Original Posted By: Ken Howe
I'm with Mike. Perhaps I don't have as much of the "experimenter" nature in me, but I just don't see the benefit in straying from the proven materials and procedures.I'm not building a Piet now, but someday I will. When I do, you can be sure that it will be of aircraft quality materials.I understand the desire and/or need to build on a budget, but I fail to see the value. As if this hobby didn't have enough risks already, why would I want to add to them? Some substitutions are proven and simple, but why try to re-engineer an 80-year old proven design?Wayne Bressler Jr.Taildraggers, Inc.taildraggersinc.comSent from the phone that made the Blackberry obsolete.On Sep 29, 2009, at 1:36 PM, "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC Aerospace Corporation]" wrote:> [ASRC Aerospace Corporation]" >> I have to wonder why anyone would need to test an 80 year old > airfoil design that has never (to my knowledge) had a failure ?>> I'm sure there is some satisfaction with finding out if you're ribs > are built safely but who of us has enough knowledge to even setup a > proper scenario that would represent a realistic load on the rib ? > Instead of doing all this fiddle-farting around I would rather just > build my plane with a/c grade materials and accepted practices and > enjoy flying it. Just my opinion but unless you're building with > knotty pine lumber and Elmer's glue you shouldn't really even be > concerned with the strength of a Pietenpol wing rib.>> Mike C.>>________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: perplexed at wood testing =?UTF-8?Q?=3F?Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:18:04 -0600
Re: Pietenpol-List: perplexed at wood testing =?UTF-8?Q?=3F?
RE: Pietenpol-List: perplexed at wood testing =?UTF-8?Q?=3F?
Original Posted By: Ken Howe