Original Posted By: vistin(at)juno.com
Thanks to everyone for the great info on control horns, looks like BHPwins hands down, now that I know that the built up hollow horns areso widely accepted I guess I'll go with the plans, weld in bushings onthe ends and add the little U shaped reenforcements to the flanges and gas weld them with a small tip. Man this list is a great info source.Thanks again!!! Ed Palm Harbor Fl.________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Thanks/control horn const
Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Center of Gravity Standards (?)
Original Posted By: "Davis, Marc"
Walt said:> You said that my theory works only if the wing is lighter than air,,,>But when you are flying ,,,the wing IS lighter than air. The wing is>pulling up, and the body pulling down.The wing isn't light than air, there is only more lift force than gravityforce. Gravity is pulling the mass of the wing and the body down at thesame rate. If the wing was truely lighter than air it would have buoyancyin the liquid we call air. Therefore the weight of the wing in it'sdifferent areas effect CG and it's relavance to the fusealge.>I realize that there are other forces too, like "prying" forces from the>wing to the body thru struts.>But if you want to "hang" from the perfect CG point on the wing,,, it'slike>a fat kid and a skinny kid on the see-saw.....You have to slide the plank>towards the skinny kid, till the board balances. You can also move the>engine fwd. ( have the skinny kid skoot back) to do the same thing.Exactly what I was saying, except if you try to calculate before you movethe plank under the kid you must know how much the plank ways per cubic footto adjust for the added weight of the plank on that side besides the skinnykid. Because the plank has mass and weight it must be figure in thecalculation to get proper CG placement just like the wing.Or I'm complete nuts, you decide. (I do remember getting hit in the head asa child when trying to adjust perfect CG on a see-saw)Greg________________________________________________________________________________
Walt said:> You said that my theory works only if the wing is lighter than air,,,>But when you are flying ,,,the wing IS lighter than air. The wing is>pulling up, and the body pulling down.The wing isn't light than air, there is only more lift force than gravityforce. Gravity is pulling the mass of the wing and the body down at thesame rate. If the wing was truely lighter than air it would have buoyancyin the liquid we call air. Therefore the weight of the wing in it'sdifferent areas effect CG and it's relavance to the fusealge.>I realize that there are other forces too, like "prying" forces from the>wing to the body thru struts.>But if you want to "hang" from the perfect CG point on the wing,,, it'slike>a fat kid and a skinny kid on the see-saw.....You have to slide the plank>towards the skinny kid, till the board balances. You can also move the>engine fwd. ( have the skinny kid skoot back) to do the same thing.Exactly what I was saying, except if you try to calculate before you movethe plank under the kid you must know how much the plank ways per cubic footto adjust for the added weight of the plank on that side besides the skinnykid. Because the plank has mass and weight it must be figure in thecalculation to get proper CG placement just like the wing.Or I'm complete nuts, you decide. (I do remember getting hit in the head asa child when trying to adjust perfect CG on a see-saw)Greg________________________________________________________________________________
RE: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Center of Gravity Standards (?)
Original Posted By: Don Mosher [mailto:docshop(at)famvid.com]
DanOne thought on this. By moving the wing you are also moving the location ofthe fuel (lap tank only), and cockpits relative to the "new datum". While Iagree with you that the wing should not be moved. The new loading locationsmay be better for avoiding an aft CG problem. The aft cockpit would becloser to the CG, and fuel would be further forward.One issue I don't see people talking about is the moment arm of the tail.By moving the wing back you are shorting the moment arm of the tail andmaking it less effective.Marc Davis-----Original Message-----
DanOne thought on this. By moving the wing you are also moving the location ofthe fuel (lap tank only), and cockpits relative to the "new datum". While Iagree with you that the wing should not be moved. The new loading locationsmay be better for avoiding an aft CG problem. The aft cockpit would becloser to the CG, and fuel would be further forward.One issue I don't see people talking about is the moment arm of the tail.By moving the wing back you are shorting the moment arm of the tail andmaking it less effective.Marc Davis-----Original Message-----