Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:17 AM - Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project (Vasek)
2. 05:34 AM - Re: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project (Gary Boothe)
3. 06:29 AM - books (Douwe Blumberg)
4. 08:21 AM - Re: books (aerocarjake)
5. 08:31 AM - Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project (jarheadpilot82)
6. 08:43 AM - Re: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project (Michael Perez)
7. 08:46 AM - Re: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project (Jack Phillips)
8. 08:54 AM - Re: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project (larharris2 Harris)
9. 10:09 AM - Re: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project (Michael Perez)
10. 12:13 PM - verbosity (Lawrence Williams)
11. 02:47 PM - Re: CG vs Wheels Location (larharris2 Harris)
12. 03:02 PM - Re: verbosity (William Wynne)
13. 03:22 PM - Re: CG vs Wheels Location (jarheadpilot82)
14. 04:55 PM - Re: verbosity (jim hyde)
15. 05:30 PM - Re: CG vs Wheels Location (William Wynne)
16. 05:57 PM - Re: verbosity (William Wynne)
17. 06:00 PM - Re: Re: CG vs Wheels Location (airlion2@gmail.com)
18. 06:05 PM - Re: Re: CG vs Wheels Location (airlion2@gmail.com)
19. 06:06 PM - Re: CG vs Wheels Location (Chris)
20. 06:06 PM - Re: Re: CG vs Wheels Location (larharris2 Harris)
21. 07:50 PM - Re: CG vs Wheels Location (Don Emch)
22. 09:55 PM - Re: CG vs Wheels Location (William Wynne)
23. 10:05 PM - Re: CG vs Wheels Location (Gary Boothe)
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: Vasek's Pietenpol project |
Recently I had a guy here who wanted to take a look, and when he came I told him
"this is going to be a replica of S.E.5a" ..and he believed ..it really looks
like S.E.5a :)
I am now wondering about length of the landing gear - the V on the side - how long
it should be. Currently it has about 70cm, but I found out that this length
is designed for Piper wheels. I am going to use wire wheels. So I am worried
that I will have to make the V on both sides again, shorter.
What do you think? Can anyone with wire wheels (on airplane please :D ) measure
the length of the front tube (on the V, which connects the wheel with sides
of fuselage).
Thank you!
--------
My production of WW1 propellers, trophies and constructions:
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420712#420712
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: Vasek's Pietenpol project |
Vasek,
You can do this yourself! Estimate the height of the tail with the
tailwheel arrangement that you will have. Prop up the tail to that
point. Next, raise the front on sawhorses and blocks until you attain a
suitable 'deck angle' ( the angle of the upper longerons, measured over
level ground). I started with 13=81=B0, but fle that was too much.
I=99m now at 11=81=B0 and much more comfortable. Once the deck
angle is set, you can see if the wheels you have will work, or know
which size wheels to look foror rework your gear.
Gary Boothe
NX308MB
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vasek
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 5:17 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project
<mailto:bigon2@seznam.cz> bigon2@seznam.cz>
Recently I had a guy here who wanted to take a look, and when he came I
told him "this is going to be a replica of S.E.5a" ..and he believed
..it really looks like S.E.5a :)
I am now wondering about length of the landing gear - the V on the side
- how long it should be. Currently it has about 70cm, but I found out
that this length is designed for Piper wheels. I am going to use wire
wheels. So I am worried that I will have to make the V on both sides
again, shorter.
What do you think? Can anyone with wire wheels (on airplane please :D )
measure the length of the front tube (on the V, which connects the wheel
with sides of fuselage).
Thank you!
--------
My production of WW1 propellers, trophies and constructions:
=C3=A2=CB=86=C2=BC
Read this topic online here:
<http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420712#420712>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420712#420712
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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 |
|
Ck out "Flight of Passage". Great "coming of age" adventure book about two
kids flying a cub across America in the sixties. Very fun.
Douwe
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 |
|
Don't forget the water bag.....
--------
Jake Schultz - curator,
Newport Way Air Museum (OK, it's just my home)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420730#420730
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: Vasek's Pietenpol project |
Vasek,
Your steel tube fuselage looks great!
I have attached a link to a previous posting I made showing my steel tube fuselage
with the door option for the front seat-
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=100890&highlight
I would love to say that I designed it, but I did not. However, the highly capable
William Wynne did. You might want to look at the tubes he added to reinforce
the fuselage and see if you might need similar reinforcement.
--------
Semper Fi,
Terry Hand
Athens, GA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420732#420732
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: Vasek's Pietenpol project |
I setup my gear more or less as Gary describes. Position the plane with it sitting
on its tail wheel, raise the nose until you achieve your desired deck angle,
fit/locate main landing gear.
If God is your co-pilot...switch seats.
Michael Perez
Pietenpol HINT Videos
KaretakerAero
www.karetakeraero.com
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: Vasek's Pietenpol project |
For what it=99s worth, my Pietenpol has a 13=C2=B0 deck angle and
I wish I had a bit less =93 maybe 12=C2=B0. The problem with
13=C2=B0 is, the wing is nearly fully stalled in the 3-point position,
which means you=99ve got to be very accurate in timing your flare
on landing. The Pietenpol at such an AOA has so much drag that the time
between when you get it to the 3-point position (13=C2=B0) and when it
stalls is very short (feels like a second or less. If you flare a bit
high, it will stall and =9Cdrop in=9D. A shallower deck
angle allows you to flare it slightly high and let it float down to the
runway as it bleeds off speed.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary
Boothe
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 8:34 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project
Vasek,
You can do this yourself! Estimate the height of the tail with the
tailwheel arrangement that you will have. Prop up the tail to that
point. Next, raise the front on sawhorses and blocks until you attain a
suitable 'deck angle' ( the angle of the upper longerons, measured over
level ground). I started with 13=81=B0, but fle that was too much.
I=99m now at 11=81=B0 and much more comfortable. Once the deck
angle is set, you can see if the wheels you have will work, or know
which size wheels to look foror rework your gear.
Gary Boothe
NX308MB
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vasek
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 5:17 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project
<mailto:bigon2@seznam.cz> bigon2@seznam.cz>
Recently I had a guy here who wanted to take a look, and when he came I
told him "this is going to be a replica of S.E.5a" ..and he believed
..it really looks like S.E.5a :)
I am now wondering about length of the landing gear - the V on the side
- how long it should be. Currently it has about 70cm, but I found out
that this length is designed for Piper wheels. I am going to use wire
wheels. So I am worried that I will have to make the V on both sides
again, shorter.
What do you think? Can anyone with wire wheels (on airplane please :D )
measure the length of the front tube (on the V, which connects the wheel
with sides of fuselage).
Thank you!
--------
My production of WW1 propellers, trophies and constructions:
=C3=A2=CB=86=C2=BC
Read this topic online here:
<http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420712#420712>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420712#420712
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: Vasek's Pietenpol project |
Michael=2C I have your set of videos=2C but I am watching them on pace with
my construction progress. I haven't gotten to the part about landing gear
yet if you discuss some of the location questions. This thread has explored
setting the height of the gear. But have you any insight into the fore/aft
location of the axle relative to the airplane CG? I have asked this questi
on here before & gotten some good opinions. Any new thoughts?
Lorenzo
I setup my gear more or less as Gary describes. Position the plane with it
sitting on its tail wheel=2C raise the nose until you achieve your desired
deck angle=2C fit/locate main landing gear.
Michael Perez
=0A
=0A
=0A
============0A
============0A
============0A
============0A
=0A
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: Vasek's Pietenpol project |
Lorenzo, I don't believe I have any NEW thoughts, but I'll tell you my logi
c for building mine.- I believe most of your questions will be answered i
n the DVD, however, as with the entire series, they detail how I am buildin
g my plane and don't reflect the various ways it can be done.=0A=0AThere we
re some extensive tests done and articles written to the news letter about
landing gear locations and CG. Those came out after I had my gear built, bu
t still, I am glad I made mine the way I did. If you don't have these artic
les, it would be well worth the effort to acquire them.=0A=0APietenpols are
known for being tail heavy. I have been building mine with that in mind an
d try to keep it light and keep it "balanced" (nose heavy, if you will...)
I have talked with Mike Cuy and he informed me that he moved his gear, (woo
d with the wire wheels)- 3" aft from the plans. Mike's plane is extremely
nice and has been flying for 15+ years, so I had no issues copying his ide
as. Going from memory, that moves the axle about 20" from the firewall. He
explained that this allowed the tail to leave the ground early, potentially
reducing ground friction and allowing him to get a clear view of the runwa
y out front sooner. I moved my gear back the same 3". With this new locatio
n, I set my deck angle to about a 10 deg.,- maybe less. As Jack noted, I
wanted a little higher landing speed to have some better control authority
and a shallow approach angle so I can see the runway longer into the landin
g.- =0A=0AMoving the gear back changes the CG, but having built my plane
as I have, I don't feel I will have any CG issues at all. I still expect to
have near vertical cabanes...=0A-=0A=0AIf God is your co-pilot...switch
seats.=0AMichael Perez=0APietenpol HINT Videos=0AKaretakerAero=0Awww.kareta
keraero.com=0A
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 |
|
How about if we all remember that Air Campers were flying safely long, long before
Bingelis, EAA, Matronics, FAA, Corvairs and epoxy. I'm not advocating casien
glue and cardboard but let's not get carried away by thinking that without
our superior intellect and latest technology our creations will be somehow deadly.
I am having a hard time keeping fiery barbs quivered just now so I'll end here.
Larry Williams
The abominable slowman (and curmudgeon emeritus)
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: | CG vs Wheels Location |
Thanks=2C Michael. I have heard from others about "this is what I did." I v
ery much appreciate the all the input from everyone. I'm still waiting for
the WW Wt&Bal articles to arrive which may shed some more light on my quest
ioning. And perhaps the curmudgeons will heap abuse on me for even consider
ing deviating from the plans. But I'm looking for some general design guida
nce on how (where) to locate the gear for a taildragger.
Design guidance is pretty standard for allowable CG range=2C given the Cent
er-of-Lift of the wing (%MAC). I'm beginning to believe that locating the g
ear may be a matter of trial and error=2C though. You can't have the wheels
too far out ahead of the CG or you will have controllability problems on l
anding. On the other hand=2C if you get the wheels too far back=2C close to
the CG=2C you nose over at the first application of brakes. I understand t
hat others have had just this problem.
I think building to the plans will not work for me because I intend to incl
ude a wheel brake system. I'd like to hear if there is some range of design
limits that I might start with. Or maybe I'll just pick a point others hav
e tried with success & not worry about it.
Lorenzo
From: speedbrake@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project
Lorenzo=2C I don't believe I have any NEW thoughts=2C but I'll tell you my
logic for building mine. I believe most of your questions will be answered
in the DVD=2C however=2C as with the entire series=2C they detail how I am
building my plane and don't reflect the various ways it can be done.
There were some extensive tests done and articles written to the news lette
r about landing gear locations and CG. Those came out after I had my gear b
uilt=2C but still=2C I am glad I made mine the way I did. If you don't have
these articles=2C it would be well worth the effort to acquire them.
Pietenpols are known for being tail heavy. I have been=0A
building mine with that in mind and try to keep it light and keep it "bala
nced" (nose heavy=2C if you will...) I have talked with Mike Cuy and he inf
ormed me that he moved his gear=2C (wood with the wire wheels) 3" aft from
the plans. Mike's plane is extremely nice and has been flying for 15+ year
s=2C so I had no issues copying his ideas. Going from memory=2C that moves
the axle about 20" from the firewall. He explained that this allowed the ta
il to leave the ground early=2C potentially reducing ground friction and al
lowing him to get a clear view of the runway out front sooner. I moved my g
ear back the same 3". With this new location=2C I set my deck angle to abou
t a 10 deg.=2C maybe less. As Jack noted=2C I wanted a little higher landi
ng speed to have some better control authority and a shallow approach angle
so I=0A
can see the runway longer into the landing.
Moving the gear back changes the CG=2C but having built my plane as I have
=2C I don't feel I will have any CG issues at all. I still expect to have n
ear vertical cabanes...
If God is your co-pilot...switch seats.
Michael Perez
Pietenpol HINT Videos
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
=0A
=0A
=0A
============0A
============0A
============0A
============0A
=0A
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 |
|
Larry,
I am taking your comments as some type of joke, because I am not sure why else
anyone who has earned an ATP would make the kind of comment you just did.
"Flying Safely" isn't the kind of term that I would choose to use. Since you have
an ATP, I assume that at work you use the term Risk Management, and understand
that while Pietenpols flew 80 years ago at a then acceptable level of risk,
that it is perfectly OK for todays builders to look for a lower level of risk
in their own plane today.
In 1930's ATP's of that era flew DC-3s with flammable 5606 hydraulic fluid and
extinguishers filled with Carbon Tetrachloride. Should DC-3 owners today abandon
Skydrol and Halon? New guys reading this list see ATP after your name and have
an expectation of valid risk management advice. Speaking out against discussing
small, but important improvements, is not a particularly funny joke to me.
I worked long and hard on the W&B project as an important risk management tool
for builders. Perhaps this should buy a little credibility. Please share what
contribution to your fellow builders you are working towards with your comments,
I like to understand.-ww
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420787#420787
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: CG vs Wheels Location |
You are wise to wait at least until you have read the W&B articles before making
any hard decisions about your gear placement. I would take the analysis and
recorded data of the articles over any empirical analysis backed up with "it has
flown for years that way".
When William Wynne was working on my steel tube fuselage, one of the main concerns
he had was the fact that the gear was set as it would have been in the 1930's
(pre-brakes era), and the gear geometry needed to be reset in order to prevent
any chance of nose over on hard braking. You are wise to consider the change.
Any curmudgeonly arrows thrown over an issue that you bring up (ultimately
the safety of pilot and passenger) should be disregarded.
--------
Semper Fi,
Terry Hand
Athens, GA
USMC, USMCR, ATP
BVD DVD PDQ BBQ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420789#420789
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 |
|
he just did.. build it by the plans...otherwise make it longer, wider, encl
ose the cockpit, add brakes, skydrol so you have to wear rubber soles, put
an elect. systemn i, use metal ribs, and spars, cover it with AL. add an al
l glass cockpit, put a PT6 in the nose, long range fuel tanks, a wet bar, m
ake room for a copilot, rocket launchers, alone with a tilt wing, etc.=0A
=0Athis plane was designed for poor boys what love aviation, want to go slo
w , feel the wind, have fun building it, show it off, etc. anything more th
an that is a waste of time and money. this guy- needs to build what he wa
nts and others should mind their own business-including me.-=0A=0Ajim h
yde- m20e taylorcraft, bc12d, Cessna 150 and aircamper owner..-cfi, atp
, 737, Cessna citation 747, 747 400 a and p- instructor for future mechan
ics, receiver of the Orville and Wilber Wright award. none of which means a
nything..=0A=0Abuild it by the plans, use any good glue, put an airworthy A
IRPLANE- motor in the nose, use good fabric and paint, -fly it, enjoy i
t-and show it off.
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: CG vs Wheels Location |
Lorenzo,
Everything that you are asking is actually covered in the articles in great depth.
Where the axle and where the wing go are not a guess nor a rough estimation,
they are now a calculation When building, use this set of steps:
1) Find a plane in the weight and balance data with the same fuselage length and
engine you are going to use.
2) Make a calculated mathematical correction to adjust for you specific plane,
ie max pilot weight, etc. to make sure that your wing/fuselage relationship keeps
the CG between 15" and 20" aft of the leading edge at all loadings.
3) Then, locate the axle from 0 to 3" behind the leading edge if you are using
brakes.
No Matter what anyone tells you, If you do the above, you are actually Following
the plans. My weight and Balance work did not establish any new limits nor axle
locations. All I did was follow the data that BHP published in the 1960s.
I have had it since getting it with my drawing set from Don P. in 1989. People
with brakes, building with the 1930's axle location are actually not following
the plans, nor any of the data BHP later developed and published.
I have a pile of engineering books and stacks of drawing of classic aircraft. Almost
every single bit of data for planes with brakes that have high wings and
tail wheels indicated they all have the axle close to the leading edge. Luscombe,
Aeronca, Piper, Taylorcraft, Cessna, all of them run it forward, and so did
BHP once he got brakes.
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Perez: Keep in mind, I say things plain when safety is in question. Your
comments in the letter tell me you are making a mistake, and do not know it.
Bluntly, no one needs to move the axle backward. I could not tell from your website
what engine you are using, but if is lighter than a 235 Lycoming or you
weigh more than 110 pounds dressed, you are creating a plane that will have a
terrible aft CG location. Consider ceasing to advise people on what is OK on
CG. You may have built your gear already, but if you willfully ignore the content
of my W&B data, you will regret it. You offer a lot of DVD's for sale for
a guy who is yet to fly his plane.
Some people hold that God created the universe, and thus also created Physics,
Chemistry and Gravity. They also hold that he is never absent, as long as they
are at work. Play by their rules, they are the best and most reliable protection
you can get. Try to get around them, and they are merciless. These same people
uphold that it is disrespectful to ask to be physically saved by divine intervention
when you got in trouble by breaking the rules of the forces God created.
Some people believe in luck, but can offer no evidence of it. I have seen
many airplane accidents, and every one offers complete proof of Physics Chemistry
and Gravity. Some people se it as wreckage, others see it as what happens
when people tell God they don't believe in the forces he created. Take your
pick.
-------------------------------------------------
If a plane needs the axle moved back to lift the tail under power, in all likely
hood, what you are seeing is a plane with a seriously aft CG. This is covered
in the W&B articles. If a plane is flying at 20" the tail will be heavier for
any gear location than one flying in the middle of the range. Aft gear is an
invitation to a nose over, but the only thing that makes this rare is the same
plane having an aft CG. You don't fix one mistake with a second.
The gear on my pit was at the leading edge, the plane could stay in CG with a 290#
pilot, I could stand on the brakes with the Corvair at full throttle and lift
the tail with a 165# pilot. I started with an 8 degree deck angle and later
went to 13. The plane could be 3 pointed 10 mph slower. I Often pilots who report
weak ailerons at low speed are forgetting to use enough rudder. Looking
over the nose on landing is a very poor technique. Keep in mind that my instructor
trained more than 2,000 pilots between 1952 and 2008. Almost all of this
was in tail wheels, 2,500 hours of it in Pitts's. He has 12,000 hours...of instruction.
If you want to practice for your Piet, learn how to 3 point a J-3 from
the rear seat. If your instructor wants to only teach wheel landings, he is
giving you only part of a tool set you will need all of one day. -ww
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420798#420798
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 |
|
Jim,
Very nice resume. Sounds like you have been around planes for a long time.
I have not seen that BHP ever had an engine other than a Ford or a Corvair in his
personal Air campers, other than a single photo of one that briefly had a Villie
radial.
Your comment "put an airworthy AIRPLANE motor in the nose" strikes me as interesting.
Are you saying BHP didn't build his own plane the right way?
He bought his first Corvair engine in 1960. It cost about $500. My guess is that
a used $500 A-65 in 1960 frequently could be had with a free used Cub airframe
bolted to it as a package deal. I think the man wanted to use a Corvair, I
don't think he was trying to save money.
He built two new planes in the next decade, both with Corvairs. If someone builds
an exact replica of the "Last original", I think he is building arguably by
the last and most up to date set of plans. You can't get more original than that.-ww
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420800#420800
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: CG vs Wheels Location |
Hi Terry, I know what USMC, USMCR , and ATP stand for but what does BVD, DVD, PDQ
and BBQ mean? Gardiner
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 21, 2014, at 6:22 PM, "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> You are wise to wait at least until you have read the W&B articles before making
any hard decisions about your gear placement. I would take the analysis and
recorded data of the articles over any empirical analysis backed up with "it
has flown for years that way".
>
> When William Wynne was working on my steel tube fuselage, one of the main concerns
he had was the fact that the gear was set as it would have been in the 1930's
(pre-brakes era), and the gear geometry needed to be reset in order to prevent
any chance of nose over on hard braking. You are wise to consider the change.
Any curmudgeonly arrows thrown over an issue that you bring up (ultimately
the safety of pilot and passenger) should be disregarded.
>
> --------
> Semper Fi,
>
> Terry Hand
> Athens, GA
>
> USMC, USMCR, ATP
> BVD DVD PDQ BBQ
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420789#420789
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: CG vs Wheels Location |
Now I think you are pulling my leg. Gardiner
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 21, 2014, at 8:59 PM, airlion2@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Hi Terry, I know what USMC, USMCR , and ATP stand for but what does BVD, DVD,
PDQ and BBQ mean? Gardiner
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Mar 21, 2014, at 6:22 PM, "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> You are wise to wait at least until you have read the W&B articles before making
any hard decisions about your gear placement. I would take the analysis and
recorded data of the articles over any empirical analysis backed up with "it
has flown for years that way".
>>
>> When William Wynne was working on my steel tube fuselage, one of the main concerns
he had was the fact that the gear was set as it would have been in the
1930's (pre-brakes era), and the gear geometry needed to be reset in order to
prevent any chance of nose over on hard braking. You are wise to consider the
change. Any curmudgeonly arrows thrown over an issue that you bring up (ultimately
the safety of pilot and passenger) should be disregarded.
>>
>> --------
>> Semper Fi,
>>
>> Terry Hand
>> Athens, GA
>>
>> USMC, USMCR, ATP
>> BVD DVD PDQ BBQ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420789#420789
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
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: | CG vs Wheels Location |
The excellent article by Ryan Mueller and William Wynne published in the
January 2013 newsletter referenced the correct landing gear placement
saying, "The late model plans specify that the axle should only be 0.5"
behind the leading edge"(fourth paragraph of the article). This is not on
the plans. It is found on an 8.5x11 piece of paper I received with my plans
set. This sheet shows the weight and balance computations for a "1966
Pietenpol Air Camper Powered with a 110-66 Corvair Engine". On this it says
"D is 0.5 inches back of weighing point" and D is the distance from the main
wheel to the datum (leading edge). The fuselage measurement and vintage
suggest this is a long fuselage.
Also, when I received my plans, I received a 6 page document entitled
"Converting the Corvair Engine" by Mr. Pietenpol. On page 1 Mr. Pietenpol
lists the empty weight of this airplane using the modified Corvair engine at
622 pounds, which happens to be the same weight as the one on the weight and
balance sheet mentioned above. On page two Mr. Pietenpol list the
modifications to this plane. The important ones for this discussion are:
-fuselage lengthened 9 inches (the genesis of the LONG fuselage)
-wings slanted back 3 inches
-wheels moved forward 7 inches so that a modified J3 Cub landing gear and
brakes could be fitted.
Using a little math, if the split axel landing gear legs were built per the
plans the axel would be 19 inches from the long fuselage firewall (17 inches
for the standard plans fuselage plus 2 inches more for the LONG fuselage
extension of the first bay). Then moving the axel forward 7 inches would
put it at 19-7= 12 inches back from the firewall. The wing was at 7.5
inches on the standard fuselage plus 2 inches (extension of the first bay)
puts the wing at 9.5 inches behind the firewall plus the 3 inch slant puts
the wing at 12.5 inches from the firewall. This brings us back to the 0.5
inch measurement but in this case its axel in front of the wing. I'm
guessing the J# gear had a slightly different sweep to the gear legs. This
modified airplane Mr. Pietenpol speaks of must be the same as the "1966
Pietenpol Air Camper Powered with a 110-66 Corvair Engine" airplane shown on
the weight and balance sheet. However, Mr. Pietenpol goes on to say on page
2 that 7 inches was too much. He recommends splitting the difference which
would mean the axel should be at 12+3.5=15.5 inches behind the firewall or 3
inches behind the leading edge of this aircrafts wing. Remember he is
talking about a long fuselage. Note that this location is behind this
particular plane's leading edge. The important factor in the location of
the axel that is not mentioned is the CG. If you make sure you operating
within the recommended CG envelope I believe the advice would be that your
axel placement should not be any farther back than the 3 inches behind the
leading edge that Mr. Pietenpol recommends.
Background research on landing gear placement shows:
-The 1933-34 "Improved Air Camper" plans, no brakes: show the axel to be 17
inches behind the firewall and the wing 7.5 inches behind the firewall. This
puts the axel 9.5 inches behind the wings leading edge.
-The LONG fuselage adds 2 inches to the first bay so if using the landing
gear form the 1933-34 plans it should be at 19 inches behind the firewall
and the wing should be at 7.5+2 or 9.5 inches from the firewall.
- In the plans: the fuselage drawing with the sample weight and balance
shown on the supplemental plan sheet (also showing the tube fuselage)
appears to be a 1933-34 plans fuselage but with brakes. Here the axle is
shown at 16.5 inches behind the firewall and 5.25 inches behind the leading
edge of the wing.
-There is no advice for the axel placement on the supplemental plans for the
LONG fuselage without brakes. However Chris Bobka did some research and
guesswork to figure it should be at 21 inches behind the firewall with no
brakes. He did the analysis to help Greg and Dale with their LONG fuselage
Pietenpol. Chris reported during flight tests that the placement was right
on.
I believe Gary Boothe has his long fuselage axel located per the split axel
plans. Wing back 4 inches. (Correct me if I am wrong Garry) And it seems to
behave fine.
- The 4th Quarter 1984 Brodhead Pietenpol newsletter they quote Mr.
Pietenpol as saying, the plane is OK with the gear as far forward as it is
now, with a note saying he was talking about the last two Corvair powered
ships. But unfortunately it does not say where the axel is.
Looking at modern high wing planes with tail wheel seem to show main wheel
at about the leading edge of the wing.
Lastly, in an article about landing gear design published in Sport Aviation
by Ladislao Pazmany, he states "The main gear should contact the ground at
least 15 degrees ahead of the most forward center of gravity with the
aircraft in level attitude." This center of gravity is the CG of the plane
and on a parasol plane it is somewhere below the wing. Unfortunately, I
don't know where this point is on a Pietenpol. Some have suggested it is
about the center of the instrument panel but that is just a guess. As an
aside I also found in "Aeronautical Engineering and Airplane Design"
published in 1918, the landing gear should be at 13 degrees 10 minutes. It
also assumes the CG is the same height as the propeller.
Chris T.
Sacramento, Ca
Westcoastpiet.com
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of larharris2
Harris
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 2:47 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: CG vs Wheels Location
Thanks, Michael. I have heard from others about "this is what I did." I very
much appreciate the all the input from everyone. I'm still waiting for the
WW Wt&Bal articles to arrive which may shed some more light on my
questioning. And perhaps the curmudgeons will heap abuse on me for even
considering deviating from the plans. But I'm looking for some general
design guidance on how (where) to locate the gear for a taildragger.
Design guidance is pretty standard for allowable CG range, given the
Center-of-Lift of the wing (%MAC). I'm beginning to believe that locating
the gear may be a matter of trial and error, though. You can't have the
wheels too far out ahead of the CG or you will have controllability problems
on landing. On the other hand, if you get the wheels too far back, close to
the CG, you nose over at the first application of brakes. I understand that
others have had just this problem.
I think building to the plans will not work for me because I intend to
include a wheel brake system. I'd like to hear if there is some range of
design limits that I might start with. Or maybe I'll just pick a point
others have tried with success & not worry about it.
Lorenzo
_____
From: speedbrake@sbcglobal.net <mailto:speedbrake@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project
Lorenzo, I don't believe I have any NEW thoughts, but I'll tell you my logic
for building mine. I believe most of your questions will be answered in the
DVD, however, as with the entire series, they detail how I am building my
plane and don't reflect the various ways it can be done.
There were some extensive tests done and articles written to the news letter
about landing gear locations and CG. Those came out after I had my gear
built, but still, I am glad I made mine the way I did. If you don't have
these articles, it would be well worth the effort to acquire them.
Pietenpols are known for being tail heavy. I have been building mine with
that in mind and try to keep it light and keep it "balanced" (nose heavy, if
you will...) I have talked with Mike Cuy and he informed me that he moved
his gear, (wood with the wire wheels) 3" aft from the plans. Mike's plane
is extremely nice and has been flying for 15+ years, so I had no issues
copying his ideas. Going from memory, that moves the axle about 20" from the
firewall. He explained that this allowed the tail to leave the ground early,
potentially reducing ground friction and allowing him to get a clear view of
the runway out front sooner. I moved my gear back the same 3". With this new
location, I set my deck angle to about a 10 deg., maybe less. As Jack
noted, I wanted a little higher landing speed to have some better control
authority and a shallow approach angle so I can see the runway longer into
the landing.
Moving the gear back changes the CG, but having built my plane as I have, I
don't feel I will have any CG issues at all. I still expect to have near
vertical cabanes...
If God is your co-pilot...switch seats.
Michael Perez
Pietenpol HINT Videos
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com <http://www.karetakeraero.com>
==========
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
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: CG vs Wheels Location |
WW=2C I very much appreciate your input. I eagerly await the arrival of the
articles you authored. You are correct that proper CG location is critical
to good controllability in the finished airplane. That's why I have been s
uch a pest on the issue. I suspect that you are also right in that many fin
ished=2C and unused=2C planes are that way because they scare their owners.
I value the DVDs that Michael Perez has put together. I have my set of plan
s to use for dimensions=2C etc. And my own standards for workmanship. But M
ichael's videos show his perspective on work sequence=2C materials techniqu
es=2C and quality of workmanship. I don't do everything the same as he does
=2C but=2C lacking a local group to 'show-and-tell' with=2C it is nice to s
ee how someone else has approached construction of certain components.
Quote from someone else: There are Rules and there are Laws. Rules can be
broken=2C Laws (of physics) cannot. ie. The Rule says that you cannot fly
under the bridge. If you do fly under the bridge just be sure that you don
't run into it.
"If you want to practice for your Piet=2C learn how to 3 point a J-3 from
the rear seat." How about a no-flap from the back seat of a T-38? If that
counts=2C I'm good to go. :)
Lorenzo
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
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: CG vs Wheels Location |
Good grief! Please don't over complicate this! Either build the plane without
brakes and keep the gear as is or add brakes and move the axle an inch or two
forward. It's really that simple!! Now go get your hack saw and light up your
torch!
Don Emch
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420811#420811
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: CG vs Wheels Location |
Don,
While Chris does have a long paragraph there, it is some really good research,
When we wrote the series, I made note of assistance from a very well researched
builder. For the record, it was Chris. His notes here are all numbers, not old
stories, thus are useful in the big picture. No builder needs to know all of
them, they just need one path that suits their plane. It isn't that complicated.
If it takes 1,000 trips to the shop to build your plane, devoting maybe one of
them to making a good CG plan makes sense to me. BTW, I think just moving the
axle an inch or two is 4" short of BHP's recommendation.
Chris, I did a W&B on the last Original in 2007. The axle is near the leading edge.
The only 'cub' parts to the gear are the wheels, axle size, and tires. I
am pretty sure it does not have brakes. I would like to do it and the plane at
Pioneer (the 1966) again this year. I think they are physical examples of how
BHP thought the design was 'optimal.' -ww
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420813#420813
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: | CG vs Wheels Location |
".I believe Gary Boothe has his long fuselage axel located per the split
axel plans. Wing back 4 inches. (Correct me if I am wrong Gary) And it seems
to behave fine.."
You're correct. Plane behaves fine.It's me who behaves badly.
Gary Boothe
NX308MB
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 6:06 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: CG vs Wheels Location
The excellent article by Ryan Mueller and William Wynne published in the
January 2013 newsletter referenced the correct landing gear placement
saying, "The late model plans specify that the axle should only be 0.5"
behind the leading edge"(fourth paragraph of the article). This is not on
the plans. It is found on an 8.5x11 piece of paper I received with my plans
set. This sheet shows the weight and balance computations for a "1966
Pietenpol Air Camper Powered with a 110-66 Corvair Engine". On this it says
"D is 0.5 inches back of weighing point" and D is the distance from the main
wheel to the datum (leading edge). The fuselage measurement and vintage
suggest this is a long fuselage.
Also, when I received my plans, I received a 6 page document entitled
"Converting the Corvair Engine" by Mr. Pietenpol. On page 1 Mr. Pietenpol
lists the empty weight of this airplane using the modified Corvair engine at
622 pounds, which happens to be the same weight as the one on the weight and
balance sheet mentioned above. On page two Mr. Pietenpol list the
modifications to this plane. The important ones for this discussion are:
-fuselage lengthened 9 inches (the genesis of the LONG fuselage)
-wings slanted back 3 inches
-wheels moved forward 7 inches so that a modified J3 Cub landing gear and
brakes could be fitted.
Using a little math, if the split axel landing gear legs were built per the
plans the axel would be 19 inches from the long fuselage firewall (17 inches
for the standard plans fuselage plus 2 inches more for the LONG fuselage
extension of the first bay). Then moving the axel forward 7 inches would
put it at 19-7= 12 inches back from the firewall. The wing was at 7.5
inches on the standard fuselage plus 2 inches (extension of the first bay)
puts the wing at 9.5 inches behind the firewall plus the 3 inch slant puts
the wing at 12.5 inches from the firewall. This brings us back to the 0.5
inch measurement but in this case its axel in front of the wing. I'm
guessing the J# gear had a slightly different sweep to the gear legs. This
modified airplane Mr. Pietenpol speaks of must be the same as the "1966
Pietenpol Air Camper Powered with a 110-66 Corvair Engine" airplane shown on
the weight and balance sheet. However, Mr. Pietenpol goes on to say on page
2 that 7 inches was too much. He recommends splitting the difference which
would mean the axel should be at 12+3.5=15.5 inches behind the firewall or 3
inches behind the leading edge of this aircrafts wing. Remember he is
talking about a long fuselage. Note that this location is behind this
particular plane's leading edge. The important factor in the location of
the axel that is not mentioned is the CG. If you make sure you operating
within the recommended CG envelope I believe the advice would be that your
axel placement should not be any farther back than the 3 inches behind the
leading edge that Mr. Pietenpol recommends.
Background research on landing gear placement shows:
-The 1933-34 "Improved Air Camper" plans, no brakes: show the axel to be 17
inches behind the firewall and the wing 7.5 inches behind the firewall. This
puts the axel 9.5 inches behind the wings leading edge.
-The LONG fuselage adds 2 inches to the first bay so if using the landing
gear form the 1933-34 plans it should be at 19 inches behind the firewall
and the wing should be at 7.5+2 or 9.5 inches from the firewall.
- In the plans: the fuselage drawing with the sample weight and balance
shown on the supplemental plan sheet (also showing the tube fuselage)
appears to be a 1933-34 plans fuselage but with brakes. Here the axle is
shown at 16.5 inches behind the firewall and 5.25 inches behind the leading
edge of the wing.
-There is no advice for the axel placement on the supplemental plans for the
LONG fuselage without brakes. However Chris Bobka did some research and
guesswork to figure it should be at 21 inches behind the firewall with no
brakes. He did the analysis to help Greg and Dale with their LONG fuselage
Pietenpol. Chris reported during flight tests that the placement was right
on.
I believe Gary Boothe has his long fuselage axel located per the split axel
plans. Wing back 4 inches. (Correct me if I am wrong Garry) And it seems to
behave fine.
- The 4th Quarter 1984 Brodhead Pietenpol newsletter they quote Mr.
Pietenpol as saying, the plane is OK with the gear as far forward as it is
now, with a note saying he was talking about the last two Corvair powered
ships. But unfortunately it does not say where the axel is.
Looking at modern high wing planes with tail wheel seem to show main wheel
at about the leading edge of the wing.
Lastly, in an article about landing gear design published in Sport Aviation
by Ladislao Pazmany, he states "The main gear should contact the ground at
least 15 degrees ahead of the most forward center of gravity with the
aircraft in level attitude." This center of gravity is the CG of the plane
and on a parasol plane it is somewhere below the wing. Unfortunately, I
don't know where this point is on a Pietenpol. Some have suggested it is
about the center of the instrument panel but that is just a guess. As an
aside I also found in "Aeronautical Engineering and Airplane Design"
published in 1918, the landing gear should be at 13 degrees 10 minutes. It
also assumes the CG is the same height as the propeller.
Chris T.
Sacramento, Ca
Westcoastpiet.com
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of larharris2
Harris
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 2:47 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: CG vs Wheels Location
Thanks, Michael. I have heard from others about "this is what I did." I very
much appreciate the all the input from everyone. I'm still waiting for the
WW Wt&Bal articles to arrive which may shed some more light on my
questioning. And perhaps the curmudgeons will heap abuse on me for even
considering deviating from the plans. But I'm looking for some general
design guidance on how (where) to locate the gear for a taildragger.
Design guidance is pretty standard for allowable CG range, given the
Center-of-Lift of the wing (%MAC). I'm beginning to believe that locating
the gear may be a matter of trial and error, though. You can't have the
wheels too far out ahead of the CG or you will have controllability problems
on landing. On the other hand, if you get the wheels too far back, close to
the CG, you nose over at the first application of brakes. I understand that
others have had just this problem.
I think building to the plans will not work for me because I intend to
include a wheel brake system. I'd like to hear if there is some range of
design limits that I might start with. Or maybe I'll just pick a point
others have tried with success & not worry about it.
Lorenzo
_____
From: speedbrake@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Vasek's Pietenpol project
Lorenzo, I don't believe I have any NEW thoughts, but I'll tell you my logic
for building mine. I believe most of your questions will be answered in the
DVD, however, as with the entire series, they detail how I am building my
plane and don't reflect the various ways it can be done.
There were some extensive tests done and articles written to the news letter
about landing gear locations and CG. Those came out after I had my gear
built, but still, I am glad I made mine the way I did. If you don't have
these articles, it would be well worth the effort to acquire them.
Pietenpols are known for being tail heavy. I have been building mine with
that in mind and try to keep it light and keep it "balanced" (nose heavy, if
you will...) I have talked with Mike Cuy and he informed me that he moved
his gear, (wood with the wire wheels) 3" aft from the plans. Mike's plane
is extremely nice and has been flying for 15+ years, so I had no issues
copying his ideas. Going from memory, that moves the axle about 20" from the
firewall. He explained that this allowed the tail to leave the ground early,
potentially reducing ground friction and allowing him to get a clear view of
the runway out front sooner. I moved my gear back the same 3". With this new
location, I set my deck angle to about a 10 deg., maybe less. As Jack
noted, I wanted a little higher landing speed to have some better control
authority and a shallow approach angle so I can see the runway longer into
the landing.
Moving the gear back changes the CG, but having built my plane as I have, I
don't feel I will have any CG issues at all. I still expect to have near
vertical cabanes...
If God is your co-pilot...switch seats.
Michael Perez
Pietenpol HINT Videos
Karetaker Aero
www.karetakeraero.com
==========
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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! --
|