Pietenpol-List Digest Archive

Tue 03/14/17


Total Messages Posted: 5



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 04:41 AM - Re: What is the useful load of your Piet? (libertyman777)
     2. 04:57 AM - Most used design changes? (libertyman777)
     3. 07:12 AM - Re: Most used design changes? (tools)
     4. 07:55 AM - Re: Glue Joint? (tools)
     5. 01:05 PM - Re: What is the useful load of your Piet? (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
    Time: 04:41:24 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: What is the useful load of your Piet?
    From: "libertyman777" <learn2flyfish@yahoo.com>
    taildrags wrote: > Paul; > > Air Camper NX41CC has an empty weight of 636 and a max gross of 1088 for a useful load of 452... right in the range you've been seeing. Thanks Oscar. How do you come up with gross weight? Is it something you decide within certain limits? Sorry for my ignoranc. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467282#467282


    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
    Time: 04:57:46 AM PST US
    Subject: Most used design changes?
    From: "libertyman777" <learn2flyfish@yahoo.com>
    I'm still very new to Piets (at least entertaining thoughts of building one). I'm not looking necessarily to alter anything but I'm just trying to understand why some of these changes are worthwhile or desirable and also to compile a list of alterations that people have made. 1). Three piece wing vs one piece wing 2). No gap ailerons. 3). Moveable wing to adjust for to far aft CG. (Is this contained in the plans?) 4). Different engine choices. 5). Longer and wider fuselage. (I get this one for wider but not longer). 6). Landing gear options. I'm sure that's nowhere near all. Feel free to chime in with more and any information on these listed. I have some understanding from research but would like to know more. Thanks, Paul Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467284#467284


    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
    Time: 07:12:55 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Most used design changes?
    From: "tools" <n0kkj@yahoo.com>
    1). Three piece wing vs one piece wing This is purely convenience. A 29 ft wing is difficult to manage. Adds weight and complexity. 2). No gap ailerons. Not the lightest on the controls, some more aileron authority is nice. There are more elegant solutions than others... 3). Moveable wing to adjust for to far aft CG. (Is this contained in the plans?) This is more about pilots getting heavier than when the plane was designed I believe. Also, not really movable. Once cg is established, there is no reason to move. Fixed and more robust forward angled cabane struts are highly recommended. 4). Different engine choices. Most will agree that the model a is not the most reliable choice. The skills to make it as reliable as possible are getting harder and harder to find. A properly configured corvair costs as much as a continental. In its money saving form, again, not the most reliable. The a is wildly nostalgic. Thr corvair quite nostalgic and powerful. The continental is plainly easy. Other choices are more about the great spirit of experimenting, which is very in line with the airframe itself. 5). Longer and wider fuselage. (I get this one for wider but not longer). The longer one is about not having to extend the motor mounts quite as much, and room for taller folks. 6). Landing gear options. Pure choice here. Simple and fairly insignificant pros and cons to them all. Of all the really obvious mods, about all that's left are things to make ingress and egress easier. I think the best way to evaluate all of these is a trip to Brodhead, the other Piet gatherings, or shop/hangar visits to just see them in person for yourself. Cheers, Tools Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467290#467290


    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
    Time: 07:55:20 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Glue Joint?
    From: "tools" <n0kkj@yahoo.com>
    In airplane building, I can't think of any wood joints that aren't simple lap joints. No mortise/tenon, dovetail, box, etc. Similar to tile setting, the best way to assure a good joint is to apply glue to both surfaces, set the piece, remove it and visually inspect for dimpling that shows there was adequate glue. Reset and clamp. Epoxy does not require high clamping force. On highly porous surfaces, apply glue, let set a while and reapply more if the surface soaks in so much a wet surface is not maintained. Even though epoxy is gap filling, if there's a gap large enough that you can pour in more glue, there's a problem. Unless the gap is not where the joint is getting its strength, in which case, there's no reason for glue in there in the first place. In airplane building an example of this may be a wing rib joint. The joint gets its strength from the scarf plate to wing rib part overlap. End to end fitting of the parts themselves do not matter. There could be a gap between the wing rib parts themselves. It's not part of the engineering and does not need to be filled. The 43.13 shows this pretty clearly, or used to... Now, if some of the parts under the scarf plate do not contact the scarf plate, the joint is not as strong as it should be. I have taken off scarf plates and seen examples of this. A simple "dimpling inspection" when gluing up the joint would have revealed this. Tools Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467292#467292


    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
    Time: 01:05:58 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: What is the useful load of your Piet?
    From: "tools" <n0kkj@yahoo.com>
    On an experimental, the gross weight is what the builder says it is. There are guidelines, previous known good examples, etc. but in the end, it's up to the builder. I have a medium to medium light a65 powered Piet. One piece wing, sixteen gallons of fuel, no electrical. On a very warm day in Brodhead I took myself and a 205 lb passenger with no problems. Just last week on a cool day here in GA I took myself, full bag of fuel and a 215 lb pax flying with no problems. It's about as heavy as I want to fly, and would require a cool day. I really don't see the Piet weight limited as much as mobility/space limited. By the way, I'm 185. Of course we all weigh ourselves buck nekked, so I imagine you can increase that by five lbs each safely. Tools Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467303#467303




    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
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/pietenpol-list
  • Browse Pietenpol-List 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.

    -- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --