Original Posted By: H RULE
Believe they all can come in to play. My plane is an oddball for this list, asit is based on a GN-1, but is a biplane variant on it. The top wing'saileron's are able to move almost 180 degrees before any control cables areattached, but 90 degrees up or down would not work so much like an aileron, butmore like a brake, so I doubt anyone would want anywhere near that range ofmotion, and with the control horns and cables it would be far less than that. On my plane the lower wing has a different aileron configuration. The back ofthe wing where the aileron is located slopes, and the aileron is attached at thetop of the wing, limiting travel a good deal. It can move up a long way, butdown maybe 50 degrees. It is worked by a control rod linking it to the upperailerons, so when all the control horns and everything are taken in to account,I probably am starting with 40 degrees up/down before the limits come in withthe stick's range of motion or any other limits.What prompted the question? Seems like the ailerons are large enough andresponsive enough to work for most people.Jim D.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:52:28 -0800 (PST)
Pietenpol-List: mini table saw
Pietenpol-List: mini table saw
Original Posted By: Joemotis(at)aol.com
try the proxxon miniature table saw , you will like it. it can do anything a big saw can do except take up a lot of room. just google proxxon and have a look wayne________________________________________________________________________________
try the proxxon miniature table saw , you will like it. it can do anything a big saw can do except take up a lot of room. just google proxxon and have a look wayne________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: mini table saw
Original Posted By: Michael Perez
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: mini table sawThanks Wayne, that is exactly what I am looking for.Pricey little guy, have to start searching. Did see two Dremel saws on E Bay at over a hundred bucks and bidding was not over.Joe MotisNo ArchivosIn a message dated 1/23/2009 2:26:14 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, catway(at)sympatico.ca writes:try the proxxon miniature table saw , you will like it. it can do anything a big saw can do except take up a lot of room. just google proxxon and have a look wayne(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List) (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) **************From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, stay up-to-date with the latest news. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023)________________________________________________________________________________Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:35:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: mini table sawThanks Wayne, that is exactly what I am looking for.Pricey little guy, have to start searching. Did see two Dremel saws on E Bay at over a hundred bucks and bidding was not over.Joe MotisNo ArchivosIn a message dated 1/23/2009 2:26:14 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, catway(at)sympatico.ca writes:try the proxxon miniature table saw , you will like it. it can do anything a big saw can do except take up a lot of room. just google proxxon and have a look wayne(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List) (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) **************From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, stay up-to-date with the latest news. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023)________________________________________________________________________________Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:35:19 -0800 (PST)
Re: Pietenpol-List:
Original Posted By: "walt"
Pietenpol-List:
Original Posted By: shad bell
Pietenpol-List: Re: Aileron travel limit
Original Posted By: "Mild Bill"
jimd wrote:> Believe they all can come in to play. My plane is an oddball for this list, asit is based on a GN-1, but is a biplane variant on it. The top wing's aileron'sare able to move almost 180 degrees before any control cables are attached,but 90 degrees up or down would not work so much like an aileron, but more likea brake, so I doubt anyone would want anywhere near that range of motion,and with the control horns and cables it would be far less than that. > > On my plane the lower wing has a different aileron configuration. The back ofthe wing where the aileron is located slopes, and the aileron is attached atthe top of the wing, limiting travel a good deal. It can move up a long way, butdown maybe 50 degrees. It is worked by a control rod linking it to the upperailerons, so when all the control horns and everything are taken in to account,I probably am starting with 40 degrees up/down before the limits come in withthe stick's range of motion or any other limits.> > What prompted the question? Seems like the ailerons are large enough and responsiveenough to work for most people.> > Jim D.40 degrees deflection is probably beyond the range of usefulness. I would haveto dig around in reference material to verify this, but if memory serves me correctlythe rate of change in lift with change in deflection for ailerons is fairlylinear up to about 15 or 20 degrees, then starts falling off more and morerapidly until somewhere in the range between 30 and 40 degrees you get no changein lift with increasing deflection (but the drag keeps on increasing moreand more rapidly, the last thing you need on a Pietenpol or GN-1).--------Bill FrankRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Aileron travel limit
jimd wrote:> Believe they all can come in to play. My plane is an oddball for this list, asit is based on a GN-1, but is a biplane variant on it. The top wing's aileron'sare able to move almost 180 degrees before any control cables are attached,but 90 degrees up or down would not work so much like an aileron, but more likea brake, so I doubt anyone would want anywhere near that range of motion,and with the control horns and cables it would be far less than that. > > On my plane the lower wing has a different aileron configuration. The back ofthe wing where the aileron is located slopes, and the aileron is attached atthe top of the wing, limiting travel a good deal. It can move up a long way, butdown maybe 50 degrees. It is worked by a control rod linking it to the upperailerons, so when all the control horns and everything are taken in to account,I probably am starting with 40 degrees up/down before the limits come in withthe stick's range of motion or any other limits.> > What prompted the question? Seems like the ailerons are large enough and responsiveenough to work for most people.> > Jim D.40 degrees deflection is probably beyond the range of usefulness. I would haveto dig around in reference material to verify this, but if memory serves me correctlythe rate of change in lift with change in deflection for ailerons is fairlylinear up to about 15 or 20 degrees, then starts falling off more and morerapidly until somewhere in the range between 30 and 40 degrees you get no changein lift with increasing deflection (but the drag keeps on increasing moreand more rapidly, the last thing you need on a Pietenpol or GN-1).--------Bill FrankRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Aileron travel limit
Pietenpol-List: Re: Alternate Airfoils Riblett 612 and 613.5
Original Posted By: "Mild Bill"
speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.n wrote:> I was asking because if, lets say, everyone said the travel was design related,maybe a change would be in order. But if it was solely restricted due to legs,then well, that may be a personal issue. My ailerons will be slightly shorterin length, so I was curious if I may get more "throw" from them.Why will they be shorter?In general, you can get the same control authority with shorter ailerons by increasingthe amount of deflection for the same joystick motion, but this only worksup to a point because the shorter ailerons will hit the range of diminishingreturns first. By the time the longer ailerons hit that range, they have generateda greater change in lift. The upshot of it all is that you can arrangefor the control feel to be about the same for low to moderate roll commands,but the shorter ailerons will "run out of gas" when you get toward the limits.There is an exception to this. (It always has to get more complicated, doesn'tit?) The stock Pietenpol has ailerons that go all the way out to a squared offtip. The last foot or so isn't as effective as the inboard area because it'simmersed in the turbulent, chaotic flow whirling around the wingtips. You couldchop the aileron off at half the distance between its tip and the end of itsoutermost diagonal brace without losing a significant amount of control authority.Better yet just shift the whole aileron one rib bay inward and shorten itslightly to the length of 6 rib bays.If your ailerons are going to be shorter because you're going to be chopping offsome of the wing span, why would you want to be increasing the induced dragof the wing?--------Bill FrankRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Alternate Airfoils Riblett 612 and 613.5
speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.n wrote:> I was asking because if, lets say, everyone said the travel was design related,maybe a change would be in order. But if it was solely restricted due to legs,then well, that may be a personal issue. My ailerons will be slightly shorterin length, so I was curious if I may get more "throw" from them.Why will they be shorter?In general, you can get the same control authority with shorter ailerons by increasingthe amount of deflection for the same joystick motion, but this only worksup to a point because the shorter ailerons will hit the range of diminishingreturns first. By the time the longer ailerons hit that range, they have generateda greater change in lift. The upshot of it all is that you can arrangefor the control feel to be about the same for low to moderate roll commands,but the shorter ailerons will "run out of gas" when you get toward the limits.There is an exception to this. (It always has to get more complicated, doesn'tit?) The stock Pietenpol has ailerons that go all the way out to a squared offtip. The last foot or so isn't as effective as the inboard area because it'simmersed in the turbulent, chaotic flow whirling around the wingtips. You couldchop the aileron off at half the distance between its tip and the end of itsoutermost diagonal brace without losing a significant amount of control authority.Better yet just shift the whole aileron one rib bay inward and shorten itslightly to the length of 6 rib bays.If your ailerons are going to be shorter because you're going to be chopping offsome of the wing span, why would you want to be increasing the induced dragof the wing?--------Bill FrankRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Alternate Airfoils Riblett 612 and 613.5
Original Posted By: Michael Perez
It only takes a small bunch of analysis to come up with a close estimate of whereto set the incidence of the Riblett 612 or 613.5 relative to the PietenpolFC-10.We know from Mike Shuck's "Commentary on the Pietenpol Airfoil" that the PietenpolFC-10 has zero lift when its geometric chord line is at an angle of attackvery close to -5 deg. This link should work (warning: it's 2.27 MB, so if you'reon dial up you can sit back and grow a nice beard while you're downloading):http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/kch ... oil.docNow, it was asserted in http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=43066 that the Riblett 612 is very similar to the NACA 4412. If so, the angle of attack at zero lift of the Riblett 612 will be very close to that of the NACA 4412, which can be found here:http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... dfGlancing at Fig. 5 confirms a rough mental calculation interpolating the data inTable XV: The zero-lift angle of attack of the NACA 4412 is about -3.9 deg.Not a whole lot different from the Pietenpol FC-10, but you'll probably have lessfiddling around to do if you start with the Riblett 612 at a geometric angleof incidence 1.1 deg greater than what is specified for the Pietenpol FC-10.(The same probably holds true for the Riblett 613.5, which is presumably notmuch if any different in mean camber line from the Riblett 612.)The angle of incidence of the horizontal tail would not be changed.--------Bill FrankRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 06:42:18 -0800 (PST)
It only takes a small bunch of analysis to come up with a close estimate of whereto set the incidence of the Riblett 612 or 613.5 relative to the PietenpolFC-10.We know from Mike Shuck's "Commentary on the Pietenpol Airfoil" that the PietenpolFC-10 has zero lift when its geometric chord line is at an angle of attackvery close to -5 deg. This link should work (warning: it's 2.27 MB, so if you'reon dial up you can sit back and grow a nice beard while you're downloading):http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/kch ... oil.docNow, it was asserted in http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=43066 that the Riblett 612 is very similar to the NACA 4412. If so, the angle of attack at zero lift of the Riblett 612 will be very close to that of the NACA 4412, which can be found here:http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... dfGlancing at Fig. 5 confirms a rough mental calculation interpolating the data inTable XV: The zero-lift angle of attack of the NACA 4412 is about -3.9 deg.Not a whole lot different from the Pietenpol FC-10, but you'll probably have lessfiddling around to do if you start with the Riblett 612 at a geometric angleof incidence 1.1 deg greater than what is specified for the Pietenpol FC-10.(The same probably holds true for the Riblett 613.5, which is presumably notmuch if any different in mean camber line from the Riblett 612.)The angle of incidence of the horizontal tail would not be changed.--------Bill FrankRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 06:42:18 -0800 (PST)
Pietenpol-List: Re: Aileron travel limit
Original Posted By: "Dave Abramson"
As I mentioned before, when I shortened my wings by one bay and the ailerons also,I ran out of control when it came to crosswind landings. The wings that Ihave now use a full length aileron and also one bay per wing shorter. Far bettercontrol.Pieti LowellRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
As I mentioned before, when I shortened my wings by one bay and the ailerons also,I ran out of control when it came to crosswind landings. The wings that Ihave now use a full length aileron and also one bay per wing shorter. Far bettercontrol.Pieti LowellRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Aileron travel limit
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Hi Pieti!Can you send me a photo of your wing with the full length aileron?Thanks!!!!!-----Original Message-----
Hi Pieti!Can you send me a photo of your wing with the full length aileron?Thanks!!!!!-----Original Message-----