Original Posted By: Ryan Mueller
I disagree. I think 29" on-center is a better dimension. It matches the 29" between the attach points on the fuse. And even though WW thinks it's a misguided belief that one can shift the wing back and forth to correct for CoG issues, a perfect parallelogram *will* allow for such shifting. I do agree with his assessment that the attach points for the diagonal cabanes should be heavy duty, permanent jobs, if not welded, but that's a different issue. Dan-- Dan Yocumyocum137(at)gmail.com"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."On Aug 28, 2010, at 5:46 PM, Ryan Mueller wrote:> > The 27 3/4 is the important dimension. Go ahead and use it!> > Ryan> > Sent from my iPhone> > On Aug 28, 2010, at 4:35 PM, JGriff wrote:> >> >> I received my plans and am about to construct my rib jig on 3/4" MDF. I didn't give much thought to using the supplied rib drawing and instead was going to plot out the shape because so many posts in the archive say not to use it since the drawing is off due to the xerox reproduction. I just double checked the drawing and it seems pretty accurate. The chord is 58" which I assume is correct because it doesn't include the leading or trailing edge. Also the 27 3/4 inch dim given between the spars is spot on. Has the drawing improved from years past? I'm thinking of using it - has anyone else used it instead of plotting it out?>> Thanks.>> Jamie>> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here:>> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 413#310413>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > le, List Admin.=0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 18:28:35 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: CG for heavy pilots
Pietenpol-List: 40 hour fly-off
Pietenpol-List: 40 hour fly-off
Original Posted By: helspersew(at)aol.com
Pietenpol-List: 40 hour fly-off
Original Posted By: helspersew(at)aol.com
Pietenpol-List: 40 hour fly-off
Original Posted By: helspersew(at)aol.com
Pietenpol-List: 40 hour fly-off
Original Posted By: helspersew(at)aol.com
Pietenpol-List: 40 hour fly-off
Original Posted By: helspersew(at)aol.com
Pietenpol-List: 40 hour fly-off
Original Posted By: Jeff Boatright
Pietenpol-List: 40 hour fly-off
Original Posted By: helspersew(at)aol.com
Dan=2CI personally would mind the 40 hrs either. Takes you that long to learn the aircraft. How's the "A" running? You mentioned it was stopping at idle and thought it was just because it was tight. I'm still leanig heavily towards an "A". I would prefer a Warner Scarab Jr or a lambert=2C but they are way out of my price range for now.Doug DeverIn beautiful Stow OhioSubject: Pietenpol-List: 40 hour fly-offDate: Sun=2C 29 Aug 2010 09:44:11 -0400
Dan=2CI personally would mind the 40 hrs either. Takes you that long to learn the aircraft. How's the "A" running? You mentioned it was stopping at idle and thought it was just because it was tight. I'm still leanig heavily towards an "A". I would prefer a Warner Scarab Jr or a lambert=2C but they are way out of my price range for now.Doug DeverIn beautiful Stow OhioSubject: Pietenpol-List: 40 hour fly-offDate: Sun=2C 29 Aug 2010 09:44:11 -0400
Re: Pietenpol-List: 40 hour fly-off
Original Posted By: Dan Yocum
One more question about spar placement. I know the 27 3/4" measurement on the ribdrawing is the important dimension. If I am going with 3/4" spars than shouldI center the 3/4" spars in the 1" spar area so the new measurement distancebetween the 2 qty 3/4" spars will now be 28" correct?Did any of you place a piece of 3/4 x 4 3/4 spar material right on the jig to buildthe ribs around or should I not do that.Thanks again for all the help in getting me started.JamieRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 40 hour fly-off
One more question about spar placement. I know the 27 3/4" measurement on the ribdrawing is the important dimension. If I am going with 3/4" spars than shouldI center the 3/4" spars in the 1" spar area so the new measurement distancebetween the 2 qty 3/4" spars will now be 28" correct?Did any of you place a piece of 3/4 x 4 3/4 spar material right on the jig to buildthe ribs around or should I not do that.Thanks again for all the help in getting me started.JamieRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 40 hour fly-off
Re: Pietenpol-List: Rib drawing
Original Posted By: Dan Yocum
Hey Dan, Have you done any WAGing of the rate of climb? Dan-- Dan Yocumyocum137(at)gmail.com"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."On Aug 29, 2010, at 9:44 AM, helspersew(at)aol.com wrote:> Good people,> > I myself am enjoying my Piet, and really don't mind the 40 hour, Phase-1 fly-off period that is required for a non-certified prop and engine. It was a long, but enjoyable journey (10 year building process) to get this far.....I am loving every minute of it. 12 hours flown-off so far. I have been able to work out a few bugs, such as my nose-heaviness, excessive radiator overflow on climb-out, oil leaks, brake adjustments, magneto slippage etc. With every flight I am learning the machine and gaining the required confidence I will need in order to fly passengers safely. Yesterday I went on a mini cross country, from Poplar Grove, Bigfoot in Walworth WI, Dacy in Harvard IL, and back to Poplar Grove. Not very far but nevertheless a building block for me and my airplane. I am fortunate to have these grass strips so conveniently located so close to home. I still haven't had the cohones to try a hard- surface landing. Yesterday I also tried-out my quick disconnect tail wheel-to-skid set up. Worked like a charm! I changed it at the end of the runway with the engine idling.> > At some point I will start loading up the front seat with sandbags. > > Dan Helsper> Poplar Grove, IL. > > > ============================================================================================================================================> ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Rib drawing
Hey Dan, Have you done any WAGing of the rate of climb? Dan-- Dan Yocumyocum137(at)gmail.com"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."On Aug 29, 2010, at 9:44 AM, helspersew(at)aol.com wrote:> Good people,> > I myself am enjoying my Piet, and really don't mind the 40 hour, Phase-1 fly-off period that is required for a non-certified prop and engine. It was a long, but enjoyable journey (10 year building process) to get this far.....I am loving every minute of it. 12 hours flown-off so far. I have been able to work out a few bugs, such as my nose-heaviness, excessive radiator overflow on climb-out, oil leaks, brake adjustments, magneto slippage etc. With every flight I am learning the machine and gaining the required confidence I will need in order to fly passengers safely. Yesterday I went on a mini cross country, from Poplar Grove, Bigfoot in Walworth WI, Dacy in Harvard IL, and back to Poplar Grove. Not very far but nevertheless a building block for me and my airplane. I am fortunate to have these grass strips so conveniently located so close to home. I still haven't had the cohones to try a hard- surface landing. Yesterday I also tried-out my quick disconnect tail wheel-to-skid set up. Worked like a charm! I changed it at the end of the runway with the engine idling.> > At some point I will start loading up the front seat with sandbags. > > Dan Helsper> Poplar Grove, IL. > > > ============================================================================================================================================> ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Rib drawing
Original Posted By: Michael Perez
I disagree. I think 29" on-center is a better dimension. It matches the 29" betweenthe attach points on the fuse. And even though WW thinks it's a misguidedbelief that one can shift the wing back and forth to correct for CoG issues,a perfect parallelogram *will* allow for such shifting. I do agree with his assessmentthat the attach points for the diagonal cabanes should be heavy duty,permanent jobs, if not welded, but that's a different issue. Dan-- Dan Yocumyocum137(at)gmail.com"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."On Aug 28, 2010, at 5:46 PM, Ryan Mueller wrote:> > The 27 3/4 is the important dimension. Go ahead and use it!> > Ryan> > Sent from my iPhone> > On Aug 28, 2010, at 4:35 PM, JGriff wrote:> >> >> I received my plans and am about to construct my rib jig on 3/4" MDF. I didn'tgive much thought to using the supplied rib drawing and instead was going toplot out the shape because so many posts in the archive say not to use it sincethe drawing is off due to the xerox reproduction. I just double checked thedrawing and it seems pretty accurate. The chord is 58" which I assume is correctbecause it doesn't include the leading or trailing edge. Also the 27 3/4inch dim given between the spars is spot on. Has the drawing improved from yearspast? I'm thinking of using it - has anyone else used it instead of plottingit out?>> Thanks.>> Jamie>> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here:>> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 413#310413>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 12:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
I disagree. I think 29" on-center is a better dimension. It matches the 29" betweenthe attach points on the fuse. And even though WW thinks it's a misguidedbelief that one can shift the wing back and forth to correct for CoG issues,a perfect parallelogram *will* allow for such shifting. I do agree with his assessmentthat the attach points for the diagonal cabanes should be heavy duty,permanent jobs, if not welded, but that's a different issue. Dan-- Dan Yocumyocum137(at)gmail.com"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."On Aug 28, 2010, at 5:46 PM, Ryan Mueller wrote:> > The 27 3/4 is the important dimension. Go ahead and use it!> > Ryan> > Sent from my iPhone> > On Aug 28, 2010, at 4:35 PM, JGriff wrote:> >> >> I received my plans and am about to construct my rib jig on 3/4" MDF. I didn'tgive much thought to using the supplied rib drawing and instead was going toplot out the shape because so many posts in the archive say not to use it sincethe drawing is off due to the xerox reproduction. I just double checked thedrawing and it seems pretty accurate. The chord is 58" which I assume is correctbecause it doesn't include the leading or trailing edge. Also the 27 3/4inch dim given between the spars is spot on. Has the drawing improved from yearspast? I'm thinking of using it - has anyone else used it instead of plottingit out?>> Thanks.>> Jamie>> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here:>> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 413#310413>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 12:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
Re: Pietenpol-List: 40 hour fly-off
Original Posted By: helspersew(at)aol.com
Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib drawing
Original Posted By: Jim Boyer
Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib drawing
Original Posted By: "JGriff"
In order to keep the original print in good shape, my wife suggested that I usecarbon paper and trace the original print to the MDF. At first I thought thatwould be difficult, but carbon paper is cheap (especially if you have an OfficeDepot or Staples nearby) and the MDF is smooth so I gave it a try. It onlytook about 30 minutes and I had an exact reproduction on my jig. This reallyhelped a lot when it came to placing blocks and cams for aligning the pieces.Just figured I'd share that since it worked out good for me... I chose to glueand nail my ribs. If you prefer to clamp, just look around as there are severalother cool variations around here.--------Mark ChouinardFinishing up Wings - Working on Center SectionRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/wing ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib drawing
In order to keep the original print in good shape, my wife suggested that I usecarbon paper and trace the original print to the MDF. At first I thought thatwould be difficult, but carbon paper is cheap (especially if you have an OfficeDepot or Staples nearby) and the MDF is smooth so I gave it a try. It onlytook about 30 minutes and I had an exact reproduction on my jig. This reallyhelped a lot when it came to placing blocks and cams for aligning the pieces.Just figured I'd share that since it worked out good for me... I chose to glueand nail my ribs. If you prefer to clamp, just look around as there are severalother cool variations around here.--------Mark ChouinardFinishing up Wings - Working on Center SectionRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/wing ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib drawing
Re: Pietenpol-List: 40 hour fly-off
Original Posted By: KM Heide CPO/FAAOP
Re: Pietenpol-List: CG for heavy pilots
Original Posted By:> Dan Yocum
I'm on vacation this week, so I'm going on memory here - the long fuse adds most of the length in the nose, not the tail, so yes it'll help with a heavier guy like you. There's a limit to the amout you can shift the wing back to modify the CoG. I think I've read that some people have tilted the cabanes back by up to 4", but it looks a bit odd.Then again, the long nose on N8031 looks a bit odd too, so... Take yer pick of oddities. ;-)Dan-- Dan Yocumyocum137(at)gmail.com"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."On Aug 29, 2010, at 6:57 PM, KM Heide CPO/FAAOP wrote:> Dan,> > Then for a guy like me (who is 6'0 and 270 lb. mass of water, bones, and fat) should I then make my fuse longer to compensate for the heaviness of my weight? It is reasonable for one to figure out the CG by adding the engine weight, weight of pilot, weight of fuse on tail wheel, then use that number to see if you have enough wing movement aft for compensation? Has anyone figured out what modifications are needed to compensate for a heavier pilot say 270?> > KMH> > > > --- On Sun, 8/29/10, Dan Yocum wrote:>
I'm on vacation this week, so I'm going on memory here - the long fuse adds most of the length in the nose, not the tail, so yes it'll help with a heavier guy like you. There's a limit to the amout you can shift the wing back to modify the CoG. I think I've read that some people have tilted the cabanes back by up to 4", but it looks a bit odd.Then again, the long nose on N8031 looks a bit odd too, so... Take yer pick of oddities. ;-)Dan-- Dan Yocumyocum137(at)gmail.com"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."On Aug 29, 2010, at 6:57 PM, KM Heide CPO/FAAOP wrote:> Dan,> > Then for a guy like me (who is 6'0 and 270 lb. mass of water, bones, and fat) should I then make my fuse longer to compensate for the heaviness of my weight? It is reasonable for one to figure out the CG by adding the engine weight, weight of pilot, weight of fuse on tail wheel, then use that number to see if you have enough wing movement aft for compensation? Has anyone figured out what modifications are needed to compensate for a heavier pilot say 270?> > KMH> > > > --- On Sun, 8/29/10, Dan Yocum wrote:>
Pietenpol-List: 40 hour fly-off
Original Posted By: helspersew(at)aol.com
> > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com> > > > > > The interpretation comes into play, when the certified engine has non PMA parts and accessories installed, and is rebuilt by someone other than a person with an A&P rating. If there isn't a paperwork trail on a part going back to Noah and the Ark, it most likely isn't PMA approved, at which time the certified engine does not conform to the TCDS, and is no longer a certified engine. My understanding is, the engine and/or propeller has to conform to the TCDS to continue to be a certified engine. The builder can get a repairman's Certificate after it is completed, but he didn't have one when the engine was rebuilt. Obviously, some FSDO people see this as OK. I suspect there are some who don't see it as OK. > > > > My last two cents. > > > > I get wound up by involving myself in discussions like this, and begin to wonder why I took the time and went to the expense to get an A&P rating. Especially since I have been looking for a job for nearly 4 months since getting the rating. Everyone wants at least 3 to 5 years experience.> > > > --------> > HOMEBUILDER> > Will WORK for Spruce> > Long flights, smooth air, and soft landings,> > GliderMike, aka Mike Glasgow> > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here:> > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 416#310416> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: 40 hour fly-offDate: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 09:44:11 -0400
> > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com> > > > > > The interpretation comes into play, when the certified engine has non PMA parts and accessories installed, and is rebuilt by someone other than a person with an A&P rating. If there isn't a paperwork trail on a part going back to Noah and the Ark, it most likely isn't PMA approved, at which time the certified engine does not conform to the TCDS, and is no longer a certified engine. My understanding is, the engine and/or propeller has to conform to the TCDS to continue to be a certified engine. The builder can get a repairman's Certificate after it is completed, but he didn't have one when the engine was rebuilt. Obviously, some FSDO people see this as OK. I suspect there are some who don't see it as OK. > > > > My last two cents. > > > > I get wound up by involving myself in discussions like this, and begin to wonder why I took the time and went to the expense to get an A&P rating. Especially since I have been looking for a job for nearly 4 months since getting the rating. Everyone wants at least 3 to 5 years experience.> > > > --------> > HOMEBUILDER> > Will WORK for Spruce> > Long flights, smooth air, and soft landings,> > GliderMike, aka Mike Glasgow> > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here:> > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 416#310416> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: 40 hour fly-offDate: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 09:44:11 -0400
> Re: Pietenpol-List: Rib drawing
Original Posted By: Pietn38b(at)aol.com
>> >>> I disagree. I think 29" on-center is a better dimension. It matches the 29"> between the attach points on the fuse. And even though WW thinks it's a> misguided belief that one can shift the wing back and forth to correct for> CoG issues, a perfect parallelogram *will* allow for such shifting. I do> agree with his assessment that the attach points for the diagonal cabanes> should be heavy duty, permanent jobs, if not welded, but that's a different> issue.>> Dan>> --> Dan Yocum> yocum137@gmail.com> "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things.">> On Aug 28, 2010, at 5:46 PM, Ryan Mueller >> wrote:>> >> >> > The 27 3/4 is the important dimension. Go ahead and use it!> >> > Ryan> >> > Sent from my iPhone> >> > On Aug 28, 2010, at 4:35 PM, JGriff >> wrote:> >> >> >>> >> I received my plans and am about to construct my rib jig on 3/4" MDF. I> didn't give much thought to using the supplied rib drawing and instead was> going to plot out the shape because so many posts in the archive say not to> use it since the drawing is off due to the xerox reproduction. I just double> checked the drawing and it seems pretty accurate. The chord is 58" which I> assume is correct because it doesn't include the leading or trailing edge.> Also the 27 3/4 inch dim given between the spars is spot on. Has the drawing> improved from years past? I'm thinking of using it - has anyone else used it> instead of plotting it out?> >> Thanks.> >> Jamie> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Read this topic online here:> >>> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 413#310413> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> &tor?Pietenpol-List" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet - MATRONICS WEB FORUM href="> http://forums.matronics.com/" target=_blank>http://forums.matronbsp;> - List Contribution Web Site -http://www======================>>> *>> *>>________________________________________________________________________________
>> >>> I disagree. I think 29" on-center is a better dimension. It matches the 29"> between the attach points on the fuse. And even though WW thinks it's a> misguided belief that one can shift the wing back and forth to correct for> CoG issues, a perfect parallelogram *will* allow for such shifting. I do> agree with his assessment that the attach points for the diagonal cabanes> should be heavy duty, permanent jobs, if not welded, but that's a different> issue.>> Dan>> --> Dan Yocum> yocum137@gmail.com> "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things.">> On Aug 28, 2010, at 5:46 PM, Ryan Mueller >> wrote:>> >> >> > The 27 3/4 is the important dimension. Go ahead and use it!> >> > Ryan> >> > Sent from my iPhone> >> > On Aug 28, 2010, at 4:35 PM, JGriff >> wrote:> >> >> >>> >> I received my plans and am about to construct my rib jig on 3/4" MDF. I> didn't give much thought to using the supplied rib drawing and instead was> going to plot out the shape because so many posts in the archive say not to> use it since the drawing is off due to the xerox reproduction. I just double> checked the drawing and it seems pretty accurate. The chord is 58" which I> assume is correct because it doesn't include the leading or trailing edge.> Also the 27 3/4 inch dim given between the spars is spot on. Has the drawing> improved from years past? I'm thinking of using it - has anyone else used it> instead of plotting it out?> >> Thanks.> >> Jamie> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Read this topic online here:> >>> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 413#310413> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> &tor?Pietenpol-List" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet - MATRONICS WEB FORUM href="> http://forums.matronics.com/" target=_blank>http://forums.matronbsp;> - List Contribution Web Site -http://www======================>>> *>> *>>________________________________________________________________________________
> Pietenpol-List: 40 hour fly-off
Original Posted By:> helspersew(at)aol.com
Re: Pietenpol-List: CG for heavy pilots
Original Posted By: Rick Holland
> > > I disagree. I think 29" on-center is a better dimension. It matches the 29" between the attach points on the fuse. And even though WW thinks it's a misguided belief that one can shift the wing back and forth to correct for CoG issues, a perfect parallelogram *will* allow for such shifting. I do agree with his assessment that the attach points for the diagonal cabanes should be heavy duty, permanent jobs, if not welded, but that's a different issue. > > Dan> > -- > Dan Yocum> yocum137(at)gmail.com> "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."> > On Aug 28, 2010, at 5:46 PM, Ryan Mueller wrote:> >> > > > The 27 3/4 is the important dimension. Go ahead and use it!> > > > Ryan> > > > Sent from my iPhone> > > > On Aug 28, 2010, at 4:35 PM, JGriff wrote:> > >> >> > >> I received my plans and am about to construct my rib jig on 3/4" MDF. I didn't give much thought to using the supplied rib drawing and instead was going to plot out the shape because so many posts in the archive say not to use it since the drawing is off due to the xerox reproduction. I just double checked the drawing and it seems pretty accurate. The chord is 58" which I assume is correct because it doesn't include the leading or trailing edge. Also the 27 3/4 inch dim given between the spars is spot on. Has the drawing improved from years past? I'm thinking of using it - has anyone else used it instead of plotting it out?> >> Thanks.> >> Jamie> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Read this topic online here:> >> > >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 413#310413> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > &tor?Pietenpol-List" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet - MATRONICS WEB FORUM href="http://forums.matronics.com/" target=_blank>http://forums.matronbsp; - List Contribution Web Site -http://www======================> > > > > > ============================================================================================================================================> ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:57:14 -0600Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: CG for heavy pilots
> > > I disagree. I think 29" on-center is a better dimension. It matches the 29" between the attach points on the fuse. And even though WW thinks it's a misguided belief that one can shift the wing back and forth to correct for CoG issues, a perfect parallelogram *will* allow for such shifting. I do agree with his assessment that the attach points for the diagonal cabanes should be heavy duty, permanent jobs, if not welded, but that's a different issue. > > Dan> > -- > Dan Yocum> yocum137(at)gmail.com> "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."> > On Aug 28, 2010, at 5:46 PM, Ryan Mueller wrote:> >> > > > The 27 3/4 is the important dimension. Go ahead and use it!> > > > Ryan> > > > Sent from my iPhone> > > > On Aug 28, 2010, at 4:35 PM, JGriff wrote:> > >> >> > >> I received my plans and am about to construct my rib jig on 3/4" MDF. I didn't give much thought to using the supplied rib drawing and instead was going to plot out the shape because so many posts in the archive say not to use it since the drawing is off due to the xerox reproduction. I just double checked the drawing and it seems pretty accurate. The chord is 58" which I assume is correct because it doesn't include the leading or trailing edge. Also the 27 3/4 inch dim given between the spars is spot on. Has the drawing improved from years past? I'm thinking of using it - has anyone else used it instead of plotting it out?> >> Thanks.> >> Jamie> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Read this topic online here:> >> > >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 413#310413> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > &tor?Pietenpol-List" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet - MATRONICS WEB FORUM href="http://forums.matronics.com/" target=_blank>http://forums.matronbsp; - List Contribution Web Site -http://www======================> > > > > > ============================================================================================================================================> ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:57:14 -0600Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: CG for heavy pilots
Re: Pietenpol-List: CG for heavy pilots
Original Posted By: Rick Holland
>> >>> I disagree. I think 29" on-center is a better dimension. It matches the 29"> between the attach points on the fuse. And even though WW thinks it's a> misguided belief that one can shift the wing back and forth to correct for> CoG issues, a perfect parallelogram *will* allow for such shifting. I do> agree with his assessment that the attach points for the diagonal cabanes> should be heavy duty, permanent jobs, if not welded, but that's a different> issue.>> Dan>> --> Dan Yocum> yocum137@gmail.com> "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things.">> On Aug 28, 2010, at 5:46 PM, Ryan Mueller >> wrote:>> >> >> > The 27 3/4 is the important dimension. Go ahead and use it!> >> > Ryan> >> > Sent from my iPhone> >> > On Aug 28, 2010, at 4:35 PM, JGriff >> wrote:> >> >> >>> >> I received my plans and am about to construct my rib jig on 3/4" MDF. I> didn't give much thought to using the supplied rib drawing and instead was> going to plot out the shape because so many posts in the archive say not to> use it since the drawing is off due to the xerox reproduction. I just double> checked the drawing and it seems pretty accurate. The chord is 58" which I> assume is correct because it doesn't include the leading or trailing edge.> Also the 27 3/4 inch dim given between the spars is spot on. Has the drawing> improved from years past? I'm thinking of using it - has anyone else used it> instead of plotting it out?> >> Thanks.> >> Jamie> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Read this topic online here:> >>> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 413#310413> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> &tor?Pietenpol-List" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet - MATRONICS WEB FORUM href="> http://forums.matronics.com/" target=_blank>http://forums.matronbsp;> - List Contribution Web Site -http://www======================>>> *>> *>>-- Rick HollandCastle Rock, Colorado"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"________________________________________________________________________________Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:20:29 -0600Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: CG for heavy pilots
>> >>> I disagree. I think 29" on-center is a better dimension. It matches the 29"> between the attach points on the fuse. And even though WW thinks it's a> misguided belief that one can shift the wing back and forth to correct for> CoG issues, a perfect parallelogram *will* allow for such shifting. I do> agree with his assessment that the attach points for the diagonal cabanes> should be heavy duty, permanent jobs, if not welded, but that's a different> issue.>> Dan>> --> Dan Yocum> yocum137@gmail.com> "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things.">> On Aug 28, 2010, at 5:46 PM, Ryan Mueller >> wrote:>> >> >> > The 27 3/4 is the important dimension. Go ahead and use it!> >> > Ryan> >> > Sent from my iPhone> >> > On Aug 28, 2010, at 4:35 PM, JGriff >> wrote:> >> >> >>> >> I received my plans and am about to construct my rib jig on 3/4" MDF. I> didn't give much thought to using the supplied rib drawing and instead was> going to plot out the shape because so many posts in the archive say not to> use it since the drawing is off due to the xerox reproduction. I just double> checked the drawing and it seems pretty accurate. The chord is 58" which I> assume is correct because it doesn't include the leading or trailing edge.> Also the 27 3/4 inch dim given between the spars is spot on. Has the drawing> improved from years past? I'm thinking of using it - has anyone else used it> instead of plotting it out?> >> Thanks.> >> Jamie> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Read this topic online here:> >>> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 413#310413> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> &tor?Pietenpol-List" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet - MATRONICS WEB FORUM href="> http://forums.matronics.com/" target=_blank>http://forums.matronbsp;> - List Contribution Web Site -http://www======================>>> *>> *>>-- Rick HollandCastle Rock, Colorado"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"________________________________________________________________________________Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:20:29 -0600Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: CG for heavy pilots
Pietenpol-List: 40 hour fly-off
Original Posted By: helspersew(at)aol.com