Original Posted By: Mark Roberts
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Original Posted By: Darrel Jones
Re: Pietenpol-List: Pfeifer Sport plans
Original Posted By: Rick Holland
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pfeifer Sport plans
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pfeifer Sport plans
Re: Pietenpol-List: Pfeifer Sport plans
Original Posted By: brian.e.jardine@l-3com.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pfeifer Sport plansHey Darrel,Thanks I did get mine too. I don't care much for pay pal, however I have problem sending you a check. Please confirm that the 5er will do the job.ThanksJohn**************Limited Time Offers: Save big on popular laptops at Dell %2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215221161%3B37268813%3By)________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pfeifer Sport plansHey Darrel,Thanks I did get mine too. I don't care much for pay pal, however I have problem sending you a check. Please confirm that the 5er will do the job.ThanksJohn**************Limited Time Offers: Save big on popular laptops at Dell %2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215221161%3B37268813%3By)________________________________________________________________________________
RE: Pietenpol-List: Pfeifer Sport plans
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Darrel,I got my CD thanks, I hope you got the $5 I sent by snail mail.BrianSLC, UT
Darrel,I got my CD thanks, I hope you got the $5 I sent by snail mail.BrianSLC, UT
Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight, and pilot wt
Original Posted By: Rick Holland
I got mine, hope you got the cash I sent back!John Calvert--------I just hope when it's my turn to reach up and touch the face of God, I don't pokehim in the eye on accident.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 13:55:16 -0600Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight, and pilot wt
I got mine, hope you got the cash I sent back!John Calvert--------I just hope when it's my turn to reach up and touch the face of God, I don't pokehim in the eye on accident.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 13:55:16 -0600Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight, and pilot wt
Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight, and pilot wt
Original Posted By: "Jack Phillips"
You know, since I brought this up, you guys have made some good points about the weight around the midsection (can't do much with the fathead... I'm stuck with that). At 48 now, I need to be more aware of my health. The reason I am building a piet (well, ONE reason) is that it is an LSA qualified plane. I am diabetic and I don't pay as close attention as I needed to my condition. For the vast majority of my life I could not gain weight at all. 6'4" and skinny. Not so now. So, the encouragement to loose weight is well taken, and not just an aside. I still have my medical approved on a six year FAA variance (not sure that's the right term), but I have to have a physical every 2 years as normal, but a review/sign off every year. My problem is weight and no exercise (well, I DO fight the water pressure from the shower head every morning). So, I can do something about it still...Mark RobertsOn Jun 4, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Rick Holland wrote:> You do make a good point Shad. I think homebuilders and pilots in > general keep themselves in a little leaner and fitter than average. > And not necessary to attract the hot chicks (which is the reason I > do it), its primarily due to having the thought of flunking their > flight physical constantly hanging over there head (kind of a Sword > of Damocles). Must be real stressful for pilots that make there > living flying.>> Rick>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:37 AM, shad bell > wrote:>> Guys, Isn't it ironic that we try so hard to save an ounce here and > there while building, but most of us are still trying to loose the > same 10-20 lbs for years and years. You could build the Piet 20 lbs > heavy and have more gizmos,(if you wanted them) if we lost the > 20lbs. Or we could increase the performance of our airplanes by not > doing anything to the airplane itself, but just getting serious > about or diet, excercise. I guess that is the way it has been for a > long time, and really, I don't think it's ever gonna change, but > for those that do make the commitment to slim it up, they wil have > the better performing airplane, no matter whose airplane they fly.>> Off my soap box now (before I break it)>> Shad>>> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List> tp://forums.matronics.com> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution>>> -- > Rick Holland> Castle Rock, Colorado>>________________________________________________________________________________
You know, since I brought this up, you guys have made some good points about the weight around the midsection (can't do much with the fathead... I'm stuck with that). At 48 now, I need to be more aware of my health. The reason I am building a piet (well, ONE reason) is that it is an LSA qualified plane. I am diabetic and I don't pay as close attention as I needed to my condition. For the vast majority of my life I could not gain weight at all. 6'4" and skinny. Not so now. So, the encouragement to loose weight is well taken, and not just an aside. I still have my medical approved on a six year FAA variance (not sure that's the right term), but I have to have a physical every 2 years as normal, but a review/sign off every year. My problem is weight and no exercise (well, I DO fight the water pressure from the shower head every morning). So, I can do something about it still...Mark RobertsOn Jun 4, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Rick Holland wrote:> You do make a good point Shad. I think homebuilders and pilots in > general keep themselves in a little leaner and fitter than average. > And not necessary to attract the hot chicks (which is the reason I > do it), its primarily due to having the thought of flunking their > flight physical constantly hanging over there head (kind of a Sword > of Damocles). Must be real stressful for pilots that make there > living flying.>> Rick>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:37 AM, shad bell > wrote:>> Guys, Isn't it ironic that we try so hard to save an ounce here and > there while building, but most of us are still trying to loose the > same 10-20 lbs for years and years. You could build the Piet 20 lbs > heavy and have more gizmos,(if you wanted them) if we lost the > 20lbs. Or we could increase the performance of our airplanes by not > doing anything to the airplane itself, but just getting serious > about or diet, excercise. I guess that is the way it has been for a > long time, and really, I don't think it's ever gonna change, but > for those that do make the commitment to slim it up, they wil have > the better performing airplane, no matter whose airplane they fly.>> Off my soap box now (before I break it)>> Shad>>> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List> tp://forums.matronics.com> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution>>> -- > Rick Holland> Castle Rock, Colorado>>________________________________________________________________________________
RE: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Mark,You got a lot of replies but little infornation. I'll try to answer yourquestions:You as the builder can specify whatever gross weight you desire. If youwant to say your Pietenpol can fly at 1400 lbs, nobody can stop you. Ibelieve the plans say 1050, but that makes it pretty much useless as a twoseat aircraft, since even lightweight Pietenpols tend to weigh in the 600 -630 lb range. If your empty weight is 600, by the time you add a usefulamount of fuel (at least 10 gallons) you are up to 660. You (255) and yourwife (150) with full fuel will put you at 1065, and that is with NO baggage,no handheld radio (unless you included it in your empty weight). The planewill fly well at that weight.Mine is one of the heavier Pietenpols at 745 lbs empty. There are a numberof reasons, some of which I would do again (I like having comfortable seats,and instruments in the front panel - they are easier for me to read than theones in the rear panel). I set my gross weight so that if I flew with fullfuel, and myself and my wife I would be right at gross. With me by myselfand full fuel, I'm pretty close to that 1050 figure, and the plane fliesvery well.Empty Wt 745Full Fuel 90Me 200Wife 160Total - 1195I set my Gross weight as 1200, but then I did a few basic stresscalculations to convince myself that the wing was actually strong enough towithstand 4.8 G's (3.2 G's with a 50% safety factor). I feel 1200 is reallypushing it for this airplane. I've flown it at that weight, but it feelsvery heavy and won't climb well. At Brodhead, I will not carry anypassenger that weighs over 175 (runway's too short). Fortunately, thattends to limit my passengers to young attractive females.If you don't want to lose some weight (and we're not talking 5 lbs here),then you will need to build your plane as light as possible. I can give yousome suggestions, which may or may not be feasible for you:1. Don't make the fuselage any wider. Every inch of extra widthrequires more spruce, more plywood, more fabric, and more paint. And moremoney.2. Add about 4 to 6 feet to the wingspan. That would put it on parwith a Piper Cub, and would decrease the wing loading. The longer wing willweigh a bit more but will lift a lot more. Six feet would add 20% to thewing area.3. Build the standard fuselage - not the "Long" fuselage. People willtell you you can't put a Continental on a short fuselage, but somehow MikeCuy managed to do so and his Piet (632 lbs) flies very well and looksbeautiful4. Build the "Improved" (don't say "Cub-Style", since it predated theCub by about 5 years) landing gear, not the straight axle wire wheel type.The straight axle is heavy, and wire wheels are very strong (and look cool),but if they were light race cars would still be running them.5. The steel tube fuselage is considerably lighter than the woodfuselage6. Build with sitka spruce, not douglas fir. Fir is stronger, butheavier. If you use fir, each piece can be resized somewhat smaller to takeadvantage of the strength and to try to lose some of the extra weight.Spruce has the best strength to weight ratio of any wood except balsa. 7. Use mahogany instead of birch plywood. 8. Use Resorcinol instead of T-88. Lighter and stronger, but much moredifficult to use9. Use lightweight (uncertified) dacron fabric, not the medium weightthat everyone says you need - not only is the fabric lighter, but itrequires less coating material (whether dope, polybrush or whatever theStewart System uses). For Heaven's sake, don't use polyurethane paint (60lbs of my plane's 745 lbs are in paint). Walt Evans used the lightweightfabric on his, and his plane is the lightest Piet I know of (595 lbs).10. Obviously, avoid adding radios, electrical systems, starters,in-flight movies, de-icing boots and retractable landing gear. You mightsuggest your wife fly naked - ladies clothes are notoriously heavyI kept a spreadsheet where I recorded the weight of every piece that went onmy plane, along with its position with respect to a datum on the airframe,so I wasn't totally surprised by my high empty weight. However, I was morethan a bit ticked off when I weighed the fuselage, wings and tail afterpainting and realized how much that polyurethane with its nice glossy finishcost me. By then it was too late, unless I wanted to re-cover and repaintthe entire airplane.All in all, it might be easier (and healthier) for you to lose 75 lbs thanto do all these things. I've lost 75 lbs this year - unfortunately, I'velost the same 5lbs 15times.Good Luck and hope to see you at Brodhead next month,Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC _____
Mark,You got a lot of replies but little infornation. I'll try to answer yourquestions:You as the builder can specify whatever gross weight you desire. If youwant to say your Pietenpol can fly at 1400 lbs, nobody can stop you. Ibelieve the plans say 1050, but that makes it pretty much useless as a twoseat aircraft, since even lightweight Pietenpols tend to weigh in the 600 -630 lb range. If your empty weight is 600, by the time you add a usefulamount of fuel (at least 10 gallons) you are up to 660. You (255) and yourwife (150) with full fuel will put you at 1065, and that is with NO baggage,no handheld radio (unless you included it in your empty weight). The planewill fly well at that weight.Mine is one of the heavier Pietenpols at 745 lbs empty. There are a numberof reasons, some of which I would do again (I like having comfortable seats,and instruments in the front panel - they are easier for me to read than theones in the rear panel). I set my gross weight so that if I flew with fullfuel, and myself and my wife I would be right at gross. With me by myselfand full fuel, I'm pretty close to that 1050 figure, and the plane fliesvery well.Empty Wt 745Full Fuel 90Me 200Wife 160Total - 1195I set my Gross weight as 1200, but then I did a few basic stresscalculations to convince myself that the wing was actually strong enough towithstand 4.8 G's (3.2 G's with a 50% safety factor). I feel 1200 is reallypushing it for this airplane. I've flown it at that weight, but it feelsvery heavy and won't climb well. At Brodhead, I will not carry anypassenger that weighs over 175 (runway's too short). Fortunately, thattends to limit my passengers to young attractive females.If you don't want to lose some weight (and we're not talking 5 lbs here),then you will need to build your plane as light as possible. I can give yousome suggestions, which may or may not be feasible for you:1. Don't make the fuselage any wider. Every inch of extra widthrequires more spruce, more plywood, more fabric, and more paint. And moremoney.2. Add about 4 to 6 feet to the wingspan. That would put it on parwith a Piper Cub, and would decrease the wing loading. The longer wing willweigh a bit more but will lift a lot more. Six feet would add 20% to thewing area.3. Build the standard fuselage - not the "Long" fuselage. People willtell you you can't put a Continental on a short fuselage, but somehow MikeCuy managed to do so and his Piet (632 lbs) flies very well and looksbeautiful4. Build the "Improved" (don't say "Cub-Style", since it predated theCub by about 5 years) landing gear, not the straight axle wire wheel type.The straight axle is heavy, and wire wheels are very strong (and look cool),but if they were light race cars would still be running them.5. The steel tube fuselage is considerably lighter than the woodfuselage6. Build with sitka spruce, not douglas fir. Fir is stronger, butheavier. If you use fir, each piece can be resized somewhat smaller to takeadvantage of the strength and to try to lose some of the extra weight.Spruce has the best strength to weight ratio of any wood except balsa. 7. Use mahogany instead of birch plywood. 8. Use Resorcinol instead of T-88. Lighter and stronger, but much moredifficult to use9. Use lightweight (uncertified) dacron fabric, not the medium weightthat everyone says you need - not only is the fabric lighter, but itrequires less coating material (whether dope, polybrush or whatever theStewart System uses). For Heaven's sake, don't use polyurethane paint (60lbs of my plane's 745 lbs are in paint). Walt Evans used the lightweightfabric on his, and his plane is the lightest Piet I know of (595 lbs).10. Obviously, avoid adding radios, electrical systems, starters,in-flight movies, de-icing boots and retractable landing gear. You mightsuggest your wife fly naked - ladies clothes are notoriously heavyI kept a spreadsheet where I recorded the weight of every piece that went onmy plane, along with its position with respect to a datum on the airframe,so I wasn't totally surprised by my high empty weight. However, I was morethan a bit ticked off when I weighed the fuselage, wings and tail afterpainting and realized how much that polyurethane with its nice glossy finishcost me. By then it was too late, unless I wanted to re-cover and repaintthe entire airplane.All in all, it might be easier (and healthier) for you to lose 75 lbs thanto do all these things. I've lost 75 lbs this year - unfortunately, I'velost the same 5lbs 15times.Good Luck and hope to see you at Brodhead next month,Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC _____
Pietenpol-List: Re: Pfeifer Sport plans
Original Posted By: "Will42"
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...Mark-add wingspan. Cubs and Champs have six more feet of wing and can lift more on the same horsepower due to morewing area.Jack's suggestions are very good and in addition I would add not to use any aluminum anywhere for cowlings/cockpit coversover .025" thick. Keep your fastener sizes for the cowling to a minimum and don't space them too closely. Sometimes less isbetter---my seat and seat back are held in with three small Phillips screws. (the thing is hinged so I can inspect behind the seatand remove the seat center easily for inspections and finding sunglasses, gum, and other lost items during flight) Try to avoidadding gadgets unless you absolutely need them. Don't use 1/8" cables for rudder controls, tailfeather bracing, or aileron cables---they are way overkill and weigh much more than 3/32" cables. (same for tailwheel steering cables) Fill your tires with helium too.So Mark-are you a private pilot, do you have a tailwheel endorsement or have you had tailwheel experience, dual ? Just curious.A mockpit is a good idea if you're a tall guy. I believe that Bill Church from Canada just completed a mockup cockpit as he's a fairlytall gent such as yourself.Mike C. in Ohio________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pfeifer Sport plans
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...Mark-add wingspan. Cubs and Champs have six more feet of wing and can lift more on the same horsepower due to morewing area.Jack's suggestions are very good and in addition I would add not to use any aluminum anywhere for cowlings/cockpit coversover .025" thick. Keep your fastener sizes for the cowling to a minimum and don't space them too closely. Sometimes less isbetter---my seat and seat back are held in with three small Phillips screws. (the thing is hinged so I can inspect behind the seatand remove the seat center easily for inspections and finding sunglasses, gum, and other lost items during flight) Try to avoidadding gadgets unless you absolutely need them. Don't use 1/8" cables for rudder controls, tailfeather bracing, or aileron cables---they are way overkill and weigh much more than 3/32" cables. (same for tailwheel steering cables) Fill your tires with helium too.So Mark-are you a private pilot, do you have a tailwheel endorsement or have you had tailwheel experience, dual ? Just curious.A mockpit is a good idea if you're a tall guy. I believe that Bill Church from Canada just completed a mockup cockpit as he's a fairlytall gent such as yourself.Mike C. in Ohio________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pfeifer Sport plans
Original Posted By: "walt"
Darrel; I got the disc you sent and paid by return mail. Thanks so much for sharing the plans. They will be a great source of info whenI start the tube Piet. WillRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Darrel; I got the disc you sent and paid by return mail. Thanks so much for sharing the plans. They will be a great source of info whenI start the tube Piet. WillRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
RE: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Original Posted By: "Bill Church"
sorry to rehash this,But my my Mentor, ( the designer and AP for Leo Leodenschlager) who I'm so glad to have ever met, always told me to build light.Build light, build light, he would say.My Piet, built to plans, execpt for a few little things, came in at 595#.I'm so glad cause it climbs like a rocket.No more white knuckle climeouts for mewith an A-65I'm 230# at least and can take anyone. Sure climbs a little slower, but no problem.Ain't Life Grand.walt evansNX140DL________________________________________________________________________________Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 18:58:44 -0400
sorry to rehash this,But my my Mentor, ( the designer and AP for Leo Leodenschlager) who I'm so glad to have ever met, always told me to build light.Build light, build light, he would say.My Piet, built to plans, execpt for a few little things, came in at 595#.I'm so glad cause it climbs like a rocket.No more white knuckle climeouts for mewith an A-65I'm 230# at least and can take anyone. Sure climbs a little slower, but no problem.Ain't Life Grand.walt evansNX140DL________________________________________________________________________________Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 18:58:44 -0400
Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Original Posted By:> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Wow! Thanks Jack. That's exactly the info I was looking for. Dog gone weight. Besides the obvious pounds I need to lose in the belly, I was not sure what I would be looking at all together as a gross weight. Did some searching on the net, but saw some conflicting numbers and now I can see why, as builders post differing weights on their sites.Well, I didn't know the steel tubing version would be lighter. That might make a difference as to which way I go. I just found out an aquaintance at church is a master TIG welder, and offered to help me if I needed him. That's a lot of work to ask, but if it is a large amount of difference it would be worth the try.While I am asking for advice, would the extra power of the 100+ HP corvair engine make a difference in the weight capabilities? More power equals higher gross weight rating? (Seems to work that way on some of the kit planes websites..)...So, would going steel buy me a lot of weight savings, and would 100 HP be enough to get me decent performance with a 1200 pound gross max (maybe 1250)
/Mark RobertsOn Jun 4, 2009, at 2:15 PM, "Jack Phillips" wrote:> Mark,>>> You got a lot of replies but little infornation. I=99ll try to answer > your questions:>>> You as the builder can specify whatever gross weight you desire. If > you want to say your Pietenpol can fly at 1400 lbs, nobody can stop > you. I believe the plans say 1050, but that makes it pretty much > useless as a two seat aircraft, since even lightweight Pietenpols > tend to weigh in the 600 =93 630 lb range. If your empty weight is 60 > 0, by the time you add a useful amount of fuel (at least 10 gallons) > you are up to 660. You (255) and your wife (150) with full fuel wi > ll put you at 1065, and that is with NO baggage, no handheld radio ( > unless you included it in your empty weight). The plane will fly we > ll at that weight.>>> Mine is one of the heavier Pietenpols at 745 lbs empty. There are a > number of reasons, some of which I would do again (I like having > comfortable seats, and instruments in the front panel =93 they are eas > ier for me to read than the ones in the rear panel). I set my gross > weight so that if I flew with full fuel, and myself and my wife I w > ould be right at gross. With me by myself and full fuel, I=99m pretty > close to that 1050 figure, and the plane flies very well.>>> Empty Wt 745>> Full Fuel 90>> Me 200>> Wife 160>> Total - 1195>>> I set my Gross weight as 1200, but then I did a few basic stress > calculations to convince myself that the wing was actually strong > enough to withstand 4.8 G=99s (3.2 G=99s with a 50% safety factor). > I feel 1200 is really pushing it for this airplane. I=99ve flown it a > t that weight, but it feels very heavy and won=99t climb well. At Bro > dhead, I will not carry any passenger that weighs over 175 (runway=99s > too short). Fortunately, that tends to limit my passengers to youn > g attractive females.>>> If you don=99t want to lose some weight (and we=99re not talking 5 > lbs here), then you will need to build your plane as light as possib > le. I can give you some suggestions, which may or may not be feasib > le for you:>>> Don=99t make the fuselage any wider. Every inch of extra width requir > es more spruce, more plywood, more fabric, and more paint. And more > money.> Add about 4 to 6 feet to the wingspan. That would put it on par > with a Piper Cub, and would decrease the wing loading. The longer > wing will weigh a bit more but will lift a lot more. Six feet would > add 20% to the wing area.> Build the standard fuselage =93 not the =9DLong=9D fuselage. People > will tell you you can=99t put a Continental on a short fuselage, but s > omehow Mike Cuy managed to do so and his Piet (632 lbs) flies very w > ell and looks beautiful> Build the =9CImproved=9D (don=99t say =9CCub-Style=9D, since it > predated the Cub by about 5 years) landing gear, not the straight ax > le wire wheel type. The straight axle is heavy, and wire wheels are > very strong (and look cool), but if they were light race cars would > still be running them.> The steel tube fuselage is considerably lighter than the wood fuselage> Build with sitka spruce, not douglas fir. Fir is stronger, but > heavier. If you use fir, each piece can be resized somewhat smaller > to take advantage of the strength and to try to lose some of the > extra weight. Spruce has the best strength to weight ratio of any > wood except balsa.> Use mahogany instead of birch plywood.> Use Resorcinol instead of T-88. Lighter and stronger, but much more > difficult to use> Use lightweight (uncertified) dacron fabric, not the medium weight > that everyone says you need =93 not only is the fabric lighter, but it > requires less coating material (whether dope, polybrush or whatever > the Stewart System uses). For Heaven=99s sake, don=99t use > polyurethane paint (60 lbs of my plane=99s 745 lbs are in paint). Wal > t Evans used the lightweight fabric on his, and his plane is the lig > htest Piet I know of (595 lbs).> Obviously, avoid adding radios, electrical systems, starters, in- > flight movies, de-icing boots and retractable landing gear. You > might suggest your wife fly naked =93 ladies clothes are notoriously h > eavy>>> I kept a spreadsheet where I recorded the weight of every piece that > went on my plane, along with its position with respect to a datum on > the airframe, so I wasn=99t totally surprised by my high empty weight. > However, I was more than a bit ticked off when I weighed the fusel > age, wings and tail after painting and realized how much that polyur > ethane with its nice glossy finish cost me. By then it was too late > , unless I wanted to re-cover and repaint the entire airplane.>>> All in all, it might be easier (and healthier) for you to lose 75 > lbs than to do all these things. I=99ve lost 75 lbs this year =93 > unfortunately, I=99ve lost the same 5lbs 15times.>>> Good Luck and hope to see you at Brodhead next month,>>> Jack Phillips>> NX899JP>> Raleigh, NC>>
Wow! Thanks Jack. That's exactly the info I was looking for. Dog gone weight. Besides the obvious pounds I need to lose in the belly, I was not sure what I would be looking at all together as a gross weight. Did some searching on the net, but saw some conflicting numbers and now I can see why, as builders post differing weights on their sites.Well, I didn't know the steel tubing version would be lighter. That might make a difference as to which way I go. I just found out an aquaintance at church is a master TIG welder, and offered to help me if I needed him. That's a lot of work to ask, but if it is a large amount of difference it would be worth the try.While I am asking for advice, would the extra power of the 100+ HP corvair engine make a difference in the weight capabilities? More power equals higher gross weight rating? (Seems to work that way on some of the kit planes websites..)...So, would going steel buy me a lot of weight savings, and would 100 HP be enough to get me decent performance with a 1200 pound gross max (maybe 1250)
/Mark RobertsOn Jun 4, 2009, at 2:15 PM, "Jack Phillips" wrote:> Mark,>>> You got a lot of replies but little infornation. I=99ll try to answer > your questions:>>> You as the builder can specify whatever gross weight you desire. If > you want to say your Pietenpol can fly at 1400 lbs, nobody can stop > you. I believe the plans say 1050, but that makes it pretty much > useless as a two seat aircraft, since even lightweight Pietenpols > tend to weigh in the 600 =93 630 lb range. If your empty weight is 60 > 0, by the time you add a useful amount of fuel (at least 10 gallons) > you are up to 660. You (255) and your wife (150) with full fuel wi > ll put you at 1065, and that is with NO baggage, no handheld radio ( > unless you included it in your empty weight). The plane will fly we > ll at that weight.>>> Mine is one of the heavier Pietenpols at 745 lbs empty. There are a > number of reasons, some of which I would do again (I like having > comfortable seats, and instruments in the front panel =93 they are eas > ier for me to read than the ones in the rear panel). I set my gross > weight so that if I flew with full fuel, and myself and my wife I w > ould be right at gross. With me by myself and full fuel, I=99m pretty > close to that 1050 figure, and the plane flies very well.>>> Empty Wt 745>> Full Fuel 90>> Me 200>> Wife 160>> Total - 1195>>> I set my Gross weight as 1200, but then I did a few basic stress > calculations to convince myself that the wing was actually strong > enough to withstand 4.8 G=99s (3.2 G=99s with a 50% safety factor). > I feel 1200 is really pushing it for this airplane. I=99ve flown it a > t that weight, but it feels very heavy and won=99t climb well. At Bro > dhead, I will not carry any passenger that weighs over 175 (runway=99s > too short). Fortunately, that tends to limit my passengers to youn > g attractive females.>>> If you don=99t want to lose some weight (and we=99re not talking 5 > lbs here), then you will need to build your plane as light as possib > le. I can give you some suggestions, which may or may not be feasib > le for you:>>> Don=99t make the fuselage any wider. Every inch of extra width requir > es more spruce, more plywood, more fabric, and more paint. And more > money.> Add about 4 to 6 feet to the wingspan. That would put it on par > with a Piper Cub, and would decrease the wing loading. The longer > wing will weigh a bit more but will lift a lot more. Six feet would > add 20% to the wing area.> Build the standard fuselage =93 not the =9DLong=9D fuselage. People > will tell you you can=99t put a Continental on a short fuselage, but s > omehow Mike Cuy managed to do so and his Piet (632 lbs) flies very w > ell and looks beautiful> Build the =9CImproved=9D (don=99t say =9CCub-Style=9D, since it > predated the Cub by about 5 years) landing gear, not the straight ax > le wire wheel type. The straight axle is heavy, and wire wheels are > very strong (and look cool), but if they were light race cars would > still be running them.> The steel tube fuselage is considerably lighter than the wood fuselage> Build with sitka spruce, not douglas fir. Fir is stronger, but > heavier. If you use fir, each piece can be resized somewhat smaller > to take advantage of the strength and to try to lose some of the > extra weight. Spruce has the best strength to weight ratio of any > wood except balsa.> Use mahogany instead of birch plywood.> Use Resorcinol instead of T-88. Lighter and stronger, but much more > difficult to use> Use lightweight (uncertified) dacron fabric, not the medium weight > that everyone says you need =93 not only is the fabric lighter, but it > requires less coating material (whether dope, polybrush or whatever > the Stewart System uses). For Heaven=99s sake, don=99t use > polyurethane paint (60 lbs of my plane=99s 745 lbs are in paint). Wal > t Evans used the lightweight fabric on his, and his plane is the lig > htest Piet I know of (595 lbs).> Obviously, avoid adding radios, electrical systems, starters, in- > flight movies, de-icing boots and retractable landing gear. You > might suggest your wife fly naked =93 ladies clothes are notoriously h > eavy>>> I kept a spreadsheet where I recorded the weight of every piece that > went on my plane, along with its position with respect to a datum on > the airframe, so I wasn=99t totally surprised by my high empty weight. > However, I was more than a bit ticked off when I weighed the fusel > age, wings and tail after painting and realized how much that polyur > ethane with its nice glossy finish cost me. By then it was too late > , unless I wanted to re-cover and repaint the entire airplane.>>> All in all, it might be easier (and healthier) for you to lose 75 > lbs than to do all these things. I=99ve lost 75 lbs this year =93 > unfortunately, I=99ve lost the same 5lbs 15times.>>> Good Luck and hope to see you at Brodhead next month,>>> Jack Phillips>> NX899JP>> Raleigh, NC>>RE: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Extra power would be a good thing but bigger engines add weight, too. TheCorvair engine is significantly heavier than a 100 HP O-200 Continental, andfar less reliable. Jack _____
Extra power would be a good thing but bigger engines add weight, too. TheCorvair engine is significantly heavier than a 100 HP O-200 Continental, andfar less reliable. Jack _____
Re: Pietenpol-List: gross weight and pilot wt.
Original Posted By: Mark Roberts
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: gross weight and pilot wt.
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: gross weight and pilot wt.
Pietenpol-List: Gross
Original Posted By: Jim
Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Original Posted By: Mark Roberts
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Re: Pietenpol-List: gross weight and pilot wt.
Original Posted By: Mark Roberts
Mark..Please don't worry about "rehashing" on this List. We've all been new to this at one point in time, and I know you'll find these fellows to be a most patient lot. And, after all, there's no such thing as stupid questions.Al ----- Original Message -----
Mark..Please don't worry about "rehashing" on this List. We've all been new to this at one point in time, and I know you'll find these fellows to be a most patient lot. And, after all, there's no such thing as stupid questions.Al ----- Original Message -----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pfeifer Sport plans
Original Posted By: "Darrel Jones"
Darrel,I received the Cd and sent you a cash payment, did you get it? Thanks so much for your generous help. The Cd is a great addition to my "collection".Thanks,Ray KrauseN51YX, Waiex, TD, Jab 3300 (1197), AeroCarb, Sensinich 54X62 wood prop, Dynon D-180, Garmin SL-30, 327, 296, 105 hrs.----- Original Message -----
Darrel,I received the Cd and sent you a cash payment, did you get it? Thanks so much for your generous help. The Cd is a great addition to my "collection".Thanks,Ray KrauseN51YX, Waiex, TD, Jab 3300 (1197), AeroCarb, Sensinich 54X62 wood prop, Dynon D-180, Garmin SL-30, 327, 296, 105 hrs.----- Original Message -----
RE: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Mark,Adding length to the wing will definitely change the loading on the spars.Such a change needs to be analyzed thoroughly before doing it. It would beprudent to move the lift strut attach point to the center of the wing panelto keep the loads balanced (and the plane would look a bit odd if the strutsdidn't go out to at least the center of the panel).As for the reliability of Continentals versus Corvairs, I don't recall aspate of Continentals breaking crankshafts in recent years. Of course, thisgets well into the range of opinions, but I don't much care for auto engineconversions in aircraft, regardless of Bernard's views. The design missionis just too different. A comment was made that an O-200 weighs 245 lbs withaccessories. I don't think that is true. Dry weight of the engine is 170lbs, without accessories, which is within a couple of pounds of what an A65Continental weighs, and a good 35 lbs less than a Corvair without a starteror generator (according to William Wynne's website).This is not to disparage those who choose to put Corvairs into theirPietenpols. I admire their ambition and drive, in keeping with ExperimentalAircraft. I just live in part of the country that is not very pleasant forforced landings. If I lived and flew in the midwest, where the biggestproblem in a forced landing is choosing which of a dozen good fields to landin, my views might be different.Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC-----Original Message-----
Mark,Adding length to the wing will definitely change the loading on the spars.Such a change needs to be analyzed thoroughly before doing it. It would beprudent to move the lift strut attach point to the center of the wing panelto keep the loads balanced (and the plane would look a bit odd if the strutsdidn't go out to at least the center of the panel).As for the reliability of Continentals versus Corvairs, I don't recall aspate of Continentals breaking crankshafts in recent years. Of course, thisgets well into the range of opinions, but I don't much care for auto engineconversions in aircraft, regardless of Bernard's views. The design missionis just too different. A comment was made that an O-200 weighs 245 lbs withaccessories. I don't think that is true. Dry weight of the engine is 170lbs, without accessories, which is within a couple of pounds of what an A65Continental weighs, and a good 35 lbs less than a Corvair without a starteror generator (according to William Wynne's website).This is not to disparage those who choose to put Corvairs into theirPietenpols. I admire their ambition and drive, in keeping with ExperimentalAircraft. I just live in part of the country that is not very pleasant forforced landings. If I lived and flew in the midwest, where the biggestproblem in a forced landing is choosing which of a dozen good fields to landin, my views might be different.Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC-----Original Message-----
> Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Original Posted By: Jim
Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Original Posted By: Mark Roberts
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
> Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Original Posted By: Jim
Re: Pietenpol-List: Gross weight rating and modifications...
Original Posted By: Jack Phillips
Great post Jack. I like your suggestions, but wonder a bit about the effects of adding 6 ft. to the span. On my radial Piet,I made the center section 1 ft wider and the wing panels to plan which increased the span by 1 ft. Having said that, in my flight tests, I found a huge difference in flying at 1250 lbs and 1310 lbs. Even with 110 hp it struggled a bit. I haven't tried it again with my new prop, built for climb, but I don't expect that much of a change.At 1250 lbempty 810me 200 pass 170fuel 70 2/3 tank 108 fullDick N. ----- Original Message -----
Great post Jack. I like your suggestions, but wonder a bit about the effects of adding 6 ft. to the span. On my radial Piet,I made the center section 1 ft wider and the wing panels to plan which increased the span by 1 ft. Having said that, in my flight tests, I found a huge difference in flying at 1250 lbs and 1310 lbs. Even with 110 hp it struggled a bit. I haven't tried it again with my new prop, built for climb, but I don't expect that much of a change.At 1250 lbempty 810me 200 pass 170fuel 70 2/3 tank 108 fullDick N. ----- Original Message -----