Original Posted By: Stu Brown
Well, Mrs. Pretty Lady just called and said a rolled up tube was just delivered to the house... 'was there just one tube you've been this excited about?!'I'm not sure till I get home to see what got there. But at least I didn't say "hey, I don't make fun of you when the readers digest arrives!"That would involve long term couch sleeping...:-)MarkMark Roberts________________________________________________________________________________Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:39:26 -0400
Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June
Re: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June
Original Posted By: Mark Roberts
Mark,It's your creation, build it anyway you want.I'll echo previous comments....to a point. Do be very cautious about major changes.I've been around Piets long enough to know that it IS the plans built orvery close to plans build planes that come out light and fly well. As an engineer,its in my blood to make changes, tweaks, mods, improvements. etc.....I madea lot of minor changes early on in the building process that I have since goneback and "corrected" to plans. Some I kept. The one major change that I haveno regrets about is widening the fuse 2" and deepening it by 3" between thepits. You have to think long term about the effect the changes will have on otherassemblies. Deepening the fuse made changes in the gear dims a necessity,no big deal.... I wanted to move the axle forward a few inches anyway. I fixturedthe axle in location(in space) and cut gear tubes to suit. Don't make anyparticular process any more complex than the simple (end result) solution thatsuits. Deepening the fuse affected the lift struts as well, again no big deal.I will hang the wings on the center section, brace the locations and measurefor struts. Don't procrastinate like I did trying to draw out the entire shipin CAD. Spend that time studying the plans and building wing ribs. I have studiedthe plans for nearly ten years now...to the point that they have nearlybecome soft tissue....EVERY time I get them out I see something new or somethingdawns on me as to intent. If you are after a plane that looks, flies and smells like a 1930's era ship, thenyou chose the best! If not.....well, there are lots of others to look at.--------PAPA MIKERead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:21:09 -0700Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June
Mark,It's your creation, build it anyway you want.I'll echo previous comments....to a point. Do be very cautious about major changes.I've been around Piets long enough to know that it IS the plans built orvery close to plans build planes that come out light and fly well. As an engineer,its in my blood to make changes, tweaks, mods, improvements. etc.....I madea lot of minor changes early on in the building process that I have since goneback and "corrected" to plans. Some I kept. The one major change that I haveno regrets about is widening the fuse 2" and deepening it by 3" between thepits. You have to think long term about the effect the changes will have on otherassemblies. Deepening the fuse made changes in the gear dims a necessity,no big deal.... I wanted to move the axle forward a few inches anyway. I fixturedthe axle in location(in space) and cut gear tubes to suit. Don't make anyparticular process any more complex than the simple (end result) solution thatsuits. Deepening the fuse affected the lift struts as well, again no big deal.I will hang the wings on the center section, brace the locations and measurefor struts. Don't procrastinate like I did trying to draw out the entire shipin CAD. Spend that time studying the plans and building wing ribs. I have studiedthe plans for nearly ten years now...to the point that they have nearlybecome soft tissue....EVERY time I get them out I see something new or somethingdawns on me as to intent. If you are after a plane that looks, flies and smells like a 1930's era ship, thenyou chose the best! If not.....well, there are lots of others to look at.--------PAPA MIKERead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:21:09 -0700Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Christmas in late June
Original Posted By: Mark Roberts
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Christmas in late June
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Christmas in late June
Re: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June
Original Posted By: Ryan Mueller
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June
Re: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June
Original Posted By: Mark Roberts
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June
Re: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June
Original Posted By: Ryan Mueller
Mark,Several folks on this list have widened the fuse by 2 inches (I think Jack Phillips for one?) & can probably give you some advice on what's involved. I seem to recall comments about the fact that widening increases the material costs , as some pieces can no longer all be cut from a single piece of 4 x 8 ply?Kip GardnerOn Jun 30, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:> Good point. I have already been to Mike Groah's shop and saw his > Piet in progress, and sat in the seat. It is indeed too small for > my shoulders, although not overly so. But as long as i am going to > be building from scratch, I'd like to widen it up a bit...>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Ryan Mueller > wrote:> Mark,>> The thing to do before worrying about modifying the design by > making it either wider or deeper would be to try a Piet on for > size. Per your height, you would probably want to look at the > Corvair/Continental "long fuselage". You could either build a > mockup out of whatever wood you have lying about, or better yet > just find another builder/owner that has a completed fuselage or > flying airplane. I'm sure someone out there on the Left Coast would > let you sit in their Piet, for nothing more than an adult beverage > or two. Either way, I would find out if fit is going to be an issue > before you embark upon the add'l changes, expense, and weight that > such mods would incur.>> Ryan>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Mark Roberts > wrote:> Larry:>> I agree with you 100% in regards to the changing of the plans to > modify the plane into something it was never intended to be. In > fact, one of the things that drew me to the plane was it's simplicity.>> The reason for my mentioning modifications is I was looking at > widening the fuse a bit to fit my frame (6'4", currently 250 lbs > and losing) and I'd like to see what a 26" wide fuse would do to > the design parameters of the build. What parts would need > modification and what sizes they'd be. I also read somewhere about > making the fuse about 2" deeper, but I don't know if that is > something I will try... I am tall, and I'd like to fit better in > the plane to enjoy the experience of flying it when I finish, but > re-designing a perfectly good airframe is not my expertise.>> I appreciate your advice, as I agree with the principle behind it > whole heartedly.>> Mark> Waiting on $$ now for wood :oD>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:04 AM, Lawrence Williams > wrote:> To quote one of the more vocal Pietenpol pioneers,"You can modify > the plans and build a good airplane but if you build to the plans, > you'll have a great one." ie. Don't dribble way your time and > talent trying to reinvent something. You've chosen to build a > genuine, old-timey flying machine so, just DO IT!>> Remember that the airplane was originally just for the thrill of > getting off the ground once in a while if the wx cooperated. Some > have bastardized it into a role for which it was never intended and > then wonder why their 850# hulk is no fun to fly. Sure, they can > twist a key to start it, talk to ATC and fly (legally) after dark > but so can a spam can. The point has been missed and the soul has > been taken out of it.>> Keep it as simple as possible. If you want to add something, be > really, really sure you're willing to sacrifice the weight to put > it on. There will be a boatload of your own ideas and solutions > incorporated into "your" airplane as you build it without you > having to pre-engineer things before you have even had a chance to > get intimate with the plans.>> I guess the R.D. version is this: You have in your possession a set > of plans for an airplane that was designed over 80 years ago. Treat > it like the piece of Americana that it is and keep it true to it's > roots. Isn't that what attracted you to it in the first place?>> Larry> counting down from 25 days to go>>> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List> tp://forums.matronics.com> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution>> ... ______Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:35:41 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June
Mark,Several folks on this list have widened the fuse by 2 inches (I think Jack Phillips for one?) & can probably give you some advice on what's involved. I seem to recall comments about the fact that widening increases the material costs , as some pieces can no longer all be cut from a single piece of 4 x 8 ply?Kip GardnerOn Jun 30, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:> Good point. I have already been to Mike Groah's shop and saw his > Piet in progress, and sat in the seat. It is indeed too small for > my shoulders, although not overly so. But as long as i am going to > be building from scratch, I'd like to widen it up a bit...>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Ryan Mueller > wrote:> Mark,>> The thing to do before worrying about modifying the design by > making it either wider or deeper would be to try a Piet on for > size. Per your height, you would probably want to look at the > Corvair/Continental "long fuselage". You could either build a > mockup out of whatever wood you have lying about, or better yet > just find another builder/owner that has a completed fuselage or > flying airplane. I'm sure someone out there on the Left Coast would > let you sit in their Piet, for nothing more than an adult beverage > or two. Either way, I would find out if fit is going to be an issue > before you embark upon the add'l changes, expense, and weight that > such mods would incur.>> Ryan>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Mark Roberts > wrote:> Larry:>> I agree with you 100% in regards to the changing of the plans to > modify the plane into something it was never intended to be. In > fact, one of the things that drew me to the plane was it's simplicity.>> The reason for my mentioning modifications is I was looking at > widening the fuse a bit to fit my frame (6'4", currently 250 lbs > and losing) and I'd like to see what a 26" wide fuse would do to > the design parameters of the build. What parts would need > modification and what sizes they'd be. I also read somewhere about > making the fuse about 2" deeper, but I don't know if that is > something I will try... I am tall, and I'd like to fit better in > the plane to enjoy the experience of flying it when I finish, but > re-designing a perfectly good airframe is not my expertise.>> I appreciate your advice, as I agree with the principle behind it > whole heartedly.>> Mark> Waiting on $$ now for wood :oD>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:04 AM, Lawrence Williams > wrote:> To quote one of the more vocal Pietenpol pioneers,"You can modify > the plans and build a good airplane but if you build to the plans, > you'll have a great one." ie. Don't dribble way your time and > talent trying to reinvent something. You've chosen to build a > genuine, old-timey flying machine so, just DO IT!>> Remember that the airplane was originally just for the thrill of > getting off the ground once in a while if the wx cooperated. Some > have bastardized it into a role for which it was never intended and > then wonder why their 850# hulk is no fun to fly. Sure, they can > twist a key to start it, talk to ATC and fly (legally) after dark > but so can a spam can. The point has been missed and the soul has > been taken out of it.>> Keep it as simple as possible. If you want to add something, be > really, really sure you're willing to sacrifice the weight to put > it on. There will be a boatload of your own ideas and solutions > incorporated into "your" airplane as you build it without you > having to pre-engineer things before you have even had a chance to > get intimate with the plans.>> I guess the R.D. version is this: You have in your possession a set > of plans for an airplane that was designed over 80 years ago. Treat > it like the piece of Americana that it is and keep it true to it's > roots. Isn't that what attracted you to it in the first place?>> Larry> counting down from 25 days to go>>> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List> tp://forums.matronics.com> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution>> ... ______Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:35:41 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June
RE: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Correct, Kip. Except I only widened mine to 25". That still required anentire extra sheet of aircraft grade Plywood (and shipping). That is onechange I would definitely not do if I had it to do over. The 24" cockpit isplenty big enough. I'm 6'2" and over 200 lbs and I fit just fine in thestandard cockpit. Snug, but what are you going to do, start dancing? Forwhat it's worth, very few airplanes allocate 22" width per occupant. My oldCessna 140 was only 35" wide, for two people to sit side by side - now THATwas tight! My RV-4 is about 21" between the longerons (I'll have to measureit someday, but it is nowhere near as wide as my Pietenpol), and it iscomfortable enough.Making it wider did little for comfort but definitely increased the cost anddefinitely increased the weight. It also forced changes to ripplethroughout the rest of the project, such as landing gear geometry, cabanefittings, and engine mount.The first time you fly on a really hot day you will begrudge every littlechange you made that added weight.As Walt Evans is fond of saying, "Simplicate and add Lightness".Jack PhillipsNX899JP _____
Correct, Kip. Except I only widened mine to 25". That still required anentire extra sheet of aircraft grade Plywood (and shipping). That is onechange I would definitely not do if I had it to do over. The 24" cockpit isplenty big enough. I'm 6'2" and over 200 lbs and I fit just fine in thestandard cockpit. Snug, but what are you going to do, start dancing? Forwhat it's worth, very few airplanes allocate 22" width per occupant. My oldCessna 140 was only 35" wide, for two people to sit side by side - now THATwas tight! My RV-4 is about 21" between the longerons (I'll have to measureit someday, but it is nowhere near as wide as my Pietenpol), and it iscomfortable enough.Making it wider did little for comfort but definitely increased the cost anddefinitely increased the weight. It also forced changes to ripplethroughout the rest of the project, such as landing gear geometry, cabanefittings, and engine mount.The first time you fly on a really hot day you will begrudge every littlechange you made that added weight.As Walt Evans is fond of saying, "Simplicate and add Lightness".Jack PhillipsNX899JP _____
RE: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Having just read Ryan's post where I was quoted as saying that I wouldadvocate making the fuselage wider, that post was written in the winter,when performance is not a problem and bulky clothing is. I just flew minethis afternoon on a 96 degree day - solo. Performance was fine. But lastWednesday, I flew it with my wife (who is NOT particularly heavy) on a 94degree day and we barely cleared the trees, which don't start until you area good 400 yards from the end of the 3100' runway. So I'm changing myrecommendation - You need TWO Pietenpols. One with a standard fuselage andas light as possible for summer flying, and a larger one for the winter.Preferably with a canopy and a heater.Jack PhillipsNX899JP-----Original Message-----
Having just read Ryan's post where I was quoted as saying that I wouldadvocate making the fuselage wider, that post was written in the winter,when performance is not a problem and bulky clothing is. I just flew minethis afternoon on a 96 degree day - solo. Performance was fine. But lastWednesday, I flew it with my wife (who is NOT particularly heavy) on a 94degree day and we barely cleared the trees, which don't start until you area good 400 yards from the end of the 3100' runway. So I'm changing myrecommendation - You need TWO Pietenpols. One with a standard fuselage andas light as possible for summer flying, and a larger one for the winter.Preferably with a canopy and a heater.Jack PhillipsNX899JP-----Original Message-----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June
Original Posted By: Mark Roberts
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June
Re: Pietenpol-List: Christmas in late June
Original Posted By: helspersew(at)aol.com