Original Posted By: Michael Brusilow
Don Wrote:who has info on whether they experienced any problems that could not behandled with a wing movement of under 3" or so>>In my experience it should work without moving the wing. If it does not,3 inches or so will work.Mike B ( Piet N678MB )Don Wrote:who has info on whether theyexperiencedany problems that could not behandled with a wing movement of under3or soIn my experience it should work withoutmoving thewing. If it does not, 3 inches or so will work.Mike B ( Piet N678MB)________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: CG
Pietenpol-List: CG
Original Posted By: Warren Shoun
Don Wrote:who has info on whether they experienced any problems that could not behandled with a wing movement of under 3" or so>>In my experience it should work without moving the wing. If it does not,3 inches or so will work.Mike B ( Piet N678MB )Don Wrote:who has info on whether theyexperiencedany problems that could not behandled with a wing movement of under3or soIn my experience it should work withoutmoving thewing. If it does not, 3 inches or so will work.Mike B ( Piet N678MB)________________________________________________________________________________
Don Wrote:who has info on whether they experienced any problems that could not behandled with a wing movement of under 3" or so>>In my experience it should work without moving the wing. If it does not,3 inches or so will work.Mike B ( Piet N678MB )Don Wrote:who has info on whether theyexperiencedany problems that could not behandled with a wing movement of under3or soIn my experience it should work withoutmoving thewing. If it does not, 3 inches or so will work.Mike B ( Piet N678MB)________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: CG
Original Posted By: john hodnette
Mike C wrote;>Hey Mike, any difference when only 5 gal remain.Move the wing? OK guys, let me see some numbers.Mike B Piet N 687 MB (Mr Sam )PS my wing is back 3.5 inches. cg 14.75 inchesMike C wrote;-Put in a nose take of 17 gals.Hey Mike, any difference when only 5 galremain.Move the wing? OK guys, let me see somenumbers.Mike B Piet N 687 MB (Mr Sam)PS my wing is back 3.5 inches. cg 14.75inches________________________________________________________________________________
Mike C wrote;>Hey Mike, any difference when only 5 gal remain.Move the wing? OK guys, let me see some numbers.Mike B Piet N 687 MB (Mr Sam )PS my wing is back 3.5 inches. cg 14.75 inchesMike C wrote;-Put in a nose take of 17 gals.Hey Mike, any difference when only 5 galremain.Move the wing? OK guys, let me see somenumbers.Mike B Piet N 687 MB (Mr Sam)PS my wing is back 3.5 inches. cg 14.75inches________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: CG
Original Posted By: Jim VanDervort
>> Mike C wrote;> > >> > Hey Mike, any difference when only 5 gal remain.> > Move the wing? Mike B.-- You bet there is. She gets tail heavy.Nothing dangerous as my most aft CG with 3 gals.fuel remaining still falls at 19.75" aft of the LE of thewing. It's just annoying to hold forward stick.Fortunately with the kind of flying I do I never get thatlow on fuel though.Mike C. Mike C wrote;-Put in a nose take of 17 gals. Hey Mike, any difference when only 5 gal remain.Move the wing? Mike B.-- You bet there is. She gets tail heavy.Nothing dangerous as my most aft CG with 3 gals.fuel remaining still falls at 19.75 aft of the LE of thewing. It's just annoying to hold forward stick.Fortunately with the kind of flying I do I never get thatlow on fuel though.Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________________
>> Mike C wrote;> > >> > Hey Mike, any difference when only 5 gal remain.> > Move the wing? Mike B.-- You bet there is. She gets tail heavy.Nothing dangerous as my most aft CG with 3 gals.fuel remaining still falls at 19.75" aft of the LE of thewing. It's just annoying to hold forward stick.Fortunately with the kind of flying I do I never get thatlow on fuel though.Mike C. Mike C wrote;-Put in a nose take of 17 gals. Hey Mike, any difference when only 5 gal remain.Move the wing? Mike B.-- You bet there is. She gets tail heavy.Nothing dangerous as my most aft CG with 3 gals.fuel remaining still falls at 19.75 aft of the LE of thewing. It's just annoying to hold forward stick.Fortunately with the kind of flying I do I never get thatlow on fuel though.Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: CG
Original Posted By: Greg Yotz
Your mention of "holding the stick forward" reminds me of a question that I wasgoing to ask. There doesn't seem to be any mention anywhere of trim tabsother than a fixed one on the rudder of some Piets. Is this because this isnot a cross country airplane? ( That can obviously be discounted by the folkswho flew Piets ot Oshkosh and Brodhead this year.)Mike BellColumbia, SCMaiser(at)adena.byu.edu on 09/22/99 08:54:52 AMPlease respond to piet(at)byu.edu @ INTERNETcc:Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: CG>> Mike C wrote;>> >>> Hey Mike, any difference when only 5 gal remain.>> Move the wing?Mike B.-- You bet there is. She gets tail heavy.Nothing dangerous as my most aft CG with 3 gals.fuel remaining still falls at 19.75" aft of the LE of thewing. It's just annoying to hold forward stick.Fortunately with the kind of flying I do I never get thatlow on fuel though.Mike C.Mike C wrote;-Put in a nose take of 17 gals. Hey Mike, any difference when only 5 gal remain.Move the wing? Mike B.-- You bet there is. She gets tail heavy.Nothing dangerous as my most aft CG with 3 gals.fuel remaining still falls at 19.75 aft of the LE of thewing. It's just annoying to hold forward stick.Fortunately with the kind of flying I do I never get thatlow on fuel though.Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________________
Your mention of "holding the stick forward" reminds me of a question that I wasgoing to ask. There doesn't seem to be any mention anywhere of trim tabsother than a fixed one on the rudder of some Piets. Is this because this isnot a cross country airplane? ( That can obviously be discounted by the folkswho flew Piets ot Oshkosh and Brodhead this year.)Mike BellColumbia, SCMaiser(at)adena.byu.edu on 09/22/99 08:54:52 AMPlease respond to piet(at)byu.edu @ INTERNETcc:Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: CG>> Mike C wrote;>> >>> Hey Mike, any difference when only 5 gal remain.>> Move the wing?Mike B.-- You bet there is. She gets tail heavy.Nothing dangerous as my most aft CG with 3 gals.fuel remaining still falls at 19.75" aft of the LE of thewing. It's just annoying to hold forward stick.Fortunately with the kind of flying I do I never get thatlow on fuel though.Mike C.Mike C wrote;-Put in a nose take of 17 gals. Hey Mike, any difference when only 5 gal remain.Move the wing? Mike B.-- You bet there is. She gets tail heavy.Nothing dangerous as my most aft CG with 3 gals.fuel remaining still falls at 19.75 aft of the LE of thewing. It's just annoying to hold forward stick.Fortunately with the kind of flying I do I never get thatlow on fuel though.Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________________
> Re: CG
Original Posted By: walter evans
Re Trim tabs:I used a bungee fastened to my belt on my flight back home from Brodhead.All I needed was about 1.5 pounds of pull (maybe less) but it made a greatdifference after nearly 20 hours of flying. around home I don't useanything.Steve EldredgeIT ServicesBrigham Young University> -----Original Message-----> mbell1(at)columbiaenergygroup.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 7:29 AM> To: Pietenpol Discussion> Subject: Re: CG and Trim>>> Your mention of "holding the stick forward" reminds me of a> question that I was> going to ask. There doesn't seem to be any mention anywhere> of trim tabs> other than a fixed one on the rudder of some Piets. Is> this because this is> not a cross country airplane? ( That can obviously be> discounted by the folks> who flew Piets ot Oshkosh and Brodhead this year.)>> Mike Bell> Columbia, SC>>> Maiser(at)adena.byu.edu on 09/22/99 08:54:52 AM> Please respond to piet(at)byu.edu @ INTERNET>>> To: piet(at)byu.edu @ INTERNET> cc:>> Subject: Re: CG>> >> > Mike C wrote;> >> > >> >> > Hey Mike, any difference when only 5 gal remain.> >> > Move the wing?>>> Mike B.-- You bet there is. She gets tail heavy.> Nothing dangerous as my most aft CG with 3 gals.> fuel remaining still falls at 19.75" aft of the LE of the> wing. It's just annoying to hold forward stick.> Fortunately with the kind of flying I do I never get that> low on fuel though.>> Mike C.>>________________________________________________________________________________
Re Trim tabs:I used a bungee fastened to my belt on my flight back home from Brodhead.All I needed was about 1.5 pounds of pull (maybe less) but it made a greatdifference after nearly 20 hours of flying. around home I don't useanything.Steve EldredgeIT ServicesBrigham Young University> -----Original Message-----> mbell1(at)columbiaenergygroup.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 7:29 AM> To: Pietenpol Discussion> Subject: Re: CG and Trim>>> Your mention of "holding the stick forward" reminds me of a> question that I was> going to ask. There doesn't seem to be any mention anywhere> of trim tabs> other than a fixed one on the rudder of some Piets. Is> this because this is> not a cross country airplane? ( That can obviously be> discounted by the folks> who flew Piets ot Oshkosh and Brodhead this year.)>> Mike Bell> Columbia, SC>>> Maiser(at)adena.byu.edu on 09/22/99 08:54:52 AM> Please respond to piet(at)byu.edu @ INTERNET>>> To: piet(at)byu.edu @ INTERNET> cc:>> Subject: Re: CG>> >> > Mike C wrote;> >> > >> >> > Hey Mike, any difference when only 5 gal remain.> >> > Move the wing?>>> Mike B.-- You bet there is. She gets tail heavy.> Nothing dangerous as my most aft CG with 3 gals.> fuel remaining still falls at 19.75" aft of the LE of the> wing. It's just annoying to hold forward stick.> Fortunately with the kind of flying I do I never get that> low on fuel though.>> Mike C.>>________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: CG
Original Posted By: "Carl Loar"
I am planning to install an A65 on an AirCamper built to plans supplied byDon Pietenpol. Does the engine mount drawing also supplied, take intoconsideration CG concerns. It does not appear so. When they talk of a longerfuselage for the lighter engines, I trust the increased length is fwd of theCG. Pete________________________________________________________________________________
I am planning to install an A65 on an AirCamper built to plans supplied byDon Pietenpol. Does the engine mount drawing also supplied, take intoconsideration CG concerns. It does not appear so. When they talk of a longerfuselage for the lighter engines, I trust the increased length is fwd of theCG. Pete________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Improved Piet and the GN-1
Original Posted By: "Michael Brusilow"
>>I just received my GN-1 plans. Lots to compare>between those and the set from DP. With that in mind,>what is it about both versions that some like/dislike,>prefer or not? Benefits of one over the other?>>Ed>A few thoughts on your questions:The GN-1 has a different airfoil than the Piet,The fittings on the two aircraft are different.The GN-1 was designed for the 65 cont.Finally, if one intends to use a cont engine, build the GN-1Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )________________________________________________________________________________
>>I just received my GN-1 plans. Lots to compare>between those and the set from DP. With that in mind,>what is it about both versions that some like/dislike,>prefer or not? Benefits of one over the other?>>Ed>A few thoughts on your questions:The GN-1 has a different airfoil than the Piet,The fittings on the two aircraft are different.The GN-1 was designed for the 65 cont.Finally, if one intends to use a cont engine, build the GN-1Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: CG
Original Posted By: Michael D Cuy
>. When they talk of a longer>fuselage for the lighter engines, I trust the increased length is fwd ofthe>CG.>>> PeteNO, the increased length is at the rear cockpit aft of the CG.Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )________________________________________________________________________________Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:08:44 -0500
>. When they talk of a longer>fuselage for the lighter engines, I trust the increased length is fwd ofthe>CG.>>> PeteNO, the increased length is at the rear cockpit aft of the CG.Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )________________________________________________________________________________Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:08:44 -0500
Re: Pietenpol-List: CG
Original Posted By: "Gene Rambo"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: CGIn a message dated 11/13/00 9:13:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, psmith(at)tein.net writes:> > I am planning to install an A65 on an AirCamper built to plans supplied by> Don Pietenpol. Does the engine mount drawing also supplied, take into> consideration CG concerns. It does not appear so. When they talk of a longer> fuselage for the lighter engines, I trust the increased length is fwd of the> CG.> > > Pete,Have a look at the drawing for the long fuselage (included in the supplement plans) and compare it to the short fuselage line by line. This will give you confidence as to where the 9 3/8" are distributed. Keep the airplane as light as you can in the back (which is challenging). Then you may need to move the wing aft some to get the CG right. Here is what I get when comparing. 2" ahead of the front cabane station and 5 3/8" from the rear cabane station to the tail post (2"of which is in the rear seat back position). The reason for the longer fuselage is not altogether engine weight. One reason for the 2" in the cockpit is because BHP had arthritis in those years and struggled getting into the cockpit. If the engine choices are actually weighed complete, there is not as much difference as is publicized. Doug Bryant Wichita, Ks________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: CGIn a message dated 11/13/00 9:13:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, psmith(at)tein.net writes:> > I am planning to install an A65 on an AirCamper built to plans supplied by> Don Pietenpol. Does the engine mount drawing also supplied, take into> consideration CG concerns. It does not appear so. When they talk of a longer> fuselage for the lighter engines, I trust the increased length is fwd of the> CG.> > > Pete,Have a look at the drawing for the long fuselage (included in the supplement plans) and compare it to the short fuselage line by line. This will give you confidence as to where the 9 3/8" are distributed. Keep the airplane as light as you can in the back (which is challenging). Then you may need to move the wing aft some to get the CG right. Here is what I get when comparing. 2" ahead of the front cabane station and 5 3/8" from the rear cabane station to the tail post (2"of which is in the rear seat back position). The reason for the longer fuselage is not altogether engine weight. One reason for the 2" in the cockpit is because BHP had arthritis in those years and struggled getting into the cockpit. If the engine choices are actually weighed complete, there is not as much difference as is publicized. Doug Bryant Wichita, Ks________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: CG
Original Posted By:
You might should look at the archives on this issue. The longer fuselage isNOT for CG purposes, but to increase cockpit size. You still have to eithermove the wing ( a perfectly acceptable solution, usually for "coarse"adjustments) and/or adjust the engine mount length (also acceptable, usuallyfor "fine" adjustments) to change the CG. I would suggest assembling andweighing BEFORE making final cuts to cockpit coaming, if this is a concern,so that any necessary adjustments can be made.----- Original Message -----
You might should look at the archives on this issue. The longer fuselage isNOT for CG purposes, but to increase cockpit size. You still have to eithermove the wing ( a perfectly acceptable solution, usually for "coarse"adjustments) and/or adjust the engine mount length (also acceptable, usuallyfor "fine" adjustments) to change the CG. I would suggest assembling andweighing BEFORE making final cuts to cockpit coaming, if this is a concern,so that any necessary adjustments can be made.----- Original Message -----
Pietenpol-List: CG
Original Posted By: "Jack Phillips"
Ray - soon as i get a chance I'll check my Piet plans for CG. Generally, itis described as either a percentage of the chord, or so many inches aft of adatum point. I'll look it up.Seems like you have the list stirred up again. Helpful hint - if you have avalid question or building tip, go ahead and post it. Even with theanimosity toward you, you'll get a couple of honest replies. But try to notstir up quite so much dust that everyone leaves the room.Enjoyed my visit to your place the other day. Don't believe that I've everseen a wooden airplane built out in the open like that. Do you cover thework when you aren't working on it?Did a bit of research on using the foam to fill the spaces between thegussets. Generally, folks leave them open, but cover the fuselage/wingswith fabric and paint. The stuff is actually fairly waterproof, especiallyif you cover the cockpits and/or hanger the airplane. Do remember to put atleast one drain grommet in each bay, at the low point. You are using strongenough building techniques, and the material seems to be good.Thanks again for hosting me!Craig________________________________________________________________________________
Ray - soon as i get a chance I'll check my Piet plans for CG. Generally, itis described as either a percentage of the chord, or so many inches aft of adatum point. I'll look it up.Seems like you have the list stirred up again. Helpful hint - if you have avalid question or building tip, go ahead and post it. Even with theanimosity toward you, you'll get a couple of honest replies. But try to notstir up quite so much dust that everyone leaves the room.Enjoyed my visit to your place the other day. Don't believe that I've everseen a wooden airplane built out in the open like that. Do you cover thework when you aren't working on it?Did a bit of research on using the foam to fill the spaces between thegussets. Generally, folks leave them open, but cover the fuselage/wingswith fabric and paint. The stuff is actually fairly waterproof, especiallyif you cover the cockpits and/or hanger the airplane. Do remember to put atleast one drain grommet in each bay, at the low point. You are using strongenough building techniques, and the material seems to be good.Thanks again for hosting me!Craig________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: RE: CG
Original Posted By: Isablcorky(at)aol.com [mailto:Isablcorky(at)aol.com]
Corky,1185 should be a really good number. Congradulations. Tell the test pilotto watch for a tail heavy condition.Can you tell the rest of the piet list more details about the inspection?Many are really apprehensive about the whole afair.chris-----Original Message-----
Corky,1185 should be a really good number. Congradulations. Tell the test pilotto watch for a tail heavy condition.Can you tell the rest of the piet list more details about the inspection?Many are really apprehensive about the whole afair.chris-----Original Message-----
Re: Pietenpol-List: RE: CG
Original Posted By: "Brants"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: RE: CGChris,I can truthfully say that I'm really glad that it's over. Now for the testing. I don't think there will be any problem with the test pilot and tail heaviness as he is no bigger than a fart in a whirlwind. The DAR, Mr Lanny Rundell, of Winnsboro, La. flew over Sat afternoon in the most beautiful Glassair I've ever seen, Said he did 180 kts on the leg.He did most of the typing and paperwork at his office so all he would have to do was check the plane, get a few statements for the Airplane and Engine Log books and go back home. He was very thorough but reasonable. He didn't like the fact I had no washers between the tail feather hinges and the cotter pins. Suggested I do this on a rainy day. Didn't say I couldn't fly it the way it was, as a matter of fact he made about five or six corrections but still ok'd the a/c for flight.He never asked for a building log, glue samples and all those other things we read about on the net that keeps us up at night worrying about. I think I was extremely fortunate to have had such a good DAR. If any Pieters have any specific questions about the DAR inspections, write me direct so we won't bother the others who would not be interested.I have two test areas. #1 is north of our DTN airport about 20 miles by 3 or 4 wide. Using this because of the large runways at DTN. Then we go to Lucien Airport south of the city where I will have a larger rural (cotton fields) area for the remainder of the 25 hr fly off. Everything I requested he granted.NOW I am going to make one last request of this list and please don't laugh. If you can afford to build an airplane and possess the required knowledge and skill to do so you should be able to write a STERN letter to all the senators and representatives that you know or know of and mail them soon. Don't put it off. This is the best time because it's election time and all those good, honest, caring, unselfish public servants are searching for issues to please. Soooooooooooo let's let them please us by making them aware of the Sport Pilot issue, which I'm convinced 99% have never heard of it. To you youngsters on this list, it's time you learn the power of the letter and the vote. You'll be amazed. Look at the last Presidential election. Just one vote difference in 538 precincts would have given you another President. I'm not concerned here whether that be good or bad. I'm not politicing but just trying to get that damn Sport Pilot issue brought to the attention of Congress and until that happens it's going nowhere regardless of what these organizations tell you. Those politicians read their mail and are more effected by it than these lobbyists.Thank you for your attention, sit down now and write those letters and you'll be amazed at the resultsCorky in La where we've never had any unusual politics.________________________________________________________________________________Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 23:42:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: RE: CGChris,I can truthfully say that I'm really glad that it's over. Now for the testing. I don't think there will be any problem with the test pilot and tail heaviness as he is no bigger than a fart in a whirlwind. The DAR, Mr Lanny Rundell, of Winnsboro, La. flew over Sat afternoon in the most beautiful Glassair I've ever seen, Said he did 180 kts on the leg.He did most of the typing and paperwork at his office so all he would have to do was check the plane, get a few statements for the Airplane and Engine Log books and go back home. He was very thorough but reasonable. He didn't like the fact I had no washers between the tail feather hinges and the cotter pins. Suggested I do this on a rainy day. Didn't say I couldn't fly it the way it was, as a matter of fact he made about five or six corrections but still ok'd the a/c for flight.He never asked for a building log, glue samples and all those other things we read about on the net that keeps us up at night worrying about. I think I was extremely fortunate to have had such a good DAR. If any Pieters have any specific questions about the DAR inspections, write me direct so we won't bother the others who would not be interested.I have two test areas. #1 is north of our DTN airport about 20 miles by 3 or 4 wide. Using this because of the large runways at DTN. Then we go to Lucien Airport south of the city where I will have a larger rural (cotton fields) area for the remainder of the 25 hr fly off. Everything I requested he granted.NOW I am going to make one last request of this list and please don't laugh. If you can afford to build an airplane and possess the required knowledge and skill to do so you should be able to write a STERN letter to all the senators and representatives that you know or know of and mail them soon. Don't put it off. This is the best time because it's election time and all those good, honest, caring, unselfish public servants are searching for issues to please. Soooooooooooo let's let them please us by making them aware of the Sport Pilot issue, which I'm convinced 99% have never heard of it. To you youngsters on this list, it's time you learn the power of the letter and the vote. You'll be amazed. Look at the last Presidential election. Just one vote difference in 538 precincts would have given you another President. I'm not concerned here whether that be good or bad. I'm not politicing but just trying to get that damn Sport Pilot issue brought to the attention of Congress and until that happens it's going nowhere regardless of what these organizations tell you. Those politicians read their mail and are more effected by it than these lobbyists.Thank you for your attention, sit down now and write those letters and you'll be amazed at the resultsCorky in La where we've never had any unusual politics.________________________________________________________________________________Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 23:42:39 -0500
RE: Pietenpol-List: RE: CG
Original Posted By: "Oscar Zuniga"
EAA SEEKS MEDICAL CERTIFICATE EXEMPTION FOR RECREATIONAL PILOTS ---EAA submitted a Medical Certificate Exemption petition to the FAA onSeptember 26, which is an official request to allow those flying under theFAA recreational pilot rules to fly with a valid U.S. driver's license inlieu of an FAA medical certificate.In September 1993 EAA submitted a formal request to the FAA to allowrecreational pilots to fly by "self-certifying" their medical status in thesame manner as glider, balloon, and ultralight pilots. In 1995 the FAAdenied that request for lack of data to support it.In July 2002 the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) formallyrequested that the FAA change the rule and allow the driver's licensemedical for recreational pilots, but on September 13th the request wasdenied because of other higher FAA/DOT priority rulemaking projects and whatthe FAA called a lack of data to support changing the rule.EAA, in requesting the medical certificate exemption, is requesting toestablish a 5-year test bed designed to assist the FAA in building theneeded data with which a future rule-changing decision could be based. EAAfeels the data captured from this study, when combined with the lessonslearned from the sport pilot medical rule, would be sufficient to expand theuse of the driver's license medical authority to recreational pilots.________________________________________________________________________________
EAA SEEKS MEDICAL CERTIFICATE EXEMPTION FOR RECREATIONAL PILOTS ---EAA submitted a Medical Certificate Exemption petition to the FAA onSeptember 26, which is an official request to allow those flying under theFAA recreational pilot rules to fly with a valid U.S. driver's license inlieu of an FAA medical certificate.In September 1993 EAA submitted a formal request to the FAA to allowrecreational pilots to fly by "self-certifying" their medical status in thesame manner as glider, balloon, and ultralight pilots. In 1995 the FAAdenied that request for lack of data to support it.In July 2002 the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) formallyrequested that the FAA change the rule and allow the driver's licensemedical for recreational pilots, but on September 13th the request wasdenied because of other higher FAA/DOT priority rulemaking projects and whatthe FAA called a lack of data to support changing the rule.EAA, in requesting the medical certificate exemption, is requesting toestablish a 5-year test bed designed to assist the FAA in building theneeded data with which a future rule-changing decision could be based. EAAfeels the data captured from this study, when combined with the lessonslearned from the sport pilot medical rule, would be sufficient to expand theuse of the driver's license medical authority to recreational pilots.________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: CG
Original Posted By: "Wbeevans"
Any thoughts on this one?My Piet has an "A" engine, which sits on wooden rails. I havn't drilled the railsfor the engine bolts yet and I got to thinking. Why couldn't I put that offuntil the plane was finished, then prop it up under the CG and move the engineuntil it balanced perfectly, then drill. Would it make a difference if I propped it up under the wing or set it on somethingnarrow and padded under a point on the fuselage which corresponded to theCG??Douwe________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 15:48:43 +0100
Any thoughts on this one?My Piet has an "A" engine, which sits on wooden rails. I havn't drilled the railsfor the engine bolts yet and I got to thinking. Why couldn't I put that offuntil the plane was finished, then prop it up under the CG and move the engineuntil it balanced perfectly, then drill. Would it make a difference if I propped it up under the wing or set it on somethingnarrow and padded under a point on the fuselage which corresponded to theCG??Douwe________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 15:48:43 +0100
Re: Pietenpol-List: CG
Original Posted By: Douwe Blumberg
Douwe,You could just set it up on the scales and move the engine till the calculationscame out right. Just have to figure in the missing cowl weight. There havebeen a few programs around to plug the Piet numbers into, if you need one, I'llsend it to you. Just change the weights and the final numbers change beforeyour eyes.walt evansNX140DL ----- Original Message -----
Douwe,You could just set it up on the scales and move the engine till the calculationscame out right. Just have to figure in the missing cowl weight. There havebeen a few programs around to plug the Piet numbers into, if you need one, I'llsend it to you. Just change the weights and the final numbers change beforeyour eyes.walt evansNX140DL ----- Original Message -----
Re: Pietenpol-List: CG
Original Posted By: "Christian Bobka"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: CGIn a message dated 5/26/04 8:11:23 AM Central Daylight Time, douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net writes:>Douwe,I've thought about that, too. Yes, either way would work. That's the way we did it with R. C. Model airplanes. Problem is that there is no place on the bottom of the wing, at the C. of G. that would support 650 lbs, or so. On thebottom of the fuselage you might be able to balance it on a piece of round tubing, or dowl pin, but it would surely be very top heavy, and adjustments of1/16" to 1/8 would probably make a big difference. With all that weight on a very narrow point, I'm sure it would leave a permanant impression on the bottomof the fuselage. That would give the C. G., but unless you had scales under there, you wouldn't get the empty weight. Best to just stick to the conventional way of weighing the mains & tail, and doing the calculations.Chuck G.________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: CGIn a message dated 5/26/04 8:11:23 AM Central Daylight Time, douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net writes:>Douwe,I've thought about that, too. Yes, either way would work. That's the way we did it with R. C. Model airplanes. Problem is that there is no place on the bottom of the wing, at the C. of G. that would support 650 lbs, or so. On thebottom of the fuselage you might be able to balance it on a piece of round tubing, or dowl pin, but it would surely be very top heavy, and adjustments of1/16" to 1/8 would probably make a big difference. With all that weight on a very narrow point, I'm sure it would leave a permanant impression on the bottomof the fuselage. That would give the C. G., but unless you had scales under there, you wouldn't get the empty weight. Best to just stick to the conventional way of weighing the mains & tail, and doing the calculations.Chuck G.________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: C of G with A65
Original Posted By:
No, Chuck, you hold back to retain control on roll out. The ground loopstarts when you let that skid up off the ground!chris----- Original Message -----
No, Chuck, you hold back to retain control on roll out. The ground loopstarts when you let that skid up off the ground!chris----- Original Message -----