Original Posted By: "Gary Boothe"
The 1932 Glider Manual shows the fuselage on the Air Camper as being 13' 5" long.When the sides are built flat and then bowed from front to rear, the fuselagewill become shorter. How much longer does the upper and lower longerons needto be in order for the overall length to be correct after the sides are bentin?Thanks CraigRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Pietenpol-List: Fuselage Sides
RE: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage Sides
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Craig,I remember that part of my project with fondness at the anticipation somedayjust being able to sit in my fuselage, but you are over thinking it. Justcut to length and bend them together. Mr. Pietenpol has already taken thatin to account...Gary Boothe Cool, Ca. Pietenpol WW Corvair Conversion, Running! Tail done, Fuselage on gear (22 ribs down.) -----Original Message-----
Craig,I remember that part of my project with fondness at the anticipation somedayjust being able to sit in my fuselage, but you are over thinking it. Justcut to length and bend them together. Mr. Pietenpol has already taken thatin to account...Gary Boothe Cool, Ca. Pietenpol WW Corvair Conversion, Running! Tail done, Fuselage on gear (22 ribs down.) -----Original Message-----
Pietenpol-List: Re: Fuselage Sides
Original Posted By: "Mr. Craig"
gboothe5(at)comcast.net wrote:> Craig,> > I remember that part of my project with fondness at the anticipation somedayjust being able to sit in my fuselage, but you are over thinking it. Just cutto length and bend them together. Mr. Pietenpol has already taken that in to account...> > Gary BootheHi GaryNot over thinking. Common drafting practice it to show the side view of an objectin it's assembled form. The 1932 Air Camper drawings are in this fasion. Theyare not showing the fuselage side as a flat pattern. The dimensions shown arefrom face of firewall to back of stern post with both sides in their archedposition. In order to get this dimension correct, the sides will need to be around1" longer. If we build the sides 13' 5" flat and then bend them in the distancefrom firewall to stern post will be around 13' 4". Not a big deal, butthe plans show 13' 5".Craig>From your reply, everyone must just build the sides 13' 5" and call it close enough?Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Fuselage Sides
gboothe5(at)comcast.net wrote:> Craig,> > I remember that part of my project with fondness at the anticipation somedayjust being able to sit in my fuselage, but you are over thinking it. Just cutto length and bend them together. Mr. Pietenpol has already taken that in to account...> > Gary BootheHi GaryNot over thinking. Common drafting practice it to show the side view of an objectin it's assembled form. The 1932 Air Camper drawings are in this fasion. Theyare not showing the fuselage side as a flat pattern. The dimensions shown arefrom face of firewall to back of stern post with both sides in their archedposition. In order to get this dimension correct, the sides will need to be around1" longer. If we build the sides 13' 5" flat and then bend them in the distancefrom firewall to stern post will be around 13' 4". Not a big deal, butthe plans show 13' 5".Craig>From your reply, everyone must just build the sides 13' 5" and call it close enough?Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Fuselage Sides
Pietenpol-List: Re: Fuselage Sides
Original Posted By: "Bill Church"
I got a 15 foot 5/4 by 6 poplar board from boland malhony... and a poplar 1 by6.. cut them up todayAlso got another western red cedar board to finish my ribs... i get the cedar in6' 5/4 by 4 and crazy straight tight grain..like 25 rings per inch...it's prettywoodgot an old Wico model c 1128 magneto in the mail today too... cleaned it up, gapped the points and it throws a huge sparkit's CCW rotation and has an adjustable impulse couplingjeffRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Fuselage Sides
I got a 15 foot 5/4 by 6 poplar board from boland malhony... and a poplar 1 by6.. cut them up todayAlso got another western red cedar board to finish my ribs... i get the cedar in6' 5/4 by 4 and crazy straight tight grain..like 25 rings per inch...it's prettywoodgot an old Wico model c 1128 magneto in the mail today too... cleaned it up, gapped the points and it throws a huge sparkit's CCW rotation and has an adjustable impulse couplingjeffRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Fuselage Sides
Original Posted By: "TOM STINEMETZE"
Craig,If you build the sides flat, using the dimensions on the plans, you will find thatwhen you join the sides, and bow them together to meet at the tail, that theoverall length will become shorter by "just the right amount". :DWhile it is normal drafting practice to draw an assembly in its assembled state,and it does appear that the FGM plans do show that, I feel pretty safe in assumingthat anyone that has built a plane from those plans built their fuselagesides using the side view as though it was a flat plan. The Pietenpol is builtjust like a giant model airplane. If you've ever built a stick and tissuemodel airplane, you will know that you build the fuselage sides flat on top ofthe plans, and then when you join the sides, your main concern is that the twosides are the same length (whatever that length is), and that they both flexequally (symmetrical).I just checked the "improved" Air Camper plans, and the overall length on the viewlabeled "layout for side of fuselage" actually is 1/2" longer than the overalllength of the finished fuselage. I have built my fuselage basic structure,and joined the sides. But I have not measured the overall finished length.I also do not plan to measure the overall finished length. It doesn't really matterthat much. Plus or minus half an inch will not matter on the overall lengthof the fuselage. Making sure that the fuselage is symmetrical does matter.In short, trying to compensate for the shortening effect is WAAAAY more work thanit's worth. How would you decide where to add the extra length?Bill C.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 16:29:58 -0600
Craig,If you build the sides flat, using the dimensions on the plans, you will find thatwhen you join the sides, and bow them together to meet at the tail, that theoverall length will become shorter by "just the right amount". :DWhile it is normal drafting practice to draw an assembly in its assembled state,and it does appear that the FGM plans do show that, I feel pretty safe in assumingthat anyone that has built a plane from those plans built their fuselagesides using the side view as though it was a flat plan. The Pietenpol is builtjust like a giant model airplane. If you've ever built a stick and tissuemodel airplane, you will know that you build the fuselage sides flat on top ofthe plans, and then when you join the sides, your main concern is that the twosides are the same length (whatever that length is), and that they both flexequally (symmetrical).I just checked the "improved" Air Camper plans, and the overall length on the viewlabeled "layout for side of fuselage" actually is 1/2" longer than the overalllength of the finished fuselage. I have built my fuselage basic structure,and joined the sides. But I have not measured the overall finished length.I also do not plan to measure the overall finished length. It doesn't really matterthat much. Plus or minus half an inch will not matter on the overall lengthof the fuselage. Making sure that the fuselage is symmetrical does matter.In short, trying to compensate for the shortening effect is WAAAAY more work thanit's worth. How would you decide where to add the extra length?Bill C.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 16:29:58 -0600
Pietenpol-List: Re: Fuselage Sides
Original Posted By: "Mr. Craig"
Built the long fuselage per the plans. Didn't fret about dimensions beyond whatwas listed on the drawings. Glued it together and it appears to fly just fine.I'm 6' and 190 pounds. Flew it, with all my gear, by myself, from Austin,TX to Brodhead/Oshkosh this past summer.for what it's worth--------Kevin "Axel" PurteeNX899KPAustin/Georgetown, TXRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Fuselage Sides
Built the long fuselage per the plans. Didn't fret about dimensions beyond whatwas listed on the drawings. Glued it together and it appears to fly just fine.I'm 6' and 190 pounds. Flew it, with all my gear, by myself, from Austin,TX to Brodhead/Oshkosh this past summer.for what it's worth--------Kevin "Axel" PurteeNX899KPAustin/Georgetown, TXRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Fuselage Sides
Pietenpol-List: Re: Fuselage Sides
Original Posted By: RBush96589(at)aol.com
Hi BillBuilding the sides and then trying to bend each in symmetrically is a real painwith a tube frame. Upper and lower longerons flex in different locations. Theplacement of tack weld is usually not perfectly symmetrical and the tack weldtend to crack when you start flexing the longerons. It is they way it was donefor years and is still done that way, but there is a better way in my opinion.It is much easier to build the bottom and top symmetrically. Fixture them inplace with the upper and lower cross members parallel to each other. Then addthe vertical members. All tack welds are done with everything fixtured in placeand there is no flexing of anything AFTER tacking that will break a tack weld.The book I referenced above is EXCELLENT in detailing how to build a steeltube fuselage using this method. Nothing wrong with the old way, it is justharder to get a square, symmetrical fuselage with that method.As this seems to be a rare path when building a Air Camper, I'm going to try anddocument every step so that others can see it as a build option that can beaccomplished by the average craftsman.FYI - To anyone building a steel tube Pietenpol Air Camper fuselage. The one shownin the 1932 FGM is way different than the 1934 "Improved" wood fuselage inexternal size and shape. It doesn't show engine mounting and the cowling forthe wood version is too big for the steel version shown. Upper front cross memberis in wrong location for Model A Ford motor and magneto. I'll have drawingsof the 1934 "Improved" size steel fuselage, with the 1932 structure and ModelA Ford installation if anyone wants to build the later version also a big andtall version. Just shoot me an email.Craig--------A goal without a plan is nothing more than a wish. -- orionRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Hi BillBuilding the sides and then trying to bend each in symmetrically is a real painwith a tube frame. Upper and lower longerons flex in different locations. Theplacement of tack weld is usually not perfectly symmetrical and the tack weldtend to crack when you start flexing the longerons. It is they way it was donefor years and is still done that way, but there is a better way in my opinion.It is much easier to build the bottom and top symmetrically. Fixture them inplace with the upper and lower cross members parallel to each other. Then addthe vertical members. All tack welds are done with everything fixtured in placeand there is no flexing of anything AFTER tacking that will break a tack weld.The book I referenced above is EXCELLENT in detailing how to build a steeltube fuselage using this method. Nothing wrong with the old way, it is justharder to get a square, symmetrical fuselage with that method.As this seems to be a rare path when building a Air Camper, I'm going to try anddocument every step so that others can see it as a build option that can beaccomplished by the average craftsman.FYI - To anyone building a steel tube Pietenpol Air Camper fuselage. The one shownin the 1932 FGM is way different than the 1934 "Improved" wood fuselage inexternal size and shape. It doesn't show engine mounting and the cowling forthe wood version is too big for the steel version shown. Upper front cross memberis in wrong location for Model A Ford motor and magneto. I'll have drawingsof the 1934 "Improved" size steel fuselage, with the 1932 structure and ModelA Ford installation if anyone wants to build the later version also a big andtall version. Just shoot me an email.Craig--------A goal without a plan is nothing more than a wish. -- orionRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________