Original Posted By: "tdudley(at)umn.edu"
ReplyTo: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.comSubject: Pietenpol-List: Tail wheel assembly weightOK thanks to all who responded on the horizontal spacer I found. Isuspected it was a fix for an underlying problem. I have this big old10-pound tail wheel assembly. Probably too heavy right?-- John Kuhfahl, Lt Col USAF (Ret), President, KUHLCOUPER LLC-- John Kuhfahl, Lt Col USAF (Ret), President, KUHLCOUPER LLC________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing spar dimension question
Pietenpol-List: Wing spar dimension question
Pietenpol-List: Wing spar dimension question
Original Posted By: "tdudley(at)umn.edu"
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________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wing spar dimension question
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________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wing spar dimension question
RE: Pietenpol-List: Wing spar dimension question
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Tom,Since your ribs are built for 1" spars, I would use 1" spars in thecentersection as well. You'll have to modify the plans slightly to makethis happen. Welcome to the wonderful world of Pietenpols!.Note that you might want to consider making the centersection spars aslightly different thickness to take into account the overlap of the strapfittings that attach the outer wing panels to the centersection. Sincethere are strap fittings on the spars and strap fittings on thecentersection, it would be nice if the fittings of one would nest inside thefittings of the other, but with both spars the same thickness, that doesn'tautomatically happen. Since you can choose your spar thickness for thecentersection, you can make that thickness whatever convenient value willallow the centersection strap fittings to nest inside the wing sparfittings. Be sure to take into account the thickness of the plywood doublerswhen determining what thickness spars to use.Jack PhillipsNX899JPSmith Mountain Lake, Virginia-----Original Message-----
Tom,Since your ribs are built for 1" spars, I would use 1" spars in thecentersection as well. You'll have to modify the plans slightly to makethis happen. Welcome to the wonderful world of Pietenpols!.Note that you might want to consider making the centersection spars aslightly different thickness to take into account the overlap of the strapfittings that attach the outer wing panels to the centersection. Sincethere are strap fittings on the spars and strap fittings on thecentersection, it would be nice if the fittings of one would nest inside thefittings of the other, but with both spars the same thickness, that doesn'tautomatically happen. Since you can choose your spar thickness for thecentersection, you can make that thickness whatever convenient value willallow the centersection strap fittings to nest inside the wing sparfittings. Be sure to take into account the thickness of the plywood doublerswhen determining what thickness spars to use.Jack PhillipsNX899JPSmith Mountain Lake, Virginia-----Original Message-----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing spar dimension question
Original Posted By: Ryan Mueller
Jack,Thanks for the input. I suppose, to avoid any additional thinking (or orderingincorrectly sized spruce), I could just build the original plans wing (as I'dthought about when I started the project). My reason for choosing the three-piecewing design is I'd heard the way Pietenpol had originally joined the winghalves wasn't really regarded as "sound" (even though structurally I've notheard of a failure from this). Is that true? I suspect others have built theone piece wing design to plans, but do they join the wing spars as per plans(angled cuts with vertical bolts), or is there another means (maybe publishedor not) by which the spars might be joined in the center that is considered abit stouter or more accepted?TomRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 22:28:57 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing spar dimension question
Jack,Thanks for the input. I suppose, to avoid any additional thinking (or orderingincorrectly sized spruce), I could just build the original plans wing (as I'dthought about when I started the project). My reason for choosing the three-piecewing design is I'd heard the way Pietenpol had originally joined the winghalves wasn't really regarded as "sound" (even though structurally I've notheard of a failure from this). Is that true? I suspect others have built theone piece wing design to plans, but do they join the wing spars as per plans(angled cuts with vertical bolts), or is there another means (maybe publishedor not) by which the spars might be joined in the center that is considered abit stouter or more accepted?TomRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 22:28:57 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing spar dimension question
Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing spar dimension question
Original Posted By: "tdudley(at)umn.edu"
Tom,I built the 1 piece wing and scarfed the joint with 1/4"plywood scabs on each side.The joint is pretty strong. We picked the wing up by the tips and it heldwithout complaint. Bernard's way worked though. Think about the geometry of it.The 3 piece wing is a hinged affair and depends totally on struts and cablesfor structural integrity. That said IF I were to build another Piet I wouldbuild the 3 piece wing simply because the 1 piece is hard to handle. I am coveringnow and the wing is next......stay tuned.--------Jerry Dotson59 Daniel Johnson RdBaker, FL 32531Started building NX510JD July, 2009wing, tailfeathers done, fuselage rollingusing Lycoming O-235Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/a64_ ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing spar dimension question
Tom,I built the 1 piece wing and scarfed the joint with 1/4"plywood scabs on each side.The joint is pretty strong. We picked the wing up by the tips and it heldwithout complaint. Bernard's way worked though. Think about the geometry of it.The 3 piece wing is a hinged affair and depends totally on struts and cablesfor structural integrity. That said IF I were to build another Piet I wouldbuild the 3 piece wing simply because the 1 piece is hard to handle. I am coveringnow and the wing is next......stay tuned.--------Jerry Dotson59 Daniel Johnson RdBaker, FL 32531Started building NX510JD July, 2009wing, tailfeathers done, fuselage rollingusing Lycoming O-235Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/a64_ ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing spar dimension question
Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing spar dimension question
Original Posted By: "Bill Church"
I just wanted to clarify that I mistakenly said the rear 1" spar isn't routed.It is but I was looking at the wrong diagram when I posted initially. Sorry.TomRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing spar dimension question
I just wanted to clarify that I mistakenly said the rear 1" spar isn't routed.It is but I was looking at the wrong diagram when I posted initially. Sorry.TomRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing spar dimension question
Original Posted By: Dan Yocum
Tom,The 3-piece wing plan was drawn in 1975, by Vi Kapler. I believe that by that time,the use of 3/4" solid spars in lieu of routed 1" spars was fairly common.That is likely the reason why it shows 3/4" spars. There is, however one detailon the drawing that shows the routed areas, with a note that says "routed sparonly". My interpretation of this is that the plans in general, are drawn forthe use of 3/4" solid spars, but could easily be adapted to accommodate theuse of routed 1" spars. In that case, the thickness of the centersection sparswould be made to match the outboard spars (with adjustments as suggested byJack).On another note, you write that the plans indicate that the front spar should berouted, and the rear spar should be solid. I assume that you got that impressionfrom the detail that shows two cross-sections thru the spar (see attachedclip from plans). Those two details are to show the difference between the routedand non-routed areas of each spar. Both front and rear spars should be routedthe same.If you want to build a one-piece wing, the center splice should be scarfed in the1" dimension, as opposed to the 4 3/4" dimension that the plans show. Scarfingdimensions and techniques should follow AC 43.13-1B. Bill C.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/spar ... ______Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:17:30 -0500
Tom,The 3-piece wing plan was drawn in 1975, by Vi Kapler. I believe that by that time,the use of 3/4" solid spars in lieu of routed 1" spars was fairly common.That is likely the reason why it shows 3/4" spars. There is, however one detailon the drawing that shows the routed areas, with a note that says "routed sparonly". My interpretation of this is that the plans in general, are drawn forthe use of 3/4" solid spars, but could easily be adapted to accommodate theuse of routed 1" spars. In that case, the thickness of the centersection sparswould be made to match the outboard spars (with adjustments as suggested byJack).On another note, you write that the plans indicate that the front spar should berouted, and the rear spar should be solid. I assume that you got that impressionfrom the detail that shows two cross-sections thru the spar (see attachedclip from plans). Those two details are to show the difference between the routedand non-routed areas of each spar. Both front and rear spars should be routedthe same.If you want to build a one-piece wing, the center splice should be scarfed in the1" dimension, as opposed to the 4 3/4" dimension that the plans show. Scarfingdimensions and techniques should follow AC 43.13-1B. Bill C.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/spar ... ______Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:17:30 -0500
Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing spar dimension question
Original Posted By: "Jerry Dotson"
That article reminded me of the Snger/Bredt proposal.http://www.luft46.com/misc/sanger.htmlh ... ------Bill FrankRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing spar dimension question
That article reminded me of the Snger/Bredt proposal.http://www.luft46.com/misc/sanger.htmlh ... ------Bill FrankRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing spar dimension question
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing spar dimension question
Original Posted By: Jerry Dotson
For many years 12:1 scarf was just fine and dandy, AC43.13-1A. Then AC43.13-1B changed it to 15:1. I made mine 12:1 which for that center section joint is way overkill anyway. There will be very little stress on the spar there. 12:1 was hard enough to do. Can't imagine tryin 15:1.Dan HelsperPuryear, TN.-----Original Message-----
For many years 12:1 scarf was just fine and dandy, AC43.13-1A. Then AC43.13-1B changed it to 15:1. I made mine 12:1 which for that center section joint is way overkill anyway. There will be very little stress on the spar there. 12:1 was hard enough to do. Can't imagine tryin 15:1.Dan HelsperPuryear, TN.-----Original Message-----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing spar dimension question
Original Posted By: helspersew(at)aol.com
15:1 would not keep the scarf out from under the fittings=2C which is forbidden.Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing spar dimension question
15:1 would not keep the scarf out from under the fittings=2C which is forbidden.Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing spar dimension question
Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing spar dimension question
Original Posted By: Dan Yocum
Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing spar dimension question
Original Posted By: gliderx5(at)comcast.net
Dan I feel sure just a plain old butt joint with scabs on each side would so justas good. The way I see it the joint will never see any stress other than compressionand tension loads. Bending stress will mean struts have failed. I didhave the guys slooowly pick it up by the tips and some good ears listening fora protest from the joint. It bent/sagged about 4 inches but it went off withouta hitch. Now I have to get it off the plane so I can cover it.--------Jerry Dotson59 Daniel Johnson RdBaker, FL 32531Started building NX510JD July, 2009wing, tailfeathers done, fuselage rollingusing Lycoming O-235Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:56:44 +0000 (UTC)
Dan I feel sure just a plain old butt joint with scabs on each side would so justas good. The way I see it the joint will never see any stress other than compressionand tension loads. Bending stress will mean struts have failed. I didhave the guys slooowly pick it up by the tips and some good ears listening fora protest from the joint. It bent/sagged about 4 inches but it went off withouta hitch. Now I have to get it off the plane so I can cover it.--------Jerry Dotson59 Daniel Johnson RdBaker, FL 32531Started building NX510JD July, 2009wing, tailfeathers done, fuselage rollingusing Lycoming O-235Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:56:44 +0000 (UTC)
RE: Pietenpol-List: Thrust test
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Thanks, Malcolm. Yes, mine is homemade, too. Target size was 66-34. I can still do some re-pitching. I have been looking for that info in the archives, but hadn=99t found it yet.Gary
Thanks, Malcolm. Yes, mine is homemade, too. Target size was 66-34. I can still do some re-pitching. I have been looking for that info in the archives, but hadn=99t found it yet.Gary
Original Posted By: Jerry Dotson
For many years 12:1 scarf was just fine and dandy=2C AC43.13-1A. Then AC43.13-1B changed it to 15:1. I made mine 12:1 which for that center section joint is way overkill anyway. There will be very little stress on the spar there. 12:1 was hard enough to do. Can't imagine tryin 15:1.Dan HelsperPuryear=2C TN.-----Original Message-----
For many years 12:1 scarf was just fine and dandy=2C AC43.13-1A. Then AC43.13-1B changed it to 15:1. I made mine 12:1 which for that center section joint is way overkill anyway. There will be very little stress on the spar there. 12:1 was hard enough to do. Can't imagine tryin 15:1.Dan HelsperPuryear=2C TN.-----Original Message-----