Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:23 AM - Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to build! (Dave'sPiet)
2. 06:37 AM - Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to build! (tools)
3. 08:47 AM - Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to build! (Dave'sPiet)
4. 10:18 AM - Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to build! (Bill Church)
5. 11:47 AM - Re: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to build! (vic groah)
6. 03:43 PM - Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to build (Dave'sPiet)
7. 06:04 PM - Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to build! (tools)
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: | Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to |
build!
Hello, I am new to the forum. I'm building a Piet with a Continental A65 or C85
engine.
My wood is arriving soon, but I have a bit of a conundrum- I had planned on building
the 173.375" fuselage (as shown in the supplemental plans) along with the
Pietnepol supplied plan for a Continental engine mount.
Then I ordered the Kerri-Ann plans for the front door mod, which is really nice.
Unfortunately, it looks as though the plans are only for the 163" fuselage,
and not the 173.375" fuselage. And I really want a door...
Was the 173.375" fuselage designed specifically for the Corvair & Continental engines?
( I sometimes hear a fuselage referred to as the "Corvair Fuselage").
Because I want a door, I might be stuck with building the 163" fuselage, but I
first need to make sure that I'm not going to run into issues down the road if
I build a 163" fuselage and combine it with the Continental engine mount in
Pietenpol's plans. I really don't want to be left having to draw up my own plan
for an engine mount.
I have read where people have extended their Continental mounts by 1-2 inches in
anticipation of CG problems. But I don't know which fuselage they were building.
I'm 200 lbs and I'm planning on putting the fuel tank in the wing, and I'm just
trying to plan ahead so that I can avoid having to deal with a CG that is too
far aft.
If I want to use the Pietenpol drawing for a Continental engine mount, do I have
to build the 173.375" fuselage, or will that mount work with the 163" fuselage
as well (as far as the resultant CG is concerned)?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Also, nowhere on the plans does it specify what the angle of the firewall bulkhead
is in relation to the top longhorn... I assume it's 90 degrees, but I'm practicing
not assuming things since I'm not building a kitchen cabinet here :D
Thanks for any replies- I'm hoping to understand this completely so that I can
start laying out the jig for the fuselage.
Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452993#452993
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: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage |
to build!
I'm five ten, 185. Actually fit in the short wood fuse fine which surprised me.
Also have a a65. Think it's the plans continental mount. Cabanes an inch or two
longer and angled back the fairly normal about four inches. Wing tank. My
cg is well located.
Best thing to do is find each variant and sit in one! Brodhead works GREAT!
I have a fuse layout table if ya want it. It's orphaned and in Oshkosh. The plane,
not built on that table, is near Chatt TN. Let me know if I can help.
The firewall is at 90 degrees.
Gotta run!
Tools
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453000#453000
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: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage |
to build!
Thanks Tools... I do appreciate the offer on the layup table, but I have built
mine already.
I'm 6'0" and so is my girlfriend. My son is 6'3". She's 160 and he's about 180.
I plan on raising the wing a couple of inches as well to help them have a better
time up front. It seems that builders have done this thus far with no ill
effects.
I assume by the "short fuselage" you mean the 163" "Improved Pietenpol 33-34 design,
and not the 1932 (even shorter) design?
My next concern is landing gear axle placement, which is discussed at length at
the westcoastpiet site, however, it does not talk about the effect of having
to move the wing back, and I know that the axle needs to be set a certain number
of degrees forward of the CG measured at the wing. DO builders think this through,
or do they simply take a SWAG in the beginning and then accept the result
when it's finished? Not knowing (for sure) where my Continental with a plans
built mount on a 163" fuselage and a 2 inch wing raise is going to send the
CG, makes me a little hesitant to start cutting wood... I know that 17 inches
aft of firewall is the axle location given by the 33-34 plans for a wood axle
and large wheels- but I don't know whether a Continental & mount & my weight
will make that a not-so-great place to have the gear, especially when I have to
move the wing back later.. Pietenpol has the cabane struts vertical in his drawings.
Moving the wing aft seems to be a later idea employed to deal with the
aft CG's that builders ended up with?
SO many questions, I know... But I can't afford to build the airplane twice and
certainly don't want to tear it apart or add 10 lbs of lead after I build it
to fix a CG problem!!
On another note, how does your Piet climb-out in the summer with 2 people onboard?
Continental engines are becoming VERY expensive and the cost difference between
an A65 and a C85 is quite large when considering an engine that isn't timed-out.
I'd love to be able to go with an A65, but a 200 ft per min rate of climb
gets scary when crossing mountainous terrain...
Thanks for your input,.
Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453002#453002
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage |
to build!
Hi Dave,
The fuselages in both the FGM plans, and the 1933 Improved Air Camper plans were
designed for use with the Ford Model A engine (and a 140 pound pilot). The
longer 173" fuselage in the supplemental plans was designed to be used with lighter
engines, such as the small Continentals, or the Corvair. The Pietenpol-designed
engine mount for Continental engines was intended for use with the longest
fuselage, but many have adapted it for use with the Improved Air Camper
fuselage (usually extending the mount). To use an A-65 with the Improved Air
Camper fuselage, and keep the cabanes vertical, the engine mount will typically
need to be extended 8 or 9 inches.
If you plan to carry passengers that are 6'-3" tall, you really should give serious
thought to building the long fuselage, as it does provide additional leg
room for both pilot and passenger. I haven't seen the plans for the Kerri-Ann
door, but I'm sure that adapting it to suit the longer fuselage would not be
very difficult.
The number one thing that will have the most impact on the performance of any Pietenpol
is keeping it light. Adding a passenger door will not contribute to
lightness, and some will argue that a passenger door does not even make passenger
entry any easier.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453004#453004
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: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage |
to build!
We have the long fuselage with the side door. We are using a Corvair but a
continental works just as well. I am 76 at 260 pounds and am 6 ft 2 in and
have a bad back. My son Michael is 6 ft and about 220. We fly together
with no problem We did raise the top deck and the wing one inch to make
the fit work. Obviously it performs better with one person of our size but
is safe with the two of us. The one change we would do if we were doing it
over is to tilt the rear seat back rest one inch at the top to make a
little more comfort for the pilot on long flights. Without the front door
I could not get into the front do to a fused together back. With the door I
get in no problem. just takes practice. We have a cut out with a handle
to access the front.
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Bill Church <billspiet@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
> billspiet@sympatico.ca>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> The fuselages in both the FGM plans, and the 1933 Improved Air Camper
> plans were designed for use with the Ford Model A engine (and a 140 pound
> pilot). The longer 173" fuselage in the supplemental plans was designed to
> be used with lighter engines, such as the small Continentals, or the
> Corvair. The Pietenpol-designed engine mount for Continental engines was
> intended for use with the longest fuselage, but many have adapted it for
> use with the Improved Air Camper fuselage (usually extending the mount).
> To use an A-65 with the Improved Air Camper fuselage, and keep the cabanes
> vertical, the engine mount will typically need to be extended 8 or 9 inches.
> If you plan to carry passengers that are 6'-3" tall, you really should
> give serious thought to building the long fuselage, as it does provide
> additional leg room for both pilot and passenger. I haven't seen the plans
> for the Kerri-Ann door, but I'm sure that adapting it to suit the longer
> fuselage would not be very difficult.
> The number one thing that will have the most impact on the performance of
> any Pietenpol is keeping it light. Adding a passenger door will not
> contribute to lightness, and some will argue that a passenger door does not
> even make passenger entry any easier.
>
> Bill C.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453004#453004
>
>
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: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage |
to build
Thanks Vic- that was very helpful.
David
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453009#453009
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: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage |
to build!
Mine is the 1932 version. Given your requirements, I REALLY think you should track
down some planes and try them on.
Bill makes a SUPER good point. Light is going to be critical. I even suggest
a one piece wing. I have taken a 205 lb pax, 6' 2", at brodhead with a a65.
Not stellar performance!
An 85hp engine is probably the way to go for a cont. the corvair is rated around
a hundred. Kevin Purtee took me for a ride, he's taller and bigger than I,
with that engine and it flew really well. Food for thought.
A,common belief is you'll save money with a car engine. Not really so when built
correctly. It's just a different way to go. Properly built however, I really
don't think you're compromising on safety.
As for gear, again, find one configured like you want, known to fly and handle
well, and do what he did. However, with wood gear legs, not real hard to change
where the axle is relative to the firewall. Four pieces of wood. I made mine,
a rebuild issue, out of a really nice southern yellow pine pallet. The legs
were free...
Start building fittings, ribs, wing, tail feathers and keep asking and looking
on the fuse until you think you're set would be my advice.
Tools
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453011#453011
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! --
|