Original Posted By: "Dan Loegering"
Subject: Pietenpol-List: High at. performance.......do you seasoned Model A fliers......? I think the questiondidn't elicit much response is because there are very few (if any )Model A fliers on the list. I think there are a lot of Model A buildershere, but few (if any ) fliers . The one thing that gets repeated oftenis that the reliability of the A is in direct proportion to the amountof hop up you do. Some of A guys have good success with this engine.Others don't and throw in the towel and go with a Cont. or something.Ken Perkins does well with his hopped up A, but has his share of forcedlandings. I don't know what to tell you since I haven't flown yet,except keep it LIGHT. Remember the stock A is only about 40 hp. Itseams to fly a lot of Piets ok, but with little margin. My field alt. is1500 ft and I am getting religion praying that my A will work good, LeonS. in Ks. with a Cont. 65 in the corner gathering dust..just in case.________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage taper pointDate: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:53:18 -0600
Pietenpol-List: Fuselage taper point
Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage taper point
Original Posted By: "walt evans"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage taper pointIn a message dated 11/22/2006 9:55:44 AM Central Standard Time, danl(at)odayequipment.com writes:Ken Heide and I were discussing the "wide fuselage" options last night while gluing up the last of four fuse sides. Has anyone ever moved the taper start point to the back of the rear seat instead of at the station ahead of it? What would the issue be of keeping the 24" dimension all the way back to that point? We are building the long fuselage version and tested one side last nightto be sure that it would pull in with the shorter distance. This change wouldbe a very minimal structural change but would effectively widen the rear cockpit by 2" at the pilot's shoulders.Let the discussion begin! We are looking for pro's and con's about this possible solution.Dan LoegeringFargo, NDDan,I don't know why anybody would even want to widen the fuselage. That shouldn't even be an option. The plans dimensions get the job done, and keepsit as light as possible. I have the short fuse, plans width, and I am 6' tall, and go about 215 lbs. Once I'm snuggled down in the cockpit, it's plenty roomy enough. I even have enough room to keep a fire extinguisher, fuel sump tool, and E.L.T. by my left hip, and four rolls of T.P. and a bottle of water by my right hip. If you move the taper starting point to the back of the rear seat, the radius of the sides curving in will be much more dramatic, look odd, and not tomention how it Will Affect the aerodynamics...most likely by blanking out someof the inboard horizontal tail with turbulence. Also, it doesn't seem the longerons could handle that radius, unless you steamed them. Moist Heat is what is required to make curved wood. If you go that route, you better be mightycareful...or you're gonna hear a loud 'CRACK' !!All right...I'll say it again - "Build it to the plans !!"Chuck G.NX770CG________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:40:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage taper pointIn a message dated 11/22/2006 9:55:44 AM Central Standard Time, danl(at)odayequipment.com writes:Ken Heide and I were discussing the "wide fuselage" options last night while gluing up the last of four fuse sides. Has anyone ever moved the taper start point to the back of the rear seat instead of at the station ahead of it? What would the issue be of keeping the 24" dimension all the way back to that point? We are building the long fuselage version and tested one side last nightto be sure that it would pull in with the shorter distance. This change wouldbe a very minimal structural change but would effectively widen the rear cockpit by 2" at the pilot's shoulders.Let the discussion begin! We are looking for pro's and con's about this possible solution.Dan LoegeringFargo, NDDan,I don't know why anybody would even want to widen the fuselage. That shouldn't even be an option. The plans dimensions get the job done, and keepsit as light as possible. I have the short fuse, plans width, and I am 6' tall, and go about 215 lbs. Once I'm snuggled down in the cockpit, it's plenty roomy enough. I even have enough room to keep a fire extinguisher, fuel sump tool, and E.L.T. by my left hip, and four rolls of T.P. and a bottle of water by my right hip. If you move the taper starting point to the back of the rear seat, the radius of the sides curving in will be much more dramatic, look odd, and not tomention how it Will Affect the aerodynamics...most likely by blanking out someof the inboard horizontal tail with turbulence. Also, it doesn't seem the longerons could handle that radius, unless you steamed them. Moist Heat is what is required to make curved wood. If you go that route, you better be mightycareful...or you're gonna hear a loud 'CRACK' !!All right...I'll say it again - "Build it to the plans !!"Chuck G.NX770CG________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:40:41 -0500
Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage taper point
Original Posted By: "Rick Holland"
I pretty much agree with Chuck and I remember a past comment from Mike Cuy that "It fits me like a glove". I don't see much reason to go wider, it just adds weight. The exception is that the long fuse with the A-65 would have been better for W/B. Dick N. I don't know why anybody would even want to widen the fuselage. That shouldn't even be an option. The plans dimensions get the job done, and keeps it as light as possible. I have the short fuse, plans width, and I am 6' tall, and go about 215 lbs. Once I'm snuggled down in the cockpit, it's plenty roomy enough. I even have enough room to keep a fire extinguisher, fuel sump tool, and E.L.T. by my left hip, and four rolls of T.P. and a bottle of water by my right hip. If you move the taper starting point to the back of the rear seat, the radius of the sides curving in will be much more dramatic, look odd, and not to mention how it Will Affect the aerodynamics...most likely by blanking out some of the inboard horizontal tail with turbulence. Also, it doesn't seem the longerons could handle that radius, unless you steamed them. Moist Heat is what is required to make curved wood. If you go that route, you better be mighty careful...or you're gonna hear a loud 'CRACK' !! All right...I'll say it again - "Build it to the plans !!" Chuck G. NX770CG________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 21:23:42 -0700
I pretty much agree with Chuck and I remember a past comment from Mike Cuy that "It fits me like a glove". I don't see much reason to go wider, it just adds weight. The exception is that the long fuse with the A-65 would have been better for W/B. Dick N. I don't know why anybody would even want to widen the fuselage. That shouldn't even be an option. The plans dimensions get the job done, and keeps it as light as possible. I have the short fuse, plans width, and I am 6' tall, and go about 215 lbs. Once I'm snuggled down in the cockpit, it's plenty roomy enough. I even have enough room to keep a fire extinguisher, fuel sump tool, and E.L.T. by my left hip, and four rolls of T.P. and a bottle of water by my right hip. If you move the taper starting point to the back of the rear seat, the radius of the sides curving in will be much more dramatic, look odd, and not to mention how it Will Affect the aerodynamics...most likely by blanking out some of the inboard horizontal tail with turbulence. Also, it doesn't seem the longerons could handle that radius, unless you steamed them. Moist Heat is what is required to make curved wood. If you go that route, you better be mighty careful...or you're gonna hear a loud 'CRACK' !! All right...I'll say it again - "Build it to the plans !!" Chuck G. NX770CG________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 21:23:42 -0700