Original Posted By: Gardiner Mason
Good discussion thread on Weight and Balance. I have just received my package from Doc Mosher with WWs articles. Well documented info on CG and axle location. Keeping the CG location in mind as I build will have a high priority. I have much more to study and learn. The CG spreadsheets recently posted are also valuable tools.New question for some of you who have finished and flown your plane regarding the total weight of the plane. Like everyone, I want to be careful of adding unnecessary weight as I build. So far I am following the plans carefully. But like everyone, I am sure, I have some personal customizations in the back of my mind.WWs articles document specific data from individual planes. I pulled a handful of them to examine more closely regarding Empty Weight (EW) - long/short fuselage, A65/Corvair engines. The lightest weight airplane I studied was 590lb, the heaviest 842lb. Subtracting a 'standard' engine weight from the EW yielded some interesting information. In most cases, regardless of the engine type or fuse. length, the weight of 'everything else' came out to about 410-415lb. In only 2 cases I examined was there a great difference - one was 581lb and the other 617lb. Not just over, but WAY over the others.Here's the question: What in the world do some builders add to their planes that takes a 400 lb plane to over 600 lb??OK. Some extra instrumentation, tailwheel vs the original tailskid, brakes system, extra fuel tank, etc. But 200lb worth? What do I need to look out for?Thanks for the replies.Lorenzost" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet ... ributionNo virus found in this message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.com03/25/14____________________ ... ___Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airplane Weights
Pietenpol-List: Red Baron video
Pietenpol-List: Red Baron video
Original Posted By: "taildrags"
Mike,I don't see any reason you couldn't add a tank at a later date. It sounds likeyou already have a three piece wing. I say get your plane flying and evaluatethe need for the second tank. It would be easy to build another center sectionwhile flying/enjoying you plane. Then swap center sections on the weekendsometime. It should be easy to do it that way. My three cents,--------Scott LiefeldFlying N11MS since March 1972Steel TubeC-85-12Wire WheelsBrodhead in 1996Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Red Baron video
Mike,I don't see any reason you couldn't add a tank at a later date. It sounds likeyou already have a three piece wing. I say get your plane flying and evaluatethe need for the second tank. It would be easy to build another center sectionwhile flying/enjoying you plane. Then swap center sections on the weekendsometime. It should be easy to do it that way. My three cents,--------Scott LiefeldFlying N11MS since March 1972Steel TubeC-85-12Wire WheelsBrodhead in 1996Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Red Baron video
Original Posted By: "G Hansen"
OK, time to let up on the tense discussions and get back to something lighter.This is a very good (and as far as I know, pretty factual) animated video recountingthe demise of Manfred von Richthofen, aka "The Red Baron":http://www.youtube.com/embed/ywug11nLFf ... ilpageIt's less than 6 minutes long. I was surprised at how well the graphics portraythe control responses and aircraft behavior in the various maneuvers, and thesound effects are quite good as well. In fact, there are a couple of spotswhere I can close my eyes and the sound is very much like my engine sounds ifI push in the carb heat ;o)The final scenes, whether completely factual or not, are pretty dramatic for ananimation.--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
OK, time to let up on the tense discussions and get back to something lighter.This is a very good (and as far as I know, pretty factual) animated video recountingthe demise of Manfred von Richthofen, aka "The Red Baron":http://www.youtube.com/embed/ywug11nLFf ... ilpageIt's less than 6 minutes long. I was surprised at how well the graphics portraythe control responses and aircraft behavior in the various maneuvers, and thesound effects are quite good as well. In fact, there are a couple of spotswhere I can close my eyes and the sound is very much like my engine sounds ifI push in the carb heat ;o)The final scenes, whether completely factual or not, are pretty dramatic for ananimation.--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Airplane Weights
Original Posted By: Brian Kenney
Brian Kenny probably has the lightest Pietenpol (CF-AUK) around and his dissertation on weight saving/adding is =9Cbang on=9D. I cannot say that I adhered to all of the points he made when I was building my Pietenpol (CF-AUN) during the period 1959-70, but this isn=99t to say I was unaware of them at that time=94having been involved in aircraft maintenance and design since 1948. There were compromises made due to availability of materials and a shortage of cash during that time period. If I were to build another Pietenpol today, I would do some things differently. But there are many things I would not change, either.I used Sitka spruce for just about everything but the wing spars and maintained the dimensions in the plans. At the time it was difficult and expensive to get Sitka spruce in the size needed for the spars and I discovered some beautiful Douglas Fir boards at a very reasonable price and built them up to the I-beam dimensions in the plans, and used =9Cswallow tail=9D blocks at attachment points in accordance with good engineering practice. Since fir is a tad heavier than spruce, these spars are a bit heavier than spruce ones would have been. Another compromise related to cost and availability. I made the fuselage two inches wider (26=9D) to allow more clothing to be worn in these northern parts; a compromise that paid off big time in spite of it adding some weight. The wing is in three pieces; a single piece wing would have been lighter. Yet another compromise due mainly to available working space.Since I was going to be operating from some pretty rough grass areas, I elected to beef up the landing gear/lift strut fuselage fittings and added perhaps a couple of pounds by doing so. A trade-off in weight saving for serviceability. All other fittings were pretty much according to plans excepting the Aeronca engine mount-to-fuselage fittings which were specially designed to use this engine mount. Virtually no weight gain here.Originally I used a 6 inch Scott tailwheel with the yoke and coil spring arrangement and it was OK. Later, I made a lightweight fork assembly with a 4 inch commercial caster wheel which was used for years, requiring wheel replacement at a modest cost every 100 hours or so. This saved some weight in a critical location and it worked just fine. I used very light Shinn 6.00-6 main wheels and axles from a wrecked Taylorcraft and this helped save some weight over other wheels I could have used.Brian states the weight of the aircraft covering being important when trying to save weight, and he is right! My Pietenpol originally was covered with Grade A aircraft cotton and had a hand-rubbed doped finish. It looked nice, but was heavier than necessary. The empty weight (including oil) was 645 pounds with a Continental A65 engine, and this was an accurate figure because new certified-accurate scales were used. Fourteen years later, the a/c was stripped and recovered with Lincoln polyester fabric, doped to a =9Cserviceable=9D (not fine) finish. The empty weight with a C85-8 engine and wooden propeller was now 630 pounds on the same scales. So the covering really does make a noticeable difference (but the lighter tailwheel accounted for some of this).As Brian pointed out, the weight of the wing struts is significant. Again, I had to compromise because of cost and availability. I used Aeronca rear strut material for the center section struts (cabanes), Aeronca front lift strut material for the front struts and Taylorcraft rear lift strut material for the rear struts. Much heavier than required, but it was what I had at the time.I flew CF-AUN for 862 hours and literally made thousands of landings over nearly 43 years. The only thing that ever broke was a somewhat-worn tailwheel coil spring salvaged from my dad=99s old grain binder. She could have been a tad lighter, but she was durable. I retired her last September when I donated her to a local museum.Cheers to all,Graham Hansen (Alberta, Canada)
Brian Kenny probably has the lightest Pietenpol (CF-AUK) around and his dissertation on weight saving/adding is =9Cbang on=9D. I cannot say that I adhered to all of the points he made when I was building my Pietenpol (CF-AUN) during the period 1959-70, but this isn=99t to say I was unaware of them at that time=94having been involved in aircraft maintenance and design since 1948. There were compromises made due to availability of materials and a shortage of cash during that time period. If I were to build another Pietenpol today, I would do some things differently. But there are many things I would not change, either.I used Sitka spruce for just about everything but the wing spars and maintained the dimensions in the plans. At the time it was difficult and expensive to get Sitka spruce in the size needed for the spars and I discovered some beautiful Douglas Fir boards at a very reasonable price and built them up to the I-beam dimensions in the plans, and used =9Cswallow tail=9D blocks at attachment points in accordance with good engineering practice. Since fir is a tad heavier than spruce, these spars are a bit heavier than spruce ones would have been. Another compromise related to cost and availability. I made the fuselage two inches wider (26=9D) to allow more clothing to be worn in these northern parts; a compromise that paid off big time in spite of it adding some weight. The wing is in three pieces; a single piece wing would have been lighter. Yet another compromise due mainly to available working space.Since I was going to be operating from some pretty rough grass areas, I elected to beef up the landing gear/lift strut fuselage fittings and added perhaps a couple of pounds by doing so. A trade-off in weight saving for serviceability. All other fittings were pretty much according to plans excepting the Aeronca engine mount-to-fuselage fittings which were specially designed to use this engine mount. Virtually no weight gain here.Originally I used a 6 inch Scott tailwheel with the yoke and coil spring arrangement and it was OK. Later, I made a lightweight fork assembly with a 4 inch commercial caster wheel which was used for years, requiring wheel replacement at a modest cost every 100 hours or so. This saved some weight in a critical location and it worked just fine. I used very light Shinn 6.00-6 main wheels and axles from a wrecked Taylorcraft and this helped save some weight over other wheels I could have used.Brian states the weight of the aircraft covering being important when trying to save weight, and he is right! My Pietenpol originally was covered with Grade A aircraft cotton and had a hand-rubbed doped finish. It looked nice, but was heavier than necessary. The empty weight (including oil) was 645 pounds with a Continental A65 engine, and this was an accurate figure because new certified-accurate scales were used. Fourteen years later, the a/c was stripped and recovered with Lincoln polyester fabric, doped to a =9Cserviceable=9D (not fine) finish. The empty weight with a C85-8 engine and wooden propeller was now 630 pounds on the same scales. So the covering really does make a noticeable difference (but the lighter tailwheel accounted for some of this).As Brian pointed out, the weight of the wing struts is significant. Again, I had to compromise because of cost and availability. I used Aeronca rear strut material for the center section struts (cabanes), Aeronca front lift strut material for the front struts and Taylorcraft rear lift strut material for the rear struts. Much heavier than required, but it was what I had at the time.I flew CF-AUN for 862 hours and literally made thousands of landings over nearly 43 years. The only thing that ever broke was a somewhat-worn tailwheel coil spring salvaged from my dad=99s old grain binder. She could have been a tad lighter, but she was durable. I retired her last September when I donated her to a local museum.Cheers to all,Graham Hansen (Alberta, Canada)
Original Posted By:> Brian Kenney
Great story Graham. I wish I could duplicate your pietenpol history but I do not nave the time in my lifetime. Cheers, GardinerSent from my iPadOn Mar 26, 2014, at 6:17 PM, "G Hansen" wrote:> Brian Kenny probably has the lightest Pietenpol (CF-AUK) around and his dissertation on weight saving/adding is =9Cbang on=9D. I cannot say that I adhered to all of the points he made when I was building my Pietenpol (CF-AUN) during the period 1959-70, but this isn=99t to say I was unaware of them at that time=94having been involved in aircraft maintenance and design since 1948. There were compromises made due to availability of materials and a shortage of cash during that time period. If I were to build another Pietenpol today, I would do some things differently. But there are many things I would not change, either.> > I used Sitka spruce for just about everything but the wing spars and maintained the dimensions in the plans. At the time it was difficult and expensive to get Sitka spruce in the size needed for the spars and I discovered some beautiful Douglas Fir boards at a very reasonable price and built them up to the I-beam dimensions in the plans, and used =9Cswallow tail=9D blocks at attachment points in accordance with good engineering practice. Since fir is a tad heavier than spruce, these spars are a bit heavier than spruce ones would have been. Another compromise related to cost and availability. I made the fuselage two inches wider (26=9D) to allow more clothing to be worn in these northern parts; a compromise that paid off big time in spite of it adding some weight. The wing is in three pieces; a single piece wing would have been lighter. Yet another compromise due mainly to available working space.> > Since I was going to be operating from some pretty rough grass areas, I elected to beef up the landing gear/lift strut fuselage fittings and added perhaps a couple of pounds by doing so. A trade-off in weight saving for serviceability. All other fittings were pretty much according to plans excepting the Aeronca engine mount-to-fuselage fittings which were specially designed to use this engine mount. Virtually no weight gain here.> > Originally I used a 6 inch Scott tailwheel with the yoke and coil spring arrangement and it was OK. Later, I made a lightweight fork assembly with a 4 inch commercial caster wheel which was used for years, requiring wheel replacement at a modest cost every 100 hours or so. This saved some weight in a critical location and it worked just fine. I used very light Shinn 6.00-6 main wheels and axles from a wrecked Taylorcraft and this helped save some weight over other wheels I could have used.> > Brian states the weight of the aircraft covering being important when trying to save weight, and he is right! My Pietenpol originally was covered with Grade A aircraft cotton and had a hand-rubbed doped finish. It looked nice, but was heavier than necessary. The empty weight (including oil) was 645 pounds with a Continental A65 engine, and this was an accurate figure because new certified-accurate scales were used. Fourteen years later, the a/c was stripped and recovered with Lincoln polyester fabric, doped to a =9Cserviceable=9D (not fine) finish. The empty weight with a C85-8 engine and wooden propeller was now 630 pounds on the same scales. So the covering really does make a noticeable difference (but the lighter tailwheel accounted for some of this).> > As Brian pointed out, the weight of the wing struts is significant. Again, I had to compromise because of cost and availability. I used Aeronca rear strut material for the center section struts (cabanes), Aeronca front lift strut material for the front struts and Taylorcraft rear lift strut material for the rear struts. Much heavier than required, but it was what I had at the time.> > I flew CF-AUN for 862 hours and literally made thousands of landings over nearly 43 years. The only thing that ever broke was a somewhat-worn tailwheel coil spring salvaged from my dad=99s old grain binder. She could have been a tad lighter, but she was durable. I retired her last September when I donated her to a local museum.> > Cheers to all,> > Graham Hansen (Alberta, Canada)> > > > >
Great story Graham. I wish I could duplicate your pietenpol history but I do not nave the time in my lifetime. Cheers, GardinerSent from my iPadOn Mar 26, 2014, at 6:17 PM, "G Hansen" wrote:> Brian Kenny probably has the lightest Pietenpol (CF-AUK) around and his dissertation on weight saving/adding is =9Cbang on=9D. I cannot say that I adhered to all of the points he made when I was building my Pietenpol (CF-AUN) during the period 1959-70, but this isn=99t to say I was unaware of them at that time=94having been involved in aircraft maintenance and design since 1948. There were compromises made due to availability of materials and a shortage of cash during that time period. If I were to build another Pietenpol today, I would do some things differently. But there are many things I would not change, either.> > I used Sitka spruce for just about everything but the wing spars and maintained the dimensions in the plans. At the time it was difficult and expensive to get Sitka spruce in the size needed for the spars and I discovered some beautiful Douglas Fir boards at a very reasonable price and built them up to the I-beam dimensions in the plans, and used =9Cswallow tail=9D blocks at attachment points in accordance with good engineering practice. Since fir is a tad heavier than spruce, these spars are a bit heavier than spruce ones would have been. Another compromise related to cost and availability. I made the fuselage two inches wider (26=9D) to allow more clothing to be worn in these northern parts; a compromise that paid off big time in spite of it adding some weight. The wing is in three pieces; a single piece wing would have been lighter. Yet another compromise due mainly to available working space.> > Since I was going to be operating from some pretty rough grass areas, I elected to beef up the landing gear/lift strut fuselage fittings and added perhaps a couple of pounds by doing so. A trade-off in weight saving for serviceability. All other fittings were pretty much according to plans excepting the Aeronca engine mount-to-fuselage fittings which were specially designed to use this engine mount. Virtually no weight gain here.> > Originally I used a 6 inch Scott tailwheel with the yoke and coil spring arrangement and it was OK. Later, I made a lightweight fork assembly with a 4 inch commercial caster wheel which was used for years, requiring wheel replacement at a modest cost every 100 hours or so. This saved some weight in a critical location and it worked just fine. I used very light Shinn 6.00-6 main wheels and axles from a wrecked Taylorcraft and this helped save some weight over other wheels I could have used.> > Brian states the weight of the aircraft covering being important when trying to save weight, and he is right! My Pietenpol originally was covered with Grade A aircraft cotton and had a hand-rubbed doped finish. It looked nice, but was heavier than necessary. The empty weight (including oil) was 645 pounds with a Continental A65 engine, and this was an accurate figure because new certified-accurate scales were used. Fourteen years later, the a/c was stripped and recovered with Lincoln polyester fabric, doped to a =9Cserviceable=9D (not fine) finish. The empty weight with a C85-8 engine and wooden propeller was now 630 pounds on the same scales. So the covering really does make a noticeable difference (but the lighter tailwheel accounted for some of this).> > As Brian pointed out, the weight of the wing struts is significant. Again, I had to compromise because of cost and availability. I used Aeronca rear strut material for the center section struts (cabanes), Aeronca front lift strut material for the front struts and Taylorcraft rear lift strut material for the rear struts. Much heavier than required, but it was what I had at the time.> > I flew CF-AUN for 862 hours and literally made thousands of landings over nearly 43 years. The only thing that ever broke was a somewhat-worn tailwheel coil spring salvaged from my dad=99s old grain binder. She could have been a tad lighter, but she was durable. I retired her last September when I donated her to a local museum.> > Cheers to all,> > Graham Hansen (Alberta, Canada)> > > > >
Re: Pietenpol-List: Red Baron video
Original Posted By: Michael Perez
RE: Pietenpol-List: It's FINALLY a hangar...
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
It'll be good to see that Pietenpol back in the air!Jack PhillipsNX899JPSmith Mountain Lake, Virginia-----Original Message-----
It'll be good to see that Pietenpol back in the air!Jack PhillipsNX899JPSmith Mountain Lake, Virginia-----Original Message-----