Pietenpol-List: 3 1/2" tail wheel....a report

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

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: gliderx5(at)comcast.net
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AHello G.P.=0A=0A=0AI have now been flying with my hard rubber, Wick's Aircraft Supply http://aircraftproducts.wicksaircraft.c ... in=keyword hard rubber 3 1/2" dia. tail wheel for all of my 100 hrs of Piet time. This includes much taxiing on hard surface, and take-off landing mostly from grass/clover etc. It has taken a lot of punishment. I am very pleased with the results and performance. I was doing some minor repairs with my assembly back there, so I decided to replace the tire (even though I didn't have to). There was only, what I would consider "slight" amount of wear on the rubber itself. The bearings are ball bearing, but there is no means of lubrication, except maybe dripping a few drops of oil into the bearings from the side. Not much bearing wear to report in the first 100 hours. The bearing "slop" on the old one is very slight compared with the new.=0A=0A=0AI found a "hollow" bolt for the axle. I don't even remember where I got it, but it has a drilled hole to make it hollow, and a small drilled hole in the side so as to allow grease to be forced out to the inside cavity of the wheel bearings. I installed a zerk fitting into the end. =0A=0A=0AThis design has been a long evolution in design to get to this point. There is a quick-disconnect feature via a flat spring/lock pin. The idea is that the assembly can be removed quickly and a simple skid attached if desired.=0A=0A=0AAs you can see, there is a spring-loaded pin, that pulled slightly, "disconnects" the rudder from the wheel, and allows for free-wheeling for push-back operations. =0A=0A=0AI am showing all this, not to say it is the end-all, but to give ideas to others to get their own juices flowing, to meet individual needs. =0A=0A=0ADan Helsper=0ALoensloe Airfield=0APuryear, TN=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 00:01:46 +0000 (UTC)
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: beautiful Micro Mong latex paint

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: gliderx5(at)comcast.net
yeah=2C if it sits in a hangar it gets very little UV exposure. if I was gonna clear coat I would just go with a basecoat/clearcoat system. Any good automotive paint would work as long as you put a flex agent in it. My dad and I did several over the years. FAA won't allow it now I don't think. We never had a problem. Outlasted the ceconite fabric. Durable as heck. Not cheap though.Doug Dever=0AIn beautiful Stow OhioDate: Wed=2C 27 Aug 2014 00:01:46 +0000
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Pietenpol-List: Re: More notes on CG, axle location and weight

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: "aerocarjake"
Warning: this is a long story presented for builders that like reading, consideringand understanding planes. It has little 'entertainment' value. If you areopen to considering different perspectives, it has value. If that isn't a naturalinclination, perhaps it is better left unread.--------------------------------Some thoughts on CG and axle placement:Since there was some discussion on landing gear today, let me share this thought with people building that part of their project. Many people heard that Steve Williamson and his partner, who own this plane: http://flycorvair.net/2013/01/08/new-pi ... valley-ca/ had a mishap on the way to Brodhead. Steve and his friend came to my display at Oshkosh and I heard the information first hand, and saw pictures. They spoke frankly and wanted others to learn something, Steve's friend (who was flying)adamantly says that he knew he was uninjured due to shoulder belts. Steve didn't have long to look at it but thought the reported engine issue was fuel delivery to the certified carb. My 2 cents on this is that the plane flew to the final airport, but the pilot was unfamiliar with the site and conditions. Upon landing he ended up putting the plane on it's back on the paved runway. Considering this, the damage was very light. I consider the largest single factor in this the planes main landing gear location.In our CG review, this plane was Corvair powered plane #4. Although the planewas yet to be covered, Ryan and I weighed and measured it. Our notes in thestory show that the main gear is located 8" behind the leading edge. IMnsHO,this is way too far back for any plane with brakes, or that lands in a crosswindor on pavement. Even if people have flown planes with brakes that far back,all it takes is having your attention diverted for a moment once. The 1960snotes from BHP state the axle with brakes should be between the LE and 3" backat the most. Steve's plane makes 6 Piets that I know of that have been on theirback in 6 years. The common thread is aft axle location and brakes. If thereare 300 Piets, 6 is 2% of the fleet. Lets say there are 9,000 J-3's out there,if axle location didn't make a difference, I should have seen 180 J-3's ontheir back in the same period, but I didn't see a single one, and I attributethis largely to the J-3 having the main gear at the leading edge of the wing.I have flown a Piet with the gear at both extremes, and I don't feel there isa significant reason not to put the gear near the LE of the wing. We have nowweighed measured 34 Piets, and not a single one of them had the gear withinthe range BHP suggested in the 1960's, and the average plane had it about 7" back,This suggests that few people beyond those who flew my plane or have flownThe Last Original have first hand experience with the main gear in the 0"-3"range to compare it with.---------------------------------------------------Some thoughts on A-65 CG's: The lightest plane of the 34 we have weighed is in the CG stories as Continentalplane #4, at 590 pounds as a flying empty weight measured at Brodhead. The planehad a metal prop on it so if you really wanted to compare it to a wood propplane, we could call it 'effectively' 575 pounds. This plane had split gear,no brakes, had feathery light spun aluminum go cart wheels and ultra light tires,and no tail wheel. In the 1990s I covered aerobatic planes for a living,and can say the fabric on the plane was very light, and nothing short of Oratechis going to be much lighter. By weight standards, the plane is a masterwork,by finish standard the plane was very good, and by CG standards it's in needof a major rework.If you look at the notes for plane #4, the maximum allowable pilot weight beforethe plane went out of the aft CG limit was only 122 pounds. The pilot flyingit was light, but not that light. Note that the empty weight CG of the planewas 12.4" To get the plane to fly a 200 pound pilot, right at the aft CG limit,would take moving the wing about 4" aft. This illustrates that the lightestplane will be the most CG sensitive of all.I read the builder report of a 'preliminary' weight of 577 pounds for a plane witha straight axle and full size wire wheels and a tail wheel. I have a hardtime visualizing how that plane when it is operational at an airport will be aslight as Aircraft #4. I read Brian from Canada's weight report and it givesan impressive picture of what is required to get a flying plane to come in below600 pounds. The 577 plane builder stated that the EWCG was about 12" and the tail wheel weightwas near zero. This suggests that the main gear is right near 12" back. Althoughthe builder stated that he was planning on moving the wing several inches,put together the stories I have related above and understand this: If thebuilder weighs 195 pounds dressed, and he moves the wing back 3.5", it still willnot get him into the CG range of the plane, and the main axle will still belocated at 8.5" behind the LE, even further back than Steves plane which wentover. Neither of these is a desirable condition. IMnsHO, builders should notbe so focused on low weight and be missing CG and axle location issues.--------------------------------------------------------Some thoughts on Empty weights of planes:One of the first things any builder is told is that "Light weight = performance."Take a quick quiz: 1) How much better is the glide ratio of 600 pound Piet with just a 140 pound pilot,than the same plane with two 220 pound guys in it? 2) How much slower will a 600 pound Piet with two 170 pound people in it fly thana 700 pound Piet with two 170 pound people in it?3) Assuming a 1250 gross weight, does a 600 pound Piet have a 650 pound usefulload? Will a 750 pound Piet have a 500 pound useful load?4) Which climbs faster, a Piet that weighs 100 pounds less, or one that has 30more horsepower?.....................................1) They will have different sink rates, but they will have the exact same glideratio2) About 2 mph3) Most light Piets are CG limited or power limited. Study the charts in the CGseries and see how hard it would be to load 650 pounds into a A-65 and stay inCG. Ask other A-65 pilots what they consider their gross weight on a hot dayflying off grass. Compare this with the CG info for Corvair and O-200 planes,and see that most of them do have an effective 500 pound useful load.4) The plane with 30 more horses will climb 3x faster. Read the test at this link: http://flycorvair.net/2012/10/17/pieten ... Understand that most people who preach only light weight don't have a good graspon aircraft performance, they just like having a number to compare. Practicalaircraft performance and good flying characteristics require a bit more effortthan comparing 3 digit numbers.------------------------------------------------William WynneRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: More notes on CG, axle location and weight
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: jim hyde
Thanks for posting.... Nice to see facts and data - which provides input for decisions about my (Bernard'sactually!) airplane .....although pretty girl's/paint jobs are good postingsas well...!I joined/drilled the wing spars to the center-section spars two days ago. Morework on the center-section this Labor Day weekend - all good....!--------Jake Schultz - curator,Newport Way Air Museum (OK, it's just my home)Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 22:32:04 -0700
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Pietenpol-List: 3 1/2" tail wheel....a report

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: danhelsper(at)aol.com
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com> >> > Just talked to Sherwin Williams Marine Dept and they stated that it would be no issue to apply it over any of their latex house paints once they are cured. It has the same flexibility as the latex so it will move with it and bond to it.> > It will also give better UV and surface protection then latex itself. Being a waterborne acrylic it is optically clear=2C no yellow tint or fading yellow. They said its a high quality clear commercial/industrial topcoat.> > I may just purchase a quart and try it=2C sounds like a good top coat over the house latex for a high gloss=2C Semi-gloss or Mil-flat finish without all the polishing work.> > WF2> > --------> > > > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 379#429379> > > > > > > ============================================> > > ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: 3 1/2" tail wheel....a report
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

> Pietenpol-List: Re: beautiful Micro Mong latex paint

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: Doug
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > > > Just talked to Sherwin Williams Marine Dept and they stated that it would beno issue to apply it over any of their latex house paints once they are cured.It has the same flexibility as the latex so it will move with it and bond toit. > > It will also give better UV and surface protection then latex itself. Being awaterborne acrylic it is optically clear, no yellow tint or fading yellow. Theysaid its a high quality clear commercial/industrial topcoat. > > I may just purchase a quart and try it, sounds like a good top coat over thehouse latex for a high gloss, Semi-gloss or Mil-flat finish without all the polishingwork. > > WF2 > > -------- > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 379#429379 > > > > > >================= > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

Pietenpol-List: More notes on CG, axle location and weight

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By: "William Wynne"
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com> >> > Just talked to Sherwin Williams Marine Dept and they stated that it would be no issue to apply it over any of their latex house paints once they are cured. It has the same flexibility as the latex so it will move with it and bond to it.> > It will also give better UV and surface protection then latex itself. Being a waterborne acrylic it is optically clear=2C no yellow tint or fading yellow. They said its a high quality clear commercial/industrial topcoat.> > I may just purchase a quart and try it=2C sounds like a good top coat over the house latex for a high gloss=2C Semi-gloss or Mil-flat finish without all the polishing work.> > WF2> > --------> > > > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 379#429379> > > > > >================> > > =0A=0A" target="_blank" data-mce-href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet ... m=0A_blank" data-mce-href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution"> ... =====0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: More notes on CG, axle location and weight
matronics
Posts: 81779
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:29 am

list(at)matronics.com=0A Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: beautiful Micro Mong

Post by matronics »

Original Posted By:=0A=0A________________________________=0A=0A "Doug" <chiefpepperhead@h
list(at)matronics.com=0ASubject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: beautiful Micro Mong latex paint=0A=0A=0ADoug=0A=0A=0AHere's a good research article on latex paint and UV. Latex is actually not too bad.=0A=0A=0Ahttp://www.westcoastpiet.com/images/Paint%20Pi ... 0A=0AAfter 3 years and lots of flying, my Titan Tornado still shines like new. Granted, it lives in a hangar like most airplanes, but it is holding up very well. The idea of a clear coat is attractive if it works. I don't really like adding weight to get the shine when you can get a pretty decent shine by just polishing, but it would sure save some effort if it works. It would be great to hear from someone who has tried it.=0A=0A=0AMalcolm Morrison=0A=0Awienerdogaero.com=0A=0A
Locked