Original Posted By: Michael Perez
Does anybody out there have experience with different HVLP turbine systems?I need one for my studio and want a good one. Spray enamels and laquersmostly, but would like to be able to spray latexDouwe________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 06:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
Pietenpol-List: hvlp systems
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG
Original Posted By: Jim Markle
Michael,Many years ago in doing instrument work we used to use the rule of thumb that at 60 nm each radial (i.e. degree) was 1 nm apart. In other words, a degree is 1/60 of your distance. If you are measuring from cabane to cabane and the distance is 30 inches ( I am just using that number as sn example as my plans are on order and I do not know the actual distance), a 1 degree rise in the front cabane would equal 1/2 inch (30 inches divided by sixty).I hope that helps somewhat. It really depends where you are measuring from, but if you are measuring cabane to cabane I think that is the correct "gouge".Semper Fideles,Terry HandSent from my iPhoneOn Apr 13, 2011, at 9:52, Michael Perez wrote:> That is very interesting Pieti. Right now, my cabanes are taller in the front by 1" then the rear. Are you saying I should make new ones so they are all the same length? At the moment, I don't have spare aluminum strut material to do so, but could later if needed.> > Michael Perez> Karetaker Aero> www.karetakeraero.com> > > ============================================================================================================================================> ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:19:40 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
Michael,Many years ago in doing instrument work we used to use the rule of thumb that at 60 nm each radial (i.e. degree) was 1 nm apart. In other words, a degree is 1/60 of your distance. If you are measuring from cabane to cabane and the distance is 30 inches ( I am just using that number as sn example as my plans are on order and I do not know the actual distance), a 1 degree rise in the front cabane would equal 1/2 inch (30 inches divided by sixty).I hope that helps somewhat. It really depends where you are measuring from, but if you are measuring cabane to cabane I think that is the correct "gouge".Semper Fideles,Terry HandSent from my iPhoneOn Apr 13, 2011, at 9:52, Michael Perez wrote:> That is very interesting Pieti. Right now, my cabanes are taller in the front by 1" then the rear. Are you saying I should make new ones so they are all the same length? At the moment, I don't have spare aluminum strut material to do so, but could later if needed.> > Michael Perez> Karetaker Aero> www.karetakeraero.com> > > ============================================================================================================================================> ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:19:40 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
RE: Pietenpol-List: hvlp systems
Original Posted By: douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net
You're better off to go with a good hvlp gun and compressor. The turbines generate heat which messes with the spaying and the flow of the paint. If you buy a gravity feed hvlp the cfm requirement it not that bad. Don't get a siphon feed! I have one and it needs 23cfm at 60psi. A typical gravity feed gun only requires 10-15psi at about 8-11cfm.Doug DeverIn beautiful Stow Ohio
You're better off to go with a good hvlp gun and compressor. The turbines generate heat which messes with the spaying and the flow of the paint. If you buy a gravity feed hvlp the cfm requirement it not that bad. Don't get a siphon feed! I have one and it needs 23cfm at 60psi. A typical gravity feed gun only requires 10-15psi at about 8-11cfm.Doug DeverIn beautiful Stow Ohio
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG
Original Posted By: "Pieti Lowell"
I'm no practicing aero engineer, but it seems to me if the airplane flies nose high with the cabanes per the plans (front 1-inch longer than the rear) if the front struts were shortened it would increase the nose high attitude. Any comments?----- Original Message -----
I'm no practicing aero engineer, but it seems to me if the airplane flies nose high with the cabanes per the plans (front 1-inch longer than the rear) if the front struts were shortened it would increase the nose high attitude. Any comments?----- Original Message -----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG
Original Posted By: Terry Hand
In the plans (Hoopman) the angle of incidence is shown as 2 degrees, not 1. The cabane struts are shown as front strut being 1" longer than the rear. This would make your formula of 1/60 for one degree about right. The actual center to center measurement between the spars (thus also between the cabane struts) is 28 3/4 inches. ----- Original Message -----
In the plans (Hoopman) the angle of incidence is shown as 2 degrees, not 1. The cabane struts are shown as front strut being 1" longer than the rear. This would make your formula of 1/60 for one degree about right. The actual center to center measurement between the spars (thus also between the cabane struts) is 28 3/4 inches. ----- Original Message -----
Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG
Original Posted By: "Bill Church"
This talk about cabane lengths and angle of incidence got me thinking. (uh oh)Actually, the angle of incidence is the angle formed between the chord line ofthe wing and the longitudinal axis of the fuselage. The longitudinal axis of thefuselage is pretty easy to determine - just use the top longerons. For thechord line of the wing, you need to find an imaginary line that passes throughthe trailing edge and the center of curvature of the leading edge.With the spars (and the cabanes) spaced at 28 3/4", a 1 inch difference in thecabane length will result in a 2 degree slope. The cabane attachment bracketsare mounted to the bottom of the spars, and identical brackets are used for thefront and back. So IF the bottoms of the spars were parallel to the chord line,the angle of incidence would be 2 degrees per plans. But with the Pietenpol(FC-10) airfoil, the chord line is NOT parallel to the bottoms of the spars- in fact they are at about 1 1/2 degrees. So the true angle of incidence ina plans-built Pietenpol is approximately 3 1/2 degrees. See attached sketch forreference.Now, if you are using the Riblett airfoil, it's a different story, because thebottoms of the spars form an even bigger angle with the chord line. Common sensewould dictate that the difference in the lengths of the cabane struts (frontvs rear) should be different from the 1 inch difference shown in the Pietenpolplans, if the angle of incidence is to be kept the same. I think this was alreadydiscussed at length a year or so ago.The funny thing is that drawing No.1 of the Pietenpol plans calls up 2 degreesincidence - but that 2 degrees is actually only the strut lengths, and is notmeasured to the chord line - so it is not the actual angle of incidence.Bill C.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/piet ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG
This talk about cabane lengths and angle of incidence got me thinking. (uh oh)Actually, the angle of incidence is the angle formed between the chord line ofthe wing and the longitudinal axis of the fuselage. The longitudinal axis of thefuselage is pretty easy to determine - just use the top longerons. For thechord line of the wing, you need to find an imaginary line that passes throughthe trailing edge and the center of curvature of the leading edge.With the spars (and the cabanes) spaced at 28 3/4", a 1 inch difference in thecabane length will result in a 2 degree slope. The cabane attachment bracketsare mounted to the bottom of the spars, and identical brackets are used for thefront and back. So IF the bottoms of the spars were parallel to the chord line,the angle of incidence would be 2 degrees per plans. But with the Pietenpol(FC-10) airfoil, the chord line is NOT parallel to the bottoms of the spars- in fact they are at about 1 1/2 degrees. So the true angle of incidence ina plans-built Pietenpol is approximately 3 1/2 degrees. See attached sketch forreference.Now, if you are using the Riblett airfoil, it's a different story, because thebottoms of the spars form an even bigger angle with the chord line. Common sensewould dictate that the difference in the lengths of the cabane struts (frontvs rear) should be different from the 1 inch difference shown in the Pietenpolplans, if the angle of incidence is to be kept the same. I think this was alreadydiscussed at length a year or so ago.The funny thing is that drawing No.1 of the Pietenpol plans calls up 2 degreesincidence - but that 2 degrees is actually only the strut lengths, and is notmeasured to the chord line - so it is not the actual angle of incidence.Bill C.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/piet ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG
Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG
Original Posted By: "Don Emch"
This talk about cabane lengths and angle of incidence got me thinking. (uh oh)Actually, the angle of incidence is the angle formed between the chord line ofthe wing and the longitudinal axis of the fuselage. The longitudinal axis of thefuselage is pretty easy to determine - just use the top longerons. For thechord line of the wing, you need to find an imaginary line that passes throughthe trailing edge and the center of curvature of the leading edge.With the spars (and the cabanes) spaced at 28 3/4", a 1 inch difference in thecabane length will result in a 2 degree slope. The cabane attachment bracketsare mounted to the bottom of the spars, and identical brackets are used for thefront and back. So IF the bottoms of the spars were parallel to the chord line,the angle of incidence would be 2 degrees per plans. But with the Pietenpol(FC-10) airfoil, the chord line is NOT parallel to the bottoms of the spars- in fact they are at about 1 1/2 degrees. So the true angle of incidence ina plans-built Pietenpol is approximately 3 1/2 degrees. See attached sketch forreference.Now, if you are using the Riblett airfoil, it's a different story, because thebottoms of the spars form an even bigger angle with the chord line. Common sensewould dictate that the difference in the lengths of the cabane struts (frontvs rear) should be different from the 1 inch difference shown in the Pietenpolplans, if the angle of incidence is to be kept the same. I think this was alreadydiscussed at length a year or so ago.The funny thing is that drawing No.1 of the Pietenpol plans calls up 2 degreesincidence - but that 2 degrees is actually only the strut lengths, and is notmeasured to the chord line - so it is not the actual angle of incidence.Bill C.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/piet ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG
This talk about cabane lengths and angle of incidence got me thinking. (uh oh)Actually, the angle of incidence is the angle formed between the chord line ofthe wing and the longitudinal axis of the fuselage. The longitudinal axis of thefuselage is pretty easy to determine - just use the top longerons. For thechord line of the wing, you need to find an imaginary line that passes throughthe trailing edge and the center of curvature of the leading edge.With the spars (and the cabanes) spaced at 28 3/4", a 1 inch difference in thecabane length will result in a 2 degree slope. The cabane attachment bracketsare mounted to the bottom of the spars, and identical brackets are used for thefront and back. So IF the bottoms of the spars were parallel to the chord line,the angle of incidence would be 2 degrees per plans. But with the Pietenpol(FC-10) airfoil, the chord line is NOT parallel to the bottoms of the spars- in fact they are at about 1 1/2 degrees. So the true angle of incidence ina plans-built Pietenpol is approximately 3 1/2 degrees. See attached sketch forreference.Now, if you are using the Riblett airfoil, it's a different story, because thebottoms of the spars form an even bigger angle with the chord line. Common sensewould dictate that the difference in the lengths of the cabane struts (frontvs rear) should be different from the 1 inch difference shown in the Pietenpolplans, if the angle of incidence is to be kept the same. I think this was alreadydiscussed at length a year or so ago.The funny thing is that drawing No.1 of the Pietenpol plans calls up 2 degreesincidence - but that 2 degrees is actually only the strut lengths, and is notmeasured to the chord line - so it is not the actual angle of incidence.Bill C.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/piet ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG
Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG
Original Posted By: "Don Emch"
Chuck,I'm with you on this one. The GN-1's I've seen flying seem to fly nose high andthey have equal length cabanes as far as I know. I think almost all of theseolder designs with cabanes have longer fronts than backs. Mr. Pietenpol musthave known what he was doing with that fantastic airfoil of his. Here's a shotto show how the Pietenpol airfoil gives a nice level flight. Am I just alittle biased to the Pietenpol design?!!!Don EmchNX899DERead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/no_t ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG
Chuck,I'm with you on this one. The GN-1's I've seen flying seem to fly nose high andthey have equal length cabanes as far as I know. I think almost all of theseolder designs with cabanes have longer fronts than backs. Mr. Pietenpol musthave known what he was doing with that fantastic airfoil of his. Here's a shotto show how the Pietenpol airfoil gives a nice level flight. Am I just alittle biased to the Pietenpol design?!!!Don EmchNX899DERead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/no_t ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Speaking of Wing Sweep and CG
Pietenpol-List: hvlp systems
Original Posted By: "Charles Campbell"
Does anybody out there have experience with different HVLP turbine systems? I need one for my studio and want a good one. Spray enamels and laquers mostly=2C but would like to be able to spray latexDouwe ________________________________________________________________________________
Does anybody out there have experience with different HVLP turbine systems? I need one for my studio and want a good one. Spray enamels and laquers mostly=2C but would like to be able to spray latexDouwe ________________________________________________________________________________