Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:06 AM - Jeep Pietenpol motor/ magneto (aviken)
2. 07:12 AM - Re: Re: CG vs Wheels Location (Michael Perez)
3. 07:26 AM - widening jig (Douwe Blumberg)
4. 08:36 AM - Re: Re: CG vs Wheels Location (Ryan Mueller)
5. 09:21 AM - Re: Re: CG vs Wheels Location (Michael Perez)
6. 09:30 AM - W&B info to Ryan M. please (William Wynne)
7. 12:01 PM - Re: Jeep Pietenpol motor/ magneto (taildrags)
8. 12:33 PM - Weight & Balance Spreadsheet (Jack Phillips)
9. 02:00 PM - Re: Weight & Balance Spreadsheet (H. Marvin Haught)
10. 02:10 PM - Re: Jeep Pietenpol motor/ magneto (aviken)
11. 04:31 PM - Re: widening jig (Gardiner Mason)
12. 05:08 PM - Re: widening jig (Don Emch)
13. 05:27 PM - Re: Re: widening jig (Gardiner Mason)
14. 06:07 PM - Re: Motor mount fittings (Keith)
15. 06:59 PM - Re: Weight & Balance Spreadsheet (dgaldrich)
16. 07:05 PM - Re: Re: Weight & Balance Spreadsheet (Gary Boothe)
17. 09:37 PM - Re: A Couple of Welding Questions (macz@peak.org)
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: | Jeep Pietenpol motor/ magneto |
I couldn't find a magneto conversion for my 134 jeep motor , so I have been converting
a omnix distributor base to match a slick mag. Actually I expected it
to be harder than it was, but after cleaning out the innards of the dist, I found
it had a nice arm with two dowel pins in place to mount the disk that matches
the magneto drive. Then I had to turn a sleeve that fit the distributor
case and also matches the magneto mounting ring. I plan to rivet the pieces ive
made together to keep them from shifting, then find a good aluminum tig welder
to weld it all up.
My engine is running smooth now with a totally worn out distributor and burnt
up points, so it should run great with a new mag .
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420883#420883
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/magneto_1_337.jpg
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: CG vs Wheels Location |
Ryan, I can't tell you what people think nor what they do, or do not unders
tand when they visit my site...sounds like you can. Impressive.=0A=0A- It
's disappointing that this thread has changed from building landing gear to
a debate on the quality/integrity of my DVDs.- Have you seen any of my D
VDs? I'm just curious because-you seem to-have a lot of negative things
to say about them.- I could be wrong, but it seems to me the only time y
ou reply to any of my posts is to belittle, condescend, or otherwise have o
ther than positive things to say. You've taken the time to review my websit
e and count the-thousands of-words that describe my DVDs.- You have a
lso taken the time to make note of the last 30 words on a particular paragr
aph and post them to the list. Plus, you have taken time to add up-the nu
mber of DVDs on the site, add up the cost and do some math to find a differ
ence in price between them and a set of plans. -Sounds like quite the eff
ort-just to make negative comments on a set of DVDs you have never seen.
That type of energy could be used in a positive manner. I'm surprised you
haven't talked bad about the site itself...the colors, the layout, the siz
e, etc. (maybe that's coming...)-Are you implying that because I have not
built an airplane before, that because I am- not an engineer and because
I am not a pilot, that I-therefor can't possibly have anything worth con
tributing? Therefor my entire DVD series has no good useful information in
them at all?--Uh-huh...=0A=0AI usually let things go, roll off my back.
I try to stay focused on the thread and stay respectful of others and what
they post. However, there are times and issues that I will not just sit-
idly by.=0A=0AI suggest rather than to further clutter up this list, anyon
e wishing to discuss this topic further, they should contact me directly. B
y phone would be the most productive. I am not looking for an argument, but
some 1V1 conversation may clear up some misconceptions.=0A=0AIf God is you
r co-pilot...switch seats.=0AMichael Perez=0APietenpol HINT Videos=0AKareta
ker Aero=0Ahttp://www.karetakeraero.com/
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 |
|
Hey Gardiner,
You could add washers one by one to the jig until your mount tubes are
correctly spaced, or close. Then tack the thing together and remove it from
the jig. Bolt it onto the firewall and if you have to move some things
around a bit, just cut the tacks. Once it's bolted on, re-tack and add lots
of small tacks everywhere so it can't warp. You should then be able to
finish the welds away from the firewall easily. you could then conceivably
cover up the planes front-end with a welding blanket if you are tigging and
do a lot of the welds at that end of the mount. Or just make put lots of
tacks so it can't shift around and finish them off the plane.
If you're gas welding, you'll have to obviously be more careful about the
plane, but a welding tarp should protect it.
If you have a nose tank, or there's any fuel anywhere around, you shouldn't
try this technique.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: CG vs Wheels Location |
Actually, it took more time reading your description of what I did than to
actually do it. I read your page selling the videos, the browser provided
the word count; you have a listing for your "Total Package", 8 for $170,
and Piet plans are $100. I'm not the arbiter of good taste, so I have
nothing to say about the design.
I am not implying that because you have never built an airplane before, are
not an engineer, or a pilot, you have nothing worth contributing, or that
your videos may not contain useful information. I am making a statement on
the incongruity of a person with those credentials marketing and selling
(at least on your website, Barnstormers, and in the BPA newsletter) an
extensive collection of "builder hints and step by step procedures" on how
to build a Pietenpol.
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Michael Perez <speedbrake@sbcglobal.net>wrote:
> Ryan, I can't tell you what people think nor what they do, or do not
> understand when they visit my site...sounds like you can. Impressive.
>
> It's disappointing that this thread has changed from building landing
> gear to a debate on the quality/integrity of my DVDs. Have you seen any of
> my DVDs? I'm just curious because you seem to have a lot of negative things
> to say about them. I could be wrong, but it seems to me the only time you
> reply to any of my posts is to belittle, condescend, or otherwise have
> other than positive things to say. You've taken the time to review my
> website and count the thousands of words that describe my DVDs. You have
> also taken the time to make note of the last 30 words on a particular
> paragraph and post them to the list. Plus, you have taken time to add
> up the number of DVDs on the site, add up the cost and do some math to find
> a difference in price between them and a set of plans. Sounds like quite
> the effort just to make negative comments on a set of DVDs you have never
> seen. That type of energy could be used in a positive manner. I'm surprised
> you haven't talked bad about the site itself...the colors, the layout, the
> size, etc. (maybe that's coming...) Are you implying that because I have
> not built an airplane before, that because I am not an engineer and
> because I am not a pilot, that I therefor can't possibly have anything
> worth contributing? Therefor my entire DVD series has no good useful
> information in them at all? Uh-huh...
>
> I usually let things go, roll off my back. I try to stay focused on the
> thread and stay respectful of others and what they post. However, there are
> times and issues that I will not just sit idly by.
>
> I suggest rather than to further clutter up this list, anyone wishing to
> discuss this topic further, they should contact me directly. By phone would
> be the most productive. I am not looking for an argument, but some 1V1
> conversation may clear up some misconceptions.
>
> Michael Perez
> Pietenpol HINT Videos
> Karetaker Aero
> http://www.karetakeraero.com/
>
>
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: CG vs Wheels Location |
I think-the disconnect is that-my DVDs showcase how-I-am building
-MY plane, not how to build-THE plane.-If that is the way people perc
eive my website and ads in the BPA, etc. I need to address that.=0A=0AIf Go
d is your co-pilot...switch seats.=0AMichael Perez=0APietenpol HINT Videos
=0AKaretaker Aero=0Ahttp://www.karetakeraero.com/
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: | W&B info to Ryan M. please |
Builders,
Here is a positive suggestion: All of you guys who would like to contribute your
data to the W&B project should read the original articles to understand the
format we used, and then send your data to Ryan by email and let him process it
in a way that allows your contribution to be read by a new guy as a continuation
of the original data set.
How we measured the length of a motor mount for example (firewall to prop flange)
and how we spoke in terms of distance from firewall to LE rather than inches
of rake on the cabanes. Is a little different, but Ryan and I came to this for
a reason after considering several systems. in most cases, you can take any
info set and put it in these terms with simple addition and subtraction. The
terminology that Ryan and I used comes into play, not when looking at one plane,
but it is very useful when teaching a new builder how to alter a close example
of a plane like his, to make his own plane suit his needs and goals. I thank
guys in advance for contributing and putting it in the helpful format.
A crucial element of our system is the computer algorithm (math formula) that Ryan
developed that quickly spits out the maximum pilot weight that the plane can
take before getting to the 20" aft limit. This is very importiant, because
if you are a 165 pound guy with a data set and your plane is flying at 18", it
is very hard for a 215 pound new guy to eyeball that and tell if he builds a
clone of the plane if he will be in CG. With Ryan's program, this is immediately
known. This is the single biggest reason for using the format.
I did not want the project to be a one time deal. The concept that set data set
can get bigger is good. Perhaps the additions can be published in the same format,
written up by Ryan for the newsletter? Ryan is friends with Mr. Hofman,
so this should work smoothly. There are a lot of people who get the newsletter
who are not on this list, and the new contributions would expand the knowledge
base and assist builders way into the future in the newsletters. It is a good
feeling to have contributed to something lasting, something that will help other
builders, many of whom you will never meet, but they will be thankful just
the same. -ww.
--------------------------------------------
This is the last post for a while, we are prepping 16 hours a day from here until
Corvair College #29, and then back to 10-12 a day until Brodhead. I hope to
see many of you there. Dan Weseman, the guy who designed and built the Corvair
powered Panther, on the cover of kitplanes last month, is my neighbor and said
he is planning on bringing the plane back to Brodhead just as he did last year.
I built the 3,000 cc Corvair in that plane, and you can see it flying aerobatics
on youtube. He picked up 24 orders for planes since Oshkosh, and the plane
and engine got rave reviews fro the editor of Kitplanes who flew it. It has
also got a lot of coverage by the EAA, and will be featured in lots of publications
this year. One of the reasons why I want to have the plane at Brodhead
is to get a shot of it with the last original, to connect the latest work with
Corvairs to BHP, the man that started it. I would like it to be formation air
to air. The Panther can do 165mph on the top, but with the flaps down it will
fly slower than a Piet.
Dan's Company SPA-LLC, which he tooled up to built the kit as a 100% made in North
America kit has been about 4 years in the making. He is not yet forty, but
has about $200,000 invested in the project, all his own family's money, none
borrowed. He purposely selected the Corvair as the best engine for the plane.
It will take others, be it was designed around the Corvair. Everyone who has seen
the plane fly thinks it was a very smart move.
I find it very ironic that experienced builders and industry people understand
the Corvair, but here, where people admire and build BHP airframe designed by
the man who started the entire world of flying Corvairs, there are still many
people who openly question if the engine can even be made to work. -ww.
-------------------------------------------------
Over and out from Mr. NOAC........(nails on a chalkboard)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420890#420890
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: Jeep Pietenpol motor/ magneto |
I know this is a simplistic question, but does the Jeep distributor turn the same
direction as the Slick mag?
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420891#420891
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: | Weight & Balance Spreadsheet |
Okay, Here is a spreadsheet that I developed to be able to compute weight &
balance for a generic Pietenpol. It requires the plane be completed, but it
can be used to determine when the wing has been moved back far enough. I
have input the values from my Pietenpol, so you will need to just type over
those values with the weights and measurement from your own airplane Input
values are red, calculated values are blue.
The procedure is pretty simple. All of the measurements are made using the
firewall as the datum, so you can make most of the measurements with the
tail on the ground, which is easier (and safer) than when the tail is
supported on a stool or sawhorse. The only measurements that must be made
with the plane in level flight attitude are the distance from the firewall
to the wing leading edge, and the distance from the firewall to the main
gear axle and tailwheel axle. For these three measurements you will need to
use a plumb bob and a tape measure. Strive for accuracy, because small
variations in distance can have a large effect.
You will to measure the distance to the middle of the fuel tank(s) which
must be estimated to some extent. You will also need to sit in the cockpit
and make note of where your belt buckle is (the belt buckle is very close to
the C.G. of a human body in a sitting position), then measure from there to
the firewall. Same for the front seat passenger (you will be surprised how
little a passenger affects the CG position). If you have a baggage
compartment and/or a helmet box, measure from the firewall to the center of
those spaces (or, if you really want to be conservative, measure to the back
of each of those compartments to get worst case).
You will need a good set of aircraft or race car scales. Bathroom scales
are worse than useless - most do not go up to 300 lbs and unless you have
built your airplane exceedingly light, your main gear wheels will weigh over
300 lbs eac. Besides, bathroom scales are notoriously inaccurate -
particularly at the extremes of their range. While building mine I weighed
it several times with digital electronic bathroom scales. My estimated
weight turned out to be within 80 lbs of my finished weight on aircraft
scales. You need better accuracy than that.
Position the plane in level flight attitude on the scales after setting the
tare to include the weight of any supports and chocks that are on the
scales. Enter the data in the spreadsheet and then input weights for pilot,
passenger, fuel and baggage. The spreadsheet will calculate the CG position
with respect to the firewall, the CG position with respect to the wing
leading edge, and the CG position as a percentage of Mean Aerodynamic Chord.
You can play around a bit, inputting different weights to see what effect
they have on the balance. You will have to do trial and error to find the
max weight pilot that will keep the CG ahead of 20" aft of the leading edge
- I don't have the fancy algorithm that Ryan and William put in their
program to determine this automatically.
This spreadsheet is in Excel 2003, so unless your software is even older
than mine, if you have Excel on your computer you should be able to use the
spreadsheet.
Good luck and don't hesitate to ask questions if it is not clear how to use
it.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
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: Weight & Balance Spreadsheet |
As a lurker, and following along the weight and balance thread, it was
interesting to enter different configurations as discussed over the last
couple of days or so into your spreadsheet and then see the effect on
where the CG ends up. Needed to be doing something constructive, like
completing a cabinet making project, but I've just frittered away an
hour playing with the spread sheet! Very interesting and educational!
For example, moving the gear to the wing leading edge position changes
the CG to almost it's most forward recommended location as a percentage
of MAC. Likewise, moving the wing back 1 inch, moves the CG location
dramatically forward to 31.56 of the MAC.
This goes into my "keeper file" - Thanks, Jack
M. Haught
On Mar 23, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Jack Phillips wrote:
> Okay, Here is a spreadsheet that I developed to be able to compute
weight & balance for a generic Pietenpol. It requires the plane be
completed, but it can be used to determine when the wing has been moved
back far enough. I have input the values from my Pietenpol, so you will
need to just type over those values with the weights and measurement
from your own airplane Input values are red, calculated values are
blue.
>
> The procedure is pretty simple. All of the measurements are made
using the firewall as the datum, so you can make most of the
measurements with the tail on the ground, which is easier (and safer)
than when the tail is supported on a stool or sawhorse. The only
measurements that must be made with the plane in level flight attitude
are the distance from the firewall to the wing leading edge, and the
distance from the firewall to the main gear axle and tailwheel axle.
For these three measurements you will need to use a plumb bob and a tape
measure. Strive for accuracy, because small variations in distance can
have a large effect.
>
> You will to measure the distance to the middle of the fuel tank(s)
which must be estimated to some extent. You will also need to sit in
the cockpit and make note of where your belt buckle is (the belt buckle
is very close to the C.G. of a human body in a sitting position), then
measure from there to the firewall. Same for the front seat passenger
(you will be surprised how little a passenger affects the CG position).
If you have a baggage compartment and/or a helmet box, measure from the
firewall to the center of those spaces (or, if you really want to be
conservative, measure to the back of each of those compartments to get
worst case).
>
> You will need a good set of aircraft or race car scales. Bathroom
scales are worse than useless ' most do not go up to 300 lbs and
unless you have built your airplane exceedingly light, your main gear
wheels will weigh over 300 lbs eac. Besides, bathroom scales are
notoriously inaccurate ' particularly at the extremes of their range.
While building mine I weighed it several times with digital electronic
bathroom scales. My estimated weight turned out to be within 80 lbs of
my finished weight on aircraft scales. You need better accuracy than
that.
>
> Position the plane in level flight attitude on the scales after
setting the tare to include the weight of any supports and chocks that
are on the scales. Enter the data in the spreadsheet and then input
weights for pilot, passenger, fuel and baggage. The spreadsheet will
calculate the CG position with respect to the firewall, the CG position
with respect to the wing leading edge, and the CG position as a
percentage of Mean Aerodynamic Chord. You can play around a bit,
inputting different weights to see what effect they have on the balance.
You will have to do trial and error to find the max weight pilot that
will keep the CG ahead of 20=94 aft of the leading edge ' I don=92t
have the fancy algorithm that Ryan and William put in their program to
determine this automatically.
>
> This spreadsheet is in Excel 2003, so unless your software is even
older than mine, if you have Excel on your computer you should be able
to use the spreadsheet.
>
> Good luck and don=92t hesitate to ask questions if it is not clear how
to use it.
>
> Jack Phillips
> NX899JP
> Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
> <Generic Weight & Balance Spreadsheet.xls>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jeep Pietenpol motor/ magneto |
Yes fortunately I found this new mag on ebay . it turns the right direction and
though it is a slick mag it was made for military 4 cyl motors for generators
and such. It would not be considered airworthy by the faa on a certified aircraft.
But my bet is it is just as good as the certified mag, since it had to
meet mil spec.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420896#420896
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: widening jig |
Hey Douwe, I have been paying with it all day and I have decided to try your
way by loosing the jig and spreading the jig to where it will meet the fire
wall mounts. Then tack it into place while on the firewall then remove it to
finish welding. My Tig guy says he can do this. Cheers, Gardiner
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 23, 2014, at 10:25 AM, "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> Hey Gardiner,
>
> You could add washers one by one to the jig until your mount tubes are cor
rectly spaced, or close. Then tack the thing together and remove it from th
e jig. Bolt it onto the firewall and if you have to move some things around
a bit, just cut the tacks. Once it=99s bolted on, re-tack and add lo
ts of small tacks everywhere so it can=99t warp. You should then be a
ble to finish the welds away from the firewall easily. you could then conce
ivably cover up the planes front-end with a welding blanket if you are tiggi
ng and do a lot of the welds at that end of the mount. Or just make put lot
s of tacks so it can=99t shift around and finish them off the plane.
>
>
> If you=99re gas welding, you=99ll have to obviously be more ca
reful about the plane, but a welding tarp should protect it.
>
> If you have a nose tank, or there=99s any fuel anywhere around, you s
houldn=99t try this technique.
>
> Douwe
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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: widening jig |
Gardiner,
That sounds like it oughtta work. If you could, when you're done, just set it
back to the standard width for the next guy.
Good Luck!
Don Emch
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420906#420906
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: widening jig |
Don't worryDon. I am not going to alter the jig. Gardiner
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 23, 2014, at 8:08 PM, "Don Emch" <EmchAir@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Gardiner,
>
> That sounds like it oughtta work. If you could, when you're done, just set it
back to the standard width for the next guy.
>
> Good Luck!
>
> Don Emch
> NX899DE
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420906#420906
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Motor mount fittings |
Great picture of this, thanks
Keith goff
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 22, 2014, at 10:24 PM, santiago morete <moretesantiago@yahoo.com.ar
> wrote:
>
> Here is another idea
>
> Santiago
> <P4010030.JPG>
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: Weight & Balance Spreadsheet |
Waaiiit a minute. Moving the location of the wheels should have very little, if
any, effect on CG. What DOES change, from a CG perspective, when you move the
wheels forward is the weight on the tail wheel. A couple of pounds increase
makes a large difference since the arm is so long and moving the wheels forward
increases it. Using Jack's spreadsheet, I added just 5 pounds to the tailwheel
weight and it moved the CG aft by 1 inch. That's 20% of the total allowable
range. A Scott 2000 tailwheel from a Piper Cub is about five pounds heavier
than an original BHP tail skid. As Jack, and others, have said, accurate
measurement is important. Bathroom scales are for my fat ass, not aircraft.
You have correctly noticed that moving the wing also has almost a 1 for 1 relationship
to CG. Moving the wing aft 1 inch moves the CG almost 1 inch forward
and is by far the most effective way of achieving a correctly balanced airplane.
That's one of the advantages of this design is that it's relatively easy to
do since the cabanes are equal length and parallel, more or less.
Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420910#420910
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: Weight & Balance Spreadsheet |
Moving the axel only changes the weight on the tail while on the ground...not in
the air.
Gary
NX308MB
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 23, 2014, at 6:59 PM, "dgaldrich" <dgaldrich@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Waaiiit a minute. Moving the location of the wheels should have very little,
if any, effect on CG. What DOES change, from a CG perspective, when you move
the wheels forward is the weight on the tail wheel. A couple of pounds increase
makes a large difference since the arm is so long and moving the wheels forward
increases it. Using Jack's spreadsheet, I added just 5 pounds to the tailwheel
weight and it moved the CG aft by 1 inch. That's 20% of the total allowable
range. A Scott 2000 tailwheel from a Piper Cub is about five pounds heavier
than an original BHP tail skid. As Jack, and others, have said, accurate
measurement is important. Bathroom scales are for my fat ass, not aircraft.
>
> You have correctly noticed that moving the wing also has almost a 1 for 1 relationship
to CG. Moving the wing aft 1 inch moves the CG almost 1 inch forward
and is by far the most effective way of achieving a correctly balanced airplane.
That's one of the advantages of this design is that it's relatively easy
to do since the cabanes are equal length and parallel, more or less.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420910#420910
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: A Couple of Welding Questions |
I have a Smith torch and I love it, and I feel the quality is as good as
any you can get.
--Mac in Oregon
> <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com>
>
> I have a couple of welding questions that I hope some of you can help me
> answer. Here is the situation - a friend of mine in my EAA Chapter has all
> of his now passed grandfather's tools (he was Mechanic at Delta Air Lines
> for over 35 years) My friend is building an RV-10 so he has little use for
> the welding equipment, so he has offered it to me. I have read some but
> have no one to really guide me on the following questions, so your help is
> appreciated.
>
> 1. The tanks have some level of Oxygen and Acetylene in them but the tanks
> have not been tested in who knows when (I have not really looked for the
> last date stamped onto them. Is it safe to use them ntl empty? Or should I
> take them in and swap them for other, newer, full tanks?
>
> 2. The hoses appear to be okay (no cracks), but I have not yet pressurized
> them and sprayed them with soapy water to check for any leaks. Should I
> just go ahead and buy new ones? I am guessing the hoses have been coiled
> up easily 6 or 8 years since last used.
>
> 3. The torch it self is a Smith and I have tip sizes 200, 203, and 205. I
> replaced the o-rings on the tips. Should I take the torches somewhere to
> have them inspected? Can they be rebuilt, if needed?
>
> 4. The regulator is the 2-stage type. Do I need to have them inspected as
> well? Can they be inspected and repaired if needed?
>
> Obviously, I am trying to ensure the equipment is in good working order
> before using them. Thanks for the advice.
>
> --------
> 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=420824#420824
>
>
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! --
|