Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-ae
February 04, 1998 - April 10, 1998
> Subject: Re: wheels
> Date: Tuesday, February 03, 1998 17:46 PM
>
> Im not sure where he got them, but Mr. Millet, in Windham, ME has
> very nice a/c wheels with brakes that were, if I remember correctly,
> around $75 each. I can find out if you like.
>
> Theres a picture of one here:
> http://www.wrld.com/w3builder/piet/acimg/EM-wheel.jpg
>
> Richard
>
> > I've just finished the legs of my landing gear ready to fabricate
the
> > axles.
> > But before I weld the 1 1/2" axles in place I thought I should probably
get
> > the wheels first just to make sure that they needed that size of axle.
I
> > think that I will use 6" wheels. Wow are the wheel and brake setups in
Wicks
> > and Aircraft Spruce high or what? Will have more in wheel and tires
than
> > airframe. Any of you guys have any other ideas. Tried to fine used 172
> > wheels but they are getting scarce.
> > Also the information and ideas on this chat line thing are really
great.
> > Thanks alot.
> >
> >
> -----------------------------
> http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
> Pietenpols, Electronic Music,
> Website Design, Stompilation
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
| Subject: | Re: wheels -Doh! |
I suppose it was going to happen eventually. My sincerest and
humblest appologies for not checking who I was responding to and
posting a file to the whole group.
> Sure. I will call Everett tonight and get the full story. He did tell
> me the name of the company that sells them, but I don't recall who it
> was. I am attatching the image to this email.
>
Web Developer, http://www.autoeurope.com
Homepage: http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Cardinal <CARDIGJ(at)mail.startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Re: wheels -Doh! -Reply |
Richard, can you also find out the width of the hub. It is hard to tell, but in
the picture the hub looks too narrow for aircraft use.
Thanks, Greg Cardinal
>>> Richard DeCosta 02/04/98 07:35am
>>>
I suppose it was going to happen eventually. My sincerest and
humblest appologies for not checking who I was responding to and
posting a file to the whole group.
> Sure. I will call Everett tonight and get the full story. He did tell
> me the name of the company that sells them, but I don't recall who it
> was. I am attatching the image to this email.
>
Web Developer, http://www.autoeurope.com
Homepage: http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: wheels -Doh! |
Hi Richard:
Please note that I have been entertained and educated by accidentally
burglarizing communications on this and a couple of other chat groups. I
certainly don't know so much or have such perfect resources that I can't
learn or use all the additional information that I can get. Please, lets
keep the cross-flow of information as open as possible. Those that have
already been this way can move over to the passing lane, or more hopefully,
edit and give an even better way/resource for all of us to build even
better Piets'.
Just read this....if it sounds a little grumpy to anyone, sorry....I
just want all the info that I can get for my project....thanks for
listening. Fair weather and smooth air to all.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | michael list <mclist(at)ptw.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Certification / Insurance and plywood |
Ed0248(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Regarding plywood, has anyone checked into Hobby Shop birch plywood? Here in
> the Memphis area at least two of the local "Building Supply" houses have
> sheets of modeling plywood up to 3/32" in sheets up to 2'x4". Sure looks
> interesting for gussets, etc.
Ed,
I have seen some good looking 1/16 birch plywood in the local model
shops, too, and it looks fine for rib gussets and other small pieces.
Cut some up before you use it and make sure you don't have any voids.
The cost here is about the same as if you ordered it by mail, but it
sure is nice to have it close at hand.
Mike List
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | michael list <mclist(at)ptw.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Plywood Gusset Question WAS RE: Happy Day! |
Jim Skinner wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> I have a question about "endgrain material." Do you mean that the grain is perpendicular
to the sheet? This seems like a very strange way to make a plywood
lamination. Seems like there would be a lot less waste using the standard
method of peeling a log into a sheet, resulting in the more normal plys. If the
grain is perpendicular to the sheet, then by all means, this is not suitable
because the sheet is VERY weak. Only the thin outer layers will support tension
and then only in one directi
>
> I have luan lumberyard material that has 3 equal thickness plys and is of "conventional"
construction; i.e. all the layers have the grain running parallel
to the face with the inner ply turned 90 degrees.
>
> It has been good to see more discussion of WHY certian things are bad and what
to look for.
>
> Jim
>
> ----------
>Jim,
Yes, the luan that I have seen and used on a kayak has the thick middle
ply with the grain perpendicular to the face sheets. No good for
airplanes! I haven't seen the type you describe with three equal
thickness plies. What is the sheet thickness? For 1/8" plywood I would
prefer 5 plies, but for 1/16" 3 would be fine. Is it bonded together
with an outdoor grade adhesive and what is the wood type? It sounds
like it might work, but I would run some tests on it for strength in
tension, pull-off of the face sheets, exposure to moisture, weight, how
well does it accept glue and void content. If it passes these and looks
good, and you are comfortable with it, then try it on the smaller
components first. After all, this is part of the beauty of our freedom
in the states to build with alternate materials! And if you do use it,
keep us posted on how it works.
Mike List
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Plywood Gusset Question WAS RE: Happy Day! |
I have use the luan plywood for building boats. It is a marine plywood
and I have yet to find a void. There are two types of luan and they are
both three ply. One of them is called bendy board which is the one with all
three ply running in the same direction. I was designed to be really flax
able.
>Jim Skinner wrote:
>>
>> Mike,
>>
>> I have a question about "endgrain material." Do you mean that the grain
is perpendicular to the sheet? This seems like a very strange way to make
a plywood lamination. Seems like there would be a lot less waste using the
standard method of peeling a log into a sheet, resulting in the more normal
plys. If the grain is perpendicular to the sheet, then by all means, this
is not suitable because the sheet is VERY weak. Only the thin outer layers
will an tension and then only in one directi
>>
>> I have luan lumberyard material that has 3 equal thickness plys and is
of "conventional" construction; i.e. all the layers have the grain running
parallel to the face with the inner ply turned 90 degrees.
>>
>> It has been good to see more discussion of WHY certian things are bad
and what to look for.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> ----------
>>Jim,
>Yes, the luan that I have seen and used on a kayak has the thick middle
>ply with the grain perpendicular to the face sheets. No good for
>airplanes! I haven't seen the type you describe with three equal
>thickness plies. What is the sheet thickness? For 1/8" plywood I would
>prefer 5 plies, but for 1/16" 3 would be fine. Is it bonded together
>with an outdoor grade adhesive and what is the wood type? It sounds
>like it might work, but I would run some tests on it for strength in
>tension, pull-off of the face sheets, exposure to moisture, weight, how
>well does it accept glue and void content. If it passes these and looks
>good, and you are comfortable with it, then try it on the smaller
>components first. After all, this is part of the beauty of our freedom
>in the states to build with alternate materials! And if you do use it,
>keep us posted on how it works.
>Mike List
>
>
jimsury(at)fbtc.net
________________________________________________________________________________
Has anyone considered the fact that we, almost at the millenium, from all
facets of life and education, from retirees to space program workers to God-
knows-what, are using this "futuristic" medium of computer technology sent out
in the ether, discussing an antique airplane design depending upon rudimentary
engineering for both designand power?
Fills me with wonder, both at the medium and the project.
________________________________________________________________________________
Yes, I have.
I wonder what Bernie Pietenpol would say about all
this--but then he was very much a man who would
have gotten involved in the technology of the times.
Computers would have been just another step along
the way after general mechanics, radio and television.
Sure, the technology of a Pietenpol is pretty basic to-
day, but at one time it was "state of the art". But how
can one really improve a Pietenpol which is really a
work of art?
Graham Hansen
> From: Ed0248(at)aol.com
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Irony
> Date: Thursday, February 05, 1998 8:37 AM
>
> Has anyone considered the fact that we, almost at the millenium, from all
> facets of life and education, from retirees to space program workers to
God-
> knows-what, are using this "futuristic" medium of computer technology
sent out
> in the ether, discussing an antique airplane design depending upon
rudimentary
> engineering for both designand power?
>
> Fills me with wonder, both at the medium and the project.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Graham Hansen wrote:
>Sure, the technology of a Pietenpol is pretty basic to-
>day, but at one time it was "state of the art". But how
>can one really improve a Pietenpol which is really a
>work of art?
Graham- It is a great airplane, eh ? What amazes me is that
w/ a 65 Continental they can fly almost (and lift) and climb
neck and neck w/ a 65 Champ of which was designed some
13-16 years after the Piet. (and I really like Champs, but the
Piet has it hands down in the FUN department.) Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Certification / Insurance and plywood |
I've read the comments over the past few weeks with interest concerning the use
of
certified vs. non certified plywood for use on Piet projects. In 1939 Aeronca used
cardboard for their rib gussets so I don't see a problem using non-certified
plywood.
Some Gee Wiz Info: Bernard Pietenpol used oatmeal boxes for the leading edges
(upper surface covering) on some of the airplanes he built.
michael list wrote:
> Ed0248(at)aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Regarding plywood, has anyone checked into Hobby Shop birch plywood? Here
in
> > the Memphis area at least two of the local "Building Supply" houses have
> > sheets of modeling plywood up to 3/32" in sheets up to 2'x4". Sure looks
> > interesting for gussets, etc.
> Ed,
> I have seen some good looking 1/16 birch plywood in the local model
> shops, too, and it looks fine for rib gussets and other small pieces.
> Cut some up before you use it and make sure you don't have any voids.
> The cost here is about the same as if you ordered it by mail, but it
> sure is nice to have it close at hand.
> Mike List
--
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
Rt. 3 Box 13
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
> Hi Guys:
Yes!! In fact, a few evenings ago, I was sharing Richard DeCosta's Amazing
Floating Pietenpol technology with my lady friend, and she began a long
discussion of the incongruity of using this technology to share how to build a
1920's era wooden airplane. Reminds me of the chinese wish..."May you live in
interesting times".
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Certification / Insurance and plywood |
> Hi David:
I contributed a number of comments to this discussion earlier, and my interest
was in pointing one of our guys away from using luan door skins that, unless carefully
sealed early on, will begin to separate just from ambient moisture in the air.
We
have probably all seen this type of bulge on cheap hollow-core doors---not good
airplane material. The material that I chose is clearly not certified, however,
from my own rather simple bench tests, it is in fact stronger to impact, bending
and
torsional loads than the "certified" stuff, and it costs less and it is available
from
both large importers and from Hobby shops and specialty shops for tool & die makers
in
small sizes.
If you do build a Pietenpol from Quaker Oats boxes, have your next of kin let
us
know how it turns out....he said tongue in cheek.
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sayre, William G" <William.Sayre(at)PSS.Boeing.com> |
>
>Some Gee Wiz Info: Bernard Pietenpol used oatmeal boxes for the leading
>edges
>(upper surface covering) on some of the airplanes he built.
>
Someone should collect these things some day but old time
builders have told me that the top of a 55 gallon drum is THE perfect
material for control horns called out in the plans.
I get concerned about some materials and then remember tidbits
like this and the fact that farm kids were building them successfully in
the 1930s and I realize I'm getting to concerned about it. That's not
to say don't care....if you're going to over think or under think a
part, I'll admit that over thinking is preferable.
Can't wait for the Summer weather!
Bill S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | and for my next project... |
Well guys, (and gals)
I did it. I purchased my next airplane. I enjoyed the piet so much that I
have to have another project. This one is an old Stinson 10A. It is a
basket case, but not damaged. It has spent the last six years in storage
and needs to be rebuilt. It came with a new prop for the Franklin 90hp.
I'll be posting pics on my web site shortly. I hope to be able to restore
it completely and re-engine it with more horsepower. It is a certified
airplane however, which I'm sure will change the way I can do things, but I
am interested in getting my A&P too and I have found that the time spent
rebuilding this plane can count toward my hour requirement. At some point
I may be offering the Franklin for sale, unless it replaces my A-65.. It
would be a great match methinks as it is heavier and more powerful than the
continental.
I also am putting together some info on my laytex experience, and a local
subaru powered piet.
Stay tuned.
Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: and for my next project... |
> Hi Stevee:
Congrats on the new project. Years ago, when I was learning to fly at
Flabob in an old Piper Vagabond, a friend had a Stinson 10A. This was one
beautiful performing airplane. It does everything that a Cessna 150 does
only faster, shorter runway, and at least as good a load and range. I would
be very much interested in any of your information on either / or both of the
paint and subaru subjects. I am going to be using a subaru and am presently
collecting more information than I have been able to understand at this
point. Just trying to see what works best from all the many choices.
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Skinner <jskinner(at)hurstmfg.com> |
| Subject: | Re: and for my next project... |
Steve,
The Franklin 90 Hp engine gives really great performance in a Pietenpol.
The engine runs very smoothly too. I think that is due to better balance
and other such details. The nose on mine is rather long, but that has not
caused any handling problems.
Good luck,
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
I'm making a trade for some Pietenpol plans which should be here in a few
days. ....still not committed (probably should be).
.....have been enjoying sitting here on the side and gathering builder
info from the group, and have recently reserved vacation time to attend
Broadhead.
Bobby
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Roger Hanson <good.news.computers(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Which plane to build? |
A friend of mine turned me on to homebuilt aircraft and the Pietenpol.
I've heard of the GN-1 also. Which one is quicker, easier, cheaper,
better to build?
I've heard there are many existing parts available for the GN-1, making
it quicker and easier to build. Is that true?
Thanks for any feedback.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Gee Wiz Info |
Many of Bernie's fittings were made from empty dope cans! He must have been
the ultimate scrounger.
Sayre, William G wrote:
> >
> >Some Gee Wiz Info: Bernard Pietenpol used oatmeal boxes for the leading
> >edges
> >(upper surface covering) on some of the airplanes he built.
> >
>
> Someone should collect these things some day but old time
> builders have told me that the top of a 55 gallon drum is THE perfect
> material for control horns called out in the plans.
> I get concerned about some materials and then remember tidbits
> like this and the fact that farm kids were building them successfully in
> the 1930s and I realize I'm getting to concerned about it. That's not
> to say don't care....if you're going to over think or under think a
> part, I'll admit that over thinking is preferable.
> Can't wait for the Summer weather!
>
> Bill S.
--
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
Rt. 3 Box 13
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Which plane to build? |
If you want a Pietenpol, build a Pietenpol! All the others are only wana be's.
Roger Hanson wrote:
> A friend of mine turned me on to homebuilt aircraft and the Pietenpol. I've
heard of the GN-1 also. Which one is quicker, easier, cheaper, better to build?
> I've heard there are many existing parts available for the GN-1, making it quicker
and easier to build. Is that true?
> Thanks for any feedback.
>
> Roger
--
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
Rt. 3 Box 13
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: and for my next project... |
Steve, as an old f___, I really enjoyed the first sentence..."I bought a
Stinson 10A". Then my blood turned cold when you mentioned upping the HP.
What you have is a REAL piece of history. If you look in the log books, I'd
bet you'll find a COMBAT history, as many, if not most of the 10a's were used
by the Civil Air Patrol's Coastal Defense during World War II! If you can
imagine this little two-place putter with a bomb slung between the gear,
terrorizing, that's right, TERRORIZING Hitlers' U-Boats without a feeling of
genuine amazement, please sell me the airplane. This piece of history
deserves to be restored in its' original glory, complete with the circle and
triangle on the fuselage.
If you don't know the story, and would be interested in hearing it, I would be
glad to give you references to read.
Ed Woerle
P.S. WWhen asked why he didn't get closer to shore and do more damage along
the East Coast, the Commander of the U-Boat Squadron replied, "Because of
those damned little airplanes!" CAP is credited with sinking several German
submarines.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jkahn(at)picasso.dehavilland.ca (John Kahn) |
| Subject: | Re: Which plane to build? |
The GN-1 has much redundant structure and is needlessly overbuilt and
will come out somewhat heavier than the average Piet. It is designed to
use off the shelf J-3 gear and control sticks. I am not going to build
to the Grega structure, but there are some good ideas in the design and
the plans are really cheap (25 bucks) so I'll probably get a set.
On the plywood issue: Note the fuselage, being a truss, does not depend on
the plywood side skins for strength except were they serve as gussets
close to the joints. The main reason for the plywood skins, as Bernie
points out in the 1932 article, is to prevent splintering of the longerons
in a crash. I will certainly not use door skins for the fuse sides, but
marine grade ply should be fine...
Except for the floor... where the plywood skin *is* part of the structure
... so that will be aircraft grade or close to it.
Anyway... I'm now underway making fittings that I'm cutting down from
a bunch of Starduster Too fittings I aquired many years ago...
John Kahn
Bombardier Inc.
P.S. I had fun visiting Domenic to look at his project this week. Impressive
workmanship Dom!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: and for my next project... |
Ed,
I would be glad for references to the history. I am planning on restoring
the Stinson to original configuration. I don't know much about the history
of this particular airframe however. I do know that it was built in 1940
sn 7710, and could very well be one of the patrol aircraft as it was based
in the east. I don't have the logs before 1958 however. Not only will
this be a restoration project, but a history research project as well. BTW
for the rest of you wondering what a 10A looks like and what it looks like
in CAP colors, check Sport Aviation's HOT LINE column in the Sept 97' issue
p. 5. As for the Franklin, 90 hp for a 1600lb gross airplane just seems a
little weak, and from the stories I have heard at this altitude (4500') it
is marginal. I have yet to really know since there just aren't many still
around. Putting an 0290 in wouldn't change the cowling either.
Stevee (cant afford a new engine now anyway)
On Friday, February 06, 1998 7:34 AM, Ed0248(at)aol.com [SMTP:Ed0248(at)aol.com]
wrote:
> Steve, as an old f___, I really enjoyed the first sentence..."I bought a
> Stinson 10A". Then my blood turned cold when you mentioned upping the
HP.
>
> What you have is a REAL piece of history. If you look in the log books,
I'd
> bet you'll find a COMBAT history, as many, if not most of the 10a's were
used
> by the Civil Air Patrol's Coastal Defense during World War II! If you
can
> imagine this little two-place putter with a bomb slung between the gear,
> terrorizing, that's right, TERRORIZING Hitlers' U-Boats without a feeling
of
> genuine amazement, please sell me the airplane. This piece of history
> deserves to be restored in its' original glory, complete with the circle
and
> triangle on the fuselage.
>
> If you don't know the story, and would be interested in hearing it, I
would be
> glad to give you references to read.
>
>
> Ed Woerle
>
> P.S. WWhen asked why he didn't get closer to shore and do more damage
along
> the East Coast, the Commander of the U-Boat Squadron replied, "Because of
> those damned little airplanes!" CAP is credited with sinking several
German
> submarines.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Beanlands <ken.beanlands(at)west.gecems.com> |
| Subject: | RE: and for my next project... |
On Fri, 6 Feb 1998, Steve Eldredge wrote:
> Ed,
>
> I would be glad for references to the history. I am planning on restoring
> the Stinson to original configuration. I don't know much about the history
> of this particular airframe however. I do know that it was built in 1940
> sn 7710, and could very well be one of the patrol aircraft as it was based
> in the east. I don't have the logs before 1958 however. Not only will
> this be a restoration project, but a history research project as well. BTW
> for the rest of you wondering what a 10A looks like and what it looks like
> in CAP colors, check Sport Aviation's HOT LINE column in the Sept 97' issue
> p. 5. As for the Franklin, 90 hp for a 1600lb gross airplane just seems a
> little weak, and from the stories I have heard at this altitude (4500') it
> is marginal. I have yet to really know since there just aren't many still
> around. Putting an 0290 in wouldn't change the cowling either.
>
> Stevee (cant afford a new engine now anyway)
I have to agree with Ed. Keep it original if you can. A 90 hp engine will
work OK on a 1600 lb plane as one of the Christavias here in Red Deer
frequently flys at that weight with a C-90. Doug Hunt could probably give
you some better details as he has had more first hand experience. Anyway,
Red Deer is close to 3000' if I remember correctly. Besides, who cares if
the allowable gross weight is 1600 lbs. As long as you keep the empty
weight down and can fly at a reasonable gross of 1400 or less, you should
be fine. The high gross weight may have been to accomadate the external
bomb load ad large fuel supply for coastal partol. Obviously, I'm just
guessing here.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Gee Wiz Info |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Gee Wiz Info |
Many of Bernie's fittings were made from empty dope cans! He must have been
the ultimate scrounger.
Sayre, William G wrote:
> >
> >Some Gee Wiz Info: Bernard Pietenpol used oatmeal boxes for the leading
> >edges
> >(upper surface covering) on some of the airplanes he built.
> >
>
> Someone should collect these things some day but old time
> builders have told me that the top of a 55 gallon drum is THE perfect
> material for control horns called out in the plans
This may well be true, but were are you going to find sixty year old
oil drums in good enough shape to supply the material
I suspect that modern drums use thinner and different material.
For the small price to pay in exchange for the piece of mind use new
quality steel. If you look carefully at the plans you will find that
some of the gage sizes used are not standard. by using new 4130 you
would be safe picking the next gage size lighter as Bernie did a fine
job of designing his parts so that none of them are overstressed.
> I get concerned about some materials and then remember tidbits
> like this and the fact that farm kids were building them successfully in
> the 1930s and I realize I'm getting to concerned about it. That's not
> to say don't care....if you're going to over think or under think a
> part, I'll admit that over thinking is preferable.
Ageed but over weight isn't! I'm already bigger that I should be.
Have Fun thinking about it and build safe! J Mc.
> Can't wait for the Summer weather!
>
> Bill S.
--
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
Rt. 3 Box 13
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Domenico Bellissimo <DCSBell(at)netcom.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Which plane to build? |
John Kahn wrote:
>
> The GN-1 has much redundant structure and is needlessly overbuilt and
> will come out somewhat heavier than the average Piet. It is designed to
> use off the shelf J-3 gear and control sticks. I am not going to build
> to the Grega structure, but there are some good ideas in the design and
> the plans are really cheap (25 bucks) so I'll probably get a set.
>
> On the plywood issue: Note the fuselage, being a truss, does not depend on
> the plywood side skins for strength except were they serve as gussets
> close to the joints. The main reason for the plywood skins, as Bernie
> points out in the 1932 article, is to prevent splintering of the longerons
> in a crash. I will certainly not use door skins for the fuse sides, but
> marine grade ply should be fine...
>
> Except for the floor... where the plywood skin *is* part of the structure
> ... so that will be aircraft grade or close to it.
>
> Anyway... I'm now underway making fittings that I'm cutting down from
> a bunch of Starduster Too fittings I aquired many years ago...
>
> John Kahn
> Bombardier Inc.
>
> P.S. I had fun visiting Domenic to look at his project this week. Impressive
> workmanship Dom!
Thanks John, I appreciate that. And will be happy to help you along your
way as much as I can. Once you start building, remember my motto " When
the last little job is complete...the big one will have disappeared". I
don't know where this little saying came from but I had it printed in
fancy hand printing and posted it in my workshop. When I got a little
discouraged by the amount of work I had yet to complete I would glance
at my motto and then carry on.
Good luck Pietenpoller,
Domenic
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Owen Davies <owen(at)davies.mv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Certification / Insurance and plywood |
Among other comments, Warren D. Shoun said:
> The material that I chose is clearly not certified, however,
> from my own rather simple bench tests, it is in fact stronger to impact,
bending and
> torsional loads than the "certified" stuff, and it costs less and it is
available from
> both large importers and from Hobby shops and specialty shops for tool &
die makers in
> small sizes.
Maybe I missed a post that explained this, but just what is it you're
using?
Do you have specs, brand name, or what to ask for? The stuff I've seen
in hobby shops appears to be more or less standard aircraft ply, repackaged
under some hobby marketer's name, and I have no idea what tool and die
makers use. I would have guessed Baltic Birch, but that is notoriously
prone to delamination when in a moist environment.
What importers stock this stuff?
Many thanks.
Owen Davies
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Certification / Insurance and plywood |
Hi Owen:
Me thinks we may be making too much of a good thing here....
Anyway, what I have decided to use is sold as "Ultra thin Finland birch
plywood". The manufacturer certifies it for uniform glue spreading and veneer
thickness. Both faces and interior plys are free of knots and voids.
IT IS NOT CERTIFIED FOR AIRCRAFT USE. However, for example, the aircraft
1/8" stuff is 3 ply and this stuff is 5 ply, and it sells for $2.16 per sq.
foot in 61" X 61" sheets.
The importer I use is that is near where I live.
ANDERSON INTERNATIONAL TRADING
1171 N. Tustin Avenue
Anaheim, Ca. 92807-1736
(714) 666-8183 1-800-454-6270 Fax (714) 666-0709
They also have a web page at : www.aitwood.com which is very
interesting. If you go to the web page, look at the ultra-thin plywood
section as well as the other listings.
You can also buy 1/8" 3 ply Birch Plywood from these folks for as little
as 55 cents to 79 cents per sq. ft.
I may well be "over-engineering" the gusset plates here. As a purely
personal preference, I'm not sure that I want to fly something that is
completely supplied by the low bidder.
Best Regards, Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Owen Davies <owen(at)davies.mv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Certification / Insurance and plywood |
Many thanks for the info. I'll take a look at their Web site.
Good luck with your project.
Owen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | michael list <mclist(at)ptw.com> |
Ed0248(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Has anyone considered the fact that we, almost at the millenium, from all
> facets of life and education, from retirees to space program workers to God-
> knows-what, are using this "futuristic" medium of computer technology sent out
> in the ether, discussing an antique airplane design depending upon rudimentary
> engineering for both designand power?
>
> Fills me with wonder, both at the medium and the project.
Ain't it great!! I love it!! But remember, to quote aerospace jargin,
the Pietenpol is a true "fly by wire" airplane"!
Mike List
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | michael list <mclist(at)ptw.com> |
| Subject: | Re: and for my next project... |
Steve Eldredge wrote:
>
> Well guys, (and gals)
>
> I did it. I purchased my next airplane. I enjoyed the piet so much that I
> have to have another project. This one is an old Stinson 10A. It is a
> basket case, but not damaged. It has spent the last six years in storage
> and needs to be rebuilt. It came with a new prop for the Franklin 90hp.
Way to go, Steve!
You must have one of the most loving wives in the world to let you get
away with that! Nice choice, that Stinson, it is more of a family
airplane. At your pace it should be flying again soon.
Mike List
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sayre, William G" <William.Sayre(at)PSS.Boeing.com> |
| Subject: | Cross wire attachments |
I'm currently in partnership with a friend building two Air
Campers. He's building the wings and tails and I'm building the
fuselages. We've been looking at bracing the center section with either
two rods running forward or the cross cables.
This weekend I made up tabs that go under the bolt heads that
attach the cabane struts to the fuselage and center section and provide
a place to attach the cables. After installing the cables my friend
voiced concern about the tabs introducing shear under the heads of the
bolts so we consulted the plans to see what Bernie had done. We found
(1934 improved plans) that the upper fittings to the one piece wing had
tabs designed into the cabane tabs but at the fuselage he did exactly
what we did (we built three piece wings and the plans didn't have these
tabs).
I'd like to hear opinions about using tabs under the heads at
all four locations. If you have ideas to consider that favor utilizing
the two rods running down to the engine mounts (we don't have tabs there
either) other than to facilitate entry/egress I'd be interested.
Pietenpolingly,
Bill Sayre
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Conway <ConwayW(at)ricks.edu> |
| Subject: | Cross wire attachments -Reply |
Bill, I'm currently rebuilding a wrecked Pietenpol. It crashed on right wing
breaking the spares outboard of struts, taking off the landing gear and
scraping along the bottom. This plane had both the cross wire
attachements and the rods forward to the engine mount. The wing
stayed perfectly in place but the rod on the opposite side bent about two
inches out of alignment, apparently from a twisting force. Although some
would say over kill, I personally favor using both.
I've read elsewhere from some of our experts that the cross wires are
great while adjusting the CG --then removing them and depending upon
the rods forward to the motor mount. I saw all three set ups at
Broadhead. Bill Conway
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Cross wire attachments -Reply |
The cross wires are primarily to adjust the position of the wing for and aft to
adjust for CG position. Once the appropriate wing position is found for neutral
trim, for ease of egress of the front cockpit the struts are placed going from
the upper wing fittings to the upper engine mount fittings. The solid struts are
a better method since cables will stretch over time and the adjusment will
change. If you wish to use both systems so be it. If you raise the height of the
wing keep in mind that the overall geomitry will change and the angles used and
associated forces will change. Get out the calculator and make sure that the
system you use is sufficient and that the attach fittings are OK.
William Conway wrote:
> Bill, I'm currently rebuilding a wrecked Pietenpol. It crashed on right wing
> breaking the spares outboard of struts, taking off the landing gear and
> scraping along the bottom. This plane had both the cross wire
> attachements and the rods forward to the engine mount. The wing
> stayed perfectly in place but the rod on the opposite side bent about two
> inches out of alignment, apparently from a twisting force. Although some
> would say over kill, I personally favor using both.
>
> I've read elsewhere from some of our experts that the cross wires are
> great while adjusting the CG --then removing them and depending upon
> the rods forward to the motor mount. I saw all three set ups at
> Broadhead. Bill Conway
--
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
Rt. 3 Box 13
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jkahn(at)picasso.dehavilland.ca (John Kahn) |
| Subject: | Re: Cross wire attachments -Reply |
Tabs under bolt heads are fine. The tensile and shear
strength of the fittings are far far beyond what what
will be experienced in flight.
You should use fairly stout struts from the forward
cabane to the engine mount, primarily to reduce the
chance of them collapsing under a forward crash impact.
This lets the center section come down on the passenger's
head.
I am not keen on the x bracing fo/aft, because of the
possibility of cutting up your passenger's head in
an accident.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Piet pilot search |
Does anyone have the address for Kim Stickler? He was flying a GN-1 at
Brodhead last year and I think is from MO or IL.
Barry Davis
bed(at)mindspring.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mikek(at)intex.net (Michael King) |
Does anyone know of a web site or
discussion group dedicated the GN-1.
I am in the process of buying one. I joined
the Piet dicussion group and Piet Association,
but can't find alot of info about the GN-1.
I understand it is not a true PIET, but would
like more info anyway.
Does anyone own a GN-1 in the DALLAS-FORT WORTH
area?
Please call me in Dallas at (214) 905-9299 or email
mikek(at)intex.net
Thanks for the help and info.
Mike King
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
ring: 214.905.9299 fax: 214.905-1438
zap: mikek(at)intex.net
web site: www.comedy-wire.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
Michael,
What is a "True" Piet? It seems like each one is different from all the
rest, some more so than others.
This is a good place to be. I own a GN-1 and I know others do too. Just
ask your questions and you will probably get answers.
Ted/APF
>Does anyone know of a web site or
>discussion group dedicated the GN-1.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet pilot search |
>Does anyone have the address for Kim Stickler? He was flying a GN-1
at
>Brodhead last year and I think is from MO or IL.
>
0000,8080,8080Barry- Grant M. has Kim Sticker
listed somewhere in the BPAN
Piet home page w/ phone or address or both where you can send
for Kim's home video of the past few Brodheads. MC
>Barry Davis
>bed(at)mindspring.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mikek(at)intex.net (Michael King) |
Ted,
Thanks for the reply.
It is my understanding that a true PIET is one constructed
from the original Bernard Pietanpole plans using Ford
Model A & T engines then in the early 60's using the
Corvair engine. Variations from those plans and engines
are not considered by puriests to be true PIET.
However, I am looking forward to buying the GN-1which
is located in the Corpus Christi area. I like the looks so
much that I bought the plane without flying it. As a matter
of fact, I have little tailwheel time......just about 10 hours
of aerobatics in a Super Decathalon and a couple of hours
in my brother's 1939 Taylorcraft. The gentleman I am buying
the airplane from just finished restoring it and because of
health reasons has not flown it either, but a friend of ours has
put about 5 hours in it. He loves to fly it......not bad for a well
seasoned CFI who has flown many different types of planes.
Ted, tell me about the flying characteristics of your plane.
Where is it based? What type of transition did you experience
going from a manufactured plane to an experimental?
How does your GN-1 handle? What can you tell me to
look for or be aware of in my first flying experience in a
PIET? By the way, my CFI friend is about 230 pounds
and isn't sure his and my 220 pound frame can fly it
together. My GN-1 has an 80 horse CONT. He is
thinking about an hour or two in the back seat of a CUB
before venturing off by myself.
Information like this is important to me. I want to make sure
I don't do something unwise before flying my plane for the
first time.
Is there a web site or dicussion group dedicated to the GN-1?
Thanks Ted for your help.
Mike King
Dallas
>Michael,
>
>What is a "True" Piet? It seems like each one is different from all the
>rest, some more so than others.
>
>This is a good place to be. I own a GN-1 and I know others do too. Just
>ask your questions and you will probably get answers.
>
>Ted/APF
>
>>Does anyone know of a web site or
>>discussion group dedicated the GN-1.
>
>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
ring: 214.905.9299 fax: 214.905-1438
zap: mikek(at)intex.net
web site: www.comedy-wire.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower(at)informador.com.mx> |
| Subject: | Re: Control pressure |
>After hooking up the elevators on my Piet, I'm concerned about the
>amount of pressure it takes to move the stick. Steve or others, how
>much pressure does it take to move the stick back and forth in your
>plane? Do the control surfaces move easier in the air? As I sit in my
>plane I need a fist on the stick and a pretty good pull to move them.
>Comments???? Bill
>
>
Just one question (for learning porpose only) How much the outside end of
the elevator (trailing edge) "weights" static installed in the horizontal
tail... maybe using a kitchen weight?
Saludos
Gary Gower
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet pilot search |
>Does anyone have the address for Kim Stickler? He was flying a GN-1 at
Brodhead last year and I think is from MO or IL.
Barry- Here is the info: Kim & Tami Stricker, PO Box 104,
Olmsted, IL 62970 AS OF 8/13/96 as posted on the BPAN
for sale page it reads: $10 for VHS tape of Brodhead 96 or send
a blank tape and $3 for return postage and he'll dub it onto your tape.
This is for US postage- check w/ them on any other destination.
As I recall, Kim and Tami have other Brodhead home video from
other years but as with the prices, you may want to contact them
first to see if any of this info has changed. They have a black and
yellow Grega and he flies the daylights out of it when at Brodhead
giving rides.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jkahn(at)picasso.dehavilland.ca (John Kahn) |
| Subject: | Re: Limington Piet |
In wandering through Richard DeCosta's marvelous photo collection, I
came across the series under Limington Piet. It has a dual ignition
head on its Model A and had some kind of dual ignition system with a
couple of distributors of some kind mounted remotely from the engine below
the front windshield. It was hard to tell how it was set up.
Does anybody know details on this airplane and its engine setup?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Skinner <jskinner(at)hurstmfg.com> |
| Subject: | 2000 mile flight |
My pietenpol is in Oregon and I am now in Indiana. I am considering flying
it out this spring or summer. At it's cruise speed it might be spring AND
summer. :) Anyway, I would like to find someone else that might be
interested in joining the flight, perhaps to visit Oshkosh or Brodhead.
Anyone interested?
Any advice on the trip would also be welcome.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
>
>Ted, tell me about the flying characteristics of your plane.
It flies slow. Climbs at 55-60 mph. Cruises at 63 to 68 mph (I like low
2100 rpm). I fly an approach of 65 mph. Any slower and I run out of
elevator at the flare. I would invite others to tell you their numbers.
>Where is it based?
Naples, Florida
> What type of transition did you experience
>going from a manufactured plane to an experimental?
Did lots of taxiing and hi speed taxiing to get use to the tail wheel. Once
in the air it flys like any airplane.
>How does your GN-1 handle?
Very responsive. The funnest flying I have done in 34 years.
> What can you tell me to look for or be aware of in my first flying
experience in a PIET?
It is meant to fly low and slow. It seems to fly in slow motion. Don't
expect more. Just sit there and enjoy every minute of it. Early on I
offered my tower that I was up there to have fun and if they needed me to do
a 360 or anything else to accomodate a faster a/c just ask. That meant that
I got to fly a little longer. Of course, it has worked out just the
opposite. I can slip in tight and quick ahead of anything and be out of
their way quickly. By the way, when I cut the power I have to push the nose
down and dive at the ground to keep up the 65 mph. I just keep aiming at
the ground until I am about 3 feet off and then start the flare. Every
pilot I have taken up has commented that they thought we were going to go
around when I was so high off the end of the runway before the dive.
> By the way, my CFI friend is about 230 pounds
>and isn't sure his and my 220 pound frame can fly it
>together.
Me neither!! Try a cold and windy (straight down the runway) day and you
might get off if you have a long runway. I weigh 180 with cold weather
clothes and have taken up a person who weighed 215. I barely slipped
between a couple of pine trees at the end of a paved 5000' runway.
> My GN-1 has an 80 horse CONT. He is
>thinking about an hour or two in the back seat of a CUB
>before venturing off by myself.
Sounds like a good idea. I understand they fly very similar.
>Is there a web site or dicussion group dedicated to the GN-1?
Other than this one... I don't know about it.
Good luck
Ted Brousseau/APF
nfn00979(at)gator.naples.net
Sunny SW Florida
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: 2000 mile flight |
On Tuesday, February 10, 1998 8:58 PM, Jim Skinner [SMTP:jskinner(at)hurstmfg.com]
wrote:
> My pietenpol is in Oregon and I am now in Indiana. I am considering flying
> it out this spring or summer. At it's cruise speed it might be spring AND
> summer. :) Anyway, I would like to find someone else that might be
> interested in joining the flight, perhaps to visit Oshkosh or Brodhead.
> Anyone interested?
>
> Any advice on the trip would also be welcome.
>
> Jim
Bring a portable cd player with lots of great music and a few sets of extra batteries.
Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Conway <ConwayW(at)ricks.edu> |
I need one A-65 cylinder that has been run out to standard limits that can
be bored out .015. If you have or know of a cylinder, please let me
know. Of course, I'd also be interested in a .015 over cylinder that is in
excellent condition. Bill.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
Can someone email me directly the 800# for that place in Washington
state that has the aircraft plywood? I had it but lost it... It was D
& W Assoc or something...
Web Developer, http://www.autoeurope.com
Homepage: http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Aron(at)hrn.bradley.edu |
| Subject: | Re: Plywood Source, 800 # |
Nevermind, I found it. For anyone else who's interested here it is:
800-222-7853
> >
> >
>
Here is the 800 # again. I found it in my file, but I don't know how
to email it to you directly, so I've posted it here.
John Fay in Peoria
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
| Subject: | Re: Plywood Source, 800 # |
I called them, and as it turns out, in order to get a $40 piece of
1/16 5'x5' plywood from their place in Washington State to Main where
I live will cost me $34 in shipping & packaging costs! That's almost
enough for a 2nd piece! So far, the only other place to get this
stuff I know of is Wicks, but their plywood starts at over $100 for
the same size! Help! Anyone know of anyplace else, possibly near
Maine?
Richard
> Nevermind, I found it. For anyone else who's interested here it is:
> 800-222-7853
>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> Here is the 800 # again. I found it in my file, but I don't know how
> to email it to you directly, so I've posted it here.
>
> John Fay in Peoria
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRoss10612(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Plywood Source, 800 # |
Rich:
Try Harbor Bales Co. Baltimore MD 1-800-345-1712 or fax 410-752-0739 They have
marine and aircraft grade plywood.
Also, Maurice Condon Lumber, 250 Ferris Avenue,White Plains NY 10604 they have
A/C grade plywood and wil probably ship.
Try to get a copy of Fine Woodworking or Wooden Boat magazine, these contain
many vendors of exotic woods. Someone had a source in Boston, but I can't
remember the name. Try any good boat lumber shop, perhaps in the Portland
area. The Owls Head Museum must obtain it locally, perhaps you might call
them.
I know from experience that some builders have excess/left over wood they will
part with for a good deal less than they paid. These pieces are useful for
gussets and other small parts. BTW, it pays to order all of your wood at once
because of high shipping costs.
Hope this helps.
Jon Ross RV-8 fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 2000 mile flight |
>My pietenpol is in Oregon and I am now in Indiana. I am considering flying
>it out this spring or summer. At it's cruise speed it might be spring AND
>summer. :) Anyway, I would like to find someone else that might be
>interested in joining the flight, perhaps to visit Oshkosh or Brodhead.
>Anyone interested?
>
>Any advice on the trip would also be welcome.
>
>
A soft cushion and lots of extra charts (to replace those that fly away).
Practice folding charts like I have seen people do newspapers on subways.
Ted Brousseau/APF
nfn00979(at)gator.naples.net
Sunny SW Florida
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry L. Neal" <llneal(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 2000 mile flight |
Ted,
Better advice than most will realize!
Try the energy absorbing foam (space cushion) stuff. Expensive, but it works.
How's this for a question...
I'll propose that I lash my mountain bike to the left struts and camping gear to
the right. All securely tied up and checked.
Any bets on performance loss (corvair motor) and FAR compliance (baggage)?
Larry (grins on this one!)
Ted Brousseau wrote: >
> A soft cushion and lots of extra charts (to replace those that fly away).
> Practice folding charts like I have seen people do newspapers on subways.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Plywood Source, 800 # |
For those of you on the East Coast, a source for plywood and spruce and other
woods is Condon Lumber in Stormville NY and White Plains NY. I don't have the
number handy but I'll look it up this weekend. You will want to talk to Condon
Bennet one of the owners. He used to be one of my students and flies power,
gliders and seaplanes.
Richard DeCosta wrote:
> I called them, and as it turns out, in order to get a $40 piece of
> 1/16 5'x5' plywood from their place in Washington State to Main where
> I live will cost me $34 in shipping & packaging costs! That's almost
> enough for a 2nd piece! So far, the only other place to get this
> stuff I know of is Wicks, but their plywood starts at over $100 for
> the same size! Help! Anyone know of anyplace else, possibly near
> Maine?
>
> Richard
>
> > Nevermind, I found it. For anyone else who's interested here it is:
> > 800-222-7853
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > Here is the 800 # again. I found it in my file, but I don't know how
> > to email it to you directly, so I've posted it here.
> >
> > John Fay in Peoria
> >
--
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
Rt. 3 Box 13
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Skinner <jskinner(at)hurstmfg.com> |
| Subject: | RE: 2000 mile flight |
I have heard about an airplane with a bike on each side. I think it was
a Cub or similar. Probably not acceptable to the FAA but on a homebuilt
it should be ok. If you try this let us know how it works. Part of the
Flybaby plans are some drawings for a cargo pod that goes underneath the
fuselage. I have never seen one on an airplane though. It is a tube
about 16" in diameter (as I remember) with domed ends. I am not sure if
he said anything about performance changes.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry L. Neal[SMTP:llneal(at)earthlink.net] |
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 11:40 PM
| Subject: | Re: Re: 2000 mile flight |
Ted,
Better advice than most will realize!
Try the energy absorbing foam (space cushion) stuff. Expensive, but it
works.
How's this for a question...
I'll propose that I lash my mountain bike to the left struts and camping
gear to
the right. All securely tied up and checked.
Any bets on performance loss (corvair motor) and FAR compliance
(baggage)?
Larry (grins on this one!)
Ted Brousseau wrote: >
> A soft cushion and lots of extra charts (to replace those that fly
away).
> Practice folding charts like I have seen people do newspapers on
subways.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Skinner <jskinner(at)hurstmfg.com> |
| Subject: | RE: 2000 mile flight |
A soft cushion and lots of extra charts (to replace those that fly
away).
Practice folding charts like I have seen people do newspapers on
subways.
Ted Brousseau/APF
nfn00979(at)gator.naples.net
Sunny SW Florida
Good advice! In my Flybaby I was able to refold them in flight and
never lost one but I was lucky! The trick is to keep them low in the
cockpit while refolding. A portable GPS is also on the list but I don't
want to rely totally on it.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Woodbridge, Gary" <gwoodbridge(at)datatimes.com> |
| Subject: | RE: 2000 mile flight |
With the Piet, wouldn't a Rand McNally be more appropriate?
Gary Woodbridge
Senior Systems Engineer - UMI / OKC
Maule M7-235B - N723M
gwoodbridge(at)datatimes.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: 2000 mile flight |
Rand Mcnally may be your best bet but if you get ramped, the Feds won't
be happy. You might look into AirCharts. It's a bound version of WAC
charts. Granted the WACs don't give all the small airports that you may
want to frequent on the trip but you will get all the legely required
charts for the trip in one bound volume. I use them in the Howard all
the time! I know i'm going a little faster than a Piet but they may be
your best solution.
Woodbridge, Gary wrote:
> With the Piet, wouldn't a Rand McNally be more appropriate?
>
> Gary Woodbridge
> Senior Systems Engineer - UMI / OKC
> Maule M7-235B - N723M
> gwoodbridge(at)datatimes.com
>
> >
--
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
Rt. 3 Box 13
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
For those of you who dont subscribe, you might want to get the
lastest (Feb) Sport Aviation mag. It's got a 5 page article on the
Sky Scout. Very nice.
Richard
-----------------------------
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
Pietenpols, Electronic Music,
Website Design, Stompilation
________________________________________________________________________________
>>
>>Ted, tell me about the flying characteristics of your plane.
>
>It flies slow. Climbs at 55-60 mph. Cruises at 63 to 68 mph (I like low
>2100 rpm). I fly an approach of 65 mph. Any slower and I run out of
>elevator at the flare. I would invite others to tell you their numbers.
>
>>Where is it based?
>
>Naples, Florida
>
>> What type of transition did you experience
>>going from a manufactured plane to an experimental?
>
>Did lots of taxiing and hi speed taxiing to get use to the tail wheel. Once
>in the air it flys like any airplane.
>
>>How does your GN-1 handle?
>
>Very responsive. The funnest flying I have done in 34 years.
>
>> What can you tell me to look for or be aware of in my first flying
>experience in a PIET?
>
>It is meant to fly low and slow. It seems to fly in slow motion. Don't
>expect more. Just sit there and enjoy every minute of it. Early on I
>offered my tower that I was up there to have fun and if they needed me to do
>a 360 or anything else to accomodate a faster a/c just ask. That meant that
>I got to fly a little longer. Of course, it has worked out just the
>opposite. I can slip in tight and quick ahead of anything and be out of
>their way quickly. By the way, when I cut the power I have to push the nose
>down and dive at the ground to keep up the 65 mph. I just keep aiming at
>the ground until I am about 3 feet off and then start the flare. Every
>pilot I have taken up has commented that they thought we were going to go
>around when I was so high off the end of the runway before the dive.
>
>> By the way, my CFI friend is about 230 pounds
>>and isn't sure his and my 220 pound frame can fly it
>>together.
>
>Me neither!! Try a cold and windy (straight down the runway) day and you
>might get off if you have a long runway. I weigh 180 with cold weather
>clothes and have taken up a person who weighed 215. I barely slipped
>between a couple of pine trees at the end of a paved 5000' runway.
>
>> My GN-1 has an 80 horse CONT. He is
>>thinking about an hour or two in the back seat of a CUB
>>before venturing off by myself.
>
>Sounds like a good idea. I understand they fly very similar.
>
>>Is there a web site or dicussion group dedicated to the GN-1?
>
>Other than this one... I don't know about it.
>
>Good luck
>Ted Brousseau/APF
>nfn00979(at)gator.naples.net
>Sunny SW Florida
>
>
Just a note. I attended Brodhead for the first time last year. I hopped a
ride with Kim Stickler in his GN-1 - A-65 powered. Kim weighs "around 240"
and I am "not over 225". It was only about 92 degrees that Saturday. Well
I was really impressed. We got off in about 500-600 feet after a couple of
hops, skipps and jumps. It cruised with reduced power. (Our L-2M
Taylorcraft requires full power to maintain altitude with those conditions.)
You're right about the glide, at pattern altitude, when the power is pulled,
lean out and look straight down to see your landing spot.
All in all, I had so much fun I went out and found a GN-1 project to
complete. Maybe in a couple of years......
Barry Davis
bed(at)mindspring.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
Barry,
I wasn't talkin about how long it takes to get off the ground. I was
talking about how long it takes to clear the 60' trees at the end of the
mile long runway. (grin)
I thought of a couple of hints for a first time Piet pilot. Rule one (never
forget it): Keep it going straight down the runway. You can get away with
almost everything else but not this one.
Rule two (almost as important): Keep the stick back in your chest once you
touch down for the 3 pointer.
Ted Brousseau,
Naples, FL
>Just a note. I attended Brodhead for the first time last year. I hopped a
>ride with Kim Stickler in his GN-1 - A-65 powered. Kim weighs "around 240"
>and I am "not over 225". It was only about 92 degrees that Saturday. Well
>I was really impressed. We got off in about 500-600 feet after a couple of
>hops, skipps and jumps. It cruised with reduced power.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | scherer2(at)airmail.net (Glenn Scherer) |
| Subject: | Model A bearings |
I posted this question in r.a.h in response to a fuss about using
Model A engines in airplanes, but this is probably a better forum. The
only thing about these engines that has really bothered me is the
babbit/antimony/whatever bearings (which I obviously don't really
understand). I have read that these engines can be machined to accept
modern plain bearings. Is this common in the Piet community? If so,
why? If not, why not?
TIA, Glenn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mikek(at)intex.net (Michael King) |
Ted & Barry,
Thanks for the insight and added info as I await my
first flight in a GN-1. I live in Dallas, but have paid
for the plane that is located in Corpus Christi.
Yesterday (Thursday), I called John W. Grega in
Bedford, Ohio. I told him my GN-1 has an 80hp
Cont. He told me the 80hp is really a C-65
bored out with an additional piston ring and a
difference in the valve spring. He also said he
believes a C-65 will out perform an 80hp if it
doesn't have the proper propeller. He said the
C-65 uses a 74" prop while the C-80 takes a
shorter prop. Usually a clipped tip prop that has
been cut back 6-8 inches. I don't know how long
my prop is, but the gentleman I bought it from said
the plane has a metal cruise prop. He recommends
that I might replace that with a power / lift propeller.
Mr. Grega said as far as the weight is concerned,
he doesn't see any problem with a couple of 200
pounders. It will lift just about anything.
Mr. Grega also said he knows a builder in San Diego
who has a GN-1 and performs aerobatics in air shows
in that part of the country. John also said his plans
would allow airplants up to 150 horsepower. GN-1s
using engines over 100 horsepower should be built
using wing ribs with 1/2 inch wide cap strips to handle
the stress.
He is a very approachable, informative, and interesting
person to talk to and at age 83, he has several stories
to tell. What a joy to talk to.
Thanks again guys for the info. I look forward to more
in the future.
Mike King
Dallas
>Barry,
>
>I wasn't talkin about how long it takes to get off the ground. I was
>talking about how long it takes to clear the 60' trees at the end of the
>mile long runway. (grin)
>
>I thought of a couple of hints for a first time Piet pilot. Rule one (never
>forget it): Keep it going straight down the runway. You can get away with
>almost everything else but not this one.
>
>Rule two (almost as important): Keep the stick back in your chest once you
>touch down for the 3 pointer.
>
>Ted Brousseau,
>Naples, FL
>
>
>>Just a note. I attended Brodhead for the first time last year. I hopped a
>>ride with Kim Stickler in his GN-1 - A-65 powered. Kim weighs "around 240"
>>and I am "not over 225". It was only about 92 degrees that Saturday. Well
>>I was really impressed. We got off in about 500-600 feet after a couple of
>>hops, skipps and jumps. It cruised with reduced power.
>
>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
ring: 214.905.9299 fax: 214.905-1438
zap: mikek(at)intex.net
web site: www.comedy-wire.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Model A bearings |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | scherer2(at)airmail.net (Glenn Scherer) |
| Subject: | Model A bearings |
I posted this question in r.a.h in response to a fuss about using
Model A engines in airplanes, but this is probably a better forum. The
only thing about these engines that has really bothered me is the
babbit/antimony/whatever bearings (which I obviously don't really
understand). I have read that these engines can be machined to accept
modern plain bearings. Is this common in the Piet community? If so,
why? If not, why not?
TIA, Glenn
The Ford engines are a good choice. They have a very long rear main
bearing that works very well to carry the gyroscopic loads imposed on
the engine by a propeller. The babbit is not a problem if it is in
good shape, the crank jornals round and the oling system modified to
provide oil flow to the bearings at all times. The Model B engine can
be modified to full pressure oiling and insert bearings. The
crankshaft bearing sizes of a B engine are very close to Continental
bearing demensions. Sort of reassuring! Both of the Ford engines
produce their power at low rpm which is so nice for a direct drive
prop. and besides nothing except perhaps a RR Merlin sounds better!
John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lee L. Schiek" <concrete(at)qtm.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Model A bearings |
McNarry, John wrote:
>
> From: scherer2(at)airmail.net (Glenn Scherer)
> Subject: Model A bearings
> Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
> Organization: We don't need no steenking organization!
>
> I posted this question in r.a.h in response to a fuss about using
> Model A engines in airplanes, but this is probably a better forum. The
> only thing about these engines that has really bothered me is the
> babbit/antimony/whatever bearings (which I obviously don't really
> understand). I have read that these engines can be machined to accept
> modern plain bearings. Is this common in the Piet community? If so,
> why? If not, why not?
>
> TIA, Glenn
>
> The Ford engines are a good choice. They have a very long rear main
> bearing that works very well to carry the gyroscopic loads imposed on
> the engine by a propeller. The babbit is not a problem if it is in
> good shape, the crank jornals round and the oling system modified to
> provide oil flow to the bearings at all times. The Model B engine can
> be modified to full pressure oiling and insert bearings. The
> crankshaft bearing sizes of a B engine are very close to Continental
> bearing demensions. Sort of reassuring! Both of the Ford engines
> produce their power at low rpm which is so nice for a direct drive
> prop. and besides nothing except perhaps a RR Merlin sounds better!
>
> John Mc
Hi John- GOOD question re: "A" bearings! I had the same thoughts over
the past year & dropped a line to Grant at the BPA site. These thoughts
are purely theoretical, as I've done nothing re: "A" power so far:
1) I think poured bearings in the original "A" worked just fine- the main
problem is that back in Bernie's days, EVERYBODY in the engine business
knew how to do it - things are NOT that way today, and finding someone
QUALIFIED to do it is of paramount importance. I think you need to look
for qualified SENIOR CRAFTSMEN to do the job right, and that's kind of
hard in our "parts-is-parts" modern mentality. It might be O.K. if the
engine is connected to a ground-based machine, but I would really like to
think we need something better if the engine is bolted to a prop a couple
of thousand feet in the air.
2) I understand that commonly-available bearing inserts CAN be
retrofitted to the "A" - Grant gave me a couple sources I can look up
if it will help. Dollar-wise, I don't have a clue if it is
cost-effective UNLESS you can't locate good poured-babbitt source.
(Remember, poured material & shell inserts are essentially the SAME
materials - just different procedures).
3) As for me, I plan to further investigate insert-bearing modification
costs for the "A", and thereby eliminate the "unknown" of poured-bearing
quality. Next phase will be looking for a good rebuildable "B" engine,
with the advantages of positive oil pressure, higher HP, etc. etc.
Maybe it's not quite the "purist's approach", but I like to think that
BHP would have done the same thing if faced with current alternatives.
To me, the "B" engine seems to solve many problems without losing the
romance & intent of BHP's original design.
What-Da-Ya-Think?..........
Lee
Stevensville, MI
(Current rib-builder)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | scherer2(at)airmail.net (Glenn Scherer) |
| Subject: | Re: Model A bearings |
>McNarry, John wrote:
>>
>> The Ford engines are a good choice. They have a very long rear main
>> bearing that works very well to carry the gyroscopic loads imposed on
>> the engine by a propeller. The babbit is not a problem if it is in
>> good shape, the crank jornals round and the oling system modified to
>> provide oil flow to the bearings at all times. The Model B engine can
>> be modified to full pressure oiling and insert bearings.
Showing my ignorance here, no doubt, but I don't understand the
reference to "full pressure oiling". How are the babbits lubricated
without this mod?
Glenn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lee L. Schiek" <concrete(at)qtm.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Model A bearings |
Glenn Scherer wrote:
>
>
> >McNarry, John wrote:
> >>
> >> The Ford engines are a good choice. They have a very long rear main
> >> bearing that works very well to carry the gyroscopic loads imposed on
> >> the engine by a propeller. The babbit is not a problem if it is in
> >> good shape, the crank jornals round and the oling system modified to
> >> provide oil flow to the bearings at all times. The Model B engine can
> >> be modified to full pressure oiling and insert bearings.
>
> Showing my ignorance here, no doubt, but I don't understand the
> reference to "full pressure oiling". How are the babbits lubricated
> without this mod?
>
> Glenn
Gravity, drip & splash, which works well for level & horizontal
automobile applications - improvements needed for a/c engine use.
(I THINK........)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Model A bearings |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lee L. Schiek" <concrete(at)qtm.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Model A bearings |
McNarry, John wrote:
>
> From: scherer2(at)airmail.net (Glenn Scherer)
> Subject: Model A bearings
> Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
> Organization: We don't need no steenking organization!
>
> I posted this question in r.a.h in response to a fuss about using
> Model A engines in airplanes, but this is probably a better forum. The
> only thing about these engines that has really bothered me is the
> babbit/antimony/whatever bearings (which I obviously don't really
> understand). I have read that these engines can be machined to accept
> modern plain bearings. Is this common in the Piet community? If so,
> why? If not, why not?
>
> TIA, Glenn
>
> The Ford engines are a good choice. They have a very long rear main
> bearing that works very well to carry the gyroscopic loads imposed on
> the engine by a propeller. The babbit is not a problem if it is in
> good shape, the crank jornals round and the oling system modified to
> provide oil flow to the bearings at all times. The Model B engine can
> be modified to full pressure oiling and insert bearings. The
> crankshaft bearing sizes of a B engine are very close to Continental
> bearing demensions. Sort of reassuring! Both of the Ford engines
> produce their power at low rpm which is so nice for a direct drive
> prop. and besides nothing except perhaps a RR Merlin sounds better!
>
> John Mc
Hi John- GOOD question re: "A" bearings! I had the same thoughts over
the past year & dropped a line to Grant at the BPA site. These thoughts
are purely theoretical, as I've done nothing re: "A" power so far:
1) I think poured bearings in the original "A" worked just fine- the main
problem is that back in Bernie's days, EVERYBODY in the engine business
knew how to do it - things are NOT that way today, and finding someone
QUALIFIED to do it is of paramount importance. I think you need to look
for qualified SENIOR CRAFTSMEN to do the job right, and that's kind of
hard in our "parts-is-parts" modern mentality. It might be O.K. if the
engine is connected to a ground-based machine, but I would really like to
think we need something better if the engine is bolted to a prop a couple
of thousand feet in the air.
2) I understand that commonly-available bearing inserts CAN be
retrofitted to the "A" - Grant gave me a couple sources I can look up
if it will help. Dollar-wise, I don't have a clue if it is
cost-effective UNLESS you can't locate good poured-babbitt source.
(Remember, poured material & shell inserts are essentially the SAME
materials - just different procedures).
3) As for me, I plan to further investigate insert-bearing modification
costs for the "A", and thereby eliminate the "unknown" of poured-bearing
quality. Next phase will be looking for a good rebuildable "B" engine,
with the advantages of positive oil pressure, higher HP, etc. etc.
Maybe it's not quite the "purist's approach", but I like to think that
BHP would have done the same thing if faced with current alternatives.
To me, the "B" engine seems to solve many problems without losing the
romance & intent of BHP's original design.
What-Da-Ya-Think?..........
Lee
Stevensville, MI
(Current rib-builder)
I chose the B because the crank can be drilled without sacrificeing
strength. The horsepower can be pushed up more than double. Search
out the BPA web site articles. The biggest concern with power
increase is the crank/bearings there are still many shops with the
expertise to do a good job of the bearings. The inserts use the same
type of babbit alloy bonded to a copper plating in a steel shell.
This gives superior fatigue resistance. The machining to covert to
inserts will probably cost you as much as a good babbit job! Be sure
to use good new babbit alloy as many repours of old babbit are now
too soft with too much lead in the mix. Check out the Model A ford
club of America for information as to who still pours. Up here in
Canada we still have the equiptment between a few antique nuts!
J Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Model A bearings |
There are plenty of good rebuild shops that can do quality
work on the babbit bearings. Most also offer updating to
inserts and modern oil seals.
Take a look at the rebuild options offered by some of the catalog
places like Snyders, etc. Also there are several good shops
advertising in Hemmings. These days, anyone restoring a model A
is going to pay $1500 for a good rebuild of their engine, and at that
price they are expecting quality work.
As far as finding a "B" engine core to rebuild, I have not heard of
one being available for a long time. They were used up by the hot rodders,
etc. I guess you could get lucky though...
There is a news letter called "The secrets of Speed" that caters
to the performance of A and VB ford engines, you might look at that, and
Snyders sells a lot of hop up parts for the A engine too.
good luck.
bob.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lee L. Schiek <concrete(at)qtm.net>
Date: Friday, February 13, 1998 10:37 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Model A bearings
>McNarry, John wrote:
>>
>> From: scherer2(at)airmail.net (Glenn Scherer)
>> Subject: Model A bearings
>> Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>> Organization: We don't need no steenking organization!
>>
>> I posted this question in r.a.h in response to a fuss about using
>> Model A engines in airplanes, but this is probably a better forum. The
>> only thing about these engines that has really bothered me is the
>> babbit/antimony/whatever bearings (which I obviously don't really
>> understand). I have read that these engines can be machined to accept
>> modern plain bearings. Is this common in the Piet community? If so,
>> why? If not, why not?
>>
>> TIA, Glenn
>>
>> The Ford engines are a good choice. They have a very long rear main
>> bearing that works very well to carry the gyroscopic loads imposed on
>> the engine by a propeller. The babbit is not a problem if it is in
>> good shape, the crank jornals round and the oling system modified to
>> provide oil flow to the bearings at all times. The Model B engine can
>> be modified to full pressure oiling and insert bearings. The
>> crankshaft bearing sizes of a B engine are very close to Continental
>> bearing demensions. Sort of reassuring! Both of the Ford engines
>> produce their power at low rpm which is so nice for a direct drive
>> prop. and besides nothing except perhaps a RR Merlin sounds better!
>>
>> John Mc
>
>Hi John- GOOD question re: "A" bearings! I had the same thoughts over
>the past year & dropped a line to Grant at the BPA site. These thoughts
>are purely theoretical, as I've done nothing re: "A" power so far:
>
>1) I think poured bearings in the original "A" worked just fine- the main
>problem is that back in Bernie's days, EVERYBODY in the engine business
>knew how to do it - things are NOT that way today, and finding someone
>QUALIFIED to do it is of paramount importance. I think you need to look
>for qualified SENIOR CRAFTSMEN to do the job right, and that's kind of
>hard in our "parts-is-parts" modern mentality. It might be O.K. if the
>engine is connected to a ground-based machine, but I would really like to
>think we need something better if the engine is bolted to a prop a couple
>of thousand feet in the air.
>2) I understand that commonly-available bearing inserts CAN be
>retrofitted to the "A" - Grant gave me a couple sources I can look up
>if it will help. Dollar-wise, I don't have a clue if it is
>cost-effective UNLESS you can't locate good poured-babbitt source.
>(Remember, poured material & shell inserts are essentially the SAME
>materials - just different procedures).
>3) As for me, I plan to further investigate insert-bearing modification
>costs for the "A", and thereby eliminate the "unknown" of poured-bearing
>quality. Next phase will be looking for a good rebuildable "B" engine,
>with the advantages of positive oil pressure, higher HP, etc. etc.
>Maybe it's not quite the "purist's approach", but I like to think that
>BHP would have done the same thing if faced with current alternatives.
>To me, the "B" engine seems to solve many problems without losing the
>romance & intent of BHP's original design.
>
>What-Da-Ya-Think?..........
>
>Lee
>Stevensville, MI
>(Current rib-builder)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Hunt <ve6zh(at)cnnet.com> |
http://webhost.acmeinfo.com/pietenpol/
Doug ve6zh(at)cnnet.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New piet site |
Hi Guys:
PIREP: Use caution on this new website. The URL is
correct, and the server is presently having some problems. Andrew
Pietenpol is aware and will most likely solve the problem(s) very
quickly. The sucker crashed my system 3 times and left many fatal fault
notices. Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
Hi Guys:
Does anyone have a resource for the weights of the Corvair engine as
used in a Pietenpol? Thanks, Warren.
P.S.: The Corona, California EAA chapter has started a Pietenpol as
a club project!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin McDonald <kevin.mcdonald(at)dev.tivoli.com> |
| Subject: | WTB: A-65 around Texas/OK/NM/Ark |
Fellow Piet folks:
My mechanic recently did a ring job/valve grind/conrod bearing
job on my A-65 and the engine is much happier now.
However, it was decided that I should start looking for another A-65
core for future use. The main thing I'm looking for is a good crank
that can still be ground or a freshly ground crank that hasn't been
abused. If I find a core I would really need to split the case to
see if there is anything usefull inside...
Anybody have an A-65 around the Texas area?
P.S. This will probably be the subject of a major overhall and
conversion to A-75.
Thanx,
Kevin
1982 Piet
1956 Tri-Pacer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Hunt <ve6zh(at)cnnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair Weight |
My corvair engine weighed218# with cooling fan. dist. 2 carbs fuel pump ,
prop hub,cooling fan shroud short exhaust stacks and no oil. as weighed
with a beam balance scale.(very accurate scale)
A stripped down ford a eninge (motors are electric) i have READ .tip at
about 244 plus rad plus plumbing plus coolant etc. as written by Bernie
himself.
Hope this helps you out.
Doug ve6zh(at)cnnet.com
> From: Warren D. Shoun <wbnb(at)earthlink.net>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Corvair Weight
> Date: Monday, February 16, 1998 10:51 AM
>
> Hi Guys:
>
> Does anyone have a resource for the weights of the Corvair engine as
> used in a Pietenpol? Thanks, Warren.
> P.S.: The Corona, California EAA chapter has started a Pietenpol as
> a club project!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mikek(at)intex.net (Michael King) |
| Subject: | Re: WTB: A-65 around Texas/OK/NM/Ark |
Where are you located in Texas?
Mike
>Fellow Piet folks:
>
>My mechanic recently did a ring job/valve grind/conrod bearing
>job on my A-65 and the engine is much happier now.
>
>However, it was decided that I should start looking for another A-65
>core for future use. The main thing I'm looking for is a good crank
>that can still be ground or a freshly ground crank that hasn't been
>abused. If I find a core I would really need to split the case to
>see if there is anything usefull inside...
>
>Anybody have an A-65 around the Texas area?
>
>P.S. This will probably be the subject of a major overhall and
>conversion to A-75.
>
>Thanx,
>Kevin
>1982 Piet
>1956 Tri-Pacer
>
>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
ring: 214.905.9299 fax: 214.905-1438
zap: mikek(at)intex.net
web site: www.comedy-wire.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair Weight |
Hi Doug:
Thanks for the info on your Corvair weight. It did help. Best Regards,
Warren.
________________________________________________________________________________
To the Piet group,
We're building an air camper and would like to use the heavy duty wheels that
came from a Kawasaki dirt bike. Is it nessessary to have 6 inch hubs when
using a straight axel? If we have to go through the trouble of making hubs
and re lacing the rims I think we'll go the other route.
Thanks
mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
Hi Mike:
Be prepared for a great number of "opinions" on this issue.
I went the same route that you are going, and upgraded the spokes to 9 gauge
stainless steel. Each spoke will pull almost 1000 pounds. I have been assured
that the hub will fail on the axle before the spokes do. One big issue is
staggered or "X" spokes to absorb the braking action. Become familiar with the
cross-section of each size spoke. You can double the cross section with a rather
small increase in diameter on the area=pie(r2). Good Luck. Lean more on factual
information than "opinion". Warren.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
________________________________________________________________________________
To the Piet group,
We're building an air camper and would like to use the heavy duty wheels that
came from a Kawasaki dirt bike. Is it nessessary to have 6 inch hubs when
using a straight axel? If we have to go through the trouble of making hubs
and re lacing the rims I think we'll go the other route.
Thanks
mike
If you can be sure you will never touch down it anny other flight
attitude than straight ahead then you don't need to widen the hubs.
Even the rough riding a dirt bike can impose on the wheels is loading
the spokes at nearly 90 degrees to the axle. Personally I really like
the look of the the tall wheels.
John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
On Thursday, February 12, 1998 7:35 PM, Barry Davis [SMTP:bed(at)atl.mindspring.com]
wrote:
> >>
> >>Ted, tell me about the flying characteristics of your plane.
> >
> >It flies slow. Climbs at 55-60 mph. Cruises at 63 to 68 mph (I like low
> >2100 rpm). I fly an approach of 65 mph. Any slower and I run out of
> >elevator at the flare. I would invite others to tell you their numbers.
> >
>
The piet is the only aircraft I know of where the approach speed is faster than
the cruise.
Stevee :)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mikek(at)intex.net (Michael King) |
When you say the PIET is the only plane where
the approach speed is faster than its cruise speed,
are you talking about the true Pietenpol or a 80 hp
Cont. in a GN-1?
thanks.........
Mike
Dallas
>
>
>On Thursday, February 12, 1998 7:35 PM, Barry Davis
[SMTP:bed(at)atl.mindspring.com] wrote:
>> >>
>> >>Ted, tell me about the flying characteristics of your plane.
>> >
>> >It flies slow. Climbs at 55-60 mph. Cruises at 63 to 68 mph (I like low
>> >2100 rpm). I fly an approach of 65 mph. Any slower and I run out of
>> >elevator at the flare. I would invite others to tell you their numbers.
>> >
>>
>The piet is the only aircraft I know of where the approach speed is faster
than the cruise.
>
>Stevee :)
>
>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
ring: 214.905.9299 fax: 214.905-1438
zap: mikek(at)intex.net
web site: www.comedy-wire.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Cruise and Approach speeds RE: was GN-1 |
:
> When you say the PIET is the only plane where
> the approach speed is faster than its cruise speed,
> are you talking about the true Pietenpol or a 80 hp
> Cont. in a GN-1?
>
> thanks.........
>
> Mike
> Dallas
>
Well that depend fully upon weather you crouch down in the cockpit during
final and/or keep your elbows out in the wind during cruise.
Sorry, I digress
This plane is too much fun to get too serious about!
Mine is back in the garage after 10 hours of flying. I came up with a
short list of about 18 things that I found needed to be done before more
flights. It also gives me something to tinker on during the late winter
this year. I went flying 5-6 days in January, so far Feb has been poor
weather for flying.
Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mikek(at)intex.net (Michael King) |
| Subject: | Re: Cruise and Approach speeds RE: was GN-1 |
Steve,
Tell me about your plane. It is a PIET or a GN-1?
Also, where do you keep it? Here in Dallas we have
had a few good days this month.
I just bought GN-1 and have never flown it. Tell me
about the handling qualities of plane.
Thanks.......
Mike
>
>:
>> When you say the PIET is the only plane where
>> the approach speed is faster than its cruise speed,
>> are you talking about the true Pietenpol or a 80 hp
>> Cont. in a GN-1?
>>
>> thanks.........
>>
>> Mike
>> Dallas
>>
>
>Well that depend fully upon weather you crouch down in the cockpit during
>final and/or keep your elbows out in the wind during cruise.
>
>Sorry, I digress
>
>This plane is too much fun to get too serious about!
>
>Mine is back in the garage after 10 hours of flying. I came up with a
>short list of about 18 things that I found needed to be done before more
>flights. It also gives me something to tinker on during the late winter
>this year. I went flying 5-6 days in January, so far Feb has been poor
>weather for flying.
>
>Stevee
>
>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
ring: 214.905.9299 fax: 214.905-1438
zap: mikek(at)intex.net
web site: www.comedy-wire.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cruise and Approach speeds RE: was GN-1 |
Steve is absolutely right. I use to do my approaches with my elbows out and
couldn't figure out why I ran out of elevator - even with power on. Then,
one day it was cold (around 70) and I was in a tee shirt. I flew with my
elbows tucked inside the cockpit. Viola!! A beautiful landing. Those
elbows really affect the performance a lot more than you might imagine.
But, when you want to sneak up behind a hawk keep them out.
Ted Brousseau
GN1/65
Naples Florida
>
>
>Well that depend fully upon weather you crouch down in the cockpit during
>final and/or keep your elbows out in the wind during cruise.
>
>Sorry, I digress
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cruise and Approach speeds RE: was GN-1 |
Hi Ted.
It seems you survived the storm OK, and I hope your
airplanes did so as well.
Pietenpols do indeed have some interesting characteristics
due to the fact that the horizontal tail area is bordering on
the too-small side---and about half of that is movable. All
four different Piets I have flown over the years seem to have
neutral stability in pitch coupled with very effective elevators.
On mine I have a center section flap for easier entry/egress
and it is held in trail position by a pair of spring clips. When
in flight, one can make the nose pitch down rather abruptly
by merely lifting the trailing edge an inch or so. Likely this
disturbs airflow over the horizontal tail, reducing the down
load on it and causing the nose to pitch down. At least that's
my theory.
Perhaps your elbows out in the slipstream are doing the same
thing, even to the point of rendering the elevators less effec-
tive. I have never tried landing mine, or any other with my elbows
out, so don't know if I would experience the same phenomenon.
I do know that, in cruise, elbows in the breeze have no noticeable
effect---probably due to a faster slipstream in cruise as compared
to that when landing.
One could, I suppose, increase the tail area (both horizontal and
vertical) to achieve better stability in pitch and yaw, but not to the
extent seen on a Piper PA15/17 Vagabond. However, this is not
really necessary and the design is fine as is.
As someone pointed out recently, the old Piet does have a steep
power-off approach due to its high drag. But the ones I have flown
have a reasonable approach angle if a touch of power is used, and
about 60 to 65 mph is maintained (the 65 hp ones cruised about
75 to 80 mph. and my 85 hp a/c cruises close to 85 mph, depending
on the propeller used). One can practically dive at the runway at the
cruising speed without floating very far before touching down; speed
decays rapidly after the flair. Almost as good as having dive brakes!
Anyway, glad to see you are still alive.
Graham
> From: Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: Cruise and Approach speeds RE: was GN-1
> Date: Wednesday, February 18, 1998 8:10 PM
>
> Steve is absolutely right. I use to do my approaches with my elbows out
and
> couldn't figure out why I ran out of elevator - even with power on.
Then,
> one day it was cold (around 70) and I was in a tee shirt. I flew with my
> elbows tucked inside the cockpit. Viola!! A beautiful landing. Those
> elbows really affect the performance a lot more than you might imagine.
> But, when you want to sneak up behind a hawk keep them out.
>
> Ted Brousseau
> GN1/65
> Naples Florida
>
> >
> >
> >Well that depend fully upon weather you crouch down in the cockpit
during
> >final and/or keep your elbows out in the wind during cruise.
> >
> >Sorry, I digress
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Wright <jgw(at)skynet.be> |
| Subject: | Re: Cruise and Approach speeds |
This just proves what a "high performance" plan the Piet is! I've heard of
"speed brakes" on jet fighters before...works for me!
Jim Wright
jgw(at)skynet.be
-----Original Message-----
>From: Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net>
Date: Thursday, February 19, 1998 05:10
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Cruise and Approach speeds RE: was GN-1
>Steve is absolutely right. I use to do my approaches with my elbows out
and
>couldn't figure out why I ran out of elevator - even with power on. Then,
>one day it was cold (around 70) and I was in a tee shirt. I flew with my
>elbows tucked inside the cockpit. Viola!! A beautiful landing. Those
>elbows really affect the performance a lot more than you might imagine.
>But, when you want to sneak up behind a hawk keep them out.
>
>Ted Brousseau
>GN1/65
>Naples Florida
>
>>
>>
>>Well that depend fully upon weather you crouch down in the cockpit during
>>final and/or keep your elbows out in the wind during cruise.
>>
>>Sorry, I digress
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Cruise and Approach speeds RE: was GN-1 |
I built Bernies piet from Hoopman plans. Short fuse, a-65. It was built
in a one car garage here in Provo Utah. Weather has been pretty mild. I
can comfortably fly as low as 45 degrees F. I don't have any experience
with the GN-1, other than talking to Grega once on the phone and studying
his plans. As others mentioned mine also is pitch sensitive and neutral.
Ailerons are responsive. I have a full length piano hinge on my ailerons,
no gap seals so far on the tail. Take off is brisk and I climb steeply at
55mph. Climb rate is about 400 fpm at 4500' Cant wait to see what it will
do at sea level. (wonder if I will ever find out, given the slow cruise
speed) All in all: Inexpensive, antique, open cockpit fun flying
airplane.
Stevee
On Wednesday, February 18, 1998 9:18 AM, Michael King
[SMTP:mikek(at)intex.net] wrote:
> Steve,
>
> Tell me about your plane. It is a PIET or a GN-1?
> Also, where do you keep it? Here in Dallas we have
> had a few good days this month.
>
> I just bought GN-1 and have never flown it. Tell me
> about the handling qualities of plane.
>
> Thanks.......
>
> Mike
>
>
> >
> >:
> >> When you say the PIET is the only plane where
> >> the approach speed is faster than its cruise speed,
> >> are you talking about the true Pietenpol or a 80 hp
> >> Cont. in a GN-1?
> >>
> >> thanks.........
> >>
> >> Mike
> >> Dallas
> >>
> >
> >Well that depend fully upon weather you crouch down in the cockpit
during
> >final and/or keep your elbows out in the wind during cruise.
> >
> >Sorry, I digress
> >
> >This plane is too much fun to get too serious about!
> >
> >Mine is back in the garage after 10 hours of flying. I came up with a
> >short list of about 18 things that I found needed to be done before more
> >flights. It also gives me something to tinker on during the late winter
> >this year. I went flying 5-6 days in January, so far Feb has been poor
> >weather for flying.
> >
> >Stevee
> >
> >
> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> Mike King THE COMEDY WIRE Dallas, Tx.
> ring: 214.905.9299 fax: 214.905-1438
>
> zap: mikek(at)intex.net
> web site: www.comedy-wire.com
> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
| Subject: | RE: Cruise and Approach speeds RE: was GN-1 |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Cruise and Approach speeds RE: was GN-1 |
I built Bernies piet from Hoopman plans. Short fuse, a-65. It was built
in a one car garage here in Provo Utah. Weather has been pretty mild. I
can comfortably fly as low as 45 degrees F. I don't have any experience
with the GN-1, other than talking to Grega once on the phone and studying
his plans. As others mentioned mine also is pitch sensitive and neutral.
Ailerons are responsive. I have a full length piano hinge on my ailerons,
no gap seals so far on the tail. Take off is brisk and I climb steeply at
55mph. Climb rate is about 400 fpm at 4500' Cant wait to see what it will
do at sea level. (wonder if I will ever find out, given the slow cruise
speed) All in all: Inexpensive, antique, open cockpit fun flying
airplane.
Stevee
Stevee: You mentioned that the ailerons are responsive with the the
piano hinge. Does it have much adverse yaw? I have a GN-1 that was
started before I knew better. Most of what I've built lately has been
a blend of Bernie's and Gregas Ideas. I sure don't like the GN
aileron hinge and have been considering other hinge designs. Once the
aileron portion is cut from the ribs that's it! I don't want to
build a second set. One more question what are your W/B #s and what
did you use as a datum?
John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Cruise and Approach speeds RE: was GN-1 |
>
> Stevee: You mentioned that the ailerons are responsive with the the
> piano hinge. Does it have much adverse yaw? I have a GN-1 that was
> started before I knew better. Most of what I've built lately has been
> a blend of Bernie's and Gregas Ideas. I sure don't like the GN
> aileron hinge and have been considering other hinge designs. Once the
> aileron portion is cut from the ribs that's it! I don't want to
> build a second set. One more question what are your W/B #s and what
> did you use as a datum?
>
> John Mc
>
>
The aircamper is definately a rudder airplane. You need rudder to be
coordinated. Somehow Friese (sp) type ailerons on this airplane just
wouldn't fit the era, but that said you won't notice a great deal more
adverse yaw than in a spam can. Maybe because your going slower I dunno.
From what I have read closing the gap on the aileron is the important
thing so that your not leaking air from the bottom surface causing sluggish
roll contol. I hinged my ailerons from the top surface. If I were to do
it again I would move the hinge line down an inch or so. It allows for
easier construction and bolt access. Somebody's plans show it that way.
On W/B.
I used the wing le as the datum although it doesn't matter what you use.
My gear axles are about .5 inches behind the le. I moved my wing back
5.75 inches from vertical to offset the light continental weight is 626lbs
and cg is 19.5 inches from the LE with my larger than wanted butt ballast
in the rear cockpit.
Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cruise and Approach speeds RE: was GN-1 |
Graham,
Yes I survived the storms. It seems El Nino is kicking them up about once a
week. I haven't got a hangar yet. Didn't think it would be a problem
during the winter, since we seldom get rain in the winter - until this year.
Hail and tornados have been forecast with each storm. We have been missed
by about 15 miles to the south and north. I am keeping my fingers crossed
that I get through this and get a hangar soon.
I went flying yesterday and watched a beautiful sunset. I misspoke. I only
fly with my left elbow out. I keep my stick holding elbow inside. So,
maybe it is the offsetting drag that is affecting the landings.
The pitot cover stuck yesterday and I didn't have any airspeed indicated.
No problem until the landing. Brought it in at what I thought was an ok
speed. Knew I was in trouble when I flared at 1 foot. I ran out of
elevator and just hung on hoping for the best. Darn if it wasn't the best 3
point landing I have ever made. It just plopped down and didn't bounce and
inch. Couldn't believe it. Too close to the edge though. I think I'll not
try for "perfect" 3 point landings in the piet again. I agree with you,
keep a little power on until you flare.
Keep warm,
Ted
>Hi Ted.
>
>It seems you survived the storm OK, and I hope your
>airplanes did so as well.
>
>Pietenpols do indeed have some interesting characteristics
>due to the fact that the horizontal tail area is bordering on
>the too-small side---and about half of that is movable. All
>four different Piets I have flown over the years seem to have
>neutral stability in pitch coupled with very effective elevators.
>On mine I have a center section flap for easier entry/egress
>and it is held in trail position by a pair of spring clips. When
>in flight, one can make the nose pitch down rather abruptly
>by merely lifting the trailing edge an inch or so. Likely this
>disturbs airflow over the horizontal tail, reducing the down
>load on it and causing the nose to pitch down. At least that's
>my theory.
>
>Perhaps your elbows out in the slipstream are doing the same
>thing, even to the point of rendering the elevators less effec-
>tive. I have never tried landing mine, or any other with my elbows
>out, so don't know if I would experience the same phenomenon.
>I do know that, in cruise, elbows in the breeze have no noticeable
>effect---probably due to a faster slipstream in cruise as compared
>to that when landing.
>
>One could, I suppose, increase the tail area (both horizontal and
>vertical) to achieve better stability in pitch and yaw, but not to the
>extent seen on a Piper PA15/17 Vagabond. However, this is not
>really necessary and the design is fine as is.
>
>As someone pointed out recently, the old Piet does have a steep
>power-off approach due to its high drag. But the ones I have flown
>have a reasonable approach angle if a touch of power is used, and
>about 60 to 65 mph is maintained (the 65 hp ones cruised about
>75 to 80 mph. and my 85 hp a/c cruises close to 85 mph, depending
>on the propeller used). One can practically dive at the runway at the
>cruising speed without floating very far before touching down; speed
>decays rapidly after the flair. Almost as good as having dive brakes!
>
>Anyway, glad to see you are still alive.
>
>Graham
>
>----------
>> From: Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net>
>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> Subject: Re: Cruise and Approach speeds RE: was GN-1
>> Date: Wednesday, February 18, 1998 8:10 PM
>>
>> Steve is absolutely right. I use to do my approaches with my elbows out
>and
>> couldn't figure out why I ran out of elevator - even with power on.
>Then,
>> one day it was cold (around 70) and I was in a tee shirt. I flew with my
>> elbows tucked inside the cockpit. Viola!! A beautiful landing. Those
>> elbows really affect the performance a lot more than you might imagine.
>> But, when you want to sneak up behind a hawk keep them out.
>>
>> Ted Brousseau
>> GN1/65
>> Naples Florida
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Well that depend fully upon weather you crouch down in the cockpit
>during
>> >final and/or keep your elbows out in the wind during cruise.
>> >
>> >Sorry, I digress
>> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Cruise and Approach speeds RE: was GN-1 |
On Thursday, February 19, 1998 9:09 PM, Ted Brousseau
[SMTP:nfn00979(at)naples.net] wrote:
>
> The pitot cover stuck yesterday and I didn't have any airspeed indicated.
> No problem until the landing. Brought it in at what I thought was an ok
> speed. Knew I was in trouble when I flared at 1 foot. I ran out of
> elevator and just hung on hoping for the best. Darn if it wasn't the
best 3
> point landing I have ever made. It just plopped down and didn't bounce
and
> inch. Couldn't believe it. Too close to the edge though. I think I'll
not
> try for "perfect" 3 point landings in the piet again. I agree with you,
> keep a little power on until you flare.
>
> Keep warm,
>
> Ted
>
Ted, with the exception of having the pitot cover stuck, you describe
exactly what my TW instructor tells me every landing. If I don't full
stall within 1 foot and "arrive" with a firm bump on all three, I get a
whack from the back seat. I have only about 30 TW landings so far, so I
still don't get it quite right, but I know when I do. Not quite sure what
you mean by "too close to the edge" You would have made my 18000 hour
old-salt taid dragger instructor crack a grin. "by gum I think he's got
it..." BTW I too keep a little power on during the approach to flatten the
glide, that too would earn a swat from the back however in the super cub I
trained in. Non of this Cessna-driver-keep-it-at-1500-rpm for him boy no
sirreee. Now I get the back seat. Oh yeah!
Steve (first time I've really enjoyed back seat drivers) Eldredge
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
I have been looking forever for one with no luck... Has anyone on the
list come across a Pietnepol for MS Flight Sim? I dont really have
the time to learn flight shop to make one (too busy making the real
thing! :)
Richard
Web Developer, http://www.autoeurope.com
Homepage: http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
I would like to have one too. Go ahead and make one.
>I have been looking forever for one with no luck... Has anyone on the
>list come across a Pietnepol for MS Flight Sim? I dont really have
>the time to learn flight shop to make one (too busy making the real
>thing! :)
>
>Richard
>----------------------------------------
>Web Developer, http://www.autoeurope.com
>Homepage: http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
>
>
jimsury(at)fbtc.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
Ok, I'll make one, with one condition: Everyone on the list pass the
collection plate and send me a 5 minutes of their spare time... :)
> I would like to have one too. Go ahead and make one.
>
>
>
> >I have been looking forever for one with no luck... Has anyone on the
> >list come across a Pietnepol for MS Flight Sim? I dont really have
> >the time to learn flight shop to make one (too busy making the real
> >thing! :)
> >
> >Richard
> >----------------------------------------
> >Web Developer, http://www.autoeurope.com
> >Homepage: http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
> >
> >
> jimsury(at)fbtc.net
>
>
Web Developer, http://www.autoeurope.com
Homepage: http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Skinner <jskinner(at)hurstmfg.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Cruise and Approach speeds RE: was GN-1 |
I seem to make the best landings when I get full aft stick at the time
of flare. It also should give the shortest roll out - good for short
grass fields. If you need a little more speed to flare then just put
the nose down a little in the glide. The idea of carrying power when
landing has never made sense to me. What if you have an engine out on
approach? No choice but to land short! I don't think the piet has a
high sink rate. It doesn't float like some tail draggers do, but I have
flown some that sink a LOT faster. But isn't the idea to lose altitude?
One the other hand, if you are in a power off glide and need to
increase sink a little to adjust the glide then slip it a little; it
slips very nicely. (THAT will probably get some comments!)
Perhaps I have a bias from doing most of my flying in and around the
mountians of western Oregon and Washington. I flew for several years
from a one ended strip with trees at one end (the approach end and
departure end) and a hill at the other. Where I live now I could glide
for 50 miles in the approach with out a problem.
Just my two cents!
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Eldredge[SMTP:steve(at)byu.edu] |
Sent: Friday, February 20, 1998 9:18 AM
| Subject: | RE: Cruise and Approach speeds RE: was GN-1 |
On Thursday, February 19, 1998 9:09 PM, Ted Brousseau
[SMTP:nfn00979(at)naples.net] wrote:
>
> The pitot cover stuck yesterday and I didn't have any airspeed
indicated.
> No problem until the landing. Brought it in at what I thought was an
ok
> speed. Knew I was in trouble when I flared at 1 foot. I ran out of
> elevator and just hung on hoping for the best. Darn if it wasn't the
best 3
> point landing I have ever made. It just plopped down and didn't
bounce
and
> inch. Couldn't believe it. Too close to the edge though. I think
I'll
not
> try for "perfect" 3 point landings in the piet again. I agree with
you,
> keep a little power on until you flare.
>
> Keep warm,
>
> Ted
>
Ted, with the exception of having the pitot cover stuck, you describe
exactly what my TW instructor tells me every landing. If I don't full
stall within 1 foot and "arrive" with a firm bump on all three, I get a
whack from the back seat. I have only about 30 TW landings so far, so I
still don't get it quite right, but I know when I do. Not quite sure
what
you mean by "too close to the edge" You would have made my 18000 hour
old-salt taid dragger instructor crack a grin. "by gum I think he's got
it..." BTW I too keep a little power on during the approach to flatten
the
glide, that too would earn a swat from the back however in the super cub
I
trained in. Non of this Cessna-driver-keep-it-at-1500-rpm for him boy
no
sirreee. Now I get the back seat. Oh yeah!
Steve (first time I've really enjoyed back seat drivers) Eldredge
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TLC62770(at)aol.com |
I'm so jeaulous . I CAN'T WAIT TIL I CAN FLY . MY FRIEND AND I ARRE BUILDING
A PIET WITH A CORVAIR 110HP . WE HOPE TO HAVE IT DONE IN 2 MORE YRS. THEN WE
WILL BUILD ONE FOR ME . THERE ARE SEVERAL PIETS BEENING BUILT AROUND HERE .
IAM GOING TO GET A REC LICENSE .
WE HAD TO STOP WORKING ON THE PLANE TO MODIFY THE SHOP . IT IS NOW HEATED AND
THERE IS ELECTICITY IN IT . WE DON'T HAVE TO DRAG CORDS AROUND ANYMORE . WE
FINISHED THE SHOP LAST WEEK SO NOW HERE WE GO AGAIN . TERRY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
I was just wondering what size tubing should be use for the pitot tube. I
was thinking of using stainless 1/4 inch tubing. Is this big enough. Should
I run two lines or is the static tube in the cockpit sufficient. Should
the tube be located in the leading edge or on the strut. I have seen them
in both locations. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
jas
jimsury(at)fbtc.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TLC62770(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: pitot tube size |
THIS IS SOMETHING I HAVE WONDERED ABOUT ALSO WE AREN'T TO THAT POINT YET BUT
WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT IT REAL SOON . HOW FAR ALONG ARE YOU ON YOUR PROJECT ?
WE ARE JUST STARTING THE AIR FRAME . WE HAVE SEVERAL RIBS MADE NOW , BUT AM
THINKING WE BETTER GET THE STARTED ON THE BIG THINGS FIRST . WE ARE ALSO
STARTING WORK ON THE CORVAIR ENGINE WHEN WE GET STUCK ON OTHER ITEMS . WE ARE
DOING A COMPLETE OVER HAUL ON THE ENGINE . THE CRANK IS IN GREAT SHAPE , THE
BLOCK IS ALSO . WE ARE GOING TO USE NEW CYLINDERS , PISTONS , VALVES , SPRINGS
, RODS . THE CAM SHAFT IS NEW AND IS A LITTLE MORE DURATION THEN THE STOCK
CAM GOT TO GO FOR NOW .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: pitot tube size |
As I remember my high school physics, (and a little cheating by looking at a
Cesna 120) 1/4 inch aluminum tubing should work well for your pitot tube.
Only one line is required, as there is no return path to the pick-up. As for
location, it should be placed to keep the inlet out of turbulent air, either
on the strut or beneath the wing. Just make sure that there are (1) no sharp
bends, (2) is paralell to the airstream in normal flight configuration, and
(3) covered when not in use. The bugs make effective air dams in the lines,
and dam is the mildest word you will use!
For the "useless information" file: Pitot ain't really a word. The
scientific term for ram air pressure is P (sub)tot, standing for Pressure
total. Pronounced "Ptot", you now have a fancy word. The airspeed indicator
is just a calibrated gauge to measure that ram pressure, or ptot pressure.
Gee-whiz, huh?
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Cruise and Approach speeds RE: was GN-1 |
>
>
> Not quite sure what
>you mean by "too close to the edge"
Steve,
Let me try to explain. In my Cessna 140 I decrease power, lift the nose and
slow down. That results in an approach angle of, lets say 20 degrees. I
keep that approach until I am a foot off the ground and then gently pull
back on the wheel and bleed off speed trying to keep the same distance off
the runway until I run out of elevator and start "gently" sinking to the
runway in a 3 point stance.
In the Piet, I decrease power, push the nose down and try to keep the speed
up to 65. I feel like a dive bomber. This results in an approach angle of,
lets say 45 degrees. When 1 foot off the runway I quickly pull back on the
stick to keep from digging a hole in the runway. I feel like I am "too
close to the edge" because I have used up all the elevator and the Piet is
still aimed at the runway. I would rather be "gently" sinking or have some
"spare" elevator. So, I guess it is the feeling for the need for the spare
elevator that makes me feel like I am at the edge of not being in control.
In fact, when you stall to land you are no longer in control. In a gently
sinking plane it doesn't bother me to turn that control over to the plane,
but in a "dive bomber" I guess I am less willing to turn it over...
I hope those words convey my feelings. Perhaps our Piet is rigged wrong and
this sinking feeling can be fixed?
Mind you, I am not complaining. I have never had so much fun in my 34 years
of flying as I am having in the Piet. Just a challenge.
Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TLC62770(at)aol.com |
THANKS ED, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE COVER IS SOMETHNG I WILL HAVE TO PLAY WITH .
THIS IS MY FIRST ATTEMPT AT BUILDING A PLANE THAT FLYS.
I AM GETTING A WHOLE NEW EDUCATION . AND HAVING FUN BESIDES.
________________________________________________________________________________
Just pick up a pitot tube cover or a 'flip-up' cover at our nearest airplane
parts store. Sometimes the flip-up is best, because it stays on the airplane.
I have trouble getting my son to replace the removable cover after he's
finished flying. It is a pain to disassemble the pitot line and flush it out.
I've found dirt daubers as far as six feet into the pitot line, and had to
have an airspeed indicator overhauled because of debris. I gotta admit,
though, I've forgotten the cover myself a time or two.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Elevator thoughts |
Ted- You mentioned feeling like you might be running out of
elevator control in the flare. A few things came to mind......
I was wondering what your empty weight might be, what distance
of elevator 'up' throw you have above neutral, and if you've
ever calibrated your airspeed indicator by flying back and forth
over some cross roads of a known distance w/ a stopwatch.
When we had the 7AC Champ we found our airspeed was off
and we were flying our approaches too slow. My partner/mechanic
and all-round great guy Joe Tomasic put a small rubber grommet
over the static line in front of those tiny holes. We kept moving
that grommet around slightly until the airspeed at cruise and
approach was just as good as we could get it and things made
more sense. One last thing: do you know what your CG is for
your most common loadings when flying ? All the best, Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mikek(at)intex.net (Michael King) |
| Subject: | STARTER for GN-1 |
Can a starter can be installed for a GN-1
with a Continental 80. If so, what is the
procedure for installation.
Also, has anyone done a full stall series in
a GN-1. What were the numbers?
Just bought a GN-1 and have not yet flown
it. Don't like surprises.
Thanks gang.
Mike King
Dallas
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
ring: 214.905.9299 fax: 214.905-1438
zap: mikek(at)intex.net
web site: http://www.comedy-wire.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: pitot tube size |
Thanks for the information. Didn't know Ptot ain't a word. Now I do. As
for the size 1/4 in. tubing will work just fine. I guess I could have
cheated and looked too but didn't have anything close at hand to look at.
>As I remember my high school physics, (and a little cheating by looking at a
>Cesna 120) 1/4 inch aluminum tubing should work well for your pitot tube.
>Only one line is required, as there is no return path to the pick-up. As for
>location, it should be placed to keep the inlet out of turbulent air, either
>on the strut or beneath the wing. Just make sure that there are (1) no sharp
>bends, (2) is paralell to the airstream in normal flight configuration, and
>(3) covered when not in use. The bugs make effective air dams in the lines,
>and dam is the mildest word you will use!
>
>For the "useless information" file: Pitot ain't really a word. The
>scientific term for ram air pressure is P (sub)tot, standing for Pressure
>total. Pronounced "Ptot", you now have a fancy word. The airspeed indicator
>is just a calibrated gauge to measure that ram pressure, or ptot pressure.
>Gee-whiz, huh?
>
>Ed
>
>
jimsury(at)fbtc.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: STARTER for GN-1 |
If your engine is a C-85-12 you can put a starter on it. If it isn't, you
can't. Easiest way, other than looking at log books, is to see if there is a
blanked off pad in the top center of the accessory pad at the rear of the
engine between the magnetos. Also, look in the log book. A C-85-8 does not
have this accessory case, and will not accept a starter.
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Skinner <jskinner(at)hurstmfg.com> |
| Subject: | RE: pitot tube size |
Ed0248(at)aol.com[SMTP:Ed0248(at)aol.com] wrote:
As I remember my high school physics, (and a little cheating by looking
at a
Cesna 120) 1/4 inch aluminum tubing should work well for your pitot
tube.
Only one line is required, as there is no return path to the pick-up.
As for
location, it should be placed to keep the inlet out of turbulent air,
either
on the strut or beneath the wing. Just make sure that there are (1) no
sharp
bends, (2) is paralell to the airstream in normal flight configuration,
and
(3) covered when not in use. The bugs make effective air dams in the
lines,
and dam is the mildest word you will use!
Good information except for the part about "only one line is required."
Two lines should be used. Using one line relies on the pressure in the
cockpit for the static pressure and this can vary depending on a lot of
things such as if the front cockpit cover is on or off. It also does
not allow adjustment to calibrate the airspeed. As noted in other
posts, adjustment is usually done by putting a small grommet or collar
on the tube slightly ahead of the side holes and adjusting the location
as needed.
The size of the lines is not important. Just pick something easy to
work with and not too flimsy. 1/8 to 1/4 inch should be about right.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: pitot tube size |
On Saturday, February 21, 1998 6:50 PM, Jim Sury [SMTP:jimsury(at)fbtc.net]
wrote:
> I was just wondering what size tubing should be use for the pitot tube.
I
> was thinking of using stainless 1/4 inch tubing. Is this big enough.
Should
> I run two lines or is the static tube in the cockpit sufficient. Should
> the tube be located in the leading edge or on the strut. I have seen
them
> in both locations. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
> jas
> jimsury(at)fbtc.net
In Addition to other good suggestions, might I add one about location. I
put my Pahitoe(t) (just kidding) tube out through the leading edge. I wish
that I would have routed it down to the strut. Every time I remove my wing
I have to take special care not to damage or bend the pitot tube. Even now
as the wings are off and stored in the saddles the pitot tube installed
wing hangs too close to the floor for adequate clearance of the pitot tube.
Just a word of caution to save you some grief. I also figured that I
would be safe not running a static source out to the wing and just finding
a place in or around the cockpit. I have tried under the seat, in the
panel, through the cowling, everything but up my nose and still can't get a
good spot. I may just have to retro the whole thing and come down the
strut with both to solve the problem. In either position makeing sure you
have a way to detatch and clean will save a lot of head-ache.
Steve (learning the hard way) E
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mikek(at)intex.net (Michael King) |
| Subject: | Re: STARTER for GN-1 |
Ed,
Thanks. I am looking at the original engine log dating back
to 1940 I received from the seller...(the plane is still in Corpus)
....and the log shows TYPE: A-80. Serial Number 806909.
I can't find any where in the three engine logs where it says
the engine is a C-85. When I get to Corpus I will look at the
engine compartment for a blanked off pad in the top center
of the accessory pad.
Thanks again Ed for the reply.
Mike
Dallas
>If your engine is a C-85-12 you can put a starter on it. If it isn't, you
>can't. Easiest way, other than looking at log books, is to see if there is a
>blanked off pad in the top center of the accessory pad at the rear of the
>engine between the magnetos. Also, look in the log book. A C-85-8 does not
>have this accessory case, and will not accept a starter.
>
>Ed
>
>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
ring: 214.905.9299 fax: 214.905-1438
zap: mikek(at)intex.net
web site: http://www.comedy-wire.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: pitot tube size |
Most of the Piets I've seen have the tube in the leading edge. If you are in
the building process, you may want to consider a fitting that allows the
removal of the tube along with an inspection hole.
Steve Eldredge wrote:
> On Saturday, February 21, 1998 6:50 PM, Jim Sury [SMTP:jimsury(at)fbtc.net]
> wrote:
> > I was just wondering what size tubing should be use for the pitot tube.
> I
> > was thinking of using stainless 1/4 inch tubing. Is this big enough.
> Should
> > I run two lines or is the static tube in the cockpit sufficient. Should
> > the tube be located in the leading edge or on the strut. I have seen
> them
> > in both locations. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
> > jas
> > jimsury(at)fbtc.net
>
> In Addition to other good suggestions, might I add one about location. I
> put my Pahitoe(t) (just kidding) tube out through the leading edge. I wish
> that I would have routed it down to the strut. Every time I remove my wing
> I have to take special care not to damage or bend the pitot tube. Even now
> as the wings are off and stored in the saddles the pitot tube installed
> wing hangs too close to the floor for adequate clearance of the pitot tube.
> Just a word of caution to save you some grief. I also figured that I
> would be safe not running a static source out to the wing and just finding
> a place in or around the cockpit. I have tried under the seat, in the
> panel, through the cowling, everything but up my nose and still can't get a
> good spot. I may just have to retro the whole thing and come down the
> strut with both to solve the problem. In either position makeing sure you
> have a way to detatch and clean will save a lot of head-ache.
>
> Steve (learning the hard way) E
--
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
Rt. 3 Box 13
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: STARTER for GN-1 |
The A-80 has no provisions for a starter and I don't know of any way to retro fit.
If hand proping is a major concern of yours you may try to find a McDowel starter.
They are hard to find and can give problems but it's the best solution with that
engine.
The McDowel starter is a lever operated cable that runs to a ring on the
propshaft. It works much like a lawnmower starter. Place the engine so it's coming
up on compresion and pull the lever. The mechanical advantage of the lever pullsw
the cable which engages the ring on the prop shaft and rotates the engine. You
beter have impulse mags for this system!
Michael King wrote:
> Ed,
>
> Thanks. I am looking at the original engine log dating back
> to 1940 I received from the seller...(the plane is still in Corpus)
> ....and the log shows TYPE: A-80. Serial Number 806909.
>
> I can't find any where in the three engine logs where it says
> the engine is a C-85. When I get to Corpus I will look at the
> engine compartment for a blanked off pad in the top center
> of the accessory pad.
>
> Thanks again Ed for the reply.
>
> Mike
> Dallas
>
> >If your engine is a C-85-12 you can put a starter on it. If it isn't, you
> >can't. Easiest way, other than looking at log books, is to see if there is
a
> >blanked off pad in the top center of the accessory pad at the rear of the
> >engine between the magnetos. Also, look in the log book. A C-85-8 does not
> >have this accessory case, and will not accept a starter.
> >
> >Ed
> >
> >
> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> Mike King THE COMEDY WIRE Dallas, Tx.
> ring: 214.905.9299 fax: 214.905-1438
>
> zap: mikek(at)intex.net
> web site: http://www.comedy-wire.com
> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
--
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
Rt. 3 Box 13
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: STARTER for GN-1 |
I stand corrected. If you have an A-80-9 there is provisions for a starter. An
A-80-8
has no provisions for the starter. Since the engine is not in a certificated airplane,
you could remove the accessory case and replace it with a -9 case and the appropriate
gears and components. Again, the parts to convert to a -9 are going to be hard
to
find. Get a copy of the Instruction Manual for models A-50, A-65, A75 and A-80.
It
gives a parts breakdown. You will loose performance from the increased empty weight
with a starter so beware.
David B. Schober wrote:
> The A-80 has no provisions for a starter and I don't know of any way to retro
fit.
> If hand proping is a major concern of yours you may try to find a McDowel starter.
> They are hard to find and can give problems but it's the best solution with that
> engine.
>
> The McDowel starter is a lever operated cable that runs to a ring on the
> propshaft. It works much like a lawnmower starter. Place the engine so it's coming
> up on compresion and pull the lever. The mechanical advantage of the lever pullsw
> the cable which engages the ring on the prop shaft and rotates the engine. You
> beter have impulse mags for this system!
>
> Michael King wrote:
>
> > Ed,
> >
> > Thanks. I am looking at the original engine log dating back
> > to 1940 I received from the seller...(the plane is still in Corpus)
> > ....and the log shows TYPE: A-80. Serial Number 806909.
> >
> > I can't find any where in the three engine logs where it says
> > the engine is a C-85. When I get to Corpus I will look at the
> > engine compartment for a blanked off pad in the top center
> > of the accessory pad.
> >
> > Thanks again Ed for the reply.
> >
> > Mike
> > Dallas
> >
> > >If your engine is a C-85-12 you can put a starter on it. If it isn't, you
> > >can't. Easiest way, other than looking at log books, is to see if there is
a
> > >blanked off pad in the top center of the accessory pad at the rear of the
> > >engine between the magnetos. Also, look in the log book. A C-85-8 does
not
> > >have this accessory case, and will not accept a starter.
> > >
> > >Ed
> > >
> > >
> > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> > Mike King THE COMEDY WIRE Dallas, Tx.
> > ring: 214.905.9299 fax: 214.905-1438
> >
> > zap: mikek(at)intex.net
> > web site: http://www.comedy-wire.com
> > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>
> --
>
> David B.Schober, CPE
> Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
> Fairmont State College
> National Aerospace Education Center
> Rt. 3 Box 13
> Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
> (304) 842-8300
>
--
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
Rt. 3 Box 13
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
| Subject: | RE: pitot tube size |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Skinner <jskinner(at)hurstmfg.com> |
| Subject: | RE: pitot tube size |
Ed0248(at)aol.com[SMTP:Ed0248(at)aol.com] wrote:
As I remember my high school physics, (and a little cheating by looking at a
Cesna 120) 1/4 inch aluminum tubing should work well for your pitot tube.
Only one line is required, as there is no return path to the pick-up. As for
location, it should be placed to keep the inlet out of turbulent air, either
on the strut or beneath the wing. Just make sure that there are (1) no sharp
bends, (2) is paralell to the airstream in normal flight configuration, and
(3) covered when not in use. The bugs make effective air dams in the lines,
and dam is the mildest word you will use!
Good information except for the part about "only one line is required." Two lines
should be used. Using one line relies on the pressure in the cockpit for
the static pressure and this can vary depe
The size of the lines is not important. Just pick something easy to work with
and not too flimsy. 1/8 to 1/4 inch should be about right.
Jim
> You might consider going to a truckers hardware store and asking for "Synflex".
It is a Parker Hannifin product and comes in 1/16" increments of
dia. starting at 1/8". Highway trucks use it for airshift control of
the transmission. A well proven light and durable solution!
J Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mikek(at)intex.net (Michael King) |
| Subject: | Re: STARTER for GN-1 |
Thanks for the tips..........I appreciate it very much.
The solution may be a McDowell starter. Since it
will be hard to find, I will have my work cut out for
me. Any suggestions where to start looking?
Mike
Dallas
>The A-80 has no provisions for a starter and I don't know of any way to
retro fit.
>If hand proping is a major concern of yours you may try to find a McDowel
starter.
>They are hard to find and can give problems but it's the best solution with
that
>engine.
>
>The McDowel starter is a lever operated cable that runs to a ring on the
>propshaft. It works much like a lawnmower starter. Place the engine so it's
coming
>up on compresion and pull the lever. The mechanical advantage of the lever
pullsw
>the cable which engages the ring on the prop shaft and rotates the engine. You
>beter have impulse mags for this system!
>
>Michael King wrote:
>
>> Ed,
>>
>> Thanks. I am looking at the original engine log dating back
>> to 1940 I received from the seller...(the plane is still in Corpus)
>> ....and the log shows TYPE: A-80. Serial Number 806909.
>>
>> I can't find any where in the three engine logs where it says
>> the engine is a C-85. When I get to Corpus I will look at the
>> engine compartment for a blanked off pad in the top center
>> of the accessory pad.
>>
>> Thanks again Ed for the reply.
>>
>> Mike
>> Dallas
>>
>> >If your engine is a C-85-12 you can put a starter on it. If it isn't, you
>> >can't. Easiest way, other than looking at log books, is to see if there
is a
>> >blanked off pad in the top center of the accessory pad at the rear of the
>> >engine between the magnetos. Also, look in the log book. A C-85-8
does not
>> >have this accessory case, and will not accept a starter.
>> >
>> >Ed
>> >
>> >
>> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>> Mike King THE COMEDY WIRE Dallas, Tx.
>> ring: 214.905.9299 fax: 214.905-1438
>>
>> zap: mikek(at)intex.net
>> web site: http://www.comedy-wire.com
>> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>
>
>--
>
>David B.Schober, CPE
>Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
>Fairmont State College
>National Aerospace Education Center
>Rt. 3 Box 13
>Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
>(304) 842-8300
>
>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
ring: 214.905.9299 fax: 214.905-1438
zap: mikek(at)intex.net
web site: http://www.comedy-wire.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | RE: pitot tube size |
Steve E. wrote:
> Just a word of caution to save you some grief. I also figured that I
>would be safe not running a static source out to the wing and just
finding
>a place in or around the cockpit. I have tried under the seat, in the
>panel, through the cowling, everything but up my nose and still can't
get a
>good spot.
0000,8080,8080I made the same decision Steve E.
made and in May or June I get to
fiddle with the same dilemma. Would a static port on the side of the
fuselage like the factory planes have work or is that just good for
other static instruments ? Also put my pitot in the wing LE but
epoxied in a flush mounted 'receptacle making a bent probe replace-
ment easy. Was a little extra work but...MC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sayre, William G" <William.Sayre(at)PSS.Boeing.com> |
Michael D Cuy wrote:
>I made the same decision Steve E. made and in May or June I get to
>fiddle with the same dilemma. Would a static port on the side of the
>fuselage like the factory planes have work or is that just good for
>other static instruments ? Also put my pitot in the wing LE but
>epoxied in a flush mounted 'receptacle making a bent probe replace-
>ment easy. Was a little extra work but...MC
I haven't done this myself, but I've always felt that two static ports
(one on each side of the fuselage) connected together and then tee'd off
to the instruments would be a good arrangement. When one port sees
pressure the other would see vacuum and the system would balance out.
Also if one got plugged the other might provide some relative reading at
least. Just a thought!
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Barlow <jbarlow(at)one.net> |
Hello,
Steve mentioned that I should send an Intro (thanks for the list,
Steve).
I'm a member of a couple of EAA chapters in the Cincinnati, OH area.
While learning taildragging skills last summer in a J-3 in prep for
flying an RV-6 I
just started, I learned that I'm a ragwing flying fan.
I've been fascinated by the Pietenpol since childhood, and am preparing
to switch
to an Aircamper project (anyone want to buy an RV-6 tailkit?)
Thanks for having me on the list. - jim barlow
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Woodbridge, Gary" <gwoodbridge(at)datatimes.com> |
This is the exact system that my Maule uses. No problems at all.
Gary Woodbridge
Senior Systems Engineer - UMI / OKC
(405)601-6947
Maule M7-235B - N723M
gwoodbridge(at)datatimes.com
>----------
>From: Sayre, William G[SMTP:William.Sayre(at)PSS.Boeing.com]
>Sent: Monday, February 23, 1998 12:26 PM
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Subject: RE: pitot tube
>
>I haven't done this myself, but I've always felt that two static ports
>(one on each side of the fuselage) connected together and then tee'd off
>to the instruments would be a good arrangement. When one port sees
>pressure the other would see vacuum and the system would balance out.
>Also if one got plugged the other might provide some relative reading at
>least. Just a thought!
>
>Bill
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: STARTER for GN-1 |
I'll look around through my stuff and see if I have anything on the A-80.
WOW! Where'd he find that relic? It belongs in a museum, but I'm glad to see
those old airplanes and engines still flying.
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: pitot tube size |
When planning on the static scource, remember that when you place the source
within the cockpit (at least on most aircraft), there is usually a lower
pressure within the cabin. Therefore, the instruments will read slightly
different from placement outside the aircraft. However, the instruments can
and should be calibrated to whatever source you use for static. When an
aircraft is used for instrument work and has an alternate static cource within
the cockpit, a smart pilot checks what the differences are for both sources
and makes a note of it for future reference. In our case, I don't know of any
IFR Piets, one source fits all, and once it is understood it can be used
without problems. A lot like swinging a compass. Once you have the deviation
it is second nature to apply the needed correction.
By the way, has anyone tried venting the static port to the area behind the
engine and in front of the forward bulkhead? Or up into the center section?
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DXLViolins(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Fwd: Building a Piet in UK |
Dear Steve, and all Piet enthusiasts,
>
> I am considering seriously building my first aircraft, and have pretty well
> decided on the Pietenpol Aircamper. I love the idea of using the Ford "A",
but
> am slightly unsure about the availability of the engine and spares here in
the
> UK. I would be enormously grateful for any information that anyone can give
me
> on this. This has been a lifelong dream of mine... now being encouraged by
my
> American fiancee! So.. within the next year or so i hope to start converting
> the timber...
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Dominic Excell
by rly-za05.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
with ESMTP id KAA25852 for ;
by EMAIL1.BYU.EDU (PMDF V5.1-10 #23832)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 08:42:19 -0700
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Building a Piet in UK |
On Monday, February 23, 1998 11:29 AM, DXLViolins(at)aol.com
[SMTP:DXLViolins(at)aol.com] wrote:
> Dear Steve, and all Piet enthusiasts,
>
> I am considering seriously building my first aircraft, and have pretty well
> decided on the Pietenpol Aircamper. I love the idea of using the Ford "A",
but
> am slightly unsure about the availability of the engine and spares here in
the
> UK. I would be enormously grateful for any information that anyone can give
me
> on this. This has been a lifelong dream of mine... now being encouraged by
my
> American fiancee! So.. within the next year or so i hope to start converting
> the timber...
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Dominic Excell
>
> Dominic,
>
> Welcome to the list. Please send an introduction (like the above) to the
list at:
>
> Piet(at)byu.edu
>
> Please do not send attachments or graphics to the list at large.
>
> Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | clawler <clawler(at)Ptd.Net> |
| Subject: | Re: pitot tube size |
Jim,
I just used the double tube setup in Aircraft Spruce for my pitot static
system. It seems to work fine other than at high angles of attack.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard F. Rapp" <rrapp(at)polymail.cpunix.calpoly.edu> |
Hello to the group!
My name is Richard, and I have recently discovered the Pietenpol Air
Camper via a ham radio packet friend in Texas..
After review of a number of different early plans from the magazines of
the 30's, it's easy to see the Piet is the most practical design!
..And I HAVE a Subie engine!!
I'm looking for infoon the best source for prop carving, and, of course,
what the best place to obtain spruce building stock might be.
Any info would be appreciated..
..I also have ded Puch mopeds, and shall try to use the front wheels on
the LG..
TTFN, Rich in the teeming metropolis of Santa Margarita!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | michael list <mclist(at)ptw.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Introduction |
Jim Barlow wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
> I've been fascinated by the Pietenpol since childhood, and am preparing
> to switch
> to an Aircamper project (anyone want to buy an RV-6 tailkit?)
>
> Thanks for having me on the list. - jim barlow
Hello Jim!
Glad to see another Piet fan on the list. Have helped an RV-6A builder
here in CA on his project (on the gear now), and while it is a beautiful
plane his engine alone will cost about three times what I expect to put
into our Air Camper! And when he is done he can't even fly with his
elbows out in the breeze!
Mike List
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mikek(at)intex.net (Michael King) |
| Subject: | GN-1 STALL SERIES |
Has anyone done a full stall series in a GN-1
with a Cont. 80 hp? If so, what were your numbers
and flight characteristics?
Thanks.......
Mike
Dallas
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
ring: 214.905.9299 fax: 214.905-1438
zap: mikek(at)intex.net
web site: http://www.comedy-wire.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: GN-1 STALL SERIES |
Mike,
Any time someone does a flight test program for their airplane the idea
is to establish the flight characteristics for the individual aircraft.
Since homebuilts are individual aircraft and the manufacturing
techniques and systems vary from one to another the characteristics,
while similar, won't be identical.
As for the "numbers", sharing airspeed indications is useless unless you
are working from an even playing field. I doubt anyone with a Pietenpol
or GN-1 has gone to the trouble and expense of calibrating their
airspeed indicators. For the speed ranges that we fly it's hardly
worthwhile. The variations in the pitot static systems (look at the
comments about pitot tube placement and static sources over the past few
days) will result in significant variations of indications. If you have
to "fly by the numbers" you may need to work on your airmanship.
Michael King wrote:
> Has anyone done a full stall series in a GN-1
> with a Cont. 80 hp? If so, what were your numbers
> and flight characteristics?
>
> Thanks.......
>
> Mike
> Dallas
> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> Mike King THE COMEDY WIRE Dallas, Tx.
> ring: 214.905.9299 fax: 214.905-1438
>
> zap: mikek(at)intex.net
> web site: http://www.comedy-wire.com
> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
--
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
Rt. 3 Box 13
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mikek(at)intex.net (Michael King) |
| Subject: | Re: GN-1 STALL SERIES |
David,
Thanks for the comments. Your points are well
received and noted. I just purchased a GN-1
and have not flown the plane. The person I bought
it from is a CFI but has a back problem and is
overweight. He does not think he would be much
help and I will have to fly it my first time solo.
I was just interested what to expect. But understanding
each homebuilt is different and the location of its static
ports vary, I will have to learn these numbers on my own.
I have been flying for nearly 30 years and have a commerical
rating, but little tailwheel time. I am looking forward to
flying the GN-1 and enjoy a different type of flying.
Thanks again David for your time and info.
Mike King
Dallas
>Mike,
>Any time someone does a flight test program for their airplane the idea
>is to establish the flight characteristics for the individual aircraft.
>Since homebuilts are individual aircraft and the manufacturing
>techniques and systems vary from one to another the characteristics,
>while similar, won't be identical.
>
>As for the "numbers", sharing airspeed indications is useless unless you
>are working from an even playing field. I doubt anyone with a Pietenpol
>or GN-1 has gone to the trouble and expense of calibrating their
>airspeed indicators. For the speed ranges that we fly it's hardly
>worthwhile. The variations in the pitot static systems (look at the
>comments about pitot tube placement and static sources over the past few
>days) will result in significant variations of indications. If you have
>to "fly by the numbers" you may need to work on your airmanship.
>
>Michael King wrote:
>
>> Has anyone done a full stall series in a GN-1
>> with a Cont. 80 hp? If so, what were your numbers
>> and flight characteristics?
>>
>> Thanks.......
>>
>> Mike
>> Dallas
>> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>> Mike King THE COMEDY WIRE Dallas, Tx.
>> ring: 214.905.9299 fax: 214.905-1438
>>
>> zap: mikek(at)intex.net
>> web site: http://www.comedy-wire.com
>> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>
>
>--
>
>
>David B.Schober, CPE
>Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
>Fairmont State College
>National Aerospace Education Center
>Rt. 3 Box 13
>Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
>(304) 842-8300
>
>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
ring: 214.905.9299 fax: 214.905-1438
zap: mikek(at)intex.net
web site: http://www.comedy-wire.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: GN-1 STALL SERIES |
Pietenpols and their cousin GN-1's are easy airplanes to fly. That doesn't mean
someone with minimal tailwheel time should just jump in. If you can get time in
a
Champ or Cub it will go a long way to developing your skills.
As far as speeds, don't worry about them. Fly the airplane by attitude. Spend time
in the airplane on the ground before you even start the engine. Look around and
imprint the attitude of the airplane in your mind. This is your landing attitude.
If you have someone available to lift the tail, ask them to lift it about a foot.
This is the takeoff and climb attitude. Lift it so the airplane just shy of level,
that should be your cruise. Don't lift it beyond level on the ground for risk of
nosing over.
Once you are comfortable with those attitudes, then you can consider flying the
airplane. Again find the attitudes that work in that airplane. Climb to a
reasonable altitude and practice both power off and power on descents and note
the
attitude of the airplane for each maneuver. If you set an attitude with a constant
power setting you will get a constant airspeed and climb/descent/level flight.
The
key is to be able to set a consistent attitude that will give the performance that
you are looking for.
A note on landings. If you have been flying airplanes with a training wheel on
the
front, and your visual cues have been out the front, go directly to jail and don't
collect $200. In these airplanes the visual cues come from the side. In a landing
configuration you can't see straight ahead. Get some practice from the back seat
of a J3.
Another note. Start on the grass it's MUCH easier. Learn to do your TO and LNDGS
in grass. When they are consistent and comfortable on grass then you can venture
out onto the pavement.
Michael King wrote:
> David,
>
> Thanks for the comments. Your points are well
> received and noted. I just purchased a GN-1
> and have not flown the plane. The person I bought
> it from is a CFI but has a back problem and is
> overweight. He does not think he would be much
> help and I will have to fly it my first time solo.
>
> I was just interested what to expect. But understanding
> each homebuilt is different and the location of its static
> ports vary, I will have to learn these numbers on my own.
>
> I have been flying for nearly 30 years and have a commerical
> rating, but little tailwheel time. I am looking forward to
> flying the GN-1 and enjoy a different type of flying.
>
> Thanks again David for your time and info.
>
> Mike King
> Dallas
>
> >Mike,
> >Any time someone does a flight test program for their airplane the idea
> >is to establish the flight characteristics for the individual aircraft.
> >Since homebuilts are individual aircraft and the manufacturing
> >techniques and systems vary from one to another the characteristics,
> >while similar, won't be identical.
> >
> >As for the "numbers", sharing airspeed indications is useless unless you
> >are working from an even playing field. I doubt anyone with a Pietenpol
> >or GN-1 has gone to the trouble and expense of calibrating their
> >airspeed indicators. For the speed ranges that we fly it's hardly
> >worthwhile. The variations in the pitot static systems (look at the
> >comments about pitot tube placement and static sources over the past few
> >days) will result in significant variations of indications. If you have
> >to "fly by the numbers" you may need to work on your airmanship.
> >
> >Michael King wrote:
> >
> >> Has anyone done a full stall series in a GN-1
> >> with a Cont. 80 hp? If so, what were your numbers
> >> and flight characteristics?
> >>
> >> Thanks.......
> >>
> >> Mike
> >> Dallas
> >> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> >> Mike King THE COMEDY WIRE Dallas, Tx.
> >> ring: 214.905.9299 fax: 214.905-1438
> >>
> >> zap: mikek(at)intex.net
> >> web site: http://www.comedy-wire.com
> >> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >
> >David B.Schober, CPE
> >Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
> >Fairmont State College
> >National Aerospace Education Center
> >Rt. 3 Box 13
> >Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
> >(304) 842-8300
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> Mike King THE COMEDY WIRE Dallas, Tx.
> ring: 214.905.9299 fax: 214.905-1438
>
> zap: mikek(at)intex.net
> web site: http://www.comedy-wire.com
> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
--
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
Rt. 3 Box 13
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael King <mikek(at)nstar.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GN-1 STALL SERIES |
Again, David very good advise. I will print your response
and take it with me to South Texas. As anxious as I am
to fly the GN-1, I want it to be a safe and enjoyable experience.
Many thanks again David. I will let you know how it goes.
Warmest regards,
>Pietenpols and their cousin GN-1's are easy airplanes to fly. That doesn't
mean
>someone with minimal tailwheel time should just jump in. If you can get
time in a
>Champ or Cub it will go a long way to developing your skills.
>
>As far as speeds, don't worry about them. Fly the airplane by attitude.
Spend time
>in the airplane on the ground before you even start the engine. Look
around and
>imprint the attitude of the airplane in your mind. This is your landing
attitude.
>If you have someone available to lift the tail, ask them to lift it about
a foot.
>This is the takeoff and climb attitude. Lift it so the airplane just shy
of level,
>that should be your cruise. Don't lift it beyond level on the ground for
risk of
>nosing over.
>
>Once you are comfortable with those attitudes, then you can consider
flying the
>airplane. Again find the attitudes that work in that airplane. Climb to a
>reasonable altitude and practice both power off and power on descents and
note the
>attitude of the airplane for each maneuver. If you set an attitude with a
constant
>power setting you will get a constant airspeed and climb/descent/level
flight. The
>key is to be able to set a consistent attitude that will give the
performance that
>you are looking for.
>
>A note on landings. If you have been flying airplanes with a training
wheel on the
>front, and your visual cues have been out the front, go directly to jail
and don't
>collect $200. In these airplanes the visual cues come from the side. In a
landing
>configuration you can't see straight ahead. Get some practice from the
back seat
>of a J3.
>
>Another note. Start on the grass it's MUCH easier. Learn to do your TO and
LNDGS
>in grass. When they are consistent and comfortable on grass then you can
venture
>out onto the pavement.
>
>Michael King wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>> Thanks for the comments. Your points are well
>> received and noted. I just purchased a GN-1
>> and have not flown the plane. The person I bought
>> it from is a CFI but has a back problem and is
>> overweight. He does not think he would be much
>> help and I will have to fly it my first time solo.
>>
>> I was just interested what to expect. But understanding
>> each homebuilt is different and the location of its static
>> ports vary, I will have to learn these numbers on my own.
>>
>> I have been flying for nearly 30 years and have a commerical
>> rating, but little tailwheel time. I am looking forward to
>> flying the GN-1 and enjoy a different type of flying.
>>
>> Thanks again David for your time and info.
>>
>> Mike King
>> Dallas
>>
>> >Mike,
>> >Any time someone does a flight test program for their airplane the idea
>> >is to establish the flight characteristics for the individual aircraft.
>> >Since homebuilts are individual aircraft and the manufacturing
>> >techniques and systems vary from one to another the characteristics,
>> >while similar, won't be identical.
>> >
>> >As for the "numbers", sharing airspeed indications is useless unless you
>> >are working from an even playing field. I doubt anyone with a Pietenpol
>> >or GN-1 has gone to the trouble and expense of calibrating their
>> >airspeed indicators. For the speed ranges that we fly it's hardly
>> >worthwhile. The variations in the pitot static systems (look at the
>> >comments about pitot tube placement and static sources over the past few
>> >days) will result in significant variations of indications. If you have
>> >to "fly by the numbers" you may need to work on your airmanship.
>> >
>> >Michael King wrote:
>> >
>> >> Has anyone done a full stall series in a GN-1
>> >> with a Cont. 80 hp? If so, what were your numbers
>> >> and flight characteristics?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks.......
>> >>
>> >> Mike
>> >> Dallas
>> >> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>> >> Mike King THE COMEDY WIRE Dallas, Tx.
>> >> ring: 214.905.9299 fax: 214.905-1438
>> >>
>> >> zap: mikek(at)intex.net
>> >> web site: http://www.comedy-wire.com
>> >> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >
>>
>> >
>> >David B.Schober, CPE
>> >Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
>> >Fairmont State College
>> >National Aerospace Education Center
>> >Rt. 3 Box 13
>> >Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
>> >(304) 842-8300
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>> Mike King THE COMEDY WIRE Dallas, Tx.
>> ring: 214.905.9299 fax: 214.905-1438
>>
>> zap: mikek(at)intex.net
>> web site: http://www.comedy-wire.com
>> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>
>
>--
>
>David B.Schober, CPE
>Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
>Fairmont State College
>National Aerospace Education Center
>Rt. 3 Box 13
>Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
>(304) 842-8300
>
>
Michael King
The Comedy Wire
Dallas, Texas
http://www.comedy-wire.com
214-905-9299 Phone
214-905-1438 Fax
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TLC62770 <TLC62770(at)aol.com> |
HI RICHARD,
I BELONG TO EAA 1060 IN GRAND LEGDE MI ( KB8IEX) . AT A CLUB MEETING
LAST WEEK THERE WAS A NEWS LETTER ABOUT A NEW STYLE
OF JIG TO CRAVE PROP'S WITH . IF YOU WANT IT ,LET ME KNOW , I WILL SEND IT TO
YOU . IT LOKS VERY GOOD COMPARED TO SO JIGS OUT THERE .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator thoughts |
Mike,
No, I have never checked the ASI. But, heaven forbid that it is indicating
too fast. It only indicates 72 at level flight. I approach at 65 and that
seems to work. I will check the other numbers and get back to you.
Hope all is well with you. We dodged another weather bullet last weekend.
I am hoping to make it through this winter and get a hangar soon.
Take care.
Ted
>Ted- and if you've
>ever calibrated your airspeed indicator by flying back and forth
>over some cross roads of a known distance w/ a stopwatch.
>When we had the 7AC Champ we found our airspeed was off
>and we were flying our approaches too slow.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard F. Rapp" <rrapp(at)polymail.cpunix.calpoly.edu> |
Hi India Echo Xray,
That sounds great! I surely appreciate all the help and info I
can get, especially in a new field of interest.
I was going to make a few wall-hanger ornamental type props for
practice, first, so I could learn how to do it..
If you could send info on a carving jig, that would be great!
I take US Mail c/o PO Box 601, Santa Margarita CA 93453
..don't mind giving out my address, it's in ham callsign database already.
I operate KE6BFI
Sry my computer with QRZ is down, and I can't pull up ur call to get ur
name.. bt thank you!
73 de Rich
On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, TLC62770 wrote:
> HI RICHARD,
> I BELONG TO EAA 1060 IN GRAND LEGDE MI ( KB8IEX) . AT A CLUB MEETING
> LAST WEEK THERE WAS A NEWS LETTER ABOUT A NEW STYLE
> OF JIG TO CRAVE PROP'S WITH . IF YOU WANT IT ,LET ME KNOW , I WILL SEND IT TO
> YOU . IT LOKS VERY GOOD COMPARED TO SO JIGS OUT THERE .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
I would be interested in seeing anything on this new style of jig to carve
props with. I would like to carve my own prop for my GN-1. This isn't the
one from the ad in Sports Aviations is it. Heck if it is I am still
interested.
JAS
> HI RICHARD,
> I BELONG TO EAA 1060 IN GRAND LEGDE MI ( KB8IEX) . AT A CLUB MEETING
>LAST WEEK THERE WAS A NEWS LETTER ABOUT A NEW STYLE
>OF JIG TO CRAVE PROP'S WITH . IF YOU WANT IT ,LET ME KNOW , I WILL SEND
IT TO
>YOU . IT LOKS VERY GOOD COMPARED TO SO JIGS OUT THERE .
>
>
jimsury(at)fbtc.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sayre, William G" <William.Sayre(at)PSS.Boeing.com> |
A friend (non-networked) would like to hear about the different ways
people have installed drag/anti-drag wires in the wings. The three
methods we've talked about have been cables, hard-wire and threaded
solid rod.
Anyone have particular success or horror stories or maybe yet another
method?
TIA
Bill Sayre
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jkahn(at)picasso.dehavilland.ca (John Kahn) |
My Starduster Too plans (a big biplane; not building it though) show a set of
struts made from 4130 tube to form a drag-anti-drag truss. Possibly heavier
than wires.
John Kahn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sayre, William G" <William.Sayre(at)PSS.Boeing.com> |
Could those be compression struts instead of drag/anti-drag???
Bill
> ----------
> From:
> jkahn(at)picasso.dehavilland.ca[SMTP:jkahn(at)picasso.dehavilland.ca]
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 1998 2:23 PM
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: drag wires
>
> My Starduster Too plans (a big biplane; not building it though) show a
> set of
> struts made from 4130 tube to form a drag-anti-drag truss. Possibly
> heavier
> than wires.
>
> John Kahn
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jkahn(at)picasso.dehavilland.ca (John Kahn) |
The wing has three compression struts with tube diagonals in between to form
a truss. Being a biplane wing it is fairly short. I'd have to dredge out
the plans to give you more details...
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Beanlands <ken.beanlands(at)west.gecems.com> |
I've had pretty good success using 1/8" multi-strand cable nicopressed on
to a turnbuckle on one end and a shackle on the other. The cable and the
"bolt-style" nicopress tool are cheap and the turnbuckles and shackles
came out to be less that the threaded rod ends suggested in the
Christavia MK1 plans. Besides, you'll end up having to buy a die for both
left and right hand threads. Very expensive!
The Christavia MKIV has a fuel tank in each wing root. To eliminate the
need to cross the drad/anti-drag wires inside the tank (very difficult to
do) they use a single 4130 tube in the first bay.
Ken
On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Sayre, William G wrote:
> A friend (non-networked) would like to hear about the different ways
> people have installed drag/anti-drag wires in the wings. The three
> methods we've talked about have been cables, hard-wire and threaded
> solid rod.
>
> Anyone have particular success or horror stories or maybe yet another
> method?
>
> TIA
>
> Bill Sayre
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower(at)informador.com.mx> |
| Subject: | Re: 2000 mile flight |
>My pietenpol is in Oregon and I am now in Indiana. I am considering flying
>it out this spring or summer. At it's cruise speed it might be spring AND
>summer. :) Anyway, I would like to find someone else that might be
>interested in joining the flight, perhaps to visit Oshkosh or Brodhead.
>Anyone interested?
>
>Any advice on the trip would also be welcome.
>
>Jim
>
My personal opinion: GO FOR IT!
Just dont take "El Ni=F1o" as a passenger :-)
Saludos
Gary Gower
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | baileys(at)ktis.net (Robert M. Bailey) |
| Subject: | Re: 2000 mile flight |
Jim
> >
> >Any advice on the trip would also be welcome.
> >
I would say to plan your route very carefully, since the Piet has very
limited high altitude capability you be looking up at some of those
mountains. I also understand that some of the mountain winds can
be pretty bad later in day and one can get into a situation where a
downdraft exceeds the Piets rate of climb.
I look forward to seeing you at Brodhead.
Bob B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Pitot is a word! |
Some time ago someone on the mailing list stated that "pitot" was not a
word and that is was really Ptot, the symbol used to represent the pressure,
that was modified to become "pitot."
Sounded reasonable so I didn't give it another thought. Today I ran across
something about an 18th century French physicist, Henri Pitot, inventing (or
developing) the pitot tube. This got me to wondering which was true so I
looked up pitot in the dictionary. Sure enough, the word was there with a
reference to Henri Pitot!
As I am always a stickler for references...
Dictionary used: Webster's College Dictionary by Random House, 1991.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed0248 <Ed0248(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pitot is a word! |
Looks like, as usual in this complicated world, there is more than one road to
a destination. I'll have to look up the hisory of this apparently fascinating
individual. But, P(sub)tot still means total pressure. I do want to find out
more about M. Pitot. Thanks for your info.
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LanhamOS <LanhamOS(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Jim Trans Con Trip |
Jim, When I frist started flying, we had a big poster.. There are Old
Pilots, and Bold Pilots.. But no Old Bold Pilots.. For your 1/2 transcon trip
in the Piet...
As the plane has a limited rate of climb, and you will be in some high density
altitude situations, my suggestion might be to truck the plane to Great Falls,
MT. You would then be over the Rockies, plus those other ranges.. I remember a
friend with a 65 hp. Porterfiled trying to fly from Billings to Butte, Mt.
When He tried to climb over the Bozeman Pass... No go. I also have visions of
flying from Helena to
White Sulphur Springs, Mt. over the Big Belts in a 90 hhp Cessna 140, we had
to make two climbing trips to get over..
Am interested in doing research on Piets/Builders.. When was yours
built?
How many hours on the plane.. What type of Power Plant.. What type of
certificate
do you have , and # of hrs.
Keep Em Flying.. Dr. Orville E. Lanham, Bellevue, Ne. 68005
lanhamos(at)aaol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
Hard wire with roll threaded ends would be the best. Cables tend to
stretch and threaded rod will be heavier for the same strength. (You have
to use the root diameter not the outside diameter) If the threads are cut
on the rod you will have stress concentrations.
Sayre, William G wrote:
> A friend (non-networked) would like to hear about the different ways
> people have installed drag/anti-drag wires in the wings. The three
> methods we've talked about have been cables, hard-wire and threaded
> solid rod.
>
> Anyone have particular success or horror stories or maybe yet another
> method?
>
> TIA
>
> Bill Sayre
--
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
Rt. 3 Box 13
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Jim Trans Con Trip |
-----Original Message-----
From: LanhamOS <LanhamOS(at)aol.com>
Date: Sunday, March 01, 1998 4:50 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Jim Trans Con Trip
My advice:
Get out a set of sectionals and plan a route. Find the highest altitude
on the route and take the airplane up to about 2000 ft above that
altitude with allowances for density altitude. Then, when you do the
actual flight make it a point to do the high altitude sections early in
the AM when the turbulence and density altitude numbers are in your
favor.
Since the airplane is in Oregon and you (apparently) aren't, you may
have to have a friend or CFI in Oregon do a test flight. Have him
record the airspeed, climb rate and temperature at each 1000'. This
will give you the information you need to make the decision.
There is nothing 'Bold' about it if you figure out your margins ahead of
time.
Good Luck and Have Fun.
Randy Stockberger
stockberger(at)proaxis.com
> Jim, When I frist started flying, we had a big poster.. There are
Old
>Pilots, and Bold Pilots.. But no Old Bold Pilots.. For your 1/2
transcon trip
>in the Piet...
>As the plane has a limited rate of climb, and you will be in some high
density
>altitude situations, my suggestion might be to truck the plane to Great
Falls,
>MT. You would then be over the Rockies, plus those other ranges.. I
remember a
>friend with a 65 hp. Porterfiled trying to fly from Billings to Butte,
Mt.
>When He tried to climb over the Bozeman Pass... No go. I also have
visions of
>flying from Helena to
>White Sulphur Springs, Mt. over the Big Belts in a 90 hhp Cessna 140,
we had
>to make two climbing trips to get over..
> Am interested in doing research on Piets/Builders.. When was
yours
>built?
>How many hours on the plane.. What type of Power Plant.. What type of
>certificate
>do you have , and # of hrs.
> Keep Em Flying.. Dr. Orville E. Lanham, Bellevue, Ne. 68005
>lanhamos(at)aaol.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Jim Trans Con Trip |
>
>-----Original Message-----
From: LanhamOS <LanhamOS(at)aol.com>
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Date: Sunday, March 01, 1998 4:50 PM
>Subject: Re: Jim Trans Con Trip
>
>My advice:
>
>Get out a set of sectionals and plan a route. Find the highest altitude
>on the route and take the airplane up to about 2000 ft above that
>altitude with allowances for density altitude. Then, when you do the
>actual flight make it a point to do the high altitude sections early in
>the AM when the turbulence and density altitude numbers are in your
>favor.
>
>Since the airplane is in Oregon and you (apparently) aren't, you may
>have to have a friend or CFI in Oregon do a test flight. Have him
>record the airspeed, climb rate and temperature at each 1000'. This
>will give you the information you need to make the decision.
>
>There is nothing 'Bold' about it if you figure out your margins ahead of
>time.
>
>Good Luck and Have Fun.
>
>Randy Stockberger
>stockberger(at)proaxis.com
>
Sounds like good advice! That was my general plan. I have a 90 Hp engine
so performance should not be an issue if I am careful. I had planned to do
some preliminary testing but hadn't worked out the details. Thanks for the
input.
Several people have suggested trucking it but that is a lot of work, can
damage the airplane, and seems like a lot less fun!
Jim Skinner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Malcolm Morrison <morrison(at)vicon.net> |
Hi all,
I'm new to Pietenpols and to chat groups. I'm planning on building a
Corvair powered Aircamper using fir (the wood, not the animal skin). I
visited Brodhead '97' and got hooked. I have plans and 3 piece wing plans.
I'm waiting on wood landing gear plans and the manual from Don Pietenpol.
I hope to start cutting wood in a month or so, but there are many
distractions. I'm also a glider pilot and instructor, and I coach my son's
soccer team in spring and fall. I love all of these activities, so I
figure the Piet project will take many, many years. Should be fun though.
It's great to see such a well developed support and information network in
place.
Happy Flying, Malcolm Morrison
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jkahn(at)picasso.dehavilland.ca (John Kahn) |
That makes two glider pilot/instructors on the list... cooel...
John Kahn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TLC62770 <TLC62770(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re:CORVAIR'S ARE FOR AIRPANES NOT CARS |
Hello Malcoum Morrison,
I'm Terry , my friend and i are building a Corvair powered Pietenpol . We
just finished the workshop in my barn . It got to cold last winter , so we
stopped working on the Piet and actually built a work shop . It is complete
with a furnace and air conditioning . the cemete floor is covered up 2x4' s
insulation and plywood on top . now it is so warm we have to open windows
because it gets to warm inside . now theshop is done we can actully start on
the plane again . We are building ours out of skita spruce . when this one is
done we will build on for me . that will be built of douglas fir . Fir is 17%
heavier then spruce but it is also 12 % stronger and less then half the price
of spruce . we already have several engines on hand . we don't need engines
for a while . let my no how things are coming along see ya later Terry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Jim Trans Con Trip |
Ah yes, 'tis better to drink of life in one fiery gulp and real
across the skies than to sip from the cup of oblivion and lower
into darkness!!!
Go for it!!! In my young and scuffling days, I bought a 65 HP
Piper Vagabond at Flabob for $1200.00, learned how to fly and spent
one summer flying it around the Western U.S. And you have 90 HP.
Piece of cake!!!
You will most assuredly meet some of the finest folks on the
planet and have stories to tell for the rest of your life that
will continue to make you smile at yourself in the shaving mirror
past the days when you can still shave yourself. Great good
luck. And bank your points by doing your home work and get at
least 5 good hours of touch-n-go's in at ALL weights.
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
I want to build a Pietenpol just as though I was in 1932. What I actually do
will hopfully be close enough. The 200 cubic inch slow rpm A engine must be
the whole heart of oldtime style. I have always admired simplicity of
design. I can look at the Piet and see everything doing its job. I've been
building things all my life. Boats, bicycles,cameras. I earn my living as a
Machinist. I live near Seattle,in Port Orchard,Washington. I have a 22 foot
square workshop. The usual tools. I'm definetly not experienced at aircraft
construction but I'm very confident I'll find what is needed. I once had a
freind who built a Spencer Aircar. I was expossed to the EAA thru him. I
once took flying lessons In Chehalis Wa. My instructor was Hugh Wilder. I
only accuired about 20 hours. A lot of it in the rain and below 1000 feet.
It was GRAND. Then I had two kids. Now it's 23 years later. It will be GRAND
again.
I have a construction question. On the fuselage sides there is a fairing
strip from end to end to hold out the cloth. On the bottom and behind the
plywood flooring is there also a fairing strip? Another question. How can
one get access to the bellcrank area behind the rear seat if the seat back
is nailed in?
Cheers Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Steve in Seattle- The guy you want to visit is Craig Aho in Mountlake
Terrace, WA. He's built one Piet and now on his next. (an A powered)
206-778-7650 Tell him Mike Cuy says hello.
23307 45th Ave. W.
98043
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LanhamOS <LanhamOS(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Jim Trans Con Trip |
Jim, on ylur 1/2 trans con trip... I was the pessimist suggesting
trucking to Great Falls. Inquired about amount of power for the plane... Did
you get this? Now I know you have 90 lponies up front.. with the weight of the
plane, You should be able to climb those mtns. Once you e the Plains it may be
a piece of cake. Also with modern internet weather info, GPS, etc. good Luck.
Hope you have a motor home
following you!!Read of Ken Hyde who restored a Crutiss Jennjy and Flew it to
Oshkosh.. They had a motor home with all the camp stuff. Not much room in the
plane. except for a disposable razor, toothbrush, paste, and bar of soap, Keep
Em Flying.. Orville L:anhamn, the J3 Cub..
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | clawler <clawler(at)Ptd.Net> |
| Subject: | Re: Jim Trans Con Trip |
Warren,
I certainly hope to fly my piet as long as I can shave myself. Thanks
for the neat post. I'll save it and pass it along.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Jim Trans Con Trip |
Ditto,
Stevee
On Tuesday, March 03, 1998 6:02 AM, clawler [SMTP:clawler(at)Ptd.Net] wrote:
> Warren,
>
> I certainly hope to fly my piet as long as I can shave myself. Thanks
> for the neat post. I'll save it and pass it along.
>
> Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Introduction |
Steve Yahn wrote:
> I have a construction question. On the fuselage sides there is a fairing
> strip from end to end to hold out the cloth. On the bottom and behind the
> plywood flooring is there also a fairing strip? Another question. How
can
> one get access to the bellcrank area behind the rear seat if the seat
back
> is nailed in?
>
> Cheers Steve
I came upon the same question and just added two fairing strips along the
bottom of the fuse back to the end of the plywood the ends under the rear
seat. I have access to the rear bellcrank (walking bar) from an access
holes on each side and bottom of the fuse. I have only cut out one on the
side and one on the bottom however.
Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Latex fabric finishing method |
A little late, but as requested here is my experience using latex paint on
my aircamper.
Sadly, before you can paint, you must cover that beautiful wooden creation
with fabric.
I found that the most helpful resource is the Poly-Fiber covering manual.
It cost me $5 at the time, but even at the current price of $10 it is
still the greatest covering deal around. I poured throught that manual
several times to get my questions answered. I even called Norm at Poly
Fiber about a question regarding reinforcement tapes and he was very
helpfull and unhurried. I followed the Poly-Fiber manual with care up to
the point where you are instructed to poly-brush the entire weave of the
fabric to seal the weave. I also choose to use the generic fabric from
Aircraft spruce rather than the more expensive STC-PMA Poly-Fiber brand.
At this point in covering you have finished heat shrinking, rib stitching
and applying all the tapes. I heat smothed all the seams again as the last
step before beginning to paint. One thing that I might regret omitting may
be washing the whole surface of the fabric before applying tapes or rib
stitching with MEK. At this point however I'm not sure that it is really
nessesary. Time will tell.
About the paint. I used Sherwin Williams best grade exterior laytex. I
choose this brand because of other builders experience with its ease of use
and good durability. I spend a long time researching and talking with some
experienced painters and they all agreed on the sturdiness of the product.
They garentee the paint against fading shrinking, cracking and peeling.
It is 100% UV formulated and has a 20 year warantee. The first coat over
the bare fabric is unthinned flat black applied by brush. I used a good
quality 4" brush. It helps to have a 2" brush to get around the small
corners as well. This first coat is meant to fill the weave of the fabric.
I took care to work it in, yet still leave it as thin as I could. It
seems that even, thin coats prevent cracking and keep the weight down.
After the whole plane is painted black I went back and gave the parts that
would recieve a dark color (green) a second coat of black. The second coat
I applied with an airless sprayer. Poly-Fiber says that this is a mistake,
but I has good luck spraying the second primer coat and was pleased with
the reduction in time it took. It also made for a smoother surface. Some
argue that back in the 30"s and 40's that brush strokes were the norm. For
those that would get a light finish color (white), I mixed flat white
together with the black (50-50 ratio) for the second coat. At this point
then the whole plane has been primed with two coats of flat paint. At this
point you have the choice of going with straight laytex, or using an
automotive enamal. I have seen both examples and the automotive finish
will cost about $500-$800 more for two colors, or about $150 more for the
latex. The auto enamal will naturally look glossy and lusterous. I didn't
have the $$$'s or the equipment, or the desire for a glossy finish on my
plane, so I choose to continue with the latex.
For the color coats I used Sherwin Williams High Gloss products. I am
not
a professional painter and I got a little excited when the plane began to
show some color. Unfortunately I got over anxious and didn't let enough
time lapse between coats and the fuselage coats sagged horribly. I
panicked. I salvaged my botched attempt by rolling the whole mess with a
short nape foam roller. I thought I had ruined the whole thing. The next
morning however a miricale had occured and it turned out being fairly
smooth. I took more time on the wings. The finished product looks good.
I'm sure I could do better next time. I hand lettered the "Air Camper"
logo on the side.
A few additional hints.
Paint in the while temps are in the 70's. I painted in higher temps and
the exterior formula dried too quickly for propper wetting out and blending
with previous coats.
Dont be tempted to apply more than 3 color coats. You will notice that the
finish gets more and more lustrous as you do. Beware, you are adding much
unwanted weight and expence, and the likelyhood that thick buildups will
crack.
Experiment with applicators. I think that I will do my next finish coats
with a roller. I sprayed my wings, in the heat of the day and feel that a
roller combined with cooler temps would have given better results.
Durability is good. I have tested with avgas and autofuels and the latex
holds up against both. The primer however peels right off. Keep fuel away
from parts without the finish coats. In spite of the fact that the
finished product is fuel proof, It seems to be affected by standing water.
I have noticed that during a rain storm the standing beads of water will
fade the finish slightly. Panic time again. Really I didn't have to worry
though, after the water evaporates the color returns without a hint of the
previous problem. I waxed a test section and this eliminated the water
spot problem.
It has been nearly a year now that I have finised painting and I am very
pleased to report that I have found no cracks or other problems. The plane
has sat out through several snow, rain and ice storms without a problem.
Touching up couldn't be easier, and the colors have remained vibrant. I
figure that my paint costs were less than $200, and total covering cost
including poly-fiber cements and coatings were less than $500. I doubt it
will be an award winner for fine finish, but it will be inexpensive,
durable, non-toxic, and protective for as long as I fly it. An added
benifit is that I always have the option of spraying an auto finish right
over the top if I want too.
Hope this is of some use.
Steve E
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Malcolm Morrison <morrison(at)vicon.net> |
Hi all,
I have been looking at Aircamper plans and notes, trying to figure out the
best dimensions for the spars. The origional used a 1" spruce spar, with
the web routed to 1/2". I have seen references to 3/4" spars (I don't know
if these are routed, or if they are spruce or fir). I plan on using
Douglas fir for my project, and want to use the size that makes sense.
In the EAA Wood book, there is a section from Noel J. Becar titled
"Selection and Evaluation of Wood". In this he describes the differences
between spruce, fir, and several other wood species. Using the formulas in
the book for weight and strength, I came up with the following numbers.
Spar Weight
Width Height Routed Volume(ft) Spruce(lbs) Fir(lbs)
Spar Strength
Width Height Max load (spruce) Max load (fir)
lbs and will support a total load of 83942 lbs. A 7/8" fir spar would
weigh 40.25 lbs and support a total load of 85129 lbs. This is stronger
and lighter that the 3/4" solid spar. So, it would seem that a 7/8" fir
spar, with a 7/16" routed web would be the best size to use for fir.
Has anyone else looked at these numbers, or built a spar of this size? Any
thoughts before the saw dust flys.
Malcolm Morrison
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Introduction |
Steve,
Mine is held on with 4 screws.
Ted Brousseau
Naples, FL
> Another question. How can
>one get access to the bellcrank area behind the rear seat if the seat back
>is nailed in?
>
>Cheers Steve
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Spar Question |
Hi Malcolm,
Back in 1970 I was able to obtain some excellent Douglas Fir
that was 3/4" x about 5 1/2" dimensionally. It had a nice edge
grain averaging about 12 to 15 annular rings per inch on the
5 1/2" face. (I doubt one could easily find stuff like that today.)
I elected to duplicate the original spar dimensions (1" x 4 3/4"
I -beam) by thickness planing the webs to 1/2" and gluing 1/4"
x 3/4" strips on each side, top and bottom. Filler blocks were
used at attachment points together with 3/32" Birch aircraft ply-
wood plates. This arrangement has worked well (I'm still flying
this a/c). I knew at the time it would be over-strength (and over
weight, too) but had already built all the wing ribs to accept a
1" thick spar, and the prospect of shimming them didn't appeal
to me.
I believe there are other places where one could save weight
besides reducing spar dimensions: eliminate the wooden leading
edge with .020" 2024 T3 (not soft aluminum) wraparound, use
the same material for the trailing edge, and in the covering and
finishing of the wing itself. Were I to build another Pietenpol, I
definitely would do these things...and would build up aluminum
alloy wing ribs using the same .020" 2024 T3 material as well.
I have built a few samples of these ribs for the Pietenpol airfoil
and they are extremely light and easy to fabricate...and I have
used the same technique for thewing ribs on my Wag-A-Bond,
with Martin clips to attach the fabric. Of course the purists won't
like these changes, but I think BHP would not disapprove (met
him back in 1982, and he seemed to be receptive to different
ideas).
Anyway, good luck with your project and I hope you enjoy your
Pietenpol as much as I enjoy mine.
Cheers,
Graham Hansen
> From: Malcolm Morrison <morrison(at)vicon.net>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Spar Question
> Date: Tuesday, March 03, 1998 6:26 PM
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have been looking at Aircamper plans and notes, trying to figure out
the
> best dimensions for the spars. The origional used a 1" spruce spar, with
> the web routed to 1/2". I have seen references to 3/4" spars (I don't
know
> if these are routed, or if they are spruce or fir). I plan on using
> Douglas fir for my project, and want to use the size that makes sense.
>
> In the EAA Wood book, there is a section from Noel J. Becar titled
> "Selection and Evaluation of Wood". In this he describes the differences
> between spruce, fir, and several other wood species. Using the formulas
in
> the book for weight and strength, I came up with the following numbers.
>
> Spar Weight
>
> Width Height Routed Volume(ft) Spruce(lbs) Fir(lbs)
>
> Spar Strength
>
> Width Height Max load (spruce) Max load (fir)
>
> >From these numbers it appears that the original spruce spars weigh 39.03
> lbs and will support a total load of 83942 lbs. A 7/8" fir spar would
> weigh 40.25 lbs and support a total load of 85129 lbs. This is stronger
> and lighter that the 3/4" solid spar. So, it would seem that a 7/8" fir
> spar, with a 7/16" routed web would be the best size to use for fir.
>
> Has anyone else looked at these numbers, or built a spar of this size?
Any
> thoughts before the saw dust flys.
>
> Malcolm Morrison
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Latex fabric finishing method |
Hi Steve:
Thanks for the very helpful and detailed description of your latex paint job.
Great info and describes why I am on this chat group twice a day. Thanks again.
Best Regards,
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Spar Question |
> Hi Malcolm:
I went through a similar techie analysis of some of these items, and once
again made a pilgrimage to one of my Mentor builders at Flabob airport near my
home. Please don't let the humor here seem disrespectful, but do you really
think your body will be in any condition to care if you are under 82,000 pounds
of stress or 83,000 pounds of stress (after you deduct the gross weight of the
plane) It appears that the Piet is so over designed, that it really is a
great deal more important to pay close attention to the quality of your
assembly work, than it is to worry excessively about the material. (Yeah, I
use salt when I eat my words guys). This thing is simply hell-for-stout, if
assembled correctly. Otherwise, it won't make any difference how good the
material is.
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry L. Neal" <llneal(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Latex fabric finishing method |
Steve,
Thanks for solving multiple mysteries...
Cheap is good. Cheap and durable is great!.
Larry
Steve Eldredge wrote:
> A little late, but as requested here is my experience using latex paint on
> my aircamper.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Spar Question |
Malcolm,
Nice work on the calculations. You're on the right track. Keep in mind that
Bernie's 1" spar was more like 15/16" since his measurments were to the kerf of
the blade. A lot of people have made built up laminated spars. My suggestion
for built up spars would be to scarf all the joints in any one lamination and
be sure that the placement of these scarfs don't intersect with holes for
fittings. A laminated spar would allow a one piece wing if you have the space.
If you don't have the room, for weight savings, make a 2 piece wing including
the center section with one half. That way you only have the weight of one set
of attach fittings.
Good luck
Malcolm Morrison wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have been looking at Aircamper plans and notes, trying to figure out the
> best dimensions for the spars. The origional used a 1" spruce spar, with
> the web routed to 1/2". I have seen references to 3/4" spars (I don't know
> if these are routed, or if they are spruce or fir). I plan on using
> Douglas fir for my project, and want to use the size that makes sense.
>
> In the EAA Wood book, there is a section from Noel J. Becar titled
> "Selection and Evaluation of Wood". In this he describes the differences
> between spruce, fir, and several other wood species. Using the formulas in
> the book for weight and strength, I came up with the following numbers.
>
> Spar Weight
>
> Width Height Routed Volume(ft) Spruce(lbs) Fir(lbs)
>
> Spar Strength
>
> Width Height Max load (spruce) Max load (fir)
>
> >From these numbers it appears that the original spruce spars weigh 39.03
> lbs and will support a total load of 83942 lbs. A 7/8" fir spar would
> weigh 40.25 lbs and support a total load of 85129 lbs. This is stronger
> and lighter that the 3/4" solid spar. So, it would seem that a 7/8" fir
> spar, with a 7/16" routed web would be the best size to use for fir.
>
> Has anyone else looked at these numbers, or built a spar of this size? Any
> thoughts before the saw dust flys.
>
> Malcolm Morrison
--
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
Rt. 3 Box 13
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Spar Question |
It looks like the KERF OF PIETENPOL has struck again! Just Joking,Steve Yahn
>Malcolm,
>Nice work on the calculations. You're on the right track. Keep in mind that
>Bernie's 1" spar was more like 15/16" since his measurments were to the kerf of
>the blade. A lot of people have made built up laminated spars. My suggestion
>for built up spars would be to scarf all the joints in any one lamination and
>be sure that the placement of these scarfs don't intersect with holes for
>fittings. A laminated spar would allow a one piece wing if you have the space.
>If you don't have the room, for weight savings, make a 2 piece wing including
>the center section with one half. That way you only have the weight of one set
>of attach fittings.
>
>Good luck
>
>Malcolm Morrison wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have been looking at Aircamper plans and notes, trying to figure out the
>> best dimensions for the spars. The origional used a 1" spruce spar, with
>> the web routed to 1/2". I have seen references to 3/4" spars (I don't know
>> if these are routed, or if they are spruce or fir). I plan on using
>> Douglas fir for my project, and want to use the size that makes sense.
>>
>> In the EAA Wood book, there is a section from Noel J. Becar titled
>> "Selection and Evaluation of Wood". In this he describes the differences
>> between spruce, fir, and several other wood species. Using the formulas in
>> the book for weight and strength, I came up with the following numbers.
>>
>> Spar Weight
>>
>> Width Height Routed Volume(ft) Spruce(lbs) Fir(lbs)
>>
>> Spar Strength
>>
>> Width Height Max load (spruce) Max load (fir)
>>
>> >From these numbers it appears that the original spruce spars weigh 39.03
>> lbs and will support a total load of 83942 lbs. A 7/8" fir spar would
>> weigh 40.25 lbs and support a total load of 85129 lbs. This is stronger
>> and lighter that the 3/4" solid spar. So, it would seem that a 7/8" fir
>> spar, with a 7/16" routed web would be the best size to use for fir.
>>
>> Has anyone else looked at these numbers, or built a spar of this size? Any
>> thoughts before the saw dust flys.
>>
>> Malcolm Morrison
>
>
>--
>
>David B.Schober, CPE
>Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
>Fairmont State College
>National Aerospace Education Center
>Rt. 3 Box 13
>Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
>(304) 842-8300
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Spar Question |
I agree the Piet is over designed but thought I would share one bit of
information that caught my attention last year at a Piet flyin. I met a
fellow that landed his Piet in the pine trees and lived to tell about it.
It seems that things got a little turbulent and the next thing he knew was
that he didn't have elevator control. So, down he went.
Turns out the control horns (hope that is the correct terminology) coming
out of the elevators were not made out of double thickness metal. When the
going got a little rough they just gave up and bent over. So, the moral of
the story is to make sure you have substantial control horns and keep an eye
on them to see that they aren't trying to bend over. Also, don't over
control the Piet if you find yourself in gusty conditions.
Keep em flying - it took too long to build.
Ted Brousseau
Naples, FL
GN-1
>It appears that the Piet is so over designed, that it really is a
>great deal more important to pay close attention to the quality of your
>assembly work, than it is to worry excessively about the material.
________________________________________________________________________________
Thank You, Steve
>
>Steve in Seattle- The guy you want to visit is Craig Aho in Mountlake
>Terrace, WA. He's built one Piet and now on his next. (an A powered)
>206-778-7650 Tell him Mike Cuy says hello.
>23307 45th Ave. W.
>98043
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you, Steve
>
>Steve in Seattle- The guy you want to visit is Craig Aho in Mountlake
>Terrace, WA. He's built one Piet and now on his next. (an A powered)
>206-778-7650 Tell him Mike Cuy says hello.
>23307 45th Ave. W.
>98043
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | just a short story |
I recently moved my Piet back out of the garage after the 10 hour check and
moved the fuselage of my new project (a Stinson 10A) in. Last night my
three little girls and I had a blast "garage flying" the Stinson to all
kinds of destinations. On our way to Disneyland my youngest joined us
mid-trip (must have been somewhere over Nevada). She had been hesitant to
join us when we left out of a little trepidation from previous experiences
at the "noisy" airport. Finally with all four of us aboard we landed at
Disneyland. The kids soon tired of Disneyland, and true to pilot dreamers
wanted to go someplace again. Getting there is more than half the fun
dontchaknow. Our next destination was dictated by my 4 year old as Africa.
The tRUSTY old Stinson had never traveled so fast. 30 seconds later we
arrived for our safari. Soon mom came out and announced that we had
company. Our good friend and pilot, Roger came through the door. He
quickly summed up what was going on and said "How many kids can say they
can go out to the garage and have a blast playing with their dad in an old
airplane?" Allyse my oldest at five promptly responded. "Three!"
Life is so precious.
Steve Eldredge
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: just a short story |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | just a short story |
I recently moved my Piet back out of the garage after the 10 hour check and
moved the fuselage of my new project (a Stinson 10A) in. Last night my
three little girls and I had a blast "garage flying" the Stinson to all
kinds of destinations. On our way to Disneyland my youngest joined us
mid-trip (must have been somewhere over Nevada). She had been hesitant to
join us when we left out of a little trepidation from previous experiences
at the "noisy" airport. Finally with all four of us aboard we landed at
Disneyland. The kids soon tired of Disneyland, and true to pilot dreamers
wanted to go someplace again. Getting there is more than half the fun
dontchaknow. Our next destination was dictated by my 4 year old as Africa.
The tRUSTY old Stinson had never traveled so fast. 30 seconds later we
arrived for our safari. Soon mom came out and announced that we had
company. Our good friend and pilot, Roger came through the door. He
quickly summed up what was going on and said "How many kids can say they
can go out to the garage and have a blast playing with their dad in an old
airplane?" Allyse my oldest at five promptly responded. "Three!"
Life is so precious.
Steve Eldredge
Shouldn't the answer have been Four ? ):-) J Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gerard \"Larry\" Huber" <glhuber(at)mail.wiscnet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: just a short story |
Steve Eldredge wrote:
>
> I recently moved my Piet back out of the garage after the 10 hour check and
> moved the fuselage of my new project (a Stinson 10A) in. Last night my
> three little girls and I had a blast "garage flying" the Stinson to all
> kinds of destinations.
>
> Life is so precious.
>
> Steve Eldredge
Thanks Steve - This is what makes this list soooooooo enjoyable - Every
time I get a post it's like dropping into the hangar for a few minutes
to hear what is going on - This particular post will be shared with my
family as well - Life truly is precious! I'm glad you're sharing it with
your children (and the rest of us) so feely - Thanks again
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: just a short story |
Wonderful story for the flying hearts and flying minds of all ages in all of us
out here. Thanks for sharing.
Warren
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <dsiebert(at)gate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: just a short story |
The sad truth is, how many children can remember the last time their dad
took the time to play with them?
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Eldredge
Date: Thursday, March 05, 1998 10:51 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: just a short story
>
>
>I recently moved my Piet back out of the garage after the 10 hour check and
>moved the fuselage of my new project (a Stinson 10A) in. Last night my
>three little girls and I had a blast "garage flying" the Stinson to all
>kinds of destinations. On our way to Disneyland my youngest joined us
>mid-trip (must have been somewhere over Nevada). She had been hesitant to
>join us when we left out of a little trepidation from previous experiences
>at the "noisy" airport. Finally with all four of us aboard we landed at
>Disneyland. The kids soon tired of Disneyland, and true to pilot dreamers
>wanted to go someplace again. Getting there is more than half the fun
>dontchaknow. Our next destination was dictated by my 4 year old as Africa.
> The tRUSTY old Stinson had never traveled so fast. 30 seconds later we
>arrived for our safari. Soon mom came out and announced that we had
>company. Our good friend and pilot, Roger came through the door. He
>quickly summed up what was going on and said "How many kids can say they
>can go out to the garage and have a blast playing with their dad in an old
>airplane?" Allyse my oldest at five promptly responded. "Three!"
>
>Life is so precious.
>
>Steve Eldredge
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry L. Neal" <llneal(at)earthlink.net> |
Almost three, I've got the CFIG test standards in one hand and Don's
plans in the other.
So many toys, so little time! Larry (1-26 #524)
John Kahn wrote:
> That makes two glider pilot/instructors on the list... cooel...
>
> John Kahn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William C. Beerman" <wcb(at)bbt.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Control horns |
As a "just beginning" builder, the one part of the Pietenpol design
that I have been somewhat suspicious of is the fabrication of the control
horns from 22 GA. sheet metal. Does anyone have any thoughts on this, or tips
on forming and welding these relatively complex shapes?
---- Begin Included Message -----
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 23:01:47 -0500 (EST)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Spar Question |
I agree the Piet is over designed but thought I would share one bit of
information that caught my attention last year at a Piet flyin. I met a
fellow that landed his Piet in the pine trees and lived to tell about it.
It seems that things got a little turbulent and the next thing he knew was
that he didn't have elevator control. So, down he went.
Turns out the control horns (hope that is the correct terminology) coming
out of the elevators were not made out of double thickness metal. When the
going got a little rough they just gave up and bent over. So, the moral of
the story is to make sure you have substantial control horns and keep an eye
on them to see that they aren't trying to bend over. Also, don't over
control the Piet if you find yourself in gusty conditions.
Keep em flying - it took too long to build.
Ted Brousseau
Naples, FL
GN-1
>It appears that the Piet is so over designed, that it really is a
>great deal more important to pay close attention to the quality of your
>assembly work, than it is to worry excessively about the material.
----- End Included Message -----
----- End Included Message -----
----- End Included Message -----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Cardinal <CARDIGJ(at)mail.startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Control horns -Reply |
They aren't as difficult as it first looks. I cut out blanks to the rough shape
and left a small tab on each end. I then stacked the blanks and welded
them together at the tabs. Now, using a chop saw, belt sander, hacksaw
and file they can be finished to the proper shape. Leave the tabs on the
ends until the rest of it is shaped. Cut off the tabs and you now have 4
blanks cut identically. To make the airfoil shape I clamped the blanks to a
piece of steel that had a nice radiused edge and formed them using a
hammer and wood block to prevent hammer marks. The thin material
springs back a lot so use lots of clamps.
Greg C.
>>> "William C. Beerman" 03/06/98 07:11am >>>
As a "just beginning" builder, the one part of the Pietenpol design
that I have been somewhat suspicious of is the fabrication of the control
horns from 22 GA. sheet metal. Does anyone have any thoughts on this,
or tips
on forming and welding these relatively complex shapes?
---- Begin Included Message -----
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 23:01:47 -0500 (EST)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Spar Question |
I agree the Piet is over designed but thought I would share one bit of
information that caught my attention last year at a Piet flyin. I met a
fellow that landed his Piet in the pine trees and lived to tell about it.
It seems that things got a little turbulent and the next thing he knew was
that he didn't have elevator control. So, down he went.
Turns out the control horns (hope that is the correct terminology) coming
out of the elevators were not made out of double thickness metal. When
the
going got a little rough they just gave up and bent over. So, the moral of
the story is to make sure you have substantial control horns and keep an
eye
on them to see that they aren't trying to bend over. Also, don't over
control the Piet if you find yourself in gusty conditions.
Keep em flying - it took too long to build.
Ted Brousseau
Naples, FL
GN-1
>It appears that the Piet is so over designed, that it really is a
>great deal more important to pay close attention to the quality of your
>assembly work, than it is to worry excessively about the material.
----- End Included Message -----
----- End Included Message -----
----- End Included Message -----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William C. Beerman" <wcb(at)bbt.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Control horns -Reply |
Thanks for the good info, Greg! One more question- what welding
technique did you use on these horns? The large MIG welder I've been
practicing on (a 300 Amp Miller machine), when turned down low enough
to not burn through, no longer suports a reliable arc. I'm learning
gas welding, and that's difficult also on this thin metal.
> Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 09:13:48 -0600
> From: Greg Cardinal <CARDIGJ(at)mail.startribune.com>
> Subject: Re: Control horns -Reply
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> X-Listname:
>
> They aren't as difficult as it first looks. I cut out blanks to the rough shape
> and left a small tab on each end. I then stacked the blanks and welded
> them together at the tabs. Now, using a chop saw, belt sander, hacksaw
> and file they can be finished to the proper shape. Leave the tabs on the
> ends until the rest of it is shaped. Cut off the tabs and you now have 4
> blanks cut identically. To make the airfoil shape I clamped the blanks to a
> piece of steel that had a nice radiused edge and formed them using a
> hammer and wood block to prevent hammer marks. The thin material
> springs back a lot so use lots of clamps.
>
> Greg C.
>
> >>> "William C. Beerman" 03/06/98 07:11am >>>
> As a "just beginning" builder, the one part of the Pietenpol design
> that I have been somewhat suspicious of is the fabrication of the control
> horns from 22 GA. sheet metal. Does anyone have any thoughts on this,
> or tips
> on forming and welding these relatively complex shapes?
>
> ---- Begin Included Message -----
>
> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 23:01:47 -0500 (EST)
> From: Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net>
> Subject: Re: Spar Question
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> MIME-version: 1.0
> X-Listname:
>
> I agree the Piet is over designed but thought I would share one bit of
> information that caught my attention last year at a Piet flyin. I met a
> fellow that landed his Piet in the pine trees and lived to tell about it.
> It seems that things got a little turbulent and the next thing he knew was
> that he didn't have elevator control. So, down he went.
>
> Turns out the control horns (hope that is the correct terminology) coming
> out of the elevators were not made out of double thickness metal. When
> the
> going got a little rough they just gave up and bent over. So, the moral of
> the story is to make sure you have substantial control horns and keep an
> eye
> on them to see that they aren't trying to bend over. Also, don't over
> control the Piet if you find yourself in gusty conditions.
>
> Keep em flying - it took too long to build.
>
> Ted Brousseau
> Naples, FL
> GN-1
>
> >It appears that the Piet is so over designed, that it really is a
> >great deal more important to pay close attention to the quality of your
> >assembly work, than it is to worry excessively about the material.
>
>
>
> ----- End Included Message -----
>
>
>
> ----- End Included Message -----
>
>
>
>
> ----- End Included Message -----
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Cardinal <CARDIGJ(at)mail.startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Control horns -Reply -Reply |
I gas welded. Use plenty of tack welds to control warpage.
Greg C.
>>> "William C. Beerman" 03/06/98 09:39am >>>
Thanks for the good info, Greg! One more question- what welding
technique did you use on these horns? The large MIG welder I've been
practicing on (a 300 Amp Miller machine), when turned down low enough
to not burn through, no longer suports a reliable arc. I'm learning
gas welding, and that's difficult also on this thin metal.
> Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 09:13:48 -0600
> From: Greg Cardinal <CARDIGJ(at)mail.startribune.com>
> Subject: Re: Control horns -Reply
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> X-Listname:
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Control horns -Reply |
The gas welding is not so bad at 4 psig and 4 psig, neutral flame and a
"00" tip. Excellent video put out by the EAA on gas welding. Lots of
practice and vice tests give you confidence pretty quick!
> From: William C. Beerman <wcb(at)bbt.com>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: Control horns -Reply
> Date: Friday, March 06, 1998 10:39 AM
>
> Thanks for the good info, Greg! One more question- what welding
> technique did you use on these horns? The large MIG welder I've been
> practicing on (a 300 Amp Miller machine), when turned down low enough
> to not burn through, no longer suports a reliable arc. I'm learning
> gas welding, and that's difficult also on this thin metal.
>
> > Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 09:13:48 -0600
> > From: Greg Cardinal <CARDIGJ(at)mail.startribune.com>
> > Subject: Re: Control horns -Reply
> > To: Pietenpol Discussion
> > X-Listname:
> >
> > They aren't as difficult as it first looks. I cut out blanks to the
rough shape
> > and left a small tab on each end. I then stacked the blanks and welded
> > them together at the tabs. Now, using a chop saw, belt sander, hacksaw
> > and file they can be finished to the proper shape. Leave the tabs on
the
> > ends until the rest of it is shaped. Cut off the tabs and you now have
4
> > blanks cut identically. To make the airfoil shape I clamped the blanks
to a
> > piece of steel that had a nice radiused edge and formed them using a
> > hammer and wood block to prevent hammer marks. The thin material
> > springs back a lot so use lots of clamps.
> >
> > Greg C.
> >
> > >>> "William C. Beerman" 03/06/98 07:11am >>>
> > As a "just beginning" builder, the one part of the Pietenpol design
> > that I have been somewhat suspicious of is the fabrication of the
control
> > horns from 22 GA. sheet metal. Does anyone have any thoughts on this,
> > or tips
> > on forming and welding these relatively complex shapes?
> >
> > ---- Begin Included Message -----
> >
> > Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 23:01:47 -0500 (EST)
> > From: Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net>
> > Subject: Re: Spar Question
> > To: Pietenpol Discussion
> > MIME-version: 1.0
> > X-Listname:
> >
> > I agree the Piet is over designed but thought I would share one bit of
> > information that caught my attention last year at a Piet flyin. I met
a
> > fellow that landed his Piet in the pine trees and lived to tell about
it.
> > It seems that things got a little turbulent and the next thing he knew
was
> > that he didn't have elevator control. So, down he went.
> >
> > Turns out the control horns (hope that is the correct terminology)
coming
> > out of the elevators were not made out of double thickness metal. When
> > the
> > going got a little rough they just gave up and bent over. So, the
moral of
> > the story is to make sure you have substantial control horns and keep
an
> > eye
> > on them to see that they aren't trying to bend over. Also, don't over
> > control the Piet if you find yourself in gusty conditions.
> >
> > Keep em flying - it took too long to build.
> >
> > Ted Brousseau
> > Naples, FL
> > GN-1
> >
> > >It appears that the Piet is so over designed, that it really is a
> > >great deal more important to pay close attention to the quality of
your
> > >assembly work, than it is to worry excessively about the material.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- End Included Message -----
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- End Included Message -----
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- End Included Message -----
> >
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TLC62770 <TLC62770(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Introduction |
when oyu assemble the set and are ready to install it # 1 don't use nails ,
use a good quility woos screw . if you are going to be getting in there often
put a hinge on the set so it will tilt out of the way when you need to get to
it .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Introduction |
You lost me on this one. What in the world are you talking about.
>when oyu assemble the set and are ready to install it # 1 don't use nails ,
>use a good quility woos screw . if you are going to be getting in there often
>put a hinge on the set so it will tilt out of the way when you need to get to
>it .
>
>
jimsury(at)fbtc.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Hunt <ve6zh(at)cnnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: just a short story |
Nice story Steeve,kids are truly great. Thanks.
Doug.
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Eldredge
Date: Thursday, March 05, 1998 3:41 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: just a short story
>
>
>I recently moved my Piet back out of the garage after the 10 hour check and
>moved the fuselage of my new project (a Stinson 10A) in. Last night my
>three little girls and I had a blast "garage flying" the Stinson to all
>kinds of destinations. On our way to Disneyland my youngest joined us
>mid-trip (must have been somewhere over Nevada). She had been hesitant to
>join us when we left out of a little trepidation from previous experiences
>at the "noisy" airport. Finally with all four of us aboard we landed at
>Disneyland. The kids soon tired of Disneyland, and true to pilot dreamers
>wanted to go someplace again. Getting there is more than half the fun
>dontchaknow. Our next destination was dictated by my 4 year old as Africa.
> The tRUSTY old Stinson had never traveled so fast. 30 seconds later we
>arrived for our safari. Soon mom came out and announced that we had
>company. Our good friend and pilot, Roger came through the door. He
>quickly summed up what was going on and said "How many kids can say they
>can go out to the garage and have a blast playing with their dad in an old
>airplane?" Allyse my oldest at five promptly responded. "Three!"
>
>Life is so precious.
>
>Steve Eldredge
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Peck <crusader(at)thegrid.net> |
I enjoyed Steve's story the other day. It is interesting to here about
the things we all do when it comes the hobbies that we enjoy, and the
families that we share life with..
Three or four month's ago I had acquired about 850 bd ft. of 2x8x16
spruce boards to be use on my piet project. Needing about eight feet to
finish the roof of my work shop I used one of the boards as it was
available and I had to finish the project.( if I need that spruce piece
I will tear my roof apart to get it ! ) After cutting the board and
using half for the shop, I was curious to see what the spruce would look
like for the piet. I proceeded to cut a slice off the other piece about
1/2"x 1" x 6". I then sanded it smooth and noticed how light and strong
the spruce wood piece was, all the while envsioning myself building ribs
and other airplane parts. Then I was interupted and stuck the piece in
my coat pocket. During the day as I worked in my wood shop I would once
in a while reach in my pocket only to be reminded of the wood piece
still there and then start to build airplane parts in my mind again! As
a couple weeks past I would find that piece still there from time to
time and start to daydream again.
The other day my wife came over to do the usual paper work for our
business and said she was cold. As I had already worked up a sweat and
shed my coat, she promptly put my coat on. About ten minutes later she
walked around the corner and asked me what the wood in my pocket was
for! I hesitated answering, trying to figuare out some quick reply
without having to come clean as to why I really kept that smooth piece
of wood in that pocket. Needless to say I just spilled the beans, she
rolled her eyes and left the room. But I know she was smiling inside as
she left but I didn't notice. I was dreaming about ribs and
--
Check out Crusader Toys @
http://www.thegrid.net/crusader/
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi all
In my work we have on occasion rebabbitted bearings for large steam turbines.
When we do this we heat,flux and tin(with pure tin)the bore of the steel shell.
Then we spin the heated steel shell in a lathe. It has dam shields at the ends.
Then we pour the babbit in and it sticks real good.
What i'm wondering is how do they do this to a model A engine?
I'm also curious about the distributor hole. Does someone make a magnito
that plugs in there. I've never looked close a Ford A engine. Does it have a
distributor hole?
I sent away for plans yesterday to Don Pietenpol. Now the long wait!
Cheers Steve Yahn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LanhamOS <LanhamOS(at)aol.com> |
For Steve... thanks for the news about the babbiting process. I always
wondered how
it worked.As to the mag on the ven4rable A Engine.. EAA publishes reprints of
Flyi9ng and Glider Manual...the 1932 issue features the Pietenpol, with text
by that applied engineering genis himself, Bernard Pietenpol..The A
distributor looked like a bat wing, withj copper leads to each plug.. So this
doesn't work, although in the VW
conversion the mag fit into the distributor drive.. Instead the A engine is
reversed in the Pietenpol, prop runs off the flywheel end of the engine, the
magefits into an adapter on the end of the crankshaft pulley that drives the
water pump...Bernard had detailed instructions as to how it worked.. It used a
threaded end of a Model T Rear Axel, with a soft leather unversal joint
coupling. Myfather had Midel T'w, and an A. I had am A.. So, wonder where you
would get the end of the T rear axle, but I am sure a good machinist could
fashion one.One amazing piece is the power curve of the Ford A conversion at
1600 rpm.. I am curious about some conversions of A engines whowing a water
hose at the front of the reversed engine.. Good, luck..
If you need the article.. I can supply. Dr. O. Lanham, Aviation Historian,
1912 Collins Drive, Bellevue, Ne. 68005 ( We are under lots of snow today!)
Keep Em Flying..
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | michael list <mclist(at)ptw.com> |
| Subject: | First Pietenpol Flight |
What a great day! Had my first flight today in a Pietenpol and it was a
blast! And not just from the slipstream! Thought I would share some of
my first impressions.
First, this airplane is somewhere between a true Air Camper and the
Grega version, built back in 1972 by my kind host, Scott Liefield, and
his father. Welded steel tube fuselage, door for the front cockpit on
right side, 85 Continental, Cub-like wings(not the Pietenpol airfoil and
27' span with large ailerons) and ooh-gah horn on the side. Weight is
635 lbs and it has 22 gallon capacity with a center section and fuselage
tank. Wire spoked wheels on the straight axle gear with bungees and no
brakes. I flew from the front where my only instrument was a
thermometer, and I didn't need it to tell me it was cold!
Getting in required some dexterity, even with the door, and I don't
think my wife would care for it without the door. Climb up through the
wing strut x-bracing wires, right hand on front right cabane strut, left
hand on the coaming between cockpits, right foot on the tire and swing
the left leg in. The fit was cozy with thermals and jacket, no extra
shoulder room. Seat was comfortable with a Temperfoam pad. We had
sheepskin lined leather helmets with an intercom, but the wind in the
front cockpit made it hard to transmit.
Taxiing went ok with no brakes on hard surfaces and winds gusting to 20
kts, typical southern California desert conditions. The usual blind
spots with a tail dragger but s-turns take care of that. Field
elevation is 2300 ft, temp about 45 degrees, visibility down to 60
miles. Takeoff was quick! We went diagonally across the runway into
the wind and maybe used 300 ft (we started the roll on the taxiway).
Tower was impressed and said so! So was that student in a Cherokee
waiting to depart behind us!
Up at altitude it was my turn, and it sure is fun to fly! Elevator was
sensitive and quick, rudder was well matched to the elevator, and the
ailerons were heavy but responsive. Not a fighter but good enough for
me! A rudder airplane, you have to use those feet to keep the nose
wagging in the right direction. Visibility was comparable to Aeronca,
good over the nose and everywhere else but up. GPS (yes, GPS has made it
into a Piet) showed 51 mph into the wind, 115 with it. No idea what
climb rate was but it was plenty. The wind in the front cockpit is
considerable, even with the windscreen, so make sure your better half is
sporting enough to stand it.
Landing approach is steep with extra speed only for tempermental winds.
There is lots of drag so it slows right up with the power back. Rudder
dance is not bad and a lot better than some types.
So do I still think it is the right plane for me? Absolutely! Scott
has promised to take my wife up when it gets warmer just to make sure it
meets her expectations. The short field performance was great, and the
waves from that farmer on his tractor were like 1929! And flying so
slow that I had time to watch that hawk chase after a small bird. Clear
blue skies and snow on the peaks all around, the smell of a plowed field
mixing with that of warm oil. It really does feel like you are part of
the plane, even after only a half hour. If I were to make a change (the
purists won't like this) I would widen the fuselage by two inches and
definitely use the door into the front cockpit. This is personal
preference only and is not required. As mentioned, this Piet is not a
"true" one but I think it is close enough to give the right flavor. It
sure got my day off to a great start!
Mike List
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: First Pietenpol Flight |
I enjoyed your account of first Pietenpol flight. Thanks,thanks,thanks.P
Cheers Steve Yahn
>What a great day! Had my first flight today in a Pietenpol and it was a
>blast! And not just from the slipstream! Thought I would share some of
>my first impressions.
>
>First, this airplane is somewhere between a true Air Camper and the
>Grega version, built back in 1972 by my kind host, Scott Liefield, and
>his father. Welded steel tube fuselage, door for the front cockpit on
>right side, 85 Continental, Cub-like wings(not the Pietenpol airfoil and
>27' span with large ailerons) and ooh-gah horn on the side. Weight is
>635 lbs and it has 22 gallon capacity with a center section and fuselage
>tank. Wire spoked wheels on the straight axle gear with bungees and no
>brakes. I flew from the front where my only instrument was a
>thermometer, and I didn't need it to tell me it was cold!
>
>Getting in required some dexterity, even with the door, and I don't
>think my wife would care for it without the door. Climb up through the
>wing strut x-bracing wires, right hand on front right cabane strut, left
>hand on the coaming between cockpits, right foot on the tire and swing
>the left leg in. The fit was cozy with thermals and jacket, no extra
>shoulder room. Seat was comfortable with a Temperfoam pad. We had
>sheepskin lined leather helmets with an intercom, but the wind in the
>front cockpit made it hard to transmit.
>
>Taxiing went ok with no brakes on hard surfaces and winds gusting to 20
>kts, typical southern California desert conditions. The usual blind
>spots with a tail dragger but s-turns take care of that. Field
>elevation is 2300 ft, temp about 45 degrees, visibility down to 60
>miles. Takeoff was quick! We went diagonally across the runway into
>the wind and maybe used 300 ft (we started the roll on the taxiway).
>Tower was impressed and said so! So was that student in a Cherokee
>waiting to depart behind us!
>
>Up at altitude it was my turn, and it sure is fun to fly! Elevator was
>sensitive and quick, rudder was well matched to the elevator, and the
>ailerons were heavy but responsive. Not a fighter but good enough for
>me! A rudder airplane, you have to use those feet to keep the nose
>wagging in the right direction. Visibility was comparable to Aeronca,
>good over the nose and everywhere else but up. GPS (yes, GPS has made it
>into a Piet) showed 51 mph into the wind, 115 with it. No idea what
>climb rate was but it was plenty. The wind in the front cockpit is
>considerable, even with the windscreen, so make sure your better half is
>sporting enough to stand it.
>
>Landing approach is steep with extra speed only for tempermental winds.
>There is lots of drag so it slows right up with the power back. Rudder
>dance is not bad and a lot better than some types.
>
>So do I still think it is the right plane for me? Absolutely! Scott
>has promised to take my wife up when it gets warmer just to make sure it
>meets her expectations. The short field performance was great, and the
>waves from that farmer on his tractor were like 1929! And flying so
>slow that I had time to watch that hawk chase after a small bird. Clear
>blue skies and snow on the peaks all around, the smell of a plowed field
>mixing with that of warm oil. It really does feel like you are part of
>the plane, even after only a half hour. If I were to make a change (the
>purists won't like this) I would widen the fuselage by two inches and
>definitely use the door into the front cockpit. This is personal
>preference only and is not required. As mentioned, this Piet is not a
>"true" one but I think it is close enough to give the right flavor. It
>sure got my day off to a great start!
>
>Mike List
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Control horns |
>As a "just beginning" builder, the one part of the Pietenpol design
>that I have been somewhat suspicious of is the fabrication of the control
>horns from 22 GA. sheet metal. Does anyone have any thoughts on this, or
tips
>on forming and welding these relatively complex shapes?
>
Bill- I was tempted to go w/ one piece control horns but after making
a two piece practice version ( I tig welded the edges) I couldn't
believe how incredibly strong they were- not to metion how much
lighter they are than the one piece versions. It is worth the work
to make em' as shown....not easy, but worth it. Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Control horns |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Control horns |
>As a "just beginning" builder, the one part of the Pietenpol design
>that I have been somewhat suspicious of is the fabrication of the control
>horns from 22 GA. sheet metal. Does anyone have any thoughts on this, or
tips
>on forming and welding these relatively complex shapes?
>
Bill- I was tempted to go w/ one piece control horns but after making
a two piece practice version ( I tig welded the edges) I couldn't
believe how incredibly strong they were- not to metion how much
lighter they are than the one piece versions. It is worth the work
to make em' as shown....not easy, but worth it. Mike C.
. I just read the "Aircamper "Appening's" from the British bunch at
the BPA web site. One of their members used MDF (medium Density
Fiberboard) to make female molds he pounded the sheet stock into the
mold and then cut off the flanges and welded them up. Sounds like a
good method to me.
J Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TLC62770 <TLC62770(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re:you lucky so -n-so |
HI MIKE
I IREALLY ENVY YOUR FIRST FLIGHT . MY FRIEND AND I ARE BUILDING A PIET . WE
FINALY FINISHED THE WORK SHOP A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO .
SINCE THEN WE BOTH HAVE BEEN VERY BUSY DOING THINGS FOR OUR WIVES AND HAVEN'T
HAD A CHANCE TO GET BACK ON THE PLANE AGAIN .
IT MUST HAVE BEEN THE BEST RIDE EVER . AGAIN AN'T IT GREAT
THANKS FOR YOUR TIME TERRY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi all
In my work we have on occasion rebabbitted bearings for large steam turbines.
When we do this we heat,flux and tin(with pure tin)the bore of the steel shell.
>Same way.
Then we spin the heated steel shell in a lathe. (Neat! We preheat
the block too but I can't figure out how to spin it and pour at the
same time. }:-)
It has dam shields at the ends. Then we pour the
babbit in and it sticks real good. What i'm wondering is how do they
do this to a model A engine?
Pretty much the same way. We usually put
shims between the cap and block before boring to cranksize. this
allows for later clearance adjustment.
I'm also curious about the
distributor hole. Does someone make a magnito that plugs in there.
I've never looked close a Ford A engine. Does it have a distributor
hole?
Check out the Pics on Richard DeCosta's web page some of the engines
there are fitted with mags in the Dist. hole.
I sent away for plans
yesterday to Don Pietenpol. Now the long wait! Cheers Steve Yahn
Have Fun its a great way to entertain yourself. John Mc.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
I am in the process of hooking up my aileron cables and was wondering if it
is better to locate the turn buckles inside the wing and cockpit or is it
ok to locate them at the aileron horns. I know that they would create less
drag inside the wing and cockpit. They sure would be easier to install and
adjust out on the wing. Any comments on this will be appreciated. Another
question I have is how much aileron travel is the correct amount? Thank
jas
jimsury(at)fbtc.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Maybe I'm not looking close enough at the plans, but does anyone
know what size (1/8" or 3/32") cables are to be used to form the X
bracing between the lift struts ?
Mike C. Clev. OH
________________________________________________________________________________
On Tuesday, March 10, 1998 11:17 AM, Michael D Cuy
[SMTP:Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov] wrote:
> Maybe I'm not looking close enough at the plans, but does anyone
> know what size (1/8" or 3/32") cables are to be used to form the X
> bracing between the lift struts ?
>
> Mike C. Clev. OH
Mike,
I used 7x7 1/8" stainless. Don't seem to remember having a problem finding
it on the plans. Perhaps I had quit looking at that point. BTW may I
guess that you are assembling for the last time if you are asking? I hope
so! I just put my wings back on last night and hope to be doing some
flying again soon.
Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: aileron cables |
On Tuesday, March 10, 1998 8:15 AM, Jim Sury [SMTP:jimsury(at)fbtc.net] wrote:
> I am in the process of hooking up my aileron cables and was wondering if
it
> is better to locate the turn buckles inside the wing and cockpit or is it
> ok to locate them at the aileron horns. I know that they would create
less
> drag inside the wing and cockpit. They sure would be easier to install
and
> adjust out on the wing. Any comments on this will be appreciated.
Another
> question I have is how much aileron travel is the correct amount? Thank
> jas
> jimsury(at)fbtc.net
I quit worrying about drag the day I layed eyes on a photo of a piet. I
put a turnbuckle on top on on wing and on the bottom of the other, and two
in the cockpit. This allows me not only to set the ailerons neutral, bua
also correct tension on each cable, and allows me to center the stick.
Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | clawler <clawler(at)Ptd.Net> |
Mike,
I used 1/8" for the bracing between my wing struts. I don't think the
plans really said. Flew the Piet Sat. for the first time this year.
These impulse mags work great. Started right up after setting all
winter.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Hunt <ve6zh(at)cnnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: aileron cables |
I used one turnbuckle in the center section and 2 on the stick.
Doug Hunt..
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Eldredge
Date: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 7:15 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: aileron cables
>
>
>On Tuesday, March 10, 1998 8:15 AM, Jim Sury [SMTP:jimsury(at)fbtc.net] wrote:
>> I am in the process of hooking up my aileron cables and was wondering if
>it
>> is better to locate the turn buckles inside the wing and cockpit or is it
>> ok to locate them at the aileron horns. I know that they would create
>less
>> drag inside the wing and cockpit. They sure would be easier to install
>and
>> adjust out on the wing. Any comments on this will be appreciated.
> Another
>> question I have is how much aileron travel is the correct amount? Thank
>> jas
>> jimsury(at)fbtc.net
>
>I quit worrying about drag the day I layed eyes on a photo of a piet. I
>put a turnbuckle on top on on wing and on the bottom of the other, and two
>in the cockpit. This allows me not only to set the ailerons neutral, bua
>also correct tension on each cable, and allows me to center the stick.
>
>Stevee
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: aileron cables |
I'm no expert at all. Once somewhere a long time ago I saw a pietenpol with
one aileron turnbuckel. It was on top of the wing exactly over the center. I
remember it because I thought at the time it was so strange,but maybe clever.
Cheers Steve Yahn
>I am in the process of hooking up my aileron cables and was wondering if it
>is better to locate the turn buckles inside the wing and cockpit or is it
>ok to locate them at the aileron horns. I know that they would create less
>drag inside the wing and cockpit. They sure would be easier to install and
>adjust out on the wing. Any comments on this will be appreciated. Another
>question I have is how much aileron travel is the correct amount? Thank
>jas
>jimsury(at)fbtc.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LanhamOS <LanhamOS(at)aol.com> |
For Craig, I am researching Piet builders/flyers. When was yours built? What
type of engine...I assume it is dual ignition as you mention the impulse mags.
If you have a pix, send same.. Dr. Orville E. Lanham, 1912 Collins Drive,
Bellelvue, 68005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>On Tuesday, March 10, 1998 11:17 AM, Michael D Cuy
>[SMTP:Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov] wrote:
>> Maybe I'm not looking close enough at the plans,
>Mike
I used 7x7 1/8" stainless. Don't seem to remember having a problem
finding
>it on the plans. Perhaps I had quit looking at that point. BTW may I
>guess that you are assembling for the last time if you are asking? I
hope
>so!
0000,8080,8080Steve- Well, Yes sort of. I just
want to make sure I have on hand
everything I'll need to assemble so I don't have to wait an agonizing
3 or 4 days for Mr. UPS driver to show up with one turnbuckle and
two shackles ! Thanks for your reply. My crate should fly in May.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | clawler <clawler(at)Ptd.Net> |
Orville,
I flew my piet for the first time in April of 96. It has a C-65 with
dual Slick impluse mags. No radio's extra inst or lights. Just your
basic piet. There is a photo on the Piet web site under old articals.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
How do I get off the list? Andy
________________________________________________________________________________
Just say the word.
Consider it done.
Stevee
On Wednesday, March 11, 1998 11:11 AM, Andy Anderson [SMTP:andya@caprock-spur.com]
wrote:
> How do I get off the list? Andy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Hannan <hannan(at)iinet.com> |
test
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jkahn(at)picasso.dehavilland.ca (John Kahn) |
| Subject: | RE: Piet/Grega plans |
Hi all...
I got my Grega plans yesterday and had a chance finally to compare the
Piet/Grega in detail. To my surprise the Grega is a totally different
airplane. About the only design details in common are the structure of the
tail surfaces, the airfoil (although with a modified leading edge) and
the general arrangement and planform.
The Grega certainly seems overbuilt for its published gross weight of
1100 pounds, which really means that the structure is probably good for a
gross that is much higher, which is good to know. I would have no problem
operating at 12 or 1300 pounds if the engine was good for it.
While some of the fittings look overdone, like the wing to cabane plates,
they are made from thinner material (.065) than the straps in the Piet (.080)
so there may not be that much of a weight difference. It seems like most of
the weight difference is in all the plywood in the aft fuselage and some of
the fittings (the control horns are solid 0.090 plate instead of being built
up from thin sheet, for example).
Mr. Grega said that he skinned the rear fuselage because of the ease of damaging
the lower longerons and to get the cg aft (I'm not quite clear on his
reasoning based on the note he included).
For those who are not into following the Peit plans to the letter, there
are many details that you may want to adopt from the Grega, especially
insofar as one of the things he did was make plans that show modern
aircraft construction practices. The plans being only 25 bucks (they're
only photocopied onto 11/17 sheets; no wonder they're so inexpensive...
but that's all you really need anyway) it's certainly worth getting a
set just to see if there are ideas to use.
There so many differences in the dimensions of various things that it looks
like it would be tough to blend the designs together as far as basic
stucture goes, however.
John Kahn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
| Subject: | RE: Piet/Grega plans |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jkahn(at)picasso.dehavilland.ca (John Kahn) |
| Subject: | RE: Piet/Grega plans |
Hi all...
I got my Grega plans yesterday and had a chance finally to compare the
Piet/Grega in detail. To my surprise the Grega is a totally different
airplane. About the only design details in common are the structure of the
tail surfaces, the airfoil (although with a modified leading edge) and
the general arrangement and planform.
The Grega certainly seems overbuilt for its published gross weight of
1100 pounds, which really means that the structure is probably good for a
gross that is much higher, which is good to know. I would have no problem
operating at 12 or 1300 pounds if the engine was good for it.
While some of the fittings look overdone, like the wing to cabane plates,
they are made from thinner material (.065) than the straps in the Piet (.080)
so there may not be that much of a weight difference. It seems like most of
the weight difference is in all the plywood in the aft fuselage and some of
the fittings (the control horns are solid 0.090 plate instead of being built
up from thin sheet, for example).
Mr. Grega said that he skinned the rear fuselage because of the ease of damaging
the lower longerons and to get the cg aft (I'm not quite clear on his
reasoning based on the note he included).
For those who are not into following the Peit plans to the letter, there
are many details that you may want to adopt from the Grega, especially
insofar as one of the things he did was make plans that show modern
aircraft construction practices. The plans being only 25 bucks (they're
only photocopied onto 11/17 sheets; no wonder they're so inexpensive...
but that's all you really need anyway) it's certainly worth getting a
set just to see if there are ideas to use.
There so many differences in the dimensions of various things that it looks
like it would be tough to blend the designs together as far as basic
stucture goes, however.
John Kahn
Hi John:
I too have both sets of plans. I had a very old set of original plans
given to me and after studying them for a while fell in Love with the
concept of the Piet. Then I purchased someone elses Grega Project.
Wing ribs, Tail and Fuselage sides. Most of the wood and metal was
included in the deal aswell as some of the hardware. Then after I got
the Grega project I discovered as your are that they are "identically
different!"
I suspect that at the time Grega designed his aircraft Piper Cub
parts were plentiful. The ailerons hinges and cable routing is very
different. The Piet has less pulleys and less ninety bends with the
cables crossing in between the pits.
I have been wondering about routing out some of the compression
members in the fuse to save weight. Has anyone out there tried this?
I suspect that since the aircraft will never be a purists Pietenpol
that I will experiment with Friese type aileron hinges. How do you
like Grega's gap seal? Looks like some of my early RC modeling
attempts.
Have fun building John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
For those of you who dont get it, theres a picture of Malcolm Muir's
Piet in Sport Aviation. I have scanned it and added it to my Piet
image collection (which is now at 310 images!) here:
Web Developer, http://www.autoeurope.com
Homepage: http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
| Subject: | Pics: the rest of the story |
My email program sent that one prematurely... here is the address for
the pics:
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder/piet/
Chhose menu item: "Image Collection".
Richard
Web Developer, http://www.autoeurope.com
Homepage: http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
I just finished installing the aileron cables on my GN-1 and see that I
have a small problem. Seems that when I deflect the ailerons fully the
cables get loose. I was just wondering if any of you have experienced the
same thing. The ailerons horns are identical as they were shaped while
being bolted together. Is this the norm or what? Where might the problem
be? If I tighten the cable with the ailerons fully deflected than the
cables are too tight in the neutral position. Anybody have any suggestions
as to where I might look for the problem? Thanks
jas
jimsury(at)fbtc.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: aileron cables |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
I just finished installing the aileron cables on my GN-1 and see that I
have a small problem. Seems that when I deflect the ailerons fully the
cables get loose. I was just wondering if any of you have experienced the
same thing. The ailerons horns are identical as they were shaped while
being bolted together. Is this the norm or what? Where might the problem
be? If I tighten the cable with the ailerons fully deflected than the
cables are too tight in the neutral position. Anybody have any suggestions
as to where I might look for the problem? Thanks
jas
jimsury(at)fbtc.net
Jim: Check carefully that the distance from the aileron hinge center
line to the cable attach points is the same both above and below the
hinge centerline. This problem also occurs when the geometry of the
elevator horns is out. In essence the cables form the sides of a
parallelogram even though they bend around pulleys.
J Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rrager(at)idir.net (Rick Rager) |
| Subject: | Re: aileron cables |
>I just finished installing the aileron cables on my GN-1 and see that I
>have a small problem. Seems that when I deflect the ailerons fully the
>cables get loose. I was just wondering if any of you have experienced the
>same thing. The ailerons horns are identical as they were shaped while
>being bolted together. Is this the norm or what? Where might the problem
>be? If I tighten the cable with the ailerons fully deflected than the
>cables are too tight in the neutral position. Anybody have any suggestions
>as to where I might look for the problem? Thanks
>jas
>jimsury(at)fbtc.net
>
>I am kind of having the same problem as you but I am installing the
elevator cables, when I shove the stick full forward I get alot of slack in
the cables.
I tried moving the belcrank up and down to see if that helped but it didnt
seem to make any difference. What I realize is that I will never deflect the
stick to full travel under normal conditions. What I did was to nicopress
two short cables to my down elevator cable and add a heavy tension spring
approx 9" long between them. I then adjusted my cables so when I had full
up elevator the tension was correct and as I push forward stick the spring
pulls slack in the cable. In case the spring would ever break or come loose
the orig cable would still be intack, it would have some slack in it but
you still could fly it.
Hope to be in your postion in riggin ailerons soon. I also have a question
on the elevator and rudder rigging? Is there any set degrees or any kind of
stops needed on the elevator or rudder.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rrager(at)idir.net (Rick Rager) |
| Subject: | Re: aileron cables |
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
From: rrager(at)idir.net (Rick Rager)
>Subject: Re: aileron cables
>
>>I just finished installing the aileron cables on my GN-1 and see that I
>>have a small problem. Seems that when I deflect the ailerons fully the
>>cables get loose. I was just wondering if any of you have experienced the
>>same thing. The ailerons horns are identical as they were shaped while
>>being bolted together. Is this the norm or what? Where might the problem
>>be? If I tighten the cable with the ailerons fully deflected than the
>>cables are too tight in the neutral position. Anybody have any suggestions
>>as to where I might look for the problem? Thanks
>>jas
>>jimsury(at)fbtc.net
>>
>>I am kind of having the same problem as you but I am installing the
elevator cables, when I shove the stick full forward I get alot of slack in
the cables.
>I tried moving the belcrank up and down to see if that helped but it didnt
seem to make any difference. What I realize is that I will never deflect the
stick to full travel under normal conditions. What I did was to nicopress
two short cables to my down elevator cable and add a heavy tension spring
approx 9" long between them. I then adjusted my cables so when I had full
up elevator the tension was correct and as I push forward stick the spring
pulls slack in the cable. In case the spring would ever break or come loose
the orig cable would still be intack, it would have some slack in it but
you still could fly it.
>Hope to be in your postion in riggin ailerons soon. I also have a question
on the elevator and rudder rigging? Is there any set degrees or any kind of
stops needed on the elevator or rudder.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Sunny days are starting to become more common! After a particularly gloomy
Monday, I woke up early to get a head start on the day. The weather in
Provo and SLC was supposed to turn ugly in the afternoon, and indeed before
I went home there was a heavy, but short lived snow storm. At 6:30am
however it was calm. The clouds that would later pound us in the day were
dramatic against a bright sunrise over the dark mountains. I flew from 7
to 8 am knowing that I was going to be late for work. Oh well... I did 7
touch and goes and a short trip along the south edge of Utah Lake. Base
leg to rw 30 is right over I-15. It was crowded with commuters on their
way to work. The pattern was empty except for one little green Air Camper.
After tying down I went home for a breakfast of green pancakes with the
wife and kids, put on my st. patties day tie and hit the office before 9am.
This could become a habit!
Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi Steve Hoorah! for you.You show a wonderful great wisdom for knowing what
is correct and balanced.
Cheers,Steve Yahn
>
>Sunny days are starting to become more common! After a particularly gloomy
>Monday, I woke up early to get a head start on the day. The weather in
>Provo and SLC was supposed to turn ugly in the afternoon, and indeed before
>I went home there was a heavy, but short lived snow storm. At 6:30am
>however it was calm. The clouds that would later pound us in the day were
>dramatic against a bright sunrise over the dark mountains. I flew from 7
>to 8 am knowing that I was going to be late for work. Oh well... I did 7
>touch and goes and a short trip along the south edge of Utah Lake. Base
>leg to rw 30 is right over I-15. It was crowded with commuters on their
>way to work. The pattern was empty except for one little green Air Camper.
> After tying down I went home for a breakfast of green pancakes with the
>wife and kids, put on my st. patties day tie and hit the office before 9am.
>
>This could become a habit!
>
>Stevee
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: aileron cables |
The rudder is easy. You need stops to keep the rudder from banging into
the elevators. I set mine with 1 inch. clearance. The elevators are a
little harder. You need enough up elevator to flare at low speed. That you
have to figure out.
I think I found out why my cables go slack at full aileron deflection.
There is some difference in the distance between the pivot point of the
aileron and the ends of the horns. Not a lot but it is there. Looks like I
will be remaking the aileron horns.
jas
>>I just finished installing the aileron cables on my GN-1 and see that I
>>have a small problem. Seems that when I deflect the ailerons fully the
>>cables get loose. I was just wondering if any of you have experienced the
>>same thing. The ailerons horns are identical as they were shaped while
>>being bolted together. Is this the norm or what? Where might the problem
>>be? If I tighten the cable with the ailerons fully deflected than the
>>cables are too tight in the neutral position. Anybody have any suggestions
>>as to where I might look for the problem? Thanks
>>jas
>>jimsury(at)fbtc.net
>>
>>I am kind of having the same problem as you but I am installing the
>elevator cables, when I shove the stick full forward I get alot of slack in
>the cables.
>I tried moving the belcrank up and down to see if that helped but it didnt
>seem to make any difference. What I realize is that I will never deflect the
>stick to full travel under normal conditions. What I did was to nicopress
>two short cables to my down elevator cable and add a heavy tension spring
>approx 9" long between them. I then adjusted my cables so when I had full
>up elevator the tension was correct and as I push forward stick the spring
>pulls slack in the cable. In case the spring would ever break or come loose
>the orig cable would still be intack, it would have some slack in it but
>you still could fly it.
>Hope to be in your postion in riggin ailerons soon. I also have a question
>on the elevator and rudder rigging? Is there any set degrees or any kind of
>stops needed on the elevator or rudder.
>
>
jimsury(at)fbtc.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | clawler <clawler(at)Ptd.Net> |
Stevee,
I'm ready for spring in Pa too. Did get the Piet up 2 weeks ago. I've
been flying to work when the weather suits. It takes about 10min longer
by the time I walk from the airport to work, but it sure is a lot more
fun. Going home is north and the cars on the highway will pass me if
there is any head wind at all.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower(at)informador.com.mx> |
>
>
>On Thursday, February 12, 1998 7:35 PM, Barry Davis
[SMTP:bed(at)atl.mindspring.com] wrote:
>> >>
>> >>Ted, tell me about the flying characteristics of your plane.
>> >
>> >It flies slow. Climbs at 55-60 mph. Cruises at 63 to 68 mph (I like=
low
>> >2100 rpm). I fly an approach of 65 mph. Any slower and I run out of
>> >elevator at the flare. I would invite others to tell you their numbers.
>> >
>>
>The piet is the only aircraft I know of where the approach speed is faster
than the cruise.
>
>Stevee :)
>
>
Trikes are the same:
mine performance is:
One good thing is that it is "self stable", when a new pilot over controls,
the advise is "let it go! it will fly you out of trouble!" :-)
Being there, done that.
Saludos
TESTING!=09
EAA Chapter 1039 President
ggower(at)informador.com.mx ~1,800 VW 2 place "Gtub"(80%)(own design)FAI=
legal
Guadalajara, Jalisco, MEXICO Ultralight (248 Kg dry)
Chapala Aerodrome Alt 4,997 asl N 20=BA19.506' W 103=BA08.203' (Got the=
GPS!)
"Cuando inducimos a alguien a nuestro deporte debemos ser firmes tambien en
que mantenga optimo su estado fisico, entrenamiento y aeronave" - Julian=
Taber
(When we involve anyone else in our flying we should be held to a higher
standard in term of physical health, trainnig and airplane maintenance. -
Julian Taber)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Al Koebel <kojack(at)ziggycom.net> |
subscribe
--
"You gotta live with what you put up with"
This message sent with 100% recycled electrons...
________________________________________________________________________________
Al Koebel wrote:
> subscribe
Welcome Al ...... enjoy!
Bruce
________________________________________________________________________________
>subscribe
>
>--
>"You gotta live with what you put up with"
>This message sent with 100% recycled electrons...
>
>
"God invented time so everything wouldn't happen at once"... washroom grafetti.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Machinist Handbook |
I earn my living as a machinist. My Machinist Handbook actually has a
slieghtly different title. "Machinery's Handbook" 24th Edition published by
Industrial Press, New York. ISBN 0-8311-2492-X I hope this will help those
who might have had trouble finding it. By the way if any of you have a
chance to get an old edition do it. The old editions had much usefull info
on "poor man's garage tricks,and lost art" sorts of things in them. Rust
welding is one example that comes to mind. Any old retired machinist might
have one.
Cheers,Steve Yahn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wkoucky <Wkoucky(at)aol.com> |
Anyone know whats up with the BPA Homepage? I get it to load but there is
nothing on the page.
William Koucky
Traverse City, MI
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BPA Home Page |
Wkoucky wrote:
> Anyone know whats up with the BPA Homepage? I get it to load but there is
> nothing on the page.
>
> William Koucky
> Traverse City, MI
I just loaded it without a problem, you might try again.
http://members.aol.com/bpanews/www.html
Bruce Watkins
RWS # 392
Cape Girardeau, MO
http://www.clas.net/~flyer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wkoucky <Wkoucky(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: BPA Home Page |
I copied your address and loaded the BPA Homepage. Everything seems ok. It
loads 50000 bytes of information but the screen is blank. Gray background on
left side and white on the right. I have been to the site a million times but
I can't seem to get there anymore. It was on my favorite places bookmark for
months and all of a sudden it stopped working. I thought it was being
upgraded at first. Any ideas?
I am also interested in talking about Corvair engines. Anyone fly one? or
install one?
William Koucky
Traverse City, MI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dswagler(at)cobkf.ang.af.mil |
| Subject: | re: Machinist Handbook |
Thanks, Steve. I appreciate it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TLC62770 <TLC62770(at)aol.com> |
I'm lookng for a real good set of plains for the engine mount of a corvair to
a piet .
I have purchased a 110 hp with low miles . I need to talk to someone that has
installed one and what size prop are they using ? I finally got the info on
the prop jig i was tal;king about last month . we have started on the lay-out
of fuelsage . The shop is now done . It is complete heat and a/c , plus many
other extras . Now its time to build a plane .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
A friend of mine who is a United Airlines mechanic told me that
recently they were informed by management that when working
around flight crew they are no longer permitted to use the word
cockpit but should use the term flight deck.
MC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
Oooooooooooooooookkkkaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayy.......
> A friend of mine who is a United Airlines mechanic told me that
> recently they were informed by management that when working
> around flight crew they are no longer permitted to use the word
> cockpit but should use the term flight deck.
>
> MC
>
Web Developer, http://www.autoeurope.com
Homepage: http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRoss10612 <JRoss10612(at)aol.com> |
As a professional pilot, I have often been told my by girlfriend "They don't
call it the cockpit for nothing."
JR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wkoucky <Wkoucky(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: corvair mount |
I would also be interested. I have a couple of 110hp engines that I am
converting. I have a crank and cam on the way from Florida and PAS. He
(William Whyne) also has a deal on heads. He has to have 6 sets to have them
done and only has 3 people ready right now. If you're interested in a set of
heads let me know. That would help get my set quicker. Have you seen his
conversion manual?
William Koucky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
Pardon me. Mine will remain a cockpit. Airlines can use flight decks. What
a joke. What is yours front seat and back seat?
>A friend of mine who is a United Airlines mechanic told me that
>recently they were informed by management that when working
>around flight crew they are no longer permitted to use the word
>cockpit but should use the term flight deck.
>
>MC
>
>
jimsury(at)fbtc.net
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi all
What is done to prevent trouble from rainwater filling up the hollow aileron
horns? And the rudder and elevator(flippers)horns just the same. Also if the
Piet is tied down and the magnito recess,shelf fills with water it would
just pool there. Is this a problem? Also are there any drain holes in the
plywood flooring to allow rain drainage? I live in Washington state,the west
side. the rains are frequent here and I expect to fly in rain ,no joke.
Cheers ,Steve Yahn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Aron(at)hrn.bradley.edu |
Test:
I haven't received any email since last Saturday night. Is the forum
running?
Has anything been going on? Or is there something wrong with my
computer?
John F. in Peoria
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TLC62770 <TLC62770(at)aol.com> |
HI STEVE
ON OUR PIET WE ARE INSTALLING WEEP HOLES IN THE BOTTOM OF THE FUELSAGE .
WHEN YOU INSTALL THE COVERING INSTALL 1/4 IN. NYLON GORMETS RO ALLOW WATER TO
DRAIN OUT . LOOK AT YOUR CAR DOORS AND TRUNK LID . THEY SHOULD HAVE WEEP
HOLES IN THEM . IF NOT USE A 5/32 DRILL AND PUT THEM IN THE LOWEST SPOT YOU
CAN WITHOUT BEING SEEN FROM THE OUT SIDE . REPAINT THE METAL SO IT DOESN'T
RUST , AND EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE RUN A WIRE UP THE HOLES TO KEEP THEM CLEAR
WHEN YOU WASH THE CAR OR THE AIRPLANE GOOD LUCK .
TLC62770(at)AOL.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TLC62770 <TLC62770(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: corvair mount |
I NEED A SET OF PLAINS TO MAKE MY ENGINE MOUNT . DOES ANYBODY HAVE I SET OF
PLAINS THEY WANT TO TRADE OR SOMETHING ?
TLC62770(at)AOL.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
>Hi all
>
>What is done to prevent trouble from rainwater filling up the hollow aileron
>horns? And the rudder and elevator(flippers)horns just the same. Also if the
>Piet is tied down and the magnito recess,shelf fills with water it would
>just pool there. Is this a problem? Also are there any drain holes in the
>plywood flooring to allow rain drainage? I live in Washington state,the west
>side. the rains are frequent here and I expect to fly in rain ,no joke.
>
>Cheers ,Steve Yahn
>
We had trouble with water collection in the rear of the fuselage. We kept
it in a hanger but one day on a rough landing the tail wheel ripped right
off the plane, with some of the wood staying on the tail wheel brackets.
Found out later that the plane had been stored outside some of its life and
the owner poked holes in the covering to let out all the water at least
once. The wood had just rotted away. When we repaired it we put some drain
grommets in the lowest spots of the fuselage (with the tail wheel on the
ground). We actually used seaplane grommets but that was probably overkill.
Didn't have the shelf for the mag. You may want to put a few small holes in
the rear of the shelf to allow any water to drain but this might also allow
a little oil into the cockpit. A few small holes in the floor by the rear
seat would allow water to drain into the rear fuselage and out the drain
holes in the rear. This was never a problem and don't remember if there are
any holes there.
BTW, this was in western Oregon, where it rains over 100" a year. Flying in
the rain isn't too bad; most of the water blows right by. But when you stop
you get soaked. This isn't recommended but in that part of the country is
hard to avoid once in a while.
Happy building!
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D.J.H." <ve6zh(at)cnnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: corvair mount |
You can get the plans for the mount from Don Pietenpol at a resonable rate.
Doug
> From: TLC62770 <TLC62770(at)aol.com>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: corvair mount
> Date: Friday, March 27, 1998 3:22 AM
>
> I NEED A SET OF PLAINS TO MAKE MY ENGINE MOUNT . DOES ANYBODY HAVE I SET
OF
> PLAINS THEY WANT TO TRADE OR SOMETHING ?
> TLC62770(at)AOL.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | weedeater startermotor |
Hi all
In Kitplans magazine there was a group that put together a design to start
there VW engines. Small weedeater engines which powered a
chain,sproket,bendix assembly to start there engines. The pull cord was
routed to the cockpit. Could this be done to a ford model A engine? Any
thoughts? I imagine the starter and bendix going where the magneto goes,and
run the magnito off to the side with a rubber tooth belt. How much oomph
does it take to hand prop a Piet with an A engine, standard compression?
Cheers, Steve Yahn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D.J.H." <ve6zh(at)cnnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: weedeater startermotor |
Stephen "bendix" is a trade name,not a component.
I believe what you are refering to is a starter drive/ one way clutch.
I suggest saving time/money,and other resources,and find out first hand
the pleasures of old fashion aviation,hand prop the bird yourself.
You will likely learn more about the machine(baby) this way,and save
weight.
Just my humble opinion. Champ Driver.
Doug
PS motors r electric!
> From: stephen
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: weedeater startermotor
> Date: Saturday, March 28, 1998 5:24 AM
>
> Hi all
>
> In Kitplans magazine there was a group that put together a design to
start
> there VW engines. Small weedeater engines which powered a
> chain,sproket,bendix assembly to start there engines. The pull cord was
> routed to the cockpit. Could this be done to a ford model A engine? Any
> thoughts? I imagine the starter and bendix going where the magneto
goes,and
> run the magnito off to the side with a rubber tooth belt. How much oomph
> does it take to hand prop a Piet with an A engine, standard compression?
>
> Cheers, Steve Yahn
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: weedeater startermotor |
> Just my humble opinion. Champ Driver.
> Doug
> PS motors r electric!
But Doug, don't you think it's fun to call an engine a motor? I do. I
learned in school (music) that until you learn the rules you could not break
them, but when you did you could. So, for those who didn't know: motors are
electric. Now that you all know, go ahead and call 'em (engines) motors.
Now, don't you feel like a smarty? Knowing, yet not conforming?:)
Brent Reed
Kent, WA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: weedeater startermotor |
I think that is a neat idea although I have no idea of the torque this system
produces. If I remember correctly, the article said this system turns the VW
at 300 RPM!
I saw them in use at Gadsden, Al. a couple of years back and they are
impressive. (They also draw a crowd just starting up!)
I suggest trying the Dawn Patrol Home Page. It is at -
http://www.sunflower.org/~dstarks/
They have plans for it right there. They have Email addresses there also. If
ANYBODY knows how much torque these things have, those guys do. Send them an
Email and let us know how it goes!
Bob Seibert
RV-6 N691RV
Pietenpol years from flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D.J.H." <ve6zh(at)cnnet.com> |
don't you think it's fun to call an engine a motor? --NO (__!__)
________________________________________________________________________________
Away back when I was attending a technical school
taking aircraft maintenance and aeronautical engineer-
ing, we had an instructor who was an absolute per-
fectionist in all things.
I well remember being corrected by him when I called
an "engine" a "motor"--- even though that was about
fifty years ago!
He explained that an "engine" converts heat energy
into mechanical energy by burning a fuel. A "motor", on
the other hand, converts electrical or kinetic energy into
mechanical energy. Some examples: the electric motor;
the hydraulic motor; the water turbine, or water wheel.
Anyway, this is the distinction he made and thereafter
I was careful to distinguish between the two (especially
in his presence!). Interesting.
The small, two stroke engine used as a starter ENGINE
is an interesting concept. It would permit one to start an
aircraft engine safely when assistance is not available.
It eliminates the need for a heavy electrical system and
battery. The use of small starting engines on larger ones is
not a new idea. I remember them being used to start the
diesel engines of farm tractors (Caterpillar type).
> From: D.J.H. <ve6zh(at)cnnet.com>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: weedeater
> Date: Saturday, March 28, 1998 1:23 AM
>
> don't you think it's fun to call an engine a motor? --NO (__!__)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TLC62770 <TLC62770(at)aol.com> |
I'm a shop teacher , and my students have called them engines , motors mills
what does it matter as long as the rest of no what they are doing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LanhamOS <LanhamOS(at)aol.com> |
I find the discussion abut engines, motors, and weed eaters fascinating..
In high school shop class, our instructor always insisted on "engines"...
I surfed the Dawn Patrol site to see what was involved with the starter.
The A engine is much different from the VW.. I can not see how you could
develop the necessary gearing , a la chains, on the magneto end, or the engine
puylley driving the water pump.. Am not sure about the compression ratios..
This discussion reminds me of the ME 262 of WWlII fame. This beautiful
twin jet fighter used lawn mower engines for starters.. There are photos of
the mechanics pulling the cord.. starter was on the front of the engine.
Also, nothing wrong with pulling the prop..
Dr. O. Lanham, Aviation Historian
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | just for starters |
Hi all
Is there still a company called FORD MOTOR COMPANY?
I had imagined that the weedeater engine would reduce thru a wormgearbox at
say 50 to 1. Then the assembly of these two would slide forward to engage a
ratchet nut(Snyders part no.A-6319-USA ). And as for the magneto,I see a
timingbelt toothwheel on the crankshaft outboard of the V belt pulley and
behind the ratchetnut. The magneto itself would be on the right side,above
the radiator hose. The VW engine has smaller displacement but higher
compresion,and about the same power. Sorta the same. Whats the slowest a
magneto can spin and still make spark in a 4.5-1 compresion cylinder? That
might be easier to test.
Cheers Steve Yahn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LanhamOS <LanhamOS(at)aol.com> |
I find the discussion interesting about how to identify the power. Like others
on this net, I was schooled inthe use of "engine".. "Motor" was a nono. I
surfed the web for Dawn Patrol, and found the infor about the chain saw engine
used as a starter.I doubt whether there is enough torque for rotate the
engine, let alone the problem of finding where to put the drive unit. Chains
seem complicated... I read about a Volksplane project in the United Kingdom,
and the builder used a chain to drive both magnetos. An extra spark plug hole
was bored into the heads. The ME 262
Jet Fighter of the Luftwaffe in WW!! used lawn mower engines to start the
turbines..
There is a photo a mechanic pulling the starter cord, like we do with a mower
today.
Why not prop?
Dr. O. Lanham
________________________________________________________________________________
Hand proping is definetly a skill I intend to learn,I've never done it. I
have read where it is considered dangerous. The prudent measure of tying
down the tail with rope seems bothersome. The clean simplicity of the
kickstarter on my motorcycle is something I enjoy,and I'm proud of my skill
at useing it(500 cc single) BUT It can't chop my head off either. I'm likly
to change my mind on the need of a starter if I gain enough confidence
Cheers Steve Yahn
>I find the discussion interesting about how to identify the power. Like others
>on this net, I was schooled inthe use of "engine".. "Motor" was a nono. I
>surfed the web for Dawn Patrol, and found the infor about the chain saw engine
>used as a starter.I doubt whether there is enough torque for rotate the
>engine, let alone the problem of finding where to put the drive unit. Chains
>seem complicated... I read about a Volksplane project in the United Kingdom,
>and the builder used a chain to drive both magnetos. An extra spark plug hole
>was bored into the heads. The ME 262
>Jet Fighter of the Luftwaffe in WW!! used lawn mower engines to start the
>turbines..
>There is a photo a mechanic pulling the starter cord, like we do with a mower
>today.
> Why not prop?
>Dr. O. Lanham
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <dsiebert(at)gate.net> |
-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Hansen <grhans@cable-lynx.net>
Date: Saturday, March 28, 1998 12:27 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: weedeater
>He explained that an "engine" converts heat energy
>into mechanical energy by burning a fuel. A "motor", on
>the other hand, converts electrical or kinetic energy into
>mechanical energy. Some examples: the electric motor;
>the hydraulic motor; the water turbine, or water wheel.
>
In my physics class we learned heat energy is kinetic energy, I think the
two can mostly be used interchangeably.
________________________________________________________________________________
> From: David <dsiebert(at)gate.net>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: weedeater
> Date: Sunday, March 29, 1998 9:50 AM
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Graham Hansen <grhans@cable-lynx.net>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Date: Saturday, March 28, 1998 12:27 PM
> Subject: Re: weedeater
>
>
> >He explained that an "engine" converts heat energy
> >into mechanical energy by burning a fuel. A "motor", on
> >the other hand, converts electrical or kinetic energy into
> >mechanical energy. Some examples: the electric motor;
> >the hydraulic motor; the water turbine, or water wheel.
> >
> In my physics class we learned heat energy is kinetic energy, I think
the
> two can mostly be used interchangeably.
True.
I don't think he was concerned about the molecular
level, but was using the burning of a fuel to produce
heat/kinetic energy as the distinguishing feature of the
device called an "engine".
I suppose he was "splitting hairs", so to speak. But I
have always had an great respect for the man who
meticulously built a number of miniature (he gave me
heck for calling them "models") steam-powered loco-
motives, a 1909 Bleriot aeroplane replica, a Sopwith
Pup replica (rotary engine) and a DeHavilland Humming-
bird replica powered by a Continental A-40. He was a
great inspirational force for his students, and his name
was Stan Green.
The "Weedeater" has really generated a discussion,
hasn't it?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: weedeater and hand propping |
Steve,
Hand propping isn't all that difficult and, like a lot of things, isn't all
that dangerous if you do it properly but very dangerous if you don't pay
attention to detail. (Consider that even flying a small plane is considered
dangerous by most people.) I would read up on it if you can find any
articles about it, talk to people who have some experience, and try it a few
times with the mags off until you are reasonably comfortable with it.
What prompted the dawn patrol to make the chain saw starters is a problem
with flooding and such that made started a real workout. I don't have any
experience with Ford A engines (motors?). Find out from others what works
for this engine. On many aircraft engines a primer makes starting a LOT
easier. Some engines flood easily. If that is the case for you, then
develop a system to deal with that problem. On one airplane we developed a
system that consisted of pulling it through three times. If if didn't fire
by then chances were it wasn't going to. Turning it backwards a few times
(don't remember exactly how many, maybe 4) would clear the cylinders and we
repeated the procedure until it started. We developed this system after
spending entire afternoons cranking it to no avail. Often the procedure for
a hot start (after the engine has been running) is different than for a cold
start. Hot starts seem to flood easier and need less primer.
Impulse mags also make starting MUCH easier. With them there is no minimum
prop speed to get a good spark and the chance of backfire is greatly reduced
by the retarding effect of the impulse coupling. (Others will, no doubt,
have their own opinions on this.)
Prop position during the compression stroke is important. You want the
compression stroke to start at something like 45 degrees before the prop is
horizontal, although this will vary a bit with the size of the airplane, how
high the engine shaft is, how tall you are, etc.
I have used wheel chocks and not a tail wheel tie down when starting _IF_ I
knew the engine would start at very low throttle. Tying down the tail is
MUCH safer and many have used a tow plane hook to allow release of the rope
from the cockpit. I have seen sketches of how to build one but don't know
where it was.
Jim
>Hand proping is definetly a skill I intend to learn,I've never done it. I
>have read where it is considered dangerous. The prudent measure of tying
>down the tail with rope seems bothersome. The clean simplicity of the
>kickstarter on my motorcycle is something I enjoy,and I'm proud of my skill
>at useing it(500 cc single) BUT It can't chop my head off either. I'm likly
>to change my mind on the need of a starter if I gain enough confidence
>
>Cheers Steve Yahn
>
>>I find the discussion interesting about how to identify the power. Like others
>>on this net, I was schooled inthe use of "engine".. "Motor" was a nono. I
>>surfed the web for Dawn Patrol, and found the infor about the chain saw engine
>>used as a starter.I doubt whether there is enough torque for rotate the
>>engine, let alone the problem of finding where to put the drive unit. Chains
>>seem complicated... I read about a Volksplane project in the United Kingdom,
>>and the builder used a chain to drive both magnetos. An extra spark plug hole
>>was bored into the heads. The ME 262
>>Jet Fighter of the Luftwaffe in WW!! used lawn mower engines to start the
>>turbines..
>>There is a photo a mechanic pulling the starter cord, like we do with a mower
>>today.
>> Why not prop?
>>Dr. O. Lanham
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Cross country planning |
I am starting to plan a cross country trip by Pietenpol from Oregon to
Indiana. For planning the route I am using (in no particular order):
1. Road atlas. Shows federal interstate runway system. ;) Also shows
best routes through the mountians (IMHO).
2. Jet navigation charts. Seems like the best way to get a good view of
the entire US on one reasonably sized air chart. Think I will put them up
on the wall.
3. Sectionals. The old standby.
4. Airport/Facility directories. Give fuel and services information.
5. Flight Guide (By Airguide Publications). I dug out my 10 year old copy
of these and am looking for a new copy. Are they still published? Anyone
know of a source? They have information on local food, transportation and
lodging that looks quite useful.
Anyone know of a way to find out if camping is allowed on a airfield
(without calling each one)? I plan to use small, uncontrolled fields, carry
a tent and use a motel, etc only as needed for showers and such.
Any comments on this list? Anything I should be looking at that I have missed?
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Annual is finished! |
What a beautiful weekend. We put Piet back together Saturday afternoon and
I had to risk my neck to make sure we hadn't forgotten anything.
Reluctantly I strapped myself into (onto?) the flight deck and rocketed down
the runway. I was at 300 feet off the end. Idled back to 2000 rpm and it
still wanted to climb. I don't know if it was the cool dry air or all the
grease and oil we put everywhere but it really performed great.
Anyway, I am in love again.
Ted Brousseau/APF
nfn00979(at)gator.naples.net
Sunny SW Florida
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Cross country planning |
>Anyone know of a way to find out if camping is allowed on a airfield
>(without calling each one)? I plan to use small, uncontrolled fields, carry
>a tent and use a motel, etc only as needed for showers and such.
Jim- I think you'll find that most uncontrolled airport folks will be of
great help to you. But you can expect everything from being totally ignored
to dinner, bed, and shower, just for flying thru. In between could be
camping out in a hangar w/ your plane, sleeping on the FBO's couch,
or just under the night skies. That trip will give you memories and
friends for many years to come. Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Hi: It caught my eye that you signed your E-mail as Aviation
Historian. I have been considering becoming a curator for an
Aviation Museum that deals with the British Commonwealth Air Training
Plan. It would make a very interesting career change. I have been
volenteering my services there for some time now and the collection
has grown to the point that it needs a full time staff member. Any
ideas on which hoops to jump through would be appreciated.
John McNarry
________________________________________________________________________________
What size streamline tubing do you use for the wing struts since the
plans don't reflect modern day sizes.
Brad Schultz
NX899BS
On the gear and time to work on the wings.
________________________________________________________________________________
Steve ...have been enjoying the group and will probably want to get
back on at a later date, but for now, would like to unsubscribe.
Thanks to the great number of Piet builders and friends.
Bobby
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TLC62770 <TLC62770(at)aol.com> |
HELLO TED MY NANE IS TERRY CHAMBERLIN MY FRIEND TROY COLLINS AND I ARE
BUILDIING A PIET . WE JUST GOT STARTED . WE HAVE THE RIBS DONE AND ARE
STARTING ON THE CUTTING THE LONGERONS . WE HAVE A LOND WAY TO GO BUT I'M
CONFIDENT WE WELL BE FLYING IN ABOUT 3 YRS.
WE ARE TAKING OUOR TIME WITH THE PROJECT AND MAKING SURE WE HAVE EVERYTHING
PERFECT BEFORE WE TURN IT OVER TO HAVE IT CHECKED OUT BY A INSPECTOR . CAN'T
WAIT UNTIL WE CAN FLY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wkoucky <Wkoucky(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Plans...BHP notes on Corvairs |
I am ready to order plans. How much do I send Don P. I sent for the $5
package last year but can not seem to find it. Does the plans include BHP's
notes on Corvair engine conversions? I also would like to send for Hoopmans
plans. How much are they.
William
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D.J.H." <ve6zh(at)cnnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Plans...BHP notes on Corvairs |
http://www.pietenpol.com/plans.htm
Check this site,is operated by the Pietenpol family. Doug
> From: Wkoucky <Wkoucky(at)aol.com>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Plans...BHP notes on Corvairs
> Date: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 2:27 AM
>
> I am ready to order plans. How much do I send Don P. I sent for the $5
> package last year but can not seem to find it. Does the plans include
BHP's
> notes on Corvair engine conversions? I also would like to send for
Hoopmans
> plans. How much are they.
>
> William
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi John
I believe you may have mixed me up with Dr. O. Lanham. His E-mail adress is
LanhamOS(at)aol.com I know he signs his name as Aircraft Historian. I
,alas, am merely a poor Machinist. well,almost poor.
I hope this helps.
Cheers,Steve "Weedeater" Yahn
>Hi: It caught my eye that you signed your E-mail as Aviation
>Historian. I have been considering becoming a curator for an
>Aviation Museum that deals with the British Commonwealth Air Training
>Plan. It would make a very interesting career change. I have been
>volenteering my services there for some time now and the collection
>has grown to the point that it needs a full time staff member. Any
>ideas on which hoops to jump through would be appreciated.
>
>John McNarry
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
This problem has occured to me also,and when I saw the prices involved I
next wondered what size round tube would work well(I plan to fair in with
wood). In addition, what sizes should be used to avoid nessecity of jury struts?
Cheers, Steve Yahn
>What size streamline tubing do you use for the wing struts since the
>plans don't reflect modern day sizes.
>
>Brad Schultz
>NX899BS
>On the gear and time to work on the wings.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wkoucky <Wkoucky(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Supplemental Plans |
What does the supplemental plans include?
William
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Cardinal <CARDIGJ(at)mail.startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Supplemental Plans -Reply |
Long fuselage dimensions, alternate motor mount and spar fittings,
Continental mount and some Corvair information.
Greg Cardinal
>>> Wkoucky 03/31/98 08:13am >>>
What does the supplemental plans include?
William
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Plans...BHP notes on Corvairs |
>http://www.pietenpol.com/plans.htm
> Check this site,is operated by the Pietenpol family. Doug
This site above is excellent
for answering all these issues. I just checked
it out and they have now broken down all the versions, engines,
specs. and prices. My compliments to the Webmeisters of the Pietenpol
family !
________________________________________________________________________________
Take care,
Stevee
On Monday, March 30, 1998 5:14 PM, Bobby White [SMTP:bobwhite(at)yournet.com] wrote:
> Steve ...have been enjoying the group and will probably want to get
> back on at a later date, but for now, would like to unsubscribe.
> Thanks to the great number of Piet builders and friends.
> Bobby
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wkoucky <Wkoucky(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Plans...BHP notes on Corvairs |
Thanks for the replies. I was at the Piet family site yesterday and they did
not have any prices, addresses or anything. Today everything is there! They
just put it up.
Thanks,
William
________________________________________________________________________________
Steve,
At Brodhead '96, there was a Piet with beautiful laminated wood struts. They
look GREAT and have to be mucho less expensive than steel tubing...also
lighter, I'll wager. Someone in the Pietenpol group will undoubtedly be able
to identify said aircraft and builder. I have the information, but cannot
locate it at present. God luck!
Don Cooley
________________________________________________________________________________
Steve,
At Brodhead '96, there was a Piet with beautiful laminated wood struts. They
look GREAT and have to be mucho less expensive than steel tubing...also
lighter, I'll wager. Someone in the Pietenpol group will undoubtedly be able
to identify said aircraft and builder. I have the information, but cannot
locate it at present. God luck!
Don Cooley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
>Hand proping is definetly a skill I intend to learn,I've never done it. I
>have read where it is considered dangerous.
So is walking across the road. Takes caution and common sense.
>The prudent measure of tying down the tail with rope seems bothersome.
Woops. I take back the above statement. Hand proping for you (as long as
you profess the above) will be dangerous.
Ted Brousseau/APF
nfn00979(at)gator.naples.net
Sunny SW Florida
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cross country planning |
>I am starting to plan a cross country trip by Pietenpol from Oregon to
>Indiana.
>
>Anyone know of a way to find out if camping is allowed on a airfield
>(without calling each one)? I plan to use small, uncontrolled fields, carry
>a tent and use a motel, etc only as needed for showers and such.
>
Jim,
AOPA Airport book has camping listed. If you can get ahold of the CD
version you could do a search on "camping".
I agree with Mike C. I would fly into the smallest grass strips that are
inhabited. You will be amazed at the friends you make. I flew into a
little central Texas town last year because of weather. The airport manager
gave us a ride into town to a motel. She told us that if we were going to
leave around 8 AM the next day her husband would give us a ride to the
airport on the way to work. Otherwise, she said we would have to call the
sheriff for a ride because they didn't have a taxi....
>Any comments on this list? Anything I should be looking at that I have missed?
>
Yes-a soft cushion!!!!
Ted Brousseau/APF
nfn00979(at)gator.naples.net
Sunny SW Florida
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi Don
Yes I've seen some wood strut stuff here somewhere on the Piet site. I like
the idea sort of. Would the strut crossed wires need to help with the lift
loads and be bigger?
Does the math work out for the drag,compression column,buckel
resistance,etc. compared to steel tube? I mean, it must have been very
expensive for Barney P. too,and he still chose it. I'm wondering if he
figured it both ways and chose steel because it just made more sense. Any
thoughts?
Cheers,Steve Yahn
>Steve,
>At Brodhead '96, there was a Piet with beautiful laminated wood struts. They
>look GREAT and have to be mucho less expensive than steel tubing...also
>lighter, I'll wager. Someone in the Pietenpol group will undoubtedly be able
>to identify said aircraft and builder. I have the information, but cannot
>locate it at present. God luck!
>Don Cooley
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed0248 <Ed0248(at)aol.com> |
A suggestion for any who want to experience the "manly thrill" of hand
propping:
1. Get someone with experience to teach you how.
2. Practice on your airplane WITH THE SPARK PLUGS REMOVED. There won't
be any compression, but there won't be any chance of the engine starting
unexpectedly and hurting you.
3. Have someone there to watch...there's safety in numbers in case
something goes Tango Uniform.
4. A handy device I've used is a length of rope tied to a handy-dandy
immovable object...fence, truck, fire plug, etc. tie the rope to the tail
wheel bracket with a slip knot, leaving a tail long enough to reach the
cockpit. After the engine is started and you are safely ensconced in the
cockpit, a good stiff tug will/should untie the knot, leaving you unfettered.
5. Another trick is to take two small chocks and tie them together so
that they can go infront of and behind a wheel. Only tie one side. Another
piece of rope/cord tied to this connector rope and the free end looped into
the cockpit. When you are mounted, it is an easy task to remove your own
chocks.
6. When propping, after the engine starts, walk forward (away from the
airplane) five feet, turn and walk to a wing tip, and then walk down the
trailing edge to the cockpit.
7. Remember: safety is YOUR responsibility. You can lead a drink to the
horse, but you can't make him water. (Is that right?)
8. I know of only ONE person who survived being struck in the head by a
prop, and that happened in the twenties, with a slow-turning engine. It took
him several years to regain most of his faculties. I've sen several funeral
notices of others less lucky. You cant talk about a thrilling experience if
you aren't alive after it's over.
9. Don't let me dampen your spirits. ENJOY THE DAY!
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Conway <ConwayW(at)ricks.edu> |
I would like to purchase some decals for my Piet. I=27ve seen pictures of
a neat, rather small logo on the tail and a much larger Pietenpol
Aircamper decal on the sides of the fuselage near the cockpit. Does
anyone know where to obtain these items?
I=27m attempting to stitch my one-piece wing mounted in a vertical
position. I=27m attempting to use the hidden link lace which requires a
short bend on the end of the needle. Although I=27m getting better at
finding the hole on the opposite side of the wing, I wonder if someone has
a neat system to speed this up or is it simply a matter of your partner
guiding you to the right location and you doing the same for him? In the
past I=27ve had wings in a pivoting jig and it was easier to line up the
laces top and bottom of the wing. Any suggestions???? Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>I would like to purchase some decals for my Piet.
0000,8080,8080Bill- Look at the BPAN page- I think
the Piet logos (small) are
available from Frank Pavliga. I had some custom outdoor vinyl
logos and stripes for my fuse. cut by Aerographix up in Michigan.
Dennis Demeter is the owner. Not cheap but excellent quality and
it actually looks better than paint. Like a second skin. I can post
his 1-800 no. here if anyone is interested. He flies a T-Craft.
>I'm attempting to stitch my one-piece wing mounted in a vertical
position. I'm attempting to use the hidden link lace which requires a
short bend on the end of the needle.
0000,8080,8080Bill- I used the same hidden knot on
my wings and laced them without
any assistance. If you place a trouble light shining from the opposite
side you'll be able to find your pre-punched holes better. But don't
do like I did and get it so close that the bulb burns a nice big hole
in the dacron.
Once I
got the hang of stitching it became mindless work and I started
calculating.....'let's see....2.5" between stitches, 400 stitches per
wing
panel, over 1,600 pre-punched holes....and sore fingers."
Wow, was I glad it wasn't a Biplane !
I used the flat lacing cord- much easier on your fingers....and also
a neat trick a veteran fabric guy told me...wrap your fingers in
those areas which take the most abuse w/ masking tape and you'll
avoid the soreness and bleeding. Ain't this buildin' fun now, eh ?
It was great. (because it's over !) MC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | clawler <clawler(at)Ptd.Net> |
Bill,
I just measured from the trailing edge of the wing to get the stiching
even. A spot light works great to see what you are doing with the needle
inside the wing.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
On all the wings I've stiched, I did a modified version of the hidden knot. Make
the knot on the edge of the cap strip and let the lacing between the loops just
run along the same side. When you tighten the knot make it so it goes just
below the surface. As for finding the hole on the other side, site through the
hole just above to find the hole on the other side. Set up about a half dozen
needles (the more you have, the easier it is) and push them all through to the
other side. Saves a lot of walking.
William Conway wrote:
> I would like to purchase some decals for my Piet. I've seen pictures of a neat,
rather small logo on the tail and a much larger Pietenpol Aircamper decal
on the sides of the fuselage near the cockpit. Does anyone know where to obtain
these items?
>
> I'm attempting to stitch my one-piece wing mounted in a vertical position. I'm
attempting to use the hidden link lace which requires a short bend on the end
of the needle. Although I'm getting better at finding the hole on the opposite
side of the wing, I wonder if someone has a neat system to speed this up
or is it simply a matter of your partner guiding you to the right location and
you doing the same for him? In the past I've had wings in a pivoting jig and
it was easier to line up the laces top and bottom of the wing. Any suggestions????
Bill
--
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
Rt. 3 Box 13
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed0248 <Ed0248(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: weedeater startermotor |
Apparently ain't nobody ever heerd of a good ol' "outboard MOTOR".
Seriously, folks, if it turns, runs, produces torque/horsepower/work, who
really cares? I've only been in aviation forty years, but I haven't met too
many people that would rather argue about the semantics of a term than go
flying...."A rose by any other name..." Or, for the nautical, is it a boat or
is it a ship?
Ed W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cross country planning |
Hi Jim:
You are about to embark on one of life's great adventures. As
noted earlier, years ago, I made a similar trip in a Piper Vagabond,
with 5 instruments and no radio.
My experience was that where ever I landed, I simply asked for
permission to camp. Most times I was provided accommodations in the
pilot lounge or someone's hanger "home-away-from-home" and on many
occasions I was kidnapped and hauled away for home cooked meals, great
and long lasting friendships, and given God-speed handshakes in the
morning with that wistful smile and the look that clearly said, "If
only I had the guts to do what you are doing". I have kept my
marked up sectionals and a detailed journal with photos of the places
and people that I met. I know that the mission is to get the plane
from where it is to where you want it to be....just keep in mind
that this trip is to get your spirit from where it is to where you
want it to be.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Wright <jgw(at)skynet.be> |
| Subject: | Re: weedeater startermotor |
Come to think of it..Ed is definitly right...
I've heard that some builders are trying to use BMW "Enginecycle" engines
in their Piets. And those outboard engines are a must for all those "Engine
Boats" out there.
I second the motion that flying is better than word semantics any day!
Jim Wright
jgw(at)skynet.be
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed0248 <Ed0248(at)aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 8:46 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: weedeater startermotor
>Apparently ain't nobody ever heerd of a good ol' "outboard MOTOR".
>
>Seriously, folks, if it turns, runs, produces torque/horsepower/work, who
>really cares? I've only been in aviation forty years, but I haven't met
too
>many people that would rather argue about the semantics of a term than go
>flying...."A rose by any other name..." Or, for the nautical, is it a boat
or
>is it a ship?
>
>Ed W
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Woodbridge, Gary" <gwoodbridge(at)datatimes.com> |
| Subject: | RE: weedeater startermotor |
What about the Ford Tri-Engine ;-}
Gary Woodbridge
Senior Systems Engineer - UMI / OKC
(405)601-6947
Maule M7-235B - N723M
gwoodbridge(at)datatimes.com
>----------
>From: Jim Wright[SMTP:jgw(at)skynet.be]
>Sent: Friday, April 03, 1998 1:18 AM
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Subject: Re: weedeater startermotor
>
>Come to think of it..Ed is definitly right...
>
>I've heard that some builders are trying to use BMW "Enginecycle" engines
>in their Piets. And those outboard engines are a must for all those "Engine
>Boats" out there.
>
>I second the motion that flying is better than word semantics any day!
>
>Jim Wright
>jgw(at)skynet.be
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ed0248 <Ed0248(at)aol.com>
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Date: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 8:46 PM
>Subject: Re: weedeater startermotor
>
>
>>Apparently ain't nobody ever heerd of a good ol' "outboard MOTOR".
>>
>>Seriously, folks, if it turns, runs, produces torque/horsepower/work, who
>>really cares? I've only been in aviation forty years, but I haven't met
>too
>>many people that would rather argue about the semantics of a term than go
>>flying...."A rose by any other name..." Or, for the nautical, is it a boat
>or
>>is it a ship?
>>
>>Ed W
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: weedeater startermotor |
This Engine or Motor stuff is getting a little silly! Engines burn
fuel. Motors use external power sources. But really the terms have
become interchangeable as the language evolves. For the Canucks on
the list, can you imagine ESSO's slogan as "Happy Engineing"?
Is any body on the list besides me building their own engine? I hope
to have my inline four 200 cu.in. aircooled engine running by the
fall. I used a Ford B with a drilled crank, the cylinders sawed off
of the crank case, cylinders and fins built up from stock material
and Duetz aircooled heads converted from Diesel to gasoline. I'm
presently working on the cam and oiling system. It is almost as much
fun as building the airframe!
John McNarry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 12:50:39 -0500
>To: allaire(at)theonramp.net
(Scout builder, Earl Myers)
>From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
>
>OK, this is the last thing, I promise. I writing Grant a long while back
>he made some comment about 1999 being the 70th year anniversary
>of the Pietenpol design. Wouldn't it be nice to get as many planes to
>Brodhead and maybe even Oshkosh next summer ? Maybe even
>propose the idea to EAA so they could make special arrangements
>for parking, lectures, etc ?? I dunno. Just a thought. I think it would
>be a nice tribute to Bernie and all of his remaining family. (not to
>mention being a riot.) MC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Beanlands <ken.beanlands(at)west.gecems.com> |
On Fri, 3 Apr 1998, Michael D Cuy wrote:
> Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 12:50:39 -0500
> >To: allaire(at)theonramp.net
> (Scout builder, Earl Myers)
> >From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
> >
> >OK, this is the last thing, I promise. I writing Grant a long while back
> >he made some comment about 1999 being the 70th year anniversary
> >of the Pietenpol design. Wouldn't it be nice to get as many planes to
> >Brodhead and maybe even Oshkosh next summer ? Maybe even
> >propose the idea to EAA so they could make special arrangements
> >for parking, lectures, etc ?? I dunno. Just a thought. I think it would
> >be a nice tribute to Bernie and all of his remaining family. (not to
> >mention being a riot.) MC
>
Next year may be the last year to do this. Has anyone checked with the
designer to determine whether or not the Piet is Year 2000 compliant yet? ;-)
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
I'm There! All this talk about doing a long cross country and the
experience of a lifetime fun of it has got me excited about doing it. I
want to go to Broadhead in my piet someday, but this year would be poor
timing. Next year however.. I've decided to make a go of it.
Steve E
On Friday, April 03, 1998 10:55 AM, Michael D Cuy
[SMTP:Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov] wrote:
> Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 12:50:39 -0500
> >To: allaire(at)theonramp.net
> (Scout builder, Earl Myers)
> >From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
> >
> >OK, this is the last thing, I promise. I writing Grant a long while
back
> >he made some comment about 1999 being the 70th year anniversary
> >of the Pietenpol design. Wouldn't it be nice to get as many planes to
> >Brodhead and maybe even Oshkosh next summer ? Maybe even
> >propose the idea to EAA so they could make special arrangements
> >for parking, lectures, etc ?? I dunno. Just a thought. I think it
would
> >be a nice tribute to Bernie and all of his remaining family. (not to
> >mention being a riot.) MC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <dsiebert(at)gate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: weedeater startermotor |
-----Original Message-----
From: McNarry, John <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca>
Date: Friday, April 03, 1998 10:27 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: weedeater startermotor
>This Engine or Motor stuff is getting a little silly! Engines burn
>fuel. Motors use external power sources.
Why are sold fuel rockets called motors?
>But really the terms have become interchangeable as the language evolves.
Your right, heven forbide we ever do like the french and have a govermnet
agency that oversees our language.
And yes it it silly but also a little bit fun.
________________________________________________________________________________
YES, YES!,,,,,,,,,OH YES!!!!!!
> From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: 1999
> Date: Friday, April 03, 1998 12:54 PM
>
> Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 12:50:39 -0500
> >To: allaire(at)theonramp.net
> (Scout builder, Earl Myers)
> >From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
> >
> >OK, this is the last thing, I promise. I writing Grant a long while
back
> >he made some comment about 1999 being the 70th year anniversary
> >of the Pietenpol design. Wouldn't it be nice to get as many planes to
> >Brodhead and maybe even Oshkosh next summer ? Maybe even
> >propose the idea to EAA so they could make special arrangements
> >for parking, lectures, etc ?? I dunno. Just a thought. I think it
would
> >be a nice tribute to Bernie and all of his remaining family. (not to
> >mention being a riot.) MC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | CORRECT E MAIL ADDRESS FOR EARL MYERS |
CORRECT E MAIL IS: ALLAIRE(at)MCIONE.COM
OLD ONE HAS "THEONRAMP.NET"
________________________________________________________________________________
EVERYONE WHO VOTES FOR MIKE CUY AND GRANT MACLAREN TO HEAD UP THE 1999 MASS
TRIP TO BROADHEAD/OSHKOSH RAISE THEIR (VIRTUAL) HAND NOW!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
PS- I was just throwing out an idea guys.....but I know how that
goes ! MC
>EVERYONE WHO VOTES FOR MIKE CUY AND GRANT MACLAREN TO HEAD UP THE 1999 MASS
>TRIP TO BROADHEAD/OSHKOSH RAISE THEIR (VIRTUAL) HAND NOW!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
________________________________________________________________________________
EVERYONE WHO VOTES FOR MIKE CUY AND GRANT MACLAREN TO HEAD UP THE 1999 MASS
TRIP TO BROADHEAD/OSHKOSH RAISE THEIR (VIRTUAL) HAND NOW!
AYE!
John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: weedeater startermotor |
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: McNarry, John <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca>
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Date: Friday, April 03, 1998 10:27 AM
>Subject: Re: weedeater startermotor
>
>
>>This Engine or Motor stuff is getting a little silly! Engines burn
>>fuel. Motors use external power sources.
>
>Why are sold fuel rockets called motors?
>
>>But really the terms have become interchangeable as the language evolves.
>
>Your right, heven forbide we ever do like the french and have a govermnet
>agency that oversees our language.
>And yes it it silly but also a little bit fun.
>
I have been told by a friend that works on rockets that some in the rocket
community also debate this issue. The distinction of "external power
sources" doesn't seem to clear this up. Isn't oil (gas) external? It
doesn't occur naturally in the cylinder!
I looked up the terms in Webster's college dictionary:
Engine: 1. A machine for converting thermal energy into mechanical energy
or power to produce force and motion. 2. a railroad locomotive. 3. FIRE
ENGINE. 4. any mechanical contrivance. 5.....
Motor: 1. A comparatively small and powerful engine, esp. an
internal-combustion engine in an automobile, motorboat, or the like. 2.
any self-powered vehicle. 3. something that imparts motion, esp. a
contrivance, as a steam engine, that receives and modifies energy from some
natural source in order to utilize it in driving machinery. 4. a machine
that converts electrical energy into mechanical energy. 5.......
It would seem that a device for converting electrical to mechanical energy
should be called a motor. But an internal combustion engine could be called
either a motor or an engine. If it is small and powerful, such as for an
airplane, then motor would be very appropriate. Maybe all those people who
have engines in their planes would get better performance if they replaced
them with motors. I am willing to make the conversions for a small fee! ;)
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: TED WHAT FUN |
Hello back, Ted and Terry.
Why are you yelling? Are you already flying your Piet over the field and
left your radio behind? Try unlocking the capitals and talk to us. Although we
are all deaf from un-muffled aircraft engines, we read real well. ;)
>HELLO TED MY NANE IS TERRY CHAMBERLIN MY FRIEND TROY COLLINS AND I ARE
>BUILDIING A PIET . WE JUST GOT STARTED . WE HAVE THE RIBS DONE AND ARE
>STARTING ON THE CUTTING THE LONGERONS . WE HAVE A LOND WAY TO GO BUT I'M
>CONFIDENT WE WELL BE FLYING IN ABOUT 3 YRS.
>WE ARE TAKING OUOR TIME WITH THE PROJECT AND MAKING SURE WE HAVE EVERYTHING
>PERFECT BEFORE WE TURN IT OVER TO HAVE IT CHECKED OUT BY A INSPECTOR . CAN'T
>WAIT UNTIL WE CAN FLY
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: weedeater startermotor |
And then there are Search Engines, Database Engines, etc, etc, etc.
Al Swanson
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: McNarry, John <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca>
>>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>>Date: Friday, April 03, 1998 10:27 AM
>>Subject: Re: weedeater startermotor
>>
>>
>>>This Engine or Motor stuff is getting a little silly! Engines burn
>>>fuel. Motors use external power sources.
>>
>>Why are sold fuel rockets called motors?
>>
>>>But really the terms have become interchangeable as the language evolves.
>>
>>Your right, heven forbide we ever do like the french and have a govermnet
>>agency that oversees our language.
>>And yes it it silly but also a little bit fun.
>>
>I have been told by a friend that works on rockets that some in the rocket
>community also debate this issue. The distinction of "external power
>sources" doesn't seem to clear this up. Isn't oil (gas) external? It
>doesn't occur naturally in the cylinder!
>
>I looked up the terms in Webster's college dictionary:
>
>Engine: 1. A machine for converting thermal energy into mechanical energy
>or power to produce force and motion. 2. a railroad locomotive. 3. FIRE
>ENGINE. 4. any mechanical contrivance. 5.....
>
>Motor: 1. A comparatively small and powerful engine, esp. an
>internal-combustion engine in an automobile, motorboat, or the like. 2.
>any self-powered vehicle. 3. something that imparts motion, esp. a
>contrivance, as a steam engine, that receives and modifies energy from some
>natural source in order to utilize it in driving machinery. 4. a machine
>that converts electrical energy into mechanical energy. 5.......
>
>It would seem that a device for converting electrical to mechanical energy
>should be called a motor. But an internal combustion engine could be called
>either a motor or an engine. If it is small and powerful, such as for an
>airplane, then motor would be very appropriate. Maybe all those people who
>have engines in their planes would get better performance if they replaced
>them with motors. I am willing to make the conversions for a small fee! ;)
>
>Jim
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TLC62770 <TLC62770(at)aol.com> |
sound great to me i hope i can have ouors done by then ,fly in at the biggie
air show to honor bernie . it would be a honor just to be there please keep me
in touch thanks
terry & troy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TLC62770 <TLC62770(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: weedeater startermotor |
HOPE TO HAVE OURS ON WHEELS BY FALL . DID YOU READ THE NEWS ABOUT 70 PIETS
FLYING IN AT OCSHCOSH NEXT YEAR ALL AT THE SAME TIME . THAT WOULD BE GREAT TO
BE PARRT OF IT .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: weedeater startermotor |
I have an A-65 mill in my airplane.
Stevee
And it don't grind flour either :)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | RE: weedeater startermotor |
>I have an A-65 mill in my airplane.
>>Stevee
>>And it don't grind flour either :)
Stevee- did I mention I have an A-65 powerplant/ mill in my Piet too ?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
| Subject: | flyable Piet or GN-1 survey |
The idea of everybody flying to Oshkosh is a good one but. I was wondering
how many flying Pietenpols do we actually have in this group. Mine is a
GN-1 which isn't flyable yet. I'm a wanta-be yet. Maybe we could put down
what stage of construction we are in. Lets see how many Piets or GN-1
could be there if they could all fly there today.
flyable
static display
jimsury(at)fbtc.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael King <mikek(at)nstar.net> |
| Subject: | Re: flyable Piet or GN-1 survey |
Good idea!
I have often wondered how many "True" Piets and
GN-1s there are. Maybe a poll taken from this
group will give us a better indication. The poll
would include "flyable" and "under construction"
planes.
Just a thought.
Have a good one.
Mike King
GN-1
Dallas, Texas
>The idea of everybody flying to Oshkosh is a good one but. I was wondering
>how many flying Pietenpols do we actually have in this group. Mine is a
>GN-1 which isn't flyable yet. I'm a wanta-be yet. Maybe we could put down
>what stage of construction we are in. Lets see how many Piets or GN-1
>could be there if they could all fly there today.
>flyable
>static display
>jimsury(at)fbtc.net
>
>
Michael King
The Comedy Wire
Dallas, Texas
http://www.comedy-wire.com
214-905-9299 Phone
214-905-1438 Fax
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Woodbridge, Gary" <gwoodbridge(at)datatimes.com> |
| Subject: | RE: weedeater startermotor |
>----------
>From: David[SMTP:dsiebert(at)gate.net]
>Sent: Friday, April 03, 1998 1:21 PM
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Subject: Re: weedeater startermotor
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: McNarry, John <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca>
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Date: Friday, April 03, 1998 10:27 AM
>Subject: Re: weedeater startermotor
>
>
>>This Engine or Motor stuff is getting a little silly! Engines burn
>>fuel. Motors use external power sources.
>
>Why are sold fuel rockets called motors?
>
>>But really the terms have become interchangeable as the language evolves.
>
>Your right, heven forbide we ever do like the french and have a govermnet
>agency that oversees our language.
>And yes it it silly but also a little bit fun.
Funny you should mention this. I heard this morning that a school board
in PA is enacting a
no tolerance policy for "improper" English.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: CORRECT E MAIL ADDRESS FOR EARL MYERS |
Had been done previously, but some message may have been still left over up to
a week ago.
Stevee
On Friday, April 03, 1998 12:21 PM, allaire [SMTP:allaire(at)MCIONE.com] wrote:
> CORRECT E MAIL IS: ALLAIRE(at)MCIONE.COM
>
> OLD ONE HAS "THEONRAMP.NET"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | baileys(at)ktis.net (Robert M. Bailey) |
| Subject: | Re: weedeater startermotor |
Woodbridge, Gary wrote:
>
> >----------
> >From: David[SMTP:dsiebert(at)gate.net]
> >Sent: Friday, April 03, 1998 1:21 PM
> >To: Pietenpol Discussion
> >Subject: Re: weedeater startermotor
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: McNarry, John <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca>
> >To: Pietenpol Discussion
> >Date: Friday, April 03, 1998 10:27 AM
> >Subject: Re: weedeater startermotor
> >
> >
> >>This Engine or Motor stuff is getting a little silly! Engines burn
> >>fuel. Motors use external power sources.
Does this mean we should say steam motor ? :)
BTW - Ryobi makes a very nice 4 stroke weedeater type engine that would
make a very nice starter motor, oops starter engine. ;)
Bob B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LanhamOS <LanhamOS(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: flyable Piet or GN-1 survey |
Some time ago I put on the net a survey of Piet owners/flyers/builders..No
response..
Maybe you can buikld a fire. I know that there is a national directory through
the Buckeye group though. Some do not think the GN-1's quality lthough.. Dr.
O. Lanham, Bellevue, Ne.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: flyable Piet or GN-1 survey |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LanhamOS <LanhamOS(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: flyable Piet or GN-1 survey |
Some time ago I put on the net a survey of Piet owners/flyers/builders..No
response..
Maybe you can buikld a fire. I know that there is a national directory through
the Buckeye group though. Some do not think the GN-1's quality lthough.. Dr.
O. Lanham, Bellevue, Ne.
Started with Piet fittings, tall gear, Ford power. Bought unfinished
GN-1,fuse sides Ribs Tail group spars etc sheet stock. Now I'm hooked
on building my own inline four aircooled engine so what would I call
it? Pietenpol isn't quite right nor is it a GN-1 so I guess I'll have
to make up a name!
John McNarry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: weedeater startermotor |
>I have an A-65 mill in my airplane.
>
>Stevee
>
>And it don't grind flour either :)
>
And hopefully doesn't cut any lumber!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | SURVEY: PIET vs GN1 |
FROM EARL MYERS-
I AM BUILD A PIET SCOUT, NO GN EQUIVELENT FOR THAT!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: weedeater startermotor |
On Monday, April 06, 1998 8:45 PM, Jim Skinner [SMTP:innovate(at)comsource.net] wrote:
> >I have an A-65 mill in my airplane.
> >
> >Stevee
> >
> >And it don't grind flour either :)
> >
> And hopefully doesn't cut any lumber!
Nope, just swings it.
Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LanhamOS <LanhamOS(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: flyable Piet or GN-1 survey |
n John, hope and pray this weather has not reached you. We had horrible
thunderstorms yesterday, lasting until the wee hours of the mo9rning today.
Barometer is at 29.40..Not good flying weather. When you mentioned your engine
project, I thought of the photo in the reprint of the mag. on the Pietenpol
where someone had a model A aircooled engine.. Don' know if you have any
knowledge of the faithful mill of post WWI era, the OX 5, and OXX6, but there
was an entrepeneur in Milwlaukee by the name of Kurt Tank who did an air
cooled conversion for the OX 5. Also, the Engineering and Research Corporation
that developed the Erecoupe had developed an in line 4 cylinder for the plane,
and had it certified by the CAA. That is why the cowl is so long..But, it was
cheaper to buy already made Contententals than produce it. It would love to
see a photo. Might check with some others.
A letter from Don Pietenpol indicates no love for the GN 1. I did not know
the difference, and asked him when I wrote for the material.. I then got some
specs on the GN 1.
So, lots of luck. Peace. Orville
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: flyable Piet or GN-1 survey |
The GN-1 has some features that are better and some that are worse
a careful study of both plans set will reveal these differences. I
think Grega must have had a lot of Piper Cub parts lying around. I
have seen a picture in one of the older BPA newsletters of an
aircooled Ford conversion It has been done before. You may have
noticed that there are two camps of "Pietenpol" aircraft builders.
The purists by the plans that build exact 1929 to "Improved "
versions of Bernies original design, and those of us that think that
if Bernie was still alive he would be experimenting and changing
still.
I instruct in Heavy duty mechanics and have an extensive
machining background. This may be a help or a hinderance as it would
be easier to just follow the plans and go flying. I do however enjoy
the challenge of building something different.
Our RAA chapter has an engine Dynometer that I built as a chapter
funded project. It is mounted on a trailer and is portable. Torque is
measured using a hydraulic load cell and a Photo tach provides RPM.
The chapter members have run several engines on the dyno before
installing them in their aircraft. It is reassuring to know the
engine develops the right amount of power before you point it down
the runway. I have been eyeing a De Havilland Cirrus engine but I
think I better just finish what I started. I'll send an article to
Grant for publication in the news letter when I have succeeded.
The weather up here is quite nice and the snow is almost gone . We
have been averaging about 8 to 14 degrees C. Above normal! El Nino?
John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SURVEY: PIET vs GN1 |
> From: Phil Phillips
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: SURVEY: PIET vs GN1
> Date: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 4:16 AM
>
I am building a Model A powered piet.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Piet vs GN-1 |
Building a GN-1, Cont 65 powered.
Barry Davis Carrollton, GA
bed(at)mindspring.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Chevy 151 4 cyl. engine |
Hi All
The Chevrolet (or GM) 151 cu. in. engine seems attractive somehow as a
Pietenpol engine. Has anyone done a succesful installation of this engine?
I'm curious about the weight,the usable RPM (slow),thrust bearing,propellor
size,well you know, all that stuff. Somehow those con rod dippers on an A
gives me the willys.
Not that it hasen't been proven otherwise,its just that a feeling is a feeling.
I know that some year models of this engine have a balancershaft in addition
to the crankshaft,this must be heavy. Some models have crossflow
heads,intake on one side and exaust on the other. I'd like to hear what
others know or know of.
Cheers,Steve Weedeater Yahn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DXLViolins <DXLViolins(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: flyable Piet or GN-1 survey |
Wasn't it a Kurt Tank who designed the FW 190 ? The name seems familiar......
Best wishes to all you Piet enthusiasts out there..... hoping to start my
build in the UK within the next 18 months...
Dominic Excell
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy 151 4 cyl. engine |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Chevy 151 4 cyl. engine |
Hi All
The Chevrolet (or GM) 151 cu. in. engine seems attractive somehow as a
Pietenpol engine. Has anyone done a succesful installation of this engine?
I'm curious about the weight,the usable RPM (slow),thrust bearing,propellor
size,well you know, all that stuff. Somehow those con rod dippers on an A
gives me the willys.
Not that it hasen't been proven otherwise,its just that a feeling is a feeling.
I know that some year models of this engine have a balancershaft in addition
to the crankshaft,this must be heavy. Some models have crossflow
heads,intake on one side and exaust on the other. I'd like to hear what
others know or know of.
Cheers,Steve Weedeater Yahn
If you are refering to the "Iron Duke" it has been done Forest Lovely
a friend of BP's did it in the sixties. I read about it in an old
issue of the BPA newsletter.
One of the reasons I started out with a Ford B block is that the
crank can be cross drilled to provide full pressure oiling. The
journal sizes of the B crank are very close to Continentals.
The dipper system works well and has for more than seventy years. ( I
drive a Model AA one ton truck.) but the weight of that oil
pan........
What about that starter systemused in Aeronca Chiefs, some sort of
rachet and lever in the cockpit?
J Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jkahn(at)picasso.dehavilland.ca (John Kahn) |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy 151 4 cyl. engine |
That's a McDowell starter. The Piet that was
at Osh last year has one. Works great, but they are
rare.
John K
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | baileys(at)ktis.net (Robert M. Bailey) |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy 151 4 cyl. engine |
stephen wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> The Chevrolet (or GM) 151 cu. in. engine seems attractive somehow as a
> Pietenpol engine. Has anyone done a succesful installation of this >engine?
If this is the same engine that started out in the Vega, I seem to
remember a conversion back in the sixties that ended when the engine
threw a rod. I believe it was written up in Sport Aviation, perhaps
someone has a greater knowledge of this.
TTYL Bob B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy 151 4 cyl. engine |
If this is the Vega Engine, Forrest Lovely built a scout with it sometime in the
'60's or 70's. That engine was later replaced with an "A" for reliability! The
airplane is now owned by the Airpower Museum in Blakesburg IA. Forrest runs a
radiator shop in Minniapolis and has built several rediators for Piet's and has
a
lot of experiance with our lovely little birds.
stephen wrote:
> Hi All
>
> The Chevrolet (or GM) 151 cu. in. engine seems attractive somehow as a
> Pietenpol engine. Has anyone done a succesful installation of this engine?
> I'm curious about the weight,the usable RPM (slow),thrust bearing,propellor
> size,well you know, all that stuff. Somehow those con rod dippers on an A
> gives me the willys.
> Not that it hasen't been proven otherwise,its just that a feeling is a feeling.
> I know that some year models of this engine have a balancershaft in addition
> to the crankshaft,this must be heavy. Some models have crossflow
> heads,intake on one side and exaust on the other. I'd like to hear what
> others know or know of.
>
> Cheers,Steve Weedeater Yahn
--
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
Rt. 3 Box 13
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LanhamOS <LanhamOS(at)aol.com> |
Just realized the name similarity. I will check with the Curtiss Museum
to see if they have any info... They sent me a price list..There are still
some Robins flying with that engine, and some with OX 5's. The 5 is a brute,
540 cubic inches. Lots of weight. Orville Lanham
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TLC62770 <TLC62770(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy 151 4 cyl. engine |
WHAT ENGINE IS THIS ? A 151-4 . IT SOUNDS LIKE A 1.6 LITER FROM A CHEVETTE .
BY THE WAY WHAT ARE CORVAIR ENGINES GOIN FOR TODAY ?
MY FRIEND AND I HAVE FOUND SEVERAL THAT DON'T RUN BUT THEY ARE COMPLETE . WE
HAVE THE PARTS OF ONRE BUT IT ISN'T COMPLETE .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: weedeater startermotor |
I guess we'd better not get into "One little, two little, three little
engines...?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Anderson <kcande19(at)IDT.NET> |
Hi All
I just aquired an unfinished project. It is a Piet with 65 Cont.
I would like to get in touch with anyone building or flying one in the
St. Louis area.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D.J.H." <ve6zh(at)cnnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy 151 4 cyl. engine |
The vega ENGINE was 140 cid,and was overhead belt-driven cam,cylinders in
the ENGINE were aluminum ,treated with a special process,with no
liners.They were not the greatest suck-squeeze-bang-blow unit,and i suspect
most are resting in pieces by now.
The 2.5 liter is a castiron unit,gear driven cam(noisey)iron head pushrod
effort.The later versions are injected(throttle body)and DIS(sans
distributor).All in all,a sturdy ENGINE,that we have little trouble
with,other than the noisey cam gears which can be fixed.
long time G.M. Tech---Doug (don't call me motor)Hunt
> From: Robert M. Bailey
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: Chevy 151 4 cyl. engine
> Date: Wednesday, April 08, 1998 5:17 PM
>
> stephen wrote:
> >
> > Hi All
> >
> > The Chevrolet (or GM) 151 cu. in. engine seems attractive somehow as a
> > Pietenpol engine. Has anyone done a succesful installation of this
>engine?
> If this is the same engine that started out in the Vega, I seem to
> remember a conversion back in the sixties that ended when the engine
> threw a rod. I believe it was written up in Sport Aviation, perhaps
> someone has a greater knowledge of this.
> TTYL Bob B.
________________________________________________________________________________
Sounds Great!
> From: allaire
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject:
> Date: Friday, April 03, 1998 3:23 PM
>
> EVERYONE WHO VOTES FOR MIKE CUY AND GRANT MACLAREN TO HEAD UP THE 1999
MASS
> TRIP TO BROADHEAD/OSHKOSH RAISE THEIR (VIRTUAL) HAND NOW!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TLC3844 <TLC3844(at)aol.com> |
Hi Steve,
This is Troy Collins. Am 54 and retired when I was 48. I don't have a pilot
license at this time but almost got one 25 years ago. Been with a Local EAA
chapter since 94 as a Secretary, Newsletter Editor, and the past two years as
President. I attained my Piet project last August through a contact within
our EAA Chapter.
Been working with a friend of mine in building a work shop which is now amost
done. Will start building later after we get some other things done. Will be
looking into finishing my ticket now that I have some time.
That about it for now see you on-line later.
Troy Collins
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
February 04, 1998 - April 10, 1998
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-ae