Original Posted By: Michael Perez
I see it exactly the opposite of you. The main reason to consider (I'm not saying build) deviating from the plans is to honor the B. Pietenpol spirit of always build safer and better flying aircraft. There is no need to cure the deficiency in the design, reason enough is to make B.P. happy in heavens, as he is known not to build two exactly the same aircraft and to be as far from "purist" as he can be. After all he abandoned one of the most significant marks of his design (Ford engine) as soon as he got a chance to do it. I deeply beleive if he can see someone building Piet with Ford enigne in 2009 he would think for him self "Oh, no, another ..... building by the plans".The amount of hate in the form "Oh, I just flew my Piet, and you morons talk about something better instead to build by the plans like me" is getting quite disturbing. There is no wonder people got annoyed. There is no single thread in which some deviation from the plans is mentioned that is not rapidly shut with flood of "Why, why, why, when this design confirmed it self for 80 years?" messegaes. To honor B.P, is there any other reason needed?Regards, and please don't mind the rough tone, I got excited how this thread is cut of, and I am very interested in building with pushrods for several reasons,Ivan Todorovic________________________________________________________________________________Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:12:00 -0700 (PDT)
Pietenpol-List: NEW HOME FOR NX510JD
Pietenpol-List: Re: Push/pull tubes and rod ends
Original Posted By: "Jack Phillips"
>I see it exactly the opposite of you. The main reason to consider (I'm notsaying build) deviating from the plans is to honor the B. Pietenpol spiritof always build safer and better flying aircraft. There is no need to curethe deficiency in the design, reason enough is to make B.P. happy inheavens, as he is known not to build two exactly the same aircraft and to beas far from "purist" as he can be. After all he abandoned one of the mostsignificant marks of his design (Ford engine) as soon as he got a chance todo it. I deeply beleive if he can see someone building Piet with Ford enignein 2009 he would think for him self "Oh, no, another ..... building by theplans".The amount of hate in the form "Oh, I just flew my Piet, and you morons talkabout something better instead to build by the plans like me" is gettingquite disturbing. There is no wonder people got annoyed. There is no singlethread in which some deviation from the plans is mentioned that is notrapidly shut with flood of "Why, why, why, when this design confirmed itself for 80 years?" messegaes. To honor B.P, is there any other reasonneeded?Regards, and please don't mind the rough tone, I got excited how this thread is cutof, and I am very interested in building with pushrods for several reasons,Ivan Todorovic________________________________________________________________________________
>I see it exactly the opposite of you. The main reason to consider (I'm notsaying build) deviating from the plans is to honor the B. Pietenpol spiritof always build safer and better flying aircraft. There is no need to curethe deficiency in the design, reason enough is to make B.P. happy inheavens, as he is known not to build two exactly the same aircraft and to beas far from "purist" as he can be. After all he abandoned one of the mostsignificant marks of his design (Ford engine) as soon as he got a chance todo it. I deeply beleive if he can see someone building Piet with Ford enignein 2009 he would think for him self "Oh, no, another ..... building by theplans".The amount of hate in the form "Oh, I just flew my Piet, and you morons talkabout something better instead to build by the plans like me" is gettingquite disturbing. There is no wonder people got annoyed. There is no singlethread in which some deviation from the plans is mentioned that is notrapidly shut with flood of "Why, why, why, when this design confirmed itself for 80 years?" messegaes. To honor B.P, is there any other reasonneeded?Regards, and please don't mind the rough tone, I got excited how this thread is cutof, and I am very interested in building with pushrods for several reasons,Ivan Todorovic________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Push/pull tubes and rod ends
Original Posted By: "Gary Boothe"
>This will be my last comment on this thread.First off, Michael, if you follow through with a push/pull system, you will not be the first. It has been done before. Refer to the following link for a photo of a GN-1 with such a system:http://www.westcoastpiet.com/images/Pet ... 28.JPGNote that the control tube for the rudder is not tiny. The control tube for the elevators is likely buried inside the fuselage, and the elevators are most likely built of steel tube, in order to be able to transfer the torque adequately. My thoughts are that if this system was an improvement, we would see more flying examples of it. Just because it has been done does not mean it's a good idea. Secondly, all of the "opinions" that have been expressed regarding the negative aspects of attempting to use a push/pull system on this aircraft have been based on sound engineering principles. The reason why nobody has offered data to prove your theory wrong is that your "system" has no data behind it. There are no dimensions to work with. Not even a basic sketch. There are often a thousand ways to achieve the same basic goal, with some being better than others, but no one being the "right" way. For instance, as one reply stated, the proper size for the tubes is dependent on the length, in reference to buckling strength. Thirdly, unless someone out there decides that they want to do all the calculations for you, you will eventually have to deal with all of that "language and formulas" that, as you put it, are "over your head". As I said before, it's not simple. Once the routing of the system is determined (including all pivot points), you will need to determine the loads that will be imposed on the system (plus an appropriate factor of safety). From there you will be able to determine the loads that will be carried by each component, and based on those numbers, you will determine the sizes of each component. (There's a reason why it takes four years of university to obtain a degree in Engineering).And finally, all of the above is my OPINION. But my opinion is based on more than twenty years experience working as a Professional Engineer. Take it or leave it.Bill C.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 3#269403le, List Admin.________________________________________________________________________________
>This will be my last comment on this thread.First off, Michael, if you follow through with a push/pull system, you will not be the first. It has been done before. Refer to the following link for a photo of a GN-1 with such a system:http://www.westcoastpiet.com/images/Pet ... 28.JPGNote that the control tube for the rudder is not tiny. The control tube for the elevators is likely buried inside the fuselage, and the elevators are most likely built of steel tube, in order to be able to transfer the torque adequately. My thoughts are that if this system was an improvement, we would see more flying examples of it. Just because it has been done does not mean it's a good idea. Secondly, all of the "opinions" that have been expressed regarding the negative aspects of attempting to use a push/pull system on this aircraft have been based on sound engineering principles. The reason why nobody has offered data to prove your theory wrong is that your "system" has no data behind it. There are no dimensions to work with. Not even a basic sketch. There are often a thousand ways to achieve the same basic goal, with some being better than others, but no one being the "right" way. For instance, as one reply stated, the proper size for the tubes is dependent on the length, in reference to buckling strength. Thirdly, unless someone out there decides that they want to do all the calculations for you, you will eventually have to deal with all of that "language and formulas" that, as you put it, are "over your head". As I said before, it's not simple. Once the routing of the system is determined (including all pivot points), you will need to determine the loads that will be imposed on the system (plus an appropriate factor of safety). From there you will be able to determine the loads that will be carried by each component, and based on those numbers, you will determine the sizes of each component. (There's a reason why it takes four years of university to obtain a degree in Engineering).And finally, all of the above is my OPINION. But my opinion is based on more than twenty years experience working as a Professional Engineer. Take it or leave it.Bill C.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 3#269403le, List Admin.________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: NEW HOME FOR NX510JD
Original Posted By: "Jerry Dotson"
Ben, I used 2 each 2 x 4 sheets from Aircraft Spruce. If you have access to a CNC routerwith 0.050" router bits I will send you the DXF file and also the G-code to cut them. The code is just enough for 1 rib. Just press the start buttonabout 30 times and they will all be cut. I am referring to the plywood gussets.--------Jerry Dotson59 Daniel Johnson RdBaker, FL 32531Started building NX510JD July, 2009Ribs all doneusing Lycoming O-235Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc0 ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: NEW HOME FOR NX510JD
Ben, I used 2 each 2 x 4 sheets from Aircraft Spruce. If you have access to a CNC routerwith 0.050" router bits I will send you the DXF file and also the G-code to cut them. The code is just enough for 1 rib. Just press the start buttonabout 30 times and they will all be cut. I am referring to the plywood gussets.--------Jerry Dotson59 Daniel Johnson RdBaker, FL 32531Started building NX510JD July, 2009Ribs all doneusing Lycoming O-235Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc0 ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: NEW HOME FOR NX510JD
RE: Pietenpol-List: some thoughts
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Douwe, you are right about the fact that one of the things that has producedfewer Pietenpol flights at Brodhead recently being fatigue. For me atleast, that fatigue has been brought on by bad weather.Last year (2008) I had planned to fly my Pietenpol there on Thursday, so Iwould have Friday to rest and be fresh for flying on Saturday. For me thetrip is 650 nautical miles, with the first third of that flying over theAppalachian Mountains. Thursday's weather was bad, and I couldn't fly, soFriday I made the entire trip in one day - 12 hours of flying (averaging 27knots groundspeed crossing the Blue Ridge Mountains in Virginia), taking offfrom Raleigh at dawn and landing at Brodhead just before sunset. I did hopa few rides on Saturday last year, in spite of my butt protesting at sittingin that cockpit again.This year I planned to leave on Tuesday and take my time getting there, toarrive by Wednesday evening. It took me 3 days to get there, spending allday Wednesday trying to cross the West Virginia / Virginia border (a 4,000'ridge). I finally arrived at noon on Friday. But the primary reason I onlyhopped 2 rides on Saturday was the crosswinds that lashed the field most ofSaturday. Flying a Pietenpol in crosswinds like that is just work, and notmuch fun, particularly when you are tired.It will be a while before I fly mine to Brodhead again. My wife is not veryhappy when I fly it over the mountains. I was able to use the excuse ofwanting to be there for the 80th anniversary, but it will be a while beforeI make the trip again with the Pietenpol. I'll still go to Brodhead, butI'll probably use the RV-4. Much cheaper on gas and able to outrun weather.Jack PhillipsNX899JP "Icarus Plummet"Raleigh, NC-----Original Message-----
Douwe, you are right about the fact that one of the things that has producedfewer Pietenpol flights at Brodhead recently being fatigue. For me atleast, that fatigue has been brought on by bad weather.Last year (2008) I had planned to fly my Pietenpol there on Thursday, so Iwould have Friday to rest and be fresh for flying on Saturday. For me thetrip is 650 nautical miles, with the first third of that flying over theAppalachian Mountains. Thursday's weather was bad, and I couldn't fly, soFriday I made the entire trip in one day - 12 hours of flying (averaging 27knots groundspeed crossing the Blue Ridge Mountains in Virginia), taking offfrom Raleigh at dawn and landing at Brodhead just before sunset. I did hopa few rides on Saturday last year, in spite of my butt protesting at sittingin that cockpit again.This year I planned to leave on Tuesday and take my time getting there, toarrive by Wednesday evening. It took me 3 days to get there, spending allday Wednesday trying to cross the West Virginia / Virginia border (a 4,000'ridge). I finally arrived at noon on Friday. But the primary reason I onlyhopped 2 rides on Saturday was the crosswinds that lashed the field most ofSaturday. Flying a Pietenpol in crosswinds like that is just work, and notmuch fun, particularly when you are tired.It will be a while before I fly mine to Brodhead again. My wife is not veryhappy when I fly it over the mountains. I was able to use the excuse ofwanting to be there for the 80th anniversary, but it will be a while beforeI make the trip again with the Pietenpol. I'll still go to Brodhead, butI'll probably use the RV-4. Much cheaper on gas and able to outrun weather.Jack PhillipsNX899JP "Icarus Plummet"Raleigh, NC-----Original Message-----
Original Posted By: Michael Perez
My hangar is finally finished.( 40 X 50 ) If I can now get power, air and waterout there to it I can get started assembly on that 1 piece wing. No wait...needa 30 foot long work bench, light fixtures, etc. I am just proud to finallyget it built. The contractor was about 2 months late getting started.--------Jerry Dotson59 Daniel Johnson RdBaker, FL 32531Started building NX510JD July, 2009Ribs and tailfeathers doneusing Lycoming O-235Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/335_ ... ______Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
My hangar is finally finished.( 40 X 50 ) If I can now get power, air and waterout there to it I can get started assembly on that 1 piece wing. No wait...needa 30 foot long work bench, light fixtures, etc. I am just proud to finallyget it built. The contractor was about 2 months late getting started.--------Jerry Dotson59 Daniel Johnson RdBaker, FL 32531Started building NX510JD July, 2009Ribs and tailfeathers doneusing Lycoming O-235Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/335_ ... ______Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
Pietenpol-List: some thoughts
Original Posted By: Michael Perez
RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Push/pull tubes and rod ends
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
".I see I am not alone in changing the Pietenpol to suit my own personalneed/wants."Those are words I can live with. Change - Yes, Improve - NO. Have youchecked out www.cpc-world.com ? You will see anexcellent job of incorporating push rods.Gary BootheCool, Ca.PietenpolWW Corvair Conversion, mountedTail done, Fuselage on gear(15 ribs down.) _____
".I see I am not alone in changing the Pietenpol to suit my own personalneed/wants."Those are words I can live with. Change - Yes, Improve - NO. Have youchecked out www.cpc-world.com ? You will see anexcellent job of incorporating push rods.Gary BootheCool, Ca.PietenpolWW Corvair Conversion, mountedTail done, Fuselage on gear(15 ribs down.) _____