---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 01/23/11: 89 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:25:56 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports From: "Dangerous Dave" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:43:32 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib question From: helspersew@aol.com 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:51:25 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bending blocks From: "Kringle" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:38:03 AM PST US From: "Jack Phillips" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Bending blocks 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:45:51 AM PST US From: "Jack" 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:13:24 AM PST US From: Jim Markle 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 >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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:22:03 AM PST US From: Kip and Beth Gardner Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:25:24 AM PST US From: "Jack" Subject: RE: RE: Pietenpol-List: Bending blocks 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 >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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:38:29 AM PST US From: Jim Markle 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 >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" >To: >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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:49:38 AM PST US From: Michael Perez Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 wrote: > From: Dangerous Dave > 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" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:51:03 AM PST US From: "Jack Phillips" 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 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 >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" >To: >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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:37:58 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Bending blocks From: "Jerry Dotson" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:45:00 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Bending blocks From: "K5YAC" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:54:59 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports From: Ryan Mueller 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:56:32 AM PST US From: "Gboothe5" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Bending blocks 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:07:10 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: questions from a new guy... From: "MPB" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:34:01 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: First Question From: "PShipman" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:39:06 AM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:40:09 AM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:54:49 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: First Question From: "PShipman" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:07:28 AM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" 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 22 ____________________________________ Time: 09:36:29 AM PST US From: Michael Groah 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:37:20 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: First Question From: "PShipman" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:42:07 AM PST US From: Gene Rambo Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:46:10 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Bending blocks From: "Kringle" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:00:00 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: First Question From: "PShipman" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:09:56 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports From: "Bill Church" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:36:39 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: questions from a new guy... From: Rick Holland 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:50:56 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: ford engine mount From: "bender" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:03:34 AM PST US From: "Charles Campbell" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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" Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 9:48 AM 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 >>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" >>To: >>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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:06:03 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Bending blocks From: "Bill Church" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:16:39 AM PST US From: "Charles Campbell" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:27:00 AM PST US From: "Charles Campbell" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: First Question See what I mean? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Boothe" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:27:10 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports From: Ryan Mueller 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 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:27:21 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: First Question From: Ryan Mueller Check out: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:40:10 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: First Question From: Rick Holland 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" > To: > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:46:24 AM PST US From: "Charles Campbell" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:04:08 PM PST US From: Jim Markle Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 >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 >>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" >>To: >>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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:31:48 PM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:33:30 PM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:36:14 PM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:51:29 PM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:12:59 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports From: "Dangerous Dave" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:25:58 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: First Question From: "Dangerous Dave" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:35:06 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: questions from a new guy... From: "Dangerous Dave" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:39:35 PM PST US From: Dan Yocum Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 constant 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 > 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 > > * > > * > > > * -- 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:40:02 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: First Question From: Ryan Mueller >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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:41:00 PM PST US From: "Charles Campbell" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 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 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 49 ____________________________________ Time: 01:49:11 PM PST US From: "Charles Campbell" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports Dave, what size cable do you use on the rear one? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dangerous Dave" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:00:30 PM PST US From: Michael Perez Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 wrote: > From: Dan Yocum > 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 > > 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 > constant > 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 > > > wrote: > > > > --> Pietenpol-List message > posted by: "Dangerous Dave" > > > > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:05:02 PM PST US From: Michael Perez Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 wrote: > From: Charles Campbell > 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" > > Dave, what size cable do you use on the rear one? > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dangerous Dave" > To: > Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 4:10 PM > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing > supports > > > Dave" > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:27:16 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: ford engine mount From: "Billy McCaskill" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:46:40 PM PST US From: "Jack Phillips" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:04:02 PM PST US From: "Jack Phillips" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:35:47 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports From: Ryan Mueller 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 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 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:38:15 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports From: Ryan Mueller 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:44:11 PM PST US From: "Jack Phillips" 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 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 ========== 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:04:09 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: First Question From: "Dangerous Dave" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:05:26 PM PST US From: AMsafetyC@aol.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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:06:47 PM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" 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 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 ========== 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:10:35 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports From: "Dangerous Dave" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:27:11 PM PST US From: "Jack Phillips" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:34:13 PM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 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 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 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 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.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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:49:42 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports From: "Dangerous Dave" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:05:16 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports From: Ryan Mueller 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 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 > 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 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:05:17 PM PST US From: "Jack Phillips" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 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 ========== 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:14:06 PM PST US From: "Jack" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Lively Forum Today! Keeping my head low just finished 6 enjoyable hours working on the Piet. Jack DSM Do not archive! ________________________________ Message 68 ____________________________________ Time: 05:16:26 PM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 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 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 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 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 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.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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:46:25 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: First Question From: "Billy McCaskill" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:52:39 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Bending blocks From: "dwilson" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:02:32 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: First Question From: "PShipman" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:25:48 PM PST US From: Michael Groah Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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" 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 > 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 > > > ________________________________ Message 73 ____________________________________ Time: 06:41:25 PM PST US From: Michael Perez Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 wrote: > From: Gary Boothe > 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 > > 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 > 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 > 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 > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --> Pietenpol-List > message posted by: "Dangerous > Dave" > > > > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:14:40 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gary Boothe's Ribs From: "kevinpurtee" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:26:23 PM PST US From: Gene Rambo Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 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 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 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:26:57 PM PST US From: santiago morete Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:36:44 PM PST US From: Oscar Zuniga Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:43:55 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Ah, opinions... From: "kevinpurtee" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:55:56 PM PST US From: "Clif Dawson" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:11:46 PM PST US From: KM Heide CPO/FAAOP Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bending jig 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:22:12 PM PST US From: KM Heide CPO/FAAOP Subject: Pietenpol-List: Trim set-up 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:34:27 PM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Bending jig 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:39:23 PM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Ah, opinions... 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... 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:48:50 PM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:02:18 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Lively Forum Today! From: "K5YAC" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:15:38 PM PST US From: "Clif Dawson" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:48:36 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: questions from a new guy... From: "MPB" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:04:49 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Lively Forum Today! From: "tdudley@umn.edu" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:12:37 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Gary Boothe's Ribs From: "tdudley@umn.edu" 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message pietenpol-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/pietenpol-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.