Pietenpol-List Digest Archive

Fri 10/04/13


Total Messages Posted: 24



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 04:14 AM - Re: bungees (Steven Dortch)
     2. 05:28 AM - Re: Scott or Maule tail Wheel (AircamperN11MS)
     3. 05:32 AM - Re: bungees (AircamperN11MS)
     4. 05:34 AM - Re: bungees (GNflyer)
     5. 05:39 AM - Re: bungees (AircamperN11MS)
     6. 06:38 AM - Re: Re: Scott or Maule tail Wheel (Rick Holland)
     7. 08:14 AM - Re: Pietenpol RC Model (Fun2av8)
     8. 08:45 AM - Re: Pietenpol RC Model (taildrags)
     9. 08:52 AM - Re: ###Second Flight#### (taildrags)
    10. 09:06 AM - Higher Useful Load (John Ackerman)
    11. 10:27 AM - Re: Higher Useful Load (taildrags)
    12. 11:47 AM - Re: Higher Useful Load (womenfly2)
    13. 12:45 PM - Re: Higher Useful Load (A Future Pilot)
    14. 01:32 PM - Re: Higher Useful Load (jarheadpilot82)
    15. 01:34 PM - Re: Higher Useful Load (nightmare)
    16. 01:40 PM - Re: Re: Higher Useful Load (Steve Emo)
    17. 01:42 PM - Re: ###Second Flight#### (Michael Weston)
    18. 01:57 PM - Re: Higher Useful Load (A Future Pilot)
    19. 02:13 PM - Re: Higher Useful Load (jarheadpilot82)
    20. 02:13 PM - Re: Higher Useful Load (jarheadpilot82)
    21. 03:55 PM - Re: Higher Useful Load (nightmare)
    22. 04:00 PM - Re: Higher Useful Load (nightmare)
    23. 04:00 PM - Re: Higher Useful Load (taildrags)
    24. 07:25 PM - Re: Scott or Maule tail Wheel (Fun2av8)
 
 
 


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: 04:14:12 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: bungees
    From: Steven Dortch <steven.d.dortch@gmail.com>
    Have you checked your wheels for toe out? Had a Cessna 150 that was slightly tow in after a tire change. Push it back into the hangar and it squatted, pull it out and it stood up tall. I think my project may be very slightly toe in. seems to do the same thing. Blue Skies, Steve D On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 7:48 PM, GNflyer <rayeh48@yahoo.com> wrote: > > well I made another fun flight in my GN-1 this afternoon about 45 minutes > before dark. followed by the smoothest landing I have even made in it. > (could be partly due to a very weak bungee on the right side. by the time I > turned at the hangar and shut down the leg was splayed out pretty bad. I > had thought I would go to coil springs on them but as the time to fly just > has not been that much and I feel pretty comfortable with the Cub gear as > it is. I just need to find the lowest price but timely delivery source and > get some in and change them.having never done it I am not at all sure what > I need.I seem to remember 1080? as a strength rating but that may have been > on my old Tri-pacer I used to have.any good recommendations? I looked up > Chief aircraft and have ordered from them in the past but figured this > would be a good place to ask first. thanks. Raymond > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=409519#409519 > >


    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: 05:28:24 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Scott or Maule tail Wheel
    From: "AircamperN11MS" <Scott.liefeld@lacity.org>
    Jim, What you are describing regarding take offs and landings is exactly how it should feel. The airplane is doing what it is supposed to do. There is nothing to fix. I hate to see you spend a bunch of time trying to fix something that is not broken. That said, get someone who is familiar with flying piets or cubs to to verify that the airplane is fine. If there is something truly wrong then he should be able to head you in the proper direction. The airspeeds you are giving are fast also. I suspect that either the indicator is not reading correctly or you are just landing it too fast. Have you gone out and done any slow flight work or stalls with the plane. See what airspeed it indicates when it stalls power off. If you are uncomfortable with doing that, I again say have someone else fly it for input. That airplane has been flying for many years. it is hard for me to believe that it as poor handling qualities. I am not trying to sound a rough on you, but I don't want to see you spend time fixing something that is not broken. Worse yet, have you change something while experimenting and hurt yourself or the plane. Very respectfully, -------- Scott Liefeld Flying N11MS since March 1972 Steel Tube C-85-12 Wire Wheels Brodhead in 1996 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=409826#409826


    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: 05:32:25 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: bungees
    From: "AircamperN11MS" <Scott.liefeld@lacity.org>
    Chief aircraft is where I get my bungee's from. Is there anything in your logbook that indicates a part number for you? There are a lot of different sizes to choose from. Mine seem to last 3 to 4 years. Then they start sagging. Good luck find the proper ones. -------- Scott Liefeld Flying N11MS since March 1972 Steel Tube C-85-12 Wire Wheels Brodhead in 1996 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=409828#409828


    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: 05:34:43 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: bungees
    From: "GNflyer" <rayeh48@yahoo.com>
    there definitely is a little. I tried to correct it while I was finishing up assembling the gear on the fuse early on. did get it better but it does have some. I have always figured a little toe out is preferable to toe In on a conventional gear. but the bungees are definitely failing. after removing the strut t was very evident that the outer one had several places tat are shrunken in a lot under the wrapping have new ones coming now from A/S and hope in the next couple days to get a tool rigged up to install them. D.J. had them put on several years ago and they sat in the Arizona heat quite a while before I bought the project and I have had it at least 6 or 7 years or more. it is amazing how time passes. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=409829#409829


    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: 05:39:42 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: bungees
    From: "AircamperN11MS" <Scott.liefeld@lacity.org>
    Sounds like you are on the right track. You are correct about the toe out. The wheels should either be straight or a little toed out. If toed in the plane will ground loop very easily. Not a good thing. Let us know how it goes. Cheers, -------- Scott Liefeld Flying N11MS since March 1972 Steel Tube C-85-12 Wire Wheels Brodhead in 1996 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=409830#409830


    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: 06:38:29 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Scott or Maule tail Wheel
    From: Rick Holland <at7000ft@gmail.com>
    Going without tailwheel control cables is not unheard of, I believe the new SuperStol is designed that way, ground steering only with rudder and brakes - http://justaircraft.com/page.php?45. Have no idea how a Piet behaves without the cables. rh On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Fun2av8 <iflyga@fun2av8.com> wrote: > > Hi Dick, > > I read you post about spring tension with great interest.... > > Still being a newbie with my Piet ... I find that I am the situation you > describe in your post. Doing calm wind full power takeoffs on pavement, - > the Piet tracks true. But the moment the tail starts flying - the Piet > wants to veer right -- takes a lot of left rudder to get it back on track. > I associate that with P-Factor generated by my O-200. Does this sound > right? > > Wheel landings on calm wind days seem to be the same process in reverse. > I wheel in at 60 with 1200 rpm. Once the wheels are planted - i slowly > back off on the power and allow the tail to just come down on its on. > However - the moment the tail wheel touches - its the rudder dance. > > I stressed 'calm wind days' as I am not ready for cross winds in the Piet > just yet. > > Looking at my tail wheel (see attached) I don't have a castering tail > wheel - so I am not sure that spring tension is my problem? > > Are your comments based on the spring tension with a castering tail wheel? > > I read up on tail wheel castering on a few other forums ... seems there > are a number of pilots that take the springs/cables off and free-wheel > using brakes to steer. > > Anybody free wheeling with their Piet's? > > -------- > Jim McWhorter > N687MB (New Owner) > Culpeper, VA KCJR > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=409797#409797 > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/n687mb_tail_wheel_3619_627.jpg > > -- Rick Holland Castle Rock, Colorado NX6819Z


    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: 08:14:00 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Pietenpol RC Model
    From: "Fun2av8" <iflyga@fun2av8.com>
    Since you are building an RC version of your Piet - I thought you might get a kick out of my RC Piet. The RC Piet is from Stevens Aero and was built by Paul Stamison. Mr. Jin Woo provided the decals. The front and rear cockpit instruments in the model match the ones in my Piet -------- Jim McWhorter N687MB (New Owner) Culpeper, VA KCJR Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=409841#409841 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/rc_mr_sam_with_n687mb_3661_258.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/rc_mr_sam_with_n687mb_3663_417.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/rc_mr_sam_with_n687mb_3661_418.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/rc_mr_sam_with_n687mb_3661_186.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/rc_mr_sam_with_n687mb_3658_198.jpg


    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: 08:45:32 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Pietenpol RC Model
    From: "taildrags" <taildrags@hotmail.com>
    Jim; I see a real problem with your scale model of Mr. Sam. It needs a free-castoring tailwheel ;o) do not archive -------- Oscar Zuniga Medford, OR Air Camper NX41CC &quot;Scout&quot; A75 power Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=409845#409845


    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: 08:52:38 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: ###Second Flight####
    From: "taildrags" <taildrags@hotmail.com>
    Chris; With the standard CG envelope being 15"-20" aft of wing leading edge, flying it with the CG at 15.6" aft is definitely going to be nose heavy. My airplane has a 16 gallon fuel tank in the nose and when I'm flying solo with full fuel, I have to hold some back stick too. Where is the fuel tank in Two One Lima Romeo? If it's in the nose and you're doing test flights with full fuel, you might try draining off half the tank and flying it again. And unless it is requiring considerable back stick to hold it straight & level, or you have a wing centersection fuel tank, it doesn't sound like you have any big adjustments to make. -------- Oscar Zuniga Medford, OR Air Camper NX41CC &quot;Scout&quot; A75 power Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=409846#409846


    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: 09:06:21 AM PST US
    From: John Ackerman <afuturepilotis@gmail.com>
    Subject: Higher Useful Load
    Hey everyone! I've been a lurker on this mailing list for a long time, but haven't really said much. I'm considering building a Pietenpol and the only thing holding me back at this point is the useful load. It seems the average useful load is about 450 lbs. I'd REALLY like to get 500-550 useful. I'll be using an O-200 to power mine. Has anyone designed a slightly larger wing or some-such to allow for a higher useful load? Thanks! John


    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: 10:27:01 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Higher Useful Load
    From: "taildrags" <taildrags@hotmail.com>
    John; It's not just a matter of getting enough lift and thrust to get the airplane to fly at a higher gross weight. The design loading for the wing spars, wing attach fittings and bolts, lift struts, strut attachment fittings and bolts, landing gear, and other things are affected by an increase in weight. If you think about it, the Normal Category load limit is +3.8G so if you increase the gross weight by 100 lbs, the stresses have to be analyzed for 3.8 times that (actually, 1.9 times that for each wing since there are 2 wings). Not that it can't be done, but you've got to look at the whole picture and not just adding more wing area or engine thrust to get the additional weight off the ground. This topic has come up fairly often, given that most people today are a little larger in weight and stature than Mr. Pietenpol was. In my case it's not a factor since I'm 5'-9" and weigh about 152 in summer clothes, but I think I'm the exception. In fact, my airplane (empty weight 633) is right at gross with full fuel and two FAA-standard people aboard (175 lbs apiece). I haven't heard a lot of excitement on this list about structurally and aerodynamically analyzing the Air Camper and re-engineering it for a higher gross weight. It is what it is. -------- Oscar Zuniga Medford, OR Air Camper NX41CC &quot;Scout&quot; A75 power Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=409853#409853


    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: 11:47:30 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Higher Useful Load
    From: "womenfly2" <Love2Fly.KAP@gmail.com>
    > Not that it can't be done, but you've got to look at the whole picture and not just adding more wing area or engine thrust to get the additional weight off the ground. Your correct here and very good advise. Unfortunately people do what you are saying without any total engineering being looked at. Lots of Piet's flying around that way with increased loads on the total airframe lowering the safety factor, without know what it is. I would assume some are under the 3.8G's limits ..... and the limits are there for a reason. Build a Piet as a Piet. If you what it to do something different, look for an other design. -------- Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=409859#409859


    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
    Time: 12:45:23 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Higher Useful Load
    From: "A Future Pilot" <afuturepilotis@gmail.com>
    OK, so redesigning it is out...but is the published useful load accurate for an O-200? About what useful load can I expect, since I'm assuming I'll have more than what I'd have with a Model A. Doing some searching through this list, I've seen people talk about 1250 or so gross with an O-200. Is that realistic? Thanks! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=409864#409864


    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
    Time: 01:32:07 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Higher Useful Load
    From: "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com>
    John, I think that you are looking at this backwards. You seem to be asking, "If I add an O-200, how much more can I add?" I think the better question is, "My aircraft can be comfortably be registered and operated with a gross weight of X. What are the best practices that I can use to build light as safely possible in order to leave me as much useful load as possible." The design weight is set for all the reasons previously discussed. So instead of asking how much you can add, figure out what your empty weight will be, then your useful load is left. It seems to me that often people like the Pietenpol, but want to change it to do or be X, Y, or Z on their desires list. There are many great designs out there, and if the Piet cannot quite give you what you want, then keep looking. You will be much happier in the end. My $.02 -------- Semper Fi, Terry Hand Athens, GA Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=409869#409869


    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
    Time: 01:34:17 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Higher Useful Load
    From: "nightmare" <pauldonahuepilot@yahoo.com>
    Hey John; I agree with both posts above but also would like to add that some builders are stretching piet wings and some are using stretched thicker wings (taller spar) so that they feel more comfortable putting a higher max weight on the paperwork. I will not speak of everyone's opinion, but seems like for the most part, i have read of how the wing is the weak link of the Piet. but there are so many variables since all plans build piets are build differently by different people with different skill levels with different materials. Does anyone know if the pietenpol has been engineered to any specific max gross weight? or was 1080lbs just a weight that Bernard felt comfortable with.? -------- Paul Donahue Started 8-3-12 do not archive Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=409870#409870


    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
    Time: 01:40:33 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Higher Useful Load
    From: Steve Emo <steve.emo58@gmail.com>
    58tl has an O200 and has a gross weight of 1320. Yes it does get off the ground, and yes carrying a little more speed on approach feels fine. Steve > On Oct 4, 2013, at 3:45 PM, "A Future Pilot" <afuturepilotis@gmail.com> wrote: > > > OK, so redesigning it is out...but is the published useful load accurate for an O-200? About what useful load can I expect, since I'm assuming I'll have more than what I'd have with a Model A. Doing some searching through this list, I've seen people talk about 1250 or so gross with an O-200. Is that realistic? > > Thanks! > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=409864#409864 > > > > > > > > > >


    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
    Time: 01:42:26 PM PST US
    From: Michael Weston <smikewest@comcast.net>
    Subject: Re: ###Second Flight####
    hi guys & gals, i looked at the video and i noticed that the elevator did not have the usual 3 to 4 degree droop typical of piets in flight, in fact it was pointed up 2 or 3 degrees. so going back and looking at my notes it shows that the riblet airfoil calls for a 1" longer cabane in front. however, the riblet has the same 2 degree angle of incidence in relation to the top longeron as the standard piet airfoil.on account of the fact that the riblet front spar is 1 inch lower than the rear in relation to the chord line. so, chris' piet has 1 degree less than called for in the plans. ergo, all things being more or less equal from the standpoint of the air blowing over the plane the horizontal stabilizer is one degree off in relation to the wing. the riblet airfoil has almost the same pitching moment as the piet airfoil so it should trim up the same.anyway thats my 5 cents.


    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
    Time: 01:57:27 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Higher Useful Load
    From: "A Future Pilot" <afuturepilotis@gmail.com>
    Thanks everyone! I think my initial question wasn't really what I meant to be asking. The way I should have worded it is "What is the highest gross weight that the pietenpol can safely operate with when using an O-200 engine. Also, are there any wing or other section redesigns that would be beneficial." So, with that in mind, would y'all say that an empty weight of around 750 (or hopefully less) is reasonable, and a gross weight of about 1250 is safe with an O-200? I plan on building as light as possible (including using a steel tube fuselage), but other than just building light, there aren't any modifications to the original design that are recommended? (I have looked at Keri-Anne's modifications. I think I may go with the no-gap ailerons and steerable tail wheel. Have any of you had experience with those?) Thanks again everyone! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=409874#409874


    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
    Time: 02:13:20 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Higher Useful Load
    From: "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com>
    John, Leave off the "with an O-200" and your question is more accurate, in my opinion. The question should be "what is the max gross weight allowed, and what is a reasonable empty weight." period. Whether or not it is an O-200, a Rotec, am A-65, a Model T or any other engine is more a factor in Weight and Balance computations. Too heavy an engine and is placement is going to affect the CG and thus the flyability of your final product even if your airplane is within a weight range. $.02 more. -------- Semper Fi, Terry Hand Athens, GA Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=409875#409875


    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
    Time: 02:13:39 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Higher Useful Load
    From: "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com>
    John, Leave off the "with an O-200" and your question is more accurate, in my opinion. The question should be "what is the max gross weight allowed, and what is a reasonable empty weight." period. Whether or not it is an O-200, a Rotec, am A-65, a Model T or any other engine is more a factor in Weight and Balance computations. Too heavy an engine and is placement is going to affect the CG and thus the flyability of your final product even if your airplane is within a weight range. $.02 more. -------- Semper Fi, Terry Hand Athens, GA Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=409876#409876


    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
    Time: 03:55:43 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Higher Useful Load
    From: "nightmare" <pauldonahuepilot@yahoo.com>
    Exactly! More horsepower may equal better climb rate , but whatever engine you strap on, you'll have to add that to the empty weight then subtract that total from the desired gross weight to get your useful load. Apologize if that's obvious. -------- Paul Donahue Started 8-3-12 do not archive Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=409881#409881


    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
    Time: 04:00:36 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Higher Useful Load
    From: "nightmare" <pauldonahuepilot@yahoo.com>
    John: just to clarify. when you ask about "max weight to operate safely", are you talking about climb performance and stall speed, or max structural limiting weight? -------- Paul Donahue Started 8-3-12 do not archive Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=409882#409882


    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
    Time: 04:00:49 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Higher Useful Load
    From: "taildrags" <taildrags@hotmail.com>
    If by "no-gap ailerons" you mean installing the ailerons using full-span piano hinges, my guess is that the majority of Piets that are being constructed today are using that method and a good number of flying Piets have them as well. My airplane has them. I think everyone agrees that they improve control responsiveness. Same for your question about steerable tailwheels. I think I can safely say that tail skids are in the minority and fixed or free-castoring tailwheels are too. Having the tailwheel steerable improves ground handling but it does add an extra set of cables and control horns to the tail of the airplane. Cutting into your useful load ;o) -------- Oscar Zuniga Medford, OR Air Camper NX41CC &quot;Scout&quot; A75 power Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=409883#409883


    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
    Time: 07:25:04 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Scott or Maule tail Wheel
    From: "Fun2av8" <iflyga@fun2av8.com>
    I checkef the tail wheel alignment against the rudder and found that the tail wheel is around 3 degrees off center. Looking at how far it is off explained those nasty little side trips that the Pete wants to take when the tail wheel touches down. I need to put turnbuckles on the cables that attach to the tail wheel so I can center the tail wheel. -------- Jim McWhorter N687MB (New Owner) Culpeper, VA KCJR Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=409888#409888




    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! --