Pietenpol-List Digest Archive

Mon 09/18/17


Total Messages Posted: 9



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 02:34 AM - Re: Help with Spar Decision (jarheadpilot82)
     2. 08:11 AM - Re: Re: Help with Spar Decision (John Woods)
     3. 08:18 AM - Re: Sky Scout Plans (DonkDoug)
     4. 08:18 AM - Re: Re: Help with Spar Decision (John Woods)
     5. 09:36 AM - Re: Help with Spar Decision (jarheadpilot82)
     6. 02:18 PM - Re: Help with Spar Decision (johnnysdrop)
     7. 02:40 PM - Re: Help with Spar Decision (Bill Church)
     8. 04:45 PM - Re: Help with Spar Decision (Ozzietx)
     9. 06:44 PM - Re: Re: Help with Spar Decision (Glen Schweizer)
 
 
 


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: 02:34:11 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Help with Spar Decision
    From: "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com>
    "The Jim Will's design has a different strut attachment point on the wing and four bay's per wing panel rather than three." John, I am looking at my Pietenpol plans, specifically, Drawing #5 dated 3/3/34 and drawn by Orrin Hoopman. I see two bays per wing with the lift strut attach point at the compression struts and the point where the two bays converge. What plans show three bays? What plans show four? Am I missing something? -------- Semper Fi, Terry Hand Athens, GA Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=472973#472973


    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: 08:11:13 AM PST US
    From: John Woods <jawesma@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: Help with Spar Decision
    Sorry, my mistake. You're correct. I should have written two bays on the original and three bays on the Will's. My bad. Thanks for the correction Terry. On 18 Sep. 2017 17:35, "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com> wrote: jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com> "The Jim Will's design has a different strut attachment point on the wing and four bay's per wing panel rather than three." John, I am looking at my Pietenpol plans, specifically, Drawing #5 dated 3/3/34 and drawn by Orrin Hoopman. I see two bays per wing with the lift strut attach point at the compression struts and the point where the two bays converge. What plans show three bays? What plans show four? Am I missing something? -------- Semper Fi, Terry Hand Athens, GA Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=472973#472973


    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: 08:18:27 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Sky Scout Plans
    From: "DonkDoug" <douglas.wright@okstate.edu>
    Oscar, Those are some interesting numbers you came up with. And I'm glad to know my math was not too far off! Doug Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=472983#472983


    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: 08:18:34 AM PST US
    From: John Woods <jawesma@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: Help with Spar Decision
    I should emphasize though that the different strut attachment point in the Will's design still stands and should be taken into consideration if using his soar design. It would be wise NOT to use his spar design unless you are building from his wing design. JohnW On 18 Sep. 2017 23:09, "John Woods" <jawesma@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry, my mistake. You're correct. I should have written two bays on the > original and three bays on the Will's. My bad. Thanks for the correction > Terry. > > On 18 Sep. 2017 17:35, "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com> > > "The Jim Will's design has a different strut attachment point on the wing > and four bay's per wing panel rather than three." > > John, > > I am looking at my Pietenpol plans, specifically, Drawing #5 dated 3/3/34 > and drawn by Orrin Hoopman. I see two bays per wing with the lift strut > attach point at the compression struts and the point where the two bays > converge. What plans show three bays? What plans show four? > > Am I missing something? > > -------- > Semper Fi, > > Terry Hand > Athens, GA > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=472973#472973 > >


    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: 09:36:05 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Help with Spar Decision
    From: "jarheadpilot82" <jarheadpilot82@hotmail.com>
    John, No worries. I just wanted to make sure that I was reading the correct set of plans. I agree with you that is not a good idea to combine different plans and methods for such critical items a spars and wing design. Without having the ability or the funds to pay someone with the ability to analyze the proposed combination, I would caution someone before doing so. -------- Semper Fi, Terry Hand Athens, GA Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=472988#472988


    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
    Time: 02:18:11 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Help with Spar Decision
    From: "johnnysdrop" <johnnysdrop@googlemail.com>
    Ozzietx I am using the Jim Wills design wing and have built the spars, it is straightforward. Of note this design is not a box spar, it has a full ply backing on 1 face only and the other face has ply where there is blocking. Also of note this is a 3 piece wing and must use a front jury strut. Please note this design is used in conjunction with the Hoopman drawings for the remainder of the aeroplane. Regards English Johnny -------- The only way is UP Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=472996#472996


    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
    Time: 02:40:01 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Help with Spar Decision
    From: "Bill Church" <billspiet@sympatico.ca>
    One other point to keep in mind, regarding the UK spar design is that it is to be used in conjunction with the leading edge 1/16" plywood wrapping from the top of the front spar all the way around the leading edge, to the bottom of the front spar (practically creating D-cell), as opposed to the original Pietenpol plans which only have the plywood skin on the top side. This added leading edge ply likely is a significant contributor to the claims of being "stronger". The overall weight of the built-up spar, plus the extra leading edge ply is not significantly lighter than the original routed Spruce spars with original leading edge ply. Cost-wise, there also isn't much savings to be had, in North America, at least. Likely a different story in other parts of the world. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=472997#472997


    Message 8


  • 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: 04:45:10 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Help with Spar Decision
    From: "Ozzietx" <ozzietx@gmail.com>
    I want to thank everyone for their responses. Since I can get S2 spar spruce in Houston for around $11 Bd Ft, and I have the ability to rip, and plane that stock, I think I'll just go with routed 1" spars. I really appreciate all of the input though, it has been educational. I did not realize that the Jim Wills spar was part of a structural re-design of the original wing. While I like the design, I will just keep doing what I hear. Just build it like Bernard designed it. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=472998#472998


    Message 9


  • 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: 06:44:50 PM PST US
    From: Glen Schweizer <glenschweizer@yahoo.com>
    Subject: Re: Help with Spar Decision
    That's The smartest thing I've heard yet in this discussion. I'm fortunate in that I build Stearman biplanes for a living do you realize that the main spar in a stearman wing has the same dimensions as what Mr Pietenpol calls for in his wing? The story is that WWII instructors would try to break them by overstressing in a dive. It couldn't be done. Stearman spars aren't routed like what you're talking about but that was more of a manufacturing process issue than caring about saving a little weight One other curiosity as a testament to just how robust the pietenpol really is. Stearman cap strips:7/32 square 1/16 gussets. Pietenpol capstrips:1/2 X1/4. Centers about the same. Same warren truss beefier nose rib gussets aluminum sheeted l.e.for Stearman > On Sep 18, 2017, at 4:44 PM, Ozzietx <ozzietx@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I want to thank everyone for their responses. > Since I can get S2 spar spruce in Houston for around $11 Bd Ft, > and I have the ability to rip, and plane that stock, > I think I'll just go with routed 1" spars. > > I really appreciate all of the input though, it has been educational. > > I did not realize that the Jim Wills spar was part of a structural re-design of the original wing. > > While I like the design, I will just keep doing what I hear. > > Just build it like Bernard designed it. > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=472998#472998 > > > > > > > > > .




    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! --