Original Posted By: "Michael Brusilow"
Subject: Pietenpol weight and balance(http://members.aol.com/gmaclaren/wb.html)This page from the BPA newsletter may be of some interest to our members.Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam ) The results are in . . .byJack Broomall22200 Heatheridge LaneNorthville, MI 48167andDon Verdiani103 Lockerbie LaneWest Chester, PA 19382Those of you who were fortunate enough to attend Brodhead '94 may know thatwe were able to measure weight and center of gravity information for eightof the aircraft attending the event.The reason for undertaking this exercise was to provide a bank ofinformation that Piet builders could refer to and use in configuring theiraircraft. Over the past several years we have noticed that there are avariety of types of Air Campers flying with different engines, at least twocommon fuselage lengths, different wing positions, and different flyingcharacteristics (if you doubt this take a close look at the various aircrafttaking off and landing at Brodhead!). Collecting the weight and balanceinformation on a number of flying aircraft seemed like a good way to gainsome insight in this area.The data table (below) summarizes the most important information which wasaccumulated.We were fortunate to be able to inspect examples of each of the three mostcommon powerplants (Ford, Corvair, and Continental).In the third column we categorize the fuselage as 'short' (the originaldesign) or long (the so-called 'improved' air camper).In column 4 we show the aircraft's empty weight. In each case the aircraftwas presented for weighing with some amount of fuel on board. We asked eachowner to estimate how much fuel was in the aircraft, and then corrected toan empty weight using that estimate and the standard value of 6 lbs. pergallon for gasoline.While there is some degree of 'estimating' in these numbers, we arecomfortable that they are reasonably accurate.In the fifth column, we show the empty aircraft's center of gravity locationwith respect to the wing leading edge. We chose the wing leading edge as adatum because it was the best way to normalize the data to a large varietyof aircraft and also because that's what Mr. Pietenpol used!For comparative purposes there is a published weight and balance summary,done in 1965, showing a Corvair powered Air Camper with an empty C.G. 8.71inches aft of datum. Very few of us fly airplanes empty, with no passengers!Fortunatly, using the data we collected, we are able to calculate center ofgravity location for any loading condition.In the sixth column, we show the calculated C.G. location when the aircraftwas loaded with an FAA standard 170 pound pilot in the back seat, and 7gallons of fuel in the 'main' fuel tank. This might represent a 'typical'loading for pilot only. Since we weighed some aircraft with both wing tanksand fueslage tanks we elected to (mathematically) put the 7 gallons of fuelin whichever tank was bigger. Again a comparison is available.The previously mentioned weight and balance chart included a C.G.calculation for that aircraft with 7 gallons of fuel and a 166 pound piloton board (Did BHP weigh 166 pounds?). His example aircraft has a C.G. 9.51"aft of datum in that loading condition.As a final set of calculations we've shown aircraft weight and C.G. locationwhen each aircraft is loaded with a 170 pilot, a 170 pound passenger, andit's fuel tank(s) full. These weights are shown in column G and the C.G.location is in column H. We found these weights interesting in that some ofthe aircraft have surprisingly high gross weights. Also, there are severalaircraft which, in one loading condition or another, seem to violate BHP'srecommendation to never exceed 20" aft of datum C.G. (also shown in the 1965weight and balance sheet).Because of the conditions under which all of our information was collectedand because there was no chance to double check any measurements there issome real chance that there may be errors in our analysis. However, there isenough consistency in the data to feel fairly confident about it's accuracy.We would like to thank all the fine folks at Brodhead for helping us withthis project. And special thanks are due to the eight aircraft owners whodonated their aircraft as well as their time and help. We'd like to thinkthis activity has produced information of real value to the community ofPietenpol builders and pilots! Anyone who has any questions can feel free tocontact either of us at the addresses above.Pietenpol Weight & Balance Brodhead -1994 Tail Number Engine Type Fuselage Length Empty Weight CG empty / inches aft of datum CG w/170# pilot & 7 gal. fuel Wt. w/170# pilot & 170# pass & 7 gal. fuel CG w/170# pilot & 170# pass & 7 gal. fuel N444MH Ford 'A' Short 648 7.49 17.72 1048 18.83 NX13691 Ford 'A' Short 676 11.83 21.04 1088 22.02 NX4662T Ford 'A' Short 671 13.69 20.45 1071 20.7 NX5228 Ford 'A' Long 684 6.69 16.16 1084 17.33 C FCMG 0-200 Long 774 15.25 20.42 1208 19.43 N 396S C-85 Long 820 15.2 18.61 1256 16.57 N 687MB 0-200 Long 705 5.59 14.57 1143 15.79 N 778DD Corvair Long 731 9.08 15.93 1191 14.98----||________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol weight and balance
Pietenpol weight and balance
Original Posted By: DonanClara(at)aol.com
Subject: Pietenpol weight and balance(http://members.aol.com/gmaclaren/wb.html)This page from the BPA newsletter may be of some interest to our members &in respone to a question from Joe GautherMike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam ) The results are in . . .byJack Broomall22200 Heatheridge LaneNorthville, MI 48167andDon Verdiani103 Lockerbie LaneWest Chester, PA 19382Those of you who were fortunate enough to attend Brodhead '94 may know thatwe were able to measure weight and center of gravity information for eightof the aircraft attending the event.The reason for undertaking this exercise was to provide a bank ofinformation that Piet builders could refer to and use in configuring theiraircraft. Over the past several years we have noticed that there are avariety of types of Air Campers flying with different engines, at least twocommon fuselage lengths, different wing positions, and different flyingcharacteristics (if you doubt this take a close look at the various aircrafttaking off and landing at Brodhead!). Collecting the weight and balanceinformation on a number of flying aircraft seemed like a good way to gainsome insight in this area.The data table (below) summarizes the most important information which wasaccumulated.We were fortunate to be able to inspect examples of each of the three mostcommon powerplants (Ford, Corvair, and Continental).In the third column we categorize the fuselage as 'short' (the originaldesign) or long (the so-called 'improved' air camper).In column 4 we show the aircraft's empty weight. In each case the aircraftwas presented for weighing with some amount of fuel on board. We asked eachowner to estimate how much fuel was in the aircraft, and then corrected toan empty weight using that estimate and the standard value of 6 lbs. pergallon for gasoline.While there is some degree of 'estimating' in these numbers, we arecomfortable that they are reasonably accurate.In the fifth column, we show the empty aircraft's center of gravity locationwith respect to the wing leading edge. We chose the wing leading edge as adatum because it was the best way to normalize the data to a large varietyof aircraft and also because that's what Mr. Pietenpol used!For comparative purposes there is a published weight and balance summary,done in 1965, showing a Corvair powered Air Camper with an empty C.G. 8.71inches aft of datum. Very few of us fly airplanes empty, with no passengers!Fortunatly, using the data we collected, we are able to calculate center ofgravity location for any loading condition.In the sixth column, we show the calculated C.G. location when the aircraftwas loaded with an FAA standard 170 pound pilot in the back seat, and 7gallons of fuel in the 'main' fuel tank. This might represent a 'typical'loading for pilot only. Since we weighed some aircraft with both wing tanksand fueslage tanks we elected to (mathematically) put the 7 gallons of fuelin whichever tank was bigger. Again a comparison is available.The previously mentioned weight and balance chart included a C.G.calculation for that aircraft with 7 gallons of fuel and a 166 pound piloton board (Did BHP weigh 166 pounds?). His example aircraft has a C.G. 9.51"aft of datum in that loading condition.As a final set of calculations we've shown aircraft weight and C.G. locationwhen each aircraft is loaded with a 170 pilot, a 170 pound passenger, andit's fuel tank(s) full. These weights are shown in column G and the C.G.location is in column H. We found these weights interesting in that some ofthe aircraft have surprisingly high gross weights. Also, there are severalaircraft which, in one loading condition or another, seem to violate BHP'srecommendation to never exceed 20" aft of datum C.G. (also shown in the 1965weight and balance sheet).Because of the conditions under which all of our information was collectedand because there was no chance to double check any measurements there issome real chance that there may be errors in our analysis. However, there isenough consistency in the data to feel fairly confident about it's accuracy.We would like to thank all the fine folks at Brodhead for helping us withthis project. And special thanks are due to the eight aircraft owners whodonated their aircraft as well as their time and help. We'd like to thinkthis activity has produced information of real value to the community ofPietenpol builders and pilots! Anyone who has any questions can feel free tocontact either of us at the addresses above.Pietenpol Weight & Balance Brodhead -1994 Tail Number Engine Type Fuselage Length Empty Weight CG empty / inches aft of datum CG w/170# pilot & 7 gal. fuel Wt. w/170# pilot & 170# pass & 7 gal. fuel CG w/170# pilot & 170# pass & 7 gal. fuel N444MH Ford 'A' Short 648 7.49 17.72 1048 18.83 NX13691 Ford 'A' Short 676 11.83 21.04 1088 22.02 NX4662T Ford 'A' Short 671 13.69 20.45 1071 20.7 NX5228 Ford 'A' Long 684 6.69 16.16 1084 17.33 C FCMG 0-200 Long 774 15.25 20.42 1208 19.43 N 396S C-85 Long 820 15.2 18.61 1256 16.57 N 687MB 0-200 Long 705 5.59 14.57 1143 15.79 N 778DD Corvair Long 731 9.08 15.93 1191 14.98----||________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Pietenpol weight and balance(http://members.aol.com/gmaclaren/wb.html)This page from the BPA newsletter may be of some interest to our members &in respone to a question from Joe GautherMike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam ) The results are in . . .byJack Broomall22200 Heatheridge LaneNorthville, MI 48167andDon Verdiani103 Lockerbie LaneWest Chester, PA 19382Those of you who were fortunate enough to attend Brodhead '94 may know thatwe were able to measure weight and center of gravity information for eightof the aircraft attending the event.The reason for undertaking this exercise was to provide a bank ofinformation that Piet builders could refer to and use in configuring theiraircraft. Over the past several years we have noticed that there are avariety of types of Air Campers flying with different engines, at least twocommon fuselage lengths, different wing positions, and different flyingcharacteristics (if you doubt this take a close look at the various aircrafttaking off and landing at Brodhead!). Collecting the weight and balanceinformation on a number of flying aircraft seemed like a good way to gainsome insight in this area.The data table (below) summarizes the most important information which wasaccumulated.We were fortunate to be able to inspect examples of each of the three mostcommon powerplants (Ford, Corvair, and Continental).In the third column we categorize the fuselage as 'short' (the originaldesign) or long (the so-called 'improved' air camper).In column 4 we show the aircraft's empty weight. In each case the aircraftwas presented for weighing with some amount of fuel on board. We asked eachowner to estimate how much fuel was in the aircraft, and then corrected toan empty weight using that estimate and the standard value of 6 lbs. pergallon for gasoline.While there is some degree of 'estimating' in these numbers, we arecomfortable that they are reasonably accurate.In the fifth column, we show the empty aircraft's center of gravity locationwith respect to the wing leading edge. We chose the wing leading edge as adatum because it was the best way to normalize the data to a large varietyof aircraft and also because that's what Mr. Pietenpol used!For comparative purposes there is a published weight and balance summary,done in 1965, showing a Corvair powered Air Camper with an empty C.G. 8.71inches aft of datum. Very few of us fly airplanes empty, with no passengers!Fortunatly, using the data we collected, we are able to calculate center ofgravity location for any loading condition.In the sixth column, we show the calculated C.G. location when the aircraftwas loaded with an FAA standard 170 pound pilot in the back seat, and 7gallons of fuel in the 'main' fuel tank. This might represent a 'typical'loading for pilot only. Since we weighed some aircraft with both wing tanksand fueslage tanks we elected to (mathematically) put the 7 gallons of fuelin whichever tank was bigger. Again a comparison is available.The previously mentioned weight and balance chart included a C.G.calculation for that aircraft with 7 gallons of fuel and a 166 pound piloton board (Did BHP weigh 166 pounds?). His example aircraft has a C.G. 9.51"aft of datum in that loading condition.As a final set of calculations we've shown aircraft weight and C.G. locationwhen each aircraft is loaded with a 170 pilot, a 170 pound passenger, andit's fuel tank(s) full. These weights are shown in column G and the C.G.location is in column H. We found these weights interesting in that some ofthe aircraft have surprisingly high gross weights. Also, there are severalaircraft which, in one loading condition or another, seem to violate BHP'srecommendation to never exceed 20" aft of datum C.G. (also shown in the 1965weight and balance sheet).Because of the conditions under which all of our information was collectedand because there was no chance to double check any measurements there issome real chance that there may be errors in our analysis. However, there isenough consistency in the data to feel fairly confident about it's accuracy.We would like to thank all the fine folks at Brodhead for helping us withthis project. And special thanks are due to the eight aircraft owners whodonated their aircraft as well as their time and help. We'd like to thinkthis activity has produced information of real value to the community ofPietenpol builders and pilots! Anyone who has any questions can feel free tocontact either of us at the addresses above.Pietenpol Weight & Balance Brodhead -1994 Tail Number Engine Type Fuselage Length Empty Weight CG empty / inches aft of datum CG w/170# pilot & 7 gal. fuel Wt. w/170# pilot & 170# pass & 7 gal. fuel CG w/170# pilot & 170# pass & 7 gal. fuel N444MH Ford 'A' Short 648 7.49 17.72 1048 18.83 NX13691 Ford 'A' Short 676 11.83 21.04 1088 22.02 NX4662T Ford 'A' Short 671 13.69 20.45 1071 20.7 NX5228 Ford 'A' Long 684 6.69 16.16 1084 17.33 C FCMG 0-200 Long 774 15.25 20.42 1208 19.43 N 396S C-85 Long 820 15.2 18.61 1256 16.57 N 687MB 0-200 Long 705 5.59 14.57 1143 15.79 N 778DD Corvair Long 731 9.08 15.93 1191 14.98----||________________________________________________________________________________