Pietenpol-List Digest Archive

Thu 04/14/11


Total Messages Posted: 12



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 03:49 AM - Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG (Don Emch)
     2. 09:52 AM - Angle of Incidence (Bill Church)
     3. 10:45 AM - Re: Angle of Incidence (K5YAC)
     4. 01:34 PM - Re: large fuselage for Erkki (DOMIT)
     5. 04:33 PM - Re: Angle of Incidence (Pieti Lowell)
     6. 06:39 PM - Cabane Fittings (Oscar Zuniga)
     7. 06:59 PM - Re: Re: Angle of Incidence (Michael Perez)
     8. 07:00 PM - Who' Was Selling Alum. for cabanes? (Michael Perez)
     9. 07:19 PM - Re: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG (Rick Holland)
    10. 07:58 PM - Re: Angle of Incidence (Bill Church)
    11. 08:36 PM - Re: Cabane Fittings (Ray Krause)
    12. 10:05 PM - Re: Angle of Incidence (Charles Waldo)
 
 
 


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
    Time: 03:49:30 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG
    From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir@aol.com>
    Jerry, I think I've used most of them too. The masterful pilot in that picture is Andrew King. Nigel Hitchman was the photographer. Bill, very interesting about the angle of incidence versus the location of the bottom of the spars. I had not thought about that being thrown into the equation. Don Emch NX899DE Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336906#336906


    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
    Time: 09:52:37 AM PST US
    Subject: Angle of Incidence
    From: "Bill Church" <billspiet@sympatico.ca>
    Attached are a couple of scale drawings that illustrate the actual angle of incidence formed between the fuselage and the chord line of the airfoil for the Air Camper, when outfitted with the standard FC-10 Pietenpol airfoil, and also the Riblett GA30UA612 airfoil. In both cases, the geometry used is based on the bottom surface of the spars making contact with the top surface of the bottom capstrip of the rib. Spar spacing is as per the Pietenpol plans, as is the location of the spars, relative to the leading edge. Cabane mounting brackets are assumed to be mounted tight to the underside of the spars. Cabane strut lengths are as per plans. With the front cabanes 1 inch longer than the rear cabanes, an incidence angle of 2 degrees is formed between the fuselage and the underside of the spars (for BOTH cases). The difference lies in the angle formed between the bottom of the spars and the chord line of the specific airfoil. For the FC-10, that angle is approximately 1.5 degrees. For the Riblett 612, the angle is about 2.1 degrees. This difference is a characteristic of the bottom profile of the airfoil relative to the chord line. Therefore, by comparing these two drawings, we can see that if the Riblett airfoil is mounted on the plans-built Pietenpol cabane struts, the result will be an aircraft with approximately 0.6 degrees greater angle of incidence than the standard plans-built Pietenpol with the FC-10 airfoil. No doubt, this would affect the flight characteristics of the plane. In order to keep the angle of incidence the same as the original design, while using the Riblett airfoil, the front cabanes should only be about 11/16" longer than the rear, rather than the 1" shown in the plans. Bill C. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336915#336915 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/riblett_incidence_738.pdf http://forums.matronics.com//files/piet_incidence_153.pdf


    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
    Time: 10:45:31 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Angle of Incidence
    From: "K5YAC" <hangar10@cox.net>
    Good stuff Bill, thanks! -------- Mark Chouinard Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336916#336916


    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
    Time: 01:34:42 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: large fuselage for Erkki
    From: "DOMIT" <rx7_ragtop@yahoo.com>
    erkki67 wrote: > Hello Douwe > > Thank you very much for your input. > > I wasn't aware about those builders in Florida, and for sure I would like to know more about their fuselages. > > I've found a aircraft which have my demanded riveted fuselage, but it's a biplane (german Kiebitz ) as well, but I would prefer to have a parasol like the Pietenpol. > > As the weight is an issue, at least here at France, and I would like to register it here in our 2 seater ultralight class MTOW 1041.6lbs incl parachute and PAX. > > This is the reason why I would prefer to have a Piet or look a like that's as light as possible. > > And to get there, I belive that the riveted Aluminium tube system is the way to go. > > And by the way, to rivet the airframe together is within reach of almost every builder. > > I've been following the Airdrome Aeroplanes for some while and even wrote to Mr. Baslee, but the price he asked for a Parasol was out of my reach, for that price I could buy a LSA, but as I'm not Bill Gates, I'll have to find an homebuilding solution. > > Bst rgds > > Erkki A properly optimized riveted aluminum tube fuselage is not going to be significantly lighter than a properly optimized welded steel fuselage. I'm not saying don't do it, I'm saying you don't gain anything but some ease of construction... at the same time, the attachment "hard points" take a little more effort for things like landing gear, cabanes, lift struts, etc. If you want to design your own aircraft, have at it! Otherwise you can't go wrong if you build from the plans. I believe there is someone on here who designed steel tube tail surfaces for use with the steel fuselage... as noted, the steel fuselage will save you some weight- and torch welding steel isn't rocket science, just practice a little on some scrap tubing. Using a lighter engine will also save some weight. A big thing that people overlook is paint. Paint is HEAVY! If you want a glossy, showplane finish, it will weigh more than the minimum needed. Finish it through "silvercoat" (the UV coat) and add a few minimal stripes of color- you'll save a lot of weight. And remember, the gross weight of your aircraft is what you say it is. -------- Brad &quot;DOMIT&quot; Smith First rule of ground school: This is the ground... don't hit it going fast. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336918#336918


    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
    Time: 04:33:43 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Angle of Incidence
    From: "Pieti Lowell" <Lowellcfrank@yahoo.com>
    Bill, I have been trying to say what you have explained, because of forward stick pressure required to go faster than 60 MPH, I am experimenting with a variable rear Cabane height to see where the best position will be and keep in mind my 612 wing is shorter and it may require a different angle than a full length wing. Pieti Lowell Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336925#336925


    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
    Time: 06:39:02 PM PST US
    From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags@hotmail.com>
    Subject: Cabane Fittings
    As others have said, Mr. Pietenpol eliminated all of the trigonometry and guesswork for us by providing simple measurements to build by. The front cabane struts on Scout are 1" longer than the rear ones and I never worry about the angle of incidence... it flies just right. The cabanes on my airplane are inclined rearward 3" (at the top) and the CG with the Continental engine is very easy to manage in all configurations. By the way, for years my computer 'wallpaper' was the photo of Don Emch's Piet with the cockpits full of kids. What a gorgeous airplane and a superb composition. Later, my wallpaper was the air-to-air shot of Don's and Frank Pavliga's Piets in close formation. Double gorgeous. These airplanes are so photogenic. Oscar Zuniga Air Camper NX41CC "Scout" San Antonio, TX website at http://www.flysquirrel.net


    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
    Time: 06:59:28 PM PST US
    From: Michael Perez <speedbrake@sbcglobal.net>
    Subject: Re: Angle of Incidence
    Nice job Bill. My 612 ribs are located on the spars just as you described. This is good intell. for me, thank you. Michael Perez Karetaker Aero www.karetakeraero.com -


    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
    Time: 07:00:41 PM PST US
    From: Michael Perez <speedbrake@sbcglobal.net>
    Subject: Who' Was Selling Alum. for cabanes?
    If the aluminum strut cut offs are still available, I would be interested in them. Cantact me off list. Thanks. Michael Perez Karetaker Aero www.karetakeraero.com


    Message 9


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:19:03 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG
    From: Rick Holland <at7000ft@gmail.com>
    Yea, they call that a Wingevator. Don't need any stinkin ailerons, steer with rudder. Do we have any volunteers to test fly such a contraption? On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Clif Dawson <cdawson5854@shaw.ca> wrote: > 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!D > > 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-1 00 > Super Sabre so you can change the length of the cabanes in flight, giving a > variable incidence wing. > > > Semper Flatus > > > Jack Phillips > > NX899JP =93Icarus Plummet=94 > > Raleigh, NC > > > Do Not Archive ' I=92m just in a silly mood > > > * > =========== =========== =========== =========== > * > > -- Rick Holland Castle Rock, Colorado NX6819Z "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"


    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
    Time: 07:58:57 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Angle of Incidence
    From: "Bill Church" <billspiet@sympatico.ca>
    Gary, did you read that? Michael built 612 ribs! Wow. BC do not archive Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336955#336955


    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
    Time: 08:36:36 PM PST US
    From: "Ray Krause" <raykrause@frontiernet.net>
    Subject: Re: Cabane Fittings
    Oscar, With the A-65, did you use the Pietenpol plans for the motor mount? I have the Pientenpol motor mount plans, but I am building the Sky Scout. Does anyone with the A-65 on a Sky Scout have an idea about the motor mount... length, etc? Thanks, Ray Krause Fuselage and tails pretty well done, sweating on the landing gear, ribs made ----- Original Message ----- From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 6:07 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cabane Fittings > > > As others have said, Mr. Pietenpol eliminated all of the trigonometry and > guesswork for us by providing simple measurements to build by. The front > cabane struts on Scout are 1" longer than the rear ones and I never worry > about the angle of incidence... it flies just right. > > The cabanes on my airplane are inclined rearward 3" (at the top) and the > CG with the Continental engine is very easy to manage in all > configurations. > > By the way, for years my computer 'wallpaper' was the photo of Don Emch's > Piet with the cockpits full of kids. What a gorgeous airplane and a > superb > composition. Later, my wallpaper was the air-to-air shot of Don's and > Frank Pavliga's Piets in close formation. Double gorgeous. These > airplanes > are so photogenic. > > Oscar Zuniga > Air Camper NX41CC "Scout" > San Antonio, TX > website at http://www.flysquirrel.net > > >


    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
    Time: 10:05:33 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Angle of Incidence
    From: Charles Waldo <cwaldo.jr@gmail.com>
    Bill Very cool, but, as you said, this is based on both spars being placed on top of the bottom capstrip, In reality for the 612 airfoil, we would want to place the front spar as high as possible in the rib, this would allow the compression struts and other components to line up better between the spars. What would the length be for the cabane if the front spar was all the way up against the bottom of the top capstrip??? Chuck On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Bill Church <billspiet@sympatico.ca>wrote: > billspiet@sympatico.ca> > > Attached are a couple of scale drawings that illustrate the actual angle of > incidence formed between the fuselage and the chord line of the airfoil for > the Air Camper, when outfitted with the standard FC-10 Pietenpol airfoil, > and also the Riblett GA30UA612 airfoil. > In both cases, the geometry used is based on the bottom surface of the > spars making contact with the top surface of the bottom capstrip of the rib. > Spar spacing is as per the Pietenpol plans, as is the location of the spars, > relative to the leading edge. Cabane mounting brackets are assumed to be > mounted tight to the underside of the spars. Cabane strut lengths are as per > plans. With the front cabanes 1 inch longer than the rear cabanes, an > incidence angle of 2 degrees is formed between the fuselage and the > underside of the spars (for BOTH cases). The difference lies in the angle > formed between the bottom of the spars and the chord line of the specific > airfoil. For the FC-10, that angle is approximately 1.5 degrees. For the > Riblett 612, the angle is about 2.1 degrees. This difference is a > characteristic of the bottom profile of the airfoil relative to the chord > line. > Therefore, by comparing these two drawings, we can see that if the Riblett > airfoil is mounted on the plans-built Pietenpol cabane struts, the result > will be an aircraft with approximately 0.6 degrees greater angle of > incidence than the standard plans-built Pietenpol with the FC-10 airfoil. No > doubt, this would affect the flight characteristics of the plane. In order > to keep the angle of incidence the same as the original design, while using > the Riblett airfoil, the front cabanes should only be about 11/16" longer > than the rear, rather than the 1" shown in the plans. > > Bill C. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336915#336915 > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/riblett_incidence_738.pdf > http://forums.matronics.com//files/piet_incidence_153.pdf > >




    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
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/pietenpol-list
  • Browse Pietenpol-List 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.

    -- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --