Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:25 AM - Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports (Dangerous Dave)
2. 04:43 AM - Re: Rib question (helspersew@aol.com)
3. 04:51 AM - Bending blocks (Kringle)
4. 05:38 AM - Re: Bending blocks (Jack Phillips)
5. 05:45 AM - Re: Bending blocks (Jack)
6. 06:13 AM - Re: Bending blocks (Jim Markle)
7. 06:22 AM - Re: Bending blocks (Kip and Beth Gardner)
8. 06:25 AM - Re: Re: Bending blocks (Jack)
9. 06:38 AM - Re: Re: Rib question (Jim Markle)
10. 06:49 AM - Re: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports (Michael Perez)
11. 06:51 AM - Re: Re: Rib question (Jack Phillips)
12. 07:37 AM - Re: Bending blocks (Jerry Dotson)
13. 07:45 AM - Re: Bending blocks (K5YAC)
14. 07:54 AM - Re: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports (Ryan Mueller)
15. 07:56 AM - Re: Bending blocks (Gboothe5)
16. 08:07 AM - questions from a new guy... (MPB)
17. 08:34 AM - First Question (PShipman)
18. 08:39 AM - Re: questions from a new guy... (Gary Boothe)
19. 08:40 AM - Re: First Question (Gary Boothe)
20. 08:54 AM - Re: First Question (PShipman)
21. 09:07 AM - Re: Re: First Question (Gary Boothe)
22. 09:36 AM - Re: Re: First Question (Michael Groah)
23. 09:37 AM - Re: First Question (PShipman)
24. 09:42 AM - Re: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports (Gene Rambo)
25. 09:46 AM - Re: Bending blocks (Kringle)
26. 10:00 AM - Re: First Question (PShipman)
27. 10:09 AM - Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports (Bill Church)
28. 10:36 AM - Re: questions from a new guy... (Rick Holland)
29. 10:50 AM - ford engine mount (bender)
30. 11:03 AM - Re: Re: Rib question (Charles Campbell)
31. 11:06 AM - Re: Bending blocks (Bill Church)
32. 11:16 AM - Re: First Question (Charles Campbell)
33. 11:27 AM - Re: First Question (Charles Campbell)
34. 11:27 AM - Re: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports (Ryan Mueller)
35. 11:27 AM - Re: First Question (Ryan Mueller)
36. 11:40 AM - Re: First Question (Rick Holland)
37. 11:46 AM - Re: questions from a new guy... (Charles Campbell)
38. 12:04 PM - Re: Re: Rib question (Jim Markle)
39. 12:31 PM - Re: Re: First Question (Gary Boothe)
40. 12:33 PM - Re: Re: Bending blocks (Gary Boothe)
41. 12:36 PM - Re: Re: First Question (Gary Boothe)
42. 12:51 PM - Re: Re: First Question (Gary Boothe)
43. 01:12 PM - Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports (Dangerous Dave)
44. 01:25 PM - Re: First Question (Dangerous Dave)
45. 01:35 PM - Re: questions from a new guy... (Dangerous Dave)
46. 01:39 PM - Re: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports (Dan Yocum)
47. 01:40 PM - Re: Re: First Question (Ryan Mueller)
48. 01:41 PM - Re: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports (Charles Campbell)
49. 01:49 PM - Re: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports (Charles Campbell)
50. 02:00 PM - Re: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports (Michael Perez)
51. 02:05 PM - Re: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports (Michael Perez)
52. 02:27 PM - Re: ford engine mount (Billy McCaskill)
53. 02:46 PM - Re: questions from a new guy... (Jack Phillips)
54. 03:04 PM - Re: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports (Jack Phillips)
55. 03:35 PM - Re: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports (Ryan Mueller)
56. 03:38 PM - Re: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports (Ryan Mueller)
57. 03:44 PM - Re: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports (Jack Phillips)
58. 04:04 PM - Re: First Question (Dangerous Dave)
59. 04:05 PM - Re: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports (AMsafetyC@aol.com)
60. 04:06 PM - Re: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports (Gary Boothe)
61. 04:10 PM - Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports (Dangerous Dave)
62. 04:27 PM - Re: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports (Jack Phillips)
63. 04:34 PM - Re: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports (Gary Boothe)
64. 04:49 PM - Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports (Dangerous Dave)
65. 05:05 PM - Re: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports (Ryan Mueller)
66. 05:05 PM - Re: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports (Jack Phillips)
67. 05:14 PM - Lively Forum Today! (Jack)
68. 05:16 PM - Re: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports (Gary Boothe)
69. 05:46 PM - Re: First Question (Billy McCaskill)
70. 05:52 PM - Re: Bending blocks (dwilson)
71. 06:02 PM - Re: First Question (PShipman)
72. 06:25 PM - Re: Re: First Question (Michael Groah)
73. 06:41 PM - Re: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports (Michael Perez)
74. 07:14 PM - Gary Boothe's Ribs (kevinpurtee)
75. 07:26 PM - Re: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports (Gene Rambo)
76. 07:26 PM - ford engine mount (santiago morete)
77. 07:36 PM - Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports (Oscar Zuniga)
78. 07:43 PM - Ah, opinions... (kevinpurtee)
79. 07:55 PM - Re: Re: First Question (Clif Dawson)
80. 08:11 PM - Bending jig (KM Heide CPO/FAAOP)
81. 08:22 PM - Trim set-up (KM Heide CPO/FAAOP)
82. 08:34 PM - Re: Bending jig (Gary Boothe)
83. 08:39 PM - Re: Ah, opinions... (Gary Boothe)
84. 08:48 PM - Re: Re: Bending blocks (Gary Boothe)
85. 09:02 PM - Re: Lively Forum Today! (K5YAC)
86. 09:15 PM - Re: Re: ford engine mount (Clif Dawson)
87. 09:48 PM - Re: questions from a new guy... (MPB)
88. 10:04 PM - Re: Lively Forum Today! (tdudley@umn.edu)
89. 10:12 PM - Re: Gary Boothe's Ribs (tdudley@umn.edu)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
Michael,The reason most folks are putting in the forward braces is because they
take out the brace wires around the front cockpit and just bracing one side of
the cockpit is not quite adequate.I will not have forward braces but rather
cables the the motor mount and cables running from the rear cabanes to the sides
of the cockpit.You need something to keep the wing from cantilevering forward
in a crash-bad landing.Also if you just put your cabanes straight up and down,finish
everything but the motor mount,do a weight and balance with the plane
complete,covered etc. and put your motor in where it needs to be you will have
perfect weight and balance,no rubbing cables,great fit on the cockpit cowls
and no wondering if your CG is right or if you'll have to make a half dozen motor
mounts instead of one.On the other hand you can always toss a couple of bricks
in to make it balance,they're cheap.Dave
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327986#327986
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Rib question |
Hi Tom,
Thanks for sharing those pictures. Brings back fond memories. I built all t
he ribs before I found this forum, and did not know I was supposed to soak
or steam the top cap strips. When I found out, I got that "knot" that forms
in the bottom of your stomach when things like this happen. Took a 5 gallo
n bucket 1/2 full of water and soaked the noses of all the ribs overnite. I
am sure this relieved all stresses because two of them actually broke just
aft of the first diagonal, and I had to make new ones. The glue joints wer
e unaffected.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
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 |
|
I've decided to make my metal fittings by using steel bending blocks in my vise.
Is there a source for a set of these with different radii already ground on
them?
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327988#327988
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 |
|
Just make 'em
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kringle
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 7:49 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bending blocks
I've decided to make my metal fittings by using steel bending blocks in my
vise. Is there a source for a set of these with different radii already
ground on them?
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327988#327988
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 |
|
This could be an option. Pretty sharp radius though.
http://www.grizzly.com/products/6-Vise-Brake/H3245
Jack
DSM
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kringle
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 6:49 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bending blocks
I've decided to make my metal fittings by using steel bending blocks in my
vise. Is there a source for a set of these with different radii already
ground on them?
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327988#327988
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 agree, that sharp radius is not good.
I have one of those and just worked it with my grinder until I "blunted" the point.
It ended up being a very handy tool I've used many times.
jm
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jack <jack@textors.com>
>Sent: Jan 23, 2011 7:40 AM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Bending blocks
>
>
>This could be an option. Pretty sharp radius though.
>http://www.grizzly.com/products/6-Vise-Brake/H3245
>Jack
>DSM
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kringle
>Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 6:49 AM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bending blocks
>
>
>I've decided to make my metal fittings by using steel bending blocks in my
>vise. Is there a source for a set of these with different radii already
>ground on them?
>
>--------
>John
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327988#327988
>
>
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Bending blocks |
I have a grizzly vise brake, and had to increase the radius of the
bending edge (pretty easy to file down). As it comes, it impresses
marks on the bend that would be stress risers. Filed down (I did mine
to work with steel in the .09 t0 .125 range), it works great. They
are cheap enough that you might want to get several and file them down
even more (or less) for thicker or thinner stock.
The only issue I've found with this tool is that you have to be really
careful that the stock is indexed exactly right before you bend it -
there are no reference marks for alignment on the tool itself.
Kip Gardner
On Jan 23, 2011, at 8:40 AM, Jack wrote:
>
> This could be an option. Pretty sharp radius though.
> http://www.grizzly.com/products/6-Vise-Brake/H3245
> Jack
> DSM
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Kringle
> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 6:49 AM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bending blocks
>
>
> I've decided to make my metal fittings by using steel bending blocks
> in my
> vise. Is there a source for a set of these with different radii
> already
> ground on them?
>
> --------
> John
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327988#327988
>
>
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 too rounded the point, use mine quite a bit. Also use dies I made for my
12 ton press brake.
Jack
DSM
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Markle
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 7:30 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Bending blocks
I agree, that sharp radius is not good.
I have one of those and just worked it with my grinder until I "blunted" the
point.
It ended up being a very handy tool I've used many times.
jm
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jack <jack@textors.com>
>Sent: Jan 23, 2011 7:40 AM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Bending blocks
>
>
>This could be an option. Pretty sharp radius though.
>http://www.grizzly.com/products/6-Vise-Brake/H3245
>Jack
>DSM
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kringle
>Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 6:49 AM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bending blocks
>
>
>I've decided to make my metal fittings by using steel bending blocks in my
>vise. Is there a source for a set of these with different radii already
>ground on them?
>
>--------
>John
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327988#327988
>
>
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: Rib question |
Agree with Billy. I cut out a 1/8" ply Scimitar propeller like Dan Helspar's and
hung it on the wall over the patio door. I thought it was the neatest thing
in that room!
And yes, it WAS a great conversation starter. I quickly got tired of my wife's
"conversations" about having it hanging up there and took it down.
Sure looked cool though (up to the point where the "conversations" started).
Jim
-----Original Message-----
>From: Charles Campbell <cncampbell@windstream.net>
>Sent: Jan 22, 2011 4:04 PM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
>
>
>Hey! That's an idea. Think I'll plan on putting in a centersection tank,
>build the false ribs, and hang my 31st one on the wall of the den. My wife
>would have an absolute conniption fit. Chuck
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Billy McCaskill" <billmz@cox.net>
>To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 3:03 PM
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
>
>
>>
>> You might want to build a few more, just to hang in the den or the hangar.
>> Ribs are just cool to look at and they're great conversation starters.
>>
>> --------
>> Billy McCaskill
>> Urbana, IL
>> tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327920#327920
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
Thanks Dave. So, the as drawn CS brace cables are not a good idea from a strength
point of view?
Your idea of wing position and CG calculations are worth keeping in mind. However,
as I temp. mount my CS to trial fit cables,(string) cut access holes and make
my instrument panel, I found that I can only move my C.S. forward only so
much then the brace cables hit the back of the front seat back. Even at this position,
there is some pulley side loading.
I know most people rack their CS back for CG fixes. I was curious if anyone noticed
the side load on the pulleys and how, if at all, they fixed it. There are
a few ways that I can think of to fix this issue, but none of which would be
easy or quick. What have you guys noticed and how did you fix it. (or not...)
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
--- On Sun, 1/23/11, Dangerous Dave <dsornbor@aol.com> wrote:
> From: Dangerous Dave <dsornbor@aol.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Date: Sunday, January 23, 2011, 7:23 AM
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted
> by: "Dangerous Dave" <dsornbor@aol.com>
>
> Michael,The reason most folks are putting in the forward
> braces is because they take out the brace wires around the
> front cockpit and just bracing one side of the cockpit is
> not quite adequate.I will not have forward braces but rather
> cables the the motor mount and cables running from the rear
> cabanes to the sides of the cockpit.You need something to
> keep the wing from cantilevering forward in a crash-bad
> landing.Also if you just put your cabanes straight up and
> down,finish everything but the motor mount,do a weight and
> balance with the plane complete,covered etc. and put your
> motor in where it needs to be you will have perfect weight
> and balance,no rubbing cables,great fit on the cockpit cowls
> and no wondering if your CG is right or if you'll have to
> make a half dozen motor mounts instead of one.On the other
> hand you can always toss a couple of bricks in to make it
> balance,they're cheap.Dave
>
> --------
> Covering Piet
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327986#327986
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Rib question |
Sounds like time to get a new wife...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Markle
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
Agree with Billy. I cut out a 1/8" ply Scimitar propeller like Dan
Helspar's and hung it on the wall over the patio door. I thought it was the
neatest thing in that room!
And yes, it WAS a great conversation starter. I quickly got tired of my
wife's "conversations" about having it hanging up there and took it down.
Sure looked cool though (up to the point where the "conversations" started).
Jim
-----Original Message-----
>From: Charles Campbell <cncampbell@windstream.net>
>Sent: Jan 22, 2011 4:04 PM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
>
<cncampbell@windstream.net>
>
>Hey! That's an idea. Think I'll plan on putting in a centersection tank,
>build the false ribs, and hang my 31st one on the wall of the den. My wife
>would have an absolute conniption fit. Chuck
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Billy McCaskill" <billmz@cox.net>
>To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 3:03 PM
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
>
>
>>
>> You might want to build a few more, just to hang in the den or the
hangar.
>> Ribs are just cool to look at and they're great conversation starters.
>>
>> --------
>> Billy McCaskill
>> Urbana, IL
>> tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327920#327920
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: Bending blocks |
I have a HF bender that is handy on larger projects but was too slow to get rigged
up for the Piet jobs. I used various pieces of angle iron the I ground different
radii on and my trusty vise.
--------
Jerry Dotson
59 Daniel Johnson Rd
Baker, FL 32531
Started building NX510JD July, 2009
wing, tailfeathers done, fuselage rolling
using Lycoming O-235
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328016#328016
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/bender_138.jpg
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: Bending blocks |
Jim Markle showed me the Grizzly break that he uses and I had to get one. I didn't
like the idea of pounding metal to shape in my vise... this thing allows
you much better control of the placement and angle of the bends. Simple device,
and worth the money.
I agree on the sharpness... it needs wider radius. I ran mine on a surface grinder
and then rounded it of with a hand file.
--------
Mark Chouinard
Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328017#328017
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: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
Keep in mind, as the numbers in the W&B article bear out, it is more
effective to move the wing to correct for CG issues (or think of it as
moving the fuselage under the wing) than it is to just move the engine
forward. If you move the engine forward you are only moving the weight of
the engine relation to the datum. On the other hand if you move the wing aft
you are now shifting the weight of the engine, the fuselage, the pilot, and
potentially a fuselage fuel tank forward in relation to the datum. This is
going to be a more effective way to correct CG problems, and will also avoid
the "anteater" look you could acquire by having to hang the engine so far
out (especially with lighter small Continentals). Or, you could split the
difference and shift the wing some, and move the engine forward some.
Theoretically, it shouldn't require any more work than just figuring out
engine placement. You can weigh your completed wing, weigh your completed
fuselage, add in the weight of the engine at the proposed location, and then
add in the weight of the wing at the proposed location. Play with the
locations to see how the numbers come out....
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Dangerous Dave <dsornbor@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Michael,The reason most folks are putting in the forward braces is because
> they take out the brace wires around the front cockpit and just bracing one
> side of the cockpit is not quite adequate.I will not have forward braces but
> rather cables the the motor mount and cables running from the rear cabanes
> to the sides of the cockpit.You need something to keep the wing from
> cantilevering forward in a crash-bad landing.Also if you just put your
> cabanes straight up and down,finish everything but the motor mount,do a
> weight and balance with the plane complete,covered etc. and put your motor
> in where it needs to be you will have perfect weight and balance,no rubbing
> cables,great fit on the cockpit cowls and no wondering if your CG is right
> or if you'll have to make a half dozen motor mounts instead of one.On the
> other hand you can always toss a couple of bricks in to make it
> balance,they're cheap.Dave
>
> --------
> Covering Piet
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327986#327986
>
>
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 |
|
John,
Instead of using steel bending blocks in my vice, I used 1/8" thick aluminum
angle, because.....I had some, and it's very easy to shape the radii.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kringle
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 4:49 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bending blocks
I've decided to make my metal fittings by using steel bending blocks in my
vise. Is there a source for a set of these with different radii already
ground on them?
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327988#327988
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: | questions from a new guy... |
I just bought a set of plans from Don and am planning on starting on the project
in a few months (I need to finish a boat I started on first). I have a couple
of questions that I would like to throw out there and gain some practical knowledge.
At this point I am heavily leaning toward the one piece wing, the steel
tube fuselage, and a Continental engine (C85 or 0200)
1- Is there a benefit to start with one major component (wing, fuselage, tail feathers)
before another? From a space standpoint I would build the tail and wing
before the fuselage as they take up less room in the shop, but my building
partner says to build the fuselage first so you can build everything to fit to
it.
2- I am leaning toward the one piece wing because I am assuming it to be lighter
or stronger and simpler to build. Are these assumptions correct?
3- I wanted to build the steel tube fuselage because it is another medium to work
with in the build and I like working with metal, but I notice most of the sites
and posts are from guys building a wood fuselage. I also can't help but
think that it would be both lighter and stronger. I would love to hear opinions
from both sides.
Thanks for any information. I look forward to starting on the build, asking more
questions and maybe someday being able to answer some...
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328021#328021
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 |
|
Hi,
Dave Schlieder and I have decided that we need to do something new and interesting
so we have started down the Pietenpol Path :D. We have purchased the easy
stuff first (tail feathers). With this and the future in mind I'd like to ask
a few questions (note ... could find the answers via seach):
1) We went with T-88 glue ... are there any "gotchas" that we should know?
2) I can nowhere find a discussion on the pros and cons on the different styles
of landing gear ... can someone point me to one and/or "stir the pot" [Twisted
Evil]
3) I am guessing that the Ford installation puts the radiator above/behind the
engine for W&B purposes ... has anyone ever built a radiator in front of the engine
between the engine & the prop?
Thanks
Perry
--------
Perry Shipman
Lakeside, CA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328027#328027
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: | questions from a new guy... |
Welcome, Mike!
There is nothing wrong with your approach to build tail, wings, fuse, in
that order. Nor is there anything wrong with wings, tail, fuse, or fuse,
tail, wings, or fuse, wings, tail, or....you get the picture...
Many builders start with the tail, just to get into the swing of things...or
start with ribs. Since the wing is supported above the fuselage, all you
need to do is follow the dimensions and it all hooks up just fine.
I built the 3-piece wing because of building space reasons, but the
one-piece builders say that the 1-piece wing is easier and lighter (makes
sense).
Wood is easy for me, but if you are comfortable with steel...go for it! I
don't there's any reason not to, except maybe for material costs. I bought
locally available poplar at a fraction of the price of spruce, saving close
to $1,000. Can't say what 4130 tubing would have cost.
In any case, you're at the right place for all questions. Be sure to let us
know where you are located, and make sure to check out all the cool stuff at
www.westcoastpiet.com.
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(23 ribs down.)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of MPB
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:05 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: questions from a new guy...
I just bought a set of plans from Don and am planning on starting on the
project in a few months (I need to finish a boat I started on first). I
have a couple of questions that I would like to throw out there and gain
some practical knowledge. At this point I am heavily leaning toward the one
piece wing, the steel tube fuselage, and a Continental engine (C85 or 0200)
1- Is there a benefit to start with one major component (wing, fuselage,
tail feathers) before another? From a space standpoint I would build the
tail and wing before the fuselage as they take up less room in the shop, but
my building partner says to build the fuselage first so you can build
everything to fit to it.
2- I am leaning toward the one piece wing because I am assuming it to be
lighter or stronger and simpler to build. Are these assumptions correct?
3- I wanted to build the steel tube fuselage because it is another medium to
work with in the build and I like working with metal, but I notice most of
the sites and posts are from guys building a wood fuselage. I also can't
help but think that it would be both lighter and stronger. I would love to
hear opinions from both sides.
Thanks for any information. I look forward to starting on the build, asking
more questions and maybe someday being able to answer some...
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328021#328021
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 |
|
Dave,
The only gear worth considering is the wood, Jenny style gear with wire
wheels! (ducking)
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(23 ribs down.)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of PShipman
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:31 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: First Question
Hi,
Dave Schlieder and I have decided that we need to do something new and
interesting so we have started down the Pietenpol Path :D. We have
purchased the easy stuff first (tail feathers). With this and the future in
mind I'd like to ask a few questions (note ... could find the answers via
seach):
1) We went with T-88 glue ... are there any "gotchas" that we should know?
2) I can nowhere find a discussion on the pros and cons on the different
styles of landing gear ... can someone point me to one and/or "stir the pot"
[Twisted Evil]
3) I am guessing that the Ford installation puts the radiator above/behind
the engine for W&B purposes ... has anyone ever built a radiator in front of
the engine between the engine & the prop?
Thanks
Perry
--------
Perry Shipman
Lakeside, CA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328027#328027
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: First Question |
Gary,
! The only folks worth knowing have strong opinions, IMO! :D
I was wondering, though, if the split gear might be better on rough/unimproved
strips???
Perry (Dave is my partner in crime in this endeavor)
--------
Perry Shipman
Lakeside, CA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328035#328035
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: First Question |
Perry (not Dave),
I think I have heard that, but, just how rough a field are you talking
about? BTW...Aren't you jealous of all those mid-west guys and their grassy
strips? Then, again, you have the perfect weather where you are.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of PShipman
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:52 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: First Question
Gary,
! The only folks worth knowing have strong opinions, IMO! :D
I was wondering, though, if the split gear might be better on
rough/unimproved strips???
Perry (Dave is my partner in crime in this endeavor)
--------
Perry Shipman
Lakeside, CA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328035#328035
Message 22
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: First Question |
Gary...
I think Perry should attend the West Coast Pietenpol Gathering June 4th at
Frazier Lake .
Mike Groah
Tulare CA
________________________________
From: Gary Boothe <gboothe5@comcast.net>
Sent: Sun, January 23, 2011 9:02:38 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: First Question
Perry (not Dave),
I think I have heard that, but, just how rough a field are you talking
about? BTW...Aren't you jealous of all those mid-west guys and their grassy
strips? Then, again, you have the perfect weather where you are.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of PShipman
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:52 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: First Question
Gary,
! The only folks worth knowing have strong opinions, IMO! :D
I was wondering, though, if the split gear might be better on
rough/unimproved strips???
Perry (Dave is my partner in crime in this endeavor)
--------
Perry Shipman
Lakeside, CA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328035#328035
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: | Re: First Question |
Gary,
After 30 years in Alaska, it is hard to be jealous of anyone :D.
Yes, the sunshine is nice (though HOT at times) but it is great to be around my
aging parents. Lots of private/hidden strips around the SW, though.
As to rough ... I probably won't be landing on any more boulder strewn beaches
in this lifetime ... just move interested in major differences between the two
gear types.
ALSO ... the split gear with tall balloon tiers is a little more like the 1930's
Ryan look, which fits San Diego well, eh?
Perry
--------
Perry Shipman
Lakeside, CA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328041#328041
Message 24
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
OK=2C Ryan=2C I have got to call BS on this one. The location of the datum
and moving anything in relationship to it is irrelevant. It is proper to
say that to avoid the anteater look you might want to move the wing=2C but
using the datum as a reason is incorrect. This is the big problem I have w
ith the W&B project that was in the last newsletter. Rather than putting t
he datum at a fixed point=2C such as the firewall or propeller flange=2C th
e wing leading edge (a movable point) was used. Based on a fixed point=2C
the information as to axle location and engine mount length would have been
much more useful. As it stands=2C I do not see any use for the data as pu
blished.
Gene Rambo
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables=2C pulleys=2C wing supports
From: rmueller23@gmail.com
Keep in mind=2C as the numbers in the W&B article bear out=2C it is more ef
fective to move the wing to correct for CG issues (or think of it as moving
the fuselage under the wing) than it is to just move the engine forward. I
f you move the engine forward you are only moving the weight of the engine
relation to the datum. On the other hand if you move the wing aft you are n
ow shifting the weight of the engine=2C the fuselage=2C the pilot=2C and po
tentially a fuselage fuel tank forward in relation to the datum. This is go
ing to be a more effective way to correct CG problems=2C and will also avoi
d the "anteater" look you could acquire by having to hang the engine so far
out (especially with lighter small Continentals). Or=2C you could split th
e difference and shift the wing some=2C and move the engine forward some.
Theoretically=2C it shouldn't require any more work than just figuring out
engine placement. You can weigh your completed wing=2C weigh your completed
fuselage=2C add in the weight of the engine at the proposed location=2C an
d then add in the weight of the wing at the proposed location. Play with th
e locations to see how the numbers come out....
Ryan
On Sun=2C Jan 23=2C 2011 at 6:23 AM=2C Dangerous Dave <dsornbor@aol.com> wr
ote:
Michael=2CThe reason most folks are putting in the forward braces is becaus
e they take out the brace wires around the front cockpit and just bracing o
ne side of the cockpit is not quite adequate.I will not have forward braces
but rather cables the the motor mount and cables running from the rear cab
anes to the sides of the cockpit.You need something to keep the wing from c
antilevering forward in a crash-bad landing.Also if you just put your caban
es straight up and down=2Cfinish everything but the motor mount=2Cdo a weig
ht and balance with the plane complete=2Ccovered etc. and put your motor in
where it needs to be you will have perfect weight and balance=2Cno rubbing
cables=2Cgreat fit on the cockpit cowls and no wondering if your CG is rig
ht or if you'll have to make a half dozen motor mounts instead of one.On th
e other hand you can always toss a couple of bricks in to make it balance
=2Cthey're cheap.Dave
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327986#327986
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
http://forums.matronics.com
le=2C List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: Bending blocks |
I'm going to look for some aluminum blocks tomorrow and radius them with my router
bits. I hear high speed steel cuts it like butter.
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328045#328045
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: First Question |
Wow ... that would be fun ... I presume you mean Frazier Lake, CA and not CA as
in Canada
--------
Perry Shipman
Lakeside, CA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328049#328049
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: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
Michael,
When you talk about the support cables for the center section, I assume you're
referring to the diagonal bracing cables that run between the front and rear
cabanes on the right side. (see attached image)
The reason why most builders replace them with diagonal tubing running from the
top of the front cabane struts down to the top engine mounts is because those
cables make it very difficult to get into the front seat (as if it isn't difficult
enough). BHP recommended using the diagonal tube braces, and included the
modified engine mount brackets in the supplementary plans.
The way things are designed, the aileron control cables will be pretty well vertical
when the cabane struts are vertical. Shifting the wing back 4 inches (which
is about as far as most builders go) results in a change of approximately
5 degrees. If the deflection seems to be too much, it would be pretty simple to
add a wedge to the back side of the spar to account for the misalignment.
Dave,
Are you saying that you intend to install cables where others have installed the
diagonal tubes AND also installing cables running from the tops of the rear
cabanes back towards the rear cockpit? I don't see the benefit. Just sounds like
more cables to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you said.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328050#328050
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/cs_cables_672.jpg
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: questions from a new guy... |
Don't worry about not having enough metal cutting/grinding/welding to do. I
built a wood fuselage and spent as much time on metal work as wood work
(especially if you are building split gear). Most people start with ribs, as
mentioned the wing is so independent of the fuselage there is no need to
have the fuselage done first, but if you have the room go for it. (Would
recommend building a mock fuselage first though).
rick
Wood is easy for me, but if you are comfortable with steel...go for it! I
> don't there's any reason not to, except maybe for material costs. I bought
> locally available poplar at a fraction of the price of spruce, saving close
> to $1,000. Can't say what 4130 tubing would have cost.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of MPB
> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:05 AM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: questions from a new guy...
>
>
> I just bought a set of plans from Don and am planning on starting on the
> project in a few months (I need to finish a boat I started on first). I
> have a couple of questions that I would like to throw out there and gain
> some practical knowledge. At this point I am heavily leaning toward the
> one
> piece wing, the steel tube fuselage, and a Continental engine (C85 or 0200)
>
> 1- Is there a benefit to start with one major component (wing, fuselage,
> tail feathers) before another? From a space standpoint I would build the
> tail and wing before the fuselage as they take up less room in the shop,
> but
> my building partner says to build the fuselage first so you can build
> everything to fit to it.
>
> 2- I am leaning toward the one piece wing because I am assuming it to be
> lighter or stronger and simpler to build. Are these assumptions correct?
>
> 3- I wanted to build the steel tube fuselage because it is another medium
> to
> work with in the build and I like working with metal, but I notice most of
> the sites and posts are from guys building a wood fuselage. I also can't
> help but think that it would be both lighter and stronger. I would love to
> hear opinions from both sides.
>
> Thanks for any information. I look forward to starting on the build,
> asking
> more questions and maybe someday being able to answer some...
>
> Mike
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328021#328021
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
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: | ford engine mount |
Am i reading the plans right ??
i'm working on the engine mount for the A.. looking at the ash engine supports
, the drawing says the front should be 2 1/2 inches lower than the back ?? that
seems like a lot but if its right then i'll build it that way
jeff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328059#328059
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/mount_372.png
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: Rib question |
I don't know, Jack! I've had mine quite a few years and wouldn't want to
break in a new one!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 9:48 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
> <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
>
> Sounds like time to get a new wife...
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Markle
> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:46 AM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
>
> <jim_markle@mindspring.com>
>
> Agree with Billy. I cut out a 1/8" ply Scimitar propeller like Dan
> Helspar's and hung it on the wall over the patio door. I thought it was
> the
> neatest thing in that room!
>
> And yes, it WAS a great conversation starter. I quickly got tired of my
> wife's "conversations" about having it hanging up there and took it down.
>
> Sure looked cool though (up to the point where the "conversations"
> started).
>
> Jim
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Charles Campbell <cncampbell@windstream.net>
>>Sent: Jan 22, 2011 4:04 PM
>>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
>>
> <cncampbell@windstream.net>
>>
>>Hey! That's an idea. Think I'll plan on putting in a centersection tank,
>>build the false ribs, and hang my 31st one on the wall of the den. My
>>wife
>
>>would have an absolute conniption fit. Chuck
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Billy McCaskill" <billmz@cox.net>
>>To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>>Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 3:03 PM
>>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
>>
>>
>>>
>>> You might want to build a few more, just to hang in the den or the
> hangar.
>>> Ribs are just cool to look at and they're great conversation starters.
>>>
>>> --------
>>> Billy McCaskill
>>> Urbana, IL
>>> tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327920#327920
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: Bending blocks |
Contrary to what would seem logical, the radius of the bend is NOT dependent on
the radius of the "knife" die, but rather, on the opening size of the "vee" die,
and the elasticity of the metal being bent.
Provided the die is sized correctly for the thickness of the metal being bent,
and that the bending is stopped before the knife is driven so far that the metal
is being squished between the knife and the vee die, the result should be the
same with a sharp "knife" as with a radius.
When bending steel in this type of setup, the so-called bottom die (the v-shaped
part) should have an opening that ideally measures 8 times the thickness of
the metal being bent. The opening can be as small as 6 times, or as large as 10
times the metal thickness without negative effects.
The metal will form a natural radius that is determined by the material elasticity,
rather than the radius of the tool.
Of course, if the vise is tightened too far (bottoming), the knife will cut into
the metal.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328060#328060
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/bend_air_188.jpg
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: First Question |
The only thing I have to say about the type of wheels is that it is a matter
of taste. I, personally, don't like the looks of the wire, motorcycle type
wheels but that is strictly a personal opinion. I'm sure you'll hear a lot
of pros to the question. Can't give any opinion on the engine and the glue
question was covered a couple of months back. Most seem to think the T88 is
the (only)way to go.
----- Original Message -----
From: "PShipman" <perrytshipman@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 11:31 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: First Question
>
> Hi,
>
> Dave Schlieder and I have decided that we need to do something new and
> interesting so we have started down the Pietenpol Path :D. We have
> purchased the easy stuff first (tail feathers). With this and the future
> in mind I'd like to ask a few questions (note ... could find the answers
> via seach):
> 1) We went with T-88 glue ... are there any "gotchas" that we should know?
> 2) I can nowhere find a discussion on the pros and cons on the different
> styles of landing gear ... can someone point me to one and/or "stir the
> pot" [Twisted Evil]
> 3) I am guessing that the Ford installation puts the radiator above/behind
> the engine for W&B purposes ... has anyone ever built a radiator in front
> of the engine between the engine & the prop?
>
> Thanks
>
> Perry
>
> --------
> Perry Shipman
> Lakeside, CA
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328027#328027
>
>
>
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: First Question |
See what I mean?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5@comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 11:37 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: First Question
>
> Dave,
>
> The only gear worth considering is the wood, Jenny style gear with wire
> wheels! (ducking)
>
> Gary Boothe
> Cool, Ca.
> Pietenpol
> WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
> Tail done, Fuselage on gear
> (23 ribs down.)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of PShipman
> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:31 AM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: First Question
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Dave Schlieder and I have decided that we need to do something new and
> interesting so we have started down the Pietenpol Path :D. We have
> purchased the easy stuff first (tail feathers). With this and the future
> in
> mind I'd like to ask a few questions (note ... could find the answers via
> seach):
> 1) We went with T-88 glue ... are there any "gotchas" that we should know?
> 2) I can nowhere find a discussion on the pros and cons on the different
> styles of landing gear ... can someone point me to one and/or "stir the
> pot"
> [Twisted Evil]
> 3) I am guessing that the Ford installation puts the radiator above/behind
> the engine for W&B purposes ... has anyone ever built a radiator in front
> of
> the engine between the engine & the prop?
>
> Thanks
>
> Perry
>
> --------
> Perry Shipman
> Lakeside, CA
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328027#328027
>
>
>
Message 34
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
The location of the datum and moving anything in relationship to it is
irrelevant? How could you ever possibly perform any CG adjustment if that is
irrelevant. You move/add/subtract weight in order to bring the CG within
limits, and in order to have a point of reference you have a datum.
If you can move weights in relation to the datum, such as moving the engine
farther forward, to cause a change in where the CG falls in relation the
LE....then what is the problem with sliding the LE (and thusly datum) fore
or aft to put the CG at an acceptable location? Sure, on most aircraft you
cannot, but on a Piet you can, and it proves to be a more effective change.
Prove me wrong, please...
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Gene Rambo <generambo@msn.com> wrote:
> OK, Ryan, I have got to call BS on this one. The location of the datum
> and moving anything in relationship to it is irrelevant. It is proper to
> say that to avoid the anteater look you might want to move the wing, but
> using the datum as a reason is incorrect. This is the big problem I have
> with the W&B project that was in the last newsletter. Rather than putting
> the datum at a fixed point, such as the firewall or propeller flange, the
> wing leading edge (a movable point) was used. Based on a fixed point, the
> information as to axle location and engine mount length would have been much
> more useful. As it stands, I do not see any use for the data as published.
>
> Gene Rambo
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 09:51:53 -0600
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
> From: rmueller23@gmail.com
>
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>
> Keep in mind, as the numbers in the W&B article bear out, it is more
> effective to move the wing to correct for CG issues (or think of it as
> moving the fuselage under the wing) than it is to just move the engine
> forward. If you move the engine forward you are only moving the weight of
> the engine relation to the datum. On the other hand if you move the wing aft
> you are now shifting the weight of the engine, the fuselage, the pilot, and
> potentially a fuselage fuel tank forward in relation to the datum. This is
> going to be a more effective way to correct CG problems, and will also avoid
> the "anteater" look you could acquire by having to hang the engine so far
> out (especially with lighter small Continentals). Or, you could split the
> difference and shift the wing some, and move the engine forward some.
>
> Theoretically, it shouldn't require any more work than just figuring out
> engine placement. You can weigh your completed wing, weigh your completed
> fuselage, add in the weight of the engine at the proposed location, and then
> add in the weight of the wing at the proposed location. Play with the
> locations to see how the numbers come out....
>
> Ryan
>
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Dangerous Dave <dsornbor@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> Michael,The reason most folks are putting in the forward braces is because
> they take out the brace wires around the front cockpit and just bracing one
> side of the cockpit is not quite adequate.I will not have forward braces but
> rather cables the the motor mount and cables running from the rear cabanes
> to the sides of the cockpit.You need something to keep the wing from
> cantilevering forward in a crash-bad landing.Also if you just put your
> cabanes straight up and down,finish everything but the motor mount,do a
> weight and balance with the plane complete,covered etc. and put your motor
> in where it needs to be you will have perfect weight and balance,no rubbing
> cables,great fit on the cockpit cowls and no wondering if your CG is right
> or if you'll have to make a half dozen motor mounts instead of one.On the
> other hand you can always toss a couple of bricks in to make it
> balance,they're cheap.Dave
>
> --------
> Covering Piet
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327986#327986
>
>
> ==========
> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> ==========
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> le, List Admin.
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
> *
>
> st" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> ttp://forums.matronics.com
> =_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> *
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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: First Question |
Check out:
http://www.matronics.com/search/
<http://www.matronics.com/search/>Read the instructions to ensure you format
your search for maximum effectiveness. Years and years worth of info on the
archives.
Probably the radiator installation is in that location because it is simple,
easy, and effective.
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 10:31 AM, PShipman <perrytshipman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Dave Schlieder and I have decided that we need to do something new and
> interesting so we have started down the Pietenpol Path :D. We have
> purchased the easy stuff first (tail feathers). With this and the future in
> mind I'd like to ask a few questions (note ... could find the answers via
> seach):
> 1) We went with T-88 glue ... are there any "gotchas" that we should know?
> 2) I can nowhere find a discussion on the pros and cons on the different
> styles of landing gear ... can someone point me to one and/or "stir the pot"
> [Twisted Evil]
> 3) I am guessing that the Ford installation puts the radiator above/behind
> the engine for W&B purposes ... has anyone ever built a radiator in front of
> the engine between the engine & the prop?
>
> Thanks
>
> Perry
>
> --------
> Perry Shipman
> Lakeside, CA
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328027#328027
>
>
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: First Question |
You don't have to do the Jenny gear to use big spoke wheels, you can go
conventional or spoke with split gear, as on Don Emich's Piet.
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Charles Campbell <
cncampbell@windstream.net> wrote:
> cncampbell@windstream.net>
>
> The only thing I have to say about the type of wheels is that it is a
> matter of taste. I, personally, don't like the looks of the wire,
> motorcycle type wheels but that is strictly a personal opinion. I'm sure
> you'll hear a lot of pros to the question. Can't give any opinion on the
> engine and the glue question was covered a couple of months back. Most seem
> to think the T88 is the (only)way to go.
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "PShipman" <perrytshipman@gmail.com>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 11:31 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: First Question
>
>
>> >
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Dave Schlieder and I have decided that we need to do something new and
>> interesting so we have started down the Pietenpol Path :D. We have
>> purchased the easy stuff first (tail feathers). With this and the future in
>> mind I'd like to ask a few questions (note ... could find the answers via
>> seach):
>> 1) We went with T-88 glue ... are there any "gotchas" that we should know?
>> 2) I can nowhere find a discussion on the pros and cons on the different
>> styles of landing gear ... can someone point me to one and/or "stir the pot"
>> [Twisted Evil]
>> 3) I am guessing that the Ford installation puts the radiator above/behind
>> the engine for W&B purposes ... has anyone ever built a radiator in front of
>> the engine between the engine & the prop?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Perry
>>
>> --------
>> Perry Shipman
>> Lakeside, CA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328027#328027
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
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: questions from a new guy... |
I definately agree about the mock fuselage bit. Wish I had known about
it before I started -- I would probably have a nicer fuselage.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: questions from a new guy...
Don't worry about not having enough metal cutting/grinding/welding to
do. I built a wood fuselage and spent as much time on metal work as wood
work (especially if you are building split gear). Most people start with
ribs, as mentioned the wing is so independent of the fuselage there is
no need to have the fuselage done first, but if you have the room go for
it. (Would recommend building a mock fuselage first though).
rick
Wood is easy for me, but if you are comfortable with steel...go for
it! I
don't there's any reason not to, except maybe for material costs. I
bought
locally available poplar at a fraction of the price of spruce,
saving close
to $1,000. Can't say what 4130 tubing would have cost.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of MPB
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:05 AM
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: questions from a new guy...
I just bought a set of plans from Don and am planning on starting on
the
project in a few months (I need to finish a boat I started on
first). I
have a couple of questions that I would like to throw out there and
gain
some practical knowledge. At this point I am heavily leaning toward
the one
piece wing, the steel tube fuselage, and a Continental engine (C85
or 0200)
1- Is there a benefit to start with one major component (wing,
fuselage,
tail feathers) before another? From a space standpoint I would
build the
tail and wing before the fuselage as they take up less room in the
shop, but
my building partner says to build the fuselage first so you can
build
everything to fit to it.
2- I am leaning toward the one piece wing because I am assuming it
to be
lighter or stronger and simpler to build. Are these assumptions
correct?
3- I wanted to build the steel tube fuselage because it is another
medium to
work with in the build and I like working with metal, but I notice
most of
the sites and posts are from guys building a wood fuselage. I also
can't
help but think that it would be both lighter and stronger. I would
love to
hear opinions from both sides.
Thanks for any information. I look forward to starting on the
build, asking
more questions and maybe someday being able to answer some...
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328021#328021
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
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: Rib question |
HA! Yup, putting up with my airplane stuff hanging on the living room wall would
make her perfect in every way....hey wait a minute....if she was THAT perfect
she wouldn't have to settle for me!
jm
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jack Phillips <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
>Sent: Jan 23, 2011 8:48 AM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
>
>
>Sounds like time to get a new wife...
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Markle
>Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:46 AM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
>
>
>Agree with Billy. I cut out a 1/8" ply Scimitar propeller like Dan
>Helspar's and hung it on the wall over the patio door. I thought it was the
>neatest thing in that room!
>
>And yes, it WAS a great conversation starter. I quickly got tired of my
>wife's "conversations" about having it hanging up there and took it down.
>
>Sure looked cool though (up to the point where the "conversations" started).
>
>Jim
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Charles Campbell <cncampbell@windstream.net>
>>Sent: Jan 22, 2011 4:04 PM
>>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
>>
><cncampbell@windstream.net>
>>
>>Hey! That's an idea. Think I'll plan on putting in a centersection tank,
>>build the false ribs, and hang my 31st one on the wall of the den. My wife
>
>>would have an absolute conniption fit. Chuck
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Billy McCaskill" <billmz@cox.net>
>>To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>>Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 3:03 PM
>>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question
>>
>>
>>>
>>> You might want to build a few more, just to hang in the den or the
>hangar.
>>> Ribs are just cool to look at and they're great conversation starters.
>>>
>>> --------
>>> Billy McCaskill
>>> Urbana, IL
>>> tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327920#327920
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: First Question |
Just kidding about the Jenny style gear. It was proven last year at Brodhead
that a Piet can be landed perfectly well with a broken split axle gear...
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of PShipman
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 9:35 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: First Question
Gary,
After 30 years in Alaska, it is hard to be jealous of anyone :D.
Yes, the sunshine is nice (though HOT at times) but it is great to be around
my aging parents. Lots of private/hidden strips around the SW, though.
As to rough ... I probably won't be landing on any more boulder strewn
beaches in this lifetime ... just move interested in major differences
between the two gear types.
ALSO ... the split gear with tall balloon tiers is a little more like the
1930's Ryan look, which fits San Diego well, eh?
Perry
--------
Perry Shipman
Lakeside, CA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328041#328041
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: Bending blocks |
Aluminum works very similar to wood, with same tools! Good luck...
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kringle
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 9:44 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Bending blocks
I'm going to look for some aluminum blocks tomorrow and radius them with my
router bits. I hear high speed steel cuts it like butter.
--------
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328045#328045
Message 41
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: First Question |
Yes, Frazier Lake, CA. You are officially 'on the list!' We are working hard
to build a West Coast Pietenpol Air Force to someday invade Brodhead...but
don't tell anyone!
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(Just finished Rib #24!)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of PShipman
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 9:58 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: First Question
Wow ... that would be fun ... I presume you mean Frazier Lake, CA and not CA
as in Canada
--------
Perry Shipman
Lakeside, CA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328049#328049
Message 42
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: First Question |
Good thought, Mike! Just finished Rib #24, and running the primer line.
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(23 ribs down.)
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Groah
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: First Question
Gary...
I think Perry should attend the West Coast Pietenpol Gathering June 4th at
Frazier Lake .
Mike Groah
Tulare CA
_____
From: Gary Boothe <gboothe5@comcast.net>
Sent: Sun, January 23, 2011 9:02:38 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: First Question
Perry (not Dave),
I think I have heard that, but, just how rough a field are you talking
about? BTW...Aren't you jealous of all those mid-west guys and their grassy
strips? Then, again, you have the perfect weather where you are.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of PShipman
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:52 AM
Message 43
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
Bill,heres what I am doing.It will give forward and rearward stability and no ugly
forward cabane.Dave
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328078#328078
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/2011_01_23_14_05_14_542_492.jpg
Message 44
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: First Question |
Perry,I'd do some serious consideration on what your going to do with your piet.T88
is great but I'd do some serious research on the 8 million ways to build
a piet.Mine is a bush plane and built as such.Big motor,tundra tires, Supercub
style gear,Ceconite 101 etc.You can build it however you see fit,but if your
landing in the bush the wood gear and ford motor with bicycle wheels wont even
get you of the ground let alone back on it.Its a 29' design that can use a pile
of updating without changing the looks.Just my 3 cents,Dave
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328079#328079
Message 45
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: questions from a new guy... |
If I was going to build another Piet I would definitly build everything out of
steel except the wing and it would be one piece and 4' longer with a NACA64A410
airfoil,fuselage 4" wider and I'd stick with the long fuselage.Dave What order
you build it in is irrelevant
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328080#328080
Message 46
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
Gene,
It's vector math! William could have picked the location of the right
aileron horn if he really wanted to do the math in 3 dimensions (yuck!),
but since the aircraft CG must be 25-33% of the wing cord (someone
correct me if I'm wrong on that), picking the LE of the wing is FAR
easier to take the rest of the measurements from. Let me say that
again: the distance of the CG from the LE is a <strong><bold> constant
</bold></strong> value. It is absolutely NOT incorrect, nor is it
irrelevant, to pick that point from which to make all the other
measurements.
Additionally, take N8031 as a case in point against moving the engine
(that's #2 in the list in case anyone was wondering). The second owner
lengthened the motor mount - brace yourselves - 8 inches. EIGHT INCHES!
And it still didn't completely fix the W&B balance of the plane.
Supposedly, I only weigh 143 lbs. For the record, I'm 171 fully dressed
and I've flown 'er about 55 hours. The previous owner was heavier than
me by at least 25 lbs and he flew the plane about 180 tach hours.
I have to say that sealing the elevator gaps helped the overall pitch
handling A LOT. Now, I'm thinking about rebuilding the cabanes and
shifting the wing back to get everything tuned up, but the way the
center section attach points were created - the bolts are parallel to
the fuselage - 90 degrees off from all other Piet's I've seen - it's
going to take more work than just building new front cabanes with welded
diagonal braces.
But, since the plane flies, and flies pretty well (y'all saw that at
B'head last year), I'm not all rip rarin' to get started on that project
quite yet.
Dan
On 01/23/2011 11:39 AM, Gene Rambo wrote:
> OK, Ryan, I have got to call BS on this one. The location of the datum
> and moving anything in relationship to it is irrelevant. It is proper to
> say that to avoid the anteater look you might want to move the wing, but
> using the datum as a reason is incorrect. This is the big problem I have
> with the W&B project that was in the last newsletter. Rather than
> putting the datum at a fixed point, such as the firewall or propeller
> flange, the wing leading edge (a movable point) was used. Based on a
> fixed point, the information as to axle location and engine mount length
> would have been much more useful. As it stands, I do not see any use for
> the data as published.
>
> Gene Rambo
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 09:51:53 -0600
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
> From: rmueller23@gmail.com
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>
> Keep in mind, as the numbers in the W&B article bear out, it is more
> effective to move the wing to correct for CG issues (or think of it as
> moving the fuselage under the wing) than it is to just move the engine
> forward. If you move the engine forward you are only moving the weight
> of the engine relation to the datum. On the other hand if you move the
> wing aft you are now shifting the weight of the engine, the fuselage,
> the pilot, and potentially a fuselage fuel tank forward in relation to
> the datum. This is going to be a more effective way to correct CG
> problems, and will also avoid the "anteater" look you could acquire by
> having to hang the engine so far out (especially with lighter small
> Continentals). Or, you could split the difference and shift the wing
> some, and move the engine forward some.
>
> Theoretically, it shouldn't require any more work than just figuring out
> engine placement. You can weigh your completed wing, weigh your
> completed fuselage, add in the weight of the engine at the proposed
> location, and then add in the weight of the wing at the proposed
> location. Play with the locations to see how the numbers come out....
>
> Ryan
>
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Dangerous Dave <dsornbor@aol.com
> <mailto:dsornbor@aol.com>> wrote:
>
> <dsornbor@aol.com <mailto:dsornbor@aol.com>>
>
> Michael,The reason most folks are putting in the forward braces is
> because they take out the brace wires around the front cockpit and
> just bracing one side of the cockpit is not quite adequate.I will
> not have forward braces but rather cables the the motor mount and
> cables running from the rear cabanes to the sides of the cockpit.You
> need something to keep the wing from cantilevering forward in a
> crash-bad landing.Also if you just put your cabanes straight up and
> down,finish everything but the motor mount,do a weight and balance
> with the plane complete,covered etc. and put your motor in where it
> needs to be you will have perfect weight and balance,no rubbing
> cables,great fit on the cockpit cowls and no wondering if your CG is
> right or if you'll have to make a half dozen motor mounts instead of
> one.On the other hand you can always toss a couple of bricks in to
> make it balance,they're cheap.Dave
>
> --------
> Covering Piet
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327986#327986
>
>
> ==========
> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> ==========
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> le, List Admin.
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
> *
>
> st" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> ttp://forums.matronics.com
> =_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
--
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 47
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: First Question |
>From the "Builder's Questions" notes in the text available from the
Pietenpol family, penned by Donald:
--------------------------------
Question: "Why don't you up-date the plans?"
Answer: "I'm not certain what is meant by up-dating the plans. The plans as
designed by Mr. Pietenpol have proven to be correct so many times over and
provide the builder with a successful project from the start. I can't think
of any reason to change the design. The adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix
it" applies in this case.
If up-date means adding round wing tips. round tail, round rudder, etc, Mr.
Pietenpol tried them all, in every instance the weight usually increase and
the airplane's performance regressed. There is a reason for the square wing
tip design on this airplane. It flies better and has better landing
characteristics. As my father always concluded after his many experiments,
"Keep it simple and keep it light"."
--------------------------------
Just because you have a desire to try to turn it in to something it was
never intended to be doesn't mean it can use a "pile of updating".
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Dangerous Dave <dsornbor@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Perry,I'd do some serious consideration on what your going to do with your
> piet.T88 is great but I'd do some serious research on the 8 million ways to
> build a piet.Mine is a bush plane and built as such.Big motor,tundra tires,
> Supercub style gear,Ceconite 101 etc.You can build it however you see
> fit,but if your landing in the bush the wood gear and ford motor with
> bicycle wheels wont even get you of the ground let alone back on it.Its a
> 29' design that can use a pile of updating without changing the looks.Just
> my 3 cents,Dave
>
> --------
> Covering Piet
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328079#328079
>
>
Message 48
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: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
That's what I thought, but I don't know enough to argue.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Mueller
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
The location of the datum and moving anything in relationship to it is
irrelevant? How could you ever possibly perform any CG adjustment if
that is irrelevant. You move/add/subtract weight in order to bring the
CG within limits, and in order to have a point of reference you have a
datum.
If you can move weights in relation to the datum, such as moving the
engine farther forward, to cause a change in where the CG falls in
relation the LE....then what is the problem with sliding the LE (and
thusly datum) fore or aft to put the CG at an acceptable location? Sure,
on most aircraft you cannot, but on a Piet you can, and it proves to be
a more effective change. Prove me wrong, please...
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Gene Rambo <generambo@msn.com>
wrote:
OK, Ryan, I have got to call BS on this one. The location of the
datum and moving anything in relationship to it is irrelevant. It is
proper to say that to avoid the anteater look you might want to move the
wing, but using the datum as a reason is incorrect. This is the big
problem I have with the W&B project that was in the last newsletter.
Rather than putting the datum at a fixed point, such as the firewall or
propeller flange, the wing leading edge (a movable point) was used.
Based on a fixed point, the information as to axle location and engine
mount length would have been much more useful. As it stands, I do not
see any use for the data as published.
Gene Rambo
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 09:51:53 -0600
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing
supports
From: rmueller23@gmail.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Keep in mind, as the numbers in the W&B article bear out, it is more
effective to move the wing to correct for CG issues (or think of it as
moving the fuselage under the wing) than it is to just move the engine
forward. If you move the engine forward you are only moving the weight
of the engine relation to the datum. On the other hand if you move the
wing aft you are now shifting the weight of the engine, the fuselage,
the pilot, and potentially a fuselage fuel tank forward in relation to
the datum. This is going to be a more effective way to correct CG
problems, and will also avoid the "anteater" look you could acquire by
having to hang the engine so far out (especially with lighter small
Continentals). Or, you could split the difference and shift the wing
some, and move the engine forward some.
Theoretically, it shouldn't require any more work than just figuring
out engine placement. You can weigh your completed wing, weigh your
completed fuselage, add in the weight of the engine at the proposed
location, and then add in the weight of the wing at the proposed
location. Play with the locations to see how the numbers come out....
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Dangerous Dave <dsornbor@aol.com>
wrote:
<dsornbor@aol.com>
Michael,The reason most folks are putting in the forward braces is
because they take out the brace wires around the front cockpit and just
bracing one side of the cockpit is not quite adequate.I will not have
forward braces but rather cables the the motor mount and cables running
from the rear cabanes to the sides of the cockpit.You need something to
keep the wing from cantilevering forward in a crash-bad landing.Also if
you just put your cabanes straight up and down,finish everything but the
motor mount,do a weight and balance with the plane complete,covered etc.
and put your motor in where it needs to be you will have perfect weight
and balance,no rubbing cables,great fit on the cockpit cowls and no
wondering if your CG is right or if you'll have to make a half dozen
motor mounts instead of one.On the other hand you can always toss a
couple of bricks in to make it balance,they're cheap.Dave
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327986#327986
==========
st"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
st" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 49
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: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
Dave, what size cable do you use on the rear one?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dangerous Dave" <dsornbor@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 4:10 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
>
> Bill,heres what I am doing.It will give forward and rearward stability and
> no ugly forward cabane.Dave
>
> --------
> Covering Piet
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328078#328078
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/2011_01_23_14_05_14_542_492.jpg
>
>
>
Message 50
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: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
Maybe look at it this way...you can drive a car on the stationary road, or leave
the car standing still and move the road below it. You can move individual pieces
below the wing around, ( gear, engine...) or move the wing. As stated, moving
the wing has the same effect as moving everything below it at once.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
--- On Sun, 1/23/11, Dan Yocum <yocum@fnal.gov> wrote:
> From: Dan Yocum <yocum@fnal.gov>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Date: Sunday, January 23, 2011, 4:37 PM
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted
> by: Dan Yocum <yocum@fnal.gov>
>
> Gene,
>
> It's vector math! William could have picked the
> location of the right
> aileron horn if he really wanted to do the math in 3
> dimensions (yuck!),
> but since the aircraft CG must be 25-33% of the wing cord
> (someone
> correct me if I'm wrong on that), picking the LE of the
> wing is FAR
> easier to take the rest of the measurements from. Let
> me say that
> again: the distance of the CG from the LE is a
> <strong><bold> constant
> </bold></strong> value.It is
> absolutely NOT incorrect, nor is it
> irrelevant, to pick that point from which to make all the
> other
> measurements.
>
> Additionally, take N8031 as a case in point against moving
> the engine
> (that's #2 in the list in case anyone was wondering).
> The second owner
> lengthened the motor mount - brace yourselves - 8
> inches. EIGHT INCHES!
> And it still didn't completely fix the W&B
> balance of the plane.
> Supposedly, I only weigh 143 lbs. For the record, I'm
> 171 fully dressed
> and I've flown 'er about 55 hours. The previous owner
> was heavier than
> me by at least 25 lbs and he flew the plane about 180 tach
> hours.
>
> I have to say that sealing the elevator gaps helped the
> overall pitch
> handling A LOT. Now, I'm thinking about rebuilding
> the cabanes and
> shifting the wing back to get everything tuned up, but the
> way the
> center section attach points were created - the bolts are
> parallel to
> the fuselage - 90 degrees off from all other Piet's I've
> seen - it's
> going to take more work than just building new front
> cabanes with welded
> diagonal braces.
>
> But, since the plane flies, and flies pretty well (y'all
> saw that at
> B'head last year), I'm not all rip rarin' to get started on
> that project
> quite yet.
>
> Dan
>
>
> On 01/23/2011 11:39 AM, Gene Rambo wrote:
> > OK, Ryan, I have got to call BS on this one. The
> location of the datum
> > and moving anything in relationship to it is
> irrelevant. It is proper to
> > say that to avoid the anteater look you might want to
> move the wing, but
> > using the datum as a reason is incorrect. This is the
> big problem I have
> > with the W&B project that was in the last
> newsletter. Rather than
> > putting the datum at a fixed point, such as the
> firewall or propeller
> > flange, the wing leading edge (a movable point) was
> used. Based on a
> > fixed point, the information as to axle location and
> engine mount length
> > would have been much more useful. As it stands, I do
> not see any use for
> > the data as published.
> >
> > Gene Rambo
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 09:51:53 -0600
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables,
> pulleys, wing supports
> > From: rmueller23@gmail.com
> > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> >
> > Keep in mind, as the numbers in the W&B article
> bear out, it is more
> > effective to move the wing to correct for CG issues
> (or think of it as
> > moving the fuselage under the wing) than it is to just
> move the engine
> > forward. If you move the engine forward you are only
> moving the weight
> > of the engine relation to the datum. On the other hand
> if you move the
> > wing aft you are now shifting the weight of the
> engine, the fuselage,
> > the pilot, and potentially a fuselage fuel tank
> forward in relation to
> > the datum. This is going to be a more effective way to
> correct CG
> > problems, and will also avoid the "anteater" look you
> could acquire by
> > having to hang the engine so far out (especially with
> lighter small
> > Continentals). Or, you could split the difference and
> shift the wing
> > some, and move the engine forward some.
> >
> > Theoretically, it shouldn't require any more work than
> just figuring out
> > engine placement. You can weigh your completed wing,
> weigh your
> > completed fuselage, add in the weight of the engine at
> the proposed
> > location, and then add in the weight of the wing at
> the proposed
> > location. Play with the locations to see how the
> numbers come out....
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Dangerous Dave <dsornbor@aol.com
> > <mailto:dsornbor@aol.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> > --> Pietenpol-List message
> posted by: "Dangerous Dave"
> > <dsornbor@aol.com
> <mailto:dsornbor@aol.com>>
> >
> > Michael,The reason most folks
> are putting in the forward braces is
> > because they take out the
> brace wires around the front cockpit and
> > just bracing one side of the
> cockpit is not quite adequate.I will
> > not have forward braces but
> rather cables the the motor mount and
> > cables running from the rear
> cabanes to the sides of the cockpit.You
> > need something to keep the
> wing from cantilevering forward in a
> > crash-bad landing.Also if you
> just put your cabanes straight up and
> > down,finish everything but the
> motor mount,do a weight and balance
> > with the plane
> complete,covered etc. and put your motor in where it
> > needs to be you will have
> perfect weight and balance,no rubbing
> > cables,great fit on the
> cockpit cowls and no wondering if your CG is
> > right or if you'll have to
> make a half dozen motor mounts instead of
> > one.On the other hand you can
> always toss a couple of bricks in to
> > make it balance,they're
> cheap.Dave
> >
> > --------
> > Covering Piet
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327986#327986
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ==========
> > st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> > ==========
> > http://forums.matronics.com
> > ==========
> > le, List Admin.
> > ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> > ==========
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> > st" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> > ttp://forums.matronics.com
> > =_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
>
> --
> 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."
>
> Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
Message 51
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: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
Thanks to those who submitted some answers and suggestions. I will go with the
CS-to- top engine mount supports.
As for the pulley side load...as I get more built and can start to get a handle
on where the CS needs to be located, I will then attend to the pulley/cable issue...if
there still is one.
Thanks again.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
--- On Sun, 1/23/11, Charles Campbell <cncampbell@windstream.net> wrote:
> From: Charles Campbell <cncampbell@windstream.net>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Date: Sunday, January 23, 2011, 4:46 PM
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted
> by: "Charles Campbell" <cncampbell@windstream.net>
>
> Dave, what size cable do you use on the rear one?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dangerous Dave" <dsornbor@aol.com>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 4:10 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing
> supports
>
>
> Dave" <dsornbor@aol.com>
> >
> > Bill,heres what I am doing.It will give forward and
> rearward stability and
> > no ugly forward cabane.Dave
> >
> > --------
> > Covering Piet
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328078#328078
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Attachments:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/2011_01_23_14_05_14_542_492.jpg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
Message 52
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: ford engine mount |
Yes, you're reading the plans correctly. I can't recall ever seeing anyone on
this list having any issues with the downthrust of the engine as mounted per the
plans. It's been working fairly well for over 80 years now as it was designed,
I don't see any point in changing it now.
--------
Billy McCaskill
Urbana, IL
tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328090#328090
Message 53
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: | questions from a new guy... |
Hi Mike,
Good to have you as a new Pietenpol builder. Welcome to the best group of
people on the internet..This is a bunch that has opinions on every subject -
Pietenpol or otherwise. Some of these opinions are even useful!
As for your questions, I'll give MY opinions, and please remember what they
say about opinions - Opinions are like rectums. Everybody has one and most
of them are full of crap.
1. The only real benefit to building one component before the other is
personal preference. I did wings, then tail, then fuselage. The advantage
to doing it that way is that the wings and tail tend to be relatively flat
pieces that are easy to store. Once you build the fuselage, you are stuck
with it taking up a good deal of floor space. However this is offset by the
fact that you can sit in it and make airplane noises, which can be done with
the wing and tail but they are just not as efficient for that task. Your
building partner is partially correct in saying that you need to build
things to fit the fuselage (the strut fittings, primarily), but the same can
be said for the wing. Build BOTH before making the fittings. And as Mike
Cuy points out in his video (the best $20 you can spend, by the way, apart
from the $80 you need to spend for the four Tony Bingelis books), all of the
fittings for the Pietenpol should be lengthened by at least 1/2" to make it
easier to fit the clevis pins in past the fabric.
2. The one piece wing is definitely lighter. It is also a pain in the rear
to move and store, and even picking it up really needs 3 people so it
doesn't deflect too much in the middle. I'm not sure how much lighter it is
than the 3-piece, but my guess is somewhere around 10 lbs., when you count
the extra wood, the extra fittings and bolts, and the fairings which cover
the gap between the outer panels and the centersection.
3. I think the steel fuselage is probably lighter and stronger, but it also
is a lot of trouble to plan ahead for every little fitting and attachment,
and welding on tabs so you can something. There are a number of steel fuse
Piets flying, including Roman Buckholts (sp? - sorry Roman) and the Big
Piets from Georgia. It basically depends on how comfortable you are with
welding. Many Pietenpol builders are attracted to the design because it
looks simple and they are familiar with woodworking, little realizing just
how much welding is involved with building a wooden airplane.
Build what you want. As long as you don't try to "improve" the design much,
you'll end up with a great airplane
Good luck,
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of MPB
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 11:05 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: questions from a new guy...
I just bought a set of plans from Don and am planning on starting on the
project in a few months (I need to finish a boat I started on first). I
have a couple of questions that I would like to throw out there and gain
some practical knowledge. At this point I am heavily leaning toward the one
piece wing, the steel tube fuselage, and a Continental engine (C85 or 0200)
1- Is there a benefit to start with one major component (wing, fuselage,
tail feathers) before another? From a space standpoint I would build the
tail and wing before the fuselage as they take up less room in the shop, but
my building partner says to build the fuselage first so you can build
everything to fit to it.
2- I am leaning toward the one piece wing because I am assuming it to be
lighter or stronger and simpler to build. Are these assumptions correct?
3- I wanted to build the steel tube fuselage because it is another medium to
work with in the build and I like working with metal, but I notice most of
the sites and posts are from guys building a wood fuselage. I also can't
help but think that it would be both lighter and stronger. I would love to
hear opinions from both sides.
Thanks for any information. I look forward to starting on the build, asking
more questions and maybe someday being able to answer some...
Mike
Message 54
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: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
Ryan, you and Gene are arguing over two different things. Gene is
referring to the choice of datum for comparing various different airplanes.
Obviously, what matters most (and the reason we even compute weight and
balance) is the relationship of the center of gravity to the center of
pressure (or center of lift, as it is sometimes called). This is usually
stated as the CG falling in some range as a percentage of wing chord, and
the easiest way to relate that is a distance from the leading edge.
But when you are doing the w&b on your airplane and trying to decide how
much to move the wing, it is much easier if a FIXED point of the airframe is
used as the datum. I used the firewall on mine, and since that point is
pretty close to being the same for all Pietenpols, it makes sense to use it
if you are trying to compare several different airplanes. Manufacturers
typically pick a point in front of the airplane (sometimes the prop hub,
sometimes a point in space in front of any part of the airplane) so that all
arms are positive. If you pick a point on the plane such as the firewall or
the leading edge, anything forward of that has a negative arm which can lead
to calculation errors if not recognized.
I tend to agree with Gene that picking the leading edge of a wing that you
intend to possibly move is not the best choice, since all the variable
weights such as pilot, passenger, baggage, fuel, etc. now will have a
different arm as soon as you move the wing. But choosing the LE is not
wrong, just more work.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mueller
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
The location of the datum and moving anything in relationship to it is
irrelevant? How could you ever possibly perform any CG adjustment if that is
irrelevant. You move/add/subtract weight in order to bring the CG within
limits, and in order to have a point of reference you have a datum.
If you can move weights in relation to the datum, such as moving the engine
farther forward, to cause a change in where the CG falls in relation the
LE....then what is the problem with sliding the LE (and thusly datum) fore
or aft to put the CG at an acceptable location? Sure, on most aircraft you
cannot, but on a Piet you can, and it proves to be a more effective change.
Prove me wrong, please...
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Gene Rambo <generambo@msn.com> wrote:
OK, Ryan, I have got to call BS on this one. The location of the datum and
moving anything in relationship to it is irrelevant. It is proper to say
that to avoid the anteater look you might want to move the wing, but using
the datum as a reason is incorrect. This is the big problem I have with the
W&B project that was in the last newsletter. Rather than putting the datum
at a fixed point, such as the firewall or propeller flange, the wing leading
edge (a movable point) was used. Based on a fixed point, the information as
to axle location and engine mount length would have been much more useful.
As it stands, I do not see any use for the data as published.
Gene Rambo
_____
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
From: rmueller23@gmail.com
Keep in mind, as the numbers in the W&B article bear out, it is more
effective to move the wing to correct for CG issues (or think of it as
moving the fuselage under the wing) than it is to just move the engine
forward. If you move the engine forward you are only moving the weight of
the engine relation to the datum. On the other hand if you move the wing aft
you are now shifting the weight of the engine, the fuselage, the pilot, and
potentially a fuselage fuel tank forward in relation to the datum. This is
going to be a more effective way to correct CG problems, and will also avoid
the "anteater" look you could acquire by having to hang the engine so far
out (especially with lighter small Continentals). Or, you could split the
difference and shift the wing some, and move the engine forward some.
Theoretically, it shouldn't require any more work than just figuring out
engine placement. You can weigh your completed wing, weigh your completed
fuselage, add in the weight of the engine at the proposed location, and then
add in the weight of the wing at the proposed location. Play with the
locations to see how the numbers come out....
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Dangerous Dave <dsornbor@aol.com> wrote:
Michael,The reason most folks are putting in the forward braces is because
they take out the brace wires around the front cockpit and just bracing one
side of the cockpit is not quite adequate.I will not have forward braces but
rather cables the the motor mount and cables running from the rear cabanes
to the sides of the cockpit.You need something to keep the wing from
cantilevering forward in a crash-bad landing.Also if you just put your
cabanes straight up and down,finish everything but the motor mount,do a
weight and balance with the plane complete,covered etc. and put your motor
in where it needs to be you will have perfect weight and balance,no rubbing
cables,great fit on the cockpit cowls and no wondering if your CG is right
or if you'll have to make a half dozen motor mounts instead of one.On the
other hand you can always toss a couple of bricks in to make it
balance,they're cheap.Dave
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327986#327986
==========
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
st" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 55
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: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
Thanks for contributing your thoughts Jack, always valuable. I won't pick
your post apart, but mainly focus on the final statement: "...choosing the
LE is not wrong, just more work". Well, it may be a bit more work than just
moving one item and recalculating your numbers, but as long as you
understand what you have to recalculate when you move the LE....it's not
much more work. Grab a freely available W&B spreadsheet, and understand wha
t
you are doing, and you can calculate the results just fine. I don't believe
it's any more difficult than any of the math or building that you have to d
o
in the build.....so no reason to shy away from it. Thanks,
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Jack Phillips <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>wrot
e:
> Ryan, you and Gene are arguing over two different things. Gene is
> referring to the choice of datum for comparing various different airplane
s.
> Obviously, what matters most (and the reason we even compute weight and
> balance) is the relationship of the center of gravity to the center of
> pressure (or center of lift, as it is sometimes called). This is usually
> stated as the CG falling in some range as a percentage of wing chord, and
> the easiest way to relate that is a distance from the leading edge.
>
>
> But when you are doing the w&b on your airplane and trying to decide how
> much to move the wing, it is much easier if a FIXED point of the airframe
is
> used as the datum. I used the firewall on mine, and since that point is
> pretty close to being the same for all Pietenpols, it makes sense to use
it
> if you are trying to compare several different airplanes. Manufacturers
> typically pick a point in front of the airplane (sometimes the prop hub,
> sometimes a point in space in front of any part of the airplane) so that
all
> arms are positive. If you pick a point on the plane such as the firewall
or
> the leading edge, anything forward of that has a negative arm which can l
ead
> to calculation errors if not recognized.
>
>
> I tend to agree with Gene that picking the leading edge of a wing that yo
u
> intend to possibly move is not the best choice, since all the variable
> weights such as pilot, passenger, baggage, fuel, etc. now will have a
> different arm as soon as you move the wing. But choosing the LE is not
> wrong, just more work.
>
>
> 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 *Ryan Mueller
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 23, 2011 2:17 PM
>
> *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
>
>
> The location of the datum and moving anything in relationship to it is
> irrelevant? How could you ever possibly perform any CG adjustment if that
is
> irrelevant. You move/add/subtract weight in order to bring the CG within
> limits, and in order to have a point of reference you have a datum.
>
>
> If you can move weights in relation to the datum, such as moving the engi
ne
> farther forward, to cause a change in where the CG falls in relation the
> LE....then what is the problem with sliding the LE (and thusly datum) for
e
> or aft to put the CG at an acceptable location? Sure, on most aircraft yo
u
> cannot, but on a Piet you can, and it proves to be a more effective chang
e.
> Prove me wrong, please...
>
>
> Ryan
>
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Gene Rambo <generambo@msn.com> wrote:
>
> OK, Ryan, I have got to call BS on this one. The location of the datum a
nd
> moving anything in relationship to it is irrelevant. It is proper to say
> that to avoid the anteater look you might want to move the wing, but usin
g
> the datum as a reason is incorrect. This is the big problem I have with
the
> W&B project that was in the last newsletter. Rather than putting the dat
um
> at a fixed point, such as the firewall or propeller flange, the wing lead
ing
> edge (a movable point) was used. Based on a fixed point, the information
as
> to axle location and engine mount length would have been much more useful
.
> As it stands, I do not see any use for the data as published.
>
> Gene Rambo
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 09:51:53 -0600
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
> From: rmueller23@gmail.com
>
>
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>
> Keep in mind, as the numbers in the W&B article bear out, it is more
> effective to move the wing to correct for CG issues (or think of it as
> moving the fuselage under the wing) than it is to just move the engine
> forward. If you move the engine forward you are only moving the weight of
> the engine relation to the datum. On the other hand if you move the wing
aft
> you are now shifting the weight of the engine, the fuselage, the pilot, a
nd
> potentially a fuselage fuel tank forward in relation to the datum. This i
s
> going to be a more effective way to correct CG problems, and will also av
oid
> the "anteater" look you could acquire by having to hang the engine so far
> out (especially with lighter small Continentals). Or, you could split the
> difference and shift the wing some, and move the engine forward some.
>
>
> Theoretically, it shouldn't require any more work than just figuring out
> engine placement. You can weigh your completed wing, weigh your completed
> fuselage, add in the weight of the engine at the proposed location, and t
hen
> add in the weight of the wing at the proposed location. Play with the
> locations to see how the numbers come out....
>
>
> Ryan
>
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Dangerous Dave <dsornbor@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Michael,The reason most folks are putting in the forward braces is becaus
e
> they take out the brace wires around the front cockpit and just bracing o
ne
> side of the cockpit is not quite adequate.I will not have forward braces
but
> rather cables the the motor mount and cables running from the rear cabane
s
> to the sides of the cockpit.You need something to keep the wing from
> cantilevering forward in a crash-bad landing.Also if you just put your
> cabanes straight up and down,finish everything but the motor mount,do a
> weight and balance with the plane complete,covered etc. and put your moto
r
> in where it needs to be you will have perfect weight and balance,no rubbi
ng
> cables,great fit on the cockpit cowls and no wondering if your CG is righ
t
> or if you'll have to make a half dozen motor mounts instead of one.On the
> other hand you can always toss a couple of bricks in to make it
> balance,they're cheap.Dave
>
>
> --------
> Covering Piet
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327986#327986
>
>
> ==========
> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> ==========
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> le, List Admin.
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *st" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List*
>
> *ttp://forums.matronics.com*
>
> *=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List*
>
> *tp://forums.matronics.com*
>
> *_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
Message 56
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: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
So you replace two "ugly" forward cabanes with four cables, two fore and
aft?
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Dangerous Dave <dsornbor@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Bill,heres what I am doing.It will give forward and rearward stability and
> no ugly forward cabane.Dave
>
> --------
> Covering Piet
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328078#328078
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/2011_01_23_14_05_14_542_492.jpg
>
>
Message 57
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: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
Well, those ugly cabanes lack something that the cables have. They lack the
high drag coefficient of a round cable.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
Do Not Archive
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mueller
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
So you replace two "ugly" forward cabanes with four cables, two fore and
aft?
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Dangerous Dave <dsornbor@aol.com> wrote:
Bill,heres what I am doing.It will give forward and rearward stability and
no ugly forward cabane.Dave
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328078#328078
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/2011_01_23_14_05_14_542_492.jpg
<http://forums.matronics.com/files/2011_01_23_14_05_14_542_492.jpg>
==========
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
Message 58
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: First Question |
Ryan,If a steerable tailwheel,brakes landing gear in the proper position,pulleys
with bearings,4130 steel,synthetic fabric,a real motor,required instuments,seatbelts,nose
fuel and elt aren't updates then I guess the plans are perfect and
you should strictly adhere to them,Dave
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328104#328104
Message 59
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: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
I have been reading this to see and understand where it was going to end
up
and in all the confusion of the topic and my own, is what you're
advocating that the firewall dose not and cannot move. Thus the only sing
le solid
reference point we all have to work from. I suspect then the next variabl
e is
the length of the fuse, one built becomes another fixed dimension but
variant between builds and builders. Once the landing gear is fixed in pl
ace
based upon the plans that put the center line of the axle 17 inches back
from
the firewall. That makes the only two variables in which to balance the
aircraft is the amount of weight distributed fore and aft of the only com
mon
hard point reference, which is the firewall. I know that I just took my
overall length from 2 solid and reliable points that I know will not chang
e
under normal circumstances, the measurement from firewall to tail post is
172 inches. All others become relative to their reference point. A movabl
e or
variable point brings all the measurements into question.
Gene are you saying the only significant point that is not adjustable and
can be relied upon is the firewall?
The hub becomes a variable based upon the motor mounts and weight of the
engine which counter balance the rest of the airframe. So if the axle is
are
placed according to plan is that the fulcrum of the entire aircraft for
which all balance relies upon?
Having not fixed my gear location I had planned to follow the design and
make the placement in relationship to the firewall.
No would some one please explain this entire discussion as to permit me a
certain degree of reason, comprehension, logic and basis in which to
continue.
I know I know build to plans!
John
Please Do not archive unless anything I have said has any value or makes
the least bit of sense
In a message dated 1/23/2011 6:36:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rmueller23@gmail.com writes:
Thanks for contributing your thoughts Jack, always valuable. I won't pick
your post apart, but mainly focus on the final statement: "...choosing th
e
LE is not wrong, just more work". Well, it may be a bit more work than ju
st
moving one item and recalculating your numbers, but as long as you
understand what you have to recalculate when you move the LE....it's not
much more
work. Grab a freely available W&B spreadsheet, and understand what you ar
e
doing, and you can calculate the results just fine. I don't believe it's
any more difficult than any of the math or building that you have to do
in
the build.....so no reason to shy away from it. Thanks,
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Jack Phillips <_pietflyr@bellsouth.net_
(mailto:pietflyr@bellsouth.net) > wrote:
Ryan, you and Gene are arguing over two different things. Gene is
referring to the choice of datum for comparing various different airplane
s.
Obviously, what matters most (and the reason we even compute weight and
balance) is the relationship of the center of gravity to the center of pr
essure
(or center of lift, as it is sometimes called). This is usually stated
as
the CG falling in some range as a percentage of wing chord, and the easie
st
way to relate that is a distance from the leading edge.
But when you are doing the w&b on your airplane and trying to decide how
much to move the wing, it is much easier if a FIXED point of the airframe
is
used as the datum. I used the firewall on mine, and since that point is
pretty close to being the same for all Pietenpols, it makes sense to use
it
if you are trying to compare several different airplanes. Manufacturers
typically pick a point in front of the airplane (sometimes the prop hub,
sometimes a point in space in front of any part of the airplane) so that
all
arms are positive. If you pick a point on the plane such as the firewall
or
the leading edge, anything forward of that has a negative arm which can
lead to calculation errors if not recognized.
I tend to agree with Gene that picking the leading edge of a wing that yo
u
intend to possibly move is not the best choice, since all the variable
weights such as pilot, passenger, baggage, fuel, etc. now will have a
different arm as soon as you move the wing. But choosing the LE is not
wrong, just
more work.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP =9CIcarus Plummet=9D
Raleigh, NC
____________________________________
From: _owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com_
(mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com)
[mailto:_owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com_ (mailto:owner-pietenpo
l-list-server@matronics.com) ] On Behalf Of Ryan
Mueller
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
The location of the datum and moving anything in relationship to it is
irrelevant? How could you ever possibly perform any CG adjustment if that
is
irrelevant. You move/add/subtract weight in order to bring the CG within
limits, and in order to have a point of reference you have a datum.
If you can move weights in relation to the datum, such as moving the
engine farther forward, to cause a change in where the CG falls in relati
on the
LE....then what is the problem with sliding the LE (and thusly datum) for
e
or aft to put the CG at an acceptable location? Sure, on most aircraft yo
u
cannot, but on a Piet you can, and it proves to be a more effective chang
e.
Prove me wrong, please...
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Gene Rambo <_generambo@msn.com_
(mailto:generambo@msn.com) > wrote:
OK, Ryan, I have got to call BS on this one. The location of the datum
and moving anything in relationship to it is irrelevant. It is proper to
say
that to avoid the anteater look you might want to move the wing, but usin
g
the datum as a reason is incorrect. This is the big problem I have with
the W&B project that was in the last newsletter. Rather than putting th
e
datum at a fixed point, such as the firewall or propeller flange, the win
g
leading edge (a movable point) was used. Based on a fixed point, the
information as to axle location and engine mount length would have been
much more
useful. As it stands, I do not see any use for the data as published.
Gene Rambo
____________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
From: _rmueller23@gmail.com_ (mailto:rmueller23@gmail.com)
Keep in mind, as the numbers in the W&B article bear out, it is more
effective to move the wing to correct for CG issues (or think of it as mo
ving
the fuselage under the wing) than it is to just move the engine forward.
If
you move the engine forward you are only moving the weight of the engine
relation to the datum. On the other hand if you move the wing aft you are
now
shifting the weight of the engine, the fuselage, the pilot, and potential
ly
a fuselage fuel tank forward in relation to the datum. This is going to
be
a more effective way to correct CG problems, and will also avoid the
"anteater" look you could acquire by having to hang the engine so far out
(especially with lighter small Continentals). Or, you could split the dif
ference
and shift the wing some, and move the engine forward some.
Theoretically, it shouldn't require any more work than just figuring out
engine placement. You can weigh your completed wing, weigh your completed
fuselage, add in the weight of the engine at the proposed location, and
then
add in the weight of the wing at the proposed location. Play with the
locations to see how the numbers come out....
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Dangerous Dave <_dsornbor@aol.com_
(mailto:dsornbor@aol.com) > wrote:
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Dangerous Dave" <_dsornbor@aol.com
_
(mailto:dsornbor@aol.com) >
Michael,The reason most folks are putting in the forward braces is becaus
e
they take out the brace wires around the front cockpit and just bracing
one side of the cockpit is not quite adequate.I will not have forward bra
ces
but rather cables the the motor mount and cables running from the rear
cabanes to the sides of the cockpit.You need something to keep the wing
from
cantilevering forward in a crash-bad landing.Also if you just put your
cabanes straight up and down,finish everything but the motor mount,do a
weight
and balance with the plane complete,covered etc. and put your motor in wh
ere
it needs to be you will have perfect weight and balance,no rubbing
cables,great fit on the cockpit cowls and no wondering if your CG is righ
t or if
you'll have to make a half dozen motor mounts instead of one.On the other
hand you can always toss a couple of bricks in to make it balance,they're
cheap.Dave
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
_http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327986#327986_
(http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327986#327986)
st" target="_blank">_http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List_
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List)
_http://forums.matronics.com_ (http://forums.matronics.com/)
le, List Admin.
="_blank">_http://www.matronics.com/contribution_
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
st" target=_blank>_http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List_
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List)
ttp://_forums.matronics.com_ (http://forums.matronics.com/)
=_blank>_http://www.matronics.com/contribution_
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
" target="_blank">_http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List_
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List)
tp://_forums.matronics.com_ (http://forums.matronics.com/)
_blank">_http://www.matronics.com/contribution_
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
_http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List_
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List)
_http://forums.matronics.com_ (http://forums.matronics.com/)
_http://www.matronics.com/contribution_
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
========================
============
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List)
========================
============
========================
============
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
========================
============
Message 60
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: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
Ugly cabanes? I know you're kidding.I think they are beautiful!!
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(23 ribs down.)
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jack
Phillips
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 3:42 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
Well, those ugly cabanes lack something that the cables have. They lack the
high drag coefficient of a round cable.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
Do Not Archive
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mueller
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
So you replace two "ugly" forward cabanes with four cables, two fore and
aft?
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Dangerous Dave <dsornbor@aol.com> wrote:
Bill,heres what I am doing.It will give forward and rearward stability and
no ugly forward cabane.Dave
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328078#328078
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/2011_01_23_14_05_14_542_492.jpg
<http://forums.matronics.com/files/2011_01_23_14_05_14_542_492.jpg>
==========
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 61
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: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
The drag coefficient of 4 3/32" cables is 1/8 that of 2- 7/8 x 2 1/2 struts-math
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328105#328105
Message 62
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: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
Who would make the diagonals out of 7/8" x 2-1/2" tubing? Mine are 1/2" x
1-3/8". And yes, they have a lower drag coefficient than 4 3/32" cables
(a round shape is one of the worst shapes you can try to push through the
air - out of all proportion to its actual frontal area)
Check out this video, which demonstrates pretty graphically the drag of a
round object.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftq8jTQ8ANE
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dangerous
Dave
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 7:08 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
The drag coefficient of 4 3/32" cables is 1/8 that of 2- 7/8 x 2 1/2
struts-math
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328105#328105
Message 63
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: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
I'm with you, John! "You may understand what you think I said, but I'm not
sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
Add to the confusion, I know of at least two Pietenpols being build that
have "moved the firewall forward 2" from the plans. So, did they move the
firewall forward, or did they move everything else back?
For me, it's simple to think of the leading edge as the datum, and firewall
has a point of reference for all measurements. Is that what JP said?
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(24 ribs down.)
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
AMsafetyC@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
I have been reading this to see and understand where it was going to end up
and in all the confusion of the topic and my own, is what you're advocating
that the firewall dose not and cannot move. Thus the only single solid
reference point we all have to work from. I suspect then the next variable
is the length of the fuse, one built becomes another fixed dimension but
variant between builds and builders. Once the landing gear is fixed in place
based upon the plans that put the center line of the axle 17 inches back
from the firewall. That makes the only two variables in which to balance the
aircraft is the amount of weight distributed fore and aft of the only common
hard point reference, which is the firewall. I know that I just took my
overall length from 2 solid and reliable points that I know will not change
under normal circumstances, the measurement from firewall to tail post is
172 inches. All others become relative to their reference point. A movable
or variable point brings all the measurements into question.
Gene are you saying the only significant point that is not adjustable and
can be relied upon is the firewall?
The hub becomes a variable based upon the motor mounts and weight of the
engine which counter balance the rest of the airframe. So if the axle is are
placed according to plan is that the fulcrum of the entire aircraft for
which all balance relies upon?
Having not fixed my gear location I had planned to follow the design and
make the placement in relationship to the firewall.
No would some one please explain this entire discussion as to permit me a
certain degree of reason, comprehension, logic and basis in which to
continue.
I know I know build to plans!
John
Please Do not archive unless anything I have said has any value or makes the
least bit of sense
In a message dated 1/23/2011 6:36:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rmueller23@gmail.com writes:
Thanks for contributing your thoughts Jack, always valuable. I won't pick
your post apart, but mainly focus on the final statement: "...choosing the
LE is not wrong, just more work". Well, it may be a bit more work than just
moving one item and recalculating your numbers, but as long as you
understand what you have to recalculate when you move the LE....it's not
much more work. Grab a freely available W&B spreadsheet, and understand what
you are doing, and you can calculate the results just fine. I don't believe
it's any more difficult than any of the math or building that you have to do
in the build.....so no reason to shy away from it. Thanks,
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Jack Phillips <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
Ryan, you and Gene are arguing over two different things. Gene is
referring to the choice of datum for comparing various different airplanes.
Obviously, what matters most (and the reason we even compute weight and
balance) is the relationship of the center of gravity to the center of
pressure (or center of lift, as it is sometimes called). This is usually
stated as the CG falling in some range as a percentage of wing chord, and
the easiest way to relate that is a distance from the leading edge.
But when you are doing the w&b on your airplane and trying to decide how
much to move the wing, it is much easier if a FIXED point of the airframe is
used as the datum. I used the firewall on mine, and since that point is
pretty close to being the same for all Pietenpols, it makes sense to use it
if you are trying to compare several different airplanes. Manufacturers
typically pick a point in front of the airplane (sometimes the prop hub,
sometimes a point in space in front of any part of the airplane) so that all
arms are positive. If you pick a point on the plane such as the firewall or
the leading edge, anything forward of that has a negative arm which can lead
to calculation errors if not recognized.
I tend to agree with Gene that picking the leading edge of a wing that you
intend to possibly move is not the best choice, since all the variable
weights such as pilot, passenger, baggage, fuel, etc. now will have a
different arm as soon as you move the wing. But choosing the LE is not
wrong, just more work.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mueller
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
The location of the datum and moving anything in relationship to it is
irrelevant? How could you ever possibly perform any CG adjustment if that is
irrelevant. You move/add/subtract weight in order to bring the CG within
limits, and in order to have a point of reference you have a datum.
If you can move weights in relation to the datum, such as moving the engine
farther forward, to cause a change in where the CG falls in relation the
LE....then what is the problem with sliding the LE (and thusly datum) fore
or aft to put the CG at an acceptable location? Sure, on most aircraft you
cannot, but on a Piet you can, and it proves to be a more effective change.
Prove me wrong, please...
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Gene Rambo <generambo@msn.com> wrote:
OK, Ryan, I have got to call BS on this one. The location of the datum and
moving anything in relationship to it is irrelevant. It is proper to say
that to avoid the anteater look you might want to move the wing, but using
the datum as a reason is incorrect. This is the big problem I have with the
W&B project that was in the last newsletter. Rather than putting the datum
at a fixed point, such as the firewall or propeller flange, the wing leading
edge (a movable point) was used. Based on a fixed point, the information as
to axle location and engine mount length would have been much more useful.
As it stands, I do not see any use for the data as published.
Gene Rambo
_____
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
From: rmueller23@gmail.com
Keep in mind, as the numbers in the W&B article bear out, it is more
effective to move the wing to correct for CG issues (or think of it as
moving the fuselage under the wing) than it is to just move the engine
forward. If you move the engine forward you are only moving the weight of
the engine relation to the datum. On the other hand if you move the wing aft
you are now shifting the weight of the engine, the fuselage, the pilot, and
potentially a fuselage fuel tank forward in relation to the datum. This is
going to be a more effective way to correct CG problems, and will also avoid
the "anteater" look you could acquire by having to hang the engine so far
out (especially with lighter small Continentals). Or, you could split the
difference and shift the wing some, and move the engine forward some.
Theoretically, it shouldn't require any more work than just figuring out
engine placement. You can weigh your completed wing, weigh your completed
fuselage, add in the weight of the engine at the proposed location, and then
add in the weight of the wing at the proposed location. Play with the
locations to see how the numbers come out....
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Dangerous Dave <dsornbor@aol.com> wrote:
Michael,The reason most folks are putting in the forward braces is because
they take out the brace wires around the front cockpit and just bracing one
side of the cockpit is not quite adequate.I will not have forward braces but
rather cables the the motor mount and cables running from the rear cabanes
to the sides of the cockpit.You need something to keep the wing from
cantilevering forward in a crash-bad landing.Also if you just put your
cabanes straight up and down,finish everything but the motor mount,do a
weight and balance with the plane complete,covered etc. and put your motor
in where it needs to be you will have perfect weight and balance,no rubbing
cables,great fit on the cockpit cowls and no wondering if your CG is right
or if you'll have to make a half dozen motor mounts instead of one.On the
other hand you can always toss a couple of bricks in to make it
balance,they're cheap.Dave
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327986#327986
==========
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
st" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===================================
t
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
===================================
ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
===================================
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===================================
Message 64
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: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
Apparently physics and aeronautical engineering don't apply to Piets guess I should
have built unicycle
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328116#328116
Message 65
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: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
Datum is datum....if it is LE, then that is datum, and all other weights
measured from there. If the firewall, prop hub, etc, then measured from
there. It's just a defined point of reference for calculating W&B....
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Gary Boothe <gboothe5@comcast.net> wrote:
> I=92m with you, John! *=93You may understand what you think I said, but
I=92m
> not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.=94*
>
>
> Add to the confusion, I know of at least two Pietenpols being build that
> have *=93moved the firewall forward 2=94* from the plans. So, did they mo
ve
> the firewall forward, or did they move everything else back?
>
>
> For me, it=92s simple to think of the leading edge as the datum, and fire
wall
> has a point of reference for all measurements. Is that what JP said?
>
> Gary Boothe
> Cool, Ca.
> Pietenpol
> WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
> Tail done, Fuselage on gear
> (24 ribs down=85)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *
> AMsafetyC@aol.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 23, 2011 4:03 PM
>
> *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
>
>
> I have been reading this to see and understand where it was going to end
up
> and in all the confusion of the topic and my own, is what you're advocati
ng
> that the firewall dose not and cannot move. Thus the only single solid
> reference point we all have to work from. I suspect then the next variabl
e
> is the length of the fuse, one built becomes another fixed dimension but
> variant between builds and builders. Once the landing gear is fixed in pl
ace
> based upon the plans that put the center line of the axle 17 inches back
> from the firewall. That makes the only two variables in which to balance
the
> aircraft is the amount of weight distributed fore and aft of the only com
mon
> hard point reference, which is the firewall. I know that I just took my
> overall length from 2 solid and reliable points that I know will not chan
ge
> under normal circumstances, the measurement from firewall to tail post is
> 172 inches. All others become relative to their reference point. A movabl
e
> or variable point brings all the measurements into question.
>
>
> Gene are you saying the only significant point that is not adjustable and
> can be relied upon is the firewall?
>
>
> The hub becomes a variable based upon the motor mounts and weight of the
> engine which counter balance the rest of the airframe. So if the axle is
are
> placed according to plan is that the fulcrum of the entire aircraft for
> which all balance relies upon?
>
>
> Having not fixed my gear location I had planned to follow the design and
> make the placement in relationship to the firewall.
>
>
> No would some one please explain this entire discussion as to permit me a
> certain degree of reason, comprehension, logic and basis in which to
> continue.
>
>
> I know I know build to plans!
>
>
> John
>
>
> Please Do not archive unless anything I have said has any value or makes
> the least bit of sense
>
>
> In a message dated 1/23/2011 6:36:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> rmueller23@gmail.com writes:
>
> Thanks for contributing your thoughts Jack, always valuable. I won't pick
> your post apart, but mainly focus on the final statement: "...choosing th
e
> LE is not wrong, just more work". Well, it may be a bit more work than ju
st
> moving one item and recalculating your numbers, but as long as you
> understand what you have to recalculate when you move the LE....it's not
> much more work. Grab a freely available W&B spreadsheet, and understand w
hat
> you are doing, and you can calculate the results just fine. I don't belie
ve
> it's any more difficult than any of the math or building that you have to
do
> in the build.....so no reason to shy away from it. Thanks,
>
>
> Ryan
>
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Jack Phillips <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> Ryan, you and Gene are arguing over two different things. Gene is
> referring to the choice of datum for comparing various different airplane
s.
> Obviously, what matters most (and the reason we even compute weight and
> balance) is the relationship of the center of gravity to the center of
> pressure (or center of lift, as it is sometimes called). This is usually
> stated as the CG falling in some range as a percentage of wing chord, and
> the easiest way to relate that is a distance from the leading edge.
>
>
> But when you are doing the w&b on your airplane and trying to decide how
> much to move the wing, it is much easier if a FIXED point of the airframe
is
> used as the datum. I used the firewall on mine, and since that point is
> pretty close to being the same for all Pietenpols, it makes sense to use
it
> if you are trying to compare several different airplanes. Manufacturers
> typically pick a point in front of the airplane (sometimes the prop hub,
> sometimes a point in space in front of any part of the airplane) so that
all
> arms are positive. If you pick a point on the plane such as the firewall
or
> the leading edge, anything forward of that has a negative arm which can l
ead
> to calculation errors if not recognized.
>
>
> I tend to agree with Gene that picking the leading edge of a wing that yo
u
> intend to possibly move is not the best choice, since all the variable
> weights such as pilot, passenger, baggage, fuel, etc. now will have a
> different arm as soon as you move the wing. But choosing the LE is not
> wrong, just more work.
>
>
> 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 *Ryan Mueller
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 23, 2011 2:17 PM
>
>
> *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
>
>
> The location of the datum and moving anything in relationship to it is
> irrelevant? How could you ever possibly perform any CG adjustment if that
is
> irrelevant. You move/add/subtract weight in order to bring the CG within
> limits, and in order to have a point of reference you have a datum.
>
>
> If you can move weights in relation to the datum, such as moving the engi
ne
> farther forward, to cause a change in where the CG falls in relation the
> LE....then what is the problem with sliding the LE (and thusly datum) for
e
> or aft to put the CG at an acceptable location? Sure, on most aircraft yo
u
> cannot, but on a Piet you can, and it proves to be a more effective chang
e.
> Prove me wrong, please...
>
>
> Ryan
>
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Gene Rambo <generambo@msn.com> wrote:
>
> OK, Ryan, I have got to call BS on this one. The location of the datum a
nd
> moving anything in relationship to it is irrelevant. It is proper to say
> that to avoid the anteater look you might want to move the wing, but usin
g
> the datum as a reason is incorrect. This is the big problem I have with
the
> W&B project that was in the last newsletter. Rather than putting the dat
um
> at a fixed point, such as the firewall or propeller flange, the wing lead
ing
> edge (a movable point) was used. Based on a fixed point, the information
as
> to axle location and engine mount length would have been much more useful
.
> As it stands, I do not see any use for the data as published.
>
> Gene Rambo
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 09:51:53 -0600
>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
>
> From: rmueller23@gmail.com
>
>
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>
> Keep in mind, as the numbers in the W&B article bear out, it is more
> effective to move the wing to correct for CG issues (or think of it as
> moving the fuselage under the wing) than it is to just move the engine
> forward. If you move the engine forward you are only moving the weight of
> the engine relation to the datum. On the other hand if you move the wing
aft
> you are now shifting the weight of the engine, the fuselage, the pilot, a
nd
> potentially a fuselage fuel tank forward in relation to the datum. This i
s
> going to be a more effective way to correct CG problems, and will also av
oid
> the "anteater" look you could acquire by having to hang the engine so far
> out (especially with lighter small Continentals). Or, you could split the
> difference and shift the wing some, and move the engine forward some.
>
>
> Theoretically, it shouldn't require any more work than just figuring out
> engine placement. You can weigh your completed wing, weigh your completed
> fuselage, add in the weight of the engine at the proposed location, and t
hen
> add in the weight of the wing at the proposed location. Play with the
> locations to see how the numbers come out....
>
>
> Ryan
>
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Dangerous Dave <dsornbor@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Michael,The reason most folks are putting in the forward braces is becaus
e
> they take out the brace wires around the front cockpit and just bracing o
ne
> side of the cockpit is not quite adequate.I will not have forward braces
but
> rather cables the the motor mount and cables running from the rear cabane
s
> to the sides of the cockpit.You need something to keep the wing from
> cantilevering forward in a crash-bad landing.Also if you just put your
> cabanes straight up and down,finish everything but the motor mount,do a
> weight and balance with the plane complete,covered etc. and put your moto
r
> in where it needs to be you will have perfect weight and balance,no rubbi
ng
> cables,great fit on the cockpit cowls and no wondering if your CG is righ
t
> or if you'll have to make a half dozen motor mounts instead of one.On the
> other hand you can always toss a couple of bricks in to make it
> balance,they're cheap.Dave
>
>
> --------
>
> Covering Piet
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327986#327986
>
>
> ==========
>
> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> ==========
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> le, List Admin.
>
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *st" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List*
>
> *ttp://forums.matronics.com*
>
> *=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List*
>
> *tp://forums.matronics.com*
>
> *_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List*
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List*
>
> *tp://forums.matronics.com*
>
> *_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *========================
============*
>
> *t href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List*
>
> *========================
============*
>
> *ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> *========================
============*
>
> *tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on*
>
> *========================
============*
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
Message 66
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: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
I agree with you Gary. Yours in particular are very nice.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary Boothe
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 7:04 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
Ugly cabanes? I know you're kidding.I think they are beautiful!!
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(23 ribs down.)
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jack
Phillips
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 3:42 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
Well, those ugly cabanes lack something that the cables have. They lack the
high drag coefficient of a round cable.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
Do Not Archive
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mueller
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
So you replace two "ugly" forward cabanes with four cables, two fore and
aft?
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Dangerous Dave <dsornbor@aol.com> wrote:
Bill,heres what I am doing.It will give forward and rearward stability and
no ugly forward cabane.Dave
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328078#328078
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/2011_01_23_14_05_14_542_492.jpg
<http://forums.matronics.com/files/2011_01_23_14_05_14_542_492.jpg>
==========
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 67
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: | Lively Forum Today! |
Keeping my head low just finished 6 enjoyable hours working on the Piet.
Jack
DSM
Do not archive!
Message 68
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: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
I know, I know.I'm just weary. After all, I built a rib today. :-I
Gary
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mueller
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
Datum is datum....if it is LE, then that is datum, and all other weights
measured from there. If the firewall, prop hub, etc, then measured from
there. It's just a defined point of reference for calculating W&B....
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Gary Boothe <gboothe5@comcast.net> wrote:
I'm with you, John! "You may understand what you think I said, but I'm not
sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
Add to the confusion, I know of at least two Pietenpols being build that
have "moved the firewall forward 2" from the plans. So, did they move the
firewall forward, or did they move everything else back?
For me, it's simple to think of the leading edge as the datum, and firewall
has a point of reference for all measurements. Is that what JP said?
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(24 ribs down.)
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
AMsafetyC@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
I have been reading this to see and understand where it was going to end up
and in all the confusion of the topic and my own, is what you're advocating
that the firewall dose not and cannot move. Thus the only single solid
reference point we all have to work from. I suspect then the next variable
is the length of the fuse, one built becomes another fixed dimension but
variant between builds and builders. Once the landing gear is fixed in place
based upon the plans that put the center line of the axle 17 inches back
from the firewall. That makes the only two variables in which to balance the
aircraft is the amount of weight distributed fore and aft of the only common
hard point reference, which is the firewall. I know that I just took my
overall length from 2 solid and reliable points that I know will not change
under normal circumstances, the measurement from firewall to tail post is
172 inches. All others become relative to their reference point. A movable
or variable point brings all the measurements into question.
Gene are you saying the only significant point that is not adjustable and
can be relied upon is the firewall?
The hub becomes a variable based upon the motor mounts and weight of the
engine which counter balance the rest of the airframe. So if the axle is are
placed according to plan is that the fulcrum of the entire aircraft for
which all balance relies upon?
Having not fixed my gear location I had planned to follow the design and
make the placement in relationship to the firewall.
No would some one please explain this entire discussion as to permit me a
certain degree of reason, comprehension, logic and basis in which to
continue.
I know I know build to plans!
John
Please Do not archive unless anything I have said has any value or makes the
least bit of sense
In a message dated 1/23/2011 6:36:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rmueller23@gmail.com writes:
Thanks for contributing your thoughts Jack, always valuable. I won't pick
your post apart, but mainly focus on the final statement: "...choosing the
LE is not wrong, just more work". Well, it may be a bit more work than just
moving one item and recalculating your numbers, but as long as you
understand what you have to recalculate when you move the LE....it's not
much more work. Grab a freely available W&B spreadsheet, and understand what
you are doing, and you can calculate the results just fine. I don't believe
it's any more difficult than any of the math or building that you have to do
in the build.....so no reason to shy away from it. Thanks,
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Jack Phillips <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
Ryan, you and Gene are arguing over two different things. Gene is
referring to the choice of datum for comparing various different airplanes.
Obviously, what matters most (and the reason we even compute weight and
balance) is the relationship of the center of gravity to the center of
pressure (or center of lift, as it is sometimes called). This is usually
stated as the CG falling in some range as a percentage of wing chord, and
the easiest way to relate that is a distance from the leading edge.
But when you are doing the w&b on your airplane and trying to decide how
much to move the wing, it is much easier if a FIXED point of the airframe is
used as the datum. I used the firewall on mine, and since that point is
pretty close to being the same for all Pietenpols, it makes sense to use it
if you are trying to compare several different airplanes. Manufacturers
typically pick a point in front of the airplane (sometimes the prop hub,
sometimes a point in space in front of any part of the airplane) so that all
arms are positive. If you pick a point on the plane such as the firewall or
the leading edge, anything forward of that has a negative arm which can lead
to calculation errors if not recognized.
I tend to agree with Gene that picking the leading edge of a wing that you
intend to possibly move is not the best choice, since all the variable
weights such as pilot, passenger, baggage, fuel, etc. now will have a
different arm as soon as you move the wing. But choosing the LE is not
wrong, just more work.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mueller
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
The location of the datum and moving anything in relationship to it is
irrelevant? How could you ever possibly perform any CG adjustment if that is
irrelevant. You move/add/subtract weight in order to bring the CG within
limits, and in order to have a point of reference you have a datum.
If you can move weights in relation to the datum, such as moving the engine
farther forward, to cause a change in where the CG falls in relation the
LE....then what is the problem with sliding the LE (and thusly datum) fore
or aft to put the CG at an acceptable location? Sure, on most aircraft you
cannot, but on a Piet you can, and it proves to be a more effective change.
Prove me wrong, please...
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Gene Rambo <generambo@msn.com> wrote:
OK, Ryan, I have got to call BS on this one. The location of the datum and
moving anything in relationship to it is irrelevant. It is proper to say
that to avoid the anteater look you might want to move the wing, but using
the datum as a reason is incorrect. This is the big problem I have with the
W&B project that was in the last newsletter. Rather than putting the datum
at a fixed point, such as the firewall or propeller flange, the wing leading
edge (a movable point) was used. Based on a fixed point, the information as
to axle location and engine mount length would have been much more useful.
As it stands, I do not see any use for the data as published.
Gene Rambo
_____
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
From: rmueller23@gmail.com
Keep in mind, as the numbers in the W&B article bear out, it is more
effective to move the wing to correct for CG issues (or think of it as
moving the fuselage under the wing) than it is to just move the engine
forward. If you move the engine forward you are only moving the weight of
the engine relation to the datum. On the other hand if you move the wing aft
you are now shifting the weight of the engine, the fuselage, the pilot, and
potentially a fuselage fuel tank forward in relation to the datum. This is
going to be a more effective way to correct CG problems, and will also avoid
the "anteater" look you could acquire by having to hang the engine so far
out (especially with lighter small Continentals). Or, you could split the
difference and shift the wing some, and move the engine forward some.
Theoretically, it shouldn't require any more work than just figuring out
engine placement. You can weigh your completed wing, weigh your completed
fuselage, add in the weight of the engine at the proposed location, and then
add in the weight of the wing at the proposed location. Play with the
locations to see how the numbers come out....
Ryan
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Dangerous Dave <dsornbor@aol.com> wrote:
Michael,The reason most folks are putting in the forward braces is because
they take out the brace wires around the front cockpit and just bracing one
side of the cockpit is not quite adequate.I will not have forward braces but
rather cables the the motor mount and cables running from the rear cabanes
to the sides of the cockpit.You need something to keep the wing from
cantilevering forward in a crash-bad landing.Also if you just put your
cabanes straight up and down,finish everything but the motor mount,do a
weight and balance with the plane complete,covered etc. and put your motor
in where it needs to be you will have perfect weight and balance,no rubbing
cables,great fit on the cockpit cowls and no wondering if your CG is right
or if you'll have to make a half dozen motor mounts instead of one.On the
other hand you can always toss a couple of bricks in to make it
balance,they're cheap.Dave
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327986#327986
==========
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
st" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
t
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
==========
ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
==========
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 69
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: First Question |
Dave,
For whatever it might be worth, Dan Helsper and numerous other builders here have
adhered extremely closely to the plans, and their airplanes are perfectly flyable
just the way they are. Some people just like to try to re-invent the
wheel, while others are quite happy with the wheel as it is. As the Piet is designed,
the wheel seems perfectly round to me.
Ford Model A engines (and Corvairs too) really are real engines, they certainly
aren't just figments of the imagination bolted to the firewalls. Lycomings
and Continentals are NOT immune to failure either... ANY mechanical device is
subject to fail without notice, there is no special dispensation from the FAA
stating that Ly-Cons are not subject to the laws of nature or physics.
The landing gear as it is drawn in the plans is in the correct position if you
are not using brakes. Not everyone puts brakes on their Piet, not everyone needs
them depending on where they choose to fly from.
And when is the last time you or anyone else you know actually used 80lb Irish
linen and nitrocellulose dope to cover an airplane? Some changes are made due
to availability of materials, cost considerations, common sense (casein glue,
anybody?), and some just to meet FAA requirements. This doesn't mean the plane
needs to be "updated" (redesigned). If you feel the need to deviate from the
plans or change something on your plane, feel free to do so, it is YOUR plane.
--------
Billy McCaskill
Urbana, IL
tail section almost done, starting on ribs soon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328127#328127
Message 70
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: Bending blocks |
I've posted this before, here is my homemade brake. Cost about 20 bucks to build.
Great Radius bends, will bend everything you need for most homebuilt fittings.
I've bent a piece of .250 - 6 inches wide at 90 degrees. It does take
a little muscle. The lighter stuff .10 and thinner is pretty easy.
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328130#328130
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dscn4555_797.jpg
Message 71
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: First Question |
Losts of good thoughts here ... appreciate all the support and ideas!
As to a bush version ... nah ... that is behind me, though that R2800 sure would
be fun out front!
I think at this point I want to keep Dave's wife happy with slow and "stick around
home" type of power ... though the Lion Speed Head on the Ford might make
it a little more fun.
--------
Perry Shipman
Lakeside, CA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328133#328133
Message 72
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: First Question |
Gary!!! It's looking great! I'm glad to see you're working on that thing.
I've been slowed down a little this past week because of a daughter with a
respiratory virus. But I'll be back at it soon. I can't let you get ahead o
f me.
Mike Groah
On Jan 23, 2011, at 12:48 PM, "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5@comcast.net> wrote:
> Good thought, Mike! Just finished Rib #24, and running the primer line
>
> Gary Boothe
> Cool, Ca.
> Pietenpol
> WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
> Tail done, Fuselage on gear
> (23 ribs down)
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-li
st-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Groah
> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 9:34 AM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: First Question
>
> Gary...
>
> I think Perry should attend the West Coast Pietenpol Gathering June 4th a
t Frazier Lake .
>
>
> Mike Groah
> Tulare CA
>
> From: Gary Boothe <gboothe5@comcast.net>
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Sun, January 23, 2011 9:02:38 AM
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: First Question
>
>
> Perry (not Dave),
>
> I think I have heard that, but, just how rough a field are you talking
> about? BTW...Aren't you jealous of all those mid-west guys and their grass
y
> strips? Then, again, you have the perfect weather where you are.
>
> Gary
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of PShipman
> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:52 AM
> To:
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> <Primer Line, 1.jpg>
> <Primer Line, 2.jpg>
Message 73
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: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
....sooooo, how about that pulley side load...
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
--- On Sun, 1/23/11, Gary Boothe <gboothe5@comcast.net> wrote:
> From: Gary Boothe <gboothe5@comcast.net>
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Date: Sunday, January 23, 2011, 8:13 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I know, I
> knowIm just weary. After all, I
> built a rib today. :-I
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mueller
>
> Sent: Sunday,
> January 23, 2011
> 5:02 PM
>
> To:
> pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>
> Subject: Re:
> Pietenpol-List: Re:
> Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
>
>
>
>
>
> Datum is datum....if it is LE, then that
> is datum, and all other
> weights measured from there. If the firewall, prop hub,
> etc, then measured from
> there. It's just a defined point of reference for
> calculating W&B....
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ryan
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Gary
> Boothe
> <gboothe5@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Im
> with you, John! You may
> understand what you think I said, but Im not sure
> you realize that what you
> heard is not what I
> meant.
>
>
>
>
> Add
> to the confusion, I know of at least two Pietenpols being
> build
> that have moved
> the firewall forward 2
> from the plans. So, did they move the firewall forward, or
> did they move
> everything else back?
>
>
>
>
> For
> me, its simple to think of the leading edge as the
> datum, and
> firewall has a point of reference for all measurements. Is
> that what JP said?
>
>
>
>
>
> Gary
> Boothe
>
>
> Cool,
> Ca.
>
> Pietenpol
>
> WW
> Corvair Conversion,Running!
>
> Tail
> done,Fuselageon gear
>
>
>
>
> (24 ribs
> down)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of AMsafetyC@aol.com
>
> Sent: Sunday,
> January 23, 2011
> 4:03 PM
>
>
>
>
>
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>
>
>
>
> Subject: Re:
> Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing
> supports
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I
> have been reading this to see and understand where it was
> going
> to end up and in all the confusion of the topic and my own,
> is what you're
> advocating that the firewall dose not and cannot move. Thus
> the only single
> solid reference point we all have to work from. I suspect
> then the next
> variable is the length of the fuse, one built becomes
> another fixed dimension
> but variant between builds and builders. Once the landing
> gear is fixed in
> place based upon the plans that put the center line of the
> axle 17
> inchesback from the firewall. That makes the only two
> variables in
> whichto balance the aircraft is the amount of
> weightdistributed
> fore and aft of the only common hard point reference, which
> is the firewall. I know
> that I just took my overall length from 2 solid and
> reliable points that I know
> will not change under normal circumstances,
> themeasurement from firewall
> totail post is 172 inches. All others
> becomerelative to their
> reference point.A movable orvariable point
> brings all the
> measurements into question.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gene
> are you saying the only significant point that is not
> adjustable and can be relied upon is the
> firewall?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The
> hub becomes a variable based upon the motor mounts and
> weight
> of the engine which counter balance the rest of the
> airframe. So if the axle is
> are placed according to plan is that the fulcrum of the
> entire aircraft for
> which all balance relies upon?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Having
> not fixed my gear location I had planned to follow the
> design and make the placement in relationship to the
> firewall.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No
> would some one please explain this entire discussion as to
> permit me a certain degree of reason, comprehension, logic
> and basis in which
> to continue.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I
> know I know build to plans!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please
> Do not archive unless anything I have said has any value or
> makes the least bit of sense
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In a
> message dated 1/23/2011 6:36:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> rmueller23@gmail.com
> writes:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
> for contributing your thoughts Jack, always valuable. I
> won't pick your post apart, but mainly focus on the
> final statement:
> "...choosing the LE is not wrong, just more
> work". Well, it may be a
> bit more work than just moving one item and recalculating
> your numbers, but as
> long as you understand what you have to recalculate when
> you move the
> LE....it's not much more work. Grab a freely available
> W&B spreadsheet, and
> understand what you are doing, and you can calculate the
> results just fine. I
> don't believe it's any more difficult than any of
> the math or building that you
> have to do in the build.....so no reason to shy away from
> it. Thanks,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ryan
>
>
>
>
> On
> Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Jack Phillips <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ryan,
> you and Gene are arguing over two different
> things. Gene is referring to the choice of
> datum for comparing
> various different airplanes. Obviously, what matters
> most (and the reason
> we even compute weight and balance) is the relationship of
> the center of
> gravity to the center of pressure (or center of lift, as it
> is sometimes
> called). This is usually stated as the CG falling in
> some range as a
> percentage of wing chord, and the easiest way to relate
> that is a distance from
> the leading edge.
>
>
>
>
> But
> when you are doing the w&b on your airplane and trying
> to
> decide how much to move the wing, it is much easier if a
> FIXED point of the airframe
> is used as the datum. I used the firewall on mine,
> and since that point
> is pretty close to being the same for all Pietenpols, it
> makes sense to use it
> if you are trying to compare several different
> airplanes. Manufacturers
> typically pick a point in front of the airplane (sometimes
> the prop hub,
> sometimes a point in space in front of any part of the
> airplane) so that all
> arms are positive. If you pick a point on the plane
> such as the firewall
> or the leading edge, anything forward of that has a
> negative arm which can lead
> to calculation errors if not recognized.
>
>
>
>
> I
> tend to agree with Gene that picking the leading edge of a
> wing
> that you intend to possibly move is not the best choice,
> since all the variable
> weights such as pilot, passenger, baggage, fuel, etc. now
> will have a different
> arm as soon as you move the wing. But choosing the LE
> is not wrong, just
> more work.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jack
> Phillips
>
>
>
> NX899JP
> Icarus Plummet
>
>
> Raleigh,
> NC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of
> Ryan Mueller
>
> Sent: Sunday,
> January 23, 2011
> 2:17 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Subject:
> Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing
> supports
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The location of the
> datum and moving anything in relationship to
> it is irrelevant? How could you ever possibly perform any
> CG adjustment if that
> is irrelevant. You move/add/subtract weight in order to
> bring the CG within
> limits, and in order to have a point of reference you have
> a datum.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If you can move
> weights in relation to the datum, such as moving
> the engine farther forward, to cause a change in where the
> CG falls in relation
> the LE....then what is the problem with sliding the LE (and
> thusly datum) fore
> or aft to put the CG at an acceptable location? Sure, on
> most aircraft you
> cannot, but on a Piet you can, and it proves to be a more
> effective change.
> Prove me wrong, please...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ryan
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011
> at 11:39 AM, Gene Rambo <generambo@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> OK, Ryan, I have got
> to call BS on this one.The location
> of the datum and moving anything in relationship to it is
> irrelevant. It
> is proper to say that to avoid the anteater look you might
> want to move the
> wing, but using the datum as a reason
> isincorrect. This is the big
> problemI have with the W&B project that was in
> the last
> newsletter. Rather thanputting the datum at a
> fixed point, such as
> the firewall or propeller flange, the wing leading edge (a
> movable point) was
> used. Based on a fixed point, the information as to
> axle location and
> engine mount length would havebeen much more
> useful. As it stands,
> I do not see any use for thedata as published.
>
>
>
> Gene Rambo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011
> 09:51:53 -0600
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Subject: Re:
> Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing
> supports
>
>
>
> From: rmueller23@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Keep in mind, as the
> numbers in the W&B article bear out, it
> is more effective to move the wing to correct for CG issues
> (or think of it as
> moving the fuselage under the wing) than it is to just move
> the engine forward.
> If you move the engine forward you are only moving the
> weight of the engine
> relation to the datum. On the other hand if you move the
> wing aft you are now
> shifting the weight of the engine, the fuselage, the pilot,
> and potentially a
> fuselage fuel tank forward in relation to the datum. This
> is going to be a more
> effective way to correct CG problems, and will also avoid
> the
> "anteater" look you could acquire by having to
> hang the engine so far
> out (especially with lighter small Continentals). Or, you
> could split the
> difference and shift the wing some, and move the engine
> forward some.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Theoretically, it
> shouldn't require any more work than just
> figuring out engine placement. You can weigh your completed
> wing, weigh your completed
> fuselage, add in the weight of the engine at the proposed
> location, and then
> add in the weight of the wing at the proposed location.
> Play with the locations
> to see how the numbers come out....
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ryan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011
> at 6:23 AM, Dangerous Dave <dsornbor@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --> Pietenpol-List
> message posted by: "Dangerous
> Dave" <dsornbor@aol.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael,The reason
> most folks are putting in the forward braces is
> because they take out the brace wires around the front
> cockpit and just bracing
> one side of the cockpit is not quite adequate.I will not
> have forward braces
> but rather cables the the motor mount and cables running
> from the rear cabanes
> to the sides of the cockpit.You need something to keep the
> wing from
> cantilevering forward in a crash-bad landing.Also if you
> just put your cabanes
> straight up and down,finish everything but the motor
> mount,do a weight and
> balance with the plane complete,covered etc. and put your
> motor in where it
> needs to be you will have perfect weight and balance,no
> rubbing cables,great
> fit on the cockpit cowls and no wondering if your CG is
> right or if you'll have
> to make a half dozen motor mounts instead of one.On the
> other hand you can
> always toss a couple of bricks in to make it
> balance,they're cheap.Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------
>
>
>
>
>
> Covering Piet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327986#327986
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==========
>
>
>
>
>
>
> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>
> ==========
>
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
> ==========
>
> le, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> ===========
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> st"
> target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listttp://forums.matronics.com
>
>
> =_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
>
> "
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listtp://forums.matronics.com
>
>
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>
>
>
>
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listtp://forums.matronics.com_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ===========t
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List===========ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com==========
>
>
> tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution==========
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>
>
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listtp://forums.matronics.com_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 74
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: | Gary Boothe's Ribs |
Gary - in the name of everything that's sacred, would you PLEASE finish your wing
ribs!!!
[Wink]
Your airplane is beautiful.
do not archive
--------
Kevin "Axel" Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328148#328148
Message 75
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: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
Ryan=2C finally you made a statement I agree with=2C LOL! I disagreed with
the earlier statement that the most important thing is how you move weight
in relation to the datum=2C which is only a true statement if you also agr
ee that it is important to move weight in relation to the ham sandwich in m
y back pocket (when seated in the aircraft). A datum is nothing=2C it is m
erely a reference point. The important thing is moving weight in relation
to the center of lift. Any program that uses a moveable datum is contrary
to every norm in the industry. The very definition of datum requires that
it be a fixed point. Yes=2C as you said earlier=2C you CAN re-calculate ev
ery single measurement to correct for your changed datum=2C but why??
My reference to the weighing program is that I thought it was designed to h
elp guys who were having problems deciding where to place gear=2C how long
to make engine mounts=2C how long to make fuselage=2C and where to place th
e wing. If the datum had been the firewall on each airplane=2C we would ha
ve had a wealth of information to use for comparison. By using the wing le
ading edge=2C which has been moved all over the place=2C I think the data a
s published has a limited usefulness.
Gene Rambo
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables=2C pulleys=2C wing supports
From: rmueller23@gmail.com
Datum is datum....if it is LE=2C then that is datum=2C and all other weight
s measured from there. If the firewall=2C prop hub=2C etc=2C then measured
from there. It's just a defined point of reference for calculating W&B....
Ryan
On Sun=2C Jan 23=2C 2011 at 6:27 PM=2C Gary Boothe <gboothe5@comcast.net> w
rote:
I=92m with you=2C John! =93You may understand what you think I said=2C but
I=92m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.=94
Add to the confusion=2C I know of at least two Pietenpols being build that
have =93moved the firewall forward 2=94 from the plans. So=2C did they move
the firewall forward=2C or did they move everything else back?
For me=2C it=92s simple to think of the leading edge as the datum=2C and fi
rewall has a point of reference for all measurements. Is that what JP said?
Gary Boothe
Cool=2C Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion=2C Running!
Tail done=2C Fuselage on gear
(24 ribs down=85)
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-lis
t-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of AMsafetyC@aol.com
Sent: Sunday=2C January 23=2C 2011 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables=2C pulleys=2C wing supports
I have been reading this to see and understand where it was going to end up
and in all the confusion of the topic and my own=2C is what you're advocat
ing that the firewall dose not and cannot move. Thus the only single solid
reference point we all have to work from. I suspect then the next variable
is the length of the fuse=2C one built becomes another fixed dimension but
variant between builds and builders. Once the landing gear is fixed in plac
e based upon the plans that put the center line of the axle 17 inches back
from the firewall. That makes the only two variables in which to balance th
e aircraft is the amount of weight distributed fore and aft of the only com
mon hard point reference=2C which is the firewall. I know that I just took
my overall length from 2 solid and reliable points that I know will not cha
nge under normal circumstances=2C the measurement from firewall to tail pos
t is 172 inches. All others become relative to their reference point. A mov
able or variable point brings all the measurements into question.
Gene are you saying the only significant point that is not adjustable and c
an be relied upon is the firewall?
The hub becomes a variable based upon the motor mounts and weight of the en
gine which counter balance the rest of the airframe. So if the axle is are
placed according to plan is that the fulcrum of the entire aircraft for whi
ch all balance relies upon?
Having not fixed my gear location I had planned to follow the design and ma
ke the placement in relationship to the firewall.
No would some one please explain this entire discussion as to permit me a c
ertain degree of reason=2C comprehension=2C logic and basis in which to con
tinue.
I know I know build to plans!
John
Please Do not archive unless anything I have said has any value or makes th
e least bit of sense
In a message dated 1/23/2011 6:36:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time=2C rmueller
23@gmail.com writes:
Thanks for contributing your thoughts Jack=2C always valuable. I won't pick
your post apart=2C but mainly focus on the final statement: "...choosing t
he LE is not wrong=2C just more work". Well=2C it may be a bit more work th
an just moving one item and recalculating your numbers=2C but as long as yo
u understand what you have to recalculate when you move the LE....it's not
much more work. Grab a freely available W&B spreadsheet=2C and understand w
hat you are doing=2C and you can calculate the results just fine. I don't b
elieve it's any more difficult than any of the math or building that you ha
ve to do in the build.....so no reason to shy away from it. Thanks=2C
Ryan
On Sun=2C Jan 23=2C 2011 at 4:59 PM=2C Jack Phillips <pietflyr@bellsouth.ne
t> wrote:
Ryan=2C you and Gene are arguing over two different things. Gene is refer
ring to the choice of datum for comparing various different airplanes. Obv
iously=2C what matters most (and the reason we even compute weight and bala
nce) is the relationship of the center of gravity to the center of pressure
(or center of lift=2C as it is sometimes called). This is usually stated
as the CG falling in some range as a percentage of wing chord=2C and the ea
siest way to relate that is a distance from the leading edge.
But when you are doing the w&b on your airplane and trying to decide how mu
ch to move the wing=2C it is much easier if a FIXED point of the airframe i
s used as the datum. I used the firewall on mine=2C and since that point i
s pretty close to being the same for all Pietenpols=2C it makes sense to us
e it if you are trying to compare several different airplanes. Manufacture
rs typically pick a point in front of the airplane (sometimes the prop hub
=2C sometimes a point in space in front of any part of the airplane) so tha
t all arms are positive. If you pick a point on the plane such as the fire
wall or the leading edge=2C anything forward of that has a negative arm whi
ch can lead to calculation errors if not recognized.
I tend to agree with Gene that picking the leading edge of a wing that you
intend to possibly move is not the best choice=2C since all the variable we
ights such as pilot=2C passenger=2C baggage=2C fuel=2C etc. now will have a
different arm as soon as you move the wing. But choosing the LE is not wr
ong=2C just more work.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP =93Icarus Plummet=94
Raleigh=2C NC
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-lis
t-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mueller
Sent: Sunday=2C January 23=2C 2011 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables=2C pulleys=2C wing supports
The location of the datum and moving anything in relationship to it is irre
levant? How could you ever possibly perform any CG adjustment if that is ir
relevant. You move/add/subtract weight in order to bring the CG within limi
ts=2C and in order to have a point of reference you have a datum.
If you can move weights in relation to the datum=2C such as moving the engi
ne farther forward=2C to cause a change in where the CG falls in relation t
he LE....then what is the problem with sliding the LE (and thusly datum) fo
re or aft to put the CG at an acceptable location? Sure=2C on most aircraft
you cannot=2C but on a Piet you can=2C and it proves to be a more effectiv
e change. Prove me wrong=2C please...
Ryan
On Sun=2C Jan 23=2C 2011 at 11:39 AM=2C Gene Rambo <generambo@msn.com> wrot
e:
OK=2C Ryan=2C I have got to call BS on this one. The location of the datum
and moving anything in relationship to it is irrelevant. It is proper to
say that to avoid the anteater look you might want to move the wing=2C but
using the datum as a reason is incorrect. This is the big problem I have w
ith the W&B project that was in the last newsletter. Rather than putting t
he datum at a fixed point=2C such as the firewall or propeller flange=2C th
e wing leading edge (a movable point) was used. Based on a fixed point=2C
the information as to axle location and engine mount length would have been
much more useful. As it stands=2C I do not see any use for the data as pu
blished.
Gene Rambo
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables=2C pulleys=2C wing supports
From: rmueller23@gmail.com
Keep in mind=2C as the numbers in the W&B article bear out=2C it is more ef
fective to move the wing to correct for CG issues (or think of it as moving
the fuselage under the wing) than it is to just move the engine forward. I
f you move the engine forward you are only moving the weight of the engine
relation to the datum. On the other hand if you move the wing aft you are n
ow shifting the weight of the engine=2C the fuselage=2C the pilot=2C and po
tentially a fuselage fuel tank forward in relation to the datum. This is go
ing to be a more effective way to correct CG problems=2C and will also avoi
d the "anteater" look you could acquire by having to hang the engine so far
out (especially with lighter small Continentals). Or=2C you could split th
e difference and shift the wing some=2C and move the engine forward some.
Theoretically=2C it shouldn't require any more work than just figuring out
engine placement. You can weigh your completed wing=2C weigh your completed
fuselage=2C add in the weight of the engine at the proposed location=2C an
d then add in the weight of the wing at the proposed location. Play with th
e locations to see how the numbers come out....
Ryan
On Sun=2C Jan 23=2C 2011 at 6:23 AM=2C Dangerous Dave <dsornbor@aol.com> wr
ote:
Michael=2CThe reason most folks are putting in the forward braces is becaus
e they take out the brace wires around the front cockpit and just bracing o
ne side of the cockpit is not quite adequate.I will not have forward braces
but rather cables the the motor mount and cables running from the rear cab
anes to the sides of the cockpit.You need something to keep the wing from c
antilevering forward in a crash-bad landing.Also if you just put your caban
es straight up and down=2Cfinish everything but the motor mount=2Cdo a weig
ht and balance with the plane complete=2Ccovered etc. and put your motor in
where it needs to be you will have perfect weight and balance=2Cno rubbing
cables=2Cgreat fit on the cockpit cowls and no wondering if your CG is rig
ht or if you'll have to make a half dozen motor mounts instead of one.On th
e other hand you can always toss a couple of bricks in to make it balance
=2Cthey're cheap.Dave
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=327986#327986
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
http://forums.matronics.com
le=2C List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
st" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listttp:
//forums.matronics.com=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listtp:/
/forums.matronics.com_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listhttp://forums.matronics.
com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listtp:/
/forums.matronics.com_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===========t href="http://www.matronics.com/Navig
ator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List=
==========ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.co
m===========tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http
://www.matronics.com/contribution===========
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listhttp://forums.matronics.
com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 76
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: | ford engine mount |
Jeff,-that's an error in the-F&GM,-should be 2 1/2 degrees, not inche
s. The "new" improved plans says 1" drop. Also, the bolts and tubes are of
different sizes.
Saludos
-
Santiago=0A=0A=0A
Message 77
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: | Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports |
Michael;
This has probably already been answered, but the reason most folks
go with cabane braces forward to the firewall instead of the X-brace
cables between the cabanes is that it makes it easier for passengers
to get in and out of the front cockpit if those X-brace cables are
not there. Either method is fine structurally.
I have seen more than one Air Camper with the X-brace cables only on
one side of the cockpit (the starboard side, or 'far side' if you're
trying to climb into the front cockpit) though.
If you do go with cabane brace tubes, you would do well to read and
heed what William Wynne opined on the subject recently, on his website
here: http://www.flycorvair.com/osh2010.html , photos 4 and 5 from the
top.
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
San Antonio, TX
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
Message 78
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 |
|
So far I've heard comments ranging from, "That's an absolutely beautiful airplane"
to "That prop looks like crap!" Fortunately, most comments have been complimentary.
I recently read that chrome spoked wheels on a 1920s airplane make
her look like a "tart." That one made me smile. Fat-Bottomed-Girl is a tart!
That's wonderful. That's what I want her to be.
I've also been told that I'm remiss for allowing the case nuts to rust on the dreaded
crank-snappin'-valve-eatin'-corvair. I've been called a liar for claiming
an initial rate of climb of 700 fpm on a cool morning at sea level with the
ugly prop. I didn't hit that guy. The guy who commented on some metal work
that was in process, "Not much of a metal worker, are you?" came REAL close to
getting smacked. Those of you who know me well know that I'm willing and able,
though not likely, to do that:).
I've been told that my welds look "cold." There's certainly some precedent to
question my welding, but that specifically was not the issue.
My point? Be careful who you listen to. The guys who have built their planes
and have flown them a bunch are probably reliable sources of information.
Like Jack said, there are a lot of opinions out there. In the Pietenpol world,
I personally seek the advice of people like Jack Phillips (engineer & builder),
Hans van der Voort (engineer & builder), Mike Cuy (builder & teacher), Don
Emch (builder) and Dan Helsper (builder). There are several others, but those
guys are a good start. I also listen closely to guys like Gary Boothe and Rick
Holland. Their work speaks for itself.
For what it's worth.
--------
Kevin "Axel" Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328154#328154
Message 79
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: First Question |
Is there not reference somewhere to BHP himself having
to land in a plowed field, ACROSS the rows and then
taking off again later. All with no damage to the wood gear?
Clif
Wood - The original composite. That doesn't weaken in
summer heat.
>
> Perry (not Dave),
>
> I think I have heard that, but, just how rough a field are you talking
> Gary
>
> Gary,
>
> ! The only folks worth knowing have strong opinions, IMO! :D
>
> I was wondering, though, if the split gear might be better on
> rough/unimproved strips???
> Perry Shipman
> Lakeside, CA
Message 80
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 |
|
Here is a photo of the bender my father built several years ago. He made th
ree of these and they work perfect. I also have an angle bender which slide
s over the top of the center bending iron.
If anyone is interested, I have a bench mount one very similar to this one
I can take pictures of... surely we can negotiate a price.
-
Ken H
Fargo, ND
-
=0A=0A=0A
Message 81
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 |
|
Members:
-
Here is a couple photos of my trim assemble for the stick pressure. I have
not completed the rest of the set-up for the springs ect.. but seeking info
rmation as to how much travel should be allowed for. Jack, Mike, any ideas?
-I am fabricating-and attaching the spring to my bell crank.
-
Ken H.
Fargo, ND-
-
=0A=0A=0A
Message 82
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 love it!!
Gary Boothe
Do not archive
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of KM Heide
CPO/FAAOP
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:09 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bending jig
Here is a photo of the bender my father built several years ago. He made
three of these and they work perfect. I also have an angle bender which
slides over the top of the center bending iron.
If anyone is interested, I have a bench mount one very similar to this one I
can take pictures of... surely we can negotiate a price.
Ken H
Fargo, ND
Message 83
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 |
|
Kevin,
I'm embarrassed! Some day I hope to grow up to be half the man of Jack
Phillips, or half the gentleman of Mike Cuy...or half the pilot that you are
(just in case my "fine work" turns out to be un-airworthy).
Gary Boothe
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kevinpurtee
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 7:41 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Ah, opinions...
<kevin.purtee@us.army.mil>
So far I've heard comments ranging from, "That's an absolutely beautiful
airplane" to "That prop looks like crap!" Fortunately, most comments have
been complimentary. I recently read that chrome spoked wheels on a 1920s
airplane make her look like a "tart." That one made me smile.
Fat-Bottomed-Girl is a tart! That's wonderful. That's what I want her to
be.
I've also been told that I'm remiss for allowing the case nuts to rust on
the dreaded crank-snappin'-valve-eatin'-corvair. I've been called a liar
for claiming an initial rate of climb of 700 fpm on a cool morning at sea
level with the ugly prop. I didn't hit that guy. The guy who commented on
some metal work that was in process, "Not much of a metal worker, are you?"
came REAL close to getting smacked. Those of you who know me well know that
I'm willing and able, though not likely, to do that:).
I've been told that my welds look "cold." There's certainly some precedent
to question my welding, but that specifically was not the issue.
My point? Be careful who you listen to. The guys who have built their
planes and have flown them a bunch are probably reliable sources of
information.
Like Jack said, there are a lot of opinions out there. In the Pietenpol
world, I personally seek the advice of people like Jack Phillips (engineer &
builder), Hans van der Voort (engineer & builder), Mike Cuy (builder &
teacher), Don Emch (builder) and Dan Helsper (builder). There are several
others, but those guys are a good start. I also listen closely to guys like
Gary Boothe and Rick Holland. Their work speaks for itself.
For what it's worth.
--------
Kevin "Axel" Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328154#328154
Message 84
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: Bending blocks |
Of no comparison to the fine brake that Dan is illustrating, but functional
for an 8' bend, is this brake I built out of angle iron and a piano hinge
(for a previous project). I have since cut it down to 5', which is still
longer than I need for the Piet cowling.
Fortunately, I have returned from the Dark Side, and am at home with wood
and fabric...
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(24 ribs down.)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of dwilson
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 5:50 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Bending blocks
I've posted this before, here is my homemade brake. Cost about 20 bucks to
build. Great Radius bends, will bend everything you need for most homebuilt
fittings. I've bent a piece of .250 - 6 inches wide at 90 degrees. It does
take a little muscle. The lighter stuff .10 and thinner is pretty easy.
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328130#328130
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dscn4555_797.jpg
Message 85
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: Lively Forum Today! |
Yep, lively indeed. I'm getting my mind geared up to get going again too... cold
or not, cabin fever is setting in. Helps that we had EAA pancakes this weekend...
now we are talking Brodhead and Oshkosh plans.
--------
Mark Chouinard
Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328168#328168
Message 86
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: ford engine mount |
Don't forget why it was done in the first place. The Ford
has quite low HP and in takeoff the plane ( well, all AC ),
mush through the air. Having the engine point downwards
compensates for this somewhat by aligning the axis of
the prop closer to the line of flight.
Clif
>
> Yes, you're reading the plans correctly. I can't recall ever seeing
> anyone on this list having any issues with the downthrust of the engine as
> mounted per the plans. It's been working fairly well for over 80 years
> now as it was designed, I don't see any point in changing it now.
>
> --------
> Billy McCaskill
Message 87
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: questions from a new guy... |
thanks all for the feedback!
It did bring up a couple questions. Why a "mock" fuselage? space? layout?
I have also seen a little going around about different airfoils and it was brought
up by Dave here. I have to admit that the one on the plan looks a little
primitive. I downloaded a pdf of the "ribblet 612" airfoil. do you know if this
is the same one you recommended? Is there a lot of discussion on which airfoil
to use?
Thanks,
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328176#328176
Message 88
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: Lively Forum Today! |
Mark,
Cold? I'd bet Oklahoma cold ain't all too bad--it's been downright awful up in
Minnesota; -22 F last night. You don't know of any good property down there,
do you?
Tom
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328177#328177
Message 89
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: Gary Boothe's Ribs |
Really! After the pictures you posted of your fantastic craftsmanship, you need
to finish those last few ribs (and the wall-hanging one). If you'd like, I'm
sure you could find 7 or 8 of us to help!
Tom
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=328178#328178
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! --
|