Original Posted By: Ken Beanlands
Claude Wrote:( or was it Claude ) , a wood prop, lite cub style gear ,a short fuselage and 1 piece wing.If your are going to use a continental in the above configuration, itwill have to be put in the next county to get anywhere near the CGrange.Mike B Piet N 687MB ( Mr Sam )Claude Wrote:( or was it Claude)Apparently it is possible to getunder 600 lbsempty with a -8cont , a wood prop, lite cub style gear ,ashortfuselage and 1 piece wing. If your are going to use a continental in theaboveconfiguration, it will have to be put in the next county to get anywherenearthe CG range.Mike B Piet N 687MB ( Mr Sam)________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Piet wt
Re: Piet wt
Original Posted By: "Michael Brusilow"
Subject: Re: Piet wt>All you gotta do is move the wing back.>Do not move the engine forward on the fuselage.>Mr. Pietenpol said that would make it hard to come out>of a sideslip quickly. (note the word quickly)>My Piet weighs 610, and I had to move the wing back>6.5 inches, cause I weigh 275.>>>JimV.>>>--- Michael Brusilow >wrote:>> Claude Wrote:( or was it Claude )>>>> > empty with a -8>> cont>> > , a wood prop, lite cub style gear ,a short>> fuselage and 1 piece wing.>>>> If your are going to use a continental in the above>> configuration, it will have to be put in the next>> county to get anywhere near the CG range.>>>> Mike B Piet N 687MB ( Mr Sam )>>>>>>>>__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Piet wt>All you gotta do is move the wing back.>Do not move the engine forward on the fuselage.>Mr. Pietenpol said that would make it hard to come out>of a sideslip quickly. (note the word quickly)>My Piet weighs 610, and I had to move the wing back>6.5 inches, cause I weigh 275.>>>JimV.>>>--- Michael Brusilow >wrote:>> Claude Wrote:( or was it Claude )>>>> > empty with a -8>> cont>> > , a wood prop, lite cub style gear ,a short>> fuselage and 1 piece wing.>>>> If your are going to use a continental in the above>> configuration, it will have to be put in the next>> county to get anywhere near the CG range.>>>> Mike B Piet N 687MB ( Mr Sam )>>>>>>>>__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Piet wt
Original Posted By: "Mac Zirges"
Subject: Re: Piet wt>>All you gotta do is move the wing back.>Do not move the engine forward on the fuselage.>Mr. Pietenpol said that would make it hard to come out>of a sideslip quickly. (note the word quickly)>My Piet weighs 610, and I had to move the wing back>6.5 inches, cause I weigh 275.>>>JimV.>>>--- Michael Brusilow >wrote:>> Claude Wrote:( or was it Claude )>>>> > empty with a -8>> cont>> > , a wood prop, lite cub style gear ,a short>> fuselage and 1 piece wing.>>>> If your are going to use a continental in the above>> configuration, it will have to be put in the next>> county to get anywhere near the CG range.>>>> Mike B Piet N 687MB ( Mr Sam )>>>>>>>>__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Piet wt>>All you gotta do is move the wing back.>Do not move the engine forward on the fuselage.>Mr. Pietenpol said that would make it hard to come out>of a sideslip quickly. (note the word quickly)>My Piet weighs 610, and I had to move the wing back>6.5 inches, cause I weigh 275.>>>JimV.>>>--- Michael Brusilow >wrote:>> Claude Wrote:( or was it Claude )>>>> > empty with a -8>> cont>> > , a wood prop, lite cub style gear ,a short>> fuselage and 1 piece wing.>>>> If your are going to use a continental in the above>> configuration, it will have to be put in the next>> county to get anywhere near the CG range.>>>> Mike B Piet N 687MB ( Mr Sam )>>>>>>>>__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Piet wt
Original Posted By: Borodent(at)aol.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Piet wt>C'mon, Mike, don't lead everybody astray!!!!!!!!1>All you gotta do is move the wing back.>Do not move the engine forward on the fuselage.>Mr. Pietenpol said that would make it hard to come out>of a sideslip quickly. (note the word quickly)>My Piet weighs 610, and I had to move the wing back>6.5 inches, cause I weigh 275.>>>JimV.>>>--- Michael Brusilow >wrote:>> Claude Wrote:( or was it Claude )>> >> > empty with a -8>> cont>> > , a wood prop, lite cub style gear ,a short>> fuselage and 1 piece wing. >> >> If your are going to use a continental in the above>> configuration, it will have to be put in the next>> county to get anywhere near the CG range.>> >> Mike B Piet N 687MB ( Mr Sam )>> >> >> >>________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Piet wt>C'mon, Mike, don't lead everybody astray!!!!!!!!1>All you gotta do is move the wing back.>Do not move the engine forward on the fuselage.>Mr. Pietenpol said that would make it hard to come out>of a sideslip quickly. (note the word quickly)>My Piet weighs 610, and I had to move the wing back>6.5 inches, cause I weigh 275.>>>JimV.>>>--- Michael Brusilow >wrote:>> Claude Wrote:( or was it Claude )>> >> > empty with a -8>> cont>> > , a wood prop, lite cub style gear ,a short>> fuselage and 1 piece wing. >> >> If your are going to use a continental in the above>> configuration, it will have to be put in the next>> county to get anywhere near the CG range.>> >> Mike B Piet N 687MB ( Mr Sam )>> >> >> >>________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Piet wt
Original Posted By: Gordon Brimhall
C'mon, Mike, don't lead everybody astray!!!!!!!!1All you gotta do is move the wing back.Do not move the engine forward on the fuselage.Mr. Pietenpol said that would make it hard to come outof a sideslip quickly. (note the word quickly)My Piet weighs 610, and I had to move the wing back6.5 inches, cause I weigh 275.JimV.--- Michael Brusilow wrote:> Claude Wrote:( or was it Claude )> > empty with a -8> cont> > , a wood prop, lite cub style gear ,a short> fuselage and 1 piece wing. > > If your are going to use a continental in the above> configuration, it will have to be put in the next> county to get anywhere near the CG range.> > Mike B Piet N 687MB ( Mr Sam )> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
C'mon, Mike, don't lead everybody astray!!!!!!!!1All you gotta do is move the wing back.Do not move the engine forward on the fuselage.Mr. Pietenpol said that would make it hard to come outof a sideslip quickly. (note the word quickly)My Piet weighs 610, and I had to move the wing back6.5 inches, cause I weigh 275.JimV.--- Michael Brusilow wrote:> Claude Wrote:( or was it Claude )> > empty with a -8> cont> > , a wood prop, lite cub style gear ,a short> fuselage and 1 piece wing. > > If your are going to use a continental in the above> configuration, it will have to be put in the next> county to get anywhere near the CG range.> > Mike B Piet N 687MB ( Mr Sam )> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Piet wt
Original Posted By: Jim VanDervort
-----Original Message-----
-----Original Message-----
Pietenpol-List: Re: Piet wt
Original Posted By:> Jim VanDervort
Hi, Mike,Engine weight, gross weight , or any other weightdoesn't matter much.What REALLY matters is CG.That is achieved by putting the wing where it needs tobe.I think I am making my Piet heavier.You know, like painting the wire stretchers(lift struts, some call 'em)JimV.--- Michael Brusilow wrote:> > -----Original Message-----
Hi, Mike,Engine weight, gross weight , or any other weightdoesn't matter much.What REALLY matters is CG.That is achieved by putting the wing where it needs tobe.I think I am making my Piet heavier.You know, like painting the wire stretchers(lift struts, some call 'em)JimV.--- Michael Brusilow wrote:> > -----Original Message-----
Pietenpol-List: Re: Piet wt
Original Posted By: Jim VanDervort
HE LIVES!!!-----Original Message-----________________________________________________________________________________
HE LIVES!!!-----Original Message-----________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Center of Gravity Standards (?)
Original Posted By: "Gene Rambo"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Center of Gravity Standards (?)>>Walt said:>> You said that my theory works only if the wing is lighter than air,,,>>But when you are flying ,,,the wing IS lighter than air. The wing is>>pulling up, and the body pulling down.>>The wing isn't light than air, there is only more lift force than gravity>force. Gravity is pulling the mass of the wing and the body down at the>same rate. If the wing was truely lighter than air it would have buoyancy>in the liquid we call air. Therefore the weight of the wing in it's>different areas effect CG and it's relavance to the fusealge.>>>>I realize that there are other forces too, like "prying" forces from the>>wing to the body thru struts.>>But if you want to "hang" from the perfect CG point on the wing,,, it's>like>>a fat kid and a skinny kid on the see-saw.....You have to slide the plank>>towards the skinny kid, till the board balances. You can also move the>>engine fwd. ( have the skinny kid skoot back) to do the same thing.>>>Exactly what I was saying, except if you try to calculate before you move>the plank under the kid you must know how much the plank ways per cubicfoot>to adjust for the added weight of the plank on that side besides the skinny>kid. Because the plank has mass and weight it must be figure in the>calculation to get proper CG placement just like the wing.>>Or I'm complete nuts, you decide. (I do remember getting hit in the headas>a child when trying to adjust perfect CG on a see-saw)>>Greg>>________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Center of Gravity Standards (?)>>Walt said:>> You said that my theory works only if the wing is lighter than air,,,>>But when you are flying ,,,the wing IS lighter than air. The wing is>>pulling up, and the body pulling down.>>The wing isn't light than air, there is only more lift force than gravity>force. Gravity is pulling the mass of the wing and the body down at the>same rate. If the wing was truely lighter than air it would have buoyancy>in the liquid we call air. Therefore the weight of the wing in it's>different areas effect CG and it's relavance to the fusealge.>>>>I realize that there are other forces too, like "prying" forces from the>>wing to the body thru struts.>>But if you want to "hang" from the perfect CG point on the wing,,, it's>like>>a fat kid and a skinny kid on the see-saw.....You have to slide the plank>>towards the skinny kid, till the board balances. You can also move the>>engine fwd. ( have the skinny kid skoot back) to do the same thing.>>>Exactly what I was saying, except if you try to calculate before you move>the plank under the kid you must know how much the plank ways per cubicfoot>to adjust for the added weight of the plank on that side besides the skinny>kid. Because the plank has mass and weight it must be figure in the>calculation to get proper CG placement just like the wing.>>Or I'm complete nuts, you decide. (I do remember getting hit in the headas>a child when trying to adjust perfect CG on a see-saw)>>Greg>>________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Fw: Piet wt
Original Posted By: Jim VanDervort
I am sure that Jim won't mind if I fwd this message for those who have notseen it before.Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam)-----Original Message-----
I am sure that Jim won't mind if I fwd this message for those who have notseen it before.Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam)-----Original Message-----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Center of Gravity Standards (?)
Original Posted By: Greg Yotz
A comment on the CG discussion--You have to think of the wing as a skyhookthat the rest of the airplane hangs from. This is especially easy toconceptualize since the Piet is a parasol where the rest of the planeliterally does hang down below the wing.Anyway, the center of lift of the wing is the fulcrum that the weight of thefuselage etc. hangs from so to adjust CG you move the fuselage forward/backto change balance relative to this point.As a note, the purpose of the horizontal tail is to provide pitch stabilityaround this wing pivot point, and to insure that an airplane will naturallypitch nose-down, ie NOT pitch nose-up and stall, there is designed in adownward force component for the tail--this is why you sometimes seedesigners use inverted airfoils for horizontal stabilizers.Cheers, Mac in Oregon-----Original Message-----
A comment on the CG discussion--You have to think of the wing as a skyhookthat the rest of the airplane hangs from. This is especially easy toconceptualize since the Piet is a parasol where the rest of the planeliterally does hang down below the wing.Anyway, the center of lift of the wing is the fulcrum that the weight of thefuselage etc. hangs from so to adjust CG you move the fuselage forward/backto change balance relative to this point.As a note, the purpose of the horizontal tail is to provide pitch stabilityaround this wing pivot point, and to insure that an airplane will naturallypitch nose-down, ie NOT pitch nose-up and stall, there is designed in adownward force component for the tail--this is why you sometimes seedesigners use inverted airfoils for horizontal stabilizers.Cheers, Mac in Oregon-----Original Message-----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Center of Gravity Standards (?)
Original Posted By: "Greg Yotz"
Boy, this thread is getting wayyyy out of hand. The terms CG, CL and datumare being confused and, sometimes, misused. This is not as difficult as wehave let it become.1. Forget the "datum," it is an imaginary thing. There is no "moving" or"not moving" the datum. Make it the tip of your spinner and forget it onceyou calculate the cg for the first time.2. You do have a CG, which is not going to change absent some physicalchange to the airplane. (before anyone says anything, changing to a heavierpilot or burning fuel are physical changes)3. You also have a CL, which is going to move on the wing depending on theangle of attack.4. To fly properly, for our purposes, the CG must fall within the range oftravel of the CL, preferably toward the forward end of the range so thatthe airplane tends to nose down in a stall.5. If the CG is not where it is supposed to be in relation to the CL,something has to move. 6. If the CG is too far aft, you have got to either move the CG forward,or the CL back, BOTH of which are perfectly acceptable means that have beenused since the invention of the airplane. 6a. Moving the CG Forward. With most airplanes, one can simply move apiece of equipment forward. With a Piet, we have very little "ballast"that can be moved so we are left with moving the engine forward (unless youwant to pack the spinner with lead). Bernie has caused undue consternationwith his admonition that moving the engine makes the airplane moredifficult to recover from a slip "quickly" (key word). Haven't all of youseen an "anteater" American Eagle biplane? (or any other biplane with alighter engine) With the OX-5 engine it is properly proportioned. Withthe 125 h.p. Kinner engine, it has a four-foot nose on it. These aircraftare not difficult to slip. While Bernie may have been correct, hisstatement has been over-emphasized. The amount of movement we are talking about when we lengthen the enginemount is not enough to alter the control effectiveness of the rudder. Ifthe weight of the airplane has not changed (of course except for the minorweight of the additional mount material), the same amount of mass isrotating around the CG anyway. If the CG moves forward, the rudder shouldbecome MORE effective because it has a longer arm. 6b. Moving the CL Aft. Much easier than building a new engine mount,cowling, and all new engine controls, fuel lines, etc., the wing, i.e. CL,can be moved back AS IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE. The hinged struts andadjustable wires are designed that way for a purpose, to allow the wing tomove. Yea, yea, you move the weight of the wing aft as well. BIG DEAL. We are talking about a relatively small amount of weight that is fairlyclose to the CG, so the change in the CG is minimal as compared the themovement of the CL. If the wing needs to be moved back a large distance sothat the angles of struts becomes an issue, you have got much biggerproblems. The solution is, first, BUILD IT LIGHT! It is a Pietenpol, not the spaceshuttle. You do not need GPS, autopilot, a full IFR panel, a starter, acomplete competition aerobatic harness system, a wet bar, 47 hand-rubbedcoats of dope, or any, ANY additional structure other than what is calledfor. If it looks like you are going to have a CG problem, either from roughcalculations or the fact that your hot tub is placed just behind the rearcockpit, consider moving the engine for a coarse CG adjustment, and makefine adjustments to the finished product by moving the wing. That is howit has always been done.Or this could all be wrong.(any Richard Bach fans out there?)________________________________________________________________________________
Boy, this thread is getting wayyyy out of hand. The terms CG, CL and datumare being confused and, sometimes, misused. This is not as difficult as wehave let it become.1. Forget the "datum," it is an imaginary thing. There is no "moving" or"not moving" the datum. Make it the tip of your spinner and forget it onceyou calculate the cg for the first time.2. You do have a CG, which is not going to change absent some physicalchange to the airplane. (before anyone says anything, changing to a heavierpilot or burning fuel are physical changes)3. You also have a CL, which is going to move on the wing depending on theangle of attack.4. To fly properly, for our purposes, the CG must fall within the range oftravel of the CL, preferably toward the forward end of the range so thatthe airplane tends to nose down in a stall.5. If the CG is not where it is supposed to be in relation to the CL,something has to move. 6. If the CG is too far aft, you have got to either move the CG forward,or the CL back, BOTH of which are perfectly acceptable means that have beenused since the invention of the airplane. 6a. Moving the CG Forward. With most airplanes, one can simply move apiece of equipment forward. With a Piet, we have very little "ballast"that can be moved so we are left with moving the engine forward (unless youwant to pack the spinner with lead). Bernie has caused undue consternationwith his admonition that moving the engine makes the airplane moredifficult to recover from a slip "quickly" (key word). Haven't all of youseen an "anteater" American Eagle biplane? (or any other biplane with alighter engine) With the OX-5 engine it is properly proportioned. Withthe 125 h.p. Kinner engine, it has a four-foot nose on it. These aircraftare not difficult to slip. While Bernie may have been correct, hisstatement has been over-emphasized. The amount of movement we are talking about when we lengthen the enginemount is not enough to alter the control effectiveness of the rudder. Ifthe weight of the airplane has not changed (of course except for the minorweight of the additional mount material), the same amount of mass isrotating around the CG anyway. If the CG moves forward, the rudder shouldbecome MORE effective because it has a longer arm. 6b. Moving the CL Aft. Much easier than building a new engine mount,cowling, and all new engine controls, fuel lines, etc., the wing, i.e. CL,can be moved back AS IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE. The hinged struts andadjustable wires are designed that way for a purpose, to allow the wing tomove. Yea, yea, you move the weight of the wing aft as well. BIG DEAL. We are talking about a relatively small amount of weight that is fairlyclose to the CG, so the change in the CG is minimal as compared the themovement of the CL. If the wing needs to be moved back a large distance sothat the angles of struts becomes an issue, you have got much biggerproblems. The solution is, first, BUILD IT LIGHT! It is a Pietenpol, not the spaceshuttle. You do not need GPS, autopilot, a full IFR panel, a starter, acomplete competition aerobatic harness system, a wet bar, 47 hand-rubbedcoats of dope, or any, ANY additional structure other than what is calledfor. If it looks like you are going to have a CG problem, either from roughcalculations or the fact that your hot tub is placed just behind the rearcockpit, consider moving the engine for a coarse CG adjustment, and makefine adjustments to the finished product by moving the wing. That is howit has always been done.Or this could all be wrong.(any Richard Bach fans out there?)________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Center of Gravity Standards (?)
Original Posted By: jared wilkinson
Learning is finding out what you already know. Doing is demonstrating that you know it. Teaching is reminding others that they know just as well as you. You are all learners, doers, teachers. --- Richard Bach There is no such thing as a problem without a gift for you in its hands. You seek problems because you need their gifts. --- Richard BachAnd of course... Everything above maybe wrong....Greg________________________________________________________________________________Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:54:40 -0700 (PDT)
Learning is finding out what you already know. Doing is demonstrating that you know it. Teaching is reminding others that they know just as well as you. You are all learners, doers, teachers. --- Richard Bach There is no such thing as a problem without a gift for you in its hands. You seek problems because you need their gifts. --- Richard BachAnd of course... Everything above maybe wrong....Greg________________________________________________________________________________Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:54:40 -0700 (PDT)