Original Posted By: Donald A Mosher
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Pilot seat back angle
Pietenpol-List: Pilot seat back angle
Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
Original Posted By: "dgaldrich"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pilot seat back angleTilting the seat back will also place your eyes further from theinstruments. Just sitting in my Piet and the instruments are very close tome. I will have to wear readers when I fly!Steve D________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pilot seat back angleTilting the seat back will also place your eyes further from theinstruments. Just sitting in my Piet and the instruments are very close tome. I will have to wear readers when I fly!Steve D________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
Original Posted By: "AircamperN11MS"
Dave;I guess I didn't realize you were in northern California. Where, exactly? I'mabout 35 miles north of the CA-OR border, right on I-5, in Medford and you arewelcome to look at, sit in, measure, photograph, and examine my Air Camper anytime you'd like. You would also do well to try to get to the West Coast PietFly-In the first weekend of June, down at Frazier Lane (near Hollister/Gilroy).There should be several different examples of Air Campers there includingone with a steel tube fuselage.--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
Dave;I guess I didn't realize you were in northern California. Where, exactly? I'mabout 35 miles north of the CA-OR border, right on I-5, in Medford and you arewelcome to look at, sit in, measure, photograph, and examine my Air Camper anytime you'd like. You would also do well to try to get to the West Coast PietFly-In the first weekend of June, down at Frazier Lane (near Hollister/Gilroy).There should be several different examples of Air Campers there includingone with a steel tube fuselage.--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
RE: Pietenpol-List: Pilot seat back angle
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
On the Big Piets, we tilted the top back 4=9D and raised the seat front as required to match the 10 to 15 degrees like a standard chair. Although it is not a problem, it moves your upper body mass backwards 4=9D as well, thus changing the CG to the rear. Plan accordingly for the CG change.Barry NX973BPPs we pushed the firewall forward 4=9D with the increase in the area ahead of the front strut attach point.
On the Big Piets, we tilted the top back 4=9D and raised the seat front as required to match the 10 to 15 degrees like a standard chair. Although it is not a problem, it moves your upper body mass backwards 4=9D as well, thus changing the CG to the rear. Plan accordingly for the CG change.Barry NX973BPPs we pushed the firewall forward 4=9D with the increase in the area ahead of the front strut attach point.
Pietenpol-List: Re: Axle Placement
Original Posted By: "taildrags"
WOOD landing gear axle placement. Hello, I'm building the long wood fuselage andI need to know the dimensions for the placement of the landing gear axle. Ihave read 20 inches, 21 inches and 17 inches. I will be using a CORVAIR motor.Thanks!Tony--------Tony CrawfordRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Axle Placement
WOOD landing gear axle placement. Hello, I'm building the long wood fuselage andI need to know the dimensions for the placement of the landing gear axle. Ihave read 20 inches, 21 inches and 17 inches. I will be using a CORVAIR motor.Thanks!Tony--------Tony CrawfordRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Axle Placement
Original Posted By: "CatDesigns"
Tony; the best two minutes you'll spend researching the placement of your axlewill be the two minutes you spend reading this page:http://flycorvair.net/2014/03/08/pieten ... source/And the best money you spend on it will be the $5 you mail to Doc as per the instructionsat the bottom of that web page, to get yourself a copy of "The PietW&B Articles".--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Tony; the best two minutes you'll spend researching the placement of your axlewill be the two minutes you spend reading this page:http://flycorvair.net/2014/03/08/pieten ... source/And the best money you spend on it will be the $5 you mail to Doc as per the instructionsat the bottom of that web page, to get yourself a copy of "The PietW&B Articles".--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
RE: Pietenpol-List: Axle Placement
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
TonyMy research has been documented herehttp://westcoastpiet.com/wood_gear_placement_analysis.htm and the weight andbalance sheet I refer too is attached.In summary If you built it to the plans:The steel landing gear plans for the short fuselage show the axel is 17inched behind the firewall. That would imply the axel ( steel gear) on along fuselage should be at 19 inches (add two inches because of the 2-inchaddition to the front bay of the long fuselage)If you placed the axel per the wood gear plans the axel should be fartherforward at 13 =BC-inches (short) or 15 =BC-inches (long) from the firewall.Now because yours is the wood gear, do you follow the wood gear plans or thesteel gear plans?Just for reference the wing LE with the center struts vertical is at 7 =BD-inches (short) or 9 =BD -inches (long).What made me rethink the whole axel location AFTER I finished my gear waswhen William Wynne and I got into a long discussion about his weight andbalance article and his advice to have the axel even with the leading edge.While digging through my Pietenpol literature to prove he was wrong I foundthe attached weight and balance sheet that was part of the Corvair enginesupplement when I purchased the plans. I don=92t even remember receiving itwith the plans and never really looked at it because I=92m not using aCorvair. What it did do was to prove he was more correct than I was. Here is my comments I sent to William:When I received my plans, I also received a 6 page document entitled=93Converting the Corvair Engine=94. On page 1 Mr. Pietenpol lists the emptyweight of the airplane using this modified Corvair engine at 622 pounds,which is the same as the one on the weight and balance sheet mentionedabove. On page two Mr. Pietenpol list the modifications to this plane. Theimportant ones for this discussion are:-fuselage lengthened 9 inches (the genesis of the LONG fuselage) -Wings slanted back 3 inches-wheels moved forward 7 inches.Using a little math, if the split axel landing gear legs were built per theplans the axel would be 19 inches from the long fuselage firewall (17 inchesfor the standard plans fuselage plus 2 inches more for the LONG fuselageextension of the first bay). Then moving the axel forward 7 inches wouldput it at 19-7= 12 inches back from the firewall. The wing was at 7.5inches on the standard fuselage plus 2 inches (extension of the first bay)puts the wing at 9.5 inches behind the firewall plus the 3 inch slant putsthe wing at 12.5 inches from the firewall. This brings us back to the 0.5inch measurement but in this case its axel in front of the wing. Thismodified airplane Mr. Pietenpol speaks of must be the same as the "1966Pietenpol Air Camper Powered with a 110-66 Corvair Engine" airplane shown onthe weight and balance sheet. However, Mr. Pietenpol goes on to say on page2 that 7 inches was too much. He recommends splitting the difference whichwould mean the axel should be at 12+3.5=15.5 inches behind the firewall(which oddly enough is the distance of the wood gear on a long fuselage) or3 inches behind the leading edge of this aircrafts wing. (If you look at thepicture you can even see that the axel is about even with the leading edgeand there is no sweep to the front gear leg. )Some stuff reported on the Pietenpol discussion list:Chuck Ganzer , NX770CG, has a short fuselage, with the axel at 17 aft of thefirewall, wing back 3.5 inches from vertical. If you have ever seen himstand on the brakes and spin, you would not think the wheels are too farback. Dick Navratil, =93I re-measured mine today to confirm. My short fuse has axle19" back from FW and axle is 3.5" aft of LE. The new plane (Radial engineone) has long fuse has axle 21" back and wing isn't mounted yet. My shortfuse has a CG with min fuel and me at 19.05 and flies perfect. You are onthe right track. dick N.=94Don Emch, NX899DE has long fuselage (1966 model), Wing is slanted 4" aft ofplans, A-65 engine mount is 1" longer than plans (just a little extrawithout losing 'the look', Axle is 1" forward of steel gear plans.Dick N. =93I built the long fuselage with an A65 (mount extended about 1 3/4"to anticipate my bodily weight of 215") And had to move the wing back 3inches. I used the split gear plans supplied. Flies fine=94Lastly, in an article about landing gear design published in Sport Aviationby Ladislao Pazmany, he states "The main gear should contact the ground atleast 15 degrees ahead of the most forward center of gravity and 25 degreesat the most rearward CG with the aircraft in level attitude." This centerof gravity is the CG of the plane and on a parasol plane it is somewherebelow the wing. Unfortunately, I don't know where this point is on aPietenpol. Some have suggested it is about the center of the instrumentpanel but that is just a guess. As an aside I also found in "AeronauticalEngineering and Airplane Design" published in 1918, the landing gear shouldbe at 13 degrees 10 minutes. It also assumes the CG is the same height asthe propeller. This 15-25 degrees is in many publications.Where does this leave you? Basically it really depend on where your wing isgoing to end up. How much you slant to the center supports will effect whereaxel needs to be because it determines the CG. If your guessing, try to keepit with 0 to 3 inches behind where you think the leading edge willultimately be located. ChrisSacramento, CAWestcoastPiet.com-----Original Message-----
TonyMy research has been documented herehttp://westcoastpiet.com/wood_gear_placement_analysis.htm and the weight andbalance sheet I refer too is attached.In summary If you built it to the plans:The steel landing gear plans for the short fuselage show the axel is 17inched behind the firewall. That would imply the axel ( steel gear) on along fuselage should be at 19 inches (add two inches because of the 2-inchaddition to the front bay of the long fuselage)If you placed the axel per the wood gear plans the axel should be fartherforward at 13 =BC-inches (short) or 15 =BC-inches (long) from the firewall.Now because yours is the wood gear, do you follow the wood gear plans or thesteel gear plans?Just for reference the wing LE with the center struts vertical is at 7 =BD-inches (short) or 9 =BD -inches (long).What made me rethink the whole axel location AFTER I finished my gear waswhen William Wynne and I got into a long discussion about his weight andbalance article and his advice to have the axel even with the leading edge.While digging through my Pietenpol literature to prove he was wrong I foundthe attached weight and balance sheet that was part of the Corvair enginesupplement when I purchased the plans. I don=92t even remember receiving itwith the plans and never really looked at it because I=92m not using aCorvair. What it did do was to prove he was more correct than I was. Here is my comments I sent to William:When I received my plans, I also received a 6 page document entitled=93Converting the Corvair Engine=94. On page 1 Mr. Pietenpol lists the emptyweight of the airplane using this modified Corvair engine at 622 pounds,which is the same as the one on the weight and balance sheet mentionedabove. On page two Mr. Pietenpol list the modifications to this plane. Theimportant ones for this discussion are:-fuselage lengthened 9 inches (the genesis of the LONG fuselage) -Wings slanted back 3 inches-wheels moved forward 7 inches.Using a little math, if the split axel landing gear legs were built per theplans the axel would be 19 inches from the long fuselage firewall (17 inchesfor the standard plans fuselage plus 2 inches more for the LONG fuselageextension of the first bay). Then moving the axel forward 7 inches wouldput it at 19-7= 12 inches back from the firewall. The wing was at 7.5inches on the standard fuselage plus 2 inches (extension of the first bay)puts the wing at 9.5 inches behind the firewall plus the 3 inch slant putsthe wing at 12.5 inches from the firewall. This brings us back to the 0.5inch measurement but in this case its axel in front of the wing. Thismodified airplane Mr. Pietenpol speaks of must be the same as the "1966Pietenpol Air Camper Powered with a 110-66 Corvair Engine" airplane shown onthe weight and balance sheet. However, Mr. Pietenpol goes on to say on page2 that 7 inches was too much. He recommends splitting the difference whichwould mean the axel should be at 12+3.5=15.5 inches behind the firewall(which oddly enough is the distance of the wood gear on a long fuselage) or3 inches behind the leading edge of this aircrafts wing. (If you look at thepicture you can even see that the axel is about even with the leading edgeand there is no sweep to the front gear leg. )Some stuff reported on the Pietenpol discussion list:Chuck Ganzer , NX770CG, has a short fuselage, with the axel at 17 aft of thefirewall, wing back 3.5 inches from vertical. If you have ever seen himstand on the brakes and spin, you would not think the wheels are too farback. Dick Navratil, =93I re-measured mine today to confirm. My short fuse has axle19" back from FW and axle is 3.5" aft of LE. The new plane (Radial engineone) has long fuse has axle 21" back and wing isn't mounted yet. My shortfuse has a CG with min fuel and me at 19.05 and flies perfect. You are onthe right track. dick N.=94Don Emch, NX899DE has long fuselage (1966 model), Wing is slanted 4" aft ofplans, A-65 engine mount is 1" longer than plans (just a little extrawithout losing 'the look', Axle is 1" forward of steel gear plans.Dick N. =93I built the long fuselage with an A65 (mount extended about 1 3/4"to anticipate my bodily weight of 215") And had to move the wing back 3inches. I used the split gear plans supplied. Flies fine=94Lastly, in an article about landing gear design published in Sport Aviationby Ladislao Pazmany, he states "The main gear should contact the ground atleast 15 degrees ahead of the most forward center of gravity and 25 degreesat the most rearward CG with the aircraft in level attitude." This centerof gravity is the CG of the plane and on a parasol plane it is somewherebelow the wing. Unfortunately, I don't know where this point is on aPietenpol. Some have suggested it is about the center of the instrumentpanel but that is just a guess. As an aside I also found in "AeronauticalEngineering and Airplane Design" published in 1918, the landing gear shouldbe at 13 degrees 10 minutes. It also assumes the CG is the same height asthe propeller. This 15-25 degrees is in many publications.Where does this leave you? Basically it really depend on where your wing isgoing to end up. How much you slant to the center supports will effect whereaxel needs to be because it determines the CG. If your guessing, try to keepit with 0 to 3 inches behind where you think the leading edge willultimately be located. ChrisSacramento, CAWestcoastPiet.com-----Original Message-----
Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
Original Posted By: "Dave'sPiet"
True Bill, it is not in the plans, however, the builder's manual does specify a1" raise at each wingtip for aesthetic purposes. You can find the reference inChapter VIII "Sixty Years of Post Flight", in the "Notes" section. I assumethat this document is part of the builders manual (it was included with the planspackage that I purchased from Pietenpol). Perhaps it that written by one ofhis sons?? Verbatim:Note 18. Dihedral.Dihedral isn't required in this airplane. However, with the aircraft sitting onthe ground the straight wing gives the illusion that the wing is drooped on eachside. With that in mind, put approximately one inch of dihedral at each wingtip and the wing will not look straight.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
True Bill, it is not in the plans, however, the builder's manual does specify a1" raise at each wingtip for aesthetic purposes. You can find the reference inChapter VIII "Sixty Years of Post Flight", in the "Notes" section. I assumethat this document is part of the builders manual (it was included with the planspackage that I purchased from Pietenpol). Perhaps it that written by one ofhis sons?? Verbatim:Note 18. Dihedral.Dihedral isn't required in this airplane. However, with the aircraft sitting onthe ground the straight wing gives the illusion that the wing is drooped on eachside. With that in mind, put approximately one inch of dihedral at each wingtip and the wing will not look straight.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
Original Posted By: "PatrickW"
If you are determined to move the seat back angle for comfort, then you would needto know what the aircraft's exact attitude is while in cruise flight... becausethe angle of the seat back would be measured from that reference point,and not from the upper longeron, correct?Does anybody have any data regarding the angle of the fuselage during cruise flight?I would expect that the upper longeron is not level in this aircraft, butwho knows?Any input appreciated [Wink]Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
If you are determined to move the seat back angle for comfort, then you would needto know what the aircraft's exact attitude is while in cruise flight... becausethe angle of the seat back would be measured from that reference point,and not from the upper longeron, correct?Does anybody have any data regarding the angle of the fuselage during cruise flight?I would expect that the upper longeron is not level in this aircraft, butwho knows?Any input appreciated [Wink]Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
Original Posted By: Elizabeth Cooper
Suggest that a "target angle" could be obtained by going out to your car and measuringthe seat-back angle of your driver's seat (which is probably already setto a comfortable angle).With the Piet fuselage it would be much easier to decrease the seatback angle ifyou ever need to, versus increasing it...Patrick HoytRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:09:03 +0000 (UTC)
Suggest that a "target angle" could be obtained by going out to your car and measuringthe seat-back angle of your driver's seat (which is probably already setto a comfortable angle).With the Piet fuselage it would be much easier to decrease the seatback angle ifyou ever need to, versus increasing it...Patrick HoytRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:09:03 +0000 (UTC)
Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
Original Posted By: "Dave'sPiet"
I think, for the purposes of this discussion, we can assume the top longeron tobe level during cruise flight. I'm not aware of anyone measuring the actualconditions in flight, but air-to-air photos of Piets in flight don't appear toindicate any appreciable deviation from level. For reference, one degree ofincidence would translate to approximately 3 inches of slope over the length ofthe fuselage.Therefore, setting the slope of the pilot's seat back based on the assumption thatthe top longeron will be level during cruise would be a reasonable approachto take.Bill C. Davespiet wrote:> If you are determined to move the seat back angle for comfort, then you wouldneed to know what the aircraft's exact attitude is while in cruise flight...because the angle of the seat back would be measured from that reference point,and not from the upper longeron, correct? > > Does anybody have any data regarding the angle of the fuselage during cruiseflight? I would expect that the upper longeron is not level in that flight regime,but who knows... > Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
I think, for the purposes of this discussion, we can assume the top longeron tobe level during cruise flight. I'm not aware of anyone measuring the actualconditions in flight, but air-to-air photos of Piets in flight don't appear toindicate any appreciable deviation from level. For reference, one degree ofincidence would translate to approximately 3 inches of slope over the length ofthe fuselage.Therefore, setting the slope of the pilot's seat back based on the assumption thatthe top longeron will be level during cruise would be a reasonable approachto take.Bill C. Davespiet wrote:> If you are determined to move the seat back angle for comfort, then you wouldneed to know what the aircraft's exact attitude is while in cruise flight...because the angle of the seat back would be measured from that reference point,and not from the upper longeron, correct? > > Does anybody have any data regarding the angle of the fuselage during cruiseflight? I would expect that the upper longeron is not level in that flight regime,but who knows... > Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
Original Posted By: "H. Marvin Haught"
Bill, I suppose one could assume that the top longeron is level in flight, butBHP designed the original Ford engine mount to be angled downwards to accountfor the fact that the fuselage had a nose high attitude in cruise flight, as hefelt that the engine should be pointed in the direction that the airframe wasactually traveling through the air... If this was in fact true, then the top longeron was not inline with the thrustline at that point in the development of the Piet. From what I understand, mostengine mounts in Piets these days are built with the engine parallel to thefirewall, which will no nothing to decrease that angle of incidence of the fuselageduring cruise flight. I don't know whether BHPs first Piet design had the different cabane heights fromfront to rear, so perhaps he added incidence to the wing with a later cabanespecification, which effectively lowered the fuselage incidence? I don't havethe plans in front of me right now so I don't know.No doubt the individual build (wing location, resultant loaded CG, etc) will affectthe cruising attitude/incidence of a particular fuselage, so perhaps it isall a wash and there is no point even trying to consider it, other than takinga stab and just moving the seat back a little.When my Piet is finished I'll put an angle finder on the top longeron during cruiseand share my data. [Wink]Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Bill, I suppose one could assume that the top longeron is level in flight, butBHP designed the original Ford engine mount to be angled downwards to accountfor the fact that the fuselage had a nose high attitude in cruise flight, as hefelt that the engine should be pointed in the direction that the airframe wasactually traveling through the air... If this was in fact true, then the top longeron was not inline with the thrustline at that point in the development of the Piet. From what I understand, mostengine mounts in Piets these days are built with the engine parallel to thefirewall, which will no nothing to decrease that angle of incidence of the fuselageduring cruise flight. I don't know whether BHPs first Piet design had the different cabane heights fromfront to rear, so perhaps he added incidence to the wing with a later cabanespecification, which effectively lowered the fuselage incidence? I don't havethe plans in front of me right now so I don't know.No doubt the individual build (wing location, resultant loaded CG, etc) will affectthe cruising attitude/incidence of a particular fuselage, so perhaps it isall a wash and there is no point even trying to consider it, other than takinga stab and just moving the seat back a little.When my Piet is finished I'll put an angle finder on the top longeron during cruiseand share my data. [Wink]Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
Original Posted By: "taildrags"
The firewall moves in these aircraft too!! [Wink]Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
The firewall moves in these aircraft too!! [Wink]Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
Original Posted By: "Clif Dawson"
I'm about two weekends away from making my first flights of 2016 in Scout, andI will definitely take an angle finder (iPhone app) with me and measure the toplongeron angle in level cruise flight. Fun!As to the angle of the seat back, I wouldn't know or care what it is because Irarely, if ever, recline against it in flight. Most flights, all I want to dois stay in the lee of the windscreen so I can hear the radio in my headset, orto stay out of the slipstream buffet, so I'm leaning forward in my seat. Theonly time I can lean back in leisurely flight with everything hanging out isin the peak of summer when I'm in a tee shirt and shorts and just wearing a canvasflying helmet with hearing protectors and NORDO, with elbows hanging onthe coamings. As Air Camper flying was intended to be!--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
I'm about two weekends away from making my first flights of 2016 in Scout, andI will definitely take an angle finder (iPhone app) with me and measure the toplongeron angle in level cruise flight. Fun!As to the angle of the seat back, I wouldn't know or care what it is because Irarely, if ever, recline against it in flight. Most flights, all I want to dois stay in the lee of the windscreen so I can hear the radio in my headset, orto stay out of the slipstream buffet, so I'm leaning forward in my seat. Theonly time I can lean back in leisurely flight with everything hanging out isin the peak of summer when I'm in a tee shirt and shorts and just wearing a canvasflying helmet with hearing protectors and NORDO, with elbows hanging onthe coamings. As Air Camper flying was intended to be!--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
Original Posted By: "taildrags"
No, the downward line on the engine was to provide more thrust in takeoffas the upward angle of the plane is greater than the angle of motion at thistime. In other words it's mushing along by a few degrees.Remember, we're talking about the original Ford powered beast. At therpm's involved there is effectively only36 hp from a 200 cube inch engine.http://www.nwvs.org/Technical/Construct ... dawson.ca/>> BHP designed the original Ford engine mount to be angled downwards to > account for the fact that the fuselage had a nose high attitude in cruise > flight, >>> I don't know whether BHPs first Piet design had the different cabane > heights from front to rear, so perhaps he added incidence to the wing with > a later cabane specification, which effectively lowered the fuselage > incidence? I don't have the plans in front of me right now so I don't > know.________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
No, the downward line on the engine was to provide more thrust in takeoffas the upward angle of the plane is greater than the angle of motion at thistime. In other words it's mushing along by a few degrees.Remember, we're talking about the original Ford powered beast. At therpm's involved there is effectively only36 hp from a 200 cube inch engine.http://www.nwvs.org/Technical/Construct ... dawson.ca/>> BHP designed the original Ford engine mount to be angled downwards to > account for the fact that the fuselage had a nose high attitude in cruise > flight, >>> I don't know whether BHPs first Piet design had the different cabane > heights from front to rear, so perhaps he added incidence to the wing with > a later cabane specification, which effectively lowered the fuselage > incidence? I don't have the plans in front of me right now so I don't > know.________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
Original Posted By: "Clif Dawson"
OK, so I just ran the Chapter 549(?) formula for minimum required engine BHP usinga max gross weight of 1088 lbs and a wingspan of 29 feet and it comes outright at 40 BHP. Okay, but going down the page to acceptable rate of climb, 1180ft in 3 minutes (about 400 FPM) may be ambitious for a 40HP Air Camper atmax gross.--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
OK, so I just ran the Chapter 549(?) formula for minimum required engine BHP usinga max gross weight of 1088 lbs and a wingspan of 29 feet and it comes outright at 40 BHP. Okay, but going down the page to acceptable rate of climb, 1180ft in 3 minutes (about 400 FPM) may be ambitious for a 40HP Air Camper atmax gross.--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
Original Posted By: "Dave'sPiet"
John,Many Pietenpol builders have used Marine Plywood in building their aircraft. BS1088 ensures that the laminates are sound, with no knot holes, and that theyare bonded with truly waterproof adhesives (the plywood must actually pass atest in which the plywood is immersed in boiling water, without de-laminating.)Aircraft plywood is subject to these same requirements. Most of the plywoodin my project is B1088 Okoume Marine Ply.3mm is actually just shy of 1/8" (as opposed to 3/32"), and would be consideredas "overkill" to be used where 1/16" is called for. However, you say that youhave completed your ribs. That is where most of the 1/16" ply is called forin the Air Camper. I don't have my plans handy, but offhand, I don't recallany other 1/16" ply in the plans. If there is, it isn't much. You can use 3mmfor the fuselage sides, and anywhere the plans call for 1/8", and 5 or 6mm forthe fuselage floor.Bill C.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
John,Many Pietenpol builders have used Marine Plywood in building their aircraft. BS1088 ensures that the laminates are sound, with no knot holes, and that theyare bonded with truly waterproof adhesives (the plywood must actually pass atest in which the plywood is immersed in boiling water, without de-laminating.)Aircraft plywood is subject to these same requirements. Most of the plywoodin my project is B1088 Okoume Marine Ply.3mm is actually just shy of 1/8" (as opposed to 3/32"), and would be consideredas "overkill" to be used where 1/16" is called for. However, you say that youhave completed your ribs. That is where most of the 1/16" ply is called forin the Air Camper. I don't have my plans handy, but offhand, I don't recallany other 1/16" ply in the plans. If there is, it isn't much. You can use 3mmfor the fuselage sides, and anywhere the plans call for 1/8", and 5 or 6mm forthe fuselage floor.Bill C.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
Original Posted By: "Jack Philips"
Oscar- Looking forward to your data. Clif- your Kung fu is better than mine...Has any one ever collected ROC data for the Pietenpol at MGW with the Ford, Continental& Corvair? It would be very helpful as far as selecting an engine & prop.....[Wink]Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Oscar- Looking forward to your data. Clif- your Kung fu is better than mine...Has any one ever collected ROC data for the Pietenpol at MGW with the Ford, Continental& Corvair? It would be very helpful as far as selecting an engine & prop.....[Wink]Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Dave, the problem is that most Pietenpols vary as much in Gross Weight asthey do in any other measurement. But I can tell you that with mine (GW1195 lbs) on a hot day at gross weight my rate of climb (A65 Continental,and this was with a Sensenich 72 x 42 prop) was right at 100 fpm (which isthe FAA's definition of Service Ceiling). This was from a runway at 275'MSL. Density altitude was probably around 2,000'.I limit mine to passengers of 180 lbs. or less, which pretty well limits itto pretty young women. I find that anyone over that weight generally hastrouble folding themselves into the front cockpit anyway. Young women(especially pretty ones) don't seem to suffer much from this, particularlywhen a helping hand is offered.Since I changed to a Cloudcars 76 x 38 prop my climb is improved by about30%. Of course, at gross weight, this means climbing at 130 fpm rather than100. This is a difference without a difference.Jack PhillipsNX899JPSmith Mountain Lake, Virginia-----Original Message-----
Dave, the problem is that most Pietenpols vary as much in Gross Weight asthey do in any other measurement. But I can tell you that with mine (GW1195 lbs) on a hot day at gross weight my rate of climb (A65 Continental,and this was with a Sensenich 72 x 42 prop) was right at 100 fpm (which isthe FAA's definition of Service Ceiling). This was from a runway at 275'MSL. Density altitude was probably around 2,000'.I limit mine to passengers of 180 lbs. or less, which pretty well limits itto pretty young women. I find that anyone over that weight generally hastrouble folding themselves into the front cockpit anyway. Young women(especially pretty ones) don't seem to suffer much from this, particularlywhen a helping hand is offered.Since I changed to a Cloudcars 76 x 38 prop my climb is improved by about30%. Of course, at gross weight, this means climbing at 130 fpm rather than100. This is a difference without a difference.Jack PhillipsNX899JPSmith Mountain Lake, Virginia-----Original Message-----
Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
Original Posted By: "Dave'sPiet"
I wouldn't use it for anything structural (my opinion as I'm not an engineer).The 1/8" I use for structural locations is 3 ply in compliance with MIL-P-6070.--------JohnRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
I wouldn't use it for anything structural (my opinion as I'm not an engineer).The 1/8" I use for structural locations is 3 ply in compliance with MIL-P-6070.--------JohnRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
Original Posted By: "jarheadpilot82"
This is day one of my build. My wood showed up today. I'm building the long fuselage.I'll post pics here as things progress.I'm getting ready to cut the vertical struts for the fuselage, and the plans callfor 1 x 7/8 and 1 x 3/4 struts. Looking at pictures of other builds, I couldswear that I see people using 1x1 for some of the struts. Perhaps it is justan optical illusion.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/2016 ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
This is day one of my build. My wood showed up today. I'm building the long fuselage.I'll post pics here as things progress.I'm getting ready to cut the vertical struts for the fuselage, and the plans callfor 1 x 7/8 and 1 x 3/4 struts. Looking at pictures of other builds, I couldswear that I see people using 1x1 for some of the struts. Perhaps it is justan optical illusion.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/2016 ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
Original Posted By: "Clif Dawson"
Dave,http://flycorvair.net/2012/10/17/pieten ... ----Semper Fi,Terry HandAthens, GARead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Dave,http://flycorvair.net/2012/10/17/pieten ... ----Semper Fi,Terry HandAthens, GARead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
Original Posted By: "Douwe Blumberg"
Cliff,I love it! As I get older, it makes more and more sense!Ray KrauseSent from my iPad> On Mar 4, 2016, at 12:19 AM, Clif Dawson wrote:> > > > > >> Clif- your Kung fu is better than mine...> > Ah, Grasshopper, that's because it's Qigong.
> > Clif> Handle every Stressful situation like a dog.> If you can't eat it or play with it,> Piss on it and walk away.> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Cliff,I love it! As I get older, it makes more and more sense!Ray KrauseSent from my iPad> On Mar 4, 2016, at 12:19 AM, Clif Dawson wrote:> > > > > >> Clif- your Kung fu is better than mine...> > Ah, Grasshopper, that's because it's Qigong.
> > Clif> Handle every Stressful situation like a dog.> If you can't eat it or play with it,> Piss on it and walk away.> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
Original Posted By: "Dave'sPiet"
Mine is easy on the Chief.At least it was last time I got to fly!Rain,rain,wind.Rain, wind.I forgot! Did I mention rain?ClifWorry gives a small thing a big shadow. Swedish proverb>> Checking the specs for the stock C90, it shows 7:1 compression ratio, so > propping it shouldn't be much different from the 65 or 75.> Oscar Zuniga________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle
Mine is easy on the Chief.At least it was last time I got to fly!Rain,rain,wind.Rain, wind.I forgot! Did I mention rain?ClifWorry gives a small thing a big shadow. Swedish proverb>> Checking the specs for the stock C90, it shows 7:1 compression ratio, so > propping it shouldn't be much different from the 65 or 75.> Oscar Zuniga________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pilot seat back angle