Original Posted By: "TOM STINEMETZE"
Stumbled across this nice shot of Kevin's Piet, sitting in the hangar, with thecowling off, apparently about a month prior to Brodhead.http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/ph ... L.htmlBill C.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:02:41 -0500
Pietenpol-List: Photo: Axel's Piet at home
Pietenpol-List: Photo: Axel's Piet at home
Original Posted By: "Bill Church"
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com> ca>> > Joe=2C> > The "Riblett design" is simply an airfoil=2C not a whole wing design. You're really on your own to figure out all the little details.> My assumption would be that the truss structure of a Riblett rib would mimic the structure shown in the Pietenpol plans=2C and everything else (e.g. ailerons) would follow suit. Therefore=2C if the Pietenpol wing benefits from gap sealing=2C then the Riblett would also benefit in the same manner. The easiest method to seal the aileron gaps is to use a piano hinge=2C like Dan said.> > Your summary regarding the Riblett airfoils is basically what is being claimed. As far as I know=2C Pieti Lowell's is the only flying example of a Riblett airfoil on a Piet (I may be wrong on that=2C though)=2C and he claims improved performance.> > Anecdotally=2C I overheard someone at Brodhead a couple of years ago saying that the Riblett airfoil will provide twice the lift=2C and double the cruise speed=2C and cut the stall speed in half... I took ALL of that with a BIG grain of salt. No doubt a different airfoil will result in different performance. Just how much different is the question=2C and whether it is an improvement is another. It seems that there are quite a few new builders constructing their Piets with Riblett airfoils. So=2C if and when they get them flying=2C we'll have some more flying examples to refer to. As it stands now=2C it is really difficult to tell=2C since there can be so much difference in performance from one Piet to another=2C due to all the design changes that builders make=2C as well as powerplant=2C propeller and other choices available. Would be really good to have another builder or two do what Lowell did=2C and fly the exact same aircraft with the two different airfoils=2C and compare the performances. But th!> at means a LOT of work - most of us have enough challenge just getting one wing built (right=2C Gary?).> > In short=2C either airfoil will fly the plane just fine. If you want "tried and true"=2C stick with the plans. If you want to experiment with possible performance improvements=2C and are willing to work out more little details on your own=2C then give the Riblett a go. (the choice of Riblett airfoils is up to you=2C as there were two suggested by Mr. Riblett as being suitable for the Piet).> > Bill C.> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 625#312625> > > > > > > ============================================> > > ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Photo: Axel's Piet at home
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com> ca>> > Joe=2C> > The "Riblett design" is simply an airfoil=2C not a whole wing design. You're really on your own to figure out all the little details.> My assumption would be that the truss structure of a Riblett rib would mimic the structure shown in the Pietenpol plans=2C and everything else (e.g. ailerons) would follow suit. Therefore=2C if the Pietenpol wing benefits from gap sealing=2C then the Riblett would also benefit in the same manner. The easiest method to seal the aileron gaps is to use a piano hinge=2C like Dan said.> > Your summary regarding the Riblett airfoils is basically what is being claimed. As far as I know=2C Pieti Lowell's is the only flying example of a Riblett airfoil on a Piet (I may be wrong on that=2C though)=2C and he claims improved performance.> > Anecdotally=2C I overheard someone at Brodhead a couple of years ago saying that the Riblett airfoil will provide twice the lift=2C and double the cruise speed=2C and cut the stall speed in half... I took ALL of that with a BIG grain of salt. No doubt a different airfoil will result in different performance. Just how much different is the question=2C and whether it is an improvement is another. It seems that there are quite a few new builders constructing their Piets with Riblett airfoils. So=2C if and when they get them flying=2C we'll have some more flying examples to refer to. As it stands now=2C it is really difficult to tell=2C since there can be so much difference in performance from one Piet to another=2C due to all the design changes that builders make=2C as well as powerplant=2C propeller and other choices available. Would be really good to have another builder or two do what Lowell did=2C and fly the exact same aircraft with the two different airfoils=2C and compare the performances. But th!> at means a LOT of work - most of us have enough challenge just getting one wing built (right=2C Gary?).> > In short=2C either airfoil will fly the plane just fine. If you want "tried and true"=2C stick with the plans. If you want to experiment with possible performance improvements=2C and are willing to work out more little details on your own=2C then give the Riblett a go. (the choice of Riblett airfoils is up to you=2C as there were two suggested by Mr. Riblett as being suitable for the Piet).> > Bill C.> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 625#312625> > > > > > > ============================================> > > ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Photo: Axel's Piet at home