Pietenpol-List: Useful Weight

An archive of the Matronics Pietenpol Listserve.
Locked
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Pietenpol-List: Useful Weight

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: "Al Latham"
Hi allI've been lurking for quite a while on this list as the Pietenpol is oneof my favorite airplanes. It is the simplicity and back to basics of theairplane that keeps on drawing me back to it.I need to make a decision for or against building the Pietenpol. What I need to know is the useful weight of the aircraft as I've seeneverything from 610 lb empty with 385lb useful (995 lb max) to 535 lbempty with 715 lb useful (1250 lb max). I weight in at 260lb and my wifeat 120. That does not leave much over for fuel if useful weight is only385 lb. ;-)My home airport is at 5330 feet above sea level. If I build thePietenpol it will have an O-200 in to compensate for altitude. (Model Afords are very scarce in South Africa.)I would appreciate any comments ThanxDeon EngelmannEAA322 Midrand # SA12055PretoriaSouth Africa________________________________________________________________________________
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

RE: Pietenpol-List: Useful Weight

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: "Steve Eldredge"
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Pietenpol-List: Useful Weight

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: Jim Vydra
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Re: Pietenpol-List: Useful Weight

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: Jim Vydra
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Re: Pietenpol-List: Useful Weight

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: "Deon Engelmann"
Steve's comments on this were very good. The problem on this group is mostof us are from slightly above sea level to 2000 ft. The lack of commentsare because most of us havent finished scratching our heads on that one.There had been some discussion in the past about piets at higher elevations.Dick----- Original Message -----
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Pietenpol-List: Useful Weight

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: "John Ford"
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Pietenpol-List: Re: Useful Weight

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: "Ed Grentzer"
One of the tech counselors on this list may help out with this one, I'm sureI don't know all the regulations as well as I think.Gross weight rating is a function of ultimate load (in "g") and the forcerequired to fail the structure. For certified aircraft, the design criteriafor the utility class is a minimum rated load of 4.4g positive and somethingI can't remember for negative, among other things. This rated load is afunction of ultimate load, which is simply a safety factor (ultimate load is1.5 times rated, 2.0 times for fiberglass construction).So the first thing you need to know is how much load will the structurehandle before failing. Let's say the at 6,000lbs of force, the weakest partfails (motor mount, struts, fuselage, whatever). If we are trying tocertify our aircraft in the utility category we need 6.6g ultimate to rateat 4.4g (4.4 x 1.5 = 6.6), so our gross weight becomes 6000/6.6 or 909lbs.Since we are not trying to certify the aircraft in the normal, utility, oraerobatic classes (or categories?), we can set the rated load and grossweight at whatever we wish. Just understand that the two still have to workout with the formula above. In the example, it could be 3.0g (4.5gultimate) at 1333lbs, or 6.0g (9g ultimate) at 667lbs. Unfortunately, Idon't think we know the ultimate load capacity on the aircraft so it makesit a little tough to do this. My guess is that most people just pick agross weight and live with the fact that the actual rated load is unknown.Robert HainesDu Quoin, IllinoisP.S. - You'll notice is used the word "guess" a few times. If anyone elseknows this topic a little better, please ring in.________________________________________________________________________________
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Useful Weight

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: Mike
While picking a gross weight bear in mind that the max gross for the Sport Pilot rule is 1232# if I'm remembering that right. If you pick a gross weight of say 1250# and later lose your medical you could be screwed over 18#s. Or maybe someday someone might want to buy the plane to fly under the Sport Pilot rule. I know this doesn't affect the fellow from S. Africa but here in the U.S. it is now definetly something to consider. Cheers Ed G.>From: "Robert Haines" >Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>To: >Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Useful Weight>Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 09:03:11 -0500>>>>One of the tech counselors on this list may help out with this one, I'm >sure>I don't know all the regulations as well as I think.>>Gross weight rating is a function of ultimate load (in "g") and the force>required to fail the structure. For certified aircraft, the design >criteria>for the utility class is a minimum rated load of 4.4g positive and >something>I can't remember for negative, among other things. This rated load is a>function of ultimate load, which is simply a safety factor (ultimate load >is>1.5 times rated, 2.0 times for fiberglass construction).>>So the first thing you need to know is how much load will the structure>handle before failing. Let's say the at 6,000lbs of force, the weakest >part>fails (motor mount, struts, fuselage, whatever). If we are trying to>certify our aircraft in the utility category we need 6.6g ultimate to rate>at 4.4g (4.4 x 1.5 = 6.6), so our gross weight becomes 6000/6.6 or 909lbs.>>Since we are not trying to certify the aircraft in the normal, utility, or>aerobatic classes (or categories?), we can set the rated load and gross>weight at whatever we wish. Just understand that the two still have to >work>out with the formula above. In the example, it could be 3.0g (4.5g>ultimate) at 1333lbs, or 6.0g (9g ultimate) at 667lbs. Unfortunately, I>don't think we know the ultimate load capacity on the aircraft so it makes>it a little tough to do this. My guess is that most people just pick a>gross weight and live with the fact that the actual rated load is unknown.>>>Robert Haines>Du Quoin, Illinois>>P.S. - You'll notice is used the word "guess" a few times. If anyone else>knows this topic a little better, please ring in.>>Compare Cable, DSL or Satellite plans: As low as $29.95. https://broadband.msn.com________________________________________________________________________________Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 08:18:30 -0700Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Useful Weight
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Useful Weight

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Pull up FAR 23 on the FAA website and review the paragraphs referring toground and flight loads, factor of safety and so forth. Flight dynamicsfigure into the mix - there are accelerations due to yawing and pitchingthat case loads for fixed masses such as the engine. It's not all just amatter of static strength.Bob-----Original Message-----
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Re: Pietenpol-List: Useful Weight

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: "Deon Engelmann"
----- Original Message -----
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Pietenpol-List: Useful Weight

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: Jim Vydra
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Useful Weight

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: "Jim Markle"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Useful WeightHello Piet List.I'm trying to find the address and name of the person who owns the Piet in Lancaster, CA. I will be in that area for the next three days and if possible would like to see his airplane.Appreciate any replys. Thanks, JimReserved # NX499JB________________________________________________________________________________
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Useful Weight

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: "Richard Navratil"
Might be: Scott at pietman(at)qnet.com , he is a member of EAA 49 inLancaster California and built one with his father. You can see a shot ofhis plane athttp://www.eaa49.av.org/index.htm .Jim in PlanoReserved #NX25JM>> Hello Piet List.>> I'm trying to find the address and name of the person who owns the Piet in> Lancaster, CA. I will be in that area for the next three days and ifpossible> would like to see his airplane.>> Appreciate any replys. Thanks, Jim> Reserved # NX499JB>>________________________________________________________________________________
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Useful Weight

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: JamesJboyer(at)aol.com
His name is Scott out of EAA chapter 49. Here is the link that shows some picturesof his plane. I met him at Flabapb a couple of years ago and was able to seehis plane. Tube fuse. SWEET!!!! He's a nice guy. Here is the email addressand the link to their club page. Look under "Members planes/projects. He is aboutfive down on the list. NOw his plane is dark green with a hint of yellow highlights.There is also a gal at their chapter that flies a Piet, but I havenever met her. I'll send you a picture of them together at a Corona Piet fly-ina few years back to your home email address. Scott pietman@qnet.com , and here is the club link, http://www.eaa49.av.org/index.htm . Have fun.Doug BlackburnDoug/Elizabeth BlackburnYucaipa Californiawww.inlandsloperebels.comW.W. conversion manual, #3202 www.flycorvair.com ----- Original Message -----
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Useful Weight

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: JamesJboyer(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Useful WeightIn a message dated 9/16/2003 8:00:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, twinboom(at)msn.com writes:> http://www.eaa49.av.org/index.htm Hi Doug,Thank you very much for the pictures and email for Scott. If you are ever up in Santa Rosa, CA give me a call and I can show my wing ribs, fuselage, and tail surfaces all done. How exciting, I can just see you!Thanks again Doug.Jim; phone is 707-544-5594________________________________________________________________________________
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Useful Weight

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: Leo Gates
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Useful WeightHI Jim,Thanks for the information on Scott and his Piet. If you are ever in Santa Rosa, CA give me a call or email and I will be glad to show you all the parts Ihave done. Am working on steel parts now and have 94 cut out and some actuallyalmost done in addition to having all tail surfaces, fuselage, and wing ribs done.Cheers, Jim (also name I go by) 707-544-5594________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:49:01 -0500
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Re: Pietenpol-List: Am I building the wrong airplane? (Pilot Weight Again)

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: "Chris"
How much does a Model A, prop hub and wooden prop weigh?Mike McGowan----- Original Message -----
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Useful Weight

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: "Steve Eldredge"
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

RE: Pietenpol-List: Am I building the wrong airplane? (Pilot Weight

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By:> Michael D Cuy
>
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

> Useful Weight

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By:> "Steve Eldredge"
>
Locked