Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:42 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Brian Kenney)
2. 04:57 AM - all good--even the outdated stuff which.....really isn't outdated at all, even wing cc tanks! (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC])
3. 05:47 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Gary Boothe)
4. 05:58 AM - Re: all good--even the outdated stuff which.....really isn't out (jarheadpilot82)
5. 06:12 AM - Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (jarheadpilot82)
6. 06:44 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Kip and Beth Gardner)
7. 06:45 AM - Re: Corky's Miss Isabelle (Kip and Beth Gardner)
8. 07:11 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Ryan Mueller)
9. 07:43 AM - all good--even the outdated stuff which.....really isn't outdated at all, even wing cc tanks! (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC])
10. 07:54 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Brian Kenney)
11. 08:14 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Michael Perez)
12. 08:36 AM - Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (jarheadpilot82)
13. 08:56 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Ryan Mueller)
14. 08:57 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Michael Perez)
15. 09:01 AM - Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (giacummo)
16. 09:10 AM - Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (tools)
17. 09:11 AM - Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (jarheadpilot82)
18. 09:23 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Michael Perez)
19. 09:30 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Ryan Mueller)
20. 09:38 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Michael Perez)
21. 09:52 AM - Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (kevinpurtee)
22. 10:00 AM - Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (tools)
23. 10:10 AM - here's an idea for risk mitigation strategies---and for us full figured girls (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC])
24. 10:46 AM - Re: here's an idea for risk mitigation strategies---and for us f (jarheadpilot82)
25. 11:19 AM - Re: all good--even the outdated stuff which.....really isn't outdated at all, even wing cc tanks! (Michael Perez)
26. 11:22 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Michael Perez)
27. 11:49 AM - what is reliable? (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC])
28. 12:10 PM - Re: what is reliable? (tools)
29. 12:27 PM - Re: what is reliable? (jarheadpilot82)
30. 12:32 PM - I Googled that for you---engine reliability (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC])
31. 12:39 PM - Re: I Googled that for you---engine reliability (jarheadpilot82)
32. 12:46 PM - long to read! (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage Partners, LLC])
33. 12:55 PM - Re: I Googled that for you---engine reliability (Ken Bickers)
34. 12:56 PM - Re: I Googled that for you---engine reliability (tools)
35. 01:28 PM - Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (taildrags)
36. 02:01 PM - Re: long to read! (jarheadpilot82)
37. 02:13 PM - Re: what is reliable? (Boatright, Jeffrey)
38. 02:44 PM - Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (tools)
39. 03:37 PM - Airplane Weights (larharris2 Harris)
40. 05:18 PM - Re: Steel-tube fuselage update - landing gear welded (aerocarjake)
41. 05:21 PM - Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (aviken)
42. 05:51 PM - Re: Re: long to read! (Boatright, Jeffrey)
43. 05:59 PM - Re: long to read! (jarheadpilot82)
44. 06:41 PM - Re: Airplane Weights (Jack Phillips)
45. 07:08 PM - Re: Re: long to read! (Boatright, Jeffrey)
46. 07:11 PM - Re: Airplane Weights (larharris2 Harris)
47. 07:14 PM - Re: Airplane Weights (larharris2 Harris)
48. 07:31 PM - Re: Airplane Weights (glenschweizer@yahoo.com)
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: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel |
tanks vs. n
Sorry I think you are making the wrong conclusion. Your weight has nothing
to do with it. You simply don't fly if there is an aft CG and having the fu
el in the wing just makes the problem worse.
Running out of fuel (or nearly running out of fuel) in a nose tank versus t
he same in a wing tank (or nearly running out of fuel) cannot make the si
tuation worse. If the fuel is gone it is gone. The difference that in a nos
e tank is that any fuel moves the CG forward at everything but empty. Since
no one can fly on empty it is always better in the nose than in the wing a
nd the amount of weight added to the nose=2C the length of the engine mount
or the amount the wing is moved back is less and on average the cg is more
forward. There is also the 15lbs or more of the tank weight itself that is
helping the aft cg problem all they time. The 10 lbs (or whatever you con
sider that to be) of reserve fuel that no one ever uses is also helping.
If you weigh more and it is your airplane then it is more important that th
e fuel is forward.
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section f
uel tanks vs. n
> From: jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com
> Date: Mon=2C 24 Mar 2014 22:57:53 -0700
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>
tmail.com>
>
> Oscar=2C
>
> Thanks for the input. Your clear explanation was the reason for my questi
on. It sounds like running your nose tank low puts the non-standard weighin
g guy like me in an aft CG condition that may put the aircraft beyond the r
ecommended aft CG limit. I also get it that you have flown in that regime w
ith little to no consequence.
>
> But my question still boils down to risk management. Are we trading one r
isk (fuel in the center section=2C a potential risk in the event of a crash
which one hopes never happens) for another risk (nose tank which has the c
apacity to affect every flight=2C but definitely affects longer flights wit
h greater fuel burn). That is not an area that in which I would want to fly
on a regular basis.
>
> The nice thing about your long=2C clear explanation is that a beginning b
uilder can write in and post this same question a year from now and someone
can answer back=2C "Look it up. It is in the archives" [Wink]
>
> --------
> Semper Fi=2C
>
> Terry Hand
> Athens=2C GA
>
> USMC=2C USMCR=2C ATP
> BVD DVD PDQ BBQ
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420974#420974
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
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: | all good--even the outdated stuff which.....really isn't |
outdated at all, even wing cc tanks!
Great discussion here guys and what I was trying to do here was sarcastical
ly (intentional) lluminate William Wynne's criticism of the outdating
products/ possibly unsafe suggestions that he notes the Tony Bingelis books
contain and that the old ways of doing things with homebuilts
aren't always the best anymore.
I was just applying William's logic to the Pietenpol center section wing ta
nk to see what kind of a response I would get PLUS to advocate what I belie
ve
is a great place for fuel in a Pietenpol but both wing and nose tanks are,
of course, totally acceptable---just like the older ideas in specific insta
nces in the
Bingelis books.
The main point is that I want to bring to this list a sense of encouragemen
t, not discouragement.
I want to remain positive and enthusiastic, not stand around and urinate on
specific pet-peeve campfires that I'd like to dampen.
Long laborious posts with multiple web links are simply exhausting and unle
ss you're nearly unemployed or retired, few of us have the time to read
that stuff nor is it necessary to build a safe Pietenpol.
Practical, sound, proven advice is what I like to see on the Pietenpol list
and for the most part we have that which has always attracted me to the li
st,
the airplane, and the people who build them. Simple, light, and cheap.
It doesn't have to get all convoluted and complex and wordy to be safe an
d fun.
Here's to common sense and having fun building!
MikeC.
Ohio
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel |
tanks vs. n
Terry,
I'm glad you asked that question, as it's been on my mind all day, since
Mike's post. I don't mean this as a rebuttal for what Mike said, only an
observation. I'm not sure if there is a conclusive answer. Certainly, no one
could argue much with Mike's logic...but I have a 16 gallon wing tank. Quite
honestly, I love the process of refueling...even if while perched on a
ladder and the strut. Who wouldn't? Re-fueling means that you're going
flying again! Maybe not that day, but, again, someday. I enjoy that as much
as I enjoy removing the 84 screws that hold my cowling in place....as much
as I enjoy removing all the panels for annual inspection. It's what I signed
up for.
As mentioned, my wing tank is 16 gallons. Cabanes are tilted back 4". That's
the real key...the beauty of setting CG with the wing. There is no worry
about fuel burn. Most aft CG, Most Forward CG, Gross CG, all fall within
limits. I used Jack's chart. It's great! You can easily plug in hypothetical
numbers all day and watch the results.
Gary Boothe
NX308MB
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
jarheadpilot82
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 3:52 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel
tanks vs. n
--> <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com>
Mike,
Thanks for bringing this up. I don't consider it as bringing up outdated
ideas as much as a discussion of risk management. And discussing risk
management is never a bad thing. I have no dog in this hunt as I have yet to
decide on fuel tank position. I lean toward the Center Section tank, but am
open to either location. So here are my questions for people smarter than I
to answer-
1. Maybe Jack or Ryan can chime in here since it is a CG question. How much
movement of the CG would occur with a 200 pound pilot (I know I am not
FAA-sized) in the "average" Pietenpol (yes, I know there is no such
creature, but you know what I am asking), if there was a 17 gallon fuel tank
in the normal nose tank location. What would the change be from full (~17
gallons) to reserve (say, 3-4 gallons remaining) to completely empty? I
realize the center section tank has much less effect on CG.
My point in asking the question is this. In terms of risk management, how
many guys have had incidents involving takeoff or landing out of CG range,
as opposed to guys that have landed and the center section gave way? are we
creating one risk management issue (flying out of CG range) by trying to
prevent another one (the chance of fuel leak/spill in the event of a crash)?
2. This is a tough one to ask, but I will ask it. Kevin Purtee is the only
guy I know personally that has had an accident in his Pietenpol. We all have
heard his story, and I appreciate his sharing. I would ask him to share one
more time. Kevin, do you think that your accident would have had any better
or worse outcome had you had a nose tank instead of a wing tank? What tank
are you building this time? Thanks for sharing. I really appreciate it.
3. We have had quite a discussion lately on the wisdom of braided fuel lines
over hard lines from the center section, so let me add one more thought for
discussion of risk management. What about adding breakaway fuel fittings
between the center section tank and the braided fuel line that would shutoff
in the event the lines tore away in an accident? Race cars have them. We had
them on our helicopters when I was in the Marine Corps. Anyone want to chime
in on the use of such fittings? Don't tell me they are too expensive as ,
most likely, only one or two would be needed.
4. Does anyone know which tank Mr. Pietenpol flew with most often? Just
curious.
--------
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=420951#420951
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: all good--even the outdated stuff which.....really |
isn't out
Mike,
First of all, sarcasm is in the eye of the beholder. It usually works best when
speaking with people who know your normal demeanor and attitude. I did not get
the sarcasm, and I am sure that I am not alone.
Long and laborious posts with multiple web links is a problem? Then none of us
should point people toward westcoastpiet.com or any builders website. The truth
is that I have all the time in the world to research construction practices
and design issues if it means I build a better airplane. I will take the time.
I work 2 jobs, Mike, and I read a lot. It just means I don't watch Dancing With
The Stars or Duck Dynasty.
I think that you sell builders short by assuming that reading and studying as they
build is just "too much". I am not trying to over complicate things, but I
am trying to research as much as I can. This is a first time build for me, and
I don't want it to be my last. If writing a long post about safe construction
practices or risk management turns people away from building a Pietenpol, then
they did not need to be building one anyway.
Fun can be had and still pass along good information. Give builders some credit,
and let them decide to read or not to read.
Gonna close, Mike, I am headed to the shop to work on my empennage. That is after
studying and reading for quite a while yesterday so as to, hopefully avoid
mistakes in building.
--------
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=420981#420981
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: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks |
vs. n
Brian,
I am not getting your logic-
"Your weight has nothing to do with it. You simply don't fly if there is an aft
CG and having the fuel in the wing just makes the problem worse."
Fuel in the wing makes it worse? How is that? Fuel in the wing sits closer to the
CG than fuel in the nose, and the burn off affects CG less, not more the closer
it is to the aircraft's CG.
"Running out of fuel (or nearly running out of fuel) in a nose tank versus the
same in a wing tank (or nearly running out of fuel) cannot make the situation
worse. If the fuel is gone it is gone. The difference that in a nose tank is that
any fuel moves the CG forward at everything but empty. Since no one can fly
on empty it is always better in the nose than in the wing and the amount of
weight added to the nose, the length of the engine mount or the amount the wing
is moved back is less and on average the cg is more forward. There is also the
15lbs or more of the tank weight itself that is helpingthe aft cg problem all
they time. The 10 lbs (or whatever you consider that to be) of reserve fuel
that no one ever uses is also helping. "
Brian, I am not worried about the fuel that is left in the nose tank. I am worried
about the fuel that burned off that was, at one time, forward of the CG that
was balancing against my fat butt sitting behind the CG. Once that fuel has
burned off, there is less weight to counteract my fat butt, so the CG moves aft.
Check your aerodynamics and design books. I just don't want to move it so
far aft, that the airplane is aft of the safe aft CG. That can be mitigated in
the construction phase by adjustment of the wing location, and all I am saying
is that that issue should be dealt with in the build. Nobody should fly an airplane
outside of the CG range. Will the airplane fly? Yes. Are your options
lessened when you do? Absolutely.
"If you weigh more and it is your airplane then it is more important that the fuel
is forward."
It is most important that the CG is balanced, and the aircraft is flown in the
proper CG range.
--------
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=420985#420985
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: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel |
tanks vs. n
Terry, you commented exactly on what was going through my mind as I
read Brian's post. No one is advocating using a wing tank and THEN
setting up the plane to be out of CG limits, that would be, frankly,
stupid. Using a wing tank, just to be clear one more time, eliminates
a factor that is always the case with a nose tank - that the CG will
shift aft as fuel is consumed. The arguments against a wing tank to
some degree fall in the category of what Chuck Gantzer, a former
member of this list who flies his Piet literally all over the country,
used to call "building for crash-worthiness, not flight-worthiness".
There are potential problems with both tank locations. I might mention
that many years ago the Pavliga's wing tank on Sky Gypsy split a seam
while the elder Frank was flying. He got soaked with gas and by all
accounts spent a number of terrifying minutes getting the plane back
on the ground. As you, Mike, and William have all said earlier, it's
a matter of building well with risk management in mind. (It is
possible to build well and still produce a crappy product! - our home
is a good example, built like a tank by an expert craftsman, but much
less than comfortably livable because of design flaws).
Kip Gardner
On Mar 25, 2014, at 9:11 AM, jarheadpilot82 wrote:
> >
>
> Brian,
>
> I am not getting your logic-
>
> "Your weight has nothing to do with it. You simply don't fly if
> there is an aft CG and having the fuel in the wing just makes the
> problem worse."
>
> Fuel in the wing makes it worse? How is that? Fuel in the wing sits
> closer to the CG than fuel in the nose, and the burn off affects CG
> less, not more the closer it is to the aircraft's CG.
>
> "Running out of fuel (or nearly running out of fuel) in a nose tank
> versus the same in a wing tank (or nearly running out of fuel)
> cannot make the situation worse. If the fuel is gone it is gone. The
> difference that in a nose tank is that any fuel moves the CG forward
> at everything but empty. Since no one can fly on empty it is always
> better in the nose than in the wing and the amount of weight added
> to the nose, the length of the engine mount or the amount the wing
> is moved back is less and on average the cg is more forward. There
> is also the 15lbs or more of the tank weight itself that is
> helpingthe aft cg problem all they time. The 10 lbs (or whatever you
> consider that to be) of reserve fuel that no one ever uses is also
> helping. "
>
> Brian, I am not worried about the fuel that is left in the nose
> tank. I am worried about the fuel that burned off that was, at one
> time, forward of the CG that was balancing against my fat butt
> sitting behind the CG. Once that fuel has burned off, there is less
> weight to counteract my fat butt, so the CG moves aft. Check your
> aerodynamics and design books. I just don't want to move it so far
> aft, that the airplane is aft of the safe aft CG. That can be
> mitigated in the construction phase by adjustment of the wing
> location, and all I am saying is that that issue should be dealt
> with in the build. Nobody should fly an airplane outside of the CG
> range. Will the airplane fly? Yes. Are your options lessened when
> you do? Absolutely.
>
> "If you weigh more and it is your airplane then it is more important
> that the fuel is forward."
>
> It is most important that the CG is balanced, and the aircraft is
> flown in the proper CG range.
>
> --------
> 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=420985#420985
>
>
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: Corky's Miss Isabelle |
Oscar, thanks for letting us know, I will send Corky my condolences -
I miss his regular presence on the list.
Kip Gardner
On Mar 24, 2014, at 11:40 PM, taildrags wrote:
> >
>
> Some of you may not know Claude "Corky" Corbett, but he's the
> gentleman from Shreveport, LA who completed and flew my airplane,
> NX41CC, before selling it to me. His email address for as long as
> I've known him or seen his posts has been Isablcorky@aol.com , with
> the first part of that being his wife Isabelle's name. These last
> few years, she has been in a nursing home and Corky has been living
> by himself in a little place in the country. I just had news from
> him that Isabelle died on Sunday morning, March 23.
>
> Just thought I would pass this along to anyone who knows Corky and
> might care to send condolences his way. By the way, Corky was a
> builder who didn't waste a lot of time on theoretical matters or
> clever innovations. He built 41CC light, simple, and very
> deliberately. He completed the paperwork, W&B, and testing- and
> then hit a brick wall when the FAA dragged its heels for years
> before passing the Sport Pilot rule that would have permitted him to
> continue flying without a medical. He decided that the rule would
> never pass, sold the airplane to me, and then the rule passed
> shortly after that. I always felt like I took his airplane away,
> but have tried to make the most of being its steward since then.
>
> --------
> Oscar Zuniga
> Medford, OR
> Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
> A75 power
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420968#420968
>
>
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: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel |
tanks vs. n
I believe Terry has nailed the crux of the issue right there: it is more
important to be in CG limits.
It has been demonstrated that the most effective way to correct an aft CG
is to adjust the location of the wing relative to the fuselage. By doing so
you are not moving just one component relative to the datum, you are moving
the entire fuselage and everything contained within relative to the datum
(it may be easier to think of the wing as the fixed point, and the fuselage
is shifting fore and aft beneath it).
Being able to reposition the wing in relation to the fuselage is a feature
of the Pietenpol that many aircraft do not have, and allows you to setup
the aircraft to be in a safe configuration for a given builder. If simply
adjusting the wing's location is undesirable from an aesthetic point of
view....well, ok, there will have to be more compromises elsewhere.
As far as safety of the fuselage tank versus the wing tank, I think that's
a question best answered by, as Terry has mentioned, risk management.
Empirical testing by certain members of the community has shown that the
fuselage tank can be compromised quite handily.....I believe one will see a
better return by taking measures to reasonably manage the risk, such as
braided fuel lines from wing to fuselage as William advocates, than being
overly concerned about one location versus the other.
Ryan
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 8:11 AM, jarheadpilot82
<jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com>wrote:
> jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com>
>
>
> "If you weigh more and it is your airplane then it is more important that
> the fuel is forward."
>
> It is most important that the CG is balanced, and the aircraft is flown in
> the proper CG range.
>
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: | all good--even the outdated stuff which.....really isn't |
outdated at all, even wing cc tanks!
Good discussion here guys and what I was trying to do here was sarcasticall
y (intentional) lluminate William Wynne's criticism of the outdating
products/ possibly unsafe suggestions that he notes the Tony Bingelis books
contain and that the old ways of doing things with homebuilts
aren't always the best anymore.
I was just applying William's logic to the Pietenpol center section wing ta
nk to see what kind of a response I would get PLUS to advocate what I belie
ve
is a great place for fuel in a Pietenpol but both wing and nose tanks are,
of course, totally acceptable---just like the older ideas in specific insta
nces in the
Bingelis books.
The main point is that I want to bring to this list a sense of encouragemen
t, not discouragement.
I want to remain positive and enthusiastic, not stand around and urinate on
specific pet-peeve campfires that I'd like to dampen.
Long laborious posts with multiple web links are simply exhausting and unle
ss you're nearly unemployed or retired, few of us have the time to read
that stuff nor is it necessary to build a safe Pietenpol.
Practical, sound, proven advice is what I like to see on the Pietenpol list
and for the most part we have that which has always attracted me to the li
st,
the airplane, and the people who build them. Simple, light, and cheap.
It doesn't have to get all convoluted and complex and wordy to be safe an
d fun.
Here's to common sense and having fun building!
MikeC.
Ohio
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: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel |
tanks vs. n
sorry I wasn't clear so if you didn't follow my logic maybe I can try agai
n. Of course the weight of a pilot matters and you must compensate for it.
I was responding to the concept that if a heavier pilot is in an airplane
and the fuel burns off in a front tank that the CG moves behind the aft lim
it. That is not necessarily so.
While that could occur the idea is to move the adjust the aircraft CG so as
the fuel burns off it does not move to behind an aft CG limit and therefor
e the weight of the pilot doesn't matter if you do that. That was my point.
When you complete an airplane you make sure by calculation that the aircraf
t stays in the CG range with a certain pilot weight. If you design it for y
ou and you are 200 lbs then you adjust the aircraft to fly safely by three
of the methods I mentioned. I weigh over 200 and this in not a problem in m
y aircraft.
So to my original point. You have a moveable object in the aircraft=2C tha
t for argument sake=2C weighs 25 lbs (in this case - tank plus reserve fue
l) and you move it forward the CG moves forward. Add another 75 lbs of fuel
and it has even a bigger effect. Yes a tank directly on the CG it has less
effect on trim=2C but if you have an AFT CG problem then moving it forward
helps this problem. Likewise if you had a forward GC problem you would wa
nt to shift weight back.
Pietenpol`s with A65 continentals typically have this problem that require
s a long engine mount and moving the wing back or both. Both changes reduce
s the directional stability of the airplane. Add a heavy center section win
g tank and the problem gets bigger.
I have seen three Piets with this problem. These are extreme examples. Two
of them moved the pilot to the front seat and made a two seater into a one
seater. The third had a about 25 lbs bolted to the engine. Then there was
the guy that was flying at 22.2 ins behind the leading edge - he sold it b
ecause he knew he was going to kill himself! The new buyer fixed the proble
m by moving the wing.
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section f
uel tanks vs. n
> From: jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com
> Date: Tue=2C 25 Mar 2014 06:11:46 -0700
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>
tmail.com>
>
> Brian=2C
>
> I am not getting your logic-
>
> "Your weight has nothing to do with it. You simply don't fly if there is
an aft CG and having the fuel in the wing just makes the problem worse."
>
> Fuel in the wing makes it worse? How is that? Fuel in the wing sits close
r to the CG than fuel in the nose=2C and the burn off affects CG less=2C no
t more the closer it is to the aircraft's CG.
>
> "Running out of fuel (or nearly running out of fuel) in a nose tank versu
s the same in a wing tank (or nearly running out of fuel) cannot make the s
ituation worse. If the fuel is gone it is gone. The difference that in a no
se tank is that any fuel moves the CG forward at everything but empty. Sinc
e no one can fly on empty it is always better in the nose than in the wing
and the amount of weight added to the nose=2C the length of the engine moun
t or the amount the wing is moved back is less and on average the cg is mor
e forward. There is also the 15lbs or more of the tank weight itself that i
s helpingthe aft cg problem all they time. The 10 lbs (or whatever you cons
ider that to be) of reserve fuel that no one ever uses is also helping. "
>
> Brian=2C I am not worried about the fuel that is left in the nose tank. I
am worried about the fuel that burned off that was=2C at one time=2C forwa
rd of the CG that was balancing against my fat butt sitting behind the CG.
Once that fuel has burned off=2C there is less weight to counteract my fat
butt=2C so the CG moves aft. Check your aerodynamics and design books. I ju
st don't want to move it so far aft=2C that the airplane is aft of the safe
aft CG. That can be mitigated in the construction phase by adjustment of t
he wing location=2C and all I am saying is that that issue should be dealt
with in the build. Nobody should fly an airplane outside of the CG range. W
ill the airplane fly? Yes. Are your options lessened when you do? Absolutel
y.
>
> "If you weigh more and it is your airplane then it is more important that
the fuel is forward."
>
> It is most important that the CG is balanced=2C and the aircraft is flown
in the proper CG range.
>
> --------
> Semper Fi=2C
>
> Terry Hand
> Athens=2C GA
>
> USMC=2C USMCR=2C ATP
> BVD DVD PDQ BBQ
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420985#420985
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
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: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel |
tanks vs. n
If I may...=0A=0AHere is how I am looking at both views on wing-V-nose fuel
tanks... solely looking at weight, not the pros and cons. of having fuel o
ver your head, ease of fueling, fuel line length, etc.=0A---- If we
use an imaginary Pietenpol with a wing mounted fuel tank with it's various
CG scenarios, etc. then move said tank to the nose, keeping everything the
same, (which is easy with an imaginary plane)...what do we notice?- One
point of view, I believe, looks at the static differences...now you have th
e weight of the tank moved forward along with the weight of the unusable fu
el...all pluses on a usually tail heavy plane. These are somewhat static ch
anges, as much as a longer engine mount or the moving of the landing gear.
When viewed from a dynamic point, fuel weight change in a wing mounted tank
has little effect on C.G.- In the nose tank, with the longer arm, the dy
namic fuel weight change has a greater effect than the wing tank, again, in
our keeping-everything-else-the-same Pietenpol. So is it best to have a co
rrect static, on paper, C.G.; or a- correct, dynamic, in flight C.G? From
here you can forget about leaving the two imaginary
planes the same and start to look at the other variables...climbing ladder
s, having fuel over your head, tank damage with nose damage, fuel head, fue
l pressure...and the various other points brought up so far. Now the "corre
ct" answer starts to get complicated and it is here, the builder needs to m
ake some potentially tough decisions.=0A=0ASomething else, I thought about,
which may or my not matter:=0A--- A wing mounted tank does have an a
rm of sorts, along the longitudinal axis. In a roll, the wing tank has an a
rm greater than the nose tank. It is a weight, being swung around the longi
tudinal axis. Does this matter, does it effect stability? What, if anything
, changes as fuel burns? =0A=0A=0AI don't have any answers, but I do have a
nose tank and for now, I'll give it a try.=0A=0A=0AIf God is your co-pilot
...switch seats.=0AMike Perez=0AKaretakerAero=0ASTILL Building...=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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks |
vs. n
Mike,
Thanks for your response. You are doing what all builders should do- read, study,
analyze then decide. That is much better than building based on empirical data.
--------
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=421000#421000
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: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel |
tanks vs. n
Mike,
What you want to determine are extremes of the CG range of your aircraft,
and ensure they fall within the recommended limits of the design (with aft
CG admittedly being more of a concern with the Pietenpol).
You would establish the most adverse aft condition by calculating the CG
for zero usable fuel and pilot only......that will be the condition you
could find yourself in, in flight, that would present the most aft CG.
You can add fuel and pax to determine your most forward CG condition. The
passenger should not have much effect, as they are under the wing....and as
has been pointed out, the fuel in a fuselage tank will have more effect
than the wing tank.
As long as you setup your Pietenpol so that it's most forward and aft
conditions fall within the recommended limits, then the shifting CG as fuel
burns off should not be a safety concern.
Ryan
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Michael Perez <speedbrake@sbcglobal.net>wrote:
<snip>
So is it best to have a correct static, on paper, C.G.; or a correct,
dynamic, in flight C.G?
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: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel |
tanks vs. n
If I had to do it again, I would seriously consider a wing tank only. I do like
the "pros." of the wing tank and for me, I may still need a ladder even with
a nose tank...I need access to that storage area on the wing the fuel tank left
behind...
If God is your co-pilot...switch seats.
Mike Perez
KaretakerAero
STILL Building...
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: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks |
vs. n
If the front tank capacity is ... 16 gal (60 l) and the pilot weight is 200 lb
(100 kg) the only thing you have to do to keep the CG in place is make a movable
pilot seat. when the tank is empty you have to move forward just 26 cms.. 10",
not to much, and the CG will be allways in it place.
Just playing/joking a little
do not archive
Mario
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421003#421003
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: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks |
vs. n
Both the MD 11 and Airbus A330 put fuel in the VERT STAB to help CG issues!
In the A330, we just get occasional messages as to what it's doing... nice how
it keeps us in the loop...
Geesh
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421004#421004
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: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks |
vs. n
Mike,
Ryan explained it much better than I, so I will simply say, "Yeah. What he said".
--------
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=421005#421005
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: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel |
tanks vs. n
Understood Ryan, thanks.- This is good intel. for me to have because I be
lieve I will forgo renting a hangar and do my "final" assembly at home this
summer. Of course it will need to come apart again, but at least I can do
my W&B, figure out wing location, fabricate diagonal braces, cowling around
braces, wing cross cables...etc... =0A=0A=0AIf God is your co-pilot...swit
ch seats.=0AMike Perez=0AKaretaker Aero=0ASTILL Building...=0A
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: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel |
tanks vs. n
Best of luck....share some pics and show it off once you've got it together
do not archive
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Michael Perez <speedbrake@sbcglobal.net>wrote:
> Understood Ryan, thanks. This is good intel. for me to have because I
> believe I will forgo renting a hangar and do my "final" assembly at home
> this summer. Of course it will need to come apart again, but at least I can
> do my W&B, figure out wing location, fabricate diagonal braces, cowling
> around braces, wing cross cables...etc...
>
> If God is your co-pilot...switch seats.
> Mike Perez
> Karetaker Aero
> STILL Building...
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
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: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel |
tanks vs. n
Real time messages in the cock pit? Like: "Hello pilots, fuel in the vert.
stab. has been depleted and the CG is whacked. You may want to turn on the
seatbelt signs."- =0A=0ALike Mario...just playin'.=0A=0A=0AIf God is your
co-pilot...switch seats.=0AMike Perez=0AKaretaker Aero=0ASTILL Building...
=0A
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: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks |
vs. n
Terry - To answer your specific question to me: I'm using a wing tank again. 16
gallons this time. A fuselage tank sits in the lap of the passenger. In my
accident, a fuselage tank would have resulted in more fuel nearer to me after
impact than was the case with the wing tank. Had there been a fire I would've
likely died in either scenario. The fuel spill situation was not good after
the crash, but it was better than if I'd had a fuselage tank.
--------
Kevin "Axel" Purtee
Rebuilding NX899KP
Austin/San Marcos, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421010#421010
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: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks |
vs. n
Closer to that than you may like to realize! Seriously. We can't transfer it
willingly, but it can. Just weird.
I mean, talk about excess complexity, wow. Of course we're never taught how the
thing decides whether it needs to move fuel around for CG reasons. Computed
using how much trim is actually being used vs what should be being used based
on flight testing or something I imagine.
Isn't like we can mess up the system, because like my Piet, it doesn't even HAVE
a trim button!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421011#421011
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: | here's an idea for risk mitigation strategies---and for |
us full figured girls
Bernie would have spit nickels hearing this kind of lingo that seems to be
so popular these days but
here's an idea to increase safety and decrease risk---use an engine that ha
s a good reliability record,
no matter what homebuilt you're using. Just throwing that one out there;
)
Mike C.
PS-and being a bit on the full-figured size like I am, (205 pounds) the we
ight of the nose fuel really helps my CG situation
in all phases of flight except when I'm down to 2 gallons in the tank and I
never go that low. My experience with CG vs.
fuel burn is exactly what Brian Kenney posted.
It sure is great to have all that luggage space in the wing center section
too!
Again, the bottom line is to use whatever fuel tank position you think is b
est for you----and just because it is a very old design
doesn't mean is isn't perfectly good to use today but like William Wynne pr
ofesses.....there are newer, other ways to do things
now days no matter how old those plans are or the Tony Bingelis books are b
ut both are chock full of good stuff that still works today!
My new Facebook profile photo.....
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-lis
t-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kevinpurtee
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:52 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fue
l tanks vs. n
--> <kevin.purtee@us.army.mil<mailto:kevin.purtee@us.army.mil>>
Terry - To answer your specific question to me: I'm using a wing tank again
. 16 gallons this time. A fuselage tank sits in the lap of the passenger.
In my accident, a fuselage tank would have resulted in more fuel nearer t
o me after impact than was the case with the wing tank. Had there been a f
ire I would've likely died in either scenario. The fuel spill situation wa
s not good after the crash, but it was better than if I'd had a fuselage ta
nk.
--------
Kevin "Axel" Purtee
Rebuilding NX899KP
Austin/San Marcos, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421010#421010
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: here's an idea for risk mitigation strategies---and |
for us f
Mike,
I know Mr. Pietenpol (I never knew him, so I respectfully call him Mr. Pietenpol)
didn't use the word risk management as nobody did most likely in the 1930s.
However I am sure he did use the word safe. I think he would be happy that people
were talking about methods to build a "safer" airplane. So I don't think
he would spit nickels over the idea of building safe airplanes, and talking about
building safe airplanes.
By the way, what did you mean by reliable engine? Is that a veiled way of saying
certificated engine? Define reliable. Don't throw the word out there without
being more specific. I know that most likely means a lengthy discussion, but
I think the forum can handle it if it is a knowledgeable discussion.
--------
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=421014#421014
Message 25
| 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: all good--even the outdated stuff which.....really |
isn't outdated at all, even wing cc tanks!
..."The main point is that I want to bring to this list a sense of encourag
ement, not discouragement. =0AI want to remain positive and =0Aenthusiastic
, not stand around and urinate on specific pet-peeve =0Acampfires that I
=99d like to dampen."=0A=0AI agree Mike.=C2- Not that disagreements wo
n't happen, but they can be handled in a way to=C2- be encouraging rather
then discouraging. =0A=0ASorry for the delay guys, I flew through some pos
ts initially, (busy day) and am just going back=C2- through getting caugh
t up.=C2-=0A=0AIf God is your co-pilot...switch seats.=0A=0AMike Perez=0A
KaretakerAero=0ASTILL Building...=0A
Message 26
| 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: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel |
tanks vs. n
"Best of luck....share some pics and show it off once you've got it together."
I'll definitely give that some thought! My plan from the start was too keep things
under tight wraps until complete and unveil the ship in all its glory, (or
lack of) once it has flown. But it is difficult not to post more pictures now
rather than later.
If God is your co-pilot...switch seats.
Mike Perez
KaretakerAero
STILL Building...
Message 27
| 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: | what is reliable? |
http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/homebuilts_report_wanttaja.pdf Terry-see pa
ge 6 which compares factory built engine failures to homebuilt engine failu
res then you decide which is
more reliable. You're a smart guy with 2 jobs and lots of time to read all
this stuff so I won't take time to explain it.
and also....
Terry Hand writes:
Mike,
I know Mr. Pietenpol (I never knew him, so I respectfully call him Mr. Piet
enpol) didn't use the word risk management as nobody did most likely in the
1930s. However I am sure he did use the word safe. I think he would be hap
py that people were talking about methods to build a "safer" airplane. So I
don't think he would spit nickels over the idea of building safe airplanes
, and talking about building safe airplanes.
Well Terry you might read a lot but you completely misread what I wrote and
misquoted me. What I said Bernie would spit nickels
about is 'this kind of lingo' not building safe airplanes. See below.
You'd make a great journalist!
Bernie would have spit nickels hearing this kind of ling.
Message 28
| 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: what is reliable? |
That study offers nothing useful for helping someone to decide whether to use a
"traditional" engine over a "non traditional" engine other than "may" and "probably"
coupled with the fact "non traditional" engines rarely get any useful
post accident attention like "traditional" engines do, though one of the higher
classifications associated therewith usually restart and run well after the
crash... "DOES pose increased risk".
Wow. I'll take that to the bank...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421018#421018
Message 29
| 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: what is reliable? |
Mike,
I sense the smart a-- coming out in you. I read what you wrote. Could it be possible
that your point was not made clear, rather than your premise that I don't
know how to read?
Or maybe you were just throwing a little sarcasm out there.
--------
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=421020#421020
Message 30
| 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: | I Googled that for you---engine reliability |
Perhaps someone out there has a better source for determining what defines
a 'reliable engine'
but I thought I'd defer to the NTSB Accident reports and FAA registration d
atabase data which has been
summarized here in this article. You're all really intelligent, accompli
shed folks out there so you read, you decide.....
nose tank or wing tank, conventional aircraft engine or auto engine, 3-pi
ece wing or single piece wing, blue and white
or red and white?
Mike C.
Ohio
http://www.kitplanes.com/magazine/miscellaneous/8485-1.html
Auto Engines Versus Traditional Certified Engines
One of the oldest controversies in the homebuilt world is the use of conver
ted auto engines. Unfortunately, we cannot come up with an overall accident
rate based on engine type. Sure, the FAA registration database lists hundr
eds of homebuilts as powered by Volkswagens, Subarus, Fords, etc., but thou
sands more are listed as mounting AMA/EXPR engines. We don't know how many
of these have Lycomings or Continentals at their core, or those that sprang
from GM or Subaru, so we can't reliably calculate an overall rate.
However, most NTSB accident reports list the type of engine. We can easily
determine how often a loss of power was the cause of the accident, and comp
are the rates for traditionally powered aircraft with those mounting auto-e
ngine conversions. Obviously, a higher percentage means a higher relative n
umber of engine failures.
While we're at it, let's show the two-stroke engine results as well.
Traditional Aircraft Engines: 12.2%
Two-Stroke Engines: 28.9%
Auto Engine Conversions: 30.5%
The differences are even more striking when only fixed-wing homebuilts are
included:
Traditional Aircraft Engines: 12.3%
Two-Stroke Engines: 32.8%
Auto Engine Conversions: 37.5%
So, if a fixed-wing homebuilt has an accident, the probability is three tim
es higher that the engine was the cause of the accident if an auto-engine c
onversion was installed!
(Please note, this does not mean it has an accident rate that is three time
s higher. Fewer than 20% of homebuilt accidents involve problems with the e
ngine, and not all of those are directly the engine's fault.)
For years, auto-engine naysayers claimed that the internals of the engines
were more prone to failure than traditional engines. A comparison of engine
-failure causes in Figure 5 (on Page 28) indicates otherwise. Auto engines
seem to suffer from internal problems at a lower rate than traditional airc
raft powerplants.
However, auto engines are worse in three major areas: ignition systems, coo
ling systems and reduction drives. The need for a reduction drive on most a
uto-engine conversions provides a failure source that the traditional engin
es don't generally face (the 0.7% shown in Figure 5 is a single accident in
volving the drivetrain on a helicopter). Neither do traditional engines hav
e external cooling systems-though some of those internal failures may well
be due to poorly baffled engines. The water pumps, belts, hoses and radiato
rs on many auto conversions provide another failure source the traditional
certified engines avoid by design.
The biggest difference is in ignition system failures: Auto engines suffer
them four times as often as conventional aircraft. Sure aircraft magnetos a
re primitive, and individually they are probably less reliable than a moder
n electronic ignition. But the vast majority of homebuilts with Lycomings a
nd Continentals carry two magnetos that are completely independent of any o
ther aircraft system.
Several of the ignition failures in auto conversions were due to electrical
power problems with electronic ignitions. Electrical systems do fail, so a
completely independent backup power source is vital.
Message 31
| 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: I Googled that for you---engine reliability |
It's awfully long to read, Mike...
--------
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=421022#421022
Message 32
| 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 |
|
It's awfully long to read, Mike...
Ahahha! Terry-you actually made me laugh! Good one. Gosh....I think I
may like you (just a little) after all! See.....you do have
a sense of humor in there.
Did you like my fat guy photo? That was meant to make people laugh and e
njoy our list. You just made me laugh-thank you.
Now get out to the shop and start working on your airplane:) !
Mike C.
Ohio
Message 33
| 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: I Googled that for you---engine reliability |
Mike,
Thanks for posting this. To me, the discussion of typical failure modes
for auto conversions -- when considering the Corvair option -- was
reassuring. With the Corvair, there's no reduction unit and the cooling
setup is typical of lots of aircraft designs. Of the three biggies
discussed in the article, that leaves only the ignition as a major concern.
The current state of the art on ignitions for Corvairs would seem to
eliminate many of the gotchas of ignition systems on auto conversions.
I've posted previously my rationale for choosing to mount a Corvair on my
Piet (available via an archive search). I can also see the rationale for
small Continentals and would seriously consider one of those if I lived and
flew closer to sea level.
Parenthetically, it seems time for folks to go back to playing nice with
one another on this list. There's plenty of room for disagreement. No
need to be disagreeable when doing so.
Cheers, Ken
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[Vantage
Partners, LLC] <michael.d.cuy@nasa.gov> wrote:
> Perhaps someone out there has a better source for determining what
> defines a 'reliable engine'
> but I thought I'd defer to the NTSB Accident reports and FAA registration
> database data which has been
> summarized here in this article. You're all really intelligent,
> accomplished folks out there so you read, you decide.....
> nose tank or wing tank, conventional aircraft engine or auto engine,
> 3-piece wing or single piece wing, blue and white
> or red and white?
>
> Mike C.
> Ohio
>
> *http://www.kitplanes.com/magazine/miscellaneous/8485-1.html*<http://www.kitplanes.com/magazine/miscellaneous/8485-1.html>
>
>
> *Auto Engines Versus Traditional Certified Engines *
>
> One of the oldest controversies in the homebuilt world is the use of
> converted auto engines. Unfortunately, we cannot come up with an overall
> accident rate based on engine type. Sure, the *FAA registration database*lists
hundreds of homebuilts as powered by Volkswagens, Subarus, Fords,
> etc., but thousands more are listed as mounting AMA/EXPR engines. We don't
> know how many of these have Lycomings or Continentals at their core, or
> those that sprang from GM or Subaru, so we can't reliably calculate an
> overall rate.
>
> However, *most NTSB accident reports* list the type of engine. We can
> easily determine how often a loss of power was the cause of the accident,
> and compare the rates for traditionally powered aircraft with those
> mounting auto-engine conversions. Obviously, a higher percentage means a
> higher relative number of engine failures.
>
> While we're at it, let's show the two-stroke engine results as well.
>
> Traditional Aircraft Engines: 12.2%
> Two-Stroke Engines: 28.9%
> Auto Engine Conversions: 30.5%
>
> *The differences are even more striking when only fixed-wing homebuilts
> are included:*
>
> * Traditional Aircraft Engines: 12.3% *
> * Two-Stroke Engines: 32.8% *
> * Auto Engine Conversions: 37.5%*
>
> So, if a fixed-wing homebuilt has an accident, the probability is three
> times higher that the engine was the cause of the accident if an
> auto-engine conversion was installed!
>
> (Please note, this does not mean it has an accident rate that is three
> times higher. Fewer than 20% of homebuilt accidents involve problems with
> the engine, and not all of those are directly the engine's fault.)
>
> For years, auto-engine naysayers claimed that the internals of the engines
> were more prone to failure than traditional engines. A comparison of
> engine-failure causes in Figure 5 (on Page 28) indicates otherwise. Auto
> engines seem to suffer from internal problems at a lower rate than
> traditional aircraft powerplants.
>
> However, auto engines are worse in three major areas: ignition systems,
> cooling systems and reduction drives. The need for a reduction drive on
> most auto-engine conversions provides a failure source that the traditional
> engines don't generally face (the 0.7% shown in Figure 5 is a single
> accident involving the drivetrain on a helicopter). Neither do traditional
> engines have external cooling systems--though some of those internal
> failures may well be due to poorly baffled engines. The water pumps, belts,
> hoses and radiators on many auto conversions provide another failure source
> the traditional certified engines avoid by design.
>
> The biggest difference is in ignition system failures: Auto engines suffer
> them four times as often as conventional aircraft. Sure aircraft magnetos
> are primitive, and individually they are probably less reliable than a
> modern electronic ignition. But the vast majority of homebuilts with
> Lycomings and Continentals carry two magnetos that are completely
> independent of any other aircraft system.
>
> Several of the ignition failures in auto conversions were due to
> electrical power problems with electronic ignitions. Electrical systems do
> fail, so a completely independent backup power source is vital.
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
Message 34
| 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: I Googled that for you---engine reliability |
I'll summarize it for you. Auto engine conversions have less internal failures,
but more ignition system, cooling and gear reduction failures.
At that level of specificity, it's qualitative not quanitative.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421025#421025
Message 35
| 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: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks |
vs. n
I must apologize for posting erroneous information. The same mass acting on the
same moment arm will produce the same moment on any airplane, but it will NOT
result in the same shift in the CG on every airplane. Consider the extremes:
my 16 gallon fuel tank on a moment arm a couple of feet long will produce a
certain moment and will result in a shift of my CG by a certain amount (couple
of inches). If I place that same fuel tank the same distance away from the CG
of a Boeing 777, the CG will not shift perceptibly. If I place that same fuel
tank the same distance away from the CG of a child's balsa glider... well,
you get the idea. You have to calc it for YOUR airplane to determine how much
the CG will shift as you burn fuel off.
I would also encourage anyone who does a W&B on their aircraft to use the wing
leading edge as the datum. The reason that I've heard most often for using the
face of the prop hub is so that all of the moments are positive and the math
is simplified since there are no negative numbers to deal with. Using the firewall
may make things easier to measure since the firewall is big, flat, and convenient.
However, you still need to drop a line from the leading edge to reference
it in the calculations, so why not use the LE?
[Abstract thought: using only positive numbers means you throw away almost HALF
the entire universe of numbers just because they are negative. It sounds like
discrimination to me, and a waste of good numbers.]
--------
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, OR
Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"
A75 power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421028#421028
Message 36
| 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: long to read! |
Been working on the horizontal stab today. Got it glued up on the jig. Glad my
casein glue, I mean T88:wink:, works in these temperatures in Georgia.
--------
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=421029#421029
Message 37
| 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: what is reliable? |
Weeeelllll, I'm not sure about the interpretation of those data, not becaus
e they are wrong and not because you or Ron Wanttaja are wrong. It's just n
ot clear to me that the data available from FAA speak directly to engine fa
ilures per se versus what I think of as "systems failures" that directly im
pinge on engine reliability/performance.
Of the engine failures at 2GA9 for which I have direct knowledge, two were
Continental O-300s with stuck valves, one that resulted in short final thro
ugh the pine trees (literally) and the other with an off-field landing (nob
ody hurt in either one). Another was a Continental C-85 with stuck valve th
at resulted in a mid-field 'lawn dart' landing with substantial airframe da
mage and minor injury to pilot. A fourth was a Lycoming IO-360 that holed a
piston and resulted in a long glide that ended with a near-perfect outcome
(just made the field). So, all four of those were certified engines, all f
our had true engine failures. Of the experimentals, one went down off-field
due to improper induction/fuel system design. Another was a Jabiru 3300 th
at blew a hole in the oil pump cover. The final was a 2-stroke that crashed
on field due to the carb falling off the engine (!), killing the pilot rig
ht in front of his family. So, only one of the three experimental engines i
tself failed. I realize that many anecdotes don't make data, but these exam
ples illustrate the point that what gets termed "engine failure" may not be
failure of the engine itself, but rather a failure to provide to the engin
e that which keeps it running: fuel, spark, or air.
--
Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD, FARVO
Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
Emory University School of Medicine
From: <Cuy>, "LLC]" <michael.d.cuy@nasa.gov<mailto:michael.d.cuy@nasa.gov>>
>" <pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>>
etenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: what is reliable?
http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/homebuilts_report_wanttaja.pdf Terry=97see
page 6 which compares factory built engine failures to homebuilt engine fai
lures then you decide which is
more reliable. You=92re a smart guy with 2 jobs and lots of time to read a
ll this stuff so I won=92t take time to explain it.
and also=85.
Terry Hand writes:
Mike,
I know Mr. Pietenpol (I never knew him, so I respectfully call him Mr. Piet
enpol) didn't use the word risk management as nobody did most likely in the
1930s. However I am sure he did use the word safe. I think he would be hap
py that people were talking about methods to build a "safer" airplane. So I
don't think he would spit nickels over the idea of building safe airplanes
, and talking about building safe airplanes.
Well Terry you might read a lot but you completely misread what I wrote and
misquoted me. What I said Bernie would spit nickels
about is =91this kind of lingo=92 not building safe airplanes. See below
. You=92d make a great journalist!
Bernie would have spit nickels hearing this kind of ling.
________________________________
This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).
Message 38
| 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: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks |
vs. n
Abstractly speaking,
Maybe more than half? Don't imaginary numbers come the square roots of negatives?
Just sayin'
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421031#421031
Message 39
| 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: | Airplane Weights |
Good discussion thread on Weight and Balance. I have just received my packa
ge from Doc Mosher with WWs articles. Well documented info on CG and axle l
ocation. Keeping the CG location in mind as I build will have a high priori
ty. I have much more to study and learn. The CG spreadsheets recently poste
d are also valuable tools.
New question for some of you who have finished and flown your plane regardi
ng the total weight of the plane.
Like everyone=2C I want to be careful of adding unnecessary weight as I bui
ld. So far I am following the plans carefully. But like everyone=2C I am su
re=2C I have some personal customizations in the back of my mind.
WWs articles document specific data from individual planes. I pulled a hand
ful of them to examine more closely regarding Empty Weight (EW) - long/shor
t fuselage=2C A65/Corvair engines. The lightest weight airplane I studied w
as 590lb=2C the heaviest 842lb. Subtracting a 'standard' engine weight from
the EW yielded some interesting information. In most cases=2C regardless o
f the engine type or fuse. length=2C the weight of 'everything else' came o
ut to about 410-415lb. In only 2 cases I examined was there a great differe
nce - one was 581lb and the other 617lb. Not just over=2C but WAY over the
others.
Here's the question: What in the world do some builders add to their plane
s that takes a 400 lb plane to over 600 lb??
OK. Some extra instrumentation=2C tailwheel vs the original tailskid=2C bra
kes system=2C extra fuel tank=2C etc. But 200lb worth? What do I need to lo
ok out for?
Thanks for the replies.
Lorenzo
Message 40
| 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: Steel-tube fuselage update - landing gear welded |
Hello good Piet-ple,
Terry, I plan to uses springs.
Regarding the "cross-member" that has had some failures, see the RED tube in the
attached image.
I plan to add a second tube next to the red tube. This second tube will be 0.75"
diameter with 0.065" wall thickness. I am going to have it welded about an
inch away form the existing tube. This is less than the ideal solution which would
be to use a MUCH stronger tube in that location in the first place.
What at least three owners have found is that the RED tube is an un-supported two-foot
tube which collapses in compression during a hard landing. See the additional
attached drawing which shows that in a hard landing the inertia of the
wings drives a force down the struts to the landing gear fitting - while at the
same time a force is driven up through the landing gear struts to that same
fitting. These forces compress the cross-member and with it "per plans" (only
a 0.035" 5/8" tube) it cannot take the load and the un-supported two foot member
buckles. This also buckled the sides in a couple inches and ripped up the
floorboards.
If I was to do this from scratch I would use a MUCH thicker wall 0.075" diameter
tube instead of "sistering" another tube alongside the first one, but my cluster
joints are already welded and it should be easier at this time to simply
add another tube rather than cut up my completed cluster joint.
Although, there have been no failures (that I am aware of) in the AFT landing gear
(green) cross member location (it is supported mid-span by the "vee" brace),
I plan to add another tube there as well.
Hope this helps.....
Jake
--------
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=421036#421036
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/cross_member_crush_920.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/steel_tube_fuselage_cross_member_128.jpg
Message 41
| 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: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks |
vs. n
I am a new guy so to speak so my opinion probably won't mean much. But here I go.
I'm building my piet with the center section tank like the plans call for.
If I wanted more endurance I would add a little header tank, but I don't think
I want it. As far as safety goes , I feel just as safe with a wing tank over
my head, as a nose tank sitting over the passengers legs. Many years ago
when piper entered the crop-duster business with the Pawnee, they built them with
a nose tank sitting right behind the engine made of fiberglass no less. I've
met a few of the guys that flew them and not a few have horrible burn scars
on their faces. The first thing that happened at a crash, which is not infrequent
in a cropduster, was that the fuel tank was crushed between the chemical
hopper and the engine and a fire. Piper learned after awhile and started building
them with wing tanks. Now I admit they were a low wing aircraft so the
location was lower and along side the cockpit but not as many caught fire.
Maybe the center section location is not the safest place for fuel but unless
you plan on building tip tanks I think it is just as safe as the nose. That is
my two cents worth.
And I love all you guys, Well maybe love is not the right word.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421038#421038
Message 42
| 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: long to read! |
Trouble-maker...
--
Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD, FARVO
Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
Emory University School of Medicine
On 3/25/14 5:01 PM, "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com> wrote:
><jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com>
>
>Been working on the horizontal stab today. Got it glued up on the jig.
>Glad my casein glue, I mean T88:wink:, works in these temperatures in
>Georgia.
>
>--------
>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=421029#421029
>
>
________________________________
This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).
Message 43
| 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: long to read! |
If you mean me, Jeff, I have been called much worse. [Laughing]
--------
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=421040#421040
Message 44
| 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: | Airplane Weights |
Lorenzo,
My Pietenpol came in at 745 lbs., which was about 80 lbs more than I was
expecting. I believe most of that extra weight was in the paint that I
chose, PolyFiber's Aerothane polyurethane. It is very heavy, and difficult
to paint. I ended up putting several coats on the fuselage before I got a
decent finish with a minimum of orange peel. The only way to get it off is
to sand it off, and I know I didn't sand all the extra coats off. The wire
wheels are also heavy, weighing (with tires and brakes) 25 lbs apiece. And
the straight axle weighs quite a bit as well. The battery and the avionics
add a bit but not as much as you'd think, and I was expecting the weight
they added (my original estimate, including the electrical stuff was 660
lbs, which would be a decent weight).
End result? Mine doesn't climb too well with a heavy load. I limit myself
to carrying passengers weighing no more than 180 lbs. The benefit of this
is, I can limit my passengers to pretty young women for the most part.
Simplicate and add lightness!
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of larharris2
Harris
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 6:37 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Airplane Weights
Good discussion thread on Weight and Balance. I have just received my
package from Doc Mosher with WWs articles. Well documented info on CG and
axle location. Keeping the CG location in mind as I build will have a high
priority. I have much more to study and learn. The CG spreadsheets recently
posted are also valuable tools.
New question for some of you who have finished and flown your plane
regarding the total weight of the plane.
Like everyone, I want to be careful of adding unnecessary weight as I build.
So far I am following the plans carefully. But like everyone, I am sure, I
have some personal customizations in the back of my mind.
WWs articles document specific data from individual planes. I pulled a
handful of them to examine more closely regarding Empty Weight (EW) -
long/short fuselage, A65/Corvair engines. The lightest weight airplane I
studied was 590lb, the heaviest 842lb. Subtracting a 'standard' engine
weight from the EW yielded some interesting information. In most cases,
regardless of the engine type or fuse. length, the weight of 'everything
else' came out to about 410-415lb. In only 2 cases I examined was there a
great difference - one was 581lb and the other 617lb. Not just over, but WAY
over the others.
Here's the question: What in the world do some builders add to their planes
that takes a 400 lb plane to over 600 lb??
OK. Some extra instrumentation, tailwheel vs the original tailskid, brakes
system, extra fuel tank, etc. But 200lb worth? What do I need to look out
for?
Thanks for the replies.
Lorenzo
Message 45
| 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: long to read! |
;)
--
Jeff Boatright
On 3/25/14 8:58 PM, "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com> wrote:
>If you mean me, Jeff, I have been called much worse. [Laughing]
________________________________
This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).
Message 46
| 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: | Airplane Weights |
I like pretty young women . . .
From: jack@bedfordlandings.com
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Airplane Weights
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
Lorenzo=2C=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
My Pietenpol came in at 745 lbs.=2C which=0A
was about 80 lbs more than I was expecting. I believe most of that extra
=0A
weight was in the paint that I chose=2C PolyFiber=92s Aerothane=0A
polyurethane. It is very heavy=2C and difficult to paint. I ended up=0A
putting several coats on the fuselage before I got a decent finish with a
=0A
minimum of orange peel. The only way to get it off is to sand it off=2C an
d=0A
I know I didn=92t sand all the extra coats off. The wire wheels are=0A
also heavy=2C weighing (with tires and brakes) 25 lbs apiece. And the stra
ight=0A
axle weighs quite a bit as well. The battery and the avionics add a bit=0A
but not as much as you=92d think=2C and I was expecting the weight they add
ed=0A
(my original estimate=2C including the electrical stuff was 660 lbs=2C whic
h would=0A
be a decent weight).=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
End result? Mine doesn=92t climb=0A
too well with a heavy load. I limit myself to carrying passengers=0A
weighing no more than 180 lbs. The benefit of this is=2C I can limit my=0A
passengers to pretty young women for the most part.=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
Simplicate and add lightness!=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
Jack Phillips=0A
=0A
NX899JP=0A
=0A
Smith Mountain Lake=2C Virginia=0A
=0A
Message 47
| 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: | Airplane Weights |
Thanks for the input. I'm strongly considering Oratex fabric - so I don't n
eed no stinkin' paint.
Lorenzo
From: jack@bedfordlandings.com
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Airplane Weights
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
Lorenzo=2C=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
My Pietenpol came in at 745 lbs.=2C which=0A
was about 80 lbs more than I was expecting. I believe most of that extra
=0A
weight was in the paint that I chose=2C PolyFiber=92s Aerothane=0A
polyurethane. It is very heavy=2C and difficult to paint. I ended up=0A
putting several coats on the fuselage before I got a decent finish with a
=0A
minimum of orange peel. The only way to get it off is to sand it off=2C an
d=0A
I know I didn=92t sand all the extra coats off. The wire wheels are=0A
also heavy=2C weighing (with tires and brakes) 25 lbs apiece. And the stra
ight=0A
axle weighs quite a bit as well. The battery and the avionics add a bit=0A
but not as much as you=92d think=2C and I was expecting the weight they add
ed=0A
(my original estimate=2C including the electrical stuff was 660 lbs=2C whic
h would=0A
be a decent weight).=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
End result? Mine doesn=92t climb=0A
too well with a heavy load. I limit myself to carrying passengers=0A
weighing no more than 180 lbs. The benefit of this is=2C I can limit my=0A
passengers to pretty young women for the most part.=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
Simplicate and add lightness!=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
Jack Phillips=0A
=0A
NX899JP=0A
=0A
Smith Mountain Lake=2C Virginia=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
Message 48
| 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: Airplane Weights |
Hi Lorenzo
I looked at the Oretex website. When checking prices, I became discour
aged when all they said was "compared to other finishing systems, the cost o
f spray guns, compressor setting up a booth...blah blah blah Oretex is compa
rable to other finishing systems". Please cut to the chase. Here. What doe
s it cost to cover a pietenpol?
Anytime a supplier hides behind a bunch of B S , I run the other direct
ion. The concept is interesting, however
Thanks
Glen
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 25, 2014, at 7:14 PM, larharris2 Harris <larharris2@msn.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the input. I'm strongly considering Oratex fabric - so I don't n
eed no stinkin' paint.
>
> Lorenzo
>
>
> From: jack@bedfordlandings.com
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Airplane Weights
> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:40:51 -0400
>
> Lorenzo,
>
>
>
> My Pietenpol came in at 745 lbs., which was about 80 lbs more than I was e
xpecting. I believe most of that extra weight was in the paint that I chose
, PolyFiber=99s Aerothane polyurethane. It is very heavy, and difficu
lt to paint. I ended up putting several coats on the fuselage before I got a
decent finish with a minimum of orange peel. The only way to get it off is
to sand it off, and I know I didn=99t sand all the extra coats off. T
he wire wheels are also heavy, weighing (with tires and brakes) 25 lbs apiec
e. And the straight axle weighs quite a bit as well. The battery and the a
vionics add a bit but not as much as you=99d think, and I was expectin
g the weight they added (my original estimate, including the electrical stuf
f was 660 lbs, which would be a decent weight).
>
>
>
> End result? Mine doesn=99t climb too well with a heavy load. I lim
it myself to carrying passengers weighing no more than 180 lbs. The benefit
of this is, I can limit my passengers to pretty young women for the most pa
rt.
>
>
>
> Simplicate and add lightness!
>
>
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> NX899JP
>
> Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
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! --
|