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 |
|
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Scott or Maule tail Wheel |
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Scott or Maule tail Wheel |
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol RC Model |
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol RC Model |
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 "Scout"
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: ###Second Flight#### |
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 "Scout"
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 |
|
| 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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Higher Useful Load |
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 "Scout"
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Higher Useful Load |
> 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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Higher Useful Load |
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Higher Useful Load |
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Higher Useful Load |
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Higher Useful Load |
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 |
|
| 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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Higher Useful Load |
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Higher Useful Load |
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Higher Useful Load |
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Higher Useful Load |
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Higher Useful Load |
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Higher Useful Load |
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 "Scout"
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Scott or Maule tail Wheel |
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
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! --
|