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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: What is the useful load of your Piet? |
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 |
|
| Subject: | Most used design changes? |
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Most used design changes? |
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 |
|
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: What is the useful load of your Piet? |
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
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! --
|