Brodhead Pietenpol Association

Original Posted By: Ryan Mueller

Original Posted By: "Skip Gadd"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Question about short fuse with a CorvairRyan, I'm glad you asked this question. I have been studying the Pietenpol for a while now, and have wondered the same thing! I look forward to hearing everyone's responses!Boyce________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: "Roman Bukolt"
Ryan,The small Continentals may be lighter than a Model A, but if you put a starterand charging system on a Corvair it will be about the same weight as the ford.I am building the Flying & Glider fuselage which is almost a foot shorter thanthe Corvair fuse and I am going to use the Corvair. I agree that the short fuseshould be easier to get the CG correct. The tail post of the corvair fuse isover 5" further aft of the pilot then the shorter fuselages. SkipI have a question regarding the need for the long fuselage when using a Corvairengine. Based on most of what I have read, the justification is that the longfuselage was developed to meet W&B requirements when using the Corvair/Continentals.Ryan________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Ryan Mueller
The Corvair engine weight about 230 lbs. The Continental weighs about 170 lbs.To keep the C.G. no further aft then 33% of the chord, you must offset the heavier Corvair with more weight in the the tail.My Piet was originally built long to accomodate a Corvair. Even then added weight was installed way back in the tail.Then the Corvair froze up and and was replaced with a Cont. A-65. When I bought the plane the C.G. was at 39%. Seriously tail heavy. Luckily I had Bill Rewey doing the landings and take offs when we flew the plane back to Madison, Wi. from Iowa.Since then I corrected the C.G. by installing a 30lb. 12v battery on the firewall.The C.G. is the balance point. All the weight ahead of the C.G. must equal all the weight aft of the C.G.The heavier engine in front requires more weight aft. A longer moment aft requires les weight than a short moment aft.And lightness is a good thing.Heaviness is not a good thing. The longer the moment, the less weight required.Roman Bukolt NX20795 ----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: Ryan Mueller

Original Posted By: "Max Hegler"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Question about short fuse with a CorvairMaybe the intentions were multi point. Maybe the motor mount is lengthened to accommodate the lighter engine. While he was at it, he says to himself, heysome of these guys would like a little more leg room, so why not make the fuselage longer too.... So, the longer fuselage wasn't necessarily because of the engine change, but rather a actual revision of the designed features? Just a guess!________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Ryan Mueller
I thought lengthening the fuselage for the lighter engines was to offset the moment arm for control purposes. Lighter engines required longer engine mounts, thus resulting in longer "noses". This resulted in less control response with the shorter fuselage. Airplanes with engines that weigh as much as the Model "A" would not need any added length.Of course, I'm no aeroplane engineer!Take Care,Max ----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: RAMPEYBOY(at)aol.com
Does anyone have the firewall-to-tailpost length for both fuselages?Max ----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: Ryan Mueller