Original Posted By: "Jack Phillips"
Hey, Jeff here in Louisville KYI've been studying the F&G manuals for years and thinking about a piet.. builta Ragwing Special biplane 10 years ago.. sold it and have been flying a 120 sincethen.. the 120 is for sale and i'm in the mood to build. I know there area ton of discussions about wood and weight and strength but.. I've looked at otherplanes, flybaby, the Ragwings, Flitzer... etc.. and it sure seems like longeronswould be plenty strong at 1"by 3/4" and 1/4' square ribs are the standardeverywhere.. the built up British spars are sweet.. it sure seems like thetail heavy issues could disappear with a little lightning.. even the F&G instructionsay its way over builti really have enjoyed reading the list for the last few months.. i have an extra A engine on a stand.... I'd like to hang it on some sticksjeff faithRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Pietenpol-List: New guy and wood
RE: Pietenpol-List: New guy and wood
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Good to have you on the list, Jeff!I believe you could easily go down to 7/8" square longerons (in fact Ibelieve that BHP did this on some of his later models). As for 1" x 3/4",maybe so, but bear in mind that you've lost a good deal of stiffness, andyou would only save about 46 ounces of weight, and some of that is ahead ofthe CG.Most of the tail heaviness comes not from the plane but from the pilot. In1929 very few people weighed over 200 lbs. Now sadly that is the norm,rather than the exception. Hanging a tailwheel on such a long momentcontributes greatly to tail-heaviness also. However, it really isn't aproblem because it is so easy with this design to shift the wing aft a fewinches and put the CG wherever you want..As for going to 1/4" capstrips on the ribs, something to consider whencomparing these ribs to more modern designs is that the rear spar is muchfurther forward in the Pietenpol wing than most modern designs. Even withheavy capstrips this wing is VERY flexible in torsion. Cutting thecapstrips in half will make it even more wimpy.Just something to consider. As I'm sure you've seen before on this list"Build it to the Plans, and you'll have a better airplane".Are you coming to Brodhead next week?Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC-----Original Message-----
Good to have you on the list, Jeff!I believe you could easily go down to 7/8" square longerons (in fact Ibelieve that BHP did this on some of his later models). As for 1" x 3/4",maybe so, but bear in mind that you've lost a good deal of stiffness, andyou would only save about 46 ounces of weight, and some of that is ahead ofthe CG.Most of the tail heaviness comes not from the plane but from the pilot. In1929 very few people weighed over 200 lbs. Now sadly that is the norm,rather than the exception. Hanging a tailwheel on such a long momentcontributes greatly to tail-heaviness also. However, it really isn't aproblem because it is so easy with this design to shift the wing aft a fewinches and put the CG wherever you want..As for going to 1/4" capstrips on the ribs, something to consider whencomparing these ribs to more modern designs is that the rear spar is muchfurther forward in the Pietenpol wing than most modern designs. Even withheavy capstrips this wing is VERY flexible in torsion. Cutting thecapstrips in half will make it even more wimpy.Just something to consider. As I'm sure you've seen before on this list"Build it to the Plans, and you'll have a better airplane".Are you coming to Brodhead next week?Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC-----Original Message-----