Brodhead Pietenpol Association

Original Posted By: "Catdesigns"
Dan,The weber that Ford guys use on their A's is the weber. When I bought mine weber was having production shortages and I got the last one for a while, but I think they're fine now. You can find them through Snyders, they also sell a nice intake manifold that I think I think is made by the guy who I bought mine from. You've got to modify the intake manifold to get the carb low enough to proper fuel head, which isn't hard if you can weld aluminum, or you can do the cutting, find some thick walled aluminum tubing and then bring it to someone who can weld aluminum.I am trying a weber primarily because it will produce more power than a stock A carb. It is a better design, having two stages, a primary and a secondary which will deliver a more correct mix at various throttle settings. I also like that I have limitless jet options so I can fine tune at idle, cruise and climb AND I can get it just a bit lean on the ground so my mixture will not be so rich higher up.Lowell Frank has extensive experience with this carb and loved it. It is prone to icing just like the Ford, so that challenge doesn't go away.It comes with a choke which Lowell got rid of, but I am thinking of keeping because in my testing I really like how easy it makes it to start when it's cold.Hope that helps, feel free to contact me if you need more info. By the way, I have a beautiful stock carb rebuilt by Ken Perkins that is brand new if you want one. I'll sell it for what I paid Ken four years ago.Douwe________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Main Landing Gear Length

Original Posted By: "Phillips, Jack"

Original Posted By: "Steve Eldredge"

Original Posted By: "Peter W Johnson"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Main Landing Gear LengthSteve,I used the.049 tubing. You still think it needs the extra member?Dan HelsperPoplar Grove, IL************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Dan,I agree with Steve, I replaced my plans tail skid/wheel with a spring steeltype. No more bend or twist.PeterWonthaggi AustraliaHYPERLINK "http://www.cpc-world.com/"http://www.cpc-world.com _____

Original Posted By: "Aircraft Spruce"
Thanks Guys. This is the information I was looking for. I felt adding 5 to 6 inches was a bitextreme. I chose 13 degrees is because this seems to be around the commonangle people use. Based on the numbers Mike reported, Mike is at 13.5, Brian isjust under 12 , Frank P. is just about 15 degrees. Knowing Mike to be closerto 12 degrees, I assume these estimates to be a little steeper then reality.We know Jack is at 13 and Greg and Dale are at 12.5. Dom Emch has the steepestat 15. He also reported Frank P. to be about the same as his. Chuck G. at11 degrees said it was a bit harder to get a good full stall landing. Thisis why I went with 13 degrees. Well that and I like the look of a steep deck angle.I would have gone with 14 but my high tail made that impractical.My concern about the height is how tall will the propeller be. Anyone have anyidea how far away the propeller is from the firewall on an A-56 Piet? Im talland I dont mind adding a step. But most of all I dont want it to look stupid.Yes, I know looks shouldnt be more important then functionality but come onnow we all want to look good. I also dont want to make it tippy by having tallgear legs.I have been playing around with my fuselage drawing and I can remove 3 inches (fora 2 inch extension) and still get 12.5 degrees using my tail wheel (it turnsout Im a bit over the 13 degrees stated). By the time the wheels squish alittle this should be 12 degrees. Its obvious that somehow you guys have shorter tail wheels then I do. Im seriouslycontemplating switching over to a 4-inch Homebuilders Special but I dontknow the height or weight of this setup. Mike, do you have any ideas on the heightof your lower longeron at the back of the fuselage? Im sure it will weighmore then my 6 pound tail wheel I have now.This is all very funny in a way. Before I ever started cutting wood for the gearI had this all worked out. I knew exactly what I was going to do. But, AFTERI got all 4 gear legs cut it just didnt look right. Oh well, at least I amshortening and not having to stretch them and in my experience wood is hardto stretch.Thanks againChris--------Chris TracyWestCoastPiet.comRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________

Original Posted By: "Bill Church"

Original Posted By: "Phillips, Jack"

Original Posted By: Rick Holland
Rick,I designed the motor mount about 4" longer than normal for a o-235 lyco so my weight (280lbs) with min. fuel would not get too close to the back end of the envelope. One of the guys that flys my Piete is about 150lbs and has to hold the nose up with back pressure on the stick when flying with full tanks (about 12" forward of LE wings). He has min. problems with authority of tail to control the plane's pitch. My trim tab could have been a bit bigger on the elevator to help with his problem, also a washer or two under the horiz stab front connecting point to fuse could help if lighter pilots fly plane most of the time. The flat plane of the horiz stab would act like a big trim tab if canted upward a few degrees at leading edge. I figure a light 100lb pilot would have trouble with my plane unless lead is added to the tail or the pilot sat on a block of lead. The most dangerous situation is not making the plane so it will always stall nose down. A flat tail heavy stall can't be recovered. So I recommend you extend the motor mount even more forward so you can fly from the back seat with max. 250 lbs, min. fuel and still not be back behind the cg envelope. Remember the coverings on the tail surfaces have a very long arm, plus the rear wheel has long arm. You could under compensate for this even with your 200lbs. It's easy to add weight to the tail later but harder to add weight to the nose area.Gordon ----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: "Steve Eldredge"

Original Posted By: amsafetyc(at)aol.com

Original Posted By: "Perry Rhoads"
One more thing and I can't believe I forgot to mention this. The main reason for the 13 degree target is this is what the 1933 plans show. If you assume a 7-inch height to the tail skid using the height to the top longeron (51-inches) on Drawing 1 (Tall wheels) you can calculate a 13 degree deck angle. If you use the 48.5-inch measurement shown on drawing 3 for the smaller wheels it drops down to 12 degrees. These reduce to 12.5 and 11.5 if you assume a 8 inch skid height. If you use your protractor and measure the angle on the side view on Drawing 7 (small wheels), it is 12 degrees. However, when I measured the side view drawing on the cover sheet of the 1937 Air Camper with 1960 Corvair Engine, I only get 10 degrees.Chris TracySacramento, CaWebsite at http://www.Westcoastpiet.com ________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: "Catdesigns"
Hi Chris, My gear is the steel split axle basically right off of the plans. I'm using19" rims with a 3.20/3.60 tire which makes the total tire height somewhere around26". I went this route because of a picture I saw several years ago of Mr.Pietenpol's 12988 that he built. He used the split axle gear with wire wheels.My deck angle is around 15 degrees. Over the nose visibility isn't thebest in the three-point but it's easy to get used to. The landing characteristicsare really nice as long as I get it slow enough to stall into the three-pointtouchdown, which with a little headwind seems ridiculously slow. Not too long ago Frank Pavliga and I were discussing how similar our deck angleswere and how the view out of each others ships on the ground is almost thesame. He did mention that he used to have a different gear on his. It wasintentionally built with the axle moved forward. They didn't like that so theybuilt one with the correct proportions. They did make it proportional thoughto the longer fuselage. The Flying and Glider Manual gear was designed forthe shorter Flying and Glider Manual fuelage. It is shorter than the short versionof the 1933 plans. Frank said he simply took the measurements from thatoriginal gear and scaled them up to match the correct proportions of the longestfuselage (the Corvair '60s fuselage). This gave the deck angle on his thatwould have been similar to what would have been on the shortest fuselage Flyingand Glider Manual ship. He is currently running 21" rims. He used to have18" rims, but those are now on the Waco 9. My tailpost is probably somewhere around 9 or 10 inches off the ground. Probablya couple inces higher than just having a skid. It's a 4" wheel and I keptthe spring pretty short.http://westcoastpiet.com/images/Don%20E ... 80_596.jpg Chris, I really enjoy your website. It's really great of you to provide thisresource to everyone. I know I could not have built mine without being ableto see other projects. Really looking forward to our field firming up a little so I can get it dirtyagain! Don Emch Nx899DERead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________

Original Posted By: "Don Emch"
Don,Thanks for the information. I'm having trouble making your dimensions work. When I draw them out I get a deck angle of 11 degrees. Everyone look at Drawing No. 3 of the plans, I'm using the 48.5-inch dimension minus half of the 19-inch wheels to locate the axel 39" below the top longeron (48.5"-9.5"=39"). This is where I believe the axel will end up on the plans built split axel gear. Have I done something wrong in my attached drawing? To have gotten 15 degrees it looks like you would have had to lengthen the gear 9 inches. I looked at your pictures again and you wheels appear to be well below the bottom of the fuselage. http://westcoastpiet.com/images/Don%20E ... 3791.jpgIn the attached drawing the wheel is only 3-inches below the bottom longeron.Don, do you know the wheel base (distance between the wheels)? Maybe its narrower then it's supposed to be and that's why your gear is tall. Are you sure about this angle? How far is your axel below the fuselage? How about Franks?Good grief it's 12:37 am and I'm really confused ............ Guess I will go to bed.Chris TracySacramento, CaWebsite at http://www.Westcoastpiet.com----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Don,19 inch wheels, what about tyre size?CheersPeterWonthaggi Australiahttp://www.cpc-world.com-----Original Message-----

Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Sorry Chris, this should have been addressed to you.Peter.-----Original Message-----

Original Posted By: "Peter W Johnson"
Peter,Shown on the plans, the overall height of the tire and rim combo is 19 inches. The plans show the height of the upper longeron above the ground. Therefore I subtracted half the height of the tire-rim combo to arrive at the distance the axel lies below the upper longeron. I believe you built your using the British plans so you may not have this drawing.Chris TracySacramento, CaWebsite at http://www.Westcoastpiet.com----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Chris,Yes I do have the drawing. The British plans are the same as the plans Ibought from Don Pietenpol but with some modifications. It's just that myrims are 18 inch with a 3.5 inch tyre. That makes for 25 inch diameterwheel/tyre combo.CheersPeter.-----Original Message-----

Original Posted By: "Rick Holland"

Original Posted By: Clif Dawson
The axle on NX18235 is 6.5" aft of the leading edge of the wing when in a level attitude. Greg C. ----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: Clif Dawson
Because it's a big can of worms.... But you did ask so, mine is at 21-inches back of the fire wall. But my firewall is pushed forward 4 inches which in reality makes the axle 17 inches behind the real place for the firewall. But then again the pilots seat is 2-inches further aft then the plans show. I plan on moving the wing back about 3 or 4 inches (I'm a light tall skinny guy) which should make me move the axle back more but I plan on using brakes which would move the axel forward. So who knows if I'm right in my placement.Sorry to anyone who thinks I shouldn't have changed the design. It was a long time ago and I was much younger then. But still I will have to live with my sin. (If you cant follow my rambling the fuselage is basically a long fuselage (+2-inches added the first bay) back the rear seat back then it's the short fuselage to the tail.)Chris TracySacramento, CaWebsite at http://www.Westcoastpiet.com ----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: "Don Emch"
Just how I did mine. Nothing to it. Just dreading when I have to change tires.May have to reshoot the dope because I have a feeling switching tires willmark up the dope finish.Don E.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Main Landing Gear Length

Original Posted By: Clif Dawson
Chris,I can't seem to find my figures when I trigged out my deck angle. I'll head outto the strip tomorrow and I'll try to come up with some measurements for gearvee lengths, heights and angles. This was an issue I thought a lot about too.As we can there are many variations in the many different ships, so we knowthat there is a wide range of what works.Don E.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 20:27:44 -0800

Original Posted By: "Don Emch"
I would be very interesting in your measurements. I think your right as anything from 11 to 15 seems to work.Chris TracySacramento, CaWebsite at http://www.Westcoastpiet.com----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: gcardinal
My two cents worth. There seems to be WAY too much concern over thie Deck angle thing. Here's a new low in this extensive database of deck angles. My angle is 8 1/2 degrees, and you know what? My plane flies great and the prop doesn't touch the ground on take off or landing.What Greg says is the real important and only important dimension is the distance back from the leading edge when the deck angle is level. A half inch can make a difference in ground handling during take off. My plane is 6 1/2". Also, Bill Rewey, I believe did some research on this and he suggested 6 1/2 in. More important than axle location is the fact that the front cabanes are one inch longer than the rear.Oh Oh! did I just open a "new can of worms"?Roman Bukolt NX20795 ----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: Roman Bukolt
I'l see your two cents and raise two cents. The only concern I have on deck angle is, the steeper the angle, the more important to get the tail up early on take off. When I first started flying mine, I almost had a ground stall, not getting the tail up fast enough. Air gets under the wing, prop effect takes right wing up and plane goes off the side of runway.Dick N. ----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: "Catdesigns"
Chris,Your last post about the reason you are interested in the steep deck angle is thesame reason I was into it, because I liked it. Well I went out to the striptoday and took a few measurements. I screwed up and I'm sorry but I gave yousome wrong numbers. I need to be more careful before I throw out numbers nexttime. The top of my longeron at the tailpost is 19 1/2" above the ground.The top of my longeron at the firewall is 57 5/8". Figuring the length of thelongeron at 172" gives an angle of 12 1/2 degrees. I don't know where I gotmy 15 degree thing but it's not! Sorry about that! My tires have a diameterof 26 1/2". The gear vees are right off of the plans. I didn't write them downtoday but they did compare to what was on the plans and I don't recall theirlengths. Keep in mind the split axle vees are longer than the straight axlevees. The only real change I made in the gear was to lengthen the axles by2" to accomodate brakes. This gives me a track of about 60". With the bungeestight the wheels are pulled in slightly. There is about 5 1/2" of verticaldistance between the tops of my tires and the belly. With 1" stringers on thebelly though it brings that to 4 1/2". You know all of this sounds really importantand technical but the truth is, it really is more about aesthetics. Yeah it's gonna land a little different than the next one, but you just adaptto it. The cool thing about the Piet is that you can build the structure veryclose to the plans and still taylor it to what aesthetically pleases you! Thisis one of the things that attracts so many people to the design. Is it justme or do many other homebuilt designs ( kits especially) just seem to be boring!?Don EmchNX899DERead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________

Original Posted By: "Don Emch"
Don,Excellent news! I'm so glad you were wrong . I can get 12.5 degrees with my current jig setup and all I need to do now is cut the legs to size. I realized today, as I played with my CAD drawing, that I am basically making the wood gear conform to the steel gear dimensions. Now I know I'm doing it right and I can proceed with confidence.A BIG BIG thank you for your effort. I owe you one.Chris TracySacramento, CaWebsite at http://www.Westcoastpiet.com----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: santiago morete

Original Posted By: "gcardinal"
________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Jeff Boatright
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet ... __________

Original Posted By: Jeff Boatright
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet ... __________

Original Posted By: "Don Emch"
-- 10/03/2007 2:25 PM -- 10/03/2007 2:25 PM________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Main Landing Gear Length