Original Posted By: "Jack Phillips (EUS)"
While studying the 3 pc wing supplement, I noticed that the spars werechanged to 3/4" thick, I assume that the aft spars are not routed at thisthickness and the rib jig is altered for the 3/4" spar. Am I correct onthis?.Garyfrgtdog(at)worldnet.att.net________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: 3 pc wing
Pietenpol-List: 3 pc wing
Original Posted By: "Gene Rambo"
while studying the 3 pc wing supplement, I noticed that the spars werechanged to 3/4" thick, I assume that the aft spars are not routed at thisthickness and the rib jig is altered for the 3/4" spar. Am I correct onthis?.Garyfrgtdog(at)worldnet.att.net________________________________________________________________________________
while studying the 3 pc wing supplement, I noticed that the spars werechanged to 3/4" thick, I assume that the aft spars are not routed at thisthickness and the rib jig is altered for the 3/4" spar. Am I correct onthis?.Garyfrgtdog(at)worldnet.att.net________________________________________________________________________________
RE: Pietenpol-List: 3 pc wing
Original Posted By:> Gary Leopold [SMTP:frgtdog(at)worldnet.att.net]
Hi Gary,I built the 3-piece wing with 3/4" spars. I routed my rear spars down to1/2" thick , but did not rout the front spars since they carry somewhat moreload than the rears. Just routing the rear spars down 1/8" per side savesabout 3-1/2 lbs. of weight, and as you know, weight is everything in thesebirds. Just be careful and use a round-nose bit. Don't use a square endmill type bit - the square corners act as stress concentrations. One inch spars are overkill on a plane like this. Pitts Specials andChampion Citabrias both use 3/4" spars. While we're doing weightcalculations, a 1" spar 29' long weighs 6.7 lbs. more than a 3/4" spar(assuming both are Pietenpol 4-3/4" tall spars and both are unrouted)Routing them both to 1/2" at the web negates most of that extra weight, butthe 1" spar is still heavier in the flanges and in the unrouted areas aroundthe doublers. In addition, it requires longer bolts for all the fittingswhich adds yet more weight.Jack> -----Original Message-----
Hi Gary,I built the 3-piece wing with 3/4" spars. I routed my rear spars down to1/2" thick , but did not rout the front spars since they carry somewhat moreload than the rears. Just routing the rear spars down 1/8" per side savesabout 3-1/2 lbs. of weight, and as you know, weight is everything in thesebirds. Just be careful and use a round-nose bit. Don't use a square endmill type bit - the square corners act as stress concentrations. One inch spars are overkill on a plane like this. Pitts Specials andChampion Citabrias both use 3/4" spars. While we're doing weightcalculations, a 1" spar 29' long weighs 6.7 lbs. more than a 3/4" spar(assuming both are Pietenpol 4-3/4" tall spars and both are unrouted)Routing them both to 1/2" at the web negates most of that extra weight, butthe 1" spar is still heavier in the flanges and in the unrouted areas aroundthe doublers. In addition, it requires longer bolts for all the fittingswhich adds yet more weight.Jack> -----Original Message-----
RE: Pietenpol-List: 3 pc wing
Original Posted By: "Gene Rambo"
Just when I thought I had it all figured out, somebody makes me re-read the plans. I was going to use the 1" outboard spar, and the 3/4" center section spar. With the 1/8" fittings, that would have made the center section spar/fitting thickness 1". With the 1" outboard spar, then that would have put the outboard fittings fitting perfectly over the inboard fittings, just like they appear to be shown on the 3 pc plans. Then you look at the top of the plan sheet and see 3/4" for wing panel spars also......Back to ribs,Gary________________________________________________________________________________
Just when I thought I had it all figured out, somebody makes me re-read the plans. I was going to use the 1" outboard spar, and the 3/4" center section spar. With the 1/8" fittings, that would have made the center section spar/fitting thickness 1". With the 1" outboard spar, then that would have put the outboard fittings fitting perfectly over the inboard fittings, just like they appear to be shown on the 3 pc plans. Then you look at the top of the plan sheet and see 3/4" for wing panel spars also......Back to ribs,Gary________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: rudder pedals and aileron control
Original Posted By: Lawrence V Williams
can anyone tell me the pros and cons of: (1) the hanging rudder pedals fromthe "old" drawings vs. the floor mounted ones in the "improved" drawings. I have heard that there is some discrepancy and that hanging pedals made tothe old plans do not work, but I do not remember why. Unless there is somereason why not, I would prefer to use hanging pedals. The less clutterthere is on a floorboard, the less dirt/oil/junk will collect there and theeasier it is to clean.And (2) the aileron cables attaching to the stick and going out the sidesand up the strut vs. going straight up off of a bellcrank as in theimproved plans. Obviously, there are some asthetics, and it appears alittle (not much) more difficult to get in and out of a Piet with thecables coming out of the side. Again, I would prefer the old style unlessthere is a reason not to that I am overlooking. (it looks more "antique"and it would save weight by eliminating pulleys, brackets, and bolts) Thanks.________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:27:50 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: rudder pedals and aileron control
can anyone tell me the pros and cons of: (1) the hanging rudder pedals fromthe "old" drawings vs. the floor mounted ones in the "improved" drawings. I have heard that there is some discrepancy and that hanging pedals made tothe old plans do not work, but I do not remember why. Unless there is somereason why not, I would prefer to use hanging pedals. The less clutterthere is on a floorboard, the less dirt/oil/junk will collect there and theeasier it is to clean.And (2) the aileron cables attaching to the stick and going out the sidesand up the strut vs. going straight up off of a bellcrank as in theimproved plans. Obviously, there are some asthetics, and it appears alittle (not much) more difficult to get in and out of a Piet with thecables coming out of the side. Again, I would prefer the old style unlessthere is a reason not to that I am overlooking. (it looks more "antique"and it would save weight by eliminating pulleys, brackets, and bolts) Thanks.________________________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:27:50 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: rudder pedals and aileron control