Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:23 AM - Re: Red Baron video (Michael Perez)
2. 04:06 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Michael Perez)
3. 04:11 AM - Re: Red Baron video (womenfly2)
4. 04:24 AM - Yes indeed... (tkreiner)
5. 04:49 AM - Re: Re: Red Baron video (Michael Perez)
6. 04:53 AM - Re: It's FINALLY a hangar... (Jack Phillips)
7. 05:23 AM - Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (tkreiner)
8. 05:24 AM - Re: It's FINALLY a hangar... (jarheadpilot82)
9. 05:25 AM - Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (tkreiner)
10. 05:30 AM - Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (tkreiner)
11. 05:48 AM - Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (jarheadpilot82)
12. 05:54 AM - Re: Yes indeed... (jarheadpilot82)
13. 06:03 AM - Re: It's FINALLY a hangar... (tools)
14. 06:15 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Jack Phillips)
15. 06:26 AM - Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (curtdm(at)gmail.com)
16. 06:38 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Brian Kenney)
17. 06:45 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Brian Kenney)
18. 07:02 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Gary Boothe)
19. 07:38 AM - Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (tkreiner)
20. 07:41 AM - Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Jack Phillips)
21. 08:49 AM - Re: Re: Weight & Balance Spreadsheet (Steven Dortch)
22. 09:47 AM - Re: fuel tanks (macz@peak.org)
23. 09:47 AM - Re: fuel tanks (macz@peak.org)
24. 05:29 PM - Elevator droop (danhelsper@aol.com)
25. 06:35 PM - Re: Elevator droop (Brian Kenney)
26. 06:42 PM - Re: Elevator droop (Gary Boothe)
27. 07:08 PM - Re: Elevator droop...zoom in (M. Zeke Zechini)
28. 07:19 PM - Re: [Shaw Suspected Junk Email] Re: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n (Clif Dawson)
29. 07:23 PM - Re: Elevator droop (Clif Dawson)
30. 07:35 PM - Re: Elevator droop (Brian Kenney)
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: Red Baron video |
Thanks Oscar. Have you seen/heard of the History Channel series Dog Fights?
They are mostly computer generated animated documentaries depicting- air
combat scenarios form WWI through Desert Storm.- They look fantastic! Ve
ry well done. You may be interested in taking a look. =0A=0A=0AIf God is yo
ur co-pilot...switch seats.=0AMike Perez=0AKaretakerAero=0ASTILL Building..
.=0A
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: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel |
tanks vs. n
Neither was I. Like you said, Just trying to nudge the collective grey matt
er... =0A=0A=0AIf God is your co-pilot...switch seats.=0AMike Perez=0AKaret
aker Aero=0ASTILL Building...=0A=0A=0A=0ASomething else, I thought about,
which may or my not matter:=0A--- A wing mounted tank does have an ar
m of sorts, along the longitudinal axis. In a roll, the wing tank has an
arm greater than the nose tank. It is a weight, being swung around the lon
gitudinal axis. Does this matter, does it effect stability? What, if anythi
ng, changes as fuel burns?
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: Red Baron video |
Its from a WW! flight sim called: Rise of Flight. Its not factual its fictitious.
There are factual accounts better then the sim video posted on MvR death. The video
is good just for the enjoyment of watching. The sim RoF is free to download
and play, the cravat is you have to purchase more airplanes.
{url}http://riseofflight.com/en[/ur]l
Enjoy,
WF2
--------
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421118#421118
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 |
|
It's truly a great book, but I didn't know there was a second edition... I have
the first, along with the companion book, Aircraft Engines, by the same authors.
Once I started reading them, I was sure I'd be able to acquire or develop the skills
needed to build a Piet. I'd recommend them to anyone wanting to know the
old school way of doing things.
As some other threads have mentioned lately, old school isn't always what we might
do today... but there's value in knowing how things were originally done in
the aircraft world, compared to some more modern techniques.
Along with you, I think a lot of folks here will either learn something from this
book, or at least derive some pleasure reading it.
--------
Tom Kreiner
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421119#421119
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: Red Baron video |
I own RoF ICE. (Iron Cross Edition) Not sure if that is a free download or
not, but I paid for mine at the time.- Very impressive sim. for sure...al
ong the lines of IL2 HSFX6. =0A=0AIf God is your co-pilot...switch seats.
=0AMike Perez=0AKaretakerAero=0ASTILL Building...=0A
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: | It's FINALLY a hangar... |
It'll be good to see that Pietenpol back in the air!
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of tools
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 10:31 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: It's FINALLY a hangar...
N2RN got her tailwheel, horiz and vert stabs, elevators and rudder, WING,
and an aileron reinstalled today. FINALLY...
For the first time, a big structure is holding an airplane, so it's
technically a hangar I guess.
Tomorrow is lots of adjusting wires, controls, cotter keying and safety
wiring turnbuckles. Hopefully get the motor running.
Early next week should be in annual and ready for flight. The runway
finally seems hard enough to fly upon.
Been a long haul on this one.
[img]https://us-mg4.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=2_0_0_1_1096192_ACINiWIAA
BLeUzOKpwAAAJxxXlE&pid=2&fid=Inbox&inline=1[/img]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421104#421104
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: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks |
vs. n
Cliff,
You ask, "Doesn't everything below it act like a
pendulum?
The short answer is NO, however that requires some explanation...
In a most properly designed and built airplane - the designer sets CG so the plane
is slightly nose heavy, which requires an equal and opposite tail down force
in flight. Now on the surface this may appear to be a pendulum, but in fact,
its quite different.
The purpose of nose heavy, coupled with tail down force is what gives us pitch
stability. In other words, the plane will tend to stabilize itself in flight
when you take your hands off the stick -assuming, of course, that you've trimmed
the plane for whatever pitch attitude you need.
What is somewhat bothersome is that many on the list have indicated that the elevator
on a Piet "droops" during flight, when in fact, the elevator should be
slightly up, in which case it's providing the tail down force.
Perhaps the horizontal stabilizer on the Piet is - HERESY COMING - improperly designed,
but satisfactory. If the angle of incidence of the stab were changed
somewhat, this condition would be corrected...
Personally, I'd like for Jack Phillips and a few of the others to comment on the
drooping issue, as I'd like to make sure the plane I build is flying "correctly."
I KNOW, I KNOW, I KNOW, BUILD IT PER THE PLANS, AND IT WILL FLY.... that still
doesn't satisfy the Mechanical Engineer I am.... just sayin.
--------
Tom Kreiner
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421123#421123
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: It's FINALLY a hangar... |
Tools,
Share with everybody how
> expensive
that big hangar is, and how you did it. I think that it would encourage people
with maybe ideas of their own.
P.S. She looks like you gave her a bath from when I was at Toolstock. It IS good
to have Scott around!
--------
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=421124#421124
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: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel tanks |
vs. n
Cliff,
You ask, "Doesn't everything below it act like a
pendulum?
The short answer is NO, however that requires some explanation...
In a most properly designed and built airplane - the designer sets CG so the plane
is slightly nose heavy, which requires an equal and opposite tail down force
in flight. Now on the surface this may appear to be a pendulum, but in fact,
its quite different.
The purpose of nose heavy, coupled with tail down force is what gives us pitch
stability. In other words, the plane will tend to stabilize itself in flight
when you take your hands off the stick -assuming, of course, that you've trimmed
the plane for whatever pitch attitude you need.
What is somewhat bothersome is that many on the list have indicated that the elevator
on a Piet "droops" during flight, when in fact, the elevator should be
slightly up, in which case it's providing the tail down force.
Perhaps the horizontal stabilizer on the Piet is - HERESY COMING - improperly designed,
but satisfactory. If the angle of incidence of the stab were changed
somewhat, this condition would be corrected...
Personally, I'd like for Jack Phillips and a few of the others to comment on the
drooping issue, as I'd like to make sure the plane I build is flying "correctly."
I KNOW, I KNOW, I KNOW, BUILD IT PER THE PLANS, AND IT WILL FLY.... that still
doesn't satisfy the Mechanical Engineer I am.... just sayin.
--------
Tom Kreiner
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421125#421125
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
Cliff,
In response to your question, "Doesn't everything below it act like a
pendulum?
The short answer is NO, that said, some explanation is required...
In a properly designed and built airplane - the designer sets the CG so that the
plane is slightly nose heavy, which, in flight, requires an equal and opposite
tail down force. Now on the surface this may appear to be a pendulum, but
in fact, its quite different.
The purpose of nose heavy, coupled with tail down force is what gives us pitch
stability. In other words, the plane will tend to stabilize itself in flight
when you take your hands off the stick - and return to whatever pitch it's trimmed
for, assuming, of course, that you've trimmed the plane for a given pitch
attitude, i.e., climb, cruise, descent.
What is somewhat bothersome is that many on the list have indicated that the elevator
on a Piet "droops" during cruise flight, when in fact, the elevator should
be slightly up, in order to provide the tail down force.
Perhaps the horizontal stabilizer on the Piet is - HERESY COMING - improperly designed,
but satisfactory. If the angle of incidence of the stab were changed
somewhat, this condition might be corrected...
Personally, I'd like for Jack Phillips and a few of the others to comment on the
drooping issue, as I'd like to make sure the plane I build is flying "correctly."
I KNOW, I KNOW, I KNOW, BUILD IT PER THE PLANS, AND IT WILL FLY.... that still
doesn't satisfy the Mechanical Engineer I am.... just sayin.
--------
Tom Kreiner
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421126#421126
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
Mike,
I just reread your post where you asked-
> A wing mounted tank does have an arm of sorts, along the longitudinal axis. In
a roll, the wing tank has an arm greater than the nose tank. It is a weight,
being swung around the longitudinal axis. Does this matter, does it effect stability?
What, if anything, changes as fuel burns?
so, are you asking about lateral cg? If building to plans the wing tank is not
appreciably wider than a nose tank, I would guess. Unless you either builder a
wider center section(i.e. a Bill Rewey center section), or you put the fuel in
true wing tanks, which I have not heard of anyone doing. So, I don't think there
is an appreciable difference between either tank in terms of the longituinal
axis, or in terms of a lateral cg.
However, I did not sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night, and I am not an aeronautical
engineer. But I have flown aircraft that lateral CG was a very big
deal - helicopters with rescue hoists sticking out the side of the aircraft with
people on the hoist.
--------
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=421128#421128
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: Yes indeed... |
Tom,
I actually saw a 4th edition (I think) published around 1960. It was listed on
eBay. It had a picture of a Pan Am Boeing 707 tail in the front pages, so I thought
it was too "modern" for my needs. [Wink]
--------
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=421129#421129
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: It's FINALLY a hangar... |
Like everything, there's a thousand ways... and Scott and I climbed a really steep
curve!
The one constant is that, unfortunately, the chicken industry is going through
quite an upheaval. Like lots of things, all the chicken houses built in the 80's
aren't economically feasible to update. Most of them are either 36' or 40'
wide and clear spanned. You can get the trusses and tin for nickels on the
dollar, or free. And seem to be available about everywhere.
I've got maybe two grand in it as it stands, 40 x 85 but not yet sided and no big
front door. It's really tall so that we can get the motorhome in it from the
side (at the back) so it wouldn't block things in, or get blocked in. Lots
of hangars have built in living areas, well, the motorhome is going to serve
that purpose in this one.
Gotta go work on a plane!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421130#421130
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
OK Tom, You asked for it...
I think the drooping elevator is largely a myth. From many angles, the
elevator looks like it droops in flight because the reference that the eye
has is the horizontal stabilizer. But the edge of the stabilizer is at an
angle to the edge of the elevator, hence the appearance of a droop. Here
are a few pictures from my files of Pietenpols in cruise flight:
This shows the difference in angles I was talking about. See the angle of
the edge of the horizontal stabilizer, compared to the edge of the elevator,
which is straight? This is what creates the illusion of tail droop. Your
eye tries to make the two edges line up.
This one is a picture of Gene Rambo flying his son, Will, in my airplane.
In this picture the horizontal tail is just about edge on, so the side of
the stabilizer doesn't give the impression that the elevator is drooping.
Looks pretty straight to me
Here's another picture of my plane in flight:
Here the angle is different and the side of the stabilizer does make it look
like the elevator is slightly down, but I assure you it's not.
Here's Mike Cuy's airplane, photo taken from mine. Note his tail - no
droop.
Here's Randy Bush's airplane, photo taken from Ryan Mueller's (now John
Hofmann's) N502R. Notice the tail. Where's the supposed droop?
Lastly, this picture shows Kevin Purtee on the left, Shad Bell in the
center, and me on the right (photo taken by Bill Church during Brodhead
2011). You will note that my tail is slightly drooped with respect to the
other two. The reason for this is that I was having to push my little
Continental A65 for all it was worth to keep up with those two Corvair
powered Pietenpols, and I had to hold the nose down to maintain my position
in the formation and keep it from climbing at that speed.
There may be a slight droop due to downwash from the wing, but other than
that, I don't think the dreaded tail droop exists at all. Build it to the
plans, and build it straight and it should fly just fine.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of tkreiner
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 8:20 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel
tanks vs. n
Cliff,
You ask, "Doesn't everything below it act like a
pendulum?
The short answer is NO, however that requires some explanation...
In a most properly designed and built airplane - the designer sets CG so the
plane is slightly nose heavy, which requires an equal and opposite tail down
force in flight. Now on the surface this may appear to be a pendulum, but
in fact, its quite different.
The purpose of nose heavy, coupled with tail down force is what gives us
pitch stability. In other words, the plane will tend to stabilize itself in
flight when you take your hands off the stick -assuming, of course, that
you've trimmed the plane for whatever pitch attitude you need.
What is somewhat bothersome is that many on the list have indicated that the
elevator on a Piet "droops" during flight, when in fact, the elevator should
be slightly up, in which case it's providing the tail down force.
Perhaps the horizontal stabilizer on the Piet is - HERESY COMING -
improperly designed, but satisfactory. If the angle of incidence of the
stab were changed somewhat, this condition would be corrected...
Personally, I'd like for Jack Phillips and a few of the others to comment on
the drooping issue, as I'd like to make sure the plane I build is flying
"correctly."
I KNOW, I KNOW, I KNOW, BUILD IT PER THE PLANS, AND IT WILL FLY.... that
still doesn't satisfy the Mechanical Engineer I am.... just sayin.
--------
Tom Kreiner
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421123#421123
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
My theory of the elevator droop is it could be an optical illusion. The outboard
line from the elevator and horizontal stabilizer is bent because of the leading
edge of the horizontal stabilizer not having the same span as the rest of
the tail.
I had this discussion and wanted to do some testing at Brodhead last year, but
because of lack of time I was unable.
I propose those who could, prior to Brodhead, set, their elevators in a faired
(neutral) position and and somehow temporarily make a mark on their torque tube
and the cable just above.
Then go fly and compare in cruise flight if the marks are aligned yet. If not,
make another mark to show the difference.
Also while the tail is faired neutral on the ground, sit in the cockpit and look
over your shoulder and look or take a picture of the tail and let us know what
it looks like. Take pictures in slightly up and down elevator position.
This is a great exercise not only to prove my theory right/wrong, but also like
Tom said, the tail should always be creating downforce while flying and if elevators
are drooping, the horizontal stab might need some shimming and re-rigging.
My planes not flying and I'm definitely not an Opthamolagist, he'll I don't even
think I can spell.
--------
Curt Merdan
Flower Mound, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421132#421132
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/image_545.jpg
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
Tom being similarly educated I have thought about this too.
Yes you could conclude that the horizontal stabilizer is not at the correct
angle however here is some more to think about
I think in reality the more correct assumption is that angle of incident of
the wing is incorrect - this is important - wait for it - because these ai
rcraft are flying too fast.
The Air Camper was designed for an engine that produced less power than mo
st of the ones flying. If you reduce the power the trim changes and the ele
vator position changes and this slightly down elevator position changes fro
m slightly down to level and if you are slow enough to up. When I first bui
lt my aircraft it had an engine problem and it was producing an estimated 4
0 to 45 horsepower. I needed a fixed trim to give the elevators an up posit
ion to adjust the nose down trim.
While this a true observation it creates another mystery? Why does flying
faster not do the opposite? Asymmetrical airfoils have a negative pitching
coefficient. What this means is that the air coming off the tailing edge
is at a downward angle and this is behind both the center of pressure and c
enter of gravity so there is a torque created that wants to rotate the wing
nose down. If you have every thrown a model wing without a tail you will o
bserve that the wing just dives. The amount of this torque increases the fa
ster you fly. In many aircraft the tail or elevator trim has to be adjusted
to increase the negative tail lift or to say it another way to increase th
e down force on the tail.
So flying faster should mean the opposite to what is observed in reality wi
th an Air Camper.
Here is why I think the Air Camper is different. The wing is higher than th
e tail. As the wing downwash exits the trailing edge it hits the horizontal
tail and automatically compensates for the increasing negative pitching mo
ment. This is not a feature of just the Pietenpol but many high wing aircra
ft.
The faster I fly the more I have to push the elevator down (stick forward)-
totally counter intuitive.
The correction to this problem is if you are going to fly faster you need t
o reduce the lift on the wing at the higher speed and that means you need t
o reduce ever so slightly the wing incidence.
Here is another way to look at it and it demonstrates why this is the fix i
f you want to fly faster.
If you use more power the angle of the wing to the horizon changes. This is
because the lift is increasing with speed. You can get this wing "up on th
e step"=2C as some people call it=2C so far the bottom of the wing is on a
negative angle to the horizon. That means the by that point the fuselage i
s pointing down quite significantly.
So at that speed the wing is lifting and the fuselage is diving. So you are
really starting to increase the drag and aerodynamically the airplane tryi
ng to separate the wing from the fuselage. So decreasing the angle of incid
ence would reduce the negative angle at that speed and reduce the drag for
that speed and allow the aircraft to fly even faster.
In reality everything is just fine if the elevator is pointing down slightl
y and the aircraft is completely stable and safe.
The mystery of the Air Camper continues - why is it so good?
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section f
uel tanks vs. n
> From: tkreiner@gmail.com
> Date: Thu=2C 27 Mar 2014 05:30:26 -0700
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>
>
> Cliff=2C
>
> In response to your question=2C "Doesn't everything below it act like a
> pendulum?
>
> The short answer is NO=2C that said=2C some explanation is required...
>
> In a properly designed and built airplane - the designer sets the CG so t
hat the plane is slightly nose heavy=2C which=2C in flight=2C requires an e
qual and opposite tail down force. Now on the surface this may appear to b
e a pendulum=2C but in fact=2C its quite different.
>
> The purpose of nose heavy=2C coupled with tail down force is what gives u
s pitch stability. In other words=2C the plane will tend to stabilize itse
lf in flight when you take your hands off the stick - and return to whateve
r pitch it's trimmed for=2C assuming=2C of course=2C that you've trimmed th
e plane for a given pitch attitude=2C i.e.=2C climb=2C cruise=2C descent.
>
> What is somewhat bothersome is that many on the list have indicated that
the elevator on a Piet "droops" during cruise flight=2C when in fact=2C the
elevator should be slightly up=2C in order to provide the tail down force.
>
> Perhaps the horizontal stabilizer on the Piet is - HERESY COMING - improp
erly designed=2C but satisfactory. If the angle of incidence of the stab w
ere changed somewhat=2C this condition might be corrected...
>
> Personally=2C I'd like for Jack Phillips and a few of the others to comme
nt on the drooping issue=2C as I'd like to make sure the plane I build is f
lying "correctly."
>
> I KNOW=2C I KNOW=2C I KNOW=2C BUILD IT PER THE PLANS=2C AND IT WILL FLY..
.. that still doesn't satisfy the Mechanical Engineer I am.... just sayin.
>
> --------
> Tom Kreiner
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421126#421126
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
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
It is not an illusion but it requires two things to be happening for it to
happen and to be obvious
The aircraft need to be lightly loaded and the airplane needs to be flying
fairly fast.
If the CG is forward it is less likely to happen as well.
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section f
uel tanks vs. n
> From: curtdm@gmail.com
> Date: Thu=2C 27 Mar 2014 06:26:20 -0700
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>
.com>
>
> My theory of the elevator droop is it could be an optical illusion. The
outboard line from the elevator and horizontal stabilizer is bent because o
f the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer not having the same span as
the rest of the tail.
>
> I had this discussion and wanted to do some testing at Brodhead last year
=2C but because of lack of time I was unable.
>
> I propose those who could=2C prior to Brodhead=2C set=2C their elevators
in a faired (neutral) position and and somehow temporarily make a mark on
their torque tube and the cable just above.
> Then go fly and compare in cruise flight if the marks are aligned yet. I
f not=2C make another mark to show the difference.
>
> Also while the tail is faired neutral on the ground=2C sit in the cockpit
and look over your shoulder and look or take a picture of the tail and let
us know what it looks like. Take pictures in slightly up and down elevato
r position.
>
> This is a great exercise not only to prove my theory right/wrong=2C but a
lso like Tom said=2C the tail should always be creating downforce while fly
ing and if elevators are drooping=2C the horizontal stab might need some sh
imming and re-rigging.
>
> My planes not flying and I'm definitely not an Opthamolagist=2C he'll I d
on't even think I can spell.
>
> --------
> Curt Merdan
> Flower Mound=2C TX
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421132#421132
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/image_545.jpg
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
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
In this picture, Lee Graybill, a retired AA pilot and longtime PT-22 flyer,
pulled up alongside. He later told me, without being asked, that he had
eyeballed my rigging and noted no elevator deflection, nor any aileron
deflection (and was impressed with the 'look' of the plane!). Admittedly, I
was pushing the airspeed a bit to the high 70's, as his Baby Ace is much
faster. I believe it is Dick Navratil who gives a lecture at Brodhead about
tweaking the horizontal stab to correct tail-low conditions. I believe that
may be useful on some airplanes depending on weight and preferred flying
speed.
Gary Boothe
NX308MB
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jack
Phillips
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 6:15 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section
fuel tanks vs. n
OK Tom, You asked for it...
I think the drooping elevator is largely a myth. From many angles, the
elevator looks like it droops in flight because the reference that the eye
has is the horizontal stabilizer. But the edge of the stabilizer is at an
angle to the edge of the elevator, hence the appearance of a droop. Here
are a few pictures from my files of Pietenpols in cruise flight:
This shows the difference in angles I was talking about. See the angle of
the edge of the horizontal stabilizer, compared to the edge of the elevator,
which is straight? This is what creates the illusion of tail droop. Your
eye tries to make the two edges line up.
This one is a picture of Gene Rambo flying his son, Will, in my airplane.
In this picture the horizontal tail is just about edge on, so the side of
the stabilizer doesn't give the impression that the elevator is drooping.
Looks pretty straight to me
Here's another picture of my plane in flight:
Here the angle is different and the side of the stabilizer does make it look
like the elevator is slightly down, but I assure you it's not.
Here's Mike Cuy's airplane, photo taken from mine. Note his tail - no
droop.
Here's Randy Bush's airplane, photo taken from Ryan Mueller's (now John
Hofmann's) N502R. Notice the tail. Where's the supposed droop?
Lastly, this picture shows Kevin Purtee on the left, Shad Bell in the
center, and me on the right (photo taken by Bill Church during Brodhead
2011). You will note that my tail is slightly drooped with respect to the
other two. The reason for this is that I was having to push my little
Continental A65 for all it was worth to keep up with those two Corvair
powered Pietenpols, and I had to hold the nose down to maintain my position
in the formation and keep it from climbing at that speed.
There may be a slight droop due to downwash from the wing, but other than
that, I don't think the dreaded tail droop exists at all. Build it to the
plans, and build it straight and it should fly just fine.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of tkreiner
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 8:20 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel
tanks vs. n
Cliff,
You ask, "Doesn't everything below it act like a
pendulum?
The short answer is NO, however that requires some explanation...
In a most properly designed and built airplane - the designer sets CG so the
plane is slightly nose heavy, which requires an equal and opposite tail down
force in flight. Now on the surface this may appear to be a pendulum, but
in fact, its quite different.
The purpose of nose heavy, coupled with tail down force is what gives us
pitch stability. In other words, the plane will tend to stabilize itself in
flight when you take your hands off the stick -assuming, of course, that
you've trimmed the plane for whatever pitch attitude you need.
What is somewhat bothersome is that many on the list have indicated that the
elevator on a Piet "droops" during flight, when in fact, the elevator should
be slightly up, in which case it's providing the tail down force.
Perhaps the horizontal stabilizer on the Piet is - HERESY COMING -
improperly designed, but satisfactory. If the angle of incidence of the
stab were changed somewhat, this condition would be corrected...
Personally, I'd like for Jack Phillips and a few of the others to comment on
the drooping issue, as I'd like to make sure the plane I build is flying
"correctly."
I KNOW, I KNOW, I KNOW, BUILD IT PER THE PLANS, AND IT WILL FLY.... that
still doesn't satisfy the Mechanical Engineer I am.... just sayin.
--------
Tom Kreiner
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421123#421123
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
Jack,
I concur, it appears to be an optical illusion...
But if that's the case, why does Dick N give a spiel on drooping at Brodhead?
--------
Tom Kreiner
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421139#421139
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
Maybe he needs the money. Those forums pay incredibly well.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of tkreiner
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 10:38 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of outdated stuff? Center section fuel
tanks vs. n
Jack,
I concur, it appears to be an optical illusion...
But if that's the case, why does Dick N give a spiel on drooping at
Brodhead?
--------
Tom Kreiner
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421139#421139
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: Weight & Balance Spreadsheet |
But it shouldn't moving the axle forward help prevent noseovers? A La
Cessna 120/140s?
Blue Skies,
Steve D
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Gary Boothe <gboothe5@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> 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:
> >
> dgaldrich@embarqmail.com>
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
Blue Skies,
Steve D
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 |
|
Douwe--
I agree with you on the value of the head the wing tank provides--it was
put there for Ford engines which don't have (and don't need complication
of) a fuel pump.
--Mac in Oregon
> Both fuel tank locations have worked fine. Here's why I went with a wing
> tank and like it.
>
>
> 1. The fuel is farther from the hot engine and electrics in most
> "unplanned attitudes" such as upside down or on it's nose, or in case of
> an
> engine fire.
> 2. I have heard of too low fuel head pressure/fuel starvation issues
> with fuselage tanks, but not with wing tanks. If you're building a big
> fuse
> tank, it can be tricky to design it so you get the head pressure you need.
> It can certainly be done, just watch it in all attitudes.
> 3. Fuel overhead or fuel in my lap can both be bad situations, but it's
> all dependent on the incident and there's probably no way to foresee.
> 4. zero CG shift from full to empty.
> 5. I like the storage area up front.
>
>
> In view of WW's accident and the very real potential for forward wing
> displacement during a sudden stop, I strongly recommend flexible fuel
> lines
> to the tank. When 799B went over, the wing DID move forward about three
> inches and my hard lines held fine, but when I rebuilt her, I was sure to
> use flexible lines.
>
>
> There are certainly pros for fuselage tanks too, but these are the reasons
> I
> went with a wing tank.
>
>
> Douwe
>
>
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 |
|
Douwe--
I agree with you on the value of the head the wing tank provides--it was
put there for Ford engines which don't have (and don't need complication
of) a fuel pump.
--Mac in Oregon
> Both fuel tank locations have worked fine. Here's why I went with a wing
> tank and like it.
>
>
> 1. The fuel is farther from the hot engine and electrics in most
> "unplanned attitudes" such as upside down or on it's nose, or in case of
> an
> engine fire.
> 2. I have heard of too low fuel head pressure/fuel starvation issues
> with fuselage tanks, but not with wing tanks. If you're building a big
> fuse
> tank, it can be tricky to design it so you get the head pressure you need.
> It can certainly be done, just watch it in all attitudes.
> 3. Fuel overhead or fuel in my lap can both be bad situations, but it's
> all dependent on the incident and there's probably no way to foresee.
> 4. zero CG shift from full to empty.
> 5. I like the storage area up front.
>
>
> In view of WW's accident and the very real potential for forward wing
> displacement during a sudden stop, I strongly recommend flexible fuel
> lines
> to the tank. When 799B went over, the wing DID move forward about three
> inches and my hard lines held fine, but when I rebuilt her, I was sure to
> use flexible lines.
>
>
> There are certainly pros for fuselage tanks too, but these are the reasons
> I
> went with a wing tank.
>
>
> Douwe
>
>
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 |
|
Uh Oh........here are some photos of a to-the-plans, properly-built (and po
wered) Pietenpol in flight. If I am not mistaken, I detect some elevator dr
oop in all of them.You know, there are consequences, to making changes to t
he original genuine BHP-authored plans. Just say'n.
And by the way, what is all this talk of "improper" angle of incidence? ...
.and "wrongly-designed" mounting-angle of the elevator? There is a lot of d
issention on this list. Disturbing.
Dan Helsper
Puryear, TN
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 |
|
That's surprising -to me it is a bunch of people sharing ideas and concept
s to better understand how things work. Sorry if that disturbs you.
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Elevator droop
From: danhelsper@aol.com
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
Uh Oh........here are some photos of a to-the-plans=2C properly-built (and
powered) Pietenpol in flight. If I am not mistaken=2C I detect some elevato
r droop in all of them.=0A
You know=2C there are consequences=2C to making changes to the original gen
uine BHP-authored plans. Just say'n.=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
And by the way=2C what is all this talk of "improper" angle of incidence? .
...and "wrongly-designed" mounting-angle of the elevator? There is a lot of
dissention on this list. Disturbing.=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
Dan Helsper=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
Puryear=2C TN=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=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: Elevator droop |
Brian,
You do understand there's a lot of tongue-in-cheek stuff that goes on here, r
ight?
Gary
NX308MB
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 27, 2014, at 6:34 PM, Brian Kenney <brian.kenney@live.ca> wrote:
>
> That's surprising -to me it is a bunch of people sharing ideas and concep
ts to better understand how things work. Sorry if that disturbs you.
>
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Elevator droop
> From: danhelsper@aol.com
> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 20:27:51 -0400
>
>
>
> Uh Oh........here are some photos of a to-the-plans, properly-built (and p
owered) Pietenpol in flight. If I am not mistaken, I detect some elevator dr
oop in all of them. You know, there are consequences, to making changes to t
he original genuine BHP-authored plans. Just say'n.
>
> And by the way, what is all this talk of "improper" angle of incidence? ..
..and "wrongly-designed" mounting-angle of the elevator? There is a lot of d
issention on this list. Disturbing.
>
> Dan Helsper
> Puryear, TN
>
>
>
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
>
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: | Re: Elevator droop...zoom in |
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: Speaking of outdated |
stuff? Center section fuel tanks vs. n
We're so bad! :-)
Neither was I. Like you said, Just trying to nudge the collective grey
matter...
If God is your co-pilot...switch seats.
Mike Perez
Karetaker Aero
STILL Building...
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: Elevator droop |
We're ALL so bad! :-)
One really good thing is that without this discussion
we wouldn't have been privy to some really great
pics!
Clif
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is
serious. -Brendan Gill
Brian,
You do understand there's a lot of tongue-in-cheek stuff that goes on
here, right?
Gary
NX308MB
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: | Re: Elevator droop |
No I thought my family invented it. That's why I left home.
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 27, 2014, at 9:44 PM, "Gary Boothe" <gboothe5@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> You do understand there's a lot of tongue-in-cheek stuff that goes on here
, right?
>
> Gary
> NX308MB
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Mar 27, 2014, at 6:34 PM, Brian Kenney <brian.kenney@live.ca> wrote:
>>
>> That's surprising -to me it is a bunch of people sharing ideas and conce
pts to better understand how things work. Sorry if that disturbs you.
>>
>> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Elevator droop
>> From: danhelsper@aol.com
>> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 20:27:51 -0400
>>
>>
>>
>> Uh Oh........here are some photos of a to-the-plans, properly-built (and p
owered) Pietenpol in flight. If I am not mistaken, I detect some elevator dr
oop in all of them. You know, there are consequences, to making changes to t
he original genuine BHP-authored plans. Just say'n.
>>
>> And by the way, what is all this talk of "improper" angle of incidence? .
...and "wrongly-designed" mounting-angle of the elevator? There is a lot of d
issention on this list. Disturbing.
>>
>> Dan Helsper
>> Puryear, TN
>
>
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! --
|