---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 02/20/16: 4 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 10:01 AM - Fuse choices (Douwe Blumberg) 2. 11:58 AM - Re: Fuse choices (Glen Schweizer) 3. 11:59 AM - Re: Fuse choices (Glen Schweizer) 4. 08:31 PM - Re: Re: weight & balance (Ray Krause) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 10:01:58 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuse choices From: Douwe Blumberg Hi Dave, Welcome! I have a short ( first version) fuse with a c-90. RE gear position; if building again, I'd follow William follow advice in his article In the bpa newsletter and available at other places on line. Harder to put on the nose, though I will say that I believe the gear further back makes her easier in a crosswind. I really wish the pilots seat back was slanted more for comfort which makes me lean towards the long fuselage. Making the steel version will save some weight if you can weld With those passenger and pilot weights I say go for the larger engine. Might be a bit more expensive but You won't care about that after your first flight on a hot day with two people. FYI, people have added a couple feet to the span... Definitely raise the wing a couple inches to ease front out ingress and egress. Can't speak in the door. Heard its helpful but not sure if it offsets the extra few lbs Build it light Douwe On Feb 20, 2016, at 1:00 AM, Pietenpol-List Digest Server wrote: > * > > ================================================= > Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive > ================================================= > > Today's complete Pietenpol-List Digest can also be found in either of the > two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted > in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes > and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version > of the Pietenpol-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor > such as Notepad or with a web browser. > > HTML Version: > > http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 16-02-19&Archive=Pietenpol > > Text Version: > > http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 16-02-19&Archive=Pietenpol > > > =============================================== > EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive > =============================================== > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Pietenpol-List Digest Archive > --- > Total Messages Posted Fri 02/19/16: 7 > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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 _____________________________________ > > > Time: 12:23:10 AM PST US > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to > build! > From: "Dave'sPiet" > > > 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 _____________________________________ > > > Time: 06:37:40 AM PST US > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage > to build! > From: "tools" > > > 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 _____________________________________ > > > Time: 08:47:56 AM PST US > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage > to build! > From: "Dave'sPiet" > > > 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 _____________________________________ > > > Time: 10:18:03 AM PST US > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage > to build! > From: "Bill Church" > > > 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 _____________________________________ > > > Time: 11:47:11 AM PST US > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage > to build! > From: vic groah > > 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 > 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 _____________________________________ > > > Time: 03:43:18 PM PST US > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage > to build > From: "Dave'sPiet" > > > Thanks Vic- that was very helpful. > > David > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453009#453009 > > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ > > > Time: 06:04:23 PM PST US > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage > to build! > From: "tools" > > > 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 > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 11:58:06 AM PST US From: Glen Schweizer Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuse choices Very interesting posts lately. How much higher than plans specs can a person raise the wing? What about dihedral and incidence. BHP says in f and g manual rig flat. Could dihedral improve roll stability? Also, If incidence were less, wouldn't speed increase a bit? The same full stall landing speed could be achieved by slightly longer gear,yes? Ideas? Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 20, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Douwe Blumberg wrote: > > > Hi Dave, > > Welcome! > > I have a short ( first version) fuse with a c-90. > > RE gear position; if building again, I'd follow William follow advice in his article > In the bpa newsletter and available at other places on line. Harder to put on the nose, though I will say that I believe the gear further back makes her easier in a crosswind. > > I really wish the pilots seat back was slanted more for comfort which makes me lean towards the long fuselage. Making the steel version will save some weight if you can weld > > With those passenger and pilot weights I say go for the larger engine. Might be a bit more expensive but You won't care about that after your first flight on a hot day with two people. > > FYI, people have added a couple feet to the span... > > Definitely raise the wing a couple inches to ease front out ingress and egress. > > Can't speak in the door. Heard its helpful but not sure if it offsets the extra few lbs > > Build it light > > Douwe > > >> On Feb 20, 2016, at 1:00 AM, Pietenpol-List Digest Server wrote: >> >> * >> >> ================================================= >> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive >> ================================================= >> >> Today's complete Pietenpol-List Digest can also be found in either of the >> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted >> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes >> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version >> of the Pietenpol-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor >> such as Notepad or with a web browser. >> >> HTML Version: >> >> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 16-02-19&Archive=Pietenpol >> >> Text Version: >> >> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 16-02-19&Archive=Pietenpol >> >> >> =============================================== >> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive >> =============================================== >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> Pietenpol-List Digest Archive >> --- >> Total Messages Posted Fri 02/19/16: 7 >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> 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 _____________________________________ >> >> >> Time: 12:23:10 AM PST US >> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to >> build! >> From: "Dave'sPiet" >> >> >> 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 _____________________________________ >> >> >> Time: 06:37:40 AM PST US >> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage >> to build! >> From: "tools" >> >> >> 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 _____________________________________ >> >> >> Time: 08:47:56 AM PST US >> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage >> to build! >> From: "Dave'sPiet" >> >> >> 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 _____________________________________ >> >> >> Time: 10:18:03 AM PST US >> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage >> to build! >> From: "Bill Church" >> >> >> 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 _____________________________________ >> >> >> Time: 11:47:11 AM PST US >> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage >> to build! >> From: vic groah >> >> 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 >> 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 _____________________________________ >> >> >> Time: 03:43:18 PM PST US >> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage >> to build >> From: "Dave'sPiet" >> >> >> Thanks Vic- that was very helpful. >> >> David >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453009#453009 >> >> >> ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ >> >> >> Time: 06:04:23 PM PST US >> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage >> to build! >> From: "tools" >> >> >> 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 > > > > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 11:59:09 AM PST US From: Glen Schweizer Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuse choices Very interesting posts lately. How much higher than plans specs can a person raise the wing? What about dihedral and incidence. BHP says in f and g manual rig flat. Could dihedral improve roll stability? Also, If incidence were less, wouldn't speed increase a bit? The same full stall landing speed could be achieved by slightly longer gear,yes? Ideas? Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 20, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Douwe Blumberg wrote: > > > Hi Dave, > > Welcome! > > I have a short ( first version) fuse with a c-90. > > RE gear position; if building again, I'd follow William follow advice in his article > In the bpa newsletter and available at other places on line. Harder to put on the nose, though I will say that I believe the gear further back makes her easier in a crosswind. > > I really wish the pilots seat back was slanted more for comfort which makes me lean towards the long fuselage. Making the steel version will save some weight if you can weld > > With those passenger and pilot weights I say go for the larger engine. Might be a bit more expensive but You won't care about that after your first flight on a hot day with two people. > > FYI, people have added a couple feet to the span... > > Definitely raise the wing a couple inches to ease front out ingress and egress. > > Can't speak in the door. Heard its helpful but not sure if it offsets the extra few lbs > > Build it light > > Douwe > > >> On Feb 20, 2016, at 1:00 AM, Pietenpol-List Digest Server wrote: >> >> * >> >> ================================================= >> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive >> ================================================= >> >> Today's complete Pietenpol-List Digest can also be found in either of the >> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted >> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes >> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version >> of the Pietenpol-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor >> such as Notepad or with a web browser. >> >> HTML Version: >> >> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 16-02-19&Archive=Pietenpol >> >> Text Version: >> >> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 16-02-19&Archive=Pietenpol >> >> >> =============================================== >> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive >> =============================================== >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> Pietenpol-List Digest Archive >> --- >> Total Messages Posted Fri 02/19/16: 7 >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> 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 _____________________________________ >> >> >> Time: 12:23:10 AM PST US >> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage to >> build! >> From: "Dave'sPiet" >> >> >> 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 _____________________________________ >> >> >> Time: 06:37:40 AM PST US >> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage >> to build! >> From: "tools" >> >> >> 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 _____________________________________ >> >> >> Time: 08:47:56 AM PST US >> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage >> to build! >> From: "Dave'sPiet" >> >> >> 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 _____________________________________ >> >> >> Time: 10:18:03 AM PST US >> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage >> to build! >> From: "Bill Church" >> >> >> 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 _____________________________________ >> >> >> Time: 11:47:11 AM PST US >> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage >> to build! >> From: vic groah >> >> 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 >> 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 _____________________________________ >> >> >> Time: 03:43:18 PM PST US >> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage >> to build >> From: "Dave'sPiet" >> >> >> Thanks Vic- that was very helpful. >> >> David >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=453009#453009 >> >> >> ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ >> >> >> Time: 06:04:23 PM PST US >> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Starting my build, but need to know which fuselage >> to build! >> From: "tools" >> >> >> 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 > > > > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 08:31:31 PM PST US From: Ray Krause Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: weight & balance Thanks, Oscar. The file downloaded nicely to our desktop computer. It displays and should work. The fuselage is done and the center section is on and rigged. The engine runs fine, just some minor tuning. I need to make the seat cushions and the coaming for the cockpit. I bought two nice leather coats from Salvation Army, just need someone to sew it up. The tail is on and mostly rigged, just some safety wire on the turnbuckles, now. Controls work nicely. The SkyScout landing gear is still not solved. I'm having trouble with the toe-in. One wheel is toed in, the other OK. The only way to change it is heating the tubing. A real pain! I will run a preliminary W/B before installing the wings using your form. Lots to do. Thanks, Ray Sent from my iPad > On Feb 18, 2016, at 8:07 PM, taildrags wrote: > > > For all those who asked, I've uploaded my W&B spreadsheet to the forum but if you're unable to get it that way, email me privately and I'll send it to you. The usual caveats apply, especially "the numbers in this spreadsheet are for NX41CC ONLY!" Do not use them for your airplane except as a starting point so you can check to see if your numbers are reasonable. The other thing I'd like to mention is that I did not author this spreadsheet. It was generously shared with me and it is in that spirit that I share it with others. Like Tim, I also added another tab so that I would have a "what-if sandbox" to play in without messing up the REAL sheet with the real numbers. In fact, I would suggest that once you enter your final numbers into the real sheet, that you lock those cells so you can't inadvertently change the numbers that shouldn't change. > > Ray: the spreadsheet doesn't care if you have a one-holer, two-holer, or twelve-holer... you can either leave the numbers for passenger weight and moment arm as "zero", or else eliminate those cells to streamline the spreadsheet. And if you're building a 3-cockpit Air Camper, just add rows for another cockpit and passenger ;o) > > As I mentioned, you don't need to have a complete airplane to start entering values into the sheet. For sure you can add the basic information at the top, but then as you measure the moment arms relative to the datum that you choose, you can start entering those values into the sheet and begin playing what-ifs. If the datum that you choose is going to be the wing leading edge and you don't have the centersection mounted yet, you'll have to enter values relative to the firewall and then later adjust those numbers when the distance from leading edge to firewall is determined. I have set the precision of weights and moment arms to one decimal place (roughly to the nearest 2 oz and 1/8"). I've played with it by increasing the precision of them one at a time and then both together, but I decided that I do not have eyes or tools that can measure closer than that. I've tried decreasing the precision to whole pounds and inches only, but that is unsatisfactory. If I were going ! > to simplify one of the two, I would use whole pounds but keep tenths of an inch of length. > > You may argue about the acceptable range of 15 to 20" aft of wing leading edge for the CG and you may argue about the allowable maximum gross weight of 1,088 lbs. You just won't be arguing them with me ;o) > > Anyway, here is the spreadsheet. > > -------- > Oscar Zuniga > Medford, OR > Air Camper NX41CC "Scout" > A75 power > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=452991#452991 > > > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/nx41ccw_b_2014_117.xls > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.