Original Posted By: Kip and Beth Gardner
I'm interested in anyone's thoughts on static load testing of the Piet wing.I would like to do a positive load test, but I'm not sure what theeasiest/best way to do this would be. I think that I will need to invertthe assembled airframe and suspend it on some type of stand. Then, add sandbags to the wings, distributing the weight in an elliptical pattern. Thesand bags would set on planks that rest on the spars of the assembled, butuncovered wings. That's the concept, but I'm wondering how and where tosupport the fuselage and wing. Should the support be under the invertedwing center section spars, or should it be on the floor of the fuselage?Any thoughts?Malcolm ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 22:53:13 -0500
Pietenpol-List: Static Load Testing
Re: Pietenpol-List: Static Load Testing
Original Posted By: "Dick Navratil"
Tim,You could put the assembled airframe inverted (without tail) on some sawhorses.Do you intend to test to failure?Or just 3G load?Since everyone builds the piet differently it would not validate all otherconstruction options.How did you build your spar? (routed/ non-routed, 3/4"/ 1", laminated?),spruce or other woodWhat struts are you using, steel or aluminum and what size?Strut attachments to plans or the Piper/Aeronca fittings?What cables did you use, 1/8 or 3/32"?, Galvanized or Stainless?And there are many more valid optional variations to build a Pietenpol.None of them necessarily wrong but the test would be only valid for youroption.Theoretically it would be interesting to build the weakest option and testto fail.Lets say 1/2" spruce spars, with plain mild steel fittings, and the smallsize aluminum struts.It would be nice to know the end result of such test.Hans________________________________________________________________________________
Tim,You could put the assembled airframe inverted (without tail) on some sawhorses.Do you intend to test to failure?Or just 3G load?Since everyone builds the piet differently it would not validate all otherconstruction options.How did you build your spar? (routed/ non-routed, 3/4"/ 1", laminated?),spruce or other woodWhat struts are you using, steel or aluminum and what size?Strut attachments to plans or the Piper/Aeronca fittings?What cables did you use, 1/8 or 3/32"?, Galvanized or Stainless?And there are many more valid optional variations to build a Pietenpol.None of them necessarily wrong but the test would be only valid for youroption.Theoretically it would be interesting to build the weakest option and testto fail.Lets say 1/2" spruce spars, with plain mild steel fittings, and the smallsize aluminum struts.It would be nice to know the end result of such test.Hans________________________________________________________________________________
RE: Pietenpol-List: Static Load Testing
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Hans,I have indeed made changes from the plans and that is the driving motivationfor wanting to perform the static load test. I have enlarged the centersection to 47" and tilted the cabanes out at the top so that they stillattach to the ends of the center section spars. The front spar attachhardware is basically the same as called for on the 3-piece wing plans, butthe rear spar attach hardware is a pivot joint. This is similar to otherdesigns to allow the wing to fold back. The other change is that the liftstruts will form a 'V', attaching to the fuselage at the rear lift strutmount location. The steel strap that connects the two lift struts acrossthe fuselage has been doubled. I'm looking at an 1100 lb, 3g load, or 3300 lb. Assuming an elliptical liftdistribution the center section would lift about 600lb and each wing panelwould lift about 1300lb. Most of the lift force of the panels would betransmitted to the lift struts due to the lift distribution around the pointwhere the struts attach to the wings. The attach points (center section topanels) would bare little load. The part I'm pondering is where to suspend the airframe. I could build asimple, strong box and rest the center section spars on it (inverted). Or Icould build an elaborate stand to rest the ash fuselage cross member on,hanging all the weight on the fuselage/lift strut attach point. I'm notsure which is correct.On the other hand, I'm using proven spar design, proven front spar attachdesign, beefy pivot as used on other designs, aircraft hardware throughout.So, what am I really testing or expecting to see?Malcolm -----Original Message-----
Hans,I have indeed made changes from the plans and that is the driving motivationfor wanting to perform the static load test. I have enlarged the centersection to 47" and tilted the cabanes out at the top so that they stillattach to the ends of the center section spars. The front spar attachhardware is basically the same as called for on the 3-piece wing plans, butthe rear spar attach hardware is a pivot joint. This is similar to otherdesigns to allow the wing to fold back. The other change is that the liftstruts will form a 'V', attaching to the fuselage at the rear lift strutmount location. The steel strap that connects the two lift struts acrossthe fuselage has been doubled. I'm looking at an 1100 lb, 3g load, or 3300 lb. Assuming an elliptical liftdistribution the center section would lift about 600lb and each wing panelwould lift about 1300lb. Most of the lift force of the panels would betransmitted to the lift struts due to the lift distribution around the pointwhere the struts attach to the wings. The attach points (center section topanels) would bare little load. The part I'm pondering is where to suspend the airframe. I could build asimple, strong box and rest the center section spars on it (inverted). Or Icould build an elaborate stand to rest the ash fuselage cross member on,hanging all the weight on the fuselage/lift strut attach point. I'm notsure which is correct.On the other hand, I'm using proven spar design, proven front spar attachdesign, beefy pivot as used on other designs, aircraft hardware throughout.So, what am I really testing or expecting to see?Malcolm -----Original Message-----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Static Load Testing
Original Posted By: "John and Phyllis Smoyer"
RE: Pietenpol-List: Static Load Testing
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
MalcolmI fail to see a elaborate test set up.Just build up the airframe up side down on some saw horses, see attachedpdf.Note at 3300 Lbs you need some sturdy ones3 G's is good load test, if you do not fly to extremes you should never seethis load.A steep turn ,60 degree from horizontal is 2 G's.Most of us do not go beyond a gentle 30 degree turn. (1.3 G)What to look for during test?Well if it breaks, you are back to the drawing board.If it does not break: remember that all metals stretch before break, someasure all metal parts before and after the test.If some thing is longer after the load test, it is very close to breaking.Also check elongation of bolt holes both in wood and metal.And check for deformation / compression in wood frame.Cracks in welding , paint your welded steel white with a thin coat beforetest, cracks show easiercracks in or near glue joints.Just my thoughtsHans(See attached file: load test.pdf) "Malcolm Morrison" Sent by: cc owner-pietenpol-l ist-server@matron Subject ics.com RE: Pietenpol-List: Static Load Testing 01/24/2006 04:59 PM Please respond to pietenpol-list@ma tronics.com Hans,I have indeed made changes from the plans and that is the drivingmotivationfor wanting to perform the static load test. I have enlarged the centersection to 47" and tilted the cabanes out at the top so that they stillattach to the ends of the center section spars. The front spar attachhardware is basically the same as called for on the 3-piece wing plans, butthe rear spar attach hardware is a pivot joint. This is similar to otherdesigns to allow the wing to fold back. The other change is that the liftstruts will form a 'V', attaching to the fuselage at the rear lift strutmount location. The steel strap that connects the two lift struts acrossthe fuselage has been doubled.I'm looking at an 1100 lb, 3g load, or 3300 lb. Assuming an ellipticalliftdistribution the center section would lift about 600lb and each wing panelwould lift about 1300lb. Most of the lift force of the panels would betransmitted to the lift struts due to the lift distribution around thepointwhere the struts attach to the wings. The attach points (center section topanels) would bare little load.The part I'm pondering is where to suspend the airframe. I could build asimple, strong box and rest the center section spars on it (inverted). OrIcould build an elaborate stand to rest the ash fuselage cross member on,hanging all the weight on the fuselage/lift strut attach point. I'm notsure which is correct.On the other hand, I'm using proven spar design, proven front spar attachdesign, beefy pivot as used on other designs, aircraft hardware throughout.So, what am I really testing or expecting to see?Malcolm-----Original Message-----
MalcolmI fail to see a elaborate test set up.Just build up the airframe up side down on some saw horses, see attachedpdf.Note at 3300 Lbs you need some sturdy ones3 G's is good load test, if you do not fly to extremes you should never seethis load.A steep turn ,60 degree from horizontal is 2 G's.Most of us do not go beyond a gentle 30 degree turn. (1.3 G)What to look for during test?Well if it breaks, you are back to the drawing board.If it does not break: remember that all metals stretch before break, someasure all metal parts before and after the test.If some thing is longer after the load test, it is very close to breaking.Also check elongation of bolt holes both in wood and metal.And check for deformation / compression in wood frame.Cracks in welding , paint your welded steel white with a thin coat beforetest, cracks show easiercracks in or near glue joints.Just my thoughtsHans(See attached file: load test.pdf) "Malcolm Morrison" Sent by: cc owner-pietenpol-l ist-server@matron Subject ics.com RE: Pietenpol-List: Static Load Testing 01/24/2006 04:59 PM Please respond to pietenpol-list@ma tronics.com Hans,I have indeed made changes from the plans and that is the drivingmotivationfor wanting to perform the static load test. I have enlarged the centersection to 47" and tilted the cabanes out at the top so that they stillattach to the ends of the center section spars. The front spar attachhardware is basically the same as called for on the 3-piece wing plans, butthe rear spar attach hardware is a pivot joint. This is similar to otherdesigns to allow the wing to fold back. The other change is that the liftstruts will form a 'V', attaching to the fuselage at the rear lift strutmount location. The steel strap that connects the two lift struts acrossthe fuselage has been doubled.I'm looking at an 1100 lb, 3g load, or 3300 lb. Assuming an ellipticalliftdistribution the center section would lift about 600lb and each wing panelwould lift about 1300lb. Most of the lift force of the panels would betransmitted to the lift struts due to the lift distribution around thepointwhere the struts attach to the wings. The attach points (center section topanels) would bare little load.The part I'm pondering is where to suspend the airframe. I could build asimple, strong box and rest the center section spars on it (inverted). OrIcould build an elaborate stand to rest the ash fuselage cross member on,hanging all the weight on the fuselage/lift strut attach point. I'm notsure which is correct.On the other hand, I'm using proven spar design, proven front spar attachdesign, beefy pivot as used on other designs, aircraft hardware throughout.So, what am I really testing or expecting to see?Malcolm-----Original Message-----
RE: Pietenpol-List: Static Load Testing
Original Posted By: "Mike Whaley"
Rich, HansI am an engineer, but not the kind that counts. I work in software andsystems, not aerodynamics or structures. So, please take that into accountwhen you consider any structural assumptions that I make.I ran some numbers on the forces on a Piet wing today and this is what Icame up with. Assuming an 1100 lb airplane at 3 Gs, or 3300 lbs, and arectangular wing exhibiting an elliptical lift distribution. A plans builtcenter section would provide 293 lbs of lift, and each wing panel wouldprovide 1503.5 lbs of lift. The pull force on the cabanes from the centersection would be 146.5 for each side. With 2 cabanes on each side you coulddivide this number in half for 73.25 lbs on each cabane if you assume thatthe front and rear cabanes each receive the same force. The force on theouter panel is a little more complex since the unsupported wing tip inducesa torque around the lift strut - wing attach point. The result of this isan additional 248 lbs of upward pull on each cabane pair, for a total of394.5 lbs This leaves 1255.5 lbs lifting force for each wing panel at thelift strut attach points.My modification of making a 4 foot center section will have very littleaffect on these forces. The wider center section has more lifting forcethan the plans version, but the shorter wing panels induce less torque, andless additional upward force on the cabanes. The cabane struts will besubject to 401 lbs pull on each pair (a 2% increase over plans), and thelift struts will have a 1249 lbs pull (0.4% decrease).These forces affect the fuselage structure in two ways. First, the wingcenter section is trying to pull itself upward, off the fuselage. Thecabane struts, wires, attach points, and fuselage structure work againstthis pull, which is 800 lbs. To test this structure I would need to supportthe fuselage upside down from points where the forces are exerted on thefuselage structure. This could be the bottom of the cabane mounts, thecockpit floor, and possible the firewall. I don't think that tail should besupported since The other force comes from the wing panels pulling upwardat 1255.5 lbs each. This results in an outward pull at the fuselage - liftstrut attach point of 2188 lbs each (only 1724 lbs each on the modifiedversion due to the shorter panels). To test this I could rest the invertedcenter section on a box and load the wing panels appropriately. I havedoubled size of the steel strap since I'm using a 'V' strut arrangement andthere is only one strap. I will keep the cross strap attached to the ashcross member with additional short straps.Anybody agree, disagree with these numbers or thoughts ;-)Malcolmhttp://users.adelphia.net/~morrisons5/piet.html________________________________________________________________________________
Rich, HansI am an engineer, but not the kind that counts. I work in software andsystems, not aerodynamics or structures. So, please take that into accountwhen you consider any structural assumptions that I make.I ran some numbers on the forces on a Piet wing today and this is what Icame up with. Assuming an 1100 lb airplane at 3 Gs, or 3300 lbs, and arectangular wing exhibiting an elliptical lift distribution. A plans builtcenter section would provide 293 lbs of lift, and each wing panel wouldprovide 1503.5 lbs of lift. The pull force on the cabanes from the centersection would be 146.5 for each side. With 2 cabanes on each side you coulddivide this number in half for 73.25 lbs on each cabane if you assume thatthe front and rear cabanes each receive the same force. The force on theouter panel is a little more complex since the unsupported wing tip inducesa torque around the lift strut - wing attach point. The result of this isan additional 248 lbs of upward pull on each cabane pair, for a total of394.5 lbs This leaves 1255.5 lbs lifting force for each wing panel at thelift strut attach points.My modification of making a 4 foot center section will have very littleaffect on these forces. The wider center section has more lifting forcethan the plans version, but the shorter wing panels induce less torque, andless additional upward force on the cabanes. The cabane struts will besubject to 401 lbs pull on each pair (a 2% increase over plans), and thelift struts will have a 1249 lbs pull (0.4% decrease).These forces affect the fuselage structure in two ways. First, the wingcenter section is trying to pull itself upward, off the fuselage. Thecabane struts, wires, attach points, and fuselage structure work againstthis pull, which is 800 lbs. To test this structure I would need to supportthe fuselage upside down from points where the forces are exerted on thefuselage structure. This could be the bottom of the cabane mounts, thecockpit floor, and possible the firewall. I don't think that tail should besupported since The other force comes from the wing panels pulling upwardat 1255.5 lbs each. This results in an outward pull at the fuselage - liftstrut attach point of 2188 lbs each (only 1724 lbs each on the modifiedversion due to the shorter panels). To test this I could rest the invertedcenter section on a box and load the wing panels appropriately. I havedoubled size of the steel strap since I'm using a 'V' strut arrangement andthere is only one strap. I will keep the cross strap attached to the ashcross member with additional short straps.Anybody agree, disagree with these numbers or thoughts ;-)Malcolmhttp://users.adelphia.net/~morrisons5/piet.html________________________________________________________________________________
RE: Pietenpol-List: Static Load Testing
Original Posted By: Hans Vander Voort
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Rats!my wife uses a bar of stuff called first bite it kills the rats but wont hurt the dogs and cats tom________________________________________________________________________________Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Static Load Testing
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Rats!my wife uses a bar of stuff called first bite it kills the rats but wont hurt the dogs and cats tom________________________________________________________________________________Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Static Load Testing
Original Posted By: Ben Ramler
Malcolm,I graduated with engineering degree but it was a long, long time ago.And my current occupation does not require this expertise.So I am a little rusty.Anyway see attached schematics of loads on struts and wings. (a picturetells more than a thousand words)They are very generic and based on static loads.I did make one on your setup also, at least what I understand your setup tobe.Just to see the difference.You have a increased load of 40% on your cabane struts!And a decrease on the wing struts of 10%Of course I assumed some dimensions but please consider that not all loadsare vertical!I am not sure I understand what you mean by elliptical lift distribution,you mean cord wise or span wise?Span wise would be wrong as a rectangular wing (without washout) would be alinear load. (equal on every foot / rib)Cord wise you could consider elliptical.I assumed the front spar to carry 75% of the load.Assumptions on the center section creating lift are only that.The center section is far less efficient than the wings.Prop-wash, struts, wires and windscreens will see to that.But for the purpose of simplicity I am OK with it.Another thought to keep in mind: all calculation are based on Gross weight.But of course the only thing hanging on the struts is the completefuselage.The wing weight could be deducted but for simplicity sake, I used the grossnumber.Any comments are welcome, but keep in mind, these are very generic.I based the my calcs on no-washout, no dihedral, 24 inch cabane struts.Hans(See attached file: load test.pdf) "Malcolm Morrison" Sent by: cc owner-pietenpol-l ist-server@matron Subject ics.com RE: Pietenpol-List: Static Load Testing 01/25/2006 09:46 PM Please respond to pietenpol-list@ma tronics.com Rich, HansI am an engineer, but not the kind that counts. I work in software andsystems, not aerodynamics or structures. So, please take that into accountwhen you consider any structural assumptions that I make.I ran some numbers on the forces on a Piet wing today and this is what Icame up with. Assuming an 1100 lb airplane at 3 Gs, or 3300 lbs, and arectangular wing exhibiting an elliptical lift distribution. A plans builtcenter section would provide 293 lbs of lift, and each wing panel wouldprovide 1503.5 lbs of lift. The pull force on the cabanes from the centersection would be 146.5 for each side. With 2 cabanes on each side youcoulddivide this number in half for 73.25 lbs on each cabane if you assume thatthe front and rear cabanes each receive the same force. The force on theouter panel is a little more complex since the unsupported wing tip inducesa torque around the lift strut - wing attach point. The result of this isan additional 248 lbs of upward pull on each cabane pair, for a total of394.5 lbs This leaves 1255.5 lbs lifting force for each wing panel at thelift strut attach points.My modification of making a 4 foot center section will have very littleaffect on these forces. The wider center section has more lifting forcethan the plans version, but the shorter wing panels induce less torque, andless additional upward force on the cabanes. The cabane struts will besubject to 401 lbs pull on each pair (a 2% increase over plans), and thelift struts will have a 1249 lbs pull (0.4% decrease).These forces affect the fuselage structure in two ways. First, the wingcenter section is trying to pull itself upward, off the fuselage. Thecabane struts, wires, attach points, and fuselage structure work againstthis pull, which is 800 lbs. To test this structure I would need tosupportthe fuselage upside down from points where the forces are exerted on thefuselage structure. This could be the bottom of the cabane mounts, thecockpit floor, and possible the firewall. I don't think that tail shouldbesupported since The other force comes from the wing panels pulling upwardat 1255.5 lbs each. This results in an outward pull at the fuselage - liftstrut attach point of 2188 lbs each (only 1724 lbs each on the modifiedversion due to the shorter panels). To test this I could rest the invertedcenter section on a box and load the wing panels appropriately. I havedoubled size of the steel strap since I'm using a 'V' strut arrangement andthere is only one strap. I will keep the cross strap attached to the ashcross member with additional short straps.Anybody agree, disagree with these numbers or thoughts ;-)Malcolmhttp://users.adelphia.net/~morrisons5/piet.html________________________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:59:22 -0800 (PST)
Malcolm,I graduated with engineering degree but it was a long, long time ago.And my current occupation does not require this expertise.So I am a little rusty.Anyway see attached schematics of loads on struts and wings. (a picturetells more than a thousand words)They are very generic and based on static loads.I did make one on your setup also, at least what I understand your setup tobe.Just to see the difference.You have a increased load of 40% on your cabane struts!And a decrease on the wing struts of 10%Of course I assumed some dimensions but please consider that not all loadsare vertical!I am not sure I understand what you mean by elliptical lift distribution,you mean cord wise or span wise?Span wise would be wrong as a rectangular wing (without washout) would be alinear load. (equal on every foot / rib)Cord wise you could consider elliptical.I assumed the front spar to carry 75% of the load.Assumptions on the center section creating lift are only that.The center section is far less efficient than the wings.Prop-wash, struts, wires and windscreens will see to that.But for the purpose of simplicity I am OK with it.Another thought to keep in mind: all calculation are based on Gross weight.But of course the only thing hanging on the struts is the completefuselage.The wing weight could be deducted but for simplicity sake, I used the grossnumber.Any comments are welcome, but keep in mind, these are very generic.I based the my calcs on no-washout, no dihedral, 24 inch cabane struts.Hans(See attached file: load test.pdf) "Malcolm Morrison" Sent by: cc owner-pietenpol-l ist-server@matron Subject ics.com RE: Pietenpol-List: Static Load Testing 01/25/2006 09:46 PM Please respond to pietenpol-list@ma tronics.com Rich, HansI am an engineer, but not the kind that counts. I work in software andsystems, not aerodynamics or structures. So, please take that into accountwhen you consider any structural assumptions that I make.I ran some numbers on the forces on a Piet wing today and this is what Icame up with. Assuming an 1100 lb airplane at 3 Gs, or 3300 lbs, and arectangular wing exhibiting an elliptical lift distribution. A plans builtcenter section would provide 293 lbs of lift, and each wing panel wouldprovide 1503.5 lbs of lift. The pull force on the cabanes from the centersection would be 146.5 for each side. With 2 cabanes on each side youcoulddivide this number in half for 73.25 lbs on each cabane if you assume thatthe front and rear cabanes each receive the same force. The force on theouter panel is a little more complex since the unsupported wing tip inducesa torque around the lift strut - wing attach point. The result of this isan additional 248 lbs of upward pull on each cabane pair, for a total of394.5 lbs This leaves 1255.5 lbs lifting force for each wing panel at thelift strut attach points.My modification of making a 4 foot center section will have very littleaffect on these forces. The wider center section has more lifting forcethan the plans version, but the shorter wing panels induce less torque, andless additional upward force on the cabanes. The cabane struts will besubject to 401 lbs pull on each pair (a 2% increase over plans), and thelift struts will have a 1249 lbs pull (0.4% decrease).These forces affect the fuselage structure in two ways. First, the wingcenter section is trying to pull itself upward, off the fuselage. Thecabane struts, wires, attach points, and fuselage structure work againstthis pull, which is 800 lbs. To test this structure I would need tosupportthe fuselage upside down from points where the forces are exerted on thefuselage structure. This could be the bottom of the cabane mounts, thecockpit floor, and possible the firewall. I don't think that tail shouldbesupported since The other force comes from the wing panels pulling upwardat 1255.5 lbs each. This results in an outward pull at the fuselage - liftstrut attach point of 2188 lbs each (only 1724 lbs each on the modifiedversion due to the shorter panels). To test this I could rest the invertedcenter section on a box and load the wing panels appropriately. I havedoubled size of the steel strap since I'm using a 'V' strut arrangement andthere is only one strap. I will keep the cross strap attached to the ashcross member with additional short straps.Anybody agree, disagree with these numbers or thoughts ;-)Malcolmhttp://users.adelphia.net/~morrisons5/piet.html________________________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:59:22 -0800 (PST)
RE: Pietenpol-List: Nav questions
Original Posted By: "Phillips, Jack"
RE: Pietenpol-List: Static Load Testing
Original Posted By: "Dick Navratil"
Thanks for the response HansAs far as the elliptical lift distribution is concerned, here is how Iunderstand it. From "The Illustrated Guide to Aerodynamics" comes thefollowing explanation. If a wing had infinite length, then the lift at eachstation spanwise would be the same. But because we have finite lengthwings, we have the effect of vortices. Vortices are strongest at the tipswhere some of the high pressure air under the wing flows around the wing tipto the upper surface. This gradually reduces the lift as you move spanwisetoward the tips. The resulting distribution is an elliptical pattern, withmore lift produced at the inboard stations relative to the outer stations.This is consistent with other aerodynamic books that I have looked at. Doyou have contrary documentation? Are there any other aerodynamic type guyslistening that can help solve this riddle?ThanksMalcolm http://users.adelphia.net/~morrisons5/p ... __________
Thanks for the response HansAs far as the elliptical lift distribution is concerned, here is how Iunderstand it. From "The Illustrated Guide to Aerodynamics" comes thefollowing explanation. If a wing had infinite length, then the lift at eachstation spanwise would be the same. But because we have finite lengthwings, we have the effect of vortices. Vortices are strongest at the tipswhere some of the high pressure air under the wing flows around the wing tipto the upper surface. This gradually reduces the lift as you move spanwisetoward the tips. The resulting distribution is an elliptical pattern, withmore lift produced at the inboard stations relative to the outer stations.This is consistent with other aerodynamic books that I have looked at. Doyou have contrary documentation? Are there any other aerodynamic type guyslistening that can help solve this riddle?ThanksMalcolm http://users.adelphia.net/~morrisons5/p ... __________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Nav questions
Original Posted By: Ben Ramler
BenI have an old GPS II. It gives me the basic functions. I was having some receptionproblems but solved it by removing the antenna and attaching a 5 ft. extensionand mounting the antenna to the top of the wing.Dick N. ----- Original Message -----
BenI have an old GPS II. It gives me the basic functions. I was having some receptionproblems but solved it by removing the antenna and attaching a 5 ft. extensionand mounting the antenna to the top of the wing.Dick N. ----- Original Message -----
Pietenpol-List: Re: Welcome, Scott !
Original Posted By: "Dan Sherburn"
Hi Mike,I'm building for the Corvair motor and I'm using William Wynne's manual and informationto build my motor. I was wondering if the 2 Bingelis books FirewallForward, and Engines are something I can get by without. After reading your lastreference to the importance of these books I'm going to go ahead and get thembut wondered if I could get by with just Sportplane Builder and SportplaneConstruction. Continental guys probably frown on Corvairs but, for me, the priceis right.Also, do you still have the building and flying video? The last thing I lookedat before I finally came down off the fence and decided to start building wasa picture of your plane on AVWeb in Matt Paxton's article. ...now the processis underway! I never would have thought I'd run into the builder of that plane.If you still have them I'd love to get one. Thanks,Glenn Thomashttp://www.flyingwood.com--------Glenn ThomasN?????http://www.flyingwood.comRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Hi Mike,I'm building for the Corvair motor and I'm using William Wynne's manual and informationto build my motor. I was wondering if the 2 Bingelis books FirewallForward, and Engines are something I can get by without. After reading your lastreference to the importance of these books I'm going to go ahead and get thembut wondered if I could get by with just Sportplane Builder and SportplaneConstruction. Continental guys probably frown on Corvairs but, for me, the priceis right.Also, do you still have the building and flying video? The last thing I lookedat before I finally came down off the fence and decided to start building wasa picture of your plane on AVWeb in Matt Paxton's article. ...now the processis underway! I never would have thought I'd run into the builder of that plane.If you still have them I'd love to get one. Thanks,Glenn Thomashttp://www.flyingwood.com--------Glenn ThomasN?????http://www.flyingwood.comRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Static Load Testing
Original Posted By: Rcaprd(at)AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Static Load TestingMalcolm,I stand corrected, yes I did forget about those tip vortexes.Must be that winglet Pietenpol wing I was thinking about.Hans________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Static Load TestingMalcolm,I stand corrected, yes I did forget about those tip vortexes.Must be that winglet Pietenpol wing I was thinking about.Hans________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Nav questions
Original Posted By: TRichmo9(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Nav questionsIn a message dated 1/26/2006 6:29:49 PM Central Standard Time, horzpool(at)goldengate.net writes:attaching a 5 ft. extension and mounting the antenna to the top of the wing.That's the only location that I can get unobstructed reception. I have an old Magellon SkyBlazer, that I can't get updates for, but works just fine. Iteven saved my bacon a couple of times.Chuck G.NX770CG________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Nav questionsIn a message dated 1/26/2006 6:29:49 PM Central Standard Time, horzpool(at)goldengate.net writes:attaching a 5 ft. extension and mounting the antenna to the top of the wing.That's the only location that I can get unobstructed reception. I have an old Magellon SkyBlazer, that I can't get updates for, but works just fine. Iteven saved my bacon a couple of times.Chuck G.NX770CG________________________________________________________________________________