Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:42 AM - Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014 (William Wynne)
2. 03:29 AM - Re: Re: Corvair College (Charles N. Campbell)
3. 05:17 AM - Re: ordering wood (Peter Johnson)
4. 05:23 AM - Brodhead rigging project - 2014 (Oscar Zuniga)
5. 05:52 AM - Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014 (DonkDoug)
6. 07:08 AM - Re: Corvair College (PatrickW)
7. 08:54 AM - Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014 (dgaldrich)
8. 09:08 AM - wings and cabanes-----one simple question (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-LME0)[Vantage Partners, LLC])
9. 09:14 AM - Re: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014 (Gary Boothe)
10. 09:15 AM - Re: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014 (Steven Dortch)
11. 09:57 AM - Re: wings and cabanes-----one simple question (AircamperN11MS)
12. 11:09 AM - Re: wings and cabanes-----one simple question (jarheadpilot82)
13. 11:35 AM - Re: wings and cabanes-----one simple question (William Wynne)
14. 01:05 PM - Re: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014 (Rick Holland)
15. 01:26 PM - Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014 (AircamperN11MS)
16. 01:31 PM - A65-8 (John Hofmann)
17. 01:37 PM - Re: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014 (glenschweizer@yahoo.com)
18. 02:49 PM - Re: A65-8 (Gene Rambo)
19. 03:56 PM - Re: Re: wings and cabanes-----one simple question (Peter Johnson)
20. 04:50 PM - Re: Re: wings and cabanes-----one simple question (Rick Holland)
21. 04:51 PM - Re: A65-8 (Gene Rambo)
22. 07:59 PM - Re: Re: wings and cabanes-----one simple question (Peter Johnson)
23. 08:54 PM - Re: Re: wings and cabanes-----one simple question (Peter Johnson)
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: Brodhead rigging project - 2014 |
Doug,
The formula I stuck up in the original post is valid, but as you mention a simplification.
I wanted to show people some of the factors at work without bogging
it down with every factor that can be brought in. In the end, I think the most
useful element of the project will be the collection of examples of flying
planes. A flying plane is obviously taking all real world factors into account
in correct proportion.
---------------------------------------
Two other elements that come into play are the fact that few textbook examples
are based around wing loading as light as a Piet, and we still have to account
for the wash out is the plane uses it. My feeling is that these may moderate
a lot of the aspect ratio factor.
----------------------------------------
There is a lot of individuality to each snowflake in the storm, and I doubt that
making a conclusion based on one two or three observations would be valid, but
as Doug is getting at the data will likely point at trends in the right direction
or good starting points for builders. If one plane with a different angle
has good performance, it could easily be attributable to a dozen other factors.
However, if every plane over 85 hp flies 2 degrees nose low, that is probably
worth looking at in detail.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426876#426876
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: Corvair College |
Suggest you drain the oil, then put in something like kerosene for a
cleaner and turn the engine over several times with the cleaner in it, then
drain the case again. Then when you get to college the engine will be
clean on the inside and you won't spread dirty oil everywhere. There will
be plenty of benches. Chuck
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 1:02 PM, wheelharp <wheelharp@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for replies, everyone. I'm signed up, and did a search of WW
> website to try and find what to bring for tear down, but couldn't find
> anything. Not to say there is nothing there, I just couldn't find it. I
> know you would probably want to bring the obvious--- wrenches, socket set,
> screwdrivers, etc...but I wanted to make sure I don't need any special
> pullers or anything. Are there plenty of workbenches? I could bring my own
> if they are in short supply.
>
> --------
> Jon Jones
> Ironton, MO
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426842#426842
>
>
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: ordering wood |
John,
I have a cutting list on my web site (http://www.cpc-world.com).
Have a look under Services & Suppliers.
Maybe of some help.
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi Australia
On 18/07/2014 4:04 am, "Pocono John" <tinmotion@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>(I tried a search, but no help). I want to order enough wood to get me
>through ribs and the tail section. I have a material list from Robert
>McKinley (revised by Mark Chouinard) from a few years ago.
>
>When I add up the ribs (I want enough to build 30 ribs to allow for
>damage, etc), I get a total of 95 pieces at 5 ft (I plan on the one piece
>wing, which I'll build in a hanger). The list has 110 pieces. I'm
>including all the sticks that support the rib. Am I off (I plan on 60
>pieces of 5' for capstrips, 35 pieces of 5' for the internal
>stickstotal 475')?
>
>I tried to measure the upper capstrip to factor in the shape/curve, but
>it still seems a 5 foot length will work. Will 5' be long enough?
>
>I already have a 8X4 piece of 3 ply mahogany, 1/16". I'll use it for rib
>gussets.
>
>Regarding the tail section, the materials list mentions 1X1 pieces, but I
>don't see 1X1 on the plans. Where are they?
>
>Anything else I should consider?
>
>Thank you.
>
>--------
>John
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426845#426845
>
>
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: | Brodhead rigging project - 2014 |
Doug and others-
William's point is well taken. There is a Piet already flying with the Rib
lett wing. This is not theoretical=3B it exists. It has been test-flown w
ith another=2C nearly identical Piet with the FC10 airfoil. There is no ne
ed to guess or calculate the wing incidence before talking with the builder
/pilot of the airplane that has already successfully flown. There is a goo
d trail of bread crumbs. As I recall=2C PF wrote an article for the BPA Ne
wsletter that documented their findings and test results=2C and he is very
available to answer questions.
Oscar ZunigaMedford=2C ORAir Camper NX41CCA-75 power
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: Brodhead rigging project - 2014 |
William,
Yep, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It will be interesting to see
the real world numbers you get through empirical testing at Brodhead. I appreciate
you pursuing this project. Like your CG initiative it should be helpful
in enabling folks to build a safe airplane.
Doug Wright
Stillwater, OK
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426882#426882
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: Corvair College |
I want to fly down, but it's too soon to know if I'll be able to. A lot of things
need to line up schedule-wise at work. Fingers crossed. Made it last year.
These Corvair Colleges are a lot of fun. You'll meet really good people, and you'll
learn a lot.
- Pat
Patrick Hoyt
N63PZ - XL/Corvair - Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426885#426885
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: Brodhead rigging project - 2014 |
Random thoughts on this thread---
If I understand this thread, the ultimate number that people are looking for is
the angle between the chord of the wind and the chord of the tail surface that
will give zero stick force at a normal cruise speed, c/g, and weight. The idea
is to find a nice center spot so only minor trim changes will be needed to
accommodate speed and weight changes.
It's pretty obvious that you can change the angle between wing and tail by either
differential cabane length or tail shims. Raise the bridge or lower the river.
Again, ideally, when at the zero stick force/normal cruise speed point,
the fuselage will be level with the earth and all the thrust will be in the forward
direction.
It seems to me that there are 5 data points that need to be collected for each
airplane.
1. Angle of incidence of the wing.
2. Angle of incidence of the horizontal stabilizer.
3. Speed in flight with zero pitch stick force and trim systems neutral.
4. Fuselage deck angle at that speed.
5. Center of Gravity
Assuming adequate power, a builder could optimize his plane for a specific airspeed.
As an example, with a 100 hp Corvair engine or an O-200, the builder could
cruise "hands off" at any speed between, say, 50 mph and 85+ mph by simply
changing the relative angles of the two lifting surfaces. This is what heavy
jets and Piper Cubs normally do in flight so we know it works.
If the operating CG range of the aircraft is within the 15-20 inch aft of leading
edge limits, then shifting the CG forward or aft is not likely to fix any large
control force issues and runs the risk of moving it too far.
Here's what I'm taking away from this discussion.
1. I need to determine what cruise speed I'm building for.
2. I need to build the cabane diagonals so that the aircraft is in CG for
all weights and loading.
3. I need to use the data that Mr. Wynne is collecting to figure out proper
cabane length differential.
4. I need to figure out how to make minor adjustments to the horizontal stab
angle of incidence during flight testing.
5. I need to get my sorry a$$ out to the hangar and build something.
Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426888#426888
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: | wings and cabanes-----one simple question |
Since I built my plane to the plans with the Pietenpol wing and to the plan
s where is shows the front cabanes 1" longer than
the front and since P.F. Beck's awesome comparison of the Piet wing vs. the
Riblett essentially showed no advantages one
way or the other, am I correct to assume that, in general you're going to h
ave to have 1" longer cabanes in the front no matter
which wing you're using?
There's been a lot of hand waving and lots and lots of words but you want y
our cabanes 1" longer in the front than in the back to
prevent the issues that Chris Rusch is having with his excessive forward st
ick pressure yes?
My eyes glaze over when these kinds of discussions get off in the weeds so
just want to re-center the topic so that the guys out there
like Perez who have equal length cabanes and a Riblett airfoil aren't surpr
ised by extreme forward stick pressure on the first flight.
Mike C.
Ohio
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: Brodhead rigging project - 2014 |
Just build to plans.
Cabane lengths have already been determined by Mr. Pietenpol, and attested
to, even with other airfoils, as demonstrated by PF Beck's notes.
If you think you are going to be heavy, angle the cabanes back.
It's that simple. The "discussion" went in a complete circle and ended up
back at the plans!! Lots of builders have made lots of changes, but no one
has improved a thing!!
Gary Boothe
NX308MB
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of dgaldrich
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 8:54 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
--> <dgaldrich@embarqmail.com>
Random thoughts on this thread---
If I understand this thread, the ultimate number that people are looking for
is the angle between the chord of the wind and the chord of the tail surface
that will give zero stick force at a normal cruise speed, c/g, and weight.
The idea is to find a nice center spot so only minor trim changes will be
needed to accommodate speed and weight changes.
It's pretty obvious that you can change the angle between wing and tail by
either differential cabane length or tail shims. Raise the bridge or lower
the river. Again, ideally, when at the zero stick force/normal cruise speed
point, the fuselage will be level with the earth and all the thrust will be
in the forward direction.
It seems to me that there are 5 data points that need to be collected for
each airplane.
1. Angle of incidence of the wing.
2. Angle of incidence of the horizontal stabilizer.
3. Speed in flight with zero pitch stick force and trim systems
neutral.
4. Fuselage deck angle at that speed.
5. Center of Gravity
Assuming adequate power, a builder could optimize his plane for a specific
airspeed. As an example, with a 100 hp Corvair engine or an O-200, the
builder could cruise "hands off" at any speed between, say, 50 mph and 85+
mph by simply changing the relative angles of the two lifting surfaces.
This is what heavy jets and Piper Cubs normally do in flight so we know it
works.
If the operating CG range of the aircraft is within the 15-20 inch aft of
leading edge limits, then shifting the CG forward or aft is not likely to
fix any large control force issues and runs the risk of moving it too far.
Here's what I'm taking away from this discussion.
1. I need to determine what cruise speed I'm building for.
2. I need to build the cabane diagonals so that the aircraft is in CG
for all weights and loading.
3. I need to use the data that Mr. Wynne is collecting to figure out
proper cabane length differential.
4. I need to figure out how to make minor adjustments to the
horizontal stab angle of incidence during flight testing.
5. I need to get my sorry a$$ out to the hangar and build something.
Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426888#426888
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: Brodhead rigging project - 2014 |
OT So don't bitch.
Just to throw anouther cat into the fight. The Vtail Bonanza wing incidence
is 4 degrees at the root and 1 degree at the tip. This is so that the root
will stall first and give lots of warning. The plane was designed 1945-47.
Mine was made in 1948. There were a lot of short grass strips. The
incidence also helps the tricycle gear plane do short and grass takeoffs.
In cruse, the Vtail flies slightly nose down. Coming from Cessnas, most
pilots keep setting the nose on the horizon and slowly climing. It takes a
while to get used to the nose down. .
Blue Skies,
Steve D.
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:30 AM, DonkDoug <douglas.wright@okstate.edu>
wrote:
> douglas.wright@okstate.edu>
>
> Paul, Mike and any other Riblett builders out there,
>
> So in calculating incidence angles for the Riblett airfoil to this point
I
> had a nagging suspicion that something was being left out. After getting
> out my old textbooks tonight I discovered I was right.
>
> Determining the lift coefficient required at cruise from aircraft
> operating weight, speed and air density is correct but to determine the
> incidence angle that should be set for cruising speeds the aspect ratio o
f
> the wing and the angle of attack at which zero lift is created must also
be
> factored in. Doing so I found that for the operating weight of 1150 lbs.
> that we have been using and a speed of 75 mph on a Standard Day both the
> Riblett 30-612 and 30-613.5 should have an incidence angle set at about 3
> degrees positive. That works out to the front cabane being =C2=BD
=9D longer than
> the rear.
>
> For those of you that have built your plane with equal length cabanes thi
s
> length would be appropriate for a cruising speed coefficient of lift of
> about .46. One would see that cruise speed lift coefficient at lighter
> operating weights, cooler than Standard Day temperatures, lower altitudes
,
> higher speeds and combinations of these conditions.
>
> For those with front cabanes one inch longer than the rear the resulting
> incidence would be appropriate for conditions that produce a cruising spe
ed
> lift coefficient of about .62. This would be appropriate for heavier
> operating weights, slower speeds, hotter days, higher altitudes, less den
se
> air and combinations of these variables.
>
> I apologize for any confusion I may have created with my earlier posts.
>
> Doug Wright
> Stillwater, OK
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426874#426874
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
--
Blue Skies,
Steve D
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: wings and cabanes-----one simple question |
Mike,
My eyes get glazed over too. From what I am reading, Chris has to hold back pressure
on the stick in flight.
I do know for a fact that the GN-1 plans have the cabane measurements wrong. If
you build that plane to the drawings when in level flight the plane will be
flying tail low. This was the case on my dads and on Mike Madrid's GN-1's.
Back to Chris's plane now. Knowing what I do about the GN-1's, I believe that
the folks on that thread are headed in the right direction. I also think that
if Chris could somehow attach a water level cord wise to the wing he would see
that when the wing is in level flight that the nose of the plane or top longeron
would be pointed down hill. By hauling back on the stick to make the airplane
appear to be level in flight he is only flying at a higher angle of attack
thus flying at a slower airspeed. If the correct angle of incidence is found,
the stick forces will be greatly reduced or dis appear and he will see a higher
cruise speed. If Chris could arrange for someone to take some video of
him making a low flyby over the runway and in level flight, maintaining altitude,
he may be able to see what I am trying to convey.
I am really interested in what their numbers (math) shows after the numbers are
crunched.
--------
Scott Liefeld
Flying N11MS since March 1972
Steel Tube
C-85-12
Wire Wheels
Brodhead in 1996
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426893#426893
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: wings and cabanes-----one simple question |
Mike,
If you are looking for a simple answer, here goes-
The plans were the earlier iteration of an evolving design. That is why BHP kept
building them and trying other automotive engines, for example. The simple answer
would be to look at "The Last Original", not the first. I think that is
where you will see the culmination of the design.
Just a thought.
--------
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=426896#426896
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: wings and cabanes-----one simple question |
Mike,
If your plane is done and flying and you are happy with it, there is no need to
read any of this, especially if it makes you sleepy. However, I think that part
of the issue Chris is working with is exactly what you think is the 'fix' namely
using the same incidence on every plane regardless of the airfoil, power
or weight. I think that we will know a lot more after we measure some stuff,
but I want to come out with some better guidance for builders that just telling
everyone to make the cabanes one length and guessing at another man's rigging
issues with shot in the dark ideas like "move the wing" or "just make the cabanes
1" longer".
-----------------------------------------------------
I have contacted Chris, and if possible I am going to visit his plane personally
after Oshkosh is over. I think that this, and the information we gather will
offer a better solution than guessing. More corrections are made by people willing
to examine the issue and consider it in detail, than people with glazed
over eyes making generalizations about snowflakes.
----------------------------------------------------
As I said, if anyone has a plane with 1929 style gear and 50-65 hp, is flying in
CG and has the BHP airfoil, it lends to reason that the plans incidence is great
advice. PF and Don's planes may have a bit more power, but also fall in the
same group. Terry Hand already got very detailed rigging and notes from PF
to kick off our data collection, and their results are satisfactory on their planes.
When I visit Chris's project, the first thing I am going to do is see how
it differs from Don's as a starting point.
-------------------------------
I know of very few 'perfect' examples of any homebuit design that are 15 years
old. Mostly builders, and most designers, continue to evolve their thinking, even
on small points. I can think of no better evidence of this than how different
"the Last Original" looks from planes in the 1929 plans. BHP's eyes didn't
glaze over at the opportunity to think, consider, test, refine. Most successful
homebuilders would gladly advise any builder following in their footsteps on
how to build a slightly better, more refined evolution of their plane, so that
the next man might have something slightly better. Telling anyone that it isn't
possible to build a more refined plane than was done before seems implausible.
--------------------------------------------------------
The mere idea that a number of builders opted to make a significant change in the
plane by using a different airfoil, it seems very odd to suggest to these builders
that changing the airfoil is OK, but somehow tailoring the incidence of
that different airfoil is somehow sacrilege.
----------------------------------------------------------
Making the suggestion that Don flew 1" longer cabanes on his plane with the Ribblett,
and he liked it, so therefore absolutely no further evaluation should be
considered, discussed nor allowed, because it is upsetting to people who want
to see the design cast in stone in 1929, or whenever. Lots of people like things
that don't change nor evolve. This is some peoples nature. However, we have
plenty of evidence that BHP was not one of those people.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426898#426898
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: Brodhead rigging project - 2014 |
Kind of like an F-14 has variable wing sweep you could weld screw-jacks in
the middle of your rear cabanes and have variable wing incidence to account
for varying temps, airspeed, DA, etc. And then add an electric motor to
rotate the screws with a switch on your joystick handle next to your
elevator trim switch, PTT switch, aileron trim switch.................zzzzz
z
rh
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:30 PM, DonkDoug <douglas.wright@okstate.edu>
wrote:
> douglas.wright@okstate.edu>
>
> Paul, Mike and any other Riblett builders out there,
>
> So in calculating incidence angles for the Riblett airfoil to this point
I
> had a nagging suspicion that something was being left out. After getting
> out my old textbooks tonight I discovered I was right.
>
> Determining the lift coefficient required at cruise from aircraft
> operating weight, speed and air density is correct but to determine the
> incidence angle that should be set for cruising speeds the aspect ratio o
f
> the wing and the angle of attack at which zero lift is created must also
be
> factored in. Doing so I found that for the operating weight of 1150 lbs.
> that we have been using and a speed of 75 mph on a Standard Day both the
> Riblett 30-612 and 30-613.5 should have an incidence angle set at about 3
> degrees positive. That works out to the front cabane being =C2=BD
=9D longer than
> the rear.
>
> For those of you that have built your plane with equal length cabanes thi
s
> length would be appropriate for a cruising speed coefficient of lift of
> about .46. One would see that cruise speed lift coefficient at lighter
> operating weights, cooler than Standard Day temperatures, lower altitudes
,
> higher speeds and combinations of these conditions.
>
> For those with front cabanes one inch longer than the rear the resulting
> incidence would be appropriate for conditions that produce a cruising spe
ed
> lift coefficient of about .62. This would be appropriate for heavier
> operating weights, slower speeds, hotter days, higher altitudes, less den
se
> air and combinations of these variables.
>
> I apologize for any confusion I may have created with my earlier posts.
>
> Doug Wright
> Stillwater, OK
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426874#426874
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
NX6819Z
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: Brodhead rigging project - 2014 |
Rick,
Now you've done it. I mean that's sort of been done already. When you get a chance
look at the Flying Flea. Goofy looking plane at best. Look at haw the
wing moves. Almost scary.
Now my eyes are glazed over again.
--------
Scott Liefeld
Flying N11MS since March 1972
Steel Tube
C-85-12
Wire Wheels
Brodhead in 1996
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426903#426903
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 |
|
If anyone is interested, I got this through the Cub Club. I know nothing other
than what is below.
Continental A65-8 engine disassembled. Tapered shaft ground .010 under with prop.
hub. Zero time on .015 over cylinders. Cylinders are complete with new A75
pistons. Rockers arms overhauled. Engine is complete but will need .859 piston
pins. Extra set of push rods, rocker arms, cam followers, plungers and carb.
$1500, Tom Arnold, 661-623-1611, email: earnold@bak.rr.com
Best,
-john-
John Hofmann
Vice-President, IT and Production
The Rees Group, Inc.
2424 American Lane
Madison, WI 53704
Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150
Fax: 608.443.2474
Email: jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com
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: Brodhead rigging project - 2014 |
It's a peitenpol.not an F14. How would you account for a wash in effect, ai
leron differences etc. maybe you should go ahead and build an F14. It's a pe
it., keep it simple for peit's sake!
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 18, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Rick Holland <at7000ft@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Kind of like an F-14 has variable wing sweep you could weld screw-jacks in
the middle of your rear cabanes and have variable wing incidence to account
for varying temps, airspeed, DA, etc. And then add an electric motor to rot
ate the screws with a switch on your joystick handle next to your elevator t
rim switch, PTT switch, aileron trim switch.................zzzzzz
>
> rh
>
>
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:30 PM, DonkDoug <douglas.wright@okstate.edu> w
rote:
edu>
>>
>> Paul, Mike and any other Riblett builders out there,
>>
>> So in calculating incidence angles for the Riblett airfoil to this point I
had a nagging suspicion that something was being left out. After getting o
ut my old textbooks tonight I discovered I was right.
>>
>> Determining the lift coefficient required at cruise from aircraft operati
ng weight, speed and air density is correct but to determine the incidence a
ngle that should be set for cruising speeds the aspect ratio of the wing and
the angle of attack at which zero lift is created must also be factored in.
Doing so I found that for the operating weight of 1150 lbs. that we have b
een using and a speed of 75 mph on a Standard Day both the Riblett 30-612 an
d 30-613.5 should have an incidence angle set at about 3 degrees positive. T
hat works out to the front cabane being =C2=BD=9D longer than the rear
.
>>
>> For those of you that have built your plane with equal length cabanes thi
s length would be appropriate for a cruising speed coefficient of lift of ab
out .46. One would see that cruise speed lift coefficient at lighter operat
ing weights, cooler than Standard Day temperatures, lower altitudes, higher s
peeds and combinations of these conditions.
>>
>> For those with front cabanes one inch longer than the rear the resulting i
ncidence would be appropriate for conditions that produce a cruising speed l
ift coefficient of about .62. This would be appropriate for heavier operati
ng weights, slower speeds, hotter days, higher altitudes, less dense air and
combinations of these variables.
>>
>> I apologize for any confusion I may have created with my earlier posts.
>>
>> Doug Wright
>> Stillwater, OK
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426874#426874
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> br> -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol
-List
>> ==========
>> MS -
>> k">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> e -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>
>
>
> --
> Rick Holland
> Castle Rock, Colorado
> NX6819Z
>
>
>
>
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 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 |
|
Methinks I should jump on it...
Gene
On Jul 18, 2014, at 4:30 PM, John Hofmann <jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com> wrote:
>
> If anyone is interested, I got this through the Cub Club. I know nothing other
than what is below.
>
> Continental A65-8 engine disassembled. Tapered shaft ground .010 under with prop.
hub. Zero time on .015 over cylinders. Cylinders are complete with new A75
pistons. Rockers arms overhauled. Engine is complete but will need .859 piston
pins. Extra set of push rods, rocker arms, cam followers, plungers and carb.
$1500, Tom Arnold, 661-623-1611, email: earnold@bak.rr.com
>
>
> Best,
> -john-
>
> John Hofmann
> Vice-President, IT and Production
> The Rees Group, Inc.
> 2424 American Lane
> Madison, WI 53704
> Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150
> Fax: 608.443.2474
> Email: jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: wings and cabanes-----one simple question |
Scott,
Any ideas on what the correct GN-1 cabane measurements should be?
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi Australia
http://repeit.cpc-world.com
On 19/07/2014 2:57 am, "AircamperN11MS" <Scott.liefeld@lacity.org> wrote:
><Scott.liefeld@lacity.org>
>
>Mike,
>
>My eyes get glazed over too. From what I am reading, Chris has to hold
>back pressure on the stick in flight.
>
>I do know for a fact that the GN-1 plans have the cabane measurements
>wrong. If you build that plane to the drawings when in level flight the
>plane will be flying tail low. This was the case on my dads and on Mike
>Madrid's GN-1's.
>
>Back to Chris's plane now. Knowing what I do about the GN-1's, I believe
>that the folks on that thread are headed in the right direction. I also
>think that if Chris could somehow attach a water level cord wise to the
>wing he would see that when the wing is in level flight that the nose of
>the plane or top longeron would be pointed down hill. By hauling back on
>the stick to make the airplane appear to be level in flight he is only
>flying at a higher angle of attack thus flying at a slower airspeed. If
>the correct angle of incidence is found, the stick forces will be greatly
>reduced or dis appear and he will see a higher cruise speed. If Chris
>could arrange for someone to take some video of him making a low flyby
>over the runway and in level flight, maintaining altitude, he may be able
>to see what I am trying to convey.
>
>I am really interested in what their numbers (math) shows after the
>numbers are crunched.
>
>--------
>Scott Liefeld
>Flying N11MS since March 1972
>Steel Tube
>C-85-12
>Wire Wheels
>Brodhead in 1996
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426893#426893
>
>
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: wings and cabanes-----one simple question |
The newer CAD GN-1 plans show 23 1/4" front and 23 1/2" rear (bolt center
to bolt center).
rh
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Peter Johnson <vk3eka@bigpond.net.au>
wrote:
> >
>
> Scott,
>
> Any ideas on what the correct GN-1 cabane measurements should be?
>
> Cheers
>
> Peter
> Wonthaggi Australia
> http://repeit.cpc-world.com
>
>
> On 19/07/2014 2:57 am, "AircamperN11MS" <Scott.liefeld@lacity.org> wrote:
>
> ><Scott.liefeld@lacity.org>
> >
> >Mike,
> >
> >My eyes get glazed over too. From what I am reading, Chris has to hold
> >back pressure on the stick in flight.
> >
> >I do know for a fact that the GN-1 plans have the cabane measurements
> >wrong. If you build that plane to the drawings when in level flight the
> >plane will be flying tail low. This was the case on my dads and on Mike
> >Madrid's GN-1's.
> >
> >Back to Chris's plane now. Knowing what I do about the GN-1's, I believe
> >that the folks on that thread are headed in the right direction. I also
> >think that if Chris could somehow attach a water level cord wise to the
> >wing he would see that when the wing is in level flight that the nose of
> >the plane or top longeron would be pointed down hill. By hauling back on
> >the stick to make the airplane appear to be level in flight he is only
> >flying at a higher angle of attack thus flying at a slower airspeed. If
> >the correct angle of incidence is found, the stick forces will be greatly
> >reduced or dis appear and he will see a higher cruise speed. If Chris
> >could arrange for someone to take some video of him making a low flyby
> >over the runway and in level flight, maintaining altitude, he may be able
> >to see what I am trying to convey.
> >
> >I am really interested in what their numbers (math) shows after the
> >numbers are crunched.
> >
> >--------
> >Scott Liefeld
> >Flying N11MS since March 1972
> >Steel Tube
> >C-85-12
> >Wire Wheels
> >Brodhead in 1996
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Read this topic online here:
> >
> >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426893#426893
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
NX6819Z
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 |
|
For what it's worth guys, I'm going for the engine. I'm over the model A. Hope
no one else needs the Continental too...
Anyone want a boat anchor??
Gene
On Jul 18, 2014, at 4:30 PM, John Hofmann <jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com> wrote:
>
> If anyone is interested, I got this through the Cub Club. I know nothing other
than what is below.
>
> Continental A65-8 engine disassembled. Tapered shaft ground .010 under with prop.
hub. Zero time on .015 over cylinders. Cylinders are complete with new A75
pistons. Rockers arms overhauled. Engine is complete but will need .859 piston
pins. Extra set of push rods, rocker arms, cam followers, plungers and carb.
$1500, Tom Arnold, 661-623-1611, email: earnold@bak.rr.com
>
>
> Best,
> -john-
>
> John Hofmann
> Vice-President, IT and Production
> The Rees Group, Inc.
> 2424 American Lane
> Madison, WI 53704
> Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150
> Fax: 608.443.2474
> Email: jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: wings and cabanes-----one simple question |
Thanks Ric,
Mine measure 21=B2 front and 21 1/4=B2 rear, same angles but slightly more
difficult to get in or out.
Cheers
Peter
Ps just uploaded some new pictures to the web site showing progress to date
.
PJ
From: Rick Holland <at7000ft@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: wings and cabanes-----one simple question
The newer CAD GN-1 plans show 23 1/4" front and 23 1/2" rear (bolt center t
o
bolt center).
rh
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Peter Johnson <vk3eka@bigpond.net.au>
wrote:
u>
>
> Scott,
>
> Any ideas on what the correct GN-1 cabane measurements should be?
>
> Cheers
>
> Peter
> Wonthaggi Australia
> http://repeit.cpc-world.com
>
>
> On 19/07/2014 2:57 am, "AircamperN11MS" <Scott.liefeld@lacity.org> wrote:
>
>> ><Scott.liefeld@lacity.org>
>> >
>> >Mike,
>> >
>> >My eyes get glazed over too. From what I am reading, Chris has to hold
>> >back pressure on the stick in flight.
>> >
>> >I do know for a fact that the GN-1 plans have the cabane measurements
>> >wrong. If you build that plane to the drawings when in level flight th
e
>> >plane will be flying tail low. This was the case on my dads and on Mik
e
>> >Madrid's GN-1's.
>> >
>> >Back to Chris's plane now. Knowing what I do about the GN-1's, I belie
ve
>> >that the folks on that thread are headed in the right direction. I als
o
>> >think that if Chris could somehow attach a water level cord wise to the
>> >wing he would see that when the wing is in level flight that the nose o
f
>> >the plane or top longeron would be pointed down hill. By hauling back
on
>> >the stick to make the airplane appear to be level in flight he is only
>> >flying at a higher angle of attack thus flying at a slower airspeed. I
f
>> >the correct angle of incidence is found, the stick forces will be great
ly
>> >reduced or dis appear and he will see a higher cruise speed. If Chris
>> >could arrange for someone to take some video of him making a low flyby
>> >over the runway and in level flight, maintaining altitude, he may be ab
le
>> >to see what I am trying to convey.
>> >
>> >I am really interested in what their numbers (math) shows after the
>> >numbers are crunched.
>> >
>> >--------
>> >Scott Liefeld
>> >Flying N11MS since March 1972
>> >Steel Tube
>> >C-85-12
>> >Wire Wheels
>> >Brodhead in 1996
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Read this topic online here:
>> >
>> >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426893#426893
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
> ==========
> br> -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-L
ist
> ==========
> MS -
> k">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> e -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
NX6819Z
Message 23
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: wings and cabanes-----one simple question |
Be a good idea if I spelt http://repiet.cpc-world.com correctly=8A.
Cheers
Peter
From: PeterJ <vk3eka@bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: wings and cabanes-----one simple question
Thanks Ric,
Mine measure 21=B2 front and 21 1/4=B2 rear, same angles but slightly more
difficult to get in or out.
Cheers
Peter
Ps just uploaded some new pictures to the web site showing progress to date
.
PJ
From: Rick Holland <at7000ft@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: wings and cabanes-----one simple question
The newer CAD GN-1 plans show 23 1/4" front and 23 1/2" rear (bolt center t
o
bolt center).
rh
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Peter Johnson <vk3eka@bigpond.net.au>
wrote:
u>
>
> Scott,
>
> Any ideas on what the correct GN-1 cabane measurements should be?
>
> Cheers
>
> Peter
> Wonthaggi Australia
> http://repeit.cpc-world.com
>
>
> On 19/07/2014 2:57 am, "AircamperN11MS" <Scott.liefeld@lacity.org> wrote:
>
>> ><Scott.liefeld@lacity.org>
>> >
>> >Mike,
>> >
>> >My eyes get glazed over too. From what I am reading, Chris has to hold
>> >back pressure on the stick in flight.
>> >
>> >I do know for a fact that the GN-1 plans have the cabane measurements
>> >wrong. If you build that plane to the drawings when in level flight th
e
>> >plane will be flying tail low. This was the case on my dads and on Mik
e
>> >Madrid's GN-1's.
>> >
>> >Back to Chris's plane now. Knowing what I do about the GN-1's, I belie
ve
>> >that the folks on that thread are headed in the right direction. I als
o
>> >think that if Chris could somehow attach a water level cord wise to the
>> >wing he would see that when the wing is in level flight that the nose o
f
>> >the plane or top longeron would be pointed down hill. By hauling back
on
>> >the stick to make the airplane appear to be level in flight he is only
>> >flying at a higher angle of attack thus flying at a slower airspeed. I
f
>> >the correct angle of incidence is found, the stick forces will be great
ly
>> >reduced or dis appear and he will see a higher cruise speed. If Chris
>> >could arrange for someone to take some video of him making a low flyby
>> >over the runway and in level flight, maintaining altitude, he may be ab
le
>> >to see what I am trying to convey.
>> >
>> >I am really interested in what their numbers (math) shows after the
>> >numbers are crunched.
>> >
>> >--------
>> >Scott Liefeld
>> >Flying N11MS since March 1972
>> >Steel Tube
>> >C-85-12
>> >Wire Wheels
>> >Brodhead in 1996
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Read this topic online here:
>> >
>> >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426893#426893
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
> ==========
> br> -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-L
ist
> ==========
> MS -
> k">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> e -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
NX6819Z
tp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
com
ronics.com/contribution
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|