---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 07/18/14: 23 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:42:34 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014 From: "William Wynne" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:29:10 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Corvair College From: "Charles N. Campbell" 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:17:33 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ordering wood From: Peter Johnson 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:23:08 AM PST US From: Oscar Zuniga Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:52:05 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014 From: "DonkDoug" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:08:00 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Corvair College From: "PatrickW" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:54:42 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014 From: "dgaldrich" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:08:49 AM PST US From: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-LME0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]" Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:14:56 AM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 --> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:15:27 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014 From: Steven Dortch 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:57:39 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: wings and cabanes-----one simple question From: "AircamperN11MS" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:09:10 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: wings and cabanes-----one simple question From: "jarheadpilot82" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:35:50 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: wings and cabanes-----one simple question From: "William Wynne" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:05:20 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014 From: Rick Holland 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:26:18 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014 From: "AircamperN11MS" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:31:16 PM PST US From: John Hofmann Subject: Pietenpol-List: A65-8 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:37:31 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014 From: glenschweizer@yahoo.com 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 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:49:17 PM PST US From: Gene Rambo Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: A65-8 Methinks I should jump on it... Gene On Jul 18, 2014, at 4:30 PM, John Hofmann 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:56:00 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: wings and cabanes-----one simple question From: Peter Johnson 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" wrote: > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:50:52 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: wings and cabanes-----one simple question From: Rick Holland 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 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" wrote: > > > > > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:51:43 PM PST US From: Gene Rambo Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: A65-8 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:59:29 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: wings and cabanes-----one simple question From: Peter Johnson 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 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 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" wrote: > >> > >> > >> >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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:54:38 PM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: wings and cabanes-----one simple question From: Peter Johnson Be a good idea if I spelt http://repiet.cpc-world.com correctly=8A. Cheers Peter From: PeterJ 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 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 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" wrote: > >> > >> > >> >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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message pietenpol-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/pietenpol-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.