Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:23 AM - Cabane Fittings (Oscar Zuniga)
2. 06:49 AM - hvlp systems (Douwe Blumberg)
3. 06:54 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG (Michael Perez)
4. 07:20 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG (Terry Hand)
5. 10:49 AM - Re: hvlp systems (Jim Markle)
6. 11:25 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG (Jack Phillips)
7. 11:54 AM - Re: hvlp systems (Doug Dever)
8. 12:30 PM - Re: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG (Charles Campbell)
9. 12:45 PM - Re: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG (Charles Campbell)
10. 01:31 PM - Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG (Bill Church)
11. 01:35 PM - Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG (Bill Church)
12. 01:43 PM - angle of incidence explained for the Pietenpol Air Camper (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP])
13. 01:53 PM - Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG (Don Emch)
14. 03:07 PM - Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG (Don Emch)
15. 03:25 PM - Re: Cabane Fittings (aerocarjake)
16. 03:51 PM - Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG (Jerry Dotson)
17. 03:58 PM - Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG (Bill Church)
18. 04:15 PM - Re: Cabane Fittings (Bill Church)
19. 04:18 PM - Re: help identifying disk brake caliper (ldmill)
20. 05:14 PM - Re: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG (Charles Campbell)
21. 05:39 PM - Re: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG (Rick Holland)
22. 05:42 PM - Re: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG (Jack)
23. 06:19 PM - Re: Cabane Fittings (aerocarjake)
24. 07:03 PM - Re: Re: Cabane Fittings (Clif Dawson)
25. 07:17 PM - Re: Re: Cabane Fittings (Clif Dawson)
26. 07:40 PM - Re: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG (Clif Dawson)
27. 07:46 PM - Re: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG (Clif Dawson)
28. 09:08 PM - Re: Cabane Fittings (aerocarjake)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Just how much bending moment is there at the cabane attach fittings anyway?
I would think there is very little; mostly shear load. Out at the lift
strut attach fittings where the wing is cantilevered is where the maximum
bending would occur. I wouldn't think that radiusing the edges of the
spar to fit the cabane attach fittings would make much difference.
However, I'm no structural engineer...
Oscar Zuniga
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
San Antonio, TX
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Does anybody out there have experience with different HVLP turbine systems?
I need one for my studio and want a good one. Spray enamels and laquers
mostly, but would like to be able to spray latex
Douwe
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG |
That is very interesting Pieti. Right now, my cabanes are taller in the front by
1" then the rear. Are you saying I should make new ones so they are all the
same length? At the moment, I don't have spare aluminum strut material to do so,
but could later if needed.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG |
Michael,
Many years ago in doing instrument work we used to use the rule of thumb tha
t at 60 nm each radial (i.e. degree) was 1 nm apart. In other words, a degre
e is 1/60 of your distance. If you are measuring from cabane to cabane and t
he distance is 30 inches ( I am just using that number as sn example as my p
lans are on order and I do not know the actual distance), a 1 degree rise in
the front cabane would equal 1/2 inch (30 inches divided by sixty).
I hope that helps somewhat. It really depends where you are measuring from, b
ut if you are measuring cabane to cabane I think that is the correct "gouge"
.
Semper Fideles,
Terry Hand
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 13, 2011, at 9:52, Michael Perez <speedbrake@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> That is very interesting Pieti. Right now, my cabanes are taller in the fr
ont by 1" then the rear. Are you saying I should make new ones so they are a
ll the same length? At the moment, I don't have spare aluminum strut materia
l to do so, but could later if needed.
>
> Michael Perez
> Karetaker Aero
> www.karetakeraero.com
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: hvlp systems |
I'm not sure if one is better than another but I've used my HVLP setup for several
years.
If I was to buy one, I would just go to Home Depot or Lowe's and buy one of their
fairly cheap setups with everything included.
I built one several years ago from an article in (I think) Wood Magazine. Used
a 2 stage vacuum motor (from Grainger's). It had a couple filters and was made
from particle board. Was a bit heavy but worked very well. And was cheap.....
My gun was one I saw at a woodworking convention, but I would expect most of them
to perform about the same.
It's amazing how little (almost NONE) overspray the HVLP processes gives you....It's
the ONLY way to go unless you're painting something big, like a house.
....
jm
-----Original Message-----
From: Douwe Blumberg
Sent: Apr 13, 2011 8:53 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: hvlp systems
Does anybody out there have experience with different HVLP
turbine systems? I need one for my studio and want a good one. Spray enamels
and laquers mostly, but would like to be able to spray latex
Douwe
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG |
If you weren't sure what the correct cabane height is, you could make the
left side with the front 2" taller than the rear, and make the right side
with both the same. Then see if you gain or lose altitude in right versus
left turns.
Or use a jackscrew arrangement like Piper used for the horizontal stabilizer
of the J-3 Cub, or North American used for the tail of the F-100 Super Sabre
so you can change the length of the cabanes in flight, giving a variable
incidence wing.
Semper Flatus
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
Do Not Archive - I'm just in a silly mood
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Hand
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG
Michael,
Many years ago in doing instrument work we used to use the rule of thumb
that at 60 nm each radial (i.e. degree) was 1 nm apart. In other words, a
degree is 1/60 of your distance. If you are measuring from cabane to cabane
and the distance is 30 inches ( I am just using that number as sn example as
my plans are on order and I do not know the actual distance), a 1 degree
rise in the front cabane would equal 1/2 inch (30 inches divided by sixty).
I hope that helps somewhat. It really depends where you are measuring from,
but if you are measuring cabane to cabane I think that is the correct
"gouge".
Semper Fideles,
Terry Hand
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 13, 2011, at 9:52, Michael Perez <speedbrake@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
That is very interesting Pieti. Right now, my cabanes are taller in the
front by 1" then the rear. Are you saying I should make new ones so they are
all the same length? At the moment, I don't have spare aluminum strut
material to do so, but could later if needed.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
<http://www.karetakeraero.com> www.karetakeraero.com
==================================
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
==================================
ums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
==================================
http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==================================
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
You're better off to go with a good hvlp gun and compressor. The turbines
generate heat which messes with the spaying and the flow of the paint. If
you buy a gravity feed hvlp the cfm requirement it not that bad. Don't get
a siphon feed! I have one and it needs 23cfm at 60psi. A typical gravity
feed gun only requires 10-15psi at about 8-11cfm.
Doug Dever
In beautiful Stow Ohio
From: douweblumberg@earthlink.net
Subject: Pietenpol-List: hvlp systems
Does anybody out there have experience with different HVLP turbine systems?
I need one for my studio and want a good one. Spray enamels and laquers
mostly=2C but would like to be able to spray latex
Douwe
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG |
I'm no practicing aero engineer, but it seems to me if the airplane flies
nose high with the cabanes per the plans (front 1-inch longer than the rear)
if the front struts were shortened it would increase the nose high attitude.
Any comments?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pieti Lowell" <Lowellcfrank@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 8:21 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG
> <Lowellcfrank@yahoo.com>
>
> The Cabanes with the 612 should be very close to the same length because
> the angle of incident is much different than the Piets, I will be trying
> different angles to find the best flying configuration. The same length as
> the Pietenpol's Cabanes,gives the trim of much forward stick pressure to
> hold straight and level at 70 MPH.
> Pieti Lowell
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336762#336762
>
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG |
In the plans (Hoopman) the angle of incidence is shown as 2 degrees, not
1. The cabane struts are shown as front strut being 1" longer than the
rear. This would make your formula of 1/60 for one degree about right.
The actual center to center measurement between the spars (thus also
between the cabane struts) is 28 3/4 inches.
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Hand
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG
Michael,
Many years ago in doing instrument work we used to use the rule of
thumb that at 60 nm each radial (i.e. degree) was 1 nm apart. In other
words, a degree is 1/60 of your distance. If you are measuring from
cabane to cabane and the distance is 30 inches ( I am just using that
number as sn example as my plans are on order and I do not know the
actual distance), a 1 degree rise in the front cabane would equal 1/2
inch (30 inches divided by sixty).
I hope that helps somewhat. It really depends where you are measuring
from, but if you are measuring cabane to cabane I think that is the
correct "gouge".
Semper Fideles,
Terry Hand
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 13, 2011, at 9:52, Michael Perez <speedbrake@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
That is very interesting Pieti. Right now, my cabanes are
taller in the front by 1" then the rear. Are you saying I should make
new ones so they are all the same length? At the moment, I don't have
spare aluminum strut material to do so, but could later if needed.
Michael Perez
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
=========
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
=========
ums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
=========
http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribut
ion
=========
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG |
This talk about cabane lengths and angle of incidence got me thinking. (uh oh)
Actually, the angle of incidence is the angle formed between the chord line of
the wing and the longitudinal axis of the fuselage. The longitudinal axis of the
fuselage is pretty easy to determine - just use the top longerons. For the
chord line of the wing, you need to find an imaginary line that passes through
the trailing edge and the center of curvature of the leading edge.
With the spars (and the cabanes) spaced at 28 3/4", a 1 inch difference in the
cabane length will result in a 2 degree slope. The cabane attachment brackets
are mounted to the bottom of the spars, and identical brackets are used for the
front and back. So IF the bottoms of the spars were parallel to the chord line,
the angle of incidence would be 2 degrees per plans. But with the Pietenpol
(FC-10) airfoil, the chord line is NOT parallel to the bottoms of the spars
- in fact they are at about 1 1/2 degrees. So the true angle of incidence in
a plans-built Pietenpol is approximately 3 1/2 degrees. See attached sketch for
reference.
Now, if you are using the Riblett airfoil, it's a different story, because the
bottoms of the spars form an even bigger angle with the chord line. Common sense
would dictate that the difference in the lengths of the cabane struts (front
vs rear) should be different from the 1 inch difference shown in the Pietenpol
plans, if the angle of incidence is to be kept the same. I think this was already
discussed at length a year or so ago.
The funny thing is that drawing No.1 of the Pietenpol plans calls up 2 degrees
incidence - but that 2 degrees is actually only the strut lengths, and is not
measured to the chord line - so it is not the actual angle of incidence.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336857#336857
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/piet_incidence_185.pdf
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG |
This talk about cabane lengths and angle of incidence got me thinking. (uh oh)
Actually, the angle of incidence is the angle formed between the chord line of
the wing and the longitudinal axis of the fuselage. The longitudinal axis of the
fuselage is pretty easy to determine - just use the top longerons. For the
chord line of the wing, you need to find an imaginary line that passes through
the trailing edge and the center of curvature of the leading edge.
With the spars (and the cabanes) spaced at 28 3/4", a 1 inch difference in the
cabane length will result in a 2 degree slope. The cabane attachment brackets
are mounted to the bottom of the spars, and identical brackets are used for the
front and back. So IF the bottoms of the spars were parallel to the chord line,
the angle of incidence would be 2 degrees per plans. But with the Pietenpol
(FC-10) airfoil, the chord line is NOT parallel to the bottoms of the spars
- in fact they are at about 1 1/2 degrees. So the true angle of incidence in
a plans-built Pietenpol is approximately 3 1/2 degrees. See attached sketch for
reference.
Now, if you are using the Riblett airfoil, it's a different story, because the
bottoms of the spars form an even bigger angle with the chord line. Common sense
would dictate that the difference in the lengths of the cabane struts (front
vs rear) should be different from the 1 inch difference shown in the Pietenpol
plans, if the angle of incidence is to be kept the same. I think this was already
discussed at length a year or so ago.
The funny thing is that drawing No.1 of the Pietenpol plans calls up 2 degrees
incidence - but that 2 degrees is actually only the strut lengths, and is not
measured to the chord line - so it is not the actual angle of incidence.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336858#336858
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/piet_incidence_185.pdf
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | angle of incidence explained for the Pietenpol Air Camper |
Incredible post Bill.......just excellent.
Mike C. in Ohio
do not archive
PS-- I liked Jack's post too about using jackscrews to adjust your AOI in flight
!!!!
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-
>list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Church
>Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 4:29 PM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG
>
><billspiet@sympatico.ca>
>
>This talk about cabane lengths and angle of incidence got me thinking.
>(uh oh)
>Actually, the angle of incidence is the angle formed between the chord
>line of the wing and the longitudinal axis of the fuselage. The
>longitudinal axis of the fuselage is pretty easy to determine - just use
>the top longerons. For the chord line of the wing, you need to find an
>imaginary line that passes through the trailing edge and the center of
>curvature of the leading edge.
>With the spars (and the cabanes) spaced at 28 3/4", a 1 inch difference
>in the cabane length will result in a 2 degree slope. The cabane
>attachment brackets are mounted to the bottom of the spars, and
>identical brackets are used for the front and back. So IF the bottoms
>of the spars were parallel to the chord line, the angle of incidence
>would be 2 degrees per plans. But with the Pietenpol (FC-10) airfoil,
>the chord line is NOT parallel to the bottoms of the spars - in fact
>they are at about 1 1/2 degrees. So the true angle of incidence in a
>plans-built Pietenpol is approximately 3 1/2 degrees. See attached
>sketch for reference.
>
>Now, if you are using the Riblett airfoil, it's a different story,
>because the bottoms of the spars form an even bigger angle with the
>chord line. Common sense would dictate that the difference in the
>lengths of the cabane struts (front vs rear) should be different from
>the 1 inch difference shown in the Pietenpol plans, if the angle of
>incidence is to be kept the same. I think this was already discussed at
>length a year or so ago.
>
>The funny thing is that drawing No.1 of the Pietenpol plans calls up 2
>degrees incidence - but that 2 degrees is actually only the strut
>lengths, and is not measured to the chord line - so it is not the actual
>angle of incidence.
>
>Bill C.
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336857#336857
>
>
>Attachments:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com//files/piet_incidence_185.pdf
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG |
Chuck,
I'm with you on this one. The GN-1's I've seen flying seem to fly nose high and
they have equal length cabanes as far as I know. I think almost all of these
older designs with cabanes have longer fronts than backs. Mr. Pietenpol must
have known what he was doing with that fantastic airfoil of his. Here's a shot
to show how the Pietenpol airfoil gives a nice level flight. Am I just a
little biased to the Pietenpol design?!!!
Don Emch
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336860#336860
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/no_tail_low_611.jpg
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG |
Sorry about that, how about this size...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336866#336866
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/no_tail_low_285.jpg
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cabane Fittings |
OK... I'd like some input - back to the "grain direction and tightness" topic......
in the picture.above, the one that shows the close-up of the pulley, the
grain is nice and tight on the SIDE of the spar, but pretty open on the BOTTOM
of the spar. is this OK......!!?!??!???! I have purchased my (well built) wings
and the sparse have the same grain as is shown in that photo..... is that
OKAY...?
--------
Jake Schultz - curator,
Newport Way Air Museum (OK, it's just my home)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336869#336869
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG |
Don,
I have no shame. Your Piet is now my desktop image. I have had most all of the
flying Piets on our forum as my desktop at one time or the other.
Do not archive
--------
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=336870#336870
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG |
Well, I liked the BIG photo.
BC
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336871#336871
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cabane Fittings |
Jake,
You can't have tight grain spacing on the sides AND the bottom. That would mean
that the grain was sloped at 45 degrees. You want the tight grain spacing on
the sides of the spars, not the bottom. The photo of Rick's spars shows it the
way it is supposed to be. You can see a little of the end grain, which shows
the growth rings to be quite horizontal (vertical grain, or quarter sawn). In
an IDEAL spar, there would be NO grain lines on the bottom or top - only on the
sides, and the end grain would be perfectly horizontal (when the spar is upright).
But some variation is acceptable, since wood is a natural substance, and
doesn't always grow according to specifications.
sounds like your spars are fine.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336874#336874
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: help identifying disk brake caliper |
Took John's advice and contacted Matco. Very impressed with their customer service.
They had an email back to me in 2 hours identifying this as an old Matco
version that the back side had been machined flat for some reason. They also identified
the replacement parts needed and the alternate entire assembly - which
I chose. $82 for the whole caliper assembly - I"ll take it.
Item of note - I had a senior moment for some reason - these are standard 6.00x6
wheels/tires - not 15-6.00x6...
Thanks all !
--------
Lorin Miller
Waiex N81YX
GN-1 N30PP
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336875#336875
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG |
My computer made the first one the same size as the second.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Church" <billspiet@sympatico.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 6:56 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG
> <billspiet@sympatico.ca>
>
> Well, I liked the BIG photo.
>
> BC
>
> do not archive
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336871#336871
>
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG |
I liked the big picture Don, beautiful.
rick
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Don Emch <EmchAir@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry about that, how about this size...
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336866#336866
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/no_tail_low_285.jpg
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
NX6819Z
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG |
Don,
Absolutely beautiful and rigged perfectly!
Thanks,
Jack
DSM
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Emch
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 5:05 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG
Sorry about that, how about this size...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336866#336866
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/no_tail_low_285.jpg
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cabane Fittings |
THANKS Bill.... it's things like this which make this message board - and your
friendships as we all move through this - so worthwhile.... Regards..........
--------
Jake Schultz - curator,
Newport Way Air Museum (OK, it's just my home)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336887#336887
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cabane Fittings |
The ideal is what I said before about the stack of paper.
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Church" <billspiet@sympatico.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 4:12 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Cabane Fittings
> <billspiet@sympatico.ca>
>
> Jake,
>
> You can't have tight grain spacing on the sides AND the bottom. That would
> mean that the grain was sloped at 45 degrees. You want the tight grain
> spacing on the sides of the spars, not the bottom. The photo of Rick's
> spars shows it the way it is supposed to be. You can see a little of the
> end grain, which shows the growth rings to be quite horizontal (vertical
> grain, or quarter sawn). In an IDEAL spar, there would be NO grain lines
> on the bottom or top - only on the sides, and the end grain would be
> perfectly horizontal (when the spar is upright). But some variation is
> acceptable, since wood is a natural substance, and doesn't always grow
> according to specifications.
> sounds like your spars are fine.
>
> Bill C.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336874#336874
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cabane Fittings |
I am assuming that we're talking about the pic
from Rick posted on the 4th, right?
If so that is one nice chunk of wood.
Also, if you look at the cabane fitting you'll see
what I said previously. There is a bent piece
of metal (essential for attaching the cabane) :-) in
the channel of the spar bracket that obviates
any need to round off the spar. But I do agree that
if necessary for fit this PARTICULAR area could
have the edges champhered. Like Oscar says, the
stresses here are significantly different from those
at the outer wing panel.
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Church" <billspiet@sympatico.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 4:12 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Cabane Fittings
> <billspiet@sympatico.ca>
>
> Jake,
>
> You can't have tight grain spacing on the sides AND the bottom. That would
> mean that the grain was sloped at 45 degrees. You want the tight grain
> spacing on the sides of the spars, not the bottom. The photo of Rick's
> spars shows it the way it is supposed to be. You can see a little of the
> end grain, which shows the growth rings to be quite horizontal (vertical
> grain, or quarter sawn). In an IDEAL spar, there would be NO grain lines
> on the bottom or top - only on the sides, and the end grain would be
> perfectly horizontal (when the spar is upright). But some variation is
> acceptable, since wood is a natural substance, and doesn't always grow
> according to specifications.
> sounds like your spars are fine.
>
> Bill C.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336874#336874
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG |
Or just put one cabane on it and a handle into
the cockpit. Like that Pou thingie. Oh! another
benifit! No aileron cables! :-)
Clif - simply fly!
Do not archive either
Or use a jackscrew arrangement like Piper used for the horizontal
stabilizer of the J-3 Cub, or North American used for the tail of the
F-100 Super Sabre so you can change the length of the cabanes in flight,
giving a variable incidence wing.
Semper Flatus
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
Do Not Archive - I'm just in a silly mood
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG |
Idealy, yes. You are flying the wing not the fuselage.
That means you have to fly with that chord line at
the right angle for the wing to maintain lift.
BUT. In the Piet the nose high attitude is not always
an aerodynamic issue but a weight&balance one.
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Campbell" > I'm no practicing aero engineer, but it seems to
me if the airplane flies
> nose high with the cabanes per the plans (front 1-inch longer than the
> rear) if the front struts were shortened it would increase the nose high
> attitude. Any comments?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pieti Lowell" <Lowellcfrank@yahoo.com>
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 8:21 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG
>
>
>> <Lowellcfrank@yahoo.com>
>>
>> The Cabanes with the 612 should be very close to the same length because
>> the angle of incident is much different than the Piets, I will be trying
>> different angles to find the best flying configuration. The same length
>> as the Pietenpol's Cabanes,gives the trim of much forward stick pressure
>> to hold straight and level at 70 MPH.
>> Pieti Lowell
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336762#336762
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cabane Fittings |
THANKS Bill.... it's things like this which make this message board - and your
friendships as we all move through this - so worthwhile.... Regards..........
--------
Jake Schultz - curator,
Newport Way Air Museum (OK, it's just my home)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336900#336900
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|