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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG |
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 |
|
Subject: | Angle of Incidence |
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Angle of Incidence |
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: large fuselage for Erkki |
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 "DOMIT" 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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Angle of Incidence |
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG |
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Angle of Incidence |
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 |
|
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Angle of Incidence |
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
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! --
|