Original Posted By: ALAN LYSCARS
----- Original Message -----
Fw: Pietenpol-List: Wing on!!
Fw: Pietenpol-List: Wing on!!
Original Posted By: ALAN LYSCARS
To: Piet List Subject: Fw: Pietenpol-List: Wing on!! ----- Original Message -----
To: Piet List Subject: Fw: Pietenpol-List: Wing on!! ----- Original Message -----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Wing on!!
Original Posted By: "John Recine"
"Winds three three zero at zero six."Sounds like a nice day, so far.
-- yocum(at)gmail.comOn May 31, 2010, at 7:09 AM, helspersew(at)aol.com wrote:>> Thanks Alan, and all the rest of you guys that have sent > encouragement,>> I will weigh the airplane today. I am very fearful of this, because > I did not move my engine forward as most have done with the model > A. Ken Perkins for example, moved his a full 7 inches. That is > pretty extreme, but I started asking around and got answers from > 1-1/2" , 4", and then Ken's at 7". Unfortunately, I did not discover > this, somehow missing the discussions on this list (and in the > archives) untill after I had my engine mounted and the cowling made. > I think my only hope is that I am pretty light at 150 lbs. I suspect > my airplane is heavy, which would not bother me so much, except for > this W & B problem.>> Dan Helsper> Poplar Grove, IL.>>________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wing on!!
"Winds three three zero at zero six."Sounds like a nice day, so far.
-- yocum(at)gmail.comOn May 31, 2010, at 7:09 AM, helspersew(at)aol.com wrote:>> Thanks Alan, and all the rest of you guys that have sent > encouragement,>> I will weigh the airplane today. I am very fearful of this, because > I did not move my engine forward as most have done with the model > A. Ken Perkins for example, moved his a full 7 inches. That is > pretty extreme, but I started asking around and got answers from > 1-1/2" , 4", and then Ken's at 7". Unfortunately, I did not discover > this, somehow missing the discussions on this list (and in the > archives) untill after I had my engine mounted and the cowling made. > I think my only hope is that I am pretty light at 150 lbs. I suspect > my airplane is heavy, which would not bother me so much, except for > this W & B problem.>> Dan Helsper> Poplar Grove, IL.>>________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wing on!!Re: Pietenpol-List: Wing on!!
Original Posted By: John Recine
John,Buzz me with your particulars: alyscars(at)myfairpoint.netAnd Jim Markel- in case you're loitering- my door's open too!Al ----- Original Message -----
John,Buzz me with your particulars: alyscars(at)myfairpoint.netAnd Jim Markel- in case you're loitering- my door's open too!Al ----- Original Message -----
Pietenpol-List: Wing on!! Secrets revealed!!!
Original Posted By: Michael Perez
Pietenpol-List: Re: Rudder cable tension changes in motion
Original Posted By: Kip and Beth Gardner
I wouldn't want to guess rudder tension on a Piet, but for what its worth, someof the later Cessna 182's before 1963, and pre-1963 185's call for 20 to 40 poundsof tension on the rudders. The manual I have access to doesn't give thetension for the rest of the single engine tri-gear airplanes. They list ailerontension as 40 pounds on the 150 to 185 series. If I remember correctly, thoseairplanes use 1/8 inch cable, rather than 3/32 inch cable. I would think40 pounds would be too high with 3/32 inch cable, but I would also think 7 poundsmight be a little light. You want enough tension on the cable so it doesn'thave slack in it when it is at the lightest tension point, or when it is hotout, so it doesn't pop out of the pulleys. You want the tension light enoughso it doesn't wear the pulleys. If the pulleys are slightly mis-aligned, youmay not notice the misalignment until they show wear. If it were my airplane,I would probably go with 15 to 20 pounds of cable tension. It is not my airplane,so I would say go with what you think is good. Maybe some of the folksthat have been flying their airplanes a while will have some input.--------Long flights, smooth air, and soft landings,GliderMike, aka Mike GlasgowRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
I wouldn't want to guess rudder tension on a Piet, but for what its worth, someof the later Cessna 182's before 1963, and pre-1963 185's call for 20 to 40 poundsof tension on the rudders. The manual I have access to doesn't give thetension for the rest of the single engine tri-gear airplanes. They list ailerontension as 40 pounds on the 150 to 185 series. If I remember correctly, thoseairplanes use 1/8 inch cable, rather than 3/32 inch cable. I would think40 pounds would be too high with 3/32 inch cable, but I would also think 7 poundsmight be a little light. You want enough tension on the cable so it doesn'thave slack in it when it is at the lightest tension point, or when it is hotout, so it doesn't pop out of the pulleys. You want the tension light enoughso it doesn't wear the pulleys. If the pulleys are slightly mis-aligned, youmay not notice the misalignment until they show wear. If it were my airplane,I would probably go with 15 to 20 pounds of cable tension. It is not my airplane,so I would say go with what you think is good. Maybe some of the folksthat have been flying their airplanes a while will have some input.--------Long flights, smooth air, and soft landings,GliderMike, aka Mike GlasgowRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________