Original Posted By: "flea"
I thought there needed to be a thread where we could pass alonginfo on prices for building material and hardware.I talked to B&B yesterday and their current rate for turnbuckles is $6a piece.- Of course that is $18 per assembly.- Their price for AN115-21 shackles are $10.Needing about 30 of each, that's almost $900. Thats a lot of beer!Curt MerdanFlower Mound, TXRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 9#370169le, List Admin.________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wouldn't it be better if. . .
Pietenpol-List: Wouldn't it be better if. . .
Pietenpol-List: Re: Wouldn't it be better if. . .
Original Posted By: "tools"
Ok, so I always told myself I wouldn't second guess 90 years of success. I wouldn't try re-inventing the better mousetrap or re-discovering fire. But here is my mousetrap. I have been working on my Piet for some time now, and the wood work is about 90% done. I have built and re-built it probably a dozen times now as things look wrong to me. One of these areas has been my turtle deck, you know that area with all the stringers - well mine was doo doo, so some quick work with a saw and it's gone. After seeing the plane with that turtle deck removed, I was struck with either a flash of brilliance, or an attack of cranial-rectal infusion. I need your help deciding which it is. What I was thinking was that the turtle deck from behind the pilot's seat and extending back those first two bays could be removable or hinged to open like a lid on an old trunk. The idea is that upon completion, it would make inspection and maintenance MUCH easier than trying to go through some little inspection holes. Now if I understand the engineering correctly, the strength of the fuse comes from the 1X1 longerons and all of the associated trusses etc. The turtle deck is there for aerodynamic and aesthetic reasons. I am not proposing to change anything about the longerons or even the shape of the deck, just make it removable, and held on with a series of leather straps and buckles to fit in with the period of the design. Am I way off on this? will I be adversely affecting the structural integrity- of the design? That is of course the only real question, I don't want to sacrifice safety. I know I- can do anything I want, but is this a dangerous plot destined for the headlines?JimRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 2#370192le, List Admin.________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wouldn't it be better if. . .
Ok, so I always told myself I wouldn't second guess 90 years of success. I wouldn't try re-inventing the better mousetrap or re-discovering fire. But here is my mousetrap. I have been working on my Piet for some time now, and the wood work is about 90% done. I have built and re-built it probably a dozen times now as things look wrong to me. One of these areas has been my turtle deck, you know that area with all the stringers - well mine was doo doo, so some quick work with a saw and it's gone. After seeing the plane with that turtle deck removed, I was struck with either a flash of brilliance, or an attack of cranial-rectal infusion. I need your help deciding which it is. What I was thinking was that the turtle deck from behind the pilot's seat and extending back those first two bays could be removable or hinged to open like a lid on an old trunk. The idea is that upon completion, it would make inspection and maintenance MUCH easier than trying to go through some little inspection holes. Now if I understand the engineering correctly, the strength of the fuse comes from the 1X1 longerons and all of the associated trusses etc. The turtle deck is there for aerodynamic and aesthetic reasons. I am not proposing to change anything about the longerons or even the shape of the deck, just make it removable, and held on with a series of leather straps and buckles to fit in with the period of the design. Am I way off on this? will I be adversely affecting the structural integrity- of the design? That is of course the only real question, I don't want to sacrifice safety. I know I- can do anything I want, but is this a dangerous plot destined for the headlines?JimRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 2#370192le, List Admin.________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wouldn't it be better if. . .
Original Posted By: "Chris"
Ok, so I always told myself I wouldn't second guess 90 years of success. I wouldn'ttry re-inventing the better mousetrap or re-discovering fire. But here is my mousetrap. I have been working on my Piet for some time now, and the wood work is about 90%done. I have built and re-built it probably a dozen times now as things lookwrong to me. One of these areas has been my turtle deck, you know that area withall the stringers - well mine was doo doo, so some quick work with a saw andit's gone. After seeing the plane with that turtle deck removed, I was struckwith either a flash of brilliance, or an attack of cranial-rectal infusion.I need your help deciding which it is. What I was thinking was that the turtle deck from behind the pilot's seat and extendingback those first two bays could be removable or hinged to open like alid on an old trunk. The idea is that upon completion, it would make inspectionand maintenance MUCH easier than trying to go through some little inspectionholes. Now if I understand the engineering correctly, the strength of the fuse comes fromthe 1X1 longerons and all of the associated trusses etc. The turtle deck isthere for aerodynamic and aesthetic reasons. I am not proposing to change anythingabout the longerons or even the shape of the deck, just make it removable,and held on with a series of leather straps and buckles to fit in with theperiod of the design. Am I way off on this? will I be adversely affecting the structural integrity ofthe design? That is of course the only real question, I don't want to sacrificesafety. I know I can do anything I want, but is this a dangerous plot destined for theheadlines?JimRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Ok, so I always told myself I wouldn't second guess 90 years of success. I wouldn'ttry re-inventing the better mousetrap or re-discovering fire. But here is my mousetrap. I have been working on my Piet for some time now, and the wood work is about 90%done. I have built and re-built it probably a dozen times now as things lookwrong to me. One of these areas has been my turtle deck, you know that area withall the stringers - well mine was doo doo, so some quick work with a saw andit's gone. After seeing the plane with that turtle deck removed, I was struckwith either a flash of brilliance, or an attack of cranial-rectal infusion.I need your help deciding which it is. What I was thinking was that the turtle deck from behind the pilot's seat and extendingback those first two bays could be removable or hinged to open like alid on an old trunk. The idea is that upon completion, it would make inspectionand maintenance MUCH easier than trying to go through some little inspectionholes. Now if I understand the engineering correctly, the strength of the fuse comes fromthe 1X1 longerons and all of the associated trusses etc. The turtle deck isthere for aerodynamic and aesthetic reasons. I am not proposing to change anythingabout the longerons or even the shape of the deck, just make it removable,and held on with a series of leather straps and buckles to fit in with theperiod of the design. Am I way off on this? will I be adversely affecting the structural integrity ofthe design? That is of course the only real question, I don't want to sacrificesafety. I know I can do anything I want, but is this a dangerous plot destined for theheadlines?JimRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
RE: Pietenpol-List: Wouldn't it be better if. . .
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
JimFirst of all, stick to the plans. And besides it will add weight so don'tdo it. But that isn't what you asked so I'm guessing it would be ok. TheFlybaby has an option to make the turtle deck removable and it is built alot like the Pietenpol. Maybe they can help you design it if you go thatrout. If all your looking for is access, many people have installed a largealuminum panel on the bottom of the fuselage under the bell crank. Thisshould provide easy access.ChrisSacramento, CaWestcoastpiet.com-----Original Message-----
JimFirst of all, stick to the plans. And besides it will add weight so don'tdo it. But that isn't what you asked so I'm guessing it would be ok. TheFlybaby has an option to make the turtle deck removable and it is built alot like the Pietenpol. Maybe they can help you design it if you go thatrout. If all your looking for is access, many people have installed a largealuminum panel on the bottom of the fuselage under the bell crank. Thisshould provide easy access.ChrisSacramento, CaWestcoastpiet.com-----Original Message-----
Pietenpol-List: Re: Wouldn't it be better if. . .
Original Posted By: Ben Charvet
Weight is always a concern, and one I have thought about. But like I said, or meantto say anyhow, it is very open with it removed. I hadn't thought about analuminum panel on the bottom though, that might well be a better idea. What prompted the question is that I have studied literally hundreds of picturesin every stage of construction, thank you everyone that has uploaded to westcoast piet. And have never seen that in there. figured there must be a reason.Anyway, AL panel on the bottom sounds like a better idea. Thanks. JimRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 05:44:52 -0400
Weight is always a concern, and one I have thought about. But like I said, or meantto say anyhow, it is very open with it removed. I hadn't thought about analuminum panel on the bottom though, that might well be a better idea. What prompted the question is that I have studied literally hundreds of picturesin every stage of construction, thank you everyone that has uploaded to westcoast piet. And have never seen that in there. figured there must be a reason.Anyway, AL panel on the bottom sounds like a better idea. Thanks. JimRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 05:44:52 -0400
Re: Pietenpol-List: Wouldn't it be better if. . .
Original Posted By: norm
Pietenpol-List: Re: Wouldn't it be better if. . .
Original Posted By: "jimcarriere"
The Standard J1 biplane has a similar fuse and removable turtle deck. Seems notto cause any problems. ToolsRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wouldn't it be better if. . .
The Standard J1 biplane has a similar fuse and removable turtle deck. Seems notto cause any problems. ToolsRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wouldn't it be better if. . .
Original Posted By: airlion
Something else to consider about the turtle deck is that it can help with the shoulderbelt routing. This is a somewhat arcane subject that is near and dearto my heart...The short version is that the shoulder belt should attach to the aircraft behindand at approximately horizontal from your shoulders rather than behind and below(a behind-and-below attachment not only holds you in the seat but it canalso compress your spine in a severe crash- but a straight behind attachment justholds you in the seat without hurting your back). The turtledeck can providea really handy standoff for a shoulder belt guide and then the actual attachmentpoint can be just about anywhere in the tail.The Bingelis book with the blue cover (Sportplane Builder) and AC 43.13-2b bothdo a good job of explaining this in pictures.... and I know that a lot of you Piet builders out there know this because I lookat your pictures of the beautiful work you've done on your airplanes
Just some food for thought-Jim(Kitfox builder and Pietenpol aficionado)--------Jim in NW FLKitfox Series 7 in progressRotec R2800Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 07:36:34 -0700 (PDT)
Something else to consider about the turtle deck is that it can help with the shoulderbelt routing. This is a somewhat arcane subject that is near and dearto my heart...The short version is that the shoulder belt should attach to the aircraft behindand at approximately horizontal from your shoulders rather than behind and below(a behind-and-below attachment not only holds you in the seat but it canalso compress your spine in a severe crash- but a straight behind attachment justholds you in the seat without hurting your back). The turtledeck can providea really handy standoff for a shoulder belt guide and then the actual attachmentpoint can be just about anywhere in the tail.The Bingelis book with the blue cover (Sportplane Builder) and AC 43.13-2b bothdo a good job of explaining this in pictures.... and I know that a lot of you Piet builders out there know this because I lookat your pictures of the beautiful work you've done on your airplanes
Just some food for thought-Jim(Kitfox builder and Pietenpol aficionado)--------Jim in NW FLKitfox Series 7 in progressRotec R2800Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 07:36:34 -0700 (PDT)RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wouldn't it be better if. . .
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
JimHere is a sketch Mike Cuy drew of his access door.http://westcoastpiet.com/images/Mike%20 ... Sacramento, CaWestcoastpiet.com-----Original Message-----
JimHere is a sketch Mike Cuy drew of his access door.http://westcoastpiet.com/images/Mike%20 ... Sacramento, CaWestcoastpiet.com-----Original Message-----
Pietenpol-List: Re: Wouldn't it be better if. . .
Original Posted By: "Jerry Dotson"
I really appreciate all the input. Now I'm going back to the removeable deck again.I like the idea of being able to peer down in there. Jim, the shoulder belt routing should not be affected by this at all. That bulkheadthat has the hat box in it will still be there with the belt slots cut init. The front bulkhead of the removeable portion would be open enough to allowthe box to still be there and for the belts to run through. Think of a big Cmade of ply. As far as being too flimsy for the covering, that was the reason I cut off theoriginal I built. This would have the same basic design, the primary differenceis that it would be built on longerons of their own rather the plane's longerons.At any rate, if there is no structural/safety reason not to do it, then I willjust build it up and see how the weight looks. From a praticality stand point,a 52 x 24 inch inspection hole is tough to beat.JimRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wouldn't it be better if. . .
I really appreciate all the input. Now I'm going back to the removeable deck again.I like the idea of being able to peer down in there. Jim, the shoulder belt routing should not be affected by this at all. That bulkheadthat has the hat box in it will still be there with the belt slots cut init. The front bulkhead of the removeable portion would be open enough to allowthe box to still be there and for the belts to run through. Think of a big Cmade of ply. As far as being too flimsy for the covering, that was the reason I cut off theoriginal I built. This would have the same basic design, the primary differenceis that it would be built on longerons of their own rather the plane's longerons.At any rate, if there is no structural/safety reason not to do it, then I willjust build it up and see how the weight looks. From a praticality stand point,a 52 x 24 inch inspection hole is tough to beat.JimRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wouldn't it be better if. . .
Pietenpol-List: Re: Wouldn't it be better if. . .
Original Posted By: "jimcarriere"
I made an aluminum sheet frame and cover it with fabric. It is not very heavy andseems to work fine. The picture is of the inside showing the frame.--------Jerry Dotson59 Daniel Johnson RdBaker, FL 32531Started building NX510JD July, 2009now covering and painting21" wheelsLycoming O-235 C2CJay Anderson CloudCars prop 76 X 44Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/a14_ ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wouldn't it be better if. . .
I made an aluminum sheet frame and cover it with fabric. It is not very heavy andseems to work fine. The picture is of the inside showing the frame.--------Jerry Dotson59 Daniel Johnson RdBaker, FL 32531Started building NX510JD July, 2009now covering and painting21" wheelsLycoming O-235 C2CJay Anderson CloudCars prop 76 X 44Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/a14_ ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wouldn't it be better if. . .
Original Posted By: "Douwe Blumberg"
[quote="flea"]Jim, the shoulder belt routing should not be affected by this at all. That bulkheadthat has the hat box in it will still be there with the belt slots cut init. The front bulkhead of the removeable portion would be open enough to allowthe box to still be there and for the belts to run through. Think of a big Cmade of ply.[/quote]Ah, thank you- this makes plenty of sense to me. It seems that I misunderstoodyour initial post. (I hope I didn't come across as the pontificating guest inthe group.)CheersJim--------Jim in NW FLKitfox Series 7 in progressRotec R2800Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
[quote="flea"]Jim, the shoulder belt routing should not be affected by this at all. That bulkheadthat has the hat box in it will still be there with the belt slots cut init. The front bulkhead of the removeable portion would be open enough to allowthe box to still be there and for the belts to run through. Think of a big Cmade of ply.[/quote]Ah, thank you- this makes plenty of sense to me. It seems that I misunderstoodyour initial post. (I hope I didn't come across as the pontificating guest inthe group.)CheersJim--------Jim in NW FLKitfox Series 7 in progressRotec R2800Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Wouldn't it be better if. . .
Original Posted By: "flea"
Since you really don't need to access the fuselage behind the pilot's seatvery often, I think it makes more sense to simply install a very thinaluminum sheet on the bottom of those first two bays. Really only adds afew ounces over cloth, and is very adequate for the occasional inspection,and it would certainly weigh less than a hinged turtledeck.Cool idea, but sounds unnecessarily gimmicky and kinda like over thinking arelatively "non-issue" item.$.02 (and worth every penny!)Douwe________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wouldn't it be better if. . .
Since you really don't need to access the fuselage behind the pilot's seatvery often, I think it makes more sense to simply install a very thinaluminum sheet on the bottom of those first two bays. Really only adds afew ounces over cloth, and is very adequate for the occasional inspection,and it would certainly weigh less than a hinged turtledeck.Cool idea, but sounds unnecessarily gimmicky and kinda like over thinking arelatively "non-issue" item.$.02 (and worth every penny!)Douwe________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wouldn't it be better if. . .
> Pietenpol-List: Re: Wouldn't it be better if. . .
Original Posted By: "Chris"
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted> by: "jimcarriere" > > Something else to consider about the turtle deck is that it> can help with the shoulder belt routing. This is a> somewhat arcane subject that is near and dear to my> heart...> > The short version is that the shoulder belt should attach to> the aircraft behind and at approximately horizontal from> your shoulders rather than behind and below (a> behind-and-below attachment not only holds you in the seat> but it can also compress your spine in a severe crash- but a> straight behind attachment just holds you in the seat> without hurting your back). The turtledeck can provide> a really handy standoff for a shoulder belt guide and then> the actual attachment point can be just about anywhere in> the tail.> > The Bingelis book with the blue cover (Sportplane Builder)> and AC 43.13-2b both do a good job of explaining this in> pictures.> > ... and I know that a lot of you Piet builders out there> know this because I look at your pictures of the beautiful> work you've done on your airplanes > > > > > Just some food for thought> -Jim> (Kitfox builder and Pietenpol aficionado)> > --------> Jim in NW FL> Kitfox Series 7 in progress> Rotec R2800> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 208#370208> > > > > > > > Email Forum -> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -> List Contribution Web Site -> -Matt> Dralle, List Admin.> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted> by: "jimcarriere" > > Something else to consider about the turtle deck is that it> can help with the shoulder belt routing. This is a> somewhat arcane subject that is near and dear to my> heart...> > The short version is that the shoulder belt should attach to> the aircraft behind and at approximately horizontal from> your shoulders rather than behind and below (a> behind-and-below attachment not only holds you in the seat> but it can also compress your spine in a severe crash- but a> straight behind attachment just holds you in the seat> without hurting your back). The turtledeck can provide> a really handy standoff for a shoulder belt guide and then> the actual attachment point can be just about anywhere in> the tail.> > The Bingelis book with the blue cover (Sportplane Builder)> and AC 43.13-2b both do a good job of explaining this in> pictures.> > ... and I know that a lot of you Piet builders out there> know this because I look at your pictures of the beautiful> work you've done on your airplanes >
> > > > Just some food for thought> -Jim> (Kitfox builder and Pietenpol aficionado)> > --------> Jim in NW FL> Kitfox Series 7 in progress> Rotec R2800> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 208#370208> > > > > > > > Email Forum -> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -> List Contribution Web Site -> -Matt> Dralle, List Admin.> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________