Brodhead Pietenpol Association

Original Posted By: "jimbir"
I disagree. I think 29" on-center is a better dimension. It matches the 29" between the attach points on the fuse. And even though WW thinks it's a misguided belief that one can shift the wing back and forth to correct for CoG issues, a perfect parallelogram *will* allow for such shifting. I do agree with his assessment that the attach points for the diagonal cabanes should be heavy duty, permanent jobs, if not welded, but that's a different issue. Dan-- Dan Yocumyocum137(at)gmail.com"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."On Aug 28, 2010, at 5:46 PM, Ryan Mueller wrote:> > The 27 3/4 is the important dimension. Go ahead and use it!> > Ryan> > Sent from my iPhone> > On Aug 28, 2010, at 4:35 PM, JGriff wrote:> >> >> I received my plans and am about to construct my rib jig on 3/4" MDF. I didn't give much thought to using the supplied rib drawing and instead was going to plot out the shape because so many posts in the archive say not to use it since the drawing is off due to the xerox reproduction. I just double checked the drawing and it seems pretty accurate. The chord is 58" which I assume is correct because it doesn't include the leading or trailing edge. Also the 27 3/4 inch dim given between the spars is spot on. Has the drawing improved from years past? I'm thinking of using it - has anyone else used it instead of plotting it out?>> Thanks.>> Jamie>> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here:>> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 413#310413>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > &tor?Pietenpol-List" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet - - - - - ---- MATRONICS WEB FORUM href="http://forums.matronics.com/" target=_blank>http://forums.matronbsp; - - - ---- List Contribution Web Site -http://www===============================>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List=========ums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com=========http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution=========" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet ... ribution-- Rick HollandCastle Rock, Colorado"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad" =0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: leading edge covering

Original Posted By: Rick Holland
(http://us.mc527.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compo ... @gmail.com) _yocum137@gmail.com_ (http://us.mc527.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compo ... @gmail.com) >I disagree. I think 29" on-center is a better dimension. It matches the 29" between the attach points on the fuse. And even though WW thinks it's a misguided belief that one can shift the wing back and forth to correct for CoG issues, a perfect parallelogram *will* allow for such shifting. I do agree with his assessment that the attach points for the diagonal cabanes should be heavy duty, permanent jobs, if not welded, but that's a different issue. Dan-- Dan Yocum (http://us.mc527.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compo ... @gmail.com) _yocum137(at)gmail.com_ (http://us.mc527.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compo ... @gmail.com) "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."On Aug 28, 2010, at 5:46 PM, Ryan Mueller wrote:> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Ryan Mueller > > The 27 3/4 is the important dimension. Go ahead and use it!> > Ryan> > Sent from my iPhone> > On Aug 28, 2010, at 4:35 PM, JGriff wrote:> >> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "JGriff" >> >> I received my plans and am about to construct my rib jig on 3/4" MDF. I didn't give much thought to using the supplied rib drawing and instead was going to plot out the shape because so many posts in the archive say not to use it since the drawing is off due to the xerox reproduction. I just double checked the drawing and it seems pretty accurate. The chord is 58" which I assume is correct because it doesn't include the leading or trailing edge. Also the 27 3/4 inch dim given between the spars is spot on. Has the drawing improved from years past? I'm thinking of using it - has anyone else used it instead of plotting it out?>> Thanks.>> Jamie>> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here:>> >> (http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 413#310413) _http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310413#310413_ (http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 413#310413) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > &tor?Pietenpol-List" target=_blank>_http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet_ (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet) - MATRONICS WEB FORUM href="_http://forums.matronics.com/_ (http://forums.matronics.com/) " target=_blank>_http://forums.matronbsp_ (http://forums.matronbsp/) ; - List Contribution Web Site -_http://www=======================_ (http://www=======================/) ========= >_http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List_ (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List) ========= _ums.matronics.com_ (http://ums.matronics.com/) ">_http://forums.matronics.com_ (http://forums.matronics.com/) ========= _http://www.matronics.com/contribution_ (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) ">_http://www.matronics.com/contribution_ (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) ========= " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List tp://forums.matronics.com _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution-- Rick HollandCastle Rock, Colorado"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad" " rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet ... ronics.com llow target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List) (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 13:14:47 -0600Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: CG for heavy pilots

Original Posted By: Rick Holland
I disagree. I think 29" on-center is a better dimension. It matches the 29" between the attach points on the fuse. And even though WW thinks it's a misguided belief that one can shift the wing back and forth to correct for CoG issues, a perfect parallelogram *will* allow for such shifting. I do agree with his assessment that the attach points for the diagonal cabanes should be heavy duty, permanent jobs, if not welded, but that's a different issue. Dan -- Dan Yocum yocum137(at)gmail.com "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." On Aug 28, 2010, at 5:46 PM, Ryan Mueller wrote: > > > The 27 3/4 is the important dimension. Go ahead and use it! > > Ryan > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 28, 2010, at 4:35 PM, JGriff wrote: > > >> >> I received my plans and am about to construct my rib jig on 3/4" MDF. I didn't give much thought to using the supplied rib drawing and instead was going to plot out the shape because so many posts in the archive say not to use it since the drawing is off due to the xerox reproduction. I just double checked the drawing and it seems pretty accurate. The chord is 58" which I assume is correct because it doesn't include the leading or trailing edge. Also the 27 3/4 inch dim given between the spars is spot on. Has the drawing improved from years past? I'm thinking of using it - has anyone else used it instead of plotting it out? >> Thanks. >> Jamie >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 413#310413 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > &tor?Pietenpol-List" target=_blank> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2-=C2-=C2-- MATRONICS WEB FORUM href=" http://forums.matronics.com/ " target=_blank> http://forums.matronbsp ; =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2-=C2-=C2-- List Contribution Web Site - http://www======================= =========> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List ========== ums.matronics.com "> http://forums.matronics.com ========== http://www.matronics.com/contribution "> http://www.matronics.com/contribution ========== " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet ... ntribution -- Rick Holland Castle Rock, Colorado "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad" " rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List et=_blank>http://forums.matronics.com llow target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution t href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet ... enpol-List ===================================ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com ==========tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http:// ... ntribution =========== In compromise what would the impact be by adding 4" or a recommend amount (?)to the engine mount since the fuse is already built and much harder to than the engine yet still concerned about big pilots and heavy tails=C2-with 250 lbs of engine? John In a message dated 9/2/2010 2:54:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kmheidecpo@yahoo.com writes: Just to be clear, one should create a fuse using the 163" length and the add 6" to move the firewall forward if seeking a better CG for heavy pilots. No other changes to the fuse needed? One would think the longer fuse would offer some advantages say during landings?? Don Emch could give=C2-some insights on this toipic?=C2- KMH --- On Sun, 8/29/10, Rick Holland wrote:

Original Posted By: Ryan Mueller
I disagree. I think 29" on-center is a better dimension. It matches the 29" between the attach points on the fuse. And even though WW thinks it's a misguided belief that one can shift the wing back and forth to correct for CoG issues, a perfect parallelogram *will* allow for such shifting. I do agree with his assessment that the attach points for the diagonal cabanes should be heavy duty, permanent jobs, if not welded, but that's a different issue. Dan -- Dan Yocum yocum137(at)gmail.com "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." On Aug 28, 2010, at 5:46 PM, Ryan Mueller wrote: > > > The 27 3/4 is the important dimension. Go ahead and use it! > > Ryan > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 28, 2010, at 4:35 PM, JGriff wrote: > > >> >> I received my plans and am about to construct my rib jig on 3/4" MDF. I didn't give much thought to using the supplied rib drawing and instead was going to plot out the shape because so many posts in the archive say not to use it since the drawing is off due to the xerox reproduction. I just double checked the drawing and it seems pretty accurate. The chord is 58" which I assume is correct because it doesn't include the leading or trailing edge. Also the 27 3/4 inch dim given between the spars is spot on. Has the drawing improved from years past? I'm thinking of using it - has anyone else used it instead of plotting it out? >> Thanks. >> Jamie >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 413#310413 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > &tor?Pietenpol-List" target=_blank> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2-=C2-=C2-- MATRONICS WEB FORUM href=" http://forums.matronics.com/ " target=_blank> http://forums.matronbsp ; =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2-=C2-=C2-- List Contribution Web Site - http://www======================= =========> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List ========== ums.matronics.com "> http://forums.matronics.com ========== http://www.matronics.com/contribution "> http://www.matronics.com/contribution ========== " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet ... ntribution -- Rick Holland Castle Rock, Colorado "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad" " rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List et=_blank>http://forums.matronics.com llow target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution t href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet ... enpol-List ===================================ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com ==========tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http:// ... ntribution =======================________________________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 14:29:58 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: leading edge covering

Original Posted By: Dan Yocum wrote:I'm on vacation this week, so I'm going on memory here - the long fuse adds most of the length in the nose, not the tail, so yes it'll help with a heavier guy like you. There's a limit to the amout you can shift the wing back to modify the CoG. I think I've read that some people have tilted the cabanes back by up to 4", but it looks a bit odd.Then again, the long nose on N8031 looks a bit odd too, so... Take yer pick of oddities. ;-)Dan-- Dan Yocum_yocum137(at)gmail.com_ (http://us.mc527.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compo ... @gmail.com) "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."On Aug 29, 2010, at 6:57 PM, KM Heide CPO/FAAOP wrote: Dan,Then for a guy like me (who is 6'0 and 270 lb. mass of water, bones, and fat) should I then make my fuse longer to compensate for the heaviness of my weight? It is reasonable for one to figure out the CG by adding the engine weight, weight of pilot, weight of fuse on tail wheel, then use that number to see if you have enough wing movement aft for compensation? Has anyone figured out what modifications are needed to compensate for a heavierpilot say 270?KMH--- On Sun, 8/29/10, Dan Yocum wrote:

Original Posted By: Dan Yocum
The 1933 fuselage is 163" and the long fuse is 172 3/8". The long fuse moves the firewall forward 2", the rear seat back 2", and all the rest is behind the rear seat. If you are concerned about aft CG you are better off with the short fuselage (even if you are going to use a Corvair or O-200). rick On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Dan Yocum wrote: I'm on vacation this week, so I'm going on memory here - the long fuse adds most of the length in the nose, not the tail, so yes it'll help with a heavier guy like you. There's a limit to the amout you can shift the wing back to modify the CoG. I think I've read that some people have tilted the cabanes back by up to 4", but it looks a bit odd. Then again, the long nose on N8031 looks a bit odd too, so... Take yer pick of oddities.=C2- Dan --=C2- Dan Yocum yocum137(at)gmail.com "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." On Aug 29, 2010, at 6:57 PM, KM Heide CPO/FAAOP wrote: Dan, Then for a guy like me (who is 6'0 and 270 lb. mass of water, bones, and fat)=C2-should=C2-I then make my fuse longer to compensate for the heaviness of my weight? It is reasonable for one to figure out the CG by adding the engine weight, weight of pilot, weight of fuse on tail wheel, then=C2-use that=C2-number to see if you have enough wing movement aft for compensation? Has anyone figured out what modifications are needed to compensate for a heavier pilot say 270? KMH --- On Sun, 8/29/10, Dan Yocum wrote:

Original Posted By: Dan Yocum
The 1933 fuselage is 163" and the long fuse is 172 3/8". The long fuse moves the firewall forward 2", the rear seat back 2", and all the rest is behind the rear seat. If you are concerned about aft CG you are better off with the short fuselage (even if you are going to use a Corvair or O-200). rick On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Dan Yocum wrote: I'm on vacation this week, so I'm going on memory here - the long fuse adds most of the length in the nose, not the tail, so yes it'll help with a heavier guy like you. There's a limit to the amout you can shift the wing back to modify the CoG. I think I've read that some people have tilted the cabanes back by up to 4", but it looks a bit odd. Then again, the long nose on N8031 looks a bit odd too, so... Take yer pick of oddities.=C2- Dan --=C2- Dan Yocum yocum137(at)gmail.com "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." On Aug 29, 2010, at 6:57 PM, KM Heide CPO/FAAOP wrote: Dan, Then for a guy like me (who is 6'0 and 270 lb. mass of water, bones, and fat)=C2-should=C2-I then make my fuse longer to compensate for the heaviness of my weight? It is reasonable for one to figure out the CG by adding the engine weight, weight of pilot, weight of fuse on tail wheel, then=C2-use that=C2-number to see if you have enough wing movement aft for compensation? Has anyone figured out what modifications are needed to compensate for a heavier pilot say 270? KMH --- On Sun, 8/29/10, Dan Yocum wrote:

Original Posted By: AMsafetyC(at)aol.com
The covering for the leading edge of the wings is specified as 1/16" hardboardor plywood on the Pietenpol plans and 28 ga. aluminum in the article in the 1932edition of Flying and Glider Manual. Is aluminum acceptable? I ask becauseit is readily obtainable whereas the plywood is not.Secondly, On page 18 there is shown the motor mount bracing as two separate piecesrather then the one piece welded assembly shown on the plans. Are these anacceptable substitute? I ask because these would be much easier to fabricate.--------Thanks, Jim BirkeIra G. Ross Aerospace MuseumRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________

Original Posted By: Rick Holland
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: CG for heavy pilotsIn compromise what would the impact be by adding 4" or a recommend amount (?)to the engine mount since the fuse is already built and much harder to than the engine yet still concerned about big pilots and heavy tails with 250 lbs of engine?JohnIn a message dated 9/2/2010 2:54:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com writes: Just to be clear, one should create a fuse using the 163" length and the add 6" to move the firewall forward if seeking a better CG for heavy pilots. No other changes to the fuse needed? One would think the longer fuse would offer some advantages say during landings?? Don Emch could give some insights on this toipic? KMH--- On Sun, 8/29/10, Rick Holland wrote:

Original Posted By: shad bell

Original Posted By: AMsafetyC(at)aol.com
I really think you'd be much happier with plywood. I recently removed aluminumfrom Douwe's wings and replaced it plywood. Makes for much nicer, cleaner coveringinstallation and helps add some strength to that leading edge. Don EmchNX899DERead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________

Original Posted By: "jimbir"
You'll want to thoroughly clean the wax off the completed rib before gluing tothe spar. If the rib won't stick to the jig it won't stick to the spar.I think I might have used varnish on the that spot on the jib? Don't remember.1993-1995--------Kevin PurteeNX899KPAustin/Georgetown, TXRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: leading edge covering

Original Posted By: "Billy McCaskill"
Thanks for the replies. We'll probably go for the plywood.One more question. Do you add filler strips to the top of the front spar betweenthe ribs so as to have something to attach the rear edge of the covering to?--------Thanks, Jim BirkeIra G. Ross Aerospace MuseumRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Try some paste wax....

Original Posted By: Ben Charvet
Real mold release agent is made from PVA (poly-vinyl acetate) and contains no wax.Resins and some epoxies (not sure abobut T-88) can absorb some of the waxand interfere with proper curing and the ability for glue to stick to it whenit's supposed to. Just something to consider while building your Piet or anyother wood structures...Also avoid any waxes or lubricants containing silicone, as it will interfere withadhesion of finishes like varnish, shellac, etc...--------Billy McCaskillUrbana, ILtail section almost done, starting on ribs soonRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2010 22:16:23 -0400

Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
No, do not support the rear edge of the plywood. When you cover the wingthis will allow the plywood to deform slightly and make a smooth transition.ChrisSacramento, CaWestcoastpiet.com-----Original Message-----

Original Posted By: helspersew(at)aol.com

Original Posted By:> Dan Yocum
>> The 1933 fuselage is 163" and the long fuse is 172 3/8". The long fuse> moves the firewall forward 2", the rear seat back 2", and all the rest is> behind the rear seat. If you are concerned about aft CG you are better off> with the short fuselage (even if you are going to use a Corvair or O-200).>> rick>> On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Dan Yocum > > wrote:>> I'm on vacation this week, so I'm going on memory here - the long fuse> adds most of the length in the nose, not the tail, so yes it'll help with a> heavier guy like you. There's a limit to the amout you can shift the wing> back to modify the CoG. I think I've read that some people have tilted the> cabanes back by up to 4", but it looks a bit odd.>> Then again, the long nose on N8031 looks a bit odd too, so... Take yer pick> of oddities.>> >> Dan>> --> Dan Yocum> yocum137@gmail.com> "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things.">> On Aug 29, 2010, at 6:57 PM, KM Heide CPO/FAAOP >> wrote:>> Dan,>> Then for a guy like me (who is 6'0 and 270 lb. mass of water, bones, and> fat) should I then make my fuse longer to compensate for the heaviness of my> weight? It is reasonable for one to figure out the CG by adding the engine> weight, weight of pilot, weight of fuse on tail wheel, then use that number> to see if you have enough wing movement aft for compensation? Has anyone> figured out what modifications are needed to compensate for a heavier pilot> say 270?>> KMH> *> *> **>>> --- On *Sun, 8/29/10, Dan Yocum > >* wrote:>>

Original Posted By: Jim Boyer
>> yocum137@gmail.com> >>> I disagree. I think 29" on-center is a better dimension. It matches the 29"> between the attach points on the fuse. And even though WW thinks it's a> misguided belief that one can shift the wing back and forth to correct for> CoG issues, a perfect parallelogram *will* allow for such shifting. I do> agree with his assessment that the attach points for the diagonal cabanes> should be heavy duty, permanent jobs, if not welded, but that's a different> issue.>> Dan>> --> Dan Yocum> > yocum137@gmail.com> "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things.">> On Aug 28, 2010, at 5:46 PM, Ryan Mueller > rmueller23@gmail.com>> wrote:>> rmueller23@gmail.com> >> >> > The 27 3/4 is the important dimension. Go ahead and use it!> >> > Ryan> >> > Sent from my iPhone> >> > On Aug 28, 2010, at 4:35 PM, JGriff > jgriffith19@comcast.net>> wrote:> >> jgriffith19@comcast.net> >> >>> >> I received my plans and am about to construct my rib jig on 3/4" MDF. I> didn't give much thought to using the supplied rib drawing and instead was> going to plot out the shape because so many posts in the archive say not to> use it since the drawing is off due to the xerox reproduction. I just double> checked the drawing and it seems pretty accurate. The chord is 58" which I> assume is correct because it doesn't include the leading or trailing edge.> Also the 27 3/4 inch dim given between the spars is spot on. Has the drawing> improved from years past? I'm thinking of using it - has anyone else used it> instead of plotting it out?> >> Thanks.> >> Jamie> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Read this topic online here:> >>> >> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 413#310413> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> &tor?Pietenpol-List" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet - MATRONICS WEB FORUM href="> http://forums.matronics.com/" target=_blank>http://forums.matronbsp;> - List Contribution Web Site -http://www======================>>> *>> =========> >http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List> ==========ums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com> ==========http://www.matronics.com/contribution"> ... ntribution> =========> *>> *>> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List> tp://forums.matronics.com> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution> *>>> --> Rick Holland> Castle Rock, Colorado>> "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad">> *>> " rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List> et=_blank>http://forums.matronics.com> llow target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution> *>>> *>> *>>-- Rick HollandCastle Rock, Colorado"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"________________________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 19:22:35 +0000 (UTC)