a look at a powered parachute. The thing has an
anhedral like you've never seen before, but stability is not compromised at
all due to the extremely low center of gravity relative to he wing.
For a low wing aircraft having a dihedral becomes essential because the
center of gravity is slightly higher than the wings. If no dihedral is used
the airplane could be more comfortable flying upside down. For low wing
aircraft typically 6-8 degrees is used. A lot depends on where the CG is.
I haven't got in to the reason why dihedral helps stability, but just want
to illustrate that the Piet does not need it due to the inherent stability
of the high wing and the very good track record of more than 80 years.
Having said that, if you were to put a slight dihedral (I would say less
than 2 degrees) it would not hurt anything other than your construction time
line. ;)
I hope that helps.
Ameet Savant
Omaha, NE
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 6:47 PM, giacummo <mario.giacummo@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>
> So, why some airplanes have and some no? how much is too much, which things
> you have to take in account to do it with or without? I do not find anything
> about this configuration...
>
> Regards
>
> Mario
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=321657#321657
>
>
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: Piet progress pix |
No thanks -- for the paint scheme, that is. I don't see any Carolina
blue anywhere!
Do not archive.
Chuck Campbell
----- Original Message -----
From: Clif Dawson
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 5:55 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet progress pix
Tarheels, hmmmm. You want a unique paint scheme?
One that has history to boot?
http://www.bentwings.com/vf/tarheel/tarheelhal.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: Charles Campbell
Jack, I don't know if BPA can stan two tarheels. I live in
Winston-Salem.
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 |
|
I suggest you ask Hans van der Voort. Pictures of his Piet look like it has
a little dihedral. Don't know for sure.
do not archive
Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: "giacummo" <mario.giacummo@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 7:47 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: dhyedral
> <mario.giacummo@gmail.com>
>
> So, why some airplanes have and some no? how much is too much, which
> things you have to take in account to do it with or without? I do not find
> anything about this configuration...
>
> Regards
>
> Mario
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=321657#321657
>
>
>
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 |
|
I built 1 degree into my one piece wing which amounts to the tips being 3 inches
higher than the center. The reason I did that was from an experience with a
Stinson 108 that I owned. A prior owner had shortened the struts so the wing had
ZERO dihedral. As long as you were doing air work or in the pattern it was
great. Even a short cross country was a bit aggravating because it flew like sitting
on a basketball. Look down at the Sectional, look back up and you were
turning one way or the other. The dihedral makes it a lot harder to handle on
the workbench. I hope to put it on an airplane one day !
--------
Jerry Dotson
59 Daniel Johnson Rd
Baker, FL 32531
Started building NX510JD July, 2009
wing, tailfeathers done
using Lycoming O-235
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=321773#321773
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc00251_337.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/stinson_108_264.jpg
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I have about 1 degree in the 3 piece wing, flies great.
Never flown a Piet with none so do not know how it compares.
Hans
NX 15KV
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Campbell <cncampbell@windstream.net>
Sent: Tue, Nov 30, 2010 6:39 am
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: dhyedral
ream.net>
I suggest you ask Hans van der Voort. Pictures of his Piet look like it ha
s
little dihedral. Don't know for sure.
do not archive
Chuck
----- Original Message -----
rom: "giacummo" <mario.giacummo@gmail.com>
o: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
ent: Monday, November 29, 2010 7:47 PM
ubject: Pietenpol-List: Re: dhyedral
<mario.giacummo@gmail.com>
So, why some airplanes have and some no? how much is too much, which
things you have to take in account to do it with or without? I do not find
anything about this configuration...
Regards
Mario
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=321657#321657
-========================
-
-= -- Please Support Your Lists This Month --
-= (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
-
-= November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Click on
-= the Contribution link below to find out more about
-= this year's Terrific Free Incentive Gifts provided
-= by:
-=
-= * AeroElectric www.aeroelectric.com
-= * The Builder's Bookstore www.buildersbooks.com
-= * HomebuiltHELP www.homebuilthelp.com
-
-= List Contribution Web Site:
-
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-
-= Thank you for your generous support!
-
-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-
-========================
-= - 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
-
-========================
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 |
|
Unless I am missing a important point here, I trained on all Cessna's
150,152,172 so if I want that same performance style ad stability I should look
up the Cessna design ad add that exact amount to my build ad it will act or
closely approximate similar flight qualities as the Cessna's that I am
more used to flying and better acquainted with. Is that an accurate
assessment? And if so how much does Cessna typically use in their designs?
Additionally is that a value that's proportionate to the total wing span such
that
wings having a shorter or longer than the Cessna wing span has more or less
dihedral and at what rate or ratio?
I know that if want a Cessna should buy one of those, however that's not
what am asking, so I would short cut the typical answers, but thanks
anyway. I am more looking for comparative information and the relationship to
something I am most familiar with.
Thanks
John
In a message dated 11/30/2010 8:01:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jdotson@centurylink.net writes:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jerry Dotson"
<jdotson@centurylink.net>
I built 1 degree into my one piece wing which amounts to the tips being 3
inches higher than the center. The reason I did that was from an experience
with a Stinson 108 that I owned. A prior owner had shortened the struts so
the wing had ZERO dihedral. As long as you were doing air work or in the
pattern it was great. Even a short cross country was a bit aggravating
because it flew like sitting on a basketball. Look down at the Sectional, look
back up and you were turning one way or the other. The dihedral makes it a
lot harder to handle on the workbench. I hope to put it on an airplane one
day !
--------
Jerry Dotson
59 Daniel Johnson Rd
Baker, FL 32531
Started building NX510JD July, 2009
wing, tailfeathers done
using Lycoming O-235
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=321773#321773
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc00251_337.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/stinson_108_264.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 |
|
My experience with dihedral is in model planes, as Jack mentions below. We
would put a lot of dihedral in a model plane to enable it to fly without
ailerons.
My understanding is that the Piet doesn't necessarily need it because it is
a parasol wing, with the CG sitting much lower than the wing. That makes
the plane act like it is a pendulum, self-stabilizing to some extent.
Dihedral is more critical in a low wing plane, as the CG is sitting on top
of the wing.
Gary Wilson
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Jack Phillips <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>wrot
e:
> I=92ve flown Pietenpols with and without dihedral and can=92t tell much
> difference in stability. I have about =BD=94 dihedral per side in my Pie
tenpol,
> and its stability is no better than the straight wing Piets I=92ve flown.
You
> would probably need several inches per side to be able to get much
> stability, and that much would look funny, like a model airplane.
>
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> NX899JP =93Icarus Plummet=94
>
> Raleigh, NC
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Harvey Rule
> *Sent:* Monday, November 29, 2010 10:20 PM
> *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: dhyedral
>
>
> It's really up to you as to how much or how little you want.A couple of
> inches is really all you'll ever need just to give you some stability.If
you
> go to far like about 6 inches then you have more than enough and the plan
e
> will be so stable that you'll fall asleep flying it.Fighter planes have
> anhyedral because they want them very unstable for doing things in the ai
r
> that fighters have to do to get out of situations.The first plane I ever
> flew was a Quicksilver ultralight and it had a lot of dhyedral.Probably t
oo
> much.As I recall it would practically fly itself.
> It's your personal preference really.It's your airplane.What do you want
it
> to do?
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: dhyedral
> > From: mario.giacummo@gmail.com
> > Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:47:23 -0800
> > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> >
> mario.giacummo@gmail.com>
> >
> > So, why some airplanes have and some no? how much is too much, which
> things you have to take in account to do it with or without? I do not fin
d
> anything about this configuration...
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Mario
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=321657#321657
> >
> >
> > ====================
> > _========
> >
> >
> >
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *www.buildersbooks.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
============*
>
>
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 |
|
John,
Taking one design element from a Cessna (i.e. amount of dihedral) and
applying it to a Piet won't have the same affect. We're also talking
about high wing vs. a parasol. If I remember my ancient history (meaning
the Aero classes I took 35+ years ago) positive dihedral will IN GENERAL
affect a parasol more than a closed cabin high wing like a Cessna. In
other words a parasol probably has more inherent stability than a high
wing cabin monoplane with equivalent dihedral. In reality however, you
have to take in account the whole aircraft - where's the CG in relation
to the wing, configuration (parasol, high wing, low wing), wing
planform, aileron configuration (frieze type vs hinged flap, sealed vs
unsealed, etc.), and I'd guess even the effects of the tail (tail arm,
rudder & fin size) - to decide how much dihedral is appropriate.
Remember, no part of the airplane flys by itself.
=46rom evidence presented here, it sounds like Piet's have flown with
either no, or from 1 - 2 degrees, dihedral. I'd bet that sealing the
aileron gap has more affect on overall handling than adding a degree if
dihedral. I'll probably put in a degree or so on mine, but I'm not close
to that point yet.
Happy building,
Ken
On Nov 30, 2010, at 7:29 AM, amsafetyc@aol.com wrote:
> Unless I am missing a important point here, I trained on all Cessna's
150,152,172 so if I want that same performance style ad stability I
should look up the Cessna design ad add that exact amount to my build ad
it will act or closely approximate similar flight qualities as the
Cessna's that I am more used to flying and better acquainted with. Is
that an accurate assessment? And if so how much does Cessna typically
use in their designs? Additionally is that a value that's proportionate
to the total wing span such that wings having a shorter or longer than
the Cessna wing span has more or less dihedral and at what rate or
ratio?
>
> I know that if want a Cessna should buy one of those, however that's
not what am asking, so I would short cut the typical answers, but
thanks anyway. I am more looking for comparative information and the
relationship to something I am most familiar with.
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
>
>
> In a message dated 11/30/2010 8:01:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jdotson@centurylink.net writes:
<jdotson@centurylink.net>
>
> I built 1 degree into my one piece wing which amounts to the tips
being 3 inches higher than the center. The reason I did that was from an
experience with a Stinson 108 that I owned. A prior owner had shortened
the struts so the wing had ZERO dihedral. As long as you were doing air
work or in the pattern it was great. Even a short cross country was a
bit aggravating because it flew like sitting on a basketball. Look down
at the Sectional, look back up and you were turning one way or the
other. The dihedral makes it a lot harder to handle on the workbench. I
hope to put it on an airplane one day !
>
> --------
> Jerry Dotson
> 59 Daniel Johnson Rd
> Baker, FL 32531
>
> Started building NX510JD July, 2009
> wing, tailfeathers done
> using Lycoming O-235
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=321773#321773
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc00251_337.jpg
> http://fo=====================
==nbsp; (And Get Some AWESOME FREE to find Gifts ilder's
ELP b k you for p; -Matt Dralle, List
========================
Use the ties Day ===================
==== - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Thanks guys, I appreciate the insight especially in attempting to gain a
perspective on the entire issue and its effect on the Piet as opposed t other
popular aircraft designs.
John
In a message dated 11/30/2010 11:54:47 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
ken@cooper-mtn.com writes:
John,
Taking one design element from a Cessna (i.e. amount of dihedral) and
applying it to a Piet won't have the same affect. We're also talking about high
wing vs. a parasol. If I remember my ancient history (meaning the Aero
classes I took 35+ years ago) positive dihedral will IN GENERAL affect a
parasol more than a closed cabin high wing like a Cessna. In other words a
parasol probably has more inherent stability than a high wing cabin monoplane
with equivalent dihedral. In reality however, you have to take in account the
whole aircraft - where's the CG in relation to the wing, configuration
(parasol, high wing, low wing), wing planform, aileron configuration (frieze
type vs hinged flap, sealed vs unsealed, etc.), and I'd guess even the
effects of the tail (tail arm, rudder & fin size) - to decide how much dihedral
is appropriate. Remember, no part of the airplane flys by itself.
>From evidence presented here, it sounds like Piet's have flown with either
no, or from 1 - 2 degrees, dihedral. I'd bet that sealing the aileron gap
has more affect on overall handling than adding a degree if dihedral. I'll
probably put in a degree or so on mine, but I'm not close to that point yet.
Happy building,
Ken
On Nov 30, 2010, at 7:29 AM, _amsafetyc@aol.com_ (mailto:amsafetyc@aol.com)
wrote:
Unless I am missing a important point here, I trained on all Cessna's
150,152,172 so if I want that same performance style ad stability I should look
up the Cessna design ad add that exact amount to my build ad it will act
or closely approximate similar flight qualities as the Cessna's that I am
more used to flying and better acquainted with. Is that an accurate
assessment? And if so how much does Cessna typically use in their designs?
Additionally is that a value that's proportionate to the total wing span such
that
wings having a shorter or longer than the Cessna wing span has more or less
dihedral and at what rate or ratio?
I know that if want a Cessna should buy one of those, however that's not
what am asking, so I would short cut the typical answers, but thanks
anyway. I am more looking for comparative information and the relationship to
something I am most familiar with.
Thanks
John
In a message dated 11/30/2010 8:01:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
_jdotson@centurylink.net_ (mailto:jdotson@centurylink.net) writes:
<_jdotson@centurylink.net_ (mailto:jdotson@centurylink.net) >
I built 1 degree into my one piece wing which amounts to the tips being 3
inches higher than the center. The reason I did that was from an
experience with a Stinson 108 that I owned. A prior owner had shortened the struts
so the wing had ZERO dihedral. As long as you were doing air work or in the
pattern it was great. Even a short cross country was a bit aggravating
because it flew like sitting on a basketball. Look down at the Sectional, look
back up and you were turning one way or the other. The dihedral makes it a
lot harder to handle on the workbench. I hope to put it on an airplane one
day !
--------
Jerry Dotson
59 Daniel Johnson Rd
Baker, FL 32531
Started building NX510JD July, 2009
wing, tailfeathers done
using Lycoming O-235
Read this topic online here:
_http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=321773#321773_
(http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=321773#321773)
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc00251_337.jpg
http://fo=======================nbsp; (And Get Some AWESOME FREE to find
Gifts ilder's ELP b k you for p; -Matt Dralle, List
======================== Use the ties Day ======================= - MATRONICS
WEB
FORUMS
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com/">www.homebuilthelp.com href="http://www.ma
tronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-L
ist href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
(http://www.aeroelectric.com/)
(http://www.buildersbooks.com/)
(http://www.homebuilthelp.com/)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List)
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 |
|
In case anyone is interested in what these numbers mean, here's a nice simple calculator: http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttricalc.html
You can enter the length of the wing panel and the rise you want and the calculator
will give you the angle. Or enter the angle and distance and the calculator
will give you the rise. In Hans' case, for example, I entered 15' as the
distance (side b) and 1 degree as the angle (angle A) and the result was .26'
Multiply that by 12 (to change that to inches) and the result is 3.12", about
3 1/8"
Took me forever to be able to relate these discussions to real numbers so maybe
someone else would like to see the real numbers.
JM
-----Original Message-----
From: hvandervoo@aol.com
Sent: Nov 30, 2010 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: dhyedral
I have about 1 degree in the 3 piece wing, flies great.
Never flown a Piet with none so do not know how it compares.
Hans
NX 15KV
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Campbell <cncampbell@windstream.net>
Sent: Tue, Nov 30, 2010 6:39 am
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: dhyedral
I suggest you ask Hans van der Voort. Pictures of his Piet look like it has
a little dihedral. Don't know for sure.
do not archive
Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: "giacummo" <mario.giacummo@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 7:47 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: dhyedral
> <mario.giacummo@gmail.com>
>
> So, why some airplanes have and some no? how much is too much, which
> things you have to take in account to do it with or without? I do not find
> anything about this configuration...
>
> Regards
>
> Mario
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=321657#321657
>
>
>
_blank>www.aeroelectric.com
/" target=_blank>www.buildersbooks.com
=_blank>www.homebuilthelp.com
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
p://forums.matronics.com
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 |
|
Is anyone making / selling pietenpol ribs anymore?
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: | ready to go smoke system |
FYI everyone,
If you're considering a smoke system, ck out aeroconversions.com and go to
"accessories". They make a nice 1.7 gal aluminum tank that mounts to the
firewall and comes with the associated pumps, switches etc. It's much more
pricey than doing it yourself, but it might be worth it as a time savor for
some.
Douwe
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: rib fabircators |
http://www.westernaircraftspruce.com/aboutus.php
try these guys,they are good folks and have been building Piet kits for a long
time.They build ribs as far as I know.Dave
--------
Building a Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=321861#321861
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: rib fabircators |
FWIW I called them this fall and they are having a hard time getting
material around as the large multinational companies have the timber rights
tied up, also the government branch in charge of forestry isn't interested
in working with small companies
As a result most of our high quality wood tends to get exported. I ended up
ordering from aircraft spruce as he didn't know when he'd have wood.
Kim
On 2010-11-30 4:56 PM, "Dangerous Dave" <dsornbor@aol.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.westernaircraftspruce.com/aboutus.php
> try these guys,they are good folks and have been building Piet kits for a
long time.They build ribs as far as I know.Dave
>
> --------
> Building a Piet
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=321861#321861
>
>
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: ready to go smoke system |
waaauuu is about another wood for allmos another fuselaje if you look in au
toparts the sistem motor cables and houses for winshiel wiper sistem at wal
mart lessat 10 usd. and the reservir tsank from any smal car in perfect sha
pe in clude electrc motor in junk yard is 5.00 true 7.50 i stic whit that a
nd work perfect I saw my self these way in airplane just perfect corse if y
ou have extra 220 you cand duet alot thinks seyou , like you guys say my se
ns work penny
--- On Tue, 11/30/10, Douwe Blumberg <douweblumberg@earthlink.net> wrote:
From: Douwe Blumberg <douweblumberg@earthlink.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: ready to go smoke system
FYI everyone,
=C2-
If you=99re considering a smoke system, ck out aeroconversions.com an
d go to =9Caccessories=9D.=C2- They make a nice 1.7 gal alumi
num tank that mounts to the firewall and comes with the associated pumps, s
witches etc.=C2- It=99s much more pricey than doing it yourself, bu
t it might be worth it as a time savor for some.
=C2-
Douwe
=0A=0A=0A
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 |
|
OK, this may sound like a dumb question, but to be able to put in a little dihedral,
are you shaping the spar to do it on a one piece wing, or something else.
on a 3 piece wing, I would think you could build the dihedral in when the attach
brackets were built or attached. Since I've never built a flying model
airplane, and the only aircraft I have built was a hot air balloon, I don't have
any experience to fall back on.
--------
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=321889#321889
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! --
|