Original Posted By: Gene Rambo
I'd say not. I'm 180 and fly A LOT with a 100 to 120 lb pax, short fuse, A65.That's a total of 280 to 300 lbs worth of people and it's NEVER been a problem.Gets a little dicey with two 180 lbers...So, you're worry is going to be weight and balance, which I believe you will beable sort out with wing placement, perhaps a little nose weight (like a battery,header tank, metal prop which enhances performance anyway, etc).You may essentially have a two place Sky Scout... Secondly, if you do the mathbackwards, with a similar configured plane that you know the numbers to, youshould be able to determine where you need to sit, which may be a bit forward...sooo... if you're not too far along, you may wind up modifying where the seatis and basically have a non usable front cockpit, or just make it single placewith a nice baggage compartment up there. Save some additional weight byeliminating front controls, etc. This isn't trivial, but fundamentally the plane is proven to be able to carry theweight, so I wouldn't give up just yet. Also, totally nix the idea of a heavyfinish, you need as light a tail as possible. I'd even consider a dope finish.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Am I building the wrong airplane? (Pilot Weight Again)
Re: Pietenpol-List: Am I building the wrong airplane? (Pilot Weight Again)
Original Posted By: Matthew
Something else to consider along weight and balance. The difference in cg betweenme in the front alone (16.5 inches), scott in the back alone (50 lbs lighterthan me) 18 inches, me in the back alone (18.5 inches).In other words, 180 lbs only moved the cg 2 inches. 50 lbs moved it about halfan inch. It was all linear as it should be and seemed to indicate that yourweight should not cause a problem insofar as being aft of 20 inches (the recommendedlimit). I did the balance with me in the front only, just for the data point. We did theweight and balance by loading the plane as we would fly it (yep, just climbedin while on the scales, used race car scales) and taking direct data.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Am I building the wrong airplane? (Pilot Weight Again)
Something else to consider along weight and balance. The difference in cg betweenme in the front alone (16.5 inches), scott in the back alone (50 lbs lighterthan me) 18 inches, me in the back alone (18.5 inches).In other words, 180 lbs only moved the cg 2 inches. 50 lbs moved it about halfan inch. It was all linear as it should be and seemed to indicate that yourweight should not cause a problem insofar as being aft of 20 inches (the recommendedlimit). I did the balance with me in the front only, just for the data point. We did theweight and balance by loading the plane as we would fly it (yep, just climbedin while on the scales, used race car scales) and taking direct data.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Am I building the wrong airplane? (Pilot Weight Again)
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: TIG Welder
Original Posted By: Jack
Grandpa's Peit is long fuse, corvair powered, (b.h. Pietenpol style conversion) the wing is moved back 6" I believe. Grandpa 'Big Jim' is 6'6" 275lbs. The wing is far enough aft that when it rains the water doesn't drop off the wing into the cockpit. He did say it flew a tad nose heavy, I may be adjusting those figures when I put it back together this summerSent from my iPhoneOn Feb 14, 2013, at 7:07 PM, Ryan M wrote:> List,> > I've been looking thru the archives and I can not find a definitive answer as to what the max pilot weight is for a Pietenpol because there are so may variables. > > William Wynne and Ryan Muller's research and subsequent articles published in BPR was excellent however came just short of giving a recipe for a heavy pilot Piet.> > I am 6 years into building a "long" fuse with Cleveland wheels, cub forward style gear and plan on moving the wing back the 3" (as in William and Ryan's example). Exactly where the CG ends up is anyone guess. I weigh 225 and am not willing to fly out of the CG range. > > Am I on the right track or am I building the wrong airplane?> > Ryan Michals> > > ============================================================================================================================================> ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: TIG Welder
Grandpa's Peit is long fuse, corvair powered, (b.h. Pietenpol style conversion) the wing is moved back 6" I believe. Grandpa 'Big Jim' is 6'6" 275lbs. The wing is far enough aft that when it rains the water doesn't drop off the wing into the cockpit. He did say it flew a tad nose heavy, I may be adjusting those figures when I put it back together this summerSent from my iPhoneOn Feb 14, 2013, at 7:07 PM, Ryan M wrote:> List,> > I've been looking thru the archives and I can not find a definitive answer as to what the max pilot weight is for a Pietenpol because there are so may variables. > > William Wynne and Ryan Muller's research and subsequent articles published in BPR was excellent however came just short of giving a recipe for a heavy pilot Piet.> > I am 6 years into building a "long" fuse with Cleveland wheels, cub forward style gear and plan on moving the wing back the 3" (as in William and Ryan's example). Exactly where the CG ends up is anyone guess. I weigh 225 and am not willing to fly out of the CG range. > > Am I on the right track or am I building the wrong airplane?> > Ryan Michals> > > ============================================================================================================================================> ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: TIG Welder
Original Posted By: "Clif Dawson"
A very good site Tools! Also don't regrind have 10 ready to go...Sent from my iPadJack TextorOn Feb 14, 2013, at 7:22 PM, "tools" wrote:> > I've never researched one of those, but hear A LOT about them on many weldingforums. It's one of those things where you hate to admit it, but apparantlythey work really really well... especially in the not so heavy duty cycle/occassionaluse arena (which is us).> > ESPECIALLY with ALL the accessories there, including a helmet. One stop shoppingand everything is matched. Maybe with the exception of a little dedicatedgrinder to keep your tungsten sharp. > > By the way, when learning TIG, you're gonna contaminate your tungsten a lot.Just stop, regrind and go again. Trying to weld with a messed up tip is completelycounterproductive. It's tough to make yourself stop, especially when youget a good run going, but you can't. Ultimately gonna frustrate you more thanjust stopping to reset.> > By the way, for anyone learning welding, I HIGHLY recommend paying a visit to www.weldingtipsandtricks.com. That guy makes some REALLY easy to watch and understand videos of all sorts of welding. It's a great website. Nothing but really practical videos and advice.> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 318#394318> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
A very good site Tools! Also don't regrind have 10 ready to go...Sent from my iPadJack TextorOn Feb 14, 2013, at 7:22 PM, "tools" wrote:> > I've never researched one of those, but hear A LOT about them on many weldingforums. It's one of those things where you hate to admit it, but apparantlythey work really really well... especially in the not so heavy duty cycle/occassionaluse arena (which is us).> > ESPECIALLY with ALL the accessories there, including a helmet. One stop shoppingand everything is matched. Maybe with the exception of a little dedicatedgrinder to keep your tungsten sharp. > > By the way, when learning TIG, you're gonna contaminate your tungsten a lot.Just stop, regrind and go again. Trying to weld with a messed up tip is completelycounterproductive. It's tough to make yourself stop, especially when youget a good run going, but you can't. Ultimately gonna frustrate you more thanjust stopping to reset.> > By the way, for anyone learning welding, I HIGHLY recommend paying a visit to www.weldingtipsandtricks.com. That guy makes some REALLY easy to watch and understand videos of all sorts of welding. It's a great website. Nothing but really practical videos and advice.> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 318#394318> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Am I building the wrong airplane? (Pilot Weight Again)
Original Posted By: "Michael McGowan"
Ryan,The French valley EAA chapter just finished a short Fuse Piet with a Corvair engine.The wings are not shifted rearward. I did the test flight. The emptyweight of the plane is 765 lbs. For me to fly it, they put 16 lbs of lead rightbehind the prop. Before I flew it, I added 46 lbs more on the floor rightbehind the firewall. This was perfect and it flew great with no other trim needed.When I flew it I weighed in at 230 lbs. The owners of the plane only weighin at about 180 lbs. The CG should be fine for them. That is why I electedto add the weight for the one flight I made. No reason to shift the wingfor only me. To answer your question. It is very doable with your weight. Iwould certainly follow everyone's advice and shift your wing back so you canfly it without adding unnecessary weight to the plane. I am always at the mostreward CG in my own plane. I am now trying to drop some of my own weight tohelp out that CG issue. I don't have the ability to shift my wing. Build itper plans so you can adjust the wings and all will be good. Hope you find this useful,--------Scott LiefeldFlying N11MS since March 1972Steel TubeC-85-12Wire WheelsBrodhead in 1996Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Ryan,The French valley EAA chapter just finished a short Fuse Piet with a Corvair engine.The wings are not shifted rearward. I did the test flight. The emptyweight of the plane is 765 lbs. For me to fly it, they put 16 lbs of lead rightbehind the prop. Before I flew it, I added 46 lbs more on the floor rightbehind the firewall. This was perfect and it flew great with no other trim needed.When I flew it I weighed in at 230 lbs. The owners of the plane only weighin at about 180 lbs. The CG should be fine for them. That is why I electedto add the weight for the one flight I made. No reason to shift the wingfor only me. To answer your question. It is very doable with your weight. Iwould certainly follow everyone's advice and shift your wing back so you canfly it without adding unnecessary weight to the plane. I am always at the mostreward CG in my own plane. I am now trying to drop some of my own weight tohelp out that CG issue. I don't have the ability to shift my wing. Build itper plans so you can adjust the wings and all will be good. Hope you find this useful,--------Scott LiefeldFlying N11MS since March 1972Steel TubeC-85-12Wire WheelsBrodhead in 1996Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Am I building the wrong airplane? (Pilot Weight
Original Posted By: "AircamperN11MS"
Fuel and passengers are right at the cg so they won't make a difference in balance. With a long fuselage the pilot is farther from the cg so a small increase in pilot girth will make the plane tail heavy which Piets tend to be anyway. So if you don't have your fuselage built yet how much farther foward would a Model A have to be to balance a 225 lb pilot? If it's only inches that would not be a large increase in fuselage weight. Mike McGowan----- Original Message -----
Fuel and passengers are right at the cg so they won't make a difference in balance. With a long fuselage the pilot is farther from the cg so a small increase in pilot girth will make the plane tail heavy which Piets tend to be anyway. So if you don't have your fuselage built yet how much farther foward would a Model A have to be to balance a 225 lb pilot? If it's only inches that would not be a large increase in fuselage weight. Mike McGowan----- Original Message -----
Pietenpol-List: Re: Am I building the wrong airplane? (Pilot Weight Again)
Original Posted By: "Dortch, Steven D MAJ MIL USA NGB"
Well, the one thing we can all agree on is that no two Piets will have the sameweight & balance, so sweeping generalities about maximum pilot weight are justBS. However, here's another data point based on my airplane. Scout has anA75 on the nose (same weight as an A65), empty weight of 633 lbs., 4" swept-backcabanes, and a 16 gallon fuel tank in the nose. I believe it's the 'improved'fuselage length. Pretty stock.The spreadsheet shows that will full fuel and oil, the heaviest pilot that cansaddle up in the rear cockpit is about 215-220 lbs. and although the airplanewill still be under gross by 144 lbs., the CG will be at the aft limit.With that loading, I can put a 144 lb. passenger in the front cockpit and the CGstays about the same but I'm at gross. The airplane has flown many times inthat configuration and is quite happy, but climb rate isn't spectacular.The other things to check (and Tools touched on this) are minimum pilot weightand front-seat solo. My airplane has a minimum pilot weight of 105 lbs (rearcockpit), because with full fuel and oil, the CG falls out the front end of theenvelope with a too-light pilot, even though the airplane is only at 839 lbs.gross that way. My airplane can also not be safely soloed from the front cockpitfor the same reason, so the front cockpit is placarded against front seatsolo flight.Get the W&B spreadsheet and play with it. Mine is attached, if anyone cares totailor it to their own airplane and use it as a template.--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/nx41 ... __________
Well, the one thing we can all agree on is that no two Piets will have the sameweight & balance, so sweeping generalities about maximum pilot weight are justBS. However, here's another data point based on my airplane. Scout has anA75 on the nose (same weight as an A65), empty weight of 633 lbs., 4" swept-backcabanes, and a 16 gallon fuel tank in the nose. I believe it's the 'improved'fuselage length. Pretty stock.The spreadsheet shows that will full fuel and oil, the heaviest pilot that cansaddle up in the rear cockpit is about 215-220 lbs. and although the airplanewill still be under gross by 144 lbs., the CG will be at the aft limit.With that loading, I can put a 144 lb. passenger in the front cockpit and the CGstays about the same but I'm at gross. The airplane has flown many times inthat configuration and is quite happy, but climb rate isn't spectacular.The other things to check (and Tools touched on this) are minimum pilot weightand front-seat solo. My airplane has a minimum pilot weight of 105 lbs (rearcockpit), because with full fuel and oil, the CG falls out the front end of theenvelope with a too-light pilot, even though the airplane is only at 839 lbs.gross that way. My airplane can also not be safely soloed from the front cockpitfor the same reason, so the front cockpit is placarded against front seatsolo flight.Get the W&B spreadsheet and play with it. Mine is attached, if anyone cares totailor it to their own airplane and use it as a template.--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/nx41 ... __________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Am I building the wrong airplane? (Pilot Weight
Original Posted By: taildrags
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Am I building the wrong airplane? (Pilot WeightAgain)Thanks, I am going to look this over and compare it to 3379. Any ideas about flying from the front seat with a pax in the back seat? There isno way my wife is going to be bent, folded and manipulated into the front seat.Blue Skies----- Original Message -----
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Am I building the wrong airplane? (Pilot WeightAgain)Thanks, I am going to look this over and compare it to 3379. Any ideas about flying from the front seat with a pax in the back seat? There isno way my wife is going to be bent, folded and manipulated into the front seat.Blue Skies----- Original Message -----