Original Posted By: "taildrags"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: I Forgot to Add ProofIn a message dated 5/5/2013 5:56:33 A.M. Central Daylight Time, jarheadpilot82(at)hotmail.com writes:--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "jarheadpilot82" Those are the dastardly 613.5 Riblett wing ribs.Good eye.--------Semper Fi,Terry HandAthens, GARead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 85Finished my jig. They are pure Minnesota, oatmeal, apple pie, Pietenpol designed and signed rib specs for 3/4 spars, 3/8 X 1/4 select fir cap strip, for three piece wing. The kit will include 31 ribs and 1/8 plywood for 8 surfaces of aileron end ribs and related wing ribs.Wanted to furnish plywood for butt ribs but freight costs prohibits this. Avoid 1/4 marine plywood for these butt ribs as they are too heavy. I would even consider using 1/16 on top and bottom of center section. Think weight each time you add to your project. I think my W&B was 634 w/metal McCauley prop about 21 lbs. Wood prop was near 9 lbs which brought the project down to about 621. It must jump off the ground now with the 75 engine and pilot Oscar who isn't much fatter than a fart in a whirlwind. Just remember to build light. Lots of places for lightning holesCorky________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Riblett wing volume
Pietenpol-List: Riblett wing volume
Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett wing volume
Original Posted By: airlion2(at)gmail.com
By the way, just looking at Terry's wing ribs, I am reminded about the possibilitiesof putting fuel tanks in the wings now. With the relatively flat Pietenpolwing (less than 5" tall), it's tough to get much volume in a wing bay. Curiousto know how much the typical centersection fuel tank holds when constructedto Air Camper plans. I've heard that it is around 10 gallons, maybe a littleless.The Riblett 613.5 should be about 8" tall (13.5% of 60" =8.1"). With rib spacingof 11" and spars about 27" apart, a Riblett wing bay should have a volume ofaround 8 gallons. Putting a wing tank on each side would provide 16 gallonsand essentially all of it would be usable, unlike the last 2 or 2.5 gallons offuel in 41CC, which are just too low in the tank to flow reliably, especiallyin anything other than straight and level flight. With the fuel in the wings,gravity flow is much better, and it moves the fuel away from the cockpit. That can be a big plus, as William Wynne found out the hard way when his planecrashed and fuel in the cockpit burned him badly and destroyed the airplane.Another plus is that the CG will not shift as fuel is used up in wing tanks.And you can keep the centersection for storing things. And you can get to therear of the firewall easier. And... and...--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett wing volume
By the way, just looking at Terry's wing ribs, I am reminded about the possibilitiesof putting fuel tanks in the wings now. With the relatively flat Pietenpolwing (less than 5" tall), it's tough to get much volume in a wing bay. Curiousto know how much the typical centersection fuel tank holds when constructedto Air Camper plans. I've heard that it is around 10 gallons, maybe a littleless.The Riblett 613.5 should be about 8" tall (13.5% of 60" =8.1"). With rib spacingof 11" and spars about 27" apart, a Riblett wing bay should have a volume ofaround 8 gallons. Putting a wing tank on each side would provide 16 gallonsand essentially all of it would be usable, unlike the last 2 or 2.5 gallons offuel in 41CC, which are just too low in the tank to flow reliably, especiallyin anything other than straight and level flight. With the fuel in the wings,gravity flow is much better, and it moves the fuel away from the cockpit. That can be a big plus, as William Wynne found out the hard way when his planecrashed and fuel in the cockpit burned him badly and destroyed the airplane.Another plus is that the CG will not shift as fuel is used up in wing tanks.And you can keep the centersection for storing things. And you can get to therear of the firewall easier. And... and...--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett wing volume
Original Posted By: Craig Aho
I have a 36in center section with the fuel tank inside and an outlet at the frontand at the back.It holds 20.5 gallons and with my corvair power I figure 3.5hrs. cheers, GardinerSent from my iPadOn May 5, 2013, at 1:32 PM, "taildrags" wrote:> > By the way, just looking at Terry's wing ribs, I am reminded about the possibilitiesof putting fuel tanks in the wings now. With the relatively flat Pietenpolwing (less than 5" tall), it's tough to get much volume in a wing bay. Curious to know how much the typical centersection fuel tank holds when constructedto Air Camper plans. I've heard that it is around 10 gallons, maybe a littleless.> > The Riblett 613.5 should be about 8" tall (13.5% of 60" =8.1"). With rib spacingof 11" and spars about 27" apart, a Riblett wing bay should have a volumeof around 8 gallons. Putting a wing tank on each side would provide 16 gallonsand essentially all of it would be usable, unlike the last 2 or 2.5 gallonsof fuel in 41CC, which are just too low in the tank to flow reliably, especiallyin anything other than straight and level flight. With the fuel in the wings,gravity flow is much better, and it moves the fuel away from the cockpit.That can be a big plus, as William Wynne found out the hard way when his planecrashed and fuel in the cockpit burned him badly and destroyed the airplane.Another plus is that the CG will not shift as fuel is used up in wing tanks.And you can keep the centersection for storing things. And you can get tothe rear of the firewall easier. And... and...> > --------> Oscar Zuniga> Medford, OR> Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"> A75 power> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 995#399995> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
I have a 36in center section with the fuel tank inside and an outlet at the frontand at the back.It holds 20.5 gallons and with my corvair power I figure 3.5hrs. cheers, GardinerSent from my iPadOn May 5, 2013, at 1:32 PM, "taildrags" wrote:> > By the way, just looking at Terry's wing ribs, I am reminded about the possibilitiesof putting fuel tanks in the wings now. With the relatively flat Pietenpolwing (less than 5" tall), it's tough to get much volume in a wing bay. Curious to know how much the typical centersection fuel tank holds when constructedto Air Camper plans. I've heard that it is around 10 gallons, maybe a littleless.> > The Riblett 613.5 should be about 8" tall (13.5% of 60" =8.1"). With rib spacingof 11" and spars about 27" apart, a Riblett wing bay should have a volumeof around 8 gallons. Putting a wing tank on each side would provide 16 gallonsand essentially all of it would be usable, unlike the last 2 or 2.5 gallonsof fuel in 41CC, which are just too low in the tank to flow reliably, especiallyin anything other than straight and level flight. With the fuel in the wings,gravity flow is much better, and it moves the fuel away from the cockpit.That can be a big plus, as William Wynne found out the hard way when his planecrashed and fuel in the cockpit burned him badly and destroyed the airplane.Another plus is that the CG will not shift as fuel is used up in wing tanks.And you can keep the centersection for storing things. And you can get tothe rear of the firewall easier. And... and...> > --------> Oscar Zuniga> Medford, OR> Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"> A75 power> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 995#399995> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
> Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett wing volume
Original Posted By:> airlion2(at)gmail.com
So is the concensus that most Piet builders would not change to the 4412 or Riblett? > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett wing volume
So is the concensus that most Piet builders would not change to the 4412 or Riblett? > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett wing volume
RE: Pietenpol-List: Riblett wing volume
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
To be clear, if you read back about WW's accident, it was with a wingtank...a wing tank without flexible fuel lines running to the fuselage. Thushis constant reminder to avoid solid lines where the wing may shift in anaccident. Also, he notes that some Pietenpols, with the slant brace struts,have a poor attachment design at the wing fitting, which appears to befragile, at best. He advises a bracket that will not let the strut shiftfrom one side to another, or otherwise break, as a wing may try to shiftforward in a nose-over or crash.FYI, my center section fuel tank, in an as-designed Pietenpol wing, holds 16gallons, by raising the top a bit.Gary BootheNX308MB-----Original Message-----
To be clear, if you read back about WW's accident, it was with a wingtank...a wing tank without flexible fuel lines running to the fuselage. Thushis constant reminder to avoid solid lines where the wing may shift in anaccident. Also, he notes that some Pietenpols, with the slant brace struts,have a poor attachment design at the wing fitting, which appears to befragile, at best. He advises a bracket that will not let the strut shiftfrom one side to another, or otherwise break, as a wing may try to shiftforward in a nose-over or crash.FYI, my center section fuel tank, in an as-designed Pietenpol wing, holds 16gallons, by raising the top a bit.Gary BootheNX308MB-----Original Message-----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett wing volume
Original Posted By: helspersew(at)aol.com
Very good information from everyone who responded! Good data points for builderswho are thinking about their fuel system arrangement, especially.I really like the "DeHavilland hump" that some of the builders have used on theircentersection to get more fuel capacity (or a larger storage area). It worksvery well if you're building period appearance into your Air Camper. We'vealready discussed the downsides to having the fuel in the centersection (gettingup there to fill the tank, for example), so I won't go there. We've alsodiscussed easy options for fuel level indication for the centersection or wingtank, with the Larry Williams "Stearman glass" setup being the one I like best.Thanks for the comments from everyone, and thanks to Terry for posting the picturesof his stack of ribs to start the discussion on fuel tanks and capacitiesin this regard. Now we have to ask Terry the question, did he pull the nailsor staples from his gussets after the glue dried, or did he leave them in? Thisone always seems to set off a new discussion, usually about steel nails orstaples rusting if they are left in the wood, extra weight if they are left inthe wood, etc. etc.--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett wing volume
Very good information from everyone who responded! Good data points for builderswho are thinking about their fuel system arrangement, especially.I really like the "DeHavilland hump" that some of the builders have used on theircentersection to get more fuel capacity (or a larger storage area). It worksvery well if you're building period appearance into your Air Camper. We'vealready discussed the downsides to having the fuel in the centersection (gettingup there to fill the tank, for example), so I won't go there. We've alsodiscussed easy options for fuel level indication for the centersection or wingtank, with the Larry Williams "Stearman glass" setup being the one I like best.Thanks for the comments from everyone, and thanks to Terry for posting the picturesof his stack of ribs to start the discussion on fuel tanks and capacitiesin this regard. Now we have to ask Terry the question, did he pull the nailsor staples from his gussets after the glue dried, or did he leave them in? Thisone always seems to set off a new discussion, usually about steel nails orstaples rusting if they are left in the wood, extra weight if they are left inthe wood, etc. etc.--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett wing volume
Original Posted By: Craig Aho
Wow Craig...you have unleashed the hornet's nest once again. The answer is yes, I believe, that most builders would not change to a non-Pietenpol airfoil. The recent flight test info from P.F. and Don from Barnwell S.C. would indicate no reason to do so, unless of course you want to increase your range to a point of wearing calluses on your behind and stretching your bladder to the ultimate limit between fuel stops. This opinion does not extend to the boys that have elected to install large engines (some for good reasons). But for an airplane flying in the flatlands, not worried about lifting heavy loads or operating from short runways, the normal fuel tank is as much fuel as you need. My Ford burns maybe 4 gal per hour, so with 11 gallons I can sit there for 2 hours with a fine reserve left. Two hours in a Piet is a long time, even with a comfy seat.(Ducking for cover)Dan HelsperPuryear, TN-----Original Message-----
Wow Craig...you have unleashed the hornet's nest once again. The answer is yes, I believe, that most builders would not change to a non-Pietenpol airfoil. The recent flight test info from P.F. and Don from Barnwell S.C. would indicate no reason to do so, unless of course you want to increase your range to a point of wearing calluses on your behind and stretching your bladder to the ultimate limit between fuel stops. This opinion does not extend to the boys that have elected to install large engines (some for good reasons). But for an airplane flying in the flatlands, not worried about lifting heavy loads or operating from short runways, the normal fuel tank is as much fuel as you need. My Ford burns maybe 4 gal per hour, so with 11 gallons I can sit there for 2 hours with a fine reserve left. Two hours in a Piet is a long time, even with a comfy seat.(Ducking for cover)Dan HelsperPuryear, TN-----Original Message-----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett wing volume
Original Posted By: helspersew(at)aol.com
Hello Dan=2C Sorry I am an long time RC Sailplane flyer and in that arena there is always a discussion on low renolds numbers and airfoils for better performance and wind tunnel data from Selig=2C Donavan=2C Eppler and the latest Dr. Drela. So I think it is a bit of an adiction for me. Also I dont remember there being much of a discussion back in 1993 when I started building my first Air Camper. Anyway I was just curious. Thanks for the reply. Craig To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.comSubject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett wing volume
Hello Dan=2C Sorry I am an long time RC Sailplane flyer and in that arena there is always a discussion on low renolds numbers and airfoils for better performance and wind tunnel data from Selig=2C Donavan=2C Eppler and the latest Dr. Drela. So I think it is a bit of an adiction for me. Also I dont remember there being much of a discussion back in 1993 when I started building my first Air Camper. Anyway I was just curious. Thanks for the reply. Craig To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.comSubject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett wing volume
Pietenpol-List: Re: Riblett wing volume
Original Posted By: "jarheadpilot82"
I steamed mine for about 10 to 15 minHad much better luck steaming than soaking--------Earl BrownI may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where Iintended to be.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Riblett wing volume
I steamed mine for about 10 to 15 minHad much better luck steaming than soaking--------Earl BrownI may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where Iintended to be.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Riblett wing volume
Original Posted By: Ray Krause
Oscar,Neither. I used clamps.After trying nails as well as staples, I decided to cut out the holes in my jigso as to use clips. Very happy with the result. As Tools suggested in anotherthread, I buttered both the spruce cap strips and verticals as well as the gussets,let them set up for a bit, then clamped them with Harbor Freight clamps.Once they set up, I would pop them off the jig, flip the rib over, clean upthe joint, then glue up the second side. I usually did side B of rib 1 at thesame time I did side A of rib 2 that was now in the jig. I think you get the idea.--------Semper Fi,Terry HandAthens, GARead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/imag ... __________
Oscar,Neither. I used clamps.After trying nails as well as staples, I decided to cut out the holes in my jigso as to use clips. Very happy with the result. As Tools suggested in anotherthread, I buttered both the spruce cap strips and verticals as well as the gussets,let them set up for a bit, then clamped them with Harbor Freight clamps.Once they set up, I would pop them off the jig, flip the rib over, clean upthe joint, then glue up the second side. I usually did side B of rib 1 at thesame time I did side A of rib 2 that was now in the jig. I think you get the idea.--------Semper Fi,Terry HandAthens, GARead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/imag ... __________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Riblett wing volume
Original Posted By: "Clif Dawson"
I have a pin nailer. This thing pops out 23 gauge littlethings you can hardly see. A wing's worth would behardly an ounce or so.ClifPilot's breakfast; coffee and a pee, donut and a dump.> I posted a picture a while back when I finished my ribs. I used staples > and kept them all to weigh after I pulled them. The total weight savings > was about 6.5 oz. Next time I'd use nails and forgo the cup of coffee > before flight.> Curt Merdan> Flower Mound, TX________________________________________________________________________________
I have a pin nailer. This thing pops out 23 gauge littlethings you can hardly see. A wing's worth would behardly an ounce or so.ClifPilot's breakfast; coffee and a pee, donut and a dump.> I posted a picture a while back when I finished my ribs. I used staples > and kept them all to weigh after I pulled them. The total weight savings > was about 6.5 oz. Next time I'd use nails and forgo the cup of coffee > before flight.> Curt Merdan> Flower Mound, TX________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett wing volume
Original Posted By: Ken Bickers
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com> > > I have a 36in center section with the fuel tank inside and an outlet at the front and at the back.It holds 20.5 gallons and with my corvair power I figure 3.5 hrs. cheers=2C Gardiner> > Sent from my iPad> > On May 5=2C 2013=2C at 1:32 PM=2C "taildrags" wrote:> m>> > > > By the way=2C just looking at Terry's wing ribs=2C I am reminded about the possibilities of putting fuel tanks in the wings now. With the relatively flat Pietenpol wing (less than 5" tall)=2C it's tough to get much volume in a wing bay. Curious to know how much the typical centersection fuel tank holds when constructed to Air Camper plans. I've heard that it is around 10 gallons=2C maybe a little less.> > > > The Riblett 613.5 should be about 8" tall (13.5% of 60" =8.1"). With rib spacing of 11" and spars about 27" apart=2C a Riblett wing bay should have a volume of around 8 gallons. Putting a wing tank on each side would provide 16 gallons and essentially all of it would be usable=2C unlike the last 2 or 2.5 gallons of fuel in 41CC=2C which are just too low in the tank to flow reliably=2C especially in anything other than straight and level flight. With the fuel in the wings=2C gravity flow is much better=2C and it moves the fuel away from the cockpit. That can be a big plus=2C as William Wynne found out the hard way when his plane crashed and fuel in the cockpit burned him badly and destroyed the airplane. Another plus is that the CG will not shift as fuel is used up in wing tanks. And you can keep the centersection for storing things. And you can get to the rear of the firewall easier. And... and...> > > > --------> > Oscar Zuniga> > Medford=2C OR> > Air Camper NX41CC "=3BScout"=3B> > A75 power> > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here:> > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 995#399995> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================> > > ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 14:09:57 -0600Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett wing volume
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com> > > I have a 36in center section with the fuel tank inside and an outlet at the front and at the back.It holds 20.5 gallons and with my corvair power I figure 3.5 hrs. cheers=2C Gardiner> > Sent from my iPad> > On May 5=2C 2013=2C at 1:32 PM=2C "taildrags" wrote:> m>> > > > By the way=2C just looking at Terry's wing ribs=2C I am reminded about the possibilities of putting fuel tanks in the wings now. With the relatively flat Pietenpol wing (less than 5" tall)=2C it's tough to get much volume in a wing bay. Curious to know how much the typical centersection fuel tank holds when constructed to Air Camper plans. I've heard that it is around 10 gallons=2C maybe a little less.> > > > The Riblett 613.5 should be about 8" tall (13.5% of 60" =8.1"). With rib spacing of 11" and spars about 27" apart=2C a Riblett wing bay should have a volume of around 8 gallons. Putting a wing tank on each side would provide 16 gallons and essentially all of it would be usable=2C unlike the last 2 or 2.5 gallons of fuel in 41CC=2C which are just too low in the tank to flow reliably=2C especially in anything other than straight and level flight. With the fuel in the wings=2C gravity flow is much better=2C and it moves the fuel away from the cockpit. That can be a big plus=2C as William Wynne found out the hard way when his plane crashed and fuel in the cockpit burned him badly and destroyed the airplane. Another plus is that the CG will not shift as fuel is used up in wing tanks. And you can keep the centersection for storing things. And you can get to the rear of the firewall easier. And... and...> > > > --------> > Oscar Zuniga> > Medford=2C OR> > Air Camper NX41CC "=3BScout"=3B> > A75 power> > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here:> > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 995#399995> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================> > > ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 14:09:57 -0600Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett wing volume
> > Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett wing volume
Original Posted By: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
> > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>> >> >> > I have a 36in center section with the fuel tank inside and an outlet at> the front and at the back.It holds 20.5 gallons and with my corvair power I> figure 3.5 hrs. cheers, Gardiner> >> > Sent from my iPad> >> > On May 5, 2013, at 1:32 PM, "taildrags" wrote:> >> taildrags(at)hotmail.com>> > >> > > By the way, just looking at Terry's wing ribs, I am reminded about the> possibilities of putting fuel tanks in the wings now. With the relatively> flat Pietenpol wing (less than 5" tall), it's tough to get much volume in a> wing bay. Curious to know how much the typical centersection fuel tank> holds when constructed to Air Camper plans. I've heard that it is around 10> gallons, maybe a little less.> > >> > > The Riblett 613.5 should be about 8" tall (13.5% of 60" =8.1"). With> rib spacing of 11" and spars about 27" apart, a Riblett wing bay should> have a volume of around 8 gallons. Putting a wing tank on each side would> provide 16 gallons and essentially all of it would be usable, unlike the> last 2 or 2.5 gallons of fuel in 41CC, which are just too low in the tank> to flow reliably, especially in anything other than straight and level> flight. With the fuel in the wings, gravity flow is much better, and it> moves the fuel away from the cockpit. That can be a big plus, as William> Wynne found out the hard way when his plane crashed and fuel in the cockpit> burned him badly and destroyed the airplane. Another plus is that the CG> will not shift as fuel is used up in wing tanks. And you can keep the> centersection for storing things. And you can get to the rear of the> firewall easier. And... and...> > >> > > --------> > > Oscar Zuniga> > > Medford, OR> > > Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"> > > A75 power> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > Read this topic online here:> > >> > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 995#399995> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >================> >> >> >>> *>> *>>________________________________________________________________________________
> > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>> >> >> > I have a 36in center section with the fuel tank inside and an outlet at> the front and at the back.It holds 20.5 gallons and with my corvair power I> figure 3.5 hrs. cheers, Gardiner> >> > Sent from my iPad> >> > On May 5, 2013, at 1:32 PM, "taildrags" wrote:> >> taildrags(at)hotmail.com>> > >> > > By the way, just looking at Terry's wing ribs, I am reminded about the> possibilities of putting fuel tanks in the wings now. With the relatively> flat Pietenpol wing (less than 5" tall), it's tough to get much volume in a> wing bay. Curious to know how much the typical centersection fuel tank> holds when constructed to Air Camper plans. I've heard that it is around 10> gallons, maybe a little less.> > >> > > The Riblett 613.5 should be about 8" tall (13.5% of 60" =8.1"). With> rib spacing of 11" and spars about 27" apart, a Riblett wing bay should> have a volume of around 8 gallons. Putting a wing tank on each side would> provide 16 gallons and essentially all of it would be usable, unlike the> last 2 or 2.5 gallons of fuel in 41CC, which are just too low in the tank> to flow reliably, especially in anything other than straight and level> flight. With the fuel in the wings, gravity flow is much better, and it> moves the fuel away from the cockpit. That can be a big plus, as William> Wynne found out the hard way when his plane crashed and fuel in the cockpit> burned him badly and destroyed the airplane. Another plus is that the CG> will not shift as fuel is used up in wing tanks. And you can keep the> centersection for storing things. And you can get to the rear of the> firewall easier. And... and...> > >> > > --------> > > Oscar Zuniga> > > Medford, OR> > > Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"> > > A75 power> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > Read this topic online here:> > >> > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 995#399995> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >================> >> >> >>> *>> *>>________________________________________________________________________________
> Re: Pietenpol-List: Riblett wing volume
Original Posted By: Craig Aho
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com> > > I have a 36in center section with the fuel tank inside and an outlet at the front and at the back.It holds 20.5 gallons and with my corvair power I figure 3.5 hrs. cheers, Gardiner> > Sent from my iPad> > On May 5, 2013, at 1:32 PM, "taildrags" wrote:> m>> > > > By the way, just looking at Terry's wing ribs, I am reminded about the possibilities of putting fuel tanks in the wings now. With the relatively flat Pietenpol wing (less than 5" tall), it's tough to get much volume in a wing bay. Curious to know how much the typical centersection fuel tank holds when constructed to Air Camper plans. I've heard that it is around 10 gallons, maybe a little less.> > > > The Riblett 613.5 should be about 8" tall (13.5% of 60" =8.1"). With rib spacing of 11" and spars about 27" apart, a Riblett wing bay should have a volume of around 8 gallons. Putting a wing tank on each side would provide 16 gallons and essentially all of it would be usable, unlike the last 2 or 2.5 gallons of fuel in 41CC, which are just too low in the tank to flow reliably, especially in anything other than straight and level flight. With the fuel in the wings, gravity flow is much better, and it moves the fuel away from the cockpit. That can be a big plus, as William Wynne found out the hard way when his plane crashed and fuel in the cockpit burned him badly and destroyed the airplane. Another plus is that the CG will not shift as fuel is used up in wing tanks. And you can keep the centersection for storing things. And you can get to the rear of the firewall easier. And... and...> > > > --------> > Oscar Zuniga> > Medford, OR> > Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"> > A75 power> > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here:> > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 995#399995> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >================> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com> > > I have a 36in center section with the fuel tank inside and an outlet at the front and at the back.It holds 20.5 gallons and with my corvair power I figure 3.5 hrs. cheers, Gardiner> > Sent from my iPad> > On May 5, 2013, at 1:32 PM, "taildrags" wrote:> m>> > > > By the way, just looking at Terry's wing ribs, I am reminded about the possibilities of putting fuel tanks in the wings now. With the relatively flat Pietenpol wing (less than 5" tall), it's tough to get much volume in a wing bay. Curious to know how much the typical centersection fuel tank holds when constructed to Air Camper plans. I've heard that it is around 10 gallons, maybe a little less.> > > > The Riblett 613.5 should be about 8" tall (13.5% of 60" =8.1"). With rib spacing of 11" and spars about 27" apart, a Riblett wing bay should have a volume of around 8 gallons. Putting a wing tank on each side would provide 16 gallons and essentially all of it would be usable, unlike the last 2 or 2.5 gallons of fuel in 41CC, which are just too low in the tank to flow reliably, especially in anything other than straight and level flight. With the fuel in the wings, gravity flow is much better, and it moves the fuel away from the cockpit. That can be a big plus, as William Wynne found out the hard way when his plane crashed and fuel in the cockpit burned him badly and destroyed the airplane. Another plus is that the CG will not shift as fuel is used up in wing tanks. And you can keep the centersection for storing things. And you can get to the rear of the firewall easier. And... and...> > > > --------> > Oscar Zuniga> > Medford, OR> > Air Camper NX41CC "Scout"> > A75 power> > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here:> > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 995#399995> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >================> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Original Posted By: Craig Aho
=0AWow Craig...you have unleashed the hornet's nest once again. The answer is yes=2C I believe=2C that most builders would not change to a non-Pietenpol airfoil. The recent flight test info from P.F. and Don from Barnwell S.C. would indicate no reason to do so=2C unless of course you want to increase your range to a point of wearing calluses on your behind and stretching your bladder to the ultimate limit between fuel stops. This opinion does not extend to the boys that have elected to install large engines (some for good reasons). But for an airplane flying in the flatlands=2C not worried about lifting heavy loads or operating from short runways=2C the normal fuel tank is as much fuel as you need. My Ford burns maybe 4 gal per hour=2C so with 11 gallons I can sit there for 2 hours with a fine reserve left. Two hours in a Piet is a long time=2C even with a comfy seat.=0A=0A =0A=0A(Ducking for cover)=0A=0A =0A=0ADan Helsper=0A=0APuryear=2C TN=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0A
=0AWow Craig...you have unleashed the hornet's nest once again. The answer is yes=2C I believe=2C that most builders would not change to a non-Pietenpol airfoil. The recent flight test info from P.F. and Don from Barnwell S.C. would indicate no reason to do so=2C unless of course you want to increase your range to a point of wearing calluses on your behind and stretching your bladder to the ultimate limit between fuel stops. This opinion does not extend to the boys that have elected to install large engines (some for good reasons). But for an airplane flying in the flatlands=2C not worried about lifting heavy loads or operating from short runways=2C the normal fuel tank is as much fuel as you need. My Ford burns maybe 4 gal per hour=2C so with 11 gallons I can sit there for 2 hours with a fine reserve left. Two hours in a Piet is a long time=2C even with a comfy seat.=0A=0A =0A=0A(Ducking for cover)=0A=0A =0A=0ADan Helsper=0A=0APuryear=2C TN=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0A
Pietenpol-List: pulling nails...
Original Posted By: "tools"
=0A> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com=0A> =0A=0A> =0A> I have a 36in center section with the fuel tank inside and an outlet at the front and at the back.It holds 20.5 gallons and with my corvair power I figure 3.5 hrs. cheers=2C Gardiner=0A> =0A> Sent from my iPad=0A> =0A> On May 5=2C 2013=2C at 1:32 PM=2C "taildrags" wrote:=0A> =0Am>=0A> > =0A> > By the way=2C just looking at Terry's wing ribs=2C I am reminded about the possibilities of putting fuel tanks in the wings now. With the relatively flat Pietenpol wing (less than 5" tall)=2C it's tough to get much volume in a wing bay. Curious to know how much the typical centersection fuel tank holds when constructed to Air Camper plans. I've heard that it is around 10 gallons=2C maybe a little less.=0A> > =0A> > The Riblett 613.5 should be about 8" tall (13.5% of 60" =8.1"). With rib spacing of 11" and spars about 27" apart=2C a Riblett wing bay should have a volume of around 8 gallons. Putting a wing tank on each side would provide 16 gallons and essentially all of it would be usable=2C unlike the last 2 or 2.5 gallons of fuel in 41CC=2C which are just too low in the tank to flow reliably=2C especially in anything other than straight and level flight. With the fuel in the wings=2C gravity flow is much better=2C and it moves the fuel away from the cockpit. That can be a big plus=2C as William Wynne found out the hard way when his plane crashed and fuel in the cockpit burned him badly and destroyed the airplane. Another plus is that the CG will not shift as fuel is used up in wing tanks. And you can keep the centersection for storing things. And you can get to the rear of the firewall easier. And... and...=0A> > =0A> > --------=0A> > Oscar Zuniga=0A> > Medford=2C OR=0A> > Air Camper NX41CC "=3BScout"=3B=0A> > A75 power=0A> > =0A> > =0A> > =0A> > =0A> > Read this topic online here:=0A> > =0A> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... #399995=0A> > =0A> > =0A> > =0A> > =0A> > =0A> > =0A> > =0A> > =0A> > =0A> > =0A>=================0A> =0A> =0A> =0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet ... =====0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: pulling nails...
=0A> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com=0A> =0A=0A> =0A> I have a 36in center section with the fuel tank inside and an outlet at the front and at the back.It holds 20.5 gallons and with my corvair power I figure 3.5 hrs. cheers=2C Gardiner=0A> =0A> Sent from my iPad=0A> =0A> On May 5=2C 2013=2C at 1:32 PM=2C "taildrags" wrote:=0A> =0Am>=0A> > =0A> > By the way=2C just looking at Terry's wing ribs=2C I am reminded about the possibilities of putting fuel tanks in the wings now. With the relatively flat Pietenpol wing (less than 5" tall)=2C it's tough to get much volume in a wing bay. Curious to know how much the typical centersection fuel tank holds when constructed to Air Camper plans. I've heard that it is around 10 gallons=2C maybe a little less.=0A> > =0A> > The Riblett 613.5 should be about 8" tall (13.5% of 60" =8.1"). With rib spacing of 11" and spars about 27" apart=2C a Riblett wing bay should have a volume of around 8 gallons. Putting a wing tank on each side would provide 16 gallons and essentially all of it would be usable=2C unlike the last 2 or 2.5 gallons of fuel in 41CC=2C which are just too low in the tank to flow reliably=2C especially in anything other than straight and level flight. With the fuel in the wings=2C gravity flow is much better=2C and it moves the fuel away from the cockpit. That can be a big plus=2C as William Wynne found out the hard way when his plane crashed and fuel in the cockpit burned him badly and destroyed the airplane. Another plus is that the CG will not shift as fuel is used up in wing tanks. And you can keep the centersection for storing things. And you can get to the rear of the firewall easier. And... and...=0A> > =0A> > --------=0A> > Oscar Zuniga=0A> > Medford=2C OR=0A> > Air Camper NX41CC "=3BScout"=3B=0A> > A75 power=0A> > =0A> > =0A> > =0A> > =0A> > Read this topic online here:=0A> > =0A> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... #399995=0A> > =0A> > =0A> > =0A> > =0A> > =0A> > =0A> > =0A> > =0A> > =0A> > =0A>=================0A> =0A> =0A> =0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet ... =====0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: pulling nails...