Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:08 AM - TEST Disreguard (Michael Perez)
2. 07:14 AM - Re: TEST Disreguard (TOM STINEMETZE)
3. 07:24 AM - Re: Pietenpol Picnic (Bill Church)
4. 08:05 AM - Re: TEST Disreguard (Michael Perez)
5. 09:17 AM - Re: TEST Disreguard (Jack Phillips)
6. 09:30 AM - Re: Re: Tippiness (Ray Krause)
7. 09:55 AM - Champion C-26 Plugs (Michael Perez)
8. 11:26 AM - Re: Re: Tippiness (Gary Boothe)
9. 12:35 PM - Re: Re: Tippiness (Ken Bickers)
10. 12:37 PM - Re: Re: Tippiness (Ray Krause)
11. 12:47 PM - Re: Attaching ribs to spars question (womenfly2)
12. 12:49 PM - Re: Re: Tippiness (Ray Krause)
13. 02:07 PM - Pietenpol brakes (John Weber)
14. 02:46 PM - Re: Pietenpol brakes (Gary Boothe)
15. 03:28 PM - Re: Pietenpol brakes (John Weber)
16. 08:49 PM - Re: Pietenpol brakes (Dortch, Steven D MAJ MIL USA NGB)
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 |
|
Testing posting ability.
do not archive
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: TEST Disreguard |
Michael: Your post came through fine.
Tom Stinemetze
do not archive
>>> Michael Perez <speedbrake@sbcglobal.net> 6/13/2013 9:08 AM >>>
Testing posting ability.
do not archive
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: Pietenpol Picnic |
Weather forecast for Saturday looks really good. Should be a good day.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=402615#402615
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/weather_115.jpg
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: TEST Disreguard |
I don't understand the issue here. My post went through, as evident by Tom'
s reply and the fact that it shows up on the Matronic's web site. But I tri
ed posting another topic right after that with no joy.=0A-=0AMichael Pere
z=0APietenpol HINT Videos=0AKaretaker Aero=0Awww.karetakeraero.com=0A=0A=0A
>________________________________=0A> From: TOM STINEMETZE <TOMS@mcpcity.co
m>=0A>To: "pietenpol-list@matronics.com" <pietenpol-list@matronics.com> =0A
>Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:13 AM=0A>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: TES
TZE" <TOMS@mcpcity.com>=0A>=0A>Michael:- Your post came through fine.=0A>
Tom Stinemetze=0A>do not archive=0A>=0A>>>> Michael Perez <speedbrake@sbcgl
obal.net> 6/13/2013 9:08 AM >>>=0A>Testing posting ability.=0A>=0A>do not a
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Matt Dralle, List
=========0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>
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 |
|
I archived it
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Perez
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:09 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: TEST Disreguard
Testing posting ability.
do not archive
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 |
|
Ok: now is that the vertical CG or aircraft CG. Is that with the plane viewed from
the front (when considering vertical CG), or viewed from the side ( when considering
the plane CG) and if considering the plane CG is that with the plane
leveled with the top longeron, or in the standard gear position with the tail
wheel on the ground? As you can tell, I'm not and engineer, just an LAR (looks
about right) person who most always follows the plans.
In Kitplanes sometime back (in the Dawn Patrol section), they discussed landing
gear position and concluded that moving the gear forward or backwards (can't
remember which) on their WW1 planes. The results of the movement was dramatic!
I am not sure this is a contribution!
Thanks,
Ray Krause
SkyScout
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:58 PM, "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ken,
>
> Thanks for uploading the Forum paper about landing gear design.
>
> The last paragraph on page 1 gave me what I was looking for-
>
> "On a front view, the angle between vertical and a line from CG to point of wheel
contact with ground should not be less than 25 degrees."
>
> That is what I was looking for. With so many differing dimensions of gear width
that have been mentioned, I agree that some guidance needs to be published,
and this article gives it. My question pertained to the usefulness of the information,
and this article does put it to use. Thanks for bringing that out.
>
> I guess the Grumman engineers slept through the landing gear design class in
college when they designed the gear on the F4F Wildcat!
>
> --------
> Semper Fi,
>
> Terry Hand
> Athens, GA
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=402593#402593
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/f4f_4a_145.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Champion C-26 Plugs |
Crew, I have acquired (8) C-26 plugs and am curious how these compare to so
me other older plugs, such as the C-27, as well as the newer "M" type plugs
. These will be used on my A-65-8...any concerns?=0A=0A-=0AMichael Perez
=0APietenpol HINT Videos=0AKaretaker Aero=0Awww.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 |
|
Ray - That is as viewed from the front, which would affect 'tippiness.'
Ken's brainiacs went on to consider that the vertical cg changes from tail
up to tail down....very clever...
I'm with you. LAR, and I knew my gear looked narrow!
Gary Boothe
NX308MB
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ray Krause
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tippiness
--> <raykrause@frontiernet.net>
Ok: now is that the vertical CG or aircraft CG. Is that with the plane
viewed from the front (when considering vertical CG), or viewed from the
side ( when considering the plane CG) and if considering the plane CG is
that with the plane leveled with the top longeron, or in the standard gear
position with the tail wheel on the ground? As you can tell, I'm not and
engineer, just an LAR (looks about right) person who most always follows the
plans.
In Kitplanes sometime back (in the Dawn Patrol section), they discussed
landing gear position and concluded that moving the gear forward or
backwards (can't remember which) on their WW1 planes. The results of the
movement was dramatic!
I am not sure this is a contribution!
Thanks,
Ray Krause
SkyScout
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:58 PM, "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> --> <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com>
>
> Ken,
>
> Thanks for uploading the Forum paper about landing gear design.
>
> The last paragraph on page 1 gave me what I was looking for-
>
> "On a front view, the angle between vertical and a line from CG to point
of wheel contact with ground should not be less than 25 degrees."
>
> That is what I was looking for. With so many differing dimensions of gear
width that have been mentioned, I agree that some guidance needs to be
published, and this article gives it. My question pertained to the
usefulness of the information, and this article does put it to use. Thanks
for bringing that out.
>
> I guess the Grumman engineers slept through the landing gear design class
in college when they designed the gear on the F4F Wildcat!
>
> --------
> Semper Fi,
>
> Terry Hand
> Athens, GA
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=402593#402593
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/f4f_4a_145.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Ray,
The way to think about this is that there is only one Center of Gravity
(CG). It is a single point where all of the mass of the airplane is
centered.
Usually, we are concerned about where it is in the longitudinal
orientation, i.e., viewed from the side of the airplane to see how far
forward or back the CG is. That is how we determine whether the CG is in
front of the center of lift. If it s, then an airplane is considered
stable in the sense that when the wing is stalled, releasing the controls
will cause the nose to fall, speed to increase, and a return to the wing
producing lift. If the CG is behind the center of lift, very bad things can
and will happen when the airplane stalls and even before that point if the
distance between the two is very great.
Looking from the front of the airplane, you can see whether the CG is
located left or right of the prop spinner (on a single engine airplane).
This is the lateral dimension of the CG. This dimension determines
whether there is more weight on one wing than the other. If you've flown
airplanes with wing tanks, you'll recognize this as a trim issue. Draining
more fuel from one wing than the other forces you to fly with constant
aileron inputs to try to raise the heavy wing. Cessna tries to get around
this by letting you drain from both tanks simultaneously. Piper requires
you to select one tank at a time. I've owned Pipers for the past 22 years,
so the aileron thing is something I take for granted, sort of like holding
rudder on climb out.
You can see the vertical dimension of the CG from either the side or the
front. Basically, you are looking to see how far above the bottom of the
wheels the CG is located. When viewed in the vertical dimension, the CG
determines tippiness. For the moment, however, consider its location when
looking at the front of the airplane. If you compare two airplanes, one
with a wide wheel base and one with a narrow wheel base but CGs in the same
location vertically, the first will be less tippy than the second. Or put
differently, if you compare two airplanes with the same wheel base but one
with a low CG and the other with a high CG, the first will again be less
tippy than the second.
On my airplane, I've done two things that will make it more tippy. One, I
have a center section fuel tank capable of holding 11 gallons. That is a
lot of weight given the length of the lever arm from the CG (viewed
vertically). Two, making this problem worse, I extended the cabane struts
by just over 2 inches, increasing the lever arm even more. To compensate,
I increased the wheel base by several inches. My wheel base is similar to
Jack's at approximately 69 inches.
I hope this helps, Ken
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Gary Boothe <gboothe5@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Ray - That is as viewed from the front, which would affect 'tippiness.'
> Ken's brainiacs went on to consider that the vertical cg changes from tail
> up to tail down....very clever...
>
> I'm with you. LAR, and I knew my gear looked narrow!
>
> Gary Boothe
> NX308MB
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ray Krause
> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:00 AM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tippiness
>
> --> <raykrause@frontiernet.net>
>
> Ok: now is that the vertical CG or aircraft CG. Is that with the plane
> viewed from the front (when considering vertical CG), or viewed from the
> side ( when considering the plane CG) and if considering the plane CG is
> that with the plane leveled with the top longeron, or in the standard gear
> position with the tail wheel on the ground? As you can tell, I'm not and
> engineer, just an LAR (looks about right) person who most always follows
> the
> plans.
>
> In Kitplanes sometime back (in the Dawn Patrol section), they discussed
> landing gear position and concluded that moving the gear forward or
> backwards (can't remember which) on their WW1 planes. The results of the
> movement was dramatic!
>
> I am not sure this is a contribution!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ray Krause
> SkyScout
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:58 PM, "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > --> <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com>
> >
> > Ken,
> >
> > Thanks for uploading the Forum paper about landing gear design.
> >
> > The last paragraph on page 1 gave me what I was looking for-
> >
> > "On a front view, the angle between vertical and a line from CG to point
> of wheel contact with ground should not be less than 25 degrees."
> >
> > That is what I was looking for. With so many differing dimensions of gear
> width that have been mentioned, I agree that some guidance needs to be
> published, and this article gives it. My question pertained to the
> usefulness of the information, and this article does put it to use. Thanks
> for bringing that out.
> >
> > I guess the Grumman engineers slept through the landing gear design class
> in college when they designed the gear on the F4F Wildcat!
> >
> > --------
> > Semper Fi,
> >
> > Terry Hand
> > Athens, GA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=402593#402593
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Attachments:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/f4f_4a_145.jpg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
Thanks, Gary. After sending my comment, I realized that using the plane's CG (
with tail up, or tail down) would not matter if measuring the 25 degree angle
for the foot print to the plane's CG as viewed from the side.
Now, what the hell was I trying to say?
Thanks,
Ray Krause
Just a SkyScout builder
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 13, 2013, at 11:25 AM, "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Ray - That is as viewed from the front, which would affect 'tippiness.'
> Ken's brainiacs went on to consider that the vertical cg changes from tail
> up to tail down....very clever...
>
> I'm with you. LAR, and I knew my gear looked narrow!
>
> Gary Boothe
> NX308MB
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ray Krause
> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:00 AM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tippiness
>
> --> <raykrause@frontiernet.net>
>
> Ok: now is that the vertical CG or aircraft CG. Is that with the plane
> viewed from the front (when considering vertical CG), or viewed from the
> side ( when considering the plane CG) and if considering the plane CG is
> that with the plane leveled with the top longeron, or in the standard gear
> position with the tail wheel on the ground? As you can tell, I'm not and
> engineer, just an LAR (looks about right) person who most always follows the
> plans.
>
> In Kitplanes sometime back (in the Dawn Patrol section), they discussed
> landing gear position and concluded that moving the gear forward or
> backwards (can't remember which) on their WW1 planes. The results of the
> movement was dramatic!
>
> I am not sure this is a contribution!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ray Krause
> SkyScout
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:58 PM, "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> --> <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com>
>>
>> Ken,
>>
>> Thanks for uploading the Forum paper about landing gear design.
>>
>> The last paragraph on page 1 gave me what I was looking for-
>>
>> "On a front view, the angle between vertical and a line from CG to point
> of wheel contact with ground should not be less than 25 degrees."
>>
>> That is what I was looking for. With so many differing dimensions of gear
> width that have been mentioned, I agree that some guidance needs to be
> published, and this article gives it. My question pertained to the
> usefulness of the information, and this article does put it to use. Thanks
> for bringing that out.
>>
>> I guess the Grumman engineers slept through the landing gear design class
> in college when they designed the gear on the F4F Wildcat!
>>
>> --------
>> Semper Fi,
>>
>> Terry Hand
>> Athens, GA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=402593#402593
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Attachments:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com//files/f4f_4a_145.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Attaching ribs to spars question |
Aluminum stamped ribs have a flange that you nail through to hold the rib in-place
on the wood spar. No glue. One can do the same with a wood rib to wood spar.
--------
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=402642#402642
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 |
|
Great explanation! Even I can understand that! You sound like many of my gr
aduate school profs! Nice that you take the time to "explane" it to those of
us without the engineering degrees.
Thanks,
Ray Krause
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 13, 2013, at 12:35 PM, Ken Bickers <bickers.ken@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ray,
>
> The way to think about this is that there is only one Center of Gravity (C
G). It is a single point where all of the mass of the airplane is centered.
>
> Usually, we are concerned about where it is in the longitudinal orientatio
n, i.e., viewed from the side of the airplane to see how far forward or back
the CG is. That is how we determine whether the CG is in front of the cente
r of lift. If it s, then an airplane is considered stable in the sense that
when the wing is stalled, releasing the controls will cause the nose to fal
l, speed to increase, and a return to the wing producing lift. If the CG is b
ehind the center of lift, very bad things can and will happen when the airpl
ane stalls and even before that point if the distance between the two is ver
y great.
>
> Looking from the front of the airplane, you can see whether the CG is loca
ted left or right of the prop spinner (on a single engine airplane). This i
s the lateral dimension of the CG. This dimension determines whether there i
s more weight on one wing than the other. If you've flown airplanes with wi
ng tanks, you'll recognize this as a trim issue. Draining more fuel from on
e wing than the other forces you to fly with constant aileron inputs to try t
o raise the heavy wing. Cessna tries to get around this by letting you dra
in from both tanks simultaneously. Piper requires you to select one tank at
a time. I've owned Pipers for the past 22 years, so the aileron thing is so
mething I take for granted, sort of like holding rudder on climb out.
>
> You can see the vertical dimension of the CG from either the side or the f
ront. Basically, you are looking to see how far above the bottom of the whe
els the CG is located. When viewed in the vertical dimension, the CG determ
ines tippiness. For the moment, however, consider its location when looking
at the front of the airplane. If you compare two airplanes, one with a wide
wheel base and one with a narrow wheel base but CGs in the same location ve
rtically, the first will be less tippy than the second. Or put differently,
if you compare two airplanes with the same wheel base but one with a low CG
and the other with a high CG, the first will again be less tippy than the s
econd.
>
> On my airplane, I've done two things that will make it more tippy. One, I
have a center section fuel tank capable of holding 11 gallons. That is a lo
t of weight given the length of the lever arm from the CG (viewed vertically
). Two, making this problem worse, I extended the cabane struts by just ove
r 2 inches, increasing the lever arm even more. To compensate, I increased t
he wheel base by several inches. My wheel base is similar to Jack's at appro
ximately 69 inches.
>
> I hope this helps, Ken
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Gary Boothe <gboothe5@comcast.net> wrote
:
>
>>
>> Ray - That is as viewed from the front, which would affect 'tippiness.'
>> Ken's brainiacs went on to consider that the vertical cg changes from tai
l
>> up to tail down....very clever...
>>
>> I'm with you. LAR, and I knew my gear looked narrow!
>>
>> Gary Boothe
>> NX308MB
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ray Kraus
e
>> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:00 AM
>> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tippiness
>>
>> --> <raykrause@frontiernet.net>
>>
>> Ok: now is that the vertical CG or aircraft CG. Is that with the plane
>> viewed from the front (when considering vertical CG), or viewed from the
>> side ( when considering the plane CG) and if considering the plane CG is
>> that with the plane leveled with the top longeron, or in the standard gea
r
>> position with the tail wheel on the ground? As you can tell, I'm not and
>> engineer, just an LAR (looks about right) person who most always follows t
he
>> plans.
>>
>> In Kitplanes sometime back (in the Dawn Patrol section), they discussed
>> landing gear position and concluded that moving the gear forward or
>> backwards (can't remember which) on their WW1 planes. The results of the
>> movement was dramatic!
>>
>> I am not sure this is a contribution!
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ray Krause
>> SkyScout
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:58 PM, "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.co
m>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > --> <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com>
>> >
>> > Ken,
>> >
>> > Thanks for uploading the Forum paper about landing gear design.
>> >
>> > The last paragraph on page 1 gave me what I was looking for-
>> >
>> > "On a front view, the angle between vertical and a line from CG to poin
t
>> of wheel contact with ground should not be less than 25 degrees."
>> >
>> > That is what I was looking for. With so many differing dimensions of ge
ar
>> width that have been mentioned, I agree that some guidance needs to be
>> published, and this article gives it. My question pertained to the
>> usefulness of the information, and this article does put it to use. Thank
s
>> for bringing that out.
>> >
>> > I guess the Grumman engineers slept through the landing gear design cla
ss
>> in college when they designed the gear on the F4F Wildcat!
>> >
>> > --------
>> > Semper Fi,
>> >
>> > Terry Hand
>> > Athens, GA
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Read this topic online here:
>> >
>> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=402593#402593
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Attachments:
>> >
>> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/f4f_4a_145.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 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: | Pietenpol brakes |
Hi all,
I have been a lurker on the list for a few weeks. Our EAA chapter has made
a commitment to help one of our members-an 86 year old gentleman who has been
working on his Piet for 19 years-to help him finish up his Piet and get it flying.
He is building from the "Original Bernie Pietenpol" plans. He has mechanical
brakes on the wheels, but no brake pedals. Hoping not to re-invent the
wheel, I was hoping that someone could share their experiences to help out. Thank
you in advance. Sincerely John Weber(Leesburg, Fl).
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: | Pietenpol brakes |
John,
Glad to hear your chapter has taken on that challenge!
There are a myriad of solutions to brake questions. You can see many of
those at www.westcoastpiet.com, which is a collection of photos of Pietenpol
projects from around the world. There you will also see mine, which are
simply heel brakes modeled after the T-crafts...all parts home made.
Gary Boothe
NX308MB
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Weber
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 2:07 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol brakes
Hi all,
I have been a lurker on the list for a few weeks. Our EAA chapter has
made a commitment to help one of our members-an 86 year old gentleman who
has been working on his Piet for 19 years-to help him finish up his Piet and
get it flying. He is building from the "Original Bernie Pietenpol" plans.
He has mechanical brakes on the wheels, but no brake pedals. Hoping not to
re-invent the wheel, I was hoping that someone could share their experiences
to help out. Thank you in advance. Sincerely John Weber(Leesburg, Fl).
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: Pietenpol brakes |
Thanks for the quick reply Gary, I have already gotten several ideas from the
pictures and have sent them on to the gang working on the Piet. John
On Jun 13, 2013, at 5:45 PM, Gary Boothe wrote:
>
> John,
>
> Glad to hear your chapter has taken on that challenge!
>
> There are a myriad of solutions to brake questions. You can see many of
> those at www.westcoastpiet.com, which is a collection of photos of Pietenpol
> projects from around the world. There you will also see mine, which are
> simply heel brakes modeled after the T-crafts...all parts home made.
>
> Gary Boothe
> NX308MB
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Weber
> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 2:07 PM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol brakes
>
>
> Hi all,
> I have been a lurker on the list for a few weeks. Our EAA chapter has
> made a commitment to help one of our members-an 86 year old gentleman who
> has been working on his Piet for 19 years-to help him finish up his Piet and
> get it flying. He is building from the "Original Bernie Pietenpol" plans.
> He has mechanical brakes on the wheels, but no brake pedals. Hoping not to
> re-invent the wheel, I was hoping that someone could share their experiences
> to help out. Thank you in advance. Sincerely John Weber(Leesburg, Fl).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Pietenpol brakes |
UNCLASSIFIED
The brakes on mine are dirt simple. Piper cub drum brakes. activated by a simple
cable like that on a bike. The cable simply attaches to the heel pedals. Pushing
on one end of the pedal pulls the other end with the cable attached. That
pulls the lever on the drums. Simple. I actually over thought this, before giving
in to the simplicity.
Bleu Skies,
Steve D
On 06/13/13, Gary Boothe wrote:
>
> John,
>
> Glad to hear your chapter has taken on that challenge!
>
> There are a myriad of solutions to brake questions. You can see many of
> those at www.westcoastpiet.com, which is a collection of photos of Pietenpol
> projects from around the world. There you will also see mine, which are
> simply heel brakes modeled after the T-crafts...all parts home made.
>
> Gary Boothe
> NX308MB
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com](javascript:main.compose() On Behalf Of John Weber
> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 2:07 PM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol brakes
>
>
> Hi all,
> I have been a lurker on the list for a few weeks. Our EAA chapter has
> made a commitment to help one of our members-an 86 year old gentleman who
> has been working on his Piet for 19 years-to help him finish up his Piet and
> get it flying. He is building from the "Original Bernie Pietenpol" plans.
> He has mechanical brakes on the wheels, but no brake pedals. Hoping not to
> re-invent the wheel, I was hoping that someone could share their experiences
> to help out. Thank you in advance. Sincerely John Weber(Leesburg, Fl).
>
>
>
>
>
UNCLASSIFIED
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! --
|