Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-af
April 10, 1998 - June 12, 1998
Some time ago someone asked about a way for water to escape if the Piet was
parked out in the rain. Yesterday I was under my GN-1 and noticed that
there were a series of grommet holes along each side of the fuselage bottom
and along the trailing edge of all wing and elevators. Seemed to be spaced
about every 8 inches (I didn't messure). The hole was about 3/16". Hope
this helps.
Ted Brousseau/APF
nfn00979(at)gator.naples.net
Sunny SW Florida
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Subject: | Re: Water drains |
>Some time ago someone asked about a way for water to escape if the Piet was
>parked out in the rain.
This sounds like most Piets I've seen too Ted. I even drilled some
3/16" holes in the passenger and pilot floor boards next to the ash
cross members so when you get in with snow, wet feet, etc (and
rain) it will not puddle up there but drain to the belly fabric below.
(I put two stringers along the belly to hold the fabric off the floor)
PS, Sorry Ted, I forgot.....snow is that white stuff you see every
four years on TV during the Olympics ! Happy Easter,
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Aron(at)hrn.bradley.edu |
Subject: | What's been happening? |
Help!!
I've been having withdrawal symptoms, My server has been down for
almost
three weeks. The last messages I received were late on 3/21. If anyone
has
anyway to retrieve and send me all or many of the forum messages since
then,
please do. Contact me at aron(at)hrn.bradley.edu
Thanks.
John F.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | changes to my website |
Check out my updated page. See duanes page for some recent inflight photos.
http://steve.byu.edu
Cheers, and good flying this weekend....
Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Svetlana V. Dominguez" |
>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!
>
>
Mike Cuy, great but Grant Maclaren no way.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: changes to my website |
Love the photo's, Steve. Does anyone know what a Subaru set up would cost
for a Piet?
Thanks
Brent Reed
________________________________________________________________________________
On Friday, April 10, 1998 9:43 PM, allaire [SMTP:allaire(at)MCIONE.com] wrote:
> Steve;
> .just checked out "Steve's Hanger" website-nice Piets! Question; where
and
> what are the snow covered little hills in the backgrounds of the
> photographs? Also, what kind of tailwheel did you use?
> Earl Myers
The "hills" in the background are the Wasatch range in the Rocky Mountains.
I fly out of Spanish Fork Airport (U77) in Utah Valley. Nearby peaks are
near 12,000'. I did an altitude run Saturday and got up to 10,500 before I
got too cold. I was still climbing at about 200 fpm. Later in the
afternoon, I took off for a round of touch and goes, and could not get
down. At 300' still on crosswind, the plane shuddered with a thump. I
thought I had been hit. I started a quick check of all my controls,
looking for somthing to have broken, but found nothing, however it was in
that same second that I realized that I was in a deep crab to compensate
for a strong southerly wind. All I can figure is that I was hit by a solid
gust I actually felt. It was weird, not like any kind of turbulence I have
felt before.
Anyway I was holding over a 30 degree crab to stay on course. On downwind
I checked the three wind socks and soon realized that landing would be much
different that the takeoff. Wind was holding that sock straight out and
gusting. I flew final at 500' still crabbed at a rediculas angle. I made
one more pass. This time at 50' hoping the wind was less strong close to
the ground. No luck it was as bad or worse. I could see several people on
the ground looking up at me. Several cars were clustered together. I know
what they had on their minds and I decided that there was not going to be a
show. I had just topped the tank and decided to wait it out or divert to
another airport. Worst case I could pick a field and put it in directly
into the wind. Unfortunaly it was then that I realized that my cell phone
was in my truck. I picked a northly heading towards Provo. GPS read 94mph
I cruise at 70. Twenty-four mph! man this was going to be a new
experience in this light of an aircraft. It reminded me of a landing in
Rock Spring WY one spring with 55knots down the runway. Only I was in a
210 at the time. I arrived at Provo in no time. There was no traffic,
very unussual on a Saturday afternoon. --That is unless there is hurricane
force winds!! :0 Downwind leg happened in a second as I lined up with
runway 18. I swept through base to final and the airplane seemed to stop.
I sat at 1000' a half mile from the runway. Carb heat and throttle to
idle. I had an eternity it seemed to stay lined up. I kept my speed up to
65 until just before touchdown. After a brief flare I touched down at what
must have been less than 20 mph. No screech of the tires this time.
Taxiing like a turtle I apologized to anyone who may have had to wait
behind me. After tieing down I checked with the FBO and found that AWOS
was reporting wind 190 degrees @ 26knots peak gusts @ 39. Needless to say
my piet is still tied down at Provo. It took the rest of the afternoon
collecting my truck and getting home, and securing the airplane, but I'm
glad to say nothing was damaged and I am a little more the wiser! I do
have to say that I am even more confident in Bernie's design. That big
rudder comes in handy.
Steve Eldredge
________________________________________________________________________________
On Friday, April 10, 1998 9:43 PM, allaire [SMTP:allaire(at)MCIONE.com] wrote:
> Steve;
> .just checked out "Steve's Hanger" website-nice Piets! Question; where and
> what are the snow covered little hills in the backgrounds of the
> photographs? Also, what kind of tailwheel did you use?
> Earl Myers
Oh yea I use a matco 6" solid tailwheel, Duane uses a Heath (i think).
Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Boy Steve, that's some gorgeous territory behind your Piets. I sure
like the mid-West checkerboard farmland for security but it would be
fun to see your area someday. MC
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Hixon, Carl" <chixon(at)durapharm.com> |
Steve, you are killing me!! I haven't flown since October.
Great story. Keep me hangar flying. -Carl
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | clawler <clawler(at)Ptd.Net> |
Steve,
I've been flying in wind some too. One time I landed and Danville, Pa
and the guys on the ground said it looked like I might have rolled 50ft
max. That might have been 15 to 20 knots wind, not what you experienced.
I suppose the Peit airframe will stand more than we are willing to
subject our bodies to.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | RE: changes to my website |
Duane is supposed to be getting me some more definate infor on his engine,
but from memory here I think he spent about $2000 on his engine and
redrive. He does a lot of horse trading however so that may not be
duplicated as easily as forking over the cash. Plan to pay about $600 for
and engine from a junk yard and about $1200 (a guess here) for redrive
machining. Probably more if you buy it outright.
Stevee
On Friday, April 10, 1998 11:28 PM, Brent Reed [SMTP:breed(at)seanet.com]
wrote:
> Love the photo's, Steve. Does anyone know what a Subaru set up would
cost
> for a Piet?
> Thanks
>
> Brent Reed
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | baileys(at)ktis.net (Robert M. Bailey) |
Subject: | Re: Chevy 151 4 cyl. engine - to Doug Hunt |
> 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.
Since this isn't the Vega engine. Where can one find out more about
it and how would it compare weight wise against the Ford A? Also
it the RPM range such that it could be used without a reduction unit?
Thanks,
Bob B.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "D.J.H." <ve6zh(at)cnnet.com> |
Subject: | Re: Chevy 151 4 cyl. engine - to Doug Hunt |
Bob,in a recent flying rag,either Kitplanes or Sport Aviation,there was a
short blurp on a Pietenpol called "poplar piet"which was powered with the
2.5 liter chevy.Can't seem to put my hands on it right now,but will keep
looking.I will try and remember to look up the torque output of the engine
at work,and will get back to you.
Doug
> From: Robert M. Bailey
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: Chevy 151 4 cyl. engine - to Doug Hunt
> Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 2:42 AM
>
> > 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.
>
> Since this isn't the Vega engine. Where can one find out more about
> it and how would it compare weight wise against the Ford A? Also
> it the RPM range such that it could be used without a reduction unit?
> Thanks,
> Bob B.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "D.J.H." <ve6zh(at)cnnet.com> |
Subject: | chevy Poplar Piet |
Bob i just found the issue.it is in Jan.98 Sport Av.page 126 The owners
name is Larry D.Harrison phone#912/246-1315 or246-3702.
2.5 liter 60/30 wood prop he claims 800ft/min climb at 2700 rpm cruise
75@2400 take off and landings very short. 615lbs.
Hope this helps.. Doug
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "D.J.H." <ve6zh(at)cnnet.com> |
Subject: | chevy Poplar Piet |
Bob i just found the issue.it is in Jan.98 Sport Av.page 126 The owners
name is Larry D.Harrison phone#912/246-1315 or246-3702.
2.5 liter 60/30 wood prop he claims 800ft/min climb at 2700 rpm cruise
75@2400 take off and landings very short. 615lbs.
Hope this helps.. Doug
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: chevy Poplar Piet |
Hi all
I called and talked to Mr Larry Harrison to night. He is now using a 72x30
prop. Gets 75 mph at 2400 rpm,will go 80 mph at 2800 rpm but the plane dosnt
like it. Geo metro-chevy sprint radiator. Standard distributor with small
alternator. hand prop start,easy. standard intake, different carb, staight
stack exaust. Custom alum crankshaft to prop adaptor. No special thrust brg.
just std. brgs. Changed oil sump pickup pipe some. Runs very sweet no
trouble. Has 39 hr 40 min. time on engine. Pulls as strong as a continental
65 he says. Weighs all assembeled 240 lbs. Looks are very close to Model A
in looks and sound. He's started a Sky Scout now.
Cheers,Steve Yahn
>Bob i just found the issue.it is in Jan.98 Sport Av.page 126 The owners
>name is Larry D.Harrison phone#912/246-1315 or246-3702.
> 2.5 liter 60/30 wood prop he claims 800ft/min climb at 2700 rpm cruise
>75@2400 take off and landings very short. 615lbs.
> Hope this helps.. Doug
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | TLC62770 <TLC62770(at)aol.com> |
Subject: | Re: chevy Poplar Piet |
Hi Steve
I'm confused . what does the numbers on a prop mean ? I hear the first
number means the lenght of the prop and the second number means tha distant
the prop pulls the plane ahead in one revolution . I have also heard the
second number means the angle of the pitch of the prop . Please help to
straighten me out on this .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | DXLViolins <DXLViolins(at)aol.com> |
Subject: | Re: chevy Poplar Piet |
Terry,
Regarding the prop numbers.. yes, first number is diameter, the second is the
distance the prop theoretically screws through the air in one revolution,
without slip.
So, a 72 x 30 is a 6ft dia, which pulls 2' 6" forward.
Hope this helps,
Dom
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | RE: chevy Poplar Piet |
On Tuesday, April 14, 1998 5:33 AM, TLC62770 [SMTP:TLC62770(at)aol.com] wrote:
> Hi Steve
> I'm confused . what does the numbers on a prop mean ? I hear the
first
> number means the lenght of the prop and the second number means tha
distant
> the prop pulls the plane ahead in one revolution . I have also heard the
> second number means the angle of the pitch of the prop . Please help to
> straighten me out on this .
I believe that it depends on the prop. I think in almost every case the
first number is the lenght of the prop. On the props I am familiar with
(Sensenich, Falcon, Culver, Flotrop, etc) the second number is the distance
the prop slices through the air in one revolution. (not including any
inefficiencies or slippage, which there is a significant ammount of
course) However, some props especially ground adjustable, and variable
pitch ones measure pitch in degrees from neutral. I'm not sure how they
number these props since I imaging they have to take into account airfoil
section, hot boots, q tips, plan form etc. Anyone?
Stevee
Hi McCaully? Yea I'd like a 5 blade simitar Q-tip hot section variable
hydraulic prop. Oh yea got anything that;ll fit my Model A?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Greg Cardinal <CARDIGJ(at)mail.startribune.com> |
Subject: | RE: chevy Poplar Piet -Reply |
EAA has book that can be purchased for about $ 7.00 It is called "Prop
Making for the Amatuer" by Eric Clutton.
Easy to read, easy to understand, HIGHLY recommended.
Greg Cardinal
P.S. I just did a quick calculation of the strength of the spar straps.
Assuming 4130 at a tensile strength of 90,000 psi and a safety factor of
ten, the straps should hold up over 8000 pounds. This does not take into
account the shear strength of the bolts.
>>> Steve Eldredge 04/14/98 08:38am >>>
On Tuesday, April 14, 1998 5:33 AM, TLC62770
[SMTP:TLC62770(at)aol.com] wrote:
> Hi Steve
> I'm confused . what does the numbers on a prop mean ? I hear the
first
> number means the lenght of the prop and the second number means tha
distant
> the prop pulls the plane ahead in one revolution . I have also heard the
> second number means the angle of the pitch of the prop . Please help to
> straighten me out on this .
I believe that it depends on the prop. I think in almost every case the
first number is the lenght of the prop. On the props I am familiar with
(Sensenich, Falcon, Culver, Flotrop, etc) the second number is the
distance
the prop slices through the air in one revolution. (not including any
inefficiencies or slippage, which there is a significant ammount of
course) However, some props especially ground adjustable, and
variable
pitch ones measure pitch in degrees from neutral. I'm not sure how they
number these props since I imaging they have to take into account airfoil
section, hot boots, q tips, plan form etc. Anyone?
Stevee
Hi McCaully? Yea I'd like a 5 blade simitar Q-tip hot section variable
hydraulic prop. Oh yea got anything that;ll fit my Model A?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | TLC62770 <TLC62770(at)aol.com> |
Subject: | Re: chevy Poplar Piet |
Thanks Dom . I thought that was right . Just getting straighted in homebuilts
. My partner and i have been to several workshops . We have also have talked
to many builders . We have also read several books on how to build your first
airplane . We both have joined a E.A.A. chapter . the guys there have helped a
lot , to answer many questions . They have helped a lot . We are building a
Corvair powered Piet . This is a real Piet , not a GN1 . we are going to clean
the engine up . The heads will be c.c.'d ,balance the pistons , rods , port
the intakes and the exhaust . Change the engine over to a single two barrel
carb instead of two singles . Put on chrome down stacks , replace the Chevy
alternater with one much smaller and lighter . Do you think it is nessasary to
have dual spark plugs for each cylinder ? Should have a dual ignition system ?
Thanks Terry
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | DXLViolins <DXLViolins(at)aol.com> |
Subject: | Re: chevy Poplar Piet |
Do you think it is nessasary to
have dual spark plugs for each cylinder ? Should have a dual ignition system ?
Thanks Terry
Terry,
I'm probably among the least qualified in the group, as it will be some 18
months before I am able to start my project... but regarding ignition for your
Chevy, I would think the "belt and braces" approach of full dual ignition... 2
sets of plugs....would be sensible. Here in the UK, as a "pilot" with a full 8
hours (as a trainee some years ago) I would certainly enjoy the peace of mind
of twin sparks!
Dom
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Wkoucky <Wkoucky(at)aol.com> |
Subject: | Re: chevy Poplar Piet |
<< Do you think it is nessasary to
have dual spark plugs for each cylinder ? Should have a dual ignition system
?
Thanks Terry
Terry,
I'm probably among the least qualified in the group, as it will be some 18
months before I am able to start my project... but regarding ignition for
your
Chevy, I would think the "belt and braces" approach of full dual ignition...
2
sets of plugs....would be sensible. Here in the UK, as a "pilot" with a full
8
hours (as a trainee some years ago) I would certainly enjoy the peace of mind
of twin sparks!
Dom
>>
I always thought that the duel plugs were for performance and not safety.
What is DXL Violins? I am a violin maker by trade. Are you in the business?
William
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Roger Hanson / Good News Computers |
Subject: | RE: chevy Poplar Piet |
I'd like to UNSUBSCRIBE. Thanks
-----Original Message-----
Eldredge
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 9:39 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: chevy Poplar Piet
I'd like to UNSUBSCRIBE. Thanks
On Tuesday, April 14, 1998 5:33 AM, TLC62770 [SMTP:TLC62770(at)aol.com] wrote:
> Hi Steve
> I'm confused . what does the numbers on a prop mean ? I hear the
first
> number means the lenght of the prop and the second number means tha
distant
> the prop pulls the plane ahead in one revolution . I have also heard the
> second number means the angle of the pitch of the prop . Please help to
> straighten me out on this .
I believe that it depends on the prop. I think in almost every case the
first number is the lenght of the prop. On the props I am familiar with
(Sensenich, Falcon, Culver, Flotrop, etc) the second number is the distance
the prop slices through the air in one revolution. (not including any
inefficiencies or slippage, which there is a significant ammount of course)
However, some props especially ground adjustable, and variable pitch ones
measure pitch in degrees from neutral. I'm not sure how they number these
props since I imaging they have to take into account airfoil section, hot
boots, q tips, plan form etc. Anyone?
Stevee
Hi McCaully? Yea I'd like a 5 blade simitar Q-tip hot section variable
hydraulic prop. Oh yea got anything that;ll fit my Model A?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | djscott(at)heartland.bradley.edu (David Scott) |
Subject: | ADD : scott(at)haulpak.com |
Please add my address to the users group:
scott(at)haulpak.com
Thanks. This address which I sent this note seems to be
having some troubles. The domain on it changed and could
be in jeopardy of changing again.
####
--
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Aron(at)hrn.bradley.edu |
Subject: | To Steve Eldredge: reinstate address |
Steve:
My server was completely down from the night of 3/21 until the morning
of
4/10. Since it came back up I have received no messages from the Piet
forum. I assume my address was cancelled because all the messages were
returned. If that is true could you reinstate my address now.
aron(at)hrn.bradley.edu
Thanks , John Fay
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
Subject: | SFO area interests |
Hi,
I just found out I have Friday afternoon and all day Saturday to bum around
the San Fran area. Any good places to find classic ac like ours around there?
Thanks.
Ted Brousseau/APF
nfn00979(at)gator.naples.net
Sunny SW Florida
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Subject: | Re: chevy Poplar Piet/dual plugs |
How many of us running automotive ignition systems daily, for
distances of what?100,000 miles or more have ever had our engines
quit because of ignition failure? The dual plugs positioned as they
are in Aircooled aircraft engines do enhance the combustion process a
little bit. (the slight drop as you do a mag check testifies to
this) The failure rate of the Magneto however is fairly high! mostly
due to the capacitors points and primary wiring. The automotive
electronic ignition systems are very reliable and their hotter spark
insures that the plug will not foul even with poor mixtures at
startup. The only mod we should make is to remove the vacuum advance.
(we run our engines in a narrow load range) and to provide a retard
system if we hand start the engine. The saving grace in favour of
mags is the complete lack of need for any other electrical system.
The addition of plug holes and dual ignition in an engine not
designed for it is very difficult and I would expect that you will
get more reliability by making sure your ignition wiring is as well
installed as possible.
John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | SFO area interests |
Hi Ted,
I am from the Bay Area and volunteer at an antique air museum, "Wings of
History", in San Martin, near San Jose. I am involved in the Pietenpol project.
We will be working on the Ford engine this Saturday. The airframe also has
been making good progress.
Our URL:
http://www.wingsofhistory.org/museum.htm
The museum is across the street from the South County Airport, if you are
flying in. There are many other interesting aircraft on display, such as:
Stearman PT17, 1928 American Eagle, deHavilland Comet, 1927 Waco 10, several
gliders, etc. The library collection is very impressive.
Come on down!
Jay
Hi,
I just found out I have Friday afternoon and all day Saturday to bum around
the San Fran area. Any good places to find classic ac like ours around there?
Thanks.
Ted Brousseau/APF
nfn00979(at)gator.naples.net
Sunny SW Florida
----- End Included Message -----
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: chevy Poplar Piet/dual plugs |
Hi John
When I talked to Larry Harrison he said he used the standard distributor
with the coil etc, all contained in the cap.,just hook up some 12 volts to
it and go. Now if this is out in the wind and rain and weather how
waterproof can it be. How waterproof can I make it? This gives me some
concern. Any thoughts?
Cheers Steve Yahn
>How many of us running automotive ignition systems daily, for
>distances of what?100,000 miles or more have ever had our engines
>quit because of ignition failure? The dual plugs positioned as they
>are in Aircooled aircraft engines do enhance the combustion process a
>little bit. (the slight drop as you do a mag check testifies to
>this) The failure rate of the Magneto however is fairly high! mostly
>due to the capacitors points and primary wiring. The automotive
>electronic ignition systems are very reliable and their hotter spark
>insures that the plug will not foul even with poor mixtures at
>startup. The only mod we should make is to remove the vacuum advance.
>(we run our engines in a narrow load range) and to provide a retard
>system if we hand start the engine. The saving grace in favour of
>mags is the complete lack of need for any other electrical system.
>The addition of plug holes and dual ignition in an engine not
>designed for it is very difficult and I would expect that you will
>get more reliability by making sure your ignition wiring is as well
>installed as possible.
> John Mc
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Larry L. Neal" <llneal(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: chevy Poplar Piet/dual plugs |
John,
Good post! and I mostly agree. What we are talking about is our
tolerance for failure.
I'm primarily a sailplane pilot and fly in central Texas farmlands, if I
lose my engine (or fail to find lift in my 1-26) no big deal. I'll land
out and make some friends who never sat in an airplane before.
Hook that same motor up to power my kid's heart lung machine and I'm
immediately in favor of triply redundant systems. Forget two mags, I
want three plugs, MSD for each and real-time computer monitoring. Oh,
did I mention oil sample spectrum analysis?
Commercial, GA and Experimental, or more properly "Advanced Design
Aircraft" should all take into account the proper model for systems
failure tolerance while holding to the required mission specification.
In other words, your Piet won't worry about one plug per piston, hasn't
for 60 years. But if you can't afford to buy into the
triple-redundant-mentality, don't fly where you can't land.
Larry
McNarry, John wrote:
> How many of us running automotive ignition systems daily, for
> distances of what?100,000 miles or more have ever had our engines
> quit because of ignition failure? The dual plugs positioned as they
> are in Aircooled aircraft engines do enhance the combustion process a
> little bit. (the slight drop as you do a mag check testifies to
> this) The failure rate of the Magneto however is fairly high! mostly
> due to the capacitors points and primary wiring. The automotive
> electronic ignition systems are very reliable and their hotter spark
> insures that the plug will not foul even with poor mixtures at
> startup. The only mod we should make is to remove the vacuum advance.
> (we run our engines in a narrow load range) and to provide a retard
> system if we hand start the engine. The saving grace in favour of
> mags is the complete lack of need for any other electrical system.
> The addition of plug holes and dual ignition in an engine not
> designed for it is very difficult and I would expect that you will
> get more reliability by making sure your ignition wiring is as well
> installed as possible.
> John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: SFO area interests |
Ted,
If you have access to a car, there is a couple of interesting "grass-roots"
airports in Sonoma, about 40 minutes north of SF. Schellville is on HWY 121,
about two miles south of the town of Sonoma. Lots of homebuilts, including a
Corvair Piet, and restorations. About a mile north of Schellville Airport is
Sonoma Sky Park, also a hotbed of "grass-roots" flying, with at least one
Piet project under way, as well as quite a few "exotics", including my
Ercoupe. Hope you make it by to say "Hello!"
Don Cooley, Hangar G-4, Sonoma Skypark
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Subject: | Re: chevy Poplar Piet/dual plugs |
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Re: chevy Poplar Piet/dual plugs |
Hi John
When I talked to Larry Harrison he said he used the standard distributor
with the coil etc, all contained in the cap.,just hook up some 12 volts to
it and go. Now if this is out in the wind and rain and weather how
waterproof can it be. How waterproof can I make it? This gives me some
concern. Any thoughts?
Cheers Steve Yahn
Hi Steve
When you install your cap and secondary wiring, (the high voltage
plug wires) use a dielectric silicone grease where the wires push
into the terminals at the cap and a light smear on the joint between
the cap and distributor body. I used this method on my Mini Cooper
for years and had no problems with wet cutout. You should be able to
dump a pail of water on a running distributor and not have the engine
miss!
John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | jkahn(at)picasso.dehavilland.ca (John Kahn) |
Subject: | Re: chevy Poplar Piet/dual plugs |
You can get a limited degree of dual ignition by using
a "coil splitter", basically a high voltage diode assembly,
which lets you run two independent batteries, point sets,
and coils, which would feed the single distributor and
plug set. It gives redundancy to the most failure prone
parts of the system.
Only one system is on at a time. The ignition switch
would be set to left OR right.
It's a popular setup with the "V6 STOL" crowd...
The coil splitter is available at speed shops.
johnk
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | LanhamOS <LanhamOS(at)aol.com> |
Subject: | Re: chevy Poplar Piet/dual plugs |
For JKahn.. do you have access to a Tiger Moth.. A great ship. They have
one hanging in the lobby of the Helena Montana airport.. Dr. O Lanham
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: chevy Poplar Piet/dual plugs (and Moths). |
For O.S. Lanham:
I don't know if J. Kahn has access to a Tiger Moth, but I
did until about four years ago.
A friend had one and I did his annuals for quite a few years
until he sold it. I used to fly it once in a while to see how it
was operating. It was a pretty good performer, but was no
faster than my 85 hp Pietenpol---and didn't handle as nicely
as the Piet, either. Burned more gas and oil, too.
But it sure was an interesting old bird that simply became
too valuable to keep around, so they sold it. At one time
here in Alberta, Canada, there were a lot of them available
and after WW II they were cheap ($500 would have bought
you one with a spare engine in 1945/46!). But, in 1945, $500
was a lot of money and, being a 16 year old kid, I found even
model airplanes strained my finances to the extreme. My
friend's Tiger Moth went for over a hundred times the 1945
figure about four years ago, which was the chief reason I
didn't like to fly it very often.
Back in 1952, I could have bought a 1930 DH 60M Gypsy
Moth for about $400, and didn't because the engine had only
about 50 hours left until a major overhaul was due. Forty-six
years later I am still kicking myself for not buying it anyway.
It was much nicer to fly than my friend's Tiger Moth. I won-
dered if nostalgia and elapsed time had created the impres-
sion, but this difference in handling has been confirmed by
pilots I know who have flown both Moth models.
I am pleased to say that my Pietenpol, which I have been
flying for over 27 years, flies much like that old Gypsy Moth
of so long ago---although it is much lighter, and is therefore
more inclined to jump around in turbulence than either the
Gypsy or the Tiger.
If I were to win a lottery (highly unlikely), I would try to find a
Gypsy Moth so that I could stop kicking myself. Until that
happens, I shall have to be content with my old Piet---which
is a pretty good substitute, regardless.
Cheers,
Graham Hansen
-----Original Message-----
From: LanhamOS <LanhamOS(at)aol.com>
Date: Friday, April 17, 1998 5:05 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: chevy Poplar Piet/dual plugs
> For JKahn.. do you have access to a Tiger Moth.. A great ship. They
have
>one hanging in the lobby of the Helena Montana airport.. Dr. O Lanham
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | baileys(at)ktis.net (Robert M. Bailey) |
Hello list,
These words are mean't in the kindest way possible. If you respond with
a new topic please change the subject. I, for one, try a keep all the
Piet stuff in a seperate folder and it makes it very difficult when the
heading subject has no relationship to what is being sent, no matter how
interesting it is.
Thank you,
Bob Bailey
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bill Talbert <wtalbert(at)flash.net> |
Robert M. Bailey wrote:
> Hello list,
> These words are mean't in the kindest way possible. If you respond with
> a new topic please change the subject. I, for one, try a keep all the
> Piet stuff in a seperate folder and it makes it very difficult when the
> heading subject has no relationship to what is being sent, no matter how
> interesting it is.
> Thank you,
> Bob Bailey
Ditto from me. try to catalog also
Robert M. Bailey wrote:
Hello list,
These words are mean't in the kindest way possible. If you respond
with
a new topic please change the subject. I, for one, try a keep
all the
Piet stuff in a seperate folder and it makes it very difficult when
the
heading subject has no relationship to what is being sent, no matter
how
interesting it is.
Thank you,
Bob Bailey
Ditto from me. try to catalog also
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jim Wright <jgw(at)skynet.be> |
Subject: | Re: Kudos for Bob ... & Bill |
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Talbert <wtalbert(at)flash.net>
Date: Saturday, April 18, 1998 9:45 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Kudos for Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi All
Today I researched at the library into four cylinder engines. I discovered
that the Chevy II engine 153 cu. in. had 152 ft. lb. torque @ 2400 rpm.and
90 h.p. @4000 rpm. This looks better than the 151 cu.in. which has 132 ft.
lb. @ 3250 and 123 h.p. @ 5250. But upon asking at the junkyard they said
those are hard to find because they made so few and they were snapped up for
boat engines,and or midget race cars. Does anyone have experience with
these? Oh,the exaust and intake are on the same side so the carb heat should
be easy. Also the crankshaft thrust bearing is at no.5 bearing,next to the
prop. I'm thinking they would be worth tracking down. Any thoughts?
Thanks Steve Yahn
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Aron(at)hrn.bradley.edu |
Subject: | Size of Piet fin |
List,
I'm working on ribs, but getting ready to start some work on tail
surfaces. I've
attended the Piet forum at Oshkosh several years. I thought I
remembered
Vi Kapler saying, a few years ago, that it is often a good idea to add
about six
inches to the front of the vertical fin, especially if you are using an
engine
lighter than the Ford model A.
Does anyone know anything about this?
Looking for someone to head me in the right direction,
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | baileys(at)ktis.net (Robert M. Bailey) |
Subject: | Re: Chevy II engine or ?? |
Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks Steve Yahn
It sounds great except the hard to find bit. How about the four
cylinder Dodge Dakota engine or is that too heavy and complex? Another
possible might be the Ford four cylinder pushrod that they use(d) in
some of their mid-size cars? Maybe they would be more available.
TTYL Bob B.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Richard F. Rapp" <rrapp(at)polymail.cpunix.calpoly.edu> |
Hello to the group!
I'veenjoyed the discussion quite a bit, and the different
opinions..
Many feel Bernard's design should remain intact, others gladly
acknowledge it is overbuilt, worthy of modification such as 3 piece wing,
and the newest seen, addition to the vertical stabilizer when a
lighter power unit is employed.
I must admit I've never ben a purist!
..and I have a Subie engine on hand..
Question..
Has anyone taken the time to compile a collection of mods
successfully implemented that were of significance?
Question for the Model A builders..
What is the bore, stroke, compression and cam timing of the
venerable Model A ?
Modifying crankshafts of existing engines always has an impact upon their
reliability.. It occurs to me that a re-ground camshaft could develop mre
torque at lower RPM and effectively put a clamp on high rpm capability
which apparently ends up as prop tip stall.
I would think Bernard Pietenpol employed the Model A engine because of
it's known reliability and principally it's availability.
If I'm correct in that assumption, it would only follow that there is not
much utility in extensive effort applied towards engines such as the Chevy
II 4 banger, as THEY are now rare.
Subie's now everywhere!
If a domestic engine is the criteria, there are millions of the 2300cc
Ford 4 bangers around. They are not a bad engine, in my opinion.. Most
troubles I've seen with them related to accessories that would not be
usedin an aircraft powerplant adaptation.
A specification comparison could be of great value..
Regards,
Rich in the teeming metropolis of Santa Margarita
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jim Wright <jgw(at)skynet.be> |
Rich's comment about the Subaru has me curious. What is the performance of
a Subaru engine? How does it's weight compare to the Corvair?
Regards,
Jim Wright
jgw(at)skynet.be
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard F. Rapp <rrapp(at)polymail.cpunix.calpoly.edu>
Date: Sunday, April 19, 1998 5:12 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Airframe mods
>Hello to the group!
> I'veenjoyed the discussion quite a bit, and the different
>opinions..
> Many feel Bernard's design should remain intact, others gladly
>acknowledge it is overbuilt, worthy of modification such as 3 piece wing,
>and the newest seen, addition to the vertical stabilizer when a
>lighter power unit is employed.
> I must admit I've never ben a purist!
>..and I have a Subie engine on hand..
>
>Question..
> Has anyone taken the time to compile a collection of mods
>successfully implemented that were of significance?
>
>Question for the Model A builders..
> What is the bore, stroke, compression and cam timing of the
>venerable Model A ?
>
>Modifying crankshafts of existing engines always has an impact upon their
>reliability.. It occurs to me that a re-ground camshaft could develop mre
>torque at lower RPM and effectively put a clamp on high rpm capability
>which apparently ends up as prop tip stall.
>
>I would think Bernard Pietenpol employed the Model A engine because of
>it's known reliability and principally it's availability.
>
>If I'm correct in that assumption, it would only follow that there is not
>much utility in extensive effort applied towards engines such as the Chevy
>II 4 banger, as THEY are now rare.
>Subie's now everywhere!
>If a domestic engine is the criteria, there are millions of the 2300cc
>Ford 4 bangers around. They are not a bad engine, in my opinion.. Most
>troubles I've seen with them related to accessories that would not be
>usedin an aircraft powerplant adaptation.
> A specification comparison could be of great value..
>
>Regards,
>Rich in the teeming metropolis of Santa Margarita
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | DXLViolins <DXLViolins(at)aol.com> |
Subject: | Re: Subaru Specs? |
Jim,
I found the following web pages which have info on Subaru engines, it is the
route I hope tpo follow in due course, though only Continental powered Piets
have so far flown in UK.. (so I understand), but I believe that there is at
least one Subaru powered due to fly shortly.
Subaru Engine Conversions: http://www.air-ryder.com/
Hope this is of use to you all,
Dom
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | TLC62770 <TLC62770(at)aol.com> |
Subject: | Re: Subaru Specs? |
CAN ANYBODY TELL ME THE REAL REASON WHY NOT TO USE A VW ENGINE IN A PIET ? I
HAVE HEARD ALL KINDS OF STORIES . VW'S ARE USED IN MANY HOMEBUILTS ,AND ARE
FLYING GREAT . I AM USEING A CORVAIR . I KNOW SOME GUYS THAT WANT TO USE A VW
BECAUSE OF THE LOW WEIGHT AND THEY CAN BE MODIFIED TO GET MORE H.P. FROM THEM
. PLEASE HELP ME FIND A GOOD ANSWER . THANKS TERRY
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: SFO area interests |
> Ted:
If you can get up to Sonoma Valley, just north, at Schellville, you will find many
kindred spirits and many wonderful aircraft.Best Regards,
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Richard F. Rapp" <rrapp(at)polymail.cpunix.calpoly.edu> |
Subject: | VW or Subie power |
Hello to the group,
I don't know why more VW's aren't used in Piets..
But I do know a little about them.
The VW is a flywheel engine. It' rather heavy, but once you get the
flywheel turning, good things happen.. like motivation!
They do burn dirty, and were difficult to ge to pass the auto smog
requirements. The bugs are now rare, here in California, though they were
once rather popular. I had a whole raft of them and could R & R an engine
in less than 6hrs just about anytime.
If you must use VW power, purchase one of their industrial engines. They
were superior to the ones used in autos and transporters.
Back to the same problem as with the Model A Ford.. they are still
around, but actually locating one or easily available parts is a different
story.
I'v never torn a Subie apart, but do know they go many more miles than a
VW ever did. I've abused both!
Their reliability comes at a price of more intricate engineering..
Corvair power?
Never could be trustd on the ground.
I wouldn't consider using one in an aircraft.
I'm sure someone disgrees, and Bernard said good things about them, too.
Oh well!
The Ford 2300cc is ubiquitous, but probably too heavy.
The Volvo pushrod 4 bangers might be a good alternative to an A .
Rich
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jim Wright <jgw(at)skynet.be> |
I too have asked this dangerous question. The response in a nut-shell would
appear to be one of horsepower and RPM. (Jump in guys!!)
The most efficient props need get their horsepower at about 2400-2700 R.P.M.
The Model A Ford engine not only sounds great, but delivers its H.P. in this
golden R.P.M. range. Although the Corvair falls outside of this range and
has to turn a less efficient smaller prop, it has more horsepower which can
more than compensate.
The VW would appear to fall into this category. You either have to use a
reduction gear/belt OR tweak the engine performance to get enough horsepower
to compensate like the Corvair.
The only other "proplem" is that Pietenpol used only Model A' s and Corvairs
to build his original aircraft. Many folks just don't want to mess with his
success! I never had the chance to know the man, but I somehow think that
he wouldn't have been so concerned about which brand of "motor" you use as
much as JUST building a safe Piet...and Flying!
Regards, and thanks Dom for the Subaru info!
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: TLC62770 <TLC62770(at)aol.com>
Date: Sunday, April 19, 1998 11:52 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Subaru Specs?
>CAN ANYBODY TELL ME THE REAL REASON WHY NOT TO USE A VW ENGINE IN A PIET ?
I
>HAVE HEARD ALL KINDS OF STORIES . VW'S ARE USED IN MANY HOMEBUILTS ,AND ARE
>FLYING GREAT . I AM USEING A CORVAIR . I KNOW SOME GUYS THAT WANT TO USE A
VW
>BECAUSE OF THE LOW WEIGHT AND THEY CAN BE MODIFIED TO GET MORE H.P. FROM
THEM
>. PLEASE HELP ME FIND A GOOD ANSWER . THANKS TERRY
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Winkel <rwinkel(at)i2k.com> |
Jim Wright wrote:
> I too have asked this dangerous question. The response in a nut-shell would
> appear to be one of horsepower and RPM. (Jump in guys!!)
>
I am building my Piet based on the assumption that it will be non-Ford. Have
not committed to an engine yet so am interested in the Volks thread.I've assumed
(no jokes please) that the low powered VW engine, coupled with losses due to
direct drive (high prop RPM) , would not be adequate to propel the Piet.
I've done no research on current availability of reduction units for VW, or on
power output. Do we have some real-world experience in this group to tell us
what performance could be expected from a VW with reduction unit?
Dick Winkel
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | jkahn(at)picasso.dehavilland.ca (John Kahn) |
Subject: | Re: chevy Poplar Piet/dual plugs |
>
>For JKahn.. do you have access to a Tiger Moth.. A great ship. They have
> one hanging in the lobby of the Helena Montana airport.. Dr. O Lanham
>
Nope.. There's a few around here though. My late dad learned to fly in one in
the RCAF in '43.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Subject: | Re: Size of Piet fin |
>List,>I'm working on ribs, but getting ready to start some work on tail
>surfaces. I've>attended the Piet forum at Oshkosh several years. I
thought I>remembered>Vi Kapler saying, a few years ago, that it is often a
good idea to add>about six>inches to the front of the vertical fin,
especially if you are using an>engine>lighter than the Ford model A.
>>Does anyone know anything about this?>
>
Hi John- The Piets I've flown with 65 and 85 hp Continentals had the
plan-sized fin and rudder. Absolutely no adverse flight characteristics
were observed. (other than pilot-induced, that is) The FAA used
to have a rule which required so much vertical tail surface area per
horsepower (look at a Champ w/ bigger than a 65 and you'll see the
larger dorsal fin - Ala Earl Myers) .....so maybe that's what prompted
Vi to advise the larger fin. Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | LanhamOS <LanhamOS(at)aol.com> |
Subject: | Re: Re: chevy Poplar Piet/dual plugs |
For JKahn.. do you have access to a Tiger Moth.. A great ship. They have
one hanging in the lobby of the Helena Montana airport.. Dr. O Lanham
Dr. O Lanham:
We have a DH 82a in flying condition at the Commonwealth Air Training
Plan museum in Brandon Manitoba Canada. It is a British built version
with anti spin strakes and leading edge slats. built by the Morris
Car Company in 1940. It is a very sweet airplane. Check out our web
site at www.mts.net/~krallen/catpm.html
Regards: John McNarry
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Subject: | Re: Engines/horse power. |
The disscussion about suitable engines has always been interesting.
I'm sure the Model A was choosen because of its ability to swing a
large prop at the right speed. It is still a good choice and with
some scrounging they are available. Some specs
bore 3 7/8" Stroke 4 1/4" 200.5 cu.in. 40 bhp @ 2200 rpm.
Compression Ratio 4.22:1
Crank bearings 1.625" mains. Rear 3" long center and front 2".
Crankpins 1.500"
Some useful formulas HP = Torque X rpm / 5252
Torque = HP X 5252/ RPM
RPM = HP X 5252 /Torque
Comp Ratio= Clearance Vol. + Cylinder Vol. / Cl. Vol.
Clearance Vol.= Displ. Vol. / Cl Vol. -1
5252 comes from the engine torque being measured in foot pounds and
the distance the engine moves the load in one revolution 6.28 feet.
the unit of horsepower 33000 foot pounds/minute.
The calculations of power required to get a stock Piet to climb at
300 ft/min is 33 horsepower. A good runnung A would have 7 extra HP!
The biggest draw back to increased HP from an A or B block is the
breathing problems inherent in the Flathead design.
Hope this helps. John McNarry
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Subject: | Re: Engines/horse power. |
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Engines/horse power.
The disscussion about suitable engines has always been interesting.
I'm sure the Model A was choosen because of its ability to swing a
large prop at the right speed. It is still a good choice and with
some scrounging they are available. Some specs
bore 3 7/8" Stroke 4 1/4" 200.5 cu.in. 40 bhp @ 2200 rpm.
Compression Ratio 4.22:1
Crank bearings 1.625" mains. Rear 3" long center and front 2".
Crankpins 1.500"
Some useful formulas HP = Torque X rpm / 5252
Torque = HP X 5252/ RPM
RPM = HP X 5252 /Torque
Comp Ratio= Clearance Vol. + Cylinder Vol. / Cl. Vol.
Clearance Vol.= Displ. Vol. / Cl Vol. -1
5252 comes from the engine torque being measured in foot pounds and
the distance the engine moves the load in one revolution 6.28 feet.
the unit of horsepower 33000 foot pounds/minute.
The calculations of power required to get a stock Piet to climb at
300 ft/min is 33 horsepower. A good runnung A would have 7 extra HP!
The biggest draw back to increased HP from an A or B block is the
breathing problems inherent in the Flathead design.
Hope this helps. John McNarry
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Richard F. Rapp" <rrapp(at)polymail.cpunix.calpoly.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Engines/horse power. |
Thanksto John for the Model A info..
Aspiration was a problem..
I talked to a Ford group that stopped at the nearby park, yesterday..
The B cam will increase power, but runs lean at higher rpm.
A downdraft carb is needed, one fellow said..
I'm still curious about the actual valve timing and duration, overlap,
etc.
4.22:1 compression might ust run on kerosene!
Rich
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | jkahn(at)picasso.dehavilland.ca (John Kahn) |
Subject: | Re: Engines/horse power. |
> From Steve(at)byu.edu Mon Apr 20 11:03:12 1998
> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 07:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "Richard F. Rapp" <rrapp(at)polymail.cpunix.calpoly.edu>
> Subject: Re: Engines/horse power.
> Sender: Maiser(at)adena.byu.edu
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Reply-To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> X-Mailer: Mercury MTS v1.40 (NDS)
> X-Listname:
> Content-Length: 375
> Aspiration was a problem..
> I talked to a Ford group that stopped at the nearby park, yesterday..
> The B cam will increase power, but runs lean at higher rpm.
> A downdraft carb is needed, one fellow said..
>
> I'm still curious about the actual valve timing and duration, overlap,
> etc.
>
> 4.22:1 compression might ust run on kerosene!
>
> Rich
>
>
>
Go to the Ford link in the Piet website, which has an article
by a guy in the Model A club who did a number of mods and dyno'd
the engine to track the actual changes. A certain model of aftermarket
head and using a weber carb among other things got the power up
to 70 hp or so at 2700. One surprising thing was the power changes
from using different spark plugs. The other was that boosting
compression ratio did much less than improving breathing.
It seems not too difficult to get an A to make 65 hp at about 2400 rpm
although I think you should certainly have insert bearings if you're going
to push it that hard...
johnk
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Subject: | Re: Engines/horse power. |
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Richard F. Rapp" <rrapp(at)polymail.cpunix.calpoly.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Re: Engines/horse power. |
Thanksto John for the Model A info..
Aspiration was a problem..
I talked to a Ford group that stopped at the nearby park, yesterday..
The B cam will increase power, but runs lean at higher rpm.
A downdraft carb is needed, one fellow said..
I'm still curious about the actual valve timing and duration, overlap,
etc.
4.22:1 compression might ust run on kerosene!
Rich
Hi Rich: I have the cam specs at home and will try to post them
tomorrow if I remember.! The "Price" aluminum heads are available up
to 7:1. The present school of thought suggests that 6:1 is about
right and the biggest single improvement for power is breathing.
Check out the articles on the BPA website. It seems strange to me
that so many Ford powered Piets still run open exhausts when for a
slight bit of weight penalty we could run an extractor exhaust
system, get more power quietly! A stealth Piet! How do we get the
prop quiet?
J Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | David <dsiebert(at)gate.net> |
Subject: | Re: Subaru Specs? |
Most likely is the are not very good at swinging a big prop. slow aircraft
like the Piet and Flybaby want a nice big slow prop. VW's "Tend" to be in
much lower drag planes. Q2, Dragonfly, Volksplane.
-----Original Message-----
From: TLC62770 <TLC62770(at)aol.com>
Date: Sunday, April 19, 1998 5:51 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Subaru Specs?
>CAN ANYBODY TELL ME THE REAL REASON WHY NOT TO USE A VW ENGINE IN A PIET ?
I
>HAVE HEARD ALL KINDS OF STORIES . VW'S ARE USED IN MANY HOMEBUILTS ,AND ARE
>FLYING GREAT . I AM USEING A CORVAIR . I KNOW SOME GUYS THAT WANT TO USE A
VW
>BECAUSE OF THE LOW WEIGHT AND THEY CAN BE MODIFIED TO GET MORE H.P. FROM
THEM
>. PLEASE HELP ME FIND A GOOD ANSWER . THANKS TERRY
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Subject: | Ford A/B camshafts |
Rick:
Cam timing specs for B engine.
Intake opens @ 7 1/2 degres BTDC closes at 48 1/2 ABDC.
Exhaust opens 51 1/2 BBDC closes 4 1/2 ATDC.
Lift 0.302" clearance 0.013" to 0.015"
John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael King <mikek(at)nstar.net> |
Subject: | GN-1s - PIETS in the Metroplex |
Dallas / Fort Worth pilots and builders,
Looking for Piets or GN-1s in the Dallas
Fort Worth area to look at.
I bought a GN-1and will move it to the Metroplex
in the near future. In the meantime, I would like
to talk to experienced Piet and GN-1 pilots and
look at their planes even those under construction.
Email or call me at your convenience.
Thanks again.
Mike King
Dallas
(214) 905-9299
Michael King
The Comedy Wire
Dallas, Texas
http://www.comedy-wire.com
214-905-9299 Phone
214-905-1438 Fax
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
Subject: | Re: GN-1s - PIETS in the Metroplex |
I am building a GN-1 and am in the process of covering the tail feathers.
Experienced by no means. You are welcome to come look and talk. Not in the
vicinity of Dallas but near Houston. Visits are welcome. Phone # 409 793 6932
>Dallas / Fort Worth pilots and builders,
>
>Looking for Piets or GN-1s in the Dallas
>Fort Worth area to look at.
>
>I bought a GN-1and will move it to the Metroplex
>in the near future. In the meantime, I would like
>to talk to experienced Piet and GN-1 pilots and
>look at their planes even those under construction.
>
>Email or call me at your convenience.
>
>Thanks again.
>
>Mike King
>Dallas
>(214) 905-9299
>
>
>Michael King
>The Comedy Wire
>Dallas, Texas
>http://www.comedy-wire.com
>214-905-9299 Phone
>214-905-1438 Fax
>
>
jimsury(at)fbtc.net
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | MikeHinchman <mikehi(at)molalla.net> |
Subject: | Introducing myself |
Hi, folks.
I'm new to this group and wanted to introduce myself. I
currently own and fly a Tri-Pacer, which is for sale. The
proceeds from the sale will finance the airplane building
project. It's been a really nice airplane, but I want to
build. I can always rent C-150's (yawn) while I do that.
I have plans for a Pietenpol, and the more I read about it,
the better I like it. Seems to be an airplane for the type
of flying I want to do. It will also mean I have to get the
taildragger endorsement.
Been a tinkerer all my life (cars and houses) and am no
stranger to tools. Haven't tried building an airplane, so
will need lots of encouragement and advice when I finally get
into it.
I live near Molalla, Oregon, which is about 30 miles south
of Portland and just about as far from Salem. This is nice
flying country and there are plenty of small airstrips
around, both paved and turf. I live next to a paved one.
I'd love to meet someone here in Oregon who is either
building and/or flying a Pietenpol.
Don't know what engine I want to use in a Pietenpol yet. I'm
not necessarily a purist who has to have a Model A, but it
does have it's advantages: inexpensive, low RPM (no PSRU),
reliable. It's biggest disadvantage is the low HP output.
I've seen Ron Kelley's report on this engine on the BPA web
page, so I know this engine can pull more HP reliably, but
I'm still undecided. Better to concentrate my efforts on
building the airframe, probably, for now. I may wind up
with an "A," but it will likely be a bit "warmed up".
Well, that's enough (probably too much) for an intro. I look
forward to hearing from others.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Introducing myself |
>It will also mean I have to get the
>taildragger endorsement.
>
I don't think there is such a thing. It strongly suggest you get some
instruction in a taildragger and not just run out and fly one. But you
don't need any sort of logbook entry to fly a tail dragger. (Unless things
have changed since I got my license...)
>
>I live near Molalla, Oregon, which is about 30 miles south
>of Portland and just about as far from Salem. This is nice
>flying country and there are plenty of small airstrips
>around, both paved and turf. I live next to a paved one.
>I'd love to meet someone here in Oregon who is either
>building and/or flying a Pietenpol.
I grew up near Eugend and lived near Portland for a while. The Willamette
valley is a nice place to fly low and slow airplanes like the Pietenpol.
There are a number of them around you. I know there was one in the Salem
area but don't have the owners number handy.
I would recommend a trip to the Brodhead flyin. It's a great place to see
lots of Pietenpols and many of the variations as well as talk with many
experienced builders.
Jim Skinner
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Richard F. Rapp" <rrapp(at)polymail.cpunix.calpoly.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Ford A/B camshafts |
THIS IS GREAT INFO!!!
..In conjunction with the bore and stroke already presented, comprable
mods could be made to almost any engine to swing a big stick!
Rich
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, McNarry, John wrote:
> Rick:
>
> Cam timing specs for B engine.
>
> Intake opens @ 7 1/2 degres BTDC closes at 48 1/2 ABDC.
> Exhaust opens 51 1/2 BBDC closes 4 1/2 ATDC.
>
> Lift 0.302" clearance 0.013" to 0.015"
>
> John Mc
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jim Wright <jgw(at)skynet.be> |
Subject: | Big Stick Engine Mods? |
O.K. Rich...You got me listening! Tell me more...What do you have in mind?
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard F. Rapp <rrapp(at)polymail.cpunix.calpoly.edu>
Date: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 7:25 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Ford A/B camshafts
>THIS IS GREAT INFO!!!
>..In conjunction with the bore and stroke already presented, comprable
>mods could be made to almost any engine to swing a big stick!
>
>Rich
>
>
>On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, McNarry, John wrote:
>
>> Rick:
>>
>> Cam timing specs for B engine.
>>
>> Intake opens @ 7 1/2 degres BTDC closes at 48 1/2 ABDC.
>> Exhaust opens 51 1/2 BBDC closes 4 1/2 ATDC.
>>
>> Lift 0.302" clearance 0.013" to 0.015"
>>
>> John Mc
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dick Dery <dickdery(at)teleport.com> |
Subject: | Re: Introducing myself |
>
> I live near Molalla, Oregon, which is about 30 miles south
> of Portland and just about as far from Salem. This is nice
> flying country and there are plenty of small airstrips
> around, both paved and turf. I live next to a paved one.
> I'd love to meet someone here in Oregon who is either
> building and/or flying a Pietenpol.
I live in Salem. I have a couple of big pieces ready to join together(as
soon as the weather is more consistently warm), as well as some other
stuff.
Dick Dery
dickdery(at)teleport.com
(503)585-9595.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael King <mikek(at)nstar.net> |
Subject: | Re: GN-1s - PIETS in the Metroplex |
Thanks for the reply. I will give you a call sometime
in the near future. My plane is in Sinton....near
Corpus Christi. It was built in the mid-80s by a
doctor in Arkansas and changed hands a few times
before I bought it a couple of months ago. I have not
flown the plane yet, but plan on bringing it to Dallas
soon.
My all wood GN-1 has a Continental 80 with Cub gear.
I called to John Grega a few weeks ago and we talked
about the differences between the original PIET and the
GN-1. He also told me about a guy in California who has
a GN-1and fly aerobatics with it. I talked to this guy too.
Tell me about your plane.
Thanks again and good luck with the building process.
Regards,
Mike
>
>I am building a GN-1 and am in the process of covering the tail feathers.
>Experienced by no means. You are welcome to come look and talk. Not in the
>vicinity of Dallas but near Houston. Visits are welcome. Phone # 409 793 6932
>
>
>>Dallas / Fort Worth pilots and builders,
>>
>>Looking for Piets or GN-1s in the Dallas
>>Fort Worth area to look at.
>>
>>I bought a GN-1and will move it to the Metroplex
>>in the near future. In the meantime, I would like
>>to talk to experienced Piet and GN-1 pilots and
>>look at their planes even those under construction.
>>
>>Email or call me at your convenience.
>>
>>Thanks again.
>>
>>Mike King
>>Dallas
>>(214) 905-9299
>>
>>
>>
>>Michael King
>>The Comedy Wire
>>Dallas, Texas
>>http://www.comedy-wire.com
>>214-905-9299 Phone
>>214-905-1438 Fax
>>
>>
>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: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Introducing myself |
Please read an excerpt from FAR 61.31 regarding operations as pilot in command
of tailwheel aircraft: 61.31 (i) Additional training required for operating
tailwheel airplanes.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, no person may act
as pilot in command of a tailwheel airplane unless that person has received and
logged flight training from an authorized instructor in a tailwheel airplane
and received an endorsement in the person's logbook from an authorized
instructor who found the person proficient in the operation of a tailwheel
airplane. The flight training must include at least the following the maneuvers
and procedures:
(i) Normal and crosswind takeoffs and landings;
(ii) Wheel landings (unless the manufacturer has recommended against such
landings); and
(iii) Go-around procedures.
(2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (i)(1) of this section
is not required if the person logged pilot-in-command time in a tailwheel
airplane before April 15, 1991.
I hope this clears up any misconception.
Jim Skinner wrote:
>
> >It will also mean I have to get the
> >taildragger endorsement.
> >
> I don't think there is such a thing. It strongly suggest you get some
> instruction in a taildragger and not just run out and fly one. But you
> don't need any sort of logbook entry to fly a tail dragger. (Unless things
> have changed since I got my license...)
>
> >
> >I live near Molalla, Oregon, which is about 30 miles south
> >of Portland and just about as far from Salem. This is nice
> >flying country and there are plenty of small airstrips
> >around, both paved and turf. I live next to a paved one.
> >I'd love to meet someone here in Oregon who is either
> >building and/or flying a Pietenpol.
>
> I grew up near Eugend and lived near Portland for a while. The Willamette
> valley is a nice place to fly low and slow airplanes like the Pietenpol.
> There are a number of them around you. I know there was one in the Salem
> area but don't have the owners number handy.
>
> I would recommend a trip to the Brodhead flyin. It's a great place to see
> lots of Pietenpols and many of the variations as well as talk with many
> experienced builders.
>
> Jim Skinner
>
--
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 D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Subject: | Re: Introducing myself |
>Hi, folks.
Mike, Welcome to the Piet group ! ps- Don't worry about the
tailwheel bit- you can get some dual in a Cub or Champ during the
building process and by the time you are ready to fly you'll be fine.
I found if you start on grass and slowly transition to pavement and
crosswinds it helps. All the he-man stories about how sharp you have
to be to fly a tailwheel are bunk- I'm proof !
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Subject: | Re: Introducing myself |
Hi Mike
Welcome to the group! I find it to very thought provoking and a lot
of good ideas are shared here. I'm not one of the purists but unless
you are going for an exact replica who is? I expect BP himself would
still be changing the design some if he could.
I started out making metal fittings for an Improved Air Camper and
then got a "good deal" on a GN-1 that some one else started. I have
all the airframe at the 1" thick stage and have gotten carried away
by the idea of building my own engine. I have been wondering about
the effects of the longer engine mount and moving the wing back to
make the Piets fly on opposed engine power. How does this affect the
flight characteristics compared to the original? (jump in guys). I
still like the four in a row swing a large slow prop.
Have fun Mike I think you'll find building at least the same if not
more fun that flying 150s
John McNarry
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | RE: Introducing myself |
On Wednesday, April 22, 1998 8:43 AM, David B. Schober
[SMTP:dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu] wrote:
> Please read an excerpt from FAR 61.31 regarding operations as pilot in
command
> of tailwheel aircraft: 61.31 (i) Additional training required for
operating
> tailwheel airplanes.
> (1) Except as provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, no person may
act
> as pilot in command of a tailwheel airplane unless that person has
received and
> logged flight training from an authorized instructor in a tailwheel
airplane
> and received an endorsement in the person's logbook from an authorized
> instructor who found the person proficient in the operation of a
tailwheel
> airplane. The flight training must include at least the following the
maneuvers
> and procedures:
> (i) Normal and crosswind takeoffs and landings;
> (ii) Wheel landings (unless the manufacturer has recommended against
such
> landings); and
> (iii) Go-around procedures.
> (2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (i)(1) of this
section
> is not required if the person logged pilot-in-command time in a tailwheel
> airplane before April 15, 1991.
>
> I hope this clears up any misconception.
>
>
All the above is true, however it does not apply to experimentals. You can
legally fly an experimental taildragger without the endorsement. Not
recommended, but legal.
Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
Subject: | Re: GN-1s - PIETS in the Metroplex |
I talked to the guy in Sinton that owned the GN-1 and tried to talk him
into fly it up to Wharton last year for our annual fly in. He didn't fly it
up but wanted to, the weather was bad at the time.
My GN-1 is built close to the plans. It doesn't have a trace of spruce in
it,all fir. I have the ability to send attachment but this group doesn't
like it when I do. Seems that some members have slower computers and it
takes too long to down load. Give me your e-mail address and I will send a
few pictures. I have a C- 85 for an engine and not a motor.
>Thanks for the reply. I will give you a call sometime
>in the near future. My plane is in Sinton....near
>Corpus Christi. It was built in the mid-80s by a
>doctor in Arkansas and changed hands a few times
>before I bought it a couple of months ago. I have not
>flown the plane yet, but plan on bringing it to Dallas
>soon.
>
>My all wood GN-1 has a Continental 80 with Cub gear.
>I called to John Grega a few weeks ago and we talked
>about the differences between the original PIET and the
>GN-1. He also told me about a guy in California who has
>a GN-1and fly aerobatics with it. I talked to this guy too.
>
>Tell me about your plane.
>
>Thanks again and good luck with the building process.
>
>Regards,
>
>Mike
>
>
>>
>>I am building a GN-1 and am in the process of covering the tail feathers.
>>Experienced by no means. You are welcome to come look and talk. Not in the
>>vicinity of Dallas but near Houston. Visits are welcome. Phone # 409 793
6932
>>
>>
>>>Dallas / Fort Worth pilots and builders,
>>>
>>>Looking for Piets or GN-1s in the Dallas
>>>Fort Worth area to look at.
>>>
>>>I bought a GN-1and will move it to the Metroplex
>>>in the near future. In the meantime, I would like
>>>to talk to experienced Piet and GN-1 pilots and
>>>look at their planes even those under construction.
>>>
>>>Email or call me at your convenience.
>>>
>>>Thanks again.
>>>
>>>Mike King
>>>Dallas
>>>(214) 905-9299
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Michael King
>>>The Comedy Wire
>>>Dallas, Texas
>>>http://www.comedy-wire.com
>>>214-905-9299 Phone
>>>214-905-1438 Fax
>>>
>>>
>>jimsury(at)fbtc.net
>>
>>
>
>Michael King
>The Comedy Wire
>Dallas, Texas
>http://www.comedy-wire.com
>214-905-9299 Phone
>214-905-1438 Fax
>
>
jimsury(at)fbtc.net
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | tailwheel endorsements |
>
>
>On Wednesday, April 22, 1998 8:43 AM, David B. Schober
>[SMTP:dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu] wrote:
>> Please read an excerpt from FAR 61.31 regarding operations as pilot in
>command
>> of tailwheel aircraft: 61.31 (i) Additional training required for
>operating
>> tailwheel airplanes.
>> (1) Except as provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, no person may
>act
>> as pilot in command of a tailwheel airplane unless that person has
>received and
>> logged flight training from an authorized instructor in a tailwheel
>airplane
>> and received an endorsement in the person's logbook from an authorized
>> instructor who found the person proficient in the operation of a
>tailwheel
>> airplane. The flight training must include at least the following the
>maneuvers
>> and procedures:
>> (i) Normal and crosswind takeoffs and landings;
>> (ii) Wheel landings (unless the manufacturer has recommended against
>such
>> landings); and
>> (iii) Go-around procedures.
>> (2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (i)(1) of this
>section
>> is not required if the person logged pilot-in-command time in a tailwheel
>> airplane before April 15, 1991.
>>
>> I hope this clears up any misconception.
>>
>>
>
>All the above is true, however it does not apply to experimentals. You can
>legally fly an experimental taildragger without the endorsement. Not
>recommended, but legal.
>
>Stevee
>
I stand corrected! This has changed since I got my ticket. One other
thing: why doesn't this apply to experimentals? You are absolutely correct
about it not being recommended! But I doubt they will be able to write
rules to cover all the "lack of judgement" issues. Seems like they are
trying to legislate safety when all that is really accomplished is more red
tape.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Introducing myself |
Steve,
What reference do you have that says it doesn't apply to experimentals?
Steve Eldredge wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 22, 1998 8:43 AM, David B. Schober
> [SMTP:dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu] wrote:
> > Please read an excerpt from FAR 61.31 regarding operations as pilot in
> command
> > of tailwheel aircraft: 61.31 (i) Additional training required for
> operating
> > tailwheel airplanes.
> > (1) Except as provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, no person may
> act
> > as pilot in command of a tailwheel airplane unless that person has
> received and
> > logged flight training from an authorized instructor in a tailwheel
> airplane
> > and received an endorsement in the person's logbook from an authorized
> > instructor who found the person proficient in the operation of a
> tailwheel
> > airplane. The flight training must include at least the following the
> maneuvers
> > and procedures:
> > (i) Normal and crosswind takeoffs and landings;
> > (ii) Wheel landings (unless the manufacturer has recommended against
> such
> > landings); and
> > (iii) Go-around procedures.
> > (2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (i)(1) of this
> section
> > is not required if the person logged pilot-in-command time in a tailwheel
> > airplane before April 15, 1991.
> >
> > I hope this clears up any misconception.
> >
> >
>
> All the above is true, however it does not apply to experimentals. You can
> legally fly an experimental taildragger without the endorsement. Not
> recommended, but legal.
>
> Stevee
--
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: Introducing myself |
I'm not sure, but I think that as long as you're flying a certificated
aircraft, normal, utility, experimental or limited, you are required/obligated
to conform to the part 61 requirements. Otherwise, anyone could be a test
pilot, with no training or certificating requirements. Any PE's out there to
verify/kabosh? I'm a ME, so it's out of my area of expertise, but I could
check with the FSDO for straight skinny.
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Introducing myself |
As best I can tell, Unless an aircraft is operated as a public aircraft, the pilot
has to be certified in the category and class and type if a type is required. Even
test pilots need the appropriate ratings. The changes to 61.31 make no provisions
for operating an experimental taildragger. It simply states that to act as PIC
in
a tailwheel aircraft you need the instruction listed unless you have documentary
evidence of PIC experiance in a tailwheel airplane before April 15, 1991
Ed0248 wrote:
> I'm not sure, but I think that as long as you're flying a certificated
> aircraft, normal, utility, experimental or limited, you are required/obligated
> to conform to the part 61 requirements. Otherwise, anyone could be a test
> pilot, with no training or certificating requirements. Any PE's out there to
> verify/kabosh? I'm a ME, so it's out of my area of expertise, but I could
> check with the FSDO for straight skinny.
>
> Ed
--
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: Introducing myself |
I'll find and post the reference. I thought it was in part 61 as part of
the exclusions deleted from the previous FAR post. I'd love to check it
now but my CD is at home and well the weather is so good, I have to go
flying.
Stevee
On Wednesday, April 22, 1998 1:54 PM, Ed0248 [SMTP:Ed0248(at)aol.com] wrote:
> I'm not sure, but I think that as long as you're flying a certificated
> aircraft, normal, utility, experimental or limited, you are
required/obligated
> to conform to the part 61 requirements. Otherwise, anyone could be a
test
> pilot, with no training or certificating requirements. Any PE's out
there to
> verify/kabosh? I'm a ME, so it's out of my area of expertise, but I
could
> check with the FSDO for straight skinny.
>
> Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Introducing myself |
Steve,
I just looked upthe exceptions and they only apply to the ratings not the
training requirements. As I read it, you do need the tailwheel training to
act as PIC in tailwheels.
Steve Eldredge wrote:
> I'll find and post the reference. I thought it was in part 61 as part of
> the exclusions deleted from the previous FAR post. I'd love to check it
> now but my CD is at home and well the weather is so good, I have to go
> flying.
>
> Stevee
>
> On Wednesday, April 22, 1998 1:54 PM, Ed0248 [SMTP:Ed0248(at)aol.com] wrote:
> > I'm not sure, but I think that as long as you're flying a certificated
> > aircraft, normal, utility, experimental or limited, you are
> required/obligated
> > to conform to the part 61 requirements. Otherwise, anyone could be a
> test
> > pilot, with no training or certificating requirements. Any PE's out
> there to
> > verify/kabosh? I'm a ME, so it's out of my area of expertise, but I
> could
> > check with the FSDO for straight skinny.
> >
> > Ed
--
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 D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
It's funny that no matter what the FAA says about tailwheel
endorsements,
the insurance companies have the last laugh.
We bought our Champ before the 1991
endorsement rule, but to insure me with no prior tailwheel experience
I needed to fly 15 hours dual with an instructor who had at least 500
hrs.
TTT (total tailwheel time....my own little acronym)
and at least 5 in make
and model. I bought lots of sausage and pepperoni pizza's to get that
time ! Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | I <wtalbert(at)flash.net> |
Subject: | Re: Steel types for Pietenpol construction |
William C. Beerman wrote:
>
> Thanks in part to some good advice from this list a few weeks ago,
> I have been successful welding up prototype control horns using
> both MIG and gas welding processes on mild 20 ga. sheet steel.
>
> However, just today we noticed that the plans supplement for the
> three piece wing specifies 4130 steel to be used for the metal
> brackets. This leads to the following questions:
>
> -Is 4130 required elsewhere in the airplane and is plain mild steel
> insufficient?
> -If mild steel is acceptable, then what can be done to protect and
> corrosion proof these parts (especially the interior surfaces of
> the control horns)?
>
> We are becoming more enthusiastic about the project every day, and
> certainly appreciate any help!
>
> -Bill Beerman
> (for Bill, Glenn, and Mark)
The real difference is weight to strength. 4130 is aircraft steel
somewhat light for the same if not stronger. I assume you are talking
a36 flat stock. I have a book the gives the details, I'll look for it
tomarrow.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | TLC62770 <TLC62770(at)aol.com> |
Subject: | Re: Introducing myself |
HI MIKE ,
MY NAME IS TERRY CHAMBERLIN , I LIVE IN GRAND LEDEGE MI. MY PARTNER AND I
ARE BUILDING A CORVAIR POWERED PIETENPOL . WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON A WORK SHOP
IN MY POLE BARN . WE JUST COMPLETED IT ABOUT A MOUTH AGO . WE LOOKED AROUND
FOR A WHILE BEFORE WE DIECIDED TO USE THE CORVAIR ENGINE . WE BELONG TO A
LOCAL EAA CHAPTER . THAT HELPS A LOT . IF YOU GET A CHANCE TO GO TO THE
PIETENPOL FLYING IN AT BORADHEAD WISCONSIN IN AUG. IT A LOT OF FUN AND YOU GET
TO MEET A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH THE SAME INTEREST WE HAVE . THE PIETENPOL . GOOD
LUCK HOPE TO SEE YOU AT BROADHEAD THIS SUMMER .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | MikeHinchman <mikehi(at)molalla.net> |
Subject: | RE: Introducing myself |
Thanks, Mike. I am looking forward to building.
By the way, I saw the pictures of your project. Very nice!
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | MikeHinchman <mikehi(at)molalla.net> |
Subject: | RE: Steel types for Pietenpol construction |
Folks,
I have a Machinery's Handbook. This book has references to
just about anything having to do with metals, fabrication,
and metal removal machining. It also has technical
information about metals, threads, tolerances, etc. I would
highly recommend a copy of this book to anyone who wants
the "last word" on any of this kind of information. You can
probably get a copy used for a good price if you look in
a technical bookstore that carries used books. I got mine
when I was in college, at the college bookstore.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Tailwheel Deal |
>It's funny that no matter what the FAA says about tailwheel endorsements,
>the insurance companies have the last laugh.
> We bought our Champ before the 1991
>endorsement rule, but to insure me with no prior tailwheel experience
>I needed to fly 15 hours dual with an instructor who had at least 500 hrs.
>TTT (total tailwheel time....my own little acronym) and at least 5 in make
>and model. I bought lots of sausage and pepperoni pizza's to get that
>time ! Mike C.
>
Interesting. What do you do in a single seat aircraft like a Flybaby? Very
difficult to get any dual time! I'm glad I got my time before the new rules
kicked in. I was checked out in a Pietenpol while I was still a student
pilot. I wonder if there are any rules against that now....
Jim S.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Richard F. Rapp" <rrapp(at)polymail.cpunix.calpoly.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Big Stick Engine Mods? |
Hello Jim,
Well, it occurs to me that a pro is much more effective at lower
rpm where the area of stall speed will only be nearest the tip.
..Hence, a larger, slower prop is superior to a smaller prop attempting
an equivalent amount of thrust by increased RPM.
..Torque is required.
The Model A and the B improvement were the engine of Bernard's choice
because they developed sufficent torque and horsepower at low RPM, even
whe compared with themore advanced engines of today that achieve increases
in both,but at much higher, unuseable RPM.
If a newer production engine could be selectd in the acceptable
weight class. mods could be made so it pproximates the torque band of the
venerable Model A/B.
..Stroker cranks are an expensive mod, big bore kits somewhat less, but
re-ground camshafts are relatively inexpensive.
One Piet participant noted the VW is employed in a number of designs of a
sleeker profile than the Air Camper, and a smaller prop is used.
It occurs to me he may be correct.
A "big stick" (large diameter prop) may be the most appropriate for the
Air Camper by means of inherent factors beyond mycapability.
..Yet I can see the logic..
Reduction drives consitute a comumption of hrsepower that may be avoided
if a crank is strong enough to endure the flex that would be induced by a
flange mounted prop.
A long stroke and appropriate cam would generate sufficent torque at low
RPM for the big stick..
What cams are available for the Subie may be the next question..
I'm sure many high-torque cams are available for VW's.
..and big bore kits and stroker cranks..
I just happens to have a subie engineand would like to work with it.
Perhaps they use a moe suitable cam in their 4wd or Brat engines?
TTFN, Rich
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | RE: tailwheel endorsements |
> >
> >All the above is true, however it does not apply to experimentals. You
can
> >legally fly an experimental taildragger without the endorsement. Not
> >recommended, but legal.
> >
> >Stevee
> >
> I stand corrected! This has changed since I got my ticket. One other
> thing: why doesn't this apply to experimentals? You are absolutely
correct
> about it not being recommended! But I doubt they will be able to write
> rules to cover all the "lack of judgement" issues. Seems like they are
> trying to legislate safety when all that is really accomplished is more
red
> tape.
>
> Jim
Okay, here is my reference.
61.31(g) Tailwheel Airplanes. No person may act as pilot in command of a
tailwheel airplane unless that pilot has received flight instruction from
an authorized flight instructor who has found the pilot competent to
operate a tailwheel airplane and has made a one time endorsement so stating
in the pilot's logbook. The endorsement must certify that the pilot is
competent in normal and crosswind takeoffs and landings, wheel landings
unless the manufacturer has recommended against such landings, and
go-around procedures. This endorsement is not required if a pilot has
logged flight time as pilot in command of tailwheel airplanes prior to
April 15, 1991.
61.31(h) Exception. This section does not require a class rating for
gliders, or category and class ratings for aircraft that are not type
certificated as airplanes, rotorcraft, or lighter-than-air aircraft. In
addition, the rating limitations of this section do not apply to -
61.31(h)(1) The holder of a student pilot certificate;
61.31(h)(2) The holder of a recreational pilot certificate when
operating under the provisions of ? 61.101(f), (g), and (h).
61.31(h)(3) The holder of a pilot certificate when operating an
aircraft under the authority of an experimental or provisional type
certificate;
I am not a FAA interpreter, but to me the above exception means that if you
are a private pilot flying an experimental type certificated a/c you are
not required to have an endorsement. I could be wrong, it has happened
before.
Again -the point here is you can still do stupid things and be legal. I
would never suggest that someone just hop in a exp. taildragger without
instruction and take off. Some times common sense isn't governed. Most of
the time it is, it doesn't end up making sense.
Here for the fun of it...
Steve E.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jim Wright <jgw(at)skynet.be> |
Subject: | Re: Big Stick Engine Mods? |
Rich,
Rich,
Thanks for the info...maybe someone makes the necessary cam for off-road use
for the VW engine.
If I we're back home in the U.S. - I would be going the Model A route, but I
am living in Belgium now and neither A's and Corvairs are all that plentiful
here. I'm not necessarily committed to the VW - just looking for a good
inexpensive alternative that can turn a big prop.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard F. Rapp <rrapp(at)polymail.cpunix.calpoly.edu>
Date: Thursday, April 23, 1998 3:51 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Big Stick Engine Mods?
>Hello Jim,
> Well, it occurs to me that a pro is much more effective at lower
>rpm where the area of stall speed will only be nearest the tip.
>..Hence, a larger, slower prop is superior to a smaller prop attempting
>an equivalent amount of thrust by increased RPM.
>..Torque is required.
>The Model A and the B improvement were the engine of Bernard's choice
>because they developed sufficent torque and horsepower at low RPM, even
>whe compared with themore advanced engines of today that achieve increases
>in both,but at much higher, unuseable RPM.
>If a newer production engine could be selectd in the acceptable
>weight class. mods could be made so it pproximates the torque band of the
>venerable Model A/B.
>..Stroker cranks are an expensive mod, big bore kits somewhat less, but
>re-ground camshafts are relatively inexpensive.
>
>One Piet participant noted the VW is employed in a number of designs of a
>sleeker profile than the Air Camper, and a smaller prop is used.
>It occurs to me he may be correct.
>A "big stick" (large diameter prop) may be the most appropriate for the
>Air Camper by means of inherent factors beyond mycapability.
>..Yet I can see the logic..
>
>Reduction drives consitute a comumption of hrsepower that may be avoided
>if a crank is strong enough to endure the flex that would be induced by a
>flange mounted prop.
>A long stroke and appropriate cam would generate sufficent torque at low
>RPM for the big stick..
>
>What cams are available for the Subie may be the next question..
>I'm sure many high-torque cams are available for VW's.
>..and big bore kits and stroker cranks..
>I just happens to have a subie engineand would like to work with it.
>
>Perhaps they use a moe suitable cam in their 4wd or Brat engines?
>TTFN, Rich
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | RE: Tailwheel Deal |
On Wednesday, April 22, 1998 8:33 PM, Jim Skinner
[SMTP:innovate(at)comsource.net] wrote:
> >It's funny that no matter what the FAA says about tailwheel
endorsements,
> >the insurance companies have the last laugh.
> > We bought our Champ before the 1991
> >endorsement rule, but to insure me with no prior tailwheel experience
> >I needed to fly 15 hours dual with an instructor who had at least 500
hrs.
> >TTT (total tailwheel time....my own little acronym) and at least 5 in
make
> >and model. I bought lots of sausage and pepperoni pizza's to get that
> >time ! Mike C.
> >
> Interesting. What do you do in a single seat aircraft like a Flybaby?
Very
> difficult to get any dual time! I'm glad I got my time before the new
rules
> kicked in. I was checked out in a Pietenpol while I was still a student
> pilot. I wonder if there are any rules against that now....
>
> Jim S.
As I understand it the rules still apply for single seat tailwheel
aircraft. In this case you would have to get the tailwheel checkout in
something else before soloing the Flybaby. From what I have heard the
'baby' isn't the plane to cut your tailwheel teeth in. As far as checking
out as a student in a Piet- I think is can be done. The plane has to have
the restrictions flown off and dual controls. Other than that there are no
problems that I know of.
Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | jkahn(at)picasso.dehavilland.ca (John Kahn) |
Subject: | Re: Big Stick Engine Mods? |
> From Steve(at)byu.edu Thu Apr 23 11:06:49 1998
> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 16:59:05 +0200
> From: Jim Wright <jgw(at)skynet.be>
> Subject: Re: Big Stick Engine Mods?
> Sender: Maiser(at)adena.byu.edu
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Reply-To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Rich,
>
> Thanks for the info...maybe someone makes the necessary cam for off-road use
> for the VW engine.
>
> If I we're back home in the U.S. - I would be going the Model A route, but I
> am living in Belgium now and neither A's and Corvairs are all that plentiful
> here. I'm not necessarily committed to the VW - just looking for a good
> inexpensive alternative that can turn a big prop.
>
> Jim
>
>
Perhaps a vw conversion that would work well on the Piet
would be to convert a Type 4. Increase the displacement
to 2.4 litres (146 ci). The usual vw conversion for a Type 4 will
make around 80-90 hp at 3600 rpm... but maybe the power
curve of the engine will still get you 55-60 hp at say
around 2400 RPM. Most aircraft engines turning 2350 to
2700 rpm direct drive are producing 1/2 hp per cubic inch.
So it seems reasonable to expect a 146 ci VW to give
at least 60 or so hp at say 2400 or 2500 if it was optimized
for that rpm... in fact a Continental A-65 is about the same
displacement... and 60 hp is more than enough since you could
swing a 70 inch prop...
And the Type 4 is comparable in weight to one of the small
continentals (approx 190 lbs) and is a fair bit stronger
that modified Type 1s.
johnk
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Subject: | Re: Big Stick Engine Mods? |
The torque produced by the Ford four bangers at low RPM is the key to
swinging a big prop, but don't overlook the other advantage of the
early Ford engines. They have a three inch long rear main bearing
that handles the props gyroscopic procession loads very nicely.
John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | RE: Tailwheel Deal |
>
>As I understand it the rules still apply for single seat tailwheel
>aircraft. In this case you would have to get the tailwheel checkout in
>something else before soloing the Flybaby. From what I have heard the
>'baby' isn't the plane to cut your tailwheel teeth in. As far as checking
>out as a student in a Piet- I think is can be done. The plane has to have
>the restrictions flown off and dual controls. Other than that there are no
>problems that I know of.
>
>Stevee
>
>
Thanks for the information. This groups discussions are VERY informative.
However, I would take exception to the fact about the Flybaby being hard to
handle. I thought it handled about like the Pietenpol on the ground and was
pretty well behaved. It's sink rate was very high with power off though.
But I have to admit I don't have experience in any other taildraggers to
compare them to. And I should probably also say that the first time I made
a high speed taxi it DID almost get away from me and the observers asked if
I was practicing turns aroung the landing lights! The airspeed indicator
was not working and it built up speed VERY quickly. By the time I realized
things weren't right I was in trouble. Anyone contemplating flying a tail
dragger is well advised to get some good instruction in a similar plane,
double and triple checking everything, and proceeding VERY slowly.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Big Stick Engine Mods? |
>The torque produced by the Ford four bangers at low RPM is the key to
>swinging a big prop, but don't overlook the other advantage of the
>early Ford engines. They have a three inch long rear main bearing
>that handles the props gyroscopic procession loads very nicely.
>
>John Mc
>
>
It seems to me that serious modifications to increase the torque of an
engine, such as increasing stoke or bore significantly, would hurt
reliability. And an unreliable engine in an airplane could ruin your day.
As I understand it, the bottom line is cubic inches. If an engine has
adequate displacement then minor modifications (such as the compression
ratio increases for the Ford A and cam timing) will give you good torque output.
When Continental came out with their A65 they added cubic inches to their
smaller engine. Lycomming and Franklin wanted to get a 65 Hp engine on the
market quickly to compete (or so I have been told). So they simply ran the
engine at higher speed. They may have done other minor mods but the engines
never had the cubic inches or the torque of the larger Continential and the
performance difference is VERY noticable.
A reduction drive works well with the modern, high speed engines because it
allows the engines to run at the higher speeds they were optimized for and
allows the prop to run at a lower speed where it is more efficient. In
addition the reduction can be designed to handle the prop thrust and
gyroscopic loads. There is some loss in the reduction unit, of course.
The BPA homepage has a link to a good explanation of why the VW is not good
for a Pietenpol (although it would probably work ok with a reduction drive).
Find it at:
http://members.aol.com/BPANews/vw.html
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
Dear Dick:
Consider doing some web surfing on the Ego Metro 4 cylinder engine, which comes
with fuel injection bosses cast into the head. Water-cooled, great horsepower,
all
aluminum head and block, substantial info available.
Best Regards,
Warren
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | MikeHinchman <mikehi(at)molalla.net> |
Subject: | Geo Metro engines |
According to Steve Parkman's web page, the Geo three cylinder
engine with his direct port injection develops 64 hp at 4800
rpm. Parkman sells a book that describes how to add the
injection system, including where to buy the parts and the
part numbers. He also sells a silent chain reduction drive
kit. He has been flying one of these engines and the
reduction drive on what he calls a "glass Jenny" for several
hundred hours.
Don't have the web page url handy, but you can search for it
easily enough. Come to think of it, I think I got the url
out of the classified advertising in Sport Aviation.
Hope this helps someone.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Geo Metro engines |
I found this doing a little searching:
REDUCTIONS
Box 16, Grp 15, RR1
Dugald, Manitoba
CANADA, R0E 0K0
204-853-7998
davejohn(at)mb.sympatico.ca
which is Dave Johnson Reductions - where Steve Parkaman got his
reduction drive.
David Scott
scott(at)haulpak.com
MikeHinchman wrote:
> According to Steve Parkman's web page, the Geo three cylinder
> engine with his direct port injection develops 64 hp at 4800
> rpm. Parkman sells a book that describes how to add the
> injection system, including where to buy the parts and the
> part numbers. He also sells a silent chain reduction drive
> kit. He has been flying one of these engines and the
> reduction drive on what he calls a "glass Jenny" for several
> hundred hours.
>
> Don't have the web page url handy, but you can search for it
> easily enough. Come to think of it, I think I got the url
> out of the classified advertising in Sport Aviation.
>
> Hope this helps someone.
>
> Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | RE: Geo Metro engines |
I looked into the geo engines and found that they are a nice little
package. I think that they would be much to light for the piet, but neat
non the less. If I were to use a geo I would buy the RAVEN reduction
drive. I have visited their factory and asked all kinds of questions.
They have done their homework and have developed a very solid drive that
also solves several problems like distributor location and water pump
integration. Anyone considering a Geo owes it to themselves to check out
Raven.
Stevee.
I'd just love to design a plane around that package.
On Thursday, April 23, 1998 9:11 PM, MikeHinchman [SMTP:mikehi(at)molalla.net]
wrote:
> According to Steve Parkman's web page, the Geo three cylinder
> engine with his direct port injection develops 64 hp at 4800
> rpm. Parkman sells a book that describes how to add the
> injection system, including where to buy the parts and the
> part numbers. He also sells a silent chain reduction drive
> kit. He has been flying one of these engines and the
> reduction drive on what he calls a "glass Jenny" for several
> hundred hours.
>
> Don't have the web page url handy, but you can search for it
> easily enough. Come to think of it, I think I got the url
> out of the classified advertising in Sport Aviation.
>
> Hope this helps someone.
>
> Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "William C. Beerman" <wcb(at)bbt.com> |
Subject: | Steel types for Pietenpol construction |
I was reading through the EAA welding manual last night, in which
several papers discussed rustproofing the inside of 4130 tubing
by coating it with raw linseed oil. Has anyone used this (or any
other) method for motor mounts or control horn interiors? How reliable
is this method?
Does anyone have any quantitative information on how much more corrosion
resistant 4130 is than 1020?
Any help is appreciated.
-Bill
----- Begin Included Message -----
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "William C. Beerman" <wcb(at)bbt.com> |
Subject: | Steel types for Pietenpol construction |
Thanks in part to some good advice from this list a few weeks ago,
I have been successful welding up prototype control horns using
both MIG and gas welding processes on mild 20 ga. sheet steel.
However, just today we noticed that the plans supplement for the
three piece wing specifies 4130 steel to be used for the metal
brackets. This leads to the following questions:
-Is 4130 required elsewhere in the airplane and is plain mild steel
insufficient?
-If mild steel is acceptable, then what can be done to protect and
corrosion proof these parts (especially the interior surfaces of
the control horns)?
We are becoming more enthusiastic about the project every day, and
certainly appreciate any help!
-Bill Beerman
(for Bill, Glenn, and Mark)
----- End Included Message -----
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | TLC62770 <TLC62770(at)aol.com> |
Subject: | Re: Geo Metro engines |
HI STEVE PLEASE ADD THIS TO THE LIST OF ENGINES FOR SALE 1986 SUBURU EA 83
ENGINE WITH 87,000 MILES RUNS GREAT THE WHOLE CAR FOR 900 DOLLARS . CALL BEN
OGEN 6634 YOUNG RD. BELLEVUE MI. PHONE 1-616-763-3260
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | LanhamOS <LanhamOS(at)aol.com> |
Subject: | Re: Tailwheel Deal |
Those seeking a tailwheel endorsement, should first find a good grass
strip.
Grass is more forgiving than concerete or asphalt.. Then get checked out in
either a Cub, or a Champ... Then, if one is nearby check out in a Luscombe..
Then make the transition to hard surfaces.. Have fun.. Keep em Flying..
Dr. Orville Lanham
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Geo Metro engines |
>According to Steve Parkman's web page, the Geo three cylinder
>engine with his direct port injection develops 64 hp at 4800
>rpm.
I was told at one time that there is a four cylinder version of this engine
that is basically just the addition of one more cylinder, same attach points
on the drive end. So it could be used with the same reduction drive (if it
was capable of handling the torque.) I think the engine was used in the
Suziki Samari. It was about 85 Hp as I remember.
Jim S.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | MikeHinchman <mikehi(at)molalla.net> |
Subject: | RE: Geo Metro engines |
According to Parkman's information on his web page, the
four cylinder Geo engine develops 79 hp at 4800 rpm with
his direct port fuel injection. Weighs a bit more than the
three cylinder, but not a heck of a lot. The Subaru EA-81
develops 85 hp, according to Parkman, with his FI, but I
don't recall the operating RPM for that power output. It,
too, weighs less than the model A, but I don't recall the
weight. All this info is available on Parkman's web page,
with a bunch of photos. You can also send him email and ask
questions.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Aron(at)hrn.bradley.edu |
Subject: | RE: Parkman's web page address? |
Does anyone have Parkman's web page address? I do know the address for
Raven Redrives, Inc. www.raven-rotor.com
BTW, What is the problem with the engine being too light? I would not
expect
a fix for that condition to be all that difficult, or are there some
factors I am
not considering?
John F. in Peoria
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | MikeHinchman <mikehi(at)molalla.net> |
Subject: | Swag Aero is Parkman's company name |
Folks,
Steve Parkman's company is called Swag Aero. I don't have the
web page url here (got it bookmarked on the work computer),
but you should be able to easily get it by going to
www.search.com and typing in Swag Aero.
He advertised in issues of Experimenter or Sport Aviation,
but his ad wasn't in the latest issue.
If this doesn't help I'll get the url on Monday and post it
here Monday evening.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | clawler <clawler(at)Ptd.Net> |
Subject: | Re: Steel types for Pietenpol construction |
Bill,
I just used the tube seal stuff that Aircraft spruce has. I think that's
what Tony Binglas recomended. I'm not sure how good it works, especially
with the piper strut AD's. Those struts were treated the same I think.
The water acumulation must be the problem. I left my wing struts open at
the top like the plans called for. I hope it isn't a problem in the
future. The weather has been great in Pa. Getting in lots of time.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Richard F. Rapp" <rrapp(at)polymail.cpunix.calpoly.edu> |
Hello to Jim..
There should not be too much trouble locating a suitable engine to
rop in a Piet from the selection of European engines.. Perhaps the Audi
4cyl or the one that was used in the Ford Fiesta???
I don't know hw the Fiesta was marketed in Europe, but was told it was the
"ssmall block Chevy" of Europe, and there were many performance parts
available there for it.. at that time.
I really have no idea, but people race worldwide!
Perhaps it strays frm reality to attempt bottom end torque from
today's high-rpm engines, but current gilmer type belt technology is quite
efficient. A lay shaft alongside or above the cylinder headcould easily
provide suitale suport for a prop while offering reduction.
Any quality bearing should be superior to the A's 3" babbit!
Rich
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Piet in Belgium |
I don't know how popular SAABs are in Belgium, but I once owned a 1973 SAAB
96, which was the old rounded style body. It had a heavy V-4 engine in it
that I was told was produced by Ford in its Industrial Division. It was low
RPM, and high torque and very reliable. I've often thought it might make a
good Piet engine.
Al Swanson
>Hello to Jim..
> There should not be too much trouble locating a suitable engine to
>rop in a Piet from the selection of European engines.. Perhaps the Audi
>4cyl or the one that was used in the Ford Fiesta???
>I don't know hw the Fiesta was marketed in Europe, but was told it was the
>"ssmall block Chevy" of Europe, and there were many performance parts
>available there for it.. at that time.
> I really have no idea, but people race worldwide!
> Perhaps it strays frm reality to attempt bottom end torque from
>today's high-rpm engines, but current gilmer type belt technology is quite
>efficient. A lay shaft alongside or above the cylinder headcould easily
>provide suitale suport for a prop while offering reduction.
>Any quality bearing should be superior to the A's 3" babbit!
>Rich
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | LanhamOS <LanhamOS(at)aol.com> |
Subject: | Re: Piet Lovers Engine Info |
For you Europeans, the Fiesta Engine should be ok, but Ford also built a
Push Rod 4 Cylinder in England... can't dredge up the name of the
Car, but that engine was called the Kent, and a carbon copy of the one used in
the Fiesta.i had two Fiesta's, great cars. But there is a problem with an
exhause valve
in the number two cylinder, it overheats..Both the push rod Four was in early
models of the Ford Pinto..
Piet lovers with A Engines, need to know about this supplier of A
Parts..
Birdhaven Vintage Auto Supplu, RR 1, Box 153 Colfax, Ia. 50054
Phone... 515, 674 3949
They also carry T Parts ... Catalogues, $2 each.
Keep Em Flying.. Dr. Orville Lanham, Bellevue, Ne.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Subject: | Re: Steel types for Pietenpol construction |
I have recently cut some 4130 from the fuselage of a scrapped WW11
Cessna UC78. The fuselage was welded 4130 oiled with linseed. The
interior of the tubing was just like new other than the slightly
sticky film of oil. I would say that this proves the worth of the
method. There were two small holes drilled at the ends of any closed
tube oil poured in and then the fule rotated and allowed to drain.
The holes were then plugged using small drive screws. ( the type used
to hold data plates etc..)
________________________________________________________________________________
I am planning on using the "Subaru EA-81 as my powerplant. Has anyone
used this engine? If so could you email me some info along with pixs
too!!
Thanks
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | HPVSUPPLY <HPVSUPPLY(at)aol.com> |
Subject: | Re: A few Piet thoughts... |
Hi Folks!
Just a few thoughts on things that have been flowing thru this group...
Our Piet will be using a skid, but some of our local airports are paved around
the pumps, etc. I remember a picture in an old (mid-60's?) Sport Aviation
that showed a guy that bolted a wire brush to his tail skid -- the idea was
that on grass, it would slide along without too much trouble & not tear up the
sod. When you got it up on pavement, all the grass would get knocked out &
the brush would keep you from rolling along. Maybe not enough to be a "brake"
, but it might keep your Piet in one place on a not-so-level apron! (I want to
see the night take-off -- with blue flames coming out the exhaust stacks &
sparks coming off the skid till you got it up a bit!)
There have been some questions on VW engines in Piets. In my FlyBaby file
(plans, etc from the past 3-4 builders) I found a letter from Pete Bowers
(March 82) with information on using a VW engine in the Fly Baby -- it said
it could be done, but it should be 1800cc or bigger AND to be sure to keep the
weight of the plane under control.
After seeing all the stuff on FAA tail-dragger regs., I dug out my logbooks to
see how far before 1991 it was that I got my sign-off -- it will be 30 years
this June I got my solo sign-off for a 85 hp J-3. Had a grand total of 9 1/2
hrs (would have soloed at 8 1/2 hrs, but I wasn't old enough -- my instructor
was all ready out of the plane & had to get back in when I told him my
birthday was 3 days away!!) As you say, the insurance company will probably
get the last say!!
Semper Piet!
Mike Conkling
Pretty Prairie, KS
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | jerrry d boyette <110670.3060(at)compuserve.com> |
Subject: | Re: A few Piet thoughts... |
For some reason I am getting a lot of e-mail from you that dose not make
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Subject: | Re: A few Piet thoughts... |
About that wire brush tail skid. I would like to see it at night too.
I used to push down on the center stand of my old BSA to dicourage
tail gaters at night. What a fireworks show, they backed off in a
hurry!
I too like the look of the leaf spring skid rather than the coil
spring setup. I was thinking about mounting a small castoring wheel
so that it protrudes just slightly below the skid. It would keep the
spring off the pavement and yet you could haul back on the stick to
help keep her straight on grass. You'd need brakes to keep from
rolling into the high priced iron on the ramp.
John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
Subject: | Re: A few Piet thoughts... |
Have you ever tried to land with a skid on pavement? The coeficient of
friction of the skid on pavement is MUCH less than a tailwheel. Good luck
keeping pointed in the right direction!
McNarry, John wrote:
> About that wire brush tail skid. I would like to see it at night too.
> I used to push down on the center stand of my old BSA to dicourage
> tail gaters at night. What a fireworks show, they backed off in a
> hurry!
>
> I too like the look of the leaf spring skid rather than the coil
> spring setup. I was thinking about mounting a small castoring wheel
> so that it protrudes just slightly below the skid. It would keep the
> spring off the pavement and yet you could haul back on the stick to
> help keep her straight on grass. You'd need brakes to keep from
> rolling into the high priced iron on the ramp.
>
> John Mc
--
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: | Skids vs tw. was RE: A few Piet thoughts... |
On Thursday, April 30, 1998 1:19 PM, David B. Schober
[SMTP:dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu] wrote:
> Have you ever tried to land with a skid on pavement?
Not on purpose. I did have my tailwheel come loose on a flight. Upon
landing I heard a horrific scraping sound. Decelleration was much quicker
than normal too. It didn't get really scarry till the tail wheel broke
loose and twanged sideways nearly causing a ground loop. I was able to
keep it going forward till it came to a stop. Culprit: two cotter pins
missing or removed caused the caslte nuts to vibrate off in flight. This
experience earned a new entry on the preflight check list. It had been 15
hours and several months since the tailwheel had been removed for service.
Steve E.
1.5 hours left of flight restriction time.
________________________________________________________________________________
Duane Wollsey (no internet access) uses the Subaru and has about 30 hrs on
it now. Minor teething problems. Plenty of HP for the piet. Weight is
about right too. check out http://steve.byu.edu for pics.
Stevee
On Wednesday, April 29, 1998 5:23 PM, Emelita W [SMTP:asawa(at)misnet.com]
wrote:
> I am planning on using the "Subaru EA-81 as my powerplant. Has anyone
> used this engine? If so could you email me some info along with pixs
> too!!
> Thanks
> Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Subject: | Re: A few Piet thoughts... |
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Re: A few Piet thoughts... |
Have you ever tried to land with a skid on pavement? The coeficient of
friction of the skid on pavement is MUCH less than a tailwheel. Good luck
keeping pointed in the right direction!
McNarry, John wrote:
I think you missed that I was intending to have the castoring tail
wheel PROTRUDING below the spring. Say by about an inch os so. The
spring should never touch on a hard surface unless you hit hard tail
first!
J Mc
PS I really like your daVinci quote
> About that wire brush tail skid. I would like to see it at night too.
> I used to push down on the center stand of my old BSA to dicourage
> tail gaters at night. What a fireworks show, they backed off in a
> hurry!
>
> I too like the look of the leaf spring skid rather than the coil
> spring setup. I was thinking about mounting a small castoring wheel
> so that it protrudes just slightly below the skid. It would keep the
> spring off the pavement and yet you could haul back on the stick to
> help keep her straight on grass. You'd need brakes to keep from
> rolling into the high priced iron on the ramp.
>
> John Mc
--
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: | MikeHinchman <mikehi(at)molalla.net> |
Folks,
Does the all-up EA81 weigh about the same as the Model A,
or less?
Thanks,
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | KelseyJ12 <KelseyJ12(at)aol.com> |
Subject: | my dream of becoming a pilot of an Air Camper |
Hello my name is Kelsey Ann Johnston (MIke Johnston's daughter) my dream is
to become a Peitenpol Air Camper pilot
My dad is building a Air Camper so I know alot abput the plane. It's what
I think a mavoulous planes and when I grow up I would love to build one.
Last summer my dad and I went to Oshgosh, Wisconsin for the Fly-in and I
loved it. I had so much fun whatching all those planes I liked the bi-planes
alot and I liked the whole thing. Then we went to Broadhead I loved it there
also the second day I got to ride in a Air Camper it was great. I really hope
I go this summer beacause I loved it last summer.
Air Camper because it was the first regestered plane in Minnesota wich I think
is really cool. well I gotta go but thank you for reading from KelseyJ12
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | TLC62770 <TLC62770(at)aol.com> |
Subject: | Re: my dream of becoming a pilot of an Air Camper |
Hello Kelsey
My name is Terry Chamberlin I am 54 . My friend and I are building a
aircamper
I can't wait until we get it done so we can fly it . My friend has a pilots
licence , i'm going to get mine next summer . It will take u another three
years to complete our project . We were at Broadhead two years ago . it was
great . Where do you live in Minn ? My wifes family live in Chaska and
Skakcaope . Iam a school Teacher here in Mich . I teach Wood Shop and
Drafting . glade to hear you really enjoyed your ride in a Pietenpol . by for
now .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Wkoucky <Wkoucky(at)aol.com> |
Subject: | Re: my dream of becoming a pilot of an Air Camper |
<< I am a school Teacher here in Mich . I teach Wood Shop>>
Where in Mich?
William
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Winkel <rwinkel(at)i2k.com> |
Subject: | Re: my dream of becoming a pilot of an Air Camper |
Wkoucky wrote:
>
>
> << I am a school Teacher here in Mich . I teach Wood Shop>>
> Where in Mich?
>
> William
William,
Good question! I live in the Grand Rapids Mich area. Am slowly putting
an Air Camper together. Have heard of other Air Campers in the area,
but haven't seen one around here for 15 years.
If you are in this area drop me a line.
Any interest in the group in putting together a list of who is in this
discussion group, hope/dream/project status, and location and email
link? Would be glad to collect info and put it on a web-site ... or
would be very glad to see someone else do that.
Shucks, some of you might be right in my back yard! :)
My best to all,
Dick Winkel
rwinkel(at)i2k.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | baileys(at)ktis.net (Robert M. Bailey) |
KelseyJ12
Dear Kelsey,
I think I can speak for all in this case, we enjoyed hearing from you
very much, keep us posted on you progress.
Bob B - 62
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Wkoucky <Wkoucky(at)aol.com> |
Subject: | Re: my dream of becoming a pilot of an Air Camper |
<<
William,
Good question! I live in the Grand Rapids Mich area. Am slowly putting
an Air Camper together. Have heard of other Air Campers in the area,
but haven't seen one around here for 15 years.
If you are in this area drop me a line.
Any interest in the group in putting together a list of who is in this
discussion group, hope/dream/project status, and location and email
link? Would be glad to collect info and put it on a web-site ... or
would be very glad to see someone else do that.
Shucks, some of you might be right in my back yard! :)
My best to all,
Dick Winkel
rwinkel(at)i2k.com >>
I live in Traverse City. I am building a FlyBaby with a Corvair right now but
my next project is a Piet.
William
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | We dream of our own aircamper. |
My wife is the only healthy one in the family. I had a heart attack. And
she is looking forward to us building and flying our own Piet too. I
rebuiltt an Aronca back in the 50s but since then many things have
happened in my life.
My wife is from the Philippines and she learned to drive a car (they
dont need cars in The Phils) in two weeks. Other wives have taken over a
year or more. So I feel certin she wont have any problem learning to
fly. Anyhow we are also looking forward to (someday) building our own
Piet too!!
Steve & Emelita in dreamland
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | TLC62770 <TLC62770(at)aol.com> |
Subject: | GRAND LEDGE AIRCAMPER |
Hello Dick ,
My freind Troy Collins ,and i are building a Piet Air Camper. We jjust
finished building a workshop for the Piet . Thats done now . So it is time to
build the airplane
We have a few ribs done and have most of the bugs worked out of that . We have
the jug table for the air frame up and level . now we are starting to lay out
where the frame parts are to go .We are useing a modified Corvair engine ,
witha 70 x 44 prop .
The fuelsage will be 28 in. wide . keep in tough
TLC62770(at)AOL.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | RE: Weight of EA81 |
I believe that the ea-81 in Duanes plane weighs about 250lbs.
Stevee
On Thursday, April 30, 1998 6:37 PM, MikeHinchman [SMTP:mikehi(at)molalla.net] wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Does the all-up EA81 weigh about the same as the Model A,
> or less?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | misc costs of ownership |
I've got a few questions about ownership and maintenance of a homebuilt
(a Piet of course ;-).
I'm doing a cost analysis to convince the wife that I can really afford
a plane. I have found lots of opinions on the cost of building a plane.
Now what I need is info on details like insuring a homebuilt and giving
it a place to live.
What kind of insurance is needed on a homebuilt? If you own it ouright,
I assume that you still need liability insurance. What does this cost
for a low time pilot (especially during the first 40 hours).
What about the pros and cons of a hangar vs a tie-down. Obviously a
hangar is better for the plane, but not for the wallet. I have seen
many Cubs, Champs, etc tied down outside. Is there any particular
problem with storing a Piet outside?
Thanks for the help.
Dean Dayton - deandayton(at)hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | clawler <clawler(at)Ptd.Net> |
Subject: | Re: misc costs of ownership |
Dean,
A hanger is really a must for a Piet. A friend here in Pa had one and
left it tied out and it really ended up looking bad. I would think that
the moisture and all the wooden structure could be a problem. The heat
build up in the wings during the summertime could cause some problems
too. The extra wear and tear of the weather can cause a lot more expense
over the years than the cost of a hanger as long as hanger rent is
within reason. A good hail storm would be a real bummer. If hanger space
is real expensive it might be possible to share with another expermental
or ultralight. We currently have a C-182 and have had several other
cessna's over the years. The Piet sure is a lot cheeper to maintain and
fly. And a lot more fun to fly too. My ins. on the Piet is about $150 a
year. Just liability. C-65 parts are not cheep, but there aren't to
many. I did spring for impluse mags.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: misc costs of ownership |
Dean,
Insurance? You don't need no stinking insurance unless your airport demands
it. (Of course its a good idea if you want to limit liability) I have my own
strip and carry it on my RV6 in case I run into a King Air on the ramp
somewhere. If you plan on flying locally and do not have any King Airs run
into, don't worry about insurance. I do not plan on insuring my Piet if it
ever gets done. Its gonna be too slow to run into even a parked airplane!
Bob Seibert
RV-6 N691RV
Pietenpol almost on gear (give me another couple of months!)
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: misc costs of ownership |
By all means, hangar your airplane, regardless of what it is, if for no other
reason than this: Airplane maintenance, like oil changing, and other routine
proceedures becomes a royal pain in the keester if your bird is out-doors. As
a result, the little things that keep your pride and joy safe do not get done
as regularly or as carefully as they would if it lived in a hangar. Often, a
high-wing plane like the Piet will fit in a hangar with a low-wing Cherokee or
Volksplane or.......
You might consider a partnership in your plane. This really helps with the
non-operational costs such as hangar, insurance, etc.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: misc costs of ownership |
By all means, hangar your airplane, regardless of what it is, if for no other
reason than this: Airplane maintenance, like oil changing, and other routine
proceedures becomes a royal pain in the keester if your bird is out-doors. As
a result, the little things that keep your pride and joy safe do not get done
as regularly or as carefully as they would if it lived in a hangar. Often, a
high-wing plane like the Piet will fit in a hangar with a low-wing Cherokee or
Volksplane or.......
You might consider a partnership in your plane. This really helps with the
non-operational costs such as hangar, insurance, etc.
Good luck, Don Cooley
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Subject: | Re: misc costs of ownership |
>I've got a few questions about ownership and maintenance of a homebuilt
Dean- As Craig Lawler pointed out- insuring a Piet for liability is not
too expensive. With hull insurance being SO expensive that can be
omitted since if you built it, you can rebuild it. Homebuilts
have a poor enough reputation with the general public already, so it's my
view that the least we can do is be responsible enough to insure those we
take for rides and those we might run into. We had a million dollar
liability policy on our Champ and it was about $230/year. Mike C.
ps- Wow ! Just think, with $ 230 you could rent a 150/172 for a
whole 5 or 6 hours, eh ?
PS- Dean, take your wife to the local FBO and show her how much
it would cost you to fly a 150/172 for 35 hours a year
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
Subject: | Re: misc costs of ownership |
If you need to justify it to your wife your already in trouble! A wood
airplane needs to be in a hangar. No question about that. When I bought my
Howard, I made a pact with myself, if I can't provide a hangar, the airplane
gets sold.
Insurance isn't required but if you have any assets I would suggest having
liability. Self insure for the hull.
Maintenance is always the question. If you build an airplane and get a
repairmans certificat, you can do all the work but there is still the parts
issue. Here is where the hangar comes in. If left outside, you will be lucky
to get 10 - 12 years on the fabric. If it's in the hangar, expect 20 or
more. The wood is always a problem when left outside. Moisture will get in
the fuselage and be trapped. If you fly often, you will dry most of it out
but it could still be a problem.
Then there is the time issue. If you want to justify the expense of your
airplane, hangars here in WV are $115 per month. Thats $1380 a year for the
hangar, add about $600 for liability insurance. In the north you may get 6
months you can fly open cockpit. Thats about 24 weekends. Assume that it
will rain or there will be something else to do at least half of them, your
left with about 12 weekends to fly. If you fly 2 hours each of those you
will get about 24 hours a year. Fixed costs will be $82 an hour. I don't
think that would be3 a good cost justification!
If you want an airplane don't try to justify it. You can't! It's just one of
those things. I can't justify my cost of operation on the Howard (about
$250.00 per hour), I just want it and that's all there is to it. Fortunatly
my wife is understanding enough and realizes that my life revolves around
aviation and if put to the test she might loose. (Ever hear of AIDS,
Aviation Induced Divorce Syndrom)
Build yoiur airplane and fly it. Don't try to cost justify it. Do it because
it's what you want to do.
Dean Dayton wrote:
> I've got a few questions about ownership and maintenance of a homebuilt
> (a Piet of course ;-).
>
> I'm doing a cost analysis to convince the wife that I can really afford
> a plane. I have found lots of opinions on the cost of building a plane.
> Now what I need is info on details like insuring a homebuilt and giving
> it a place to live.
>
> What kind of insurance is needed on a homebuilt? If you own it ouright,
> I assume that you still need liability insurance. What does this cost
> for a low time pilot (especially during the first 40 hours).
>
> What about the pros and cons of a hangar vs a tie-down. Obviously a
> hangar is better for the plane, but not for the wallet. I have seen
> many Cubs, Champs, etc tied down outside. Is there any particular
> problem with storing a Piet outside?
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> Dean Dayton - deandayton(at)hotmail.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: | Ed0248 <Ed0248(at)aol.com> |
Subject: | Re: misc costs of ownership |
Instead of trying to convince your loving spouse how expensive aviation really
is, why not compare it to other recreational venues such as boating (ever
price a decently sized cabin- or cuddy-cabin cruiser?), hunting (we've all
read and heard about the $350/lb venison), golf (my super-cheap clubs are
worth over $300, not to mention shoes, accessories, green fees, etc.), or, as
I tell my wife, well, Honey, I'm not out drinking and chasing other mens'
women! Although flying will never, ever be inexpensive, it is the value you
put on it that makes the investment worthwhile. By the way, have you ever
seen a "free" puppy? Take one trip to a vet and you'll see the fallicy of
that statement.
No matter what it costs, if you can safely fit it into your budget, and you
really enjoy it, there is no valid reason not to go ahead. Otherwise, ten or
fifteen years from now you will liable to be sitting around crying in your
lemonade about how "if only I had done......".
In other words, ENJOY THE DAMNED THING!!!!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ken Beanlands <ken.beanlands(at)west.gecems.com> |
Subject: | Re: misc costs of ownership |
On Tue, 5 May 1998, clawler wrote:
> Dean,
>
> A hanger is really a must for a Piet. A friend here in Pa had one and
ctually, a recent homebuilt rag (Kitplanes, I think) had a hangar kit
listed in thier new products section. It's a stainless steel tube and
heavy canvas unit that sells for $2100-$4000 USD (depending on size).
It's not as secure as your typical hangar, but it is a lot cheaper and
still protects the plane (after all, this is the main reason for a
hangar) Around here, the hangar cost could be paid off in a year or two
based on the local hangarage rates.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | clawler <clawler(at)Ptd.Net> |
Subject: | Re: misc costs of ownership |
Ken,
We just put up a pole building for the Piet. 32ft trusses. Green metal.
The hardest part was drilling the post holes. Recruted lots of help. Did
it in a weekend. Holds tractors and other farm stuff too. Less than
$3,000.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Richard F. Rapp" <rrapp(at)polymail.cpunix.calpoly.edu> |
Hello to the group,
$2100-$4000 US $'s for a canvas / stainless steel tube hangar
sounds like good value if one desires a portable hangar..
The pole barnwith 32ft truss roof would certainly be far more
durable at $3000.
I built a number of two car garages a few years ago.. finished
price to the customer was right at $5000. Price included grading and
excavation, concrete footings and slab, a better quality of construction
materials and a 20yr roof.
I never built a hangar, per se, but there's generally not much
I've noticed about one that would be difficult. Stud wall construction is
Miscellaneous costs of flying???
If you must ask your wife, you probably can't afford it.
Rich
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ken Beanlands <ken.beanlands(at)west.gecems.com> |
Subject: | Inexpensive Hangars |
On Wed, 6 May 1998, clawler wrote:
> Ken,
>
> We just put up a pole building for the Piet. 32ft trusses. Green metal.
> The hardest part was drilling the post holes. Recruted lots of help. Did
> it in a weekend. Holds tractors and other farm stuff too. Less than
> $3,000.
>
> Craig
>
Alonfg the same lines, I saw a hangar that had been built from 2x4 studs
laminated together to form a 4x6 arches. They were then erected to form a
quansit hut style hangar. The 2x4's were laminated using structural glue
and bolts. It was then covered in corrugated panels. Nice little
arrangment for a minimal cost.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | RE: Inexpensive Hangars |
The only problem that I have is that putting together a hanger at my
airport requires me to get the building engineered, and I have to make the
airport board happy, which is tough because they want the new bifold door
steel buildings. they are expensive. They seem to want a whole row put in
rather than onesy twosy. Bummer.
Stevee
On Thursday, May 07, 1998 9:54 AM, Ken Beanlands
[SMTP:ken.beanlands(at)west.gecems.com] wrote:
> On Wed, 6 May 1998, clawler wrote:
>
> > Ken,
> >
> > We just put up a pole building for the Piet. 32ft trusses. Green metal.
> > The hardest part was drilling the post holes. Recruted lots of help.
Did
> > it in a weekend. Holds tractors and other farm stuff too. Less than
> > $3,000.
> >
> > Craig
> >
>
> Alonfg the same lines, I saw a hangar that had been built from 2x4 studs
> laminated together to form a 4x6 arches. They were then erected to form a
> quansit hut style hangar. The 2x4's were laminated using structural glue
> and bolts. It was then covered in corrugated panels. Nice little
> arrangment for a minimal cost.
>
> Ken
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Hixon, Carl" <chixon(at)durapharm.com> |
Subject: | RE: Inexpensive Hangars |
Yes. It is obvious that the folks with these inexpensive hangars are
not from California metropolitan areas! At Oceanside airport near my
home, the hangars are in terrible condition. The roofs leak, doors are
rusted through etc. The roof is so unstable it isn't safe to walk up
there to repair the leaks. These hangars still cost about $300 per
month. Forget about building your own hangar or cover on the airport,
the city would never approve it. That seems to be typical in San Diego
County.
The only problem that I have is that putting together a hanger
at my
airport requires me to get the building engineered, and I have
to make the
airport board happy, which is tough because they want the new
bifold door
steel buildings. they are expensive. They seem to want a whole
row put in
rather than onesy twosy. Bummer.
Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Subject: | RE: Inexpensive Hangars |
I was very impressed with the hangers at Brodhead. They are all
similar in appearance. I was wondering if the municipality or local
airport authority builds them and leases them or is there some other
way they are regulated. Owner built to standard on leased airport
property? We have many ex WW11 airfields in western Canada but hanger
space is expensive or non exsistant.
I had thought of two retired forty foot semi trailers, minus
undercarriage, spanned with rafters. One van could be a workshop and
the other my home after AIDS* becomes terminal.
AIDS- Aviation Induced Divorce Syndrome
J Mc ;-)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>The only problem that I have is that putting together a hanger at my
>airport requires me to get the building engineered, and I have to make the
>airport board happy.......
A bit different subject.....
I sure feel spoiled here in Ohio with all the little grass strips out about
20 mi SW of Cleveland. On summer eves around sunset we take off
with the door off, (Champ) and do 8 seperate touch-and-goes at
8 little grass strips taking a whole 16-18 minutes to make the circuit.
One has horses, the other excavating equipment, the next is on a golf
course parallel to a fairway with golfers walking/riding at eye level
to us, the next a backyard strip with kids waving from their swing
set, another parallels the hard surface at our 'big' airport Columbia,
which even has fuel, then it's over to the Island Rd. strip where on
climb out you can see little leauge teams lining up a the Dairy Queen
for ice cream, .......and how cool it gets when you flare for landing
near sunset- the dew already starting to settle in for the eve. Ahh.
ps- but we can't hold a candle to the gorgeous mountains in the
backdrop from the photos Steve E. posted on his page w/ Duane
W.'s Piet in formation.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Inexpensive Hangars |
I used the semi trailer idea in Puerto Rico for an Airline that I worked
for there. looks tacky but works.
McNarry, John wrote:
> I was very impressed with the hangers at Brodhead. They are all
> similar in appearance. I was wondering if the municipality or local
> airport authority builds them and leases them or is there some other
> way they are regulated. Owner built to standard on leased airport
> property? We have many ex WW11 airfields in western Canada but hanger
> space is expensive or non exsistant.
>
> I had thought of two retired forty foot semi trailers, minus
> undercarriage, spanned with rafters. One van could be a workshop and
> the other my home after AIDS* becomes terminal.
>
> AIDS- Aviation Induced Divorce Syndrome
>
> J Mc ;-)
--
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> |
I can sympothize with you. When I lived in NY I had 14 airports (both public
and private) within a 12 mile radius of my house. Since moving to WV it's hard
to find places to go that are close. When flying around here, concern for
places to land in the event of engine failure is real. I'm not flying a Piet
but my engine is 55 years old. Flying at night makes you realy question your
sanity. Last fall I was using the Howard to commute back and forth from
Clarksburg WV to Wallkill NY. About half the time coming back to CKB I ended up
spending the night in PA on some airport couch waiting for weather (unforcast).
Thunderstorms, mountains and night don't mix.
If you've got time to spare, go by air.
Michael D Cuy wrote:
> >The only problem that I have is that putting together a hanger at my
> >airport requires me to get the building engineered, and I have to make the
> >airport board happy.......
>
> A bit different subject.....
> I sure feel spoiled here in Ohio with all the little grass strips out about
> 20 mi SW of Cleveland. On summer eves around sunset we take off
> with the door off, (Champ) and do 8 seperate touch-and-goes at
> 8 little grass strips taking a whole 16-18 minutes to make the circuit.
> One has horses, the other excavating equipment, the next is on a golf
> course parallel to a fairway with golfers walking/riding at eye level
> to us, the next a backyard strip with kids waving from their swing
> set, another parallels the hard surface at our 'big' airport Columbia,
> which even has fuel, then it's over to the Island Rd. strip where on
> climb out you can see little leauge teams lining up a the Dairy Queen
> for ice cream, .......and how cool it gets when you flare for landing
> near sunset- the dew already starting to settle in for the eve. Ahh.
>
> ps- but we can't hold a candle to the gorgeous mountains in the
> backdrop from the photos Steve E. posted on his page w/ Duane
> W.'s Piet in formation.
--
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: | Gary McArthur <garymc(at)admin.hilconet.com> |
Unsubscribe
________________________________________________________________________________
Just another short (maybe kinda long really) story.
I just have to say that I have the greatest wife. Saturday was my 30th
birthday (may 9th) and my wife said,
"Honey, I think that my birthday gift to you will be sending you to the
airport for the whole day. Leave as early as you like and go flying, work
on your Stinson, whatever, and I'll bring the kids out around noon and we
will have lunch out there together."
WOW! I thought, no feeling guilty that I have spent to much time out
there, no yard work, excellent! I looked forward to my birthday for weeks!
Sure enough Saturday came around and I was up and attem before the sun
came peaking over the mountains. I got just over an hour flying in during
the sunrise. I flew south over a co-workers house and got him out of bed.
I gotta tell ya flying low and slow is the greatest. Waving to onlookers
down below and having them wave back is awesome. They say the sound of my
ol 65 is very distinguished. I flew north and did a figure eight over my
home and church building then to Duanes. He was working in the yard and
waved. I did two touch and goes at the Provo airport. I've been there
enough times that people wave at me before I get a chance to. I was so
happy I was singing out loud what ever came to mind as I flew over the
south end of Utah Lake. (good thing for engines making noise at full
power, don't get me started in public I warn you) I landed and pulled the
Stinson fuse out of the hanger and started sand blasting. I was having a
great time in the cool of the late morning (except for a hour and a half
trying to get the gas powered compressor started, but never-mind that).
It was about the time that I was going to get back in the air, when I
started noticing familiar cars drive by. I admit I am a little slow
sometimes, but this was getting to be strange. I saw my brothers car, then
my buddy Duane, several people from my neighborhood and on and on. I
finished up my sandblasting and drove back over to where I park my plane.
I stood astonished as I got out of my truck to see about 30 of my friends,
family, neighbors, and church members packed into Duanes hanger singing
"Happy Birthday" surrounding the biggest birthday cake I had ever seen. My
kids were delighted at my surprise and each gave me gifts of chocolate and
candy they had saved up for and bought with their own money. I was so
touched I thought I might get a little choked up, indeed I felt it coming
on. I was saved however by the congradulations and undulation and teasing
about being over the hill after they all finished singing. I gotta tell
you about the cake. To give you and idea of its grander, it was made up of
7 cake mixes (chocolate of course) 10lbs of powdered sugar, and took 24
hours to build. It was decorated as a airfield with trees, runway and
lake. My wife had found a model of a Super Ace (as close as she could find
to a piet in a plastic model) and had Duane built and paint it in my planes
colors for the final decoration. Simply amazing.
Anyway, we all ate cake and ice cream till we about burst then I gave
rides for hours until my derriere got tired. I must have done 15 circuits.
Everyone had a blast, and the weather was great. True to her promise I
got to stay and finish working on the Stinson for the rest of the
afternoon. All that work and planning while only two weeks away from
delivering our fourth child.... words fail to express what I feel for this
beloved woman.
Stevee.
Kinda makes my Mother's Day gift of 1lb of specialty wrapped fudge look
quaint doesn't it.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Subject: | Re: To the world! |
Steve: I'm sure we don't have to tell you but you are Blessed! :-}
It seems redundant to tell you, but Happy Birthday anyway!
John McNarry
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ken Beanlands <ken.beanlands(at)west.gecems.com> |
Subject: | Re: To the world! |
Wow! Sounds like a great day. It's neat that you have your first plane
flying before your 30'th B'Day. That was my goal too, but now that's been
moved to having it flying before I'm 32 ;-)
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | DXLViolins <DXLViolins(at)aol.com> |
Subject: | Re: To the world! |
A lovely story Stevee... Happy Birthday from the UK!
________________________________________________________________________________
Hello All!
I am just getting started on a piet...ordered plans from Don
Pietenpol-and have lots of questions-sure to be followed by more...Has
anyone ever heard of a piet with folding wing/or easily removable one.
I currently have enough space to build in, but cannot take off out of
the back yard, and don't anticipate being able to afford hangar
rent...As I am sure that others have encountered this I am open to any
suggestions! Happy Slow Flying! Paris Wilcox-pezz720(at)yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Subject: | Re: To the world! |
>Just another short story.
What a great way to spend your birthday- and what a wise wife ! MC
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Winkel <rwinkel(at)i2k.com> |
Subject: | Pietenpol Builders List |
All,
A message posted a week ago resulted in some favorable response about a
Pietenpol Builders List.
I've started a list and data entry form at the following address:
http://www.chestnutfarms.com/Pietenpol/builder_list.htm
I hope this might be a way to
help Piet fans locate other local enthusiasts, and
help keep some current data available.
I'll try to update the list weekly with submitted data. Please... use it,
don't abuse it.
Let me know if this is a good idea (or otherwise). I'll be out of town
on business till Friday. Will find out this weekend what I've gotten
myself into.
My best to all,
Dick Winkel
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | RE: Piet Discussion |
On Tuesday, May 12, 1998 11:34 PM, Paris Wilcox [SMTP:pezz720(at)yahoo.com]
wrote:
> Hello All!
> I am just getting started on a piet...ordered plans from Don
> Pietenpol-and have lots of questions-sure to be followed by more...Has
> anyone ever heard of a piet with folding wing/or easily removable one.
> I currently have enough space to build in, but cannot take off out of
> the back yard, and don't anticipate being able to afford hangar
> rent...As I am sure that others have encountered this I am open to any
> suggestions! Happy Slow Flying! Paris Wilcox-pezz720(at)yahoo.com
>
>
I had the same idea when I started my project. Pulling the wings and
rerigging the lift struts and wires, and connecting the aileron cables
turns into a two hour project. I continued to build because I wanted to
fly. Right now I am flying, but have to leave the piet out in the weather,
for lack of hanger funds. Utah however is fairly dry and warm. It
survived a winter and snow well. Hopefully the hanger fairy will visit
soon, but till then I still have my primary goal acomplished. I guess what
I am saying is don't let the unknowns stop you from persuing what you
really want.
Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | RE: Pietenpol Builders List |
On Wednesday, May 13, 1998 8:26 AM, Richard Winkel [SMTP:rwinkel(at)i2k.com]
wrote:
> All,
>
> A message posted a week ago resulted in some favorable response about a
> Pietenpol Builders List.
> I've started a list and data entry form at the following address:
>
> http://www.chestnutfarms.com/Pietenpol/builder_list.htm
>
> I hope this might be a way to
> help Piet fans locate other local enthusiasts, and
> help keep some current data available.
>
> I'll try to update the list weekly with submitted data. Please... use
it,
> don't abuse it.
>
> Let me know if this is a good idea (or otherwise). I'll be out of town
> on business till Friday. Will find out this weekend what I've gotten
> myself into.
>
> My best to all,
> Dick Winkel
Dick, This is a great idea. This would be a great site to have linked to
the BPA site. Any chance you would like to let Grant MacLaren know?
Steve (my info submitted) E.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Subject: | Re: Piet Discussion |
________________________________________________________________________________
Hello All!
I am just getting started on a piet...ordered plans from Don
Pietenpol-and have lots of questions-sure to be followed by more...Has
anyone ever heard of a piet with folding wing/or easily removable one.
I currently have enough space to build in, but cannot take off out of
the back yard, and don't anticipate being able to afford hangar
rent...As I am sure that others have encountered this I am open to any
suggestions! Happy Slow Flying! Paris Wilcox-pezz720(at)yahoo.com
Did you get the three piece wing plans? They don't come off all that
easily but I had considered building a van type trailer that the
wings would hang on the inside walls leading edge down and the fue
could fit in tail forward. An inclined guide ramp for the tail wheel
and a small hand winch to pull the fuse in. With the incline it
should roll out easily.
Have fun! John Mc.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | clawler <clawler(at)Ptd.Net> |
Subject: | Re: Piet Discussion |
John,
Finding a cheep hanger, or one to share with another expermental or
ultralight sure would be a good idea. I hope I never have to take the
wiings off my piet. Big hassel. Plus the safety issue of not getting
everything just right each time you assemble it.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
Yes I have another question! What is thought about using poplar i/o
spruce. At a wing rib building exhibit(oddly enough piet ribs) at
Sun-N-Fun this year the instructor was extolling the virtues of using
poplar. Is this a one for one exchange, or do the dimensions of the
wood have to be changed? I ask because I have a near unlimted supply
of clear poplar that seems to meet the same requirements that spruce
selection would.
Thanks for all the help! Paris W pezz720(at)yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | LanhamOS <LanhamOS(at)aol.com> |
Subject: | Re: Pietenpol Builders List |
Congrats Dick on this list.. Also Happy Birthday to Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | TLC62770 <TLC62770(at)aol.com> |
PARIS , I,M A SHOP TEACHER . I PERSONALLY WOULD NEVER BUILD
POPLAR WOOD . I HAVE READ ABOUT HOMEBUILDERS USEING IT . N O T ME
I,M USEING DOUGLAS FIR . MY FREIND IS USING SPRUCE . A HAVE HEARD OF A GUY
USEING PLYWOOD RIBS . THAT I WOULD CONSIDER . GOOD LUCK
TERRY CHAMBERLIN
________________________________________________________________________________
---TLC62770 wrote:
>
> PARIS , I,M A SHOP TEACHER . I PERSONALLY WOULD NEVER BUILD
> POPLAR WOOD . I HAVE READ ABOUT HOMEBUILDERS USEING IT . N O T ME
> I,M USEING DOUGLAS FIR . MY FREIND IS USING SPRUCE . A HAVE HEARD OF
A GUY
> USEING PLYWOOD RIBS . THAT I WOULD CONSIDER . GOOD LUCK
> TERRY CHAMBERLIN
>
Terry, Could you tell me more about why I shouldn't use poplar? What
are the advantages of Fir? I would like to keep the building of this
airplane in the Pietenpol tradition- namely affordable to the average
guy-ME! To use only spruce from the aircraft supply houses would make
this project financially not feasable for me. Any suggestions are most
welcome- I love Deatails! Thanks, Paris
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Yet Another ?? |
Paris,
AC43.13-1a says that yellow poplar's strength is slightly less than
spruce except in compression and shear. Maximum permissable grain
deviation is 1:15. It recomends not using as a direct substitute for
spruce without accounting for strength properties. It's about 7% heavier
than spruce but not as heavy as douglas fir. If you don't already have a
copy of AC43.13-1a get it! It's an invaluable source of construction and
inspection and repair info.
The ribs on the Pietenpol are overbuilt to start with. I know of many
other airplanes with significantly highter wing loading that use 1/4 X
1/4 capstrips on the ribs. I don't think poplar would be a problem. Not
to long ago I recal reading an article on "The Poplar Piet". I would
contact the owner to see if he has any suggestions.
Good Luck!
Paris Wilcox wrote:
> Yes I have another question! What is thought about using poplar i/o
> spruce. At a wing rib building exhibit(oddly enough piet ribs) at
> Sun-N-Fun this year the instructor was extolling the virtues of using
> poplar. Is this a one for one exchange, or do the dimensions of the
> wood have to be changed? I ask because I have a near unlimted supply
> of clear poplar that seems to meet the same requirements that spruce
> selection would.
> Thanks for all the help! Paris W pezz720(at)yahoo.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: | Ken Anderson <kcande19(at)IDT.NET> |
Hello to all,
I am the proud (and third) owner of a partially completed air camper. I
have finally had the time to compare what I have to the new plans I
received from Don Pietenopl. The plans with the plane were some poor
photo copies.
The fuselage is on the gear and looks to be built to the plans for the
long version. Cockpit controls are in place. I can sit in it and make
airplane noises.
Tail feathers also appear built to the plans.
My concern is with the 3 piece wing that I have. This appears to have
been built without the benefit of the 3 piece plans.
The spars are built up using a plywood web with 3/4" cap strips. I don't
believe this should be a problem. Overall the quality workmanship is
good.
My questions regard the dimensions compared to the plans.
Each wing panel is shorter than the plans. To get the end to end
dimension correct the center section would have to be 43" vs. 29" on the
plans.
The attach fittings to the center section are opposite of the plans. As
shown the fittings are at the bottom of the spar. On my wings these
fittings are at the top of the spar.
What I would like to know is:
1.Will the wider center section be a problem if I keep the end to end
dimensions correct?
2. Should I build the center section to plans and have a 14" shorter
wing span? This would also shorten the lift struts.
3. Will the attach fittings work and built or should I add an additional
fitting at the bottom of the spar?
Thanks for any input. I'm sure more questions will follow.
Regards
Ken Anderson
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
Subject: | Re: 3 Piece wing |
I would look more into the spar question. The plans call for a solid spar
and it sounds like you have an I beam. I'd want to run some comparison
numbers before I used those spars.
If you extend the center section you have introduced another point for
potential bending. The three piece wing uses a joint colocated with the
center section struts. Essentialy you have a triangle, formed by the attach
pointof the center section strut, the lift strut attach at the wing, and the
lift strut attach at the fuselage. What you now have is a polygon with an
additional point some seven inches from the centersection strut. Again some
structural calculations would be in order.
Ken Anderson wrote:
> Hello to all,
>
> I am the proud (and third) owner of a partially completed air camper. I
> have finally had the time to compare what I have to the new plans I
> received from Don Pietenopl. The plans with the plane were some poor
> photo copies.
> The fuselage is on the gear and looks to be built to the plans for the
> long version. Cockpit controls are in place. I can sit in it and make
> airplane noises.
> Tail feathers also appear built to the plans.
> My concern is with the 3 piece wing that I have. This appears to have
> been built without the benefit of the 3 piece plans.
> The spars are built up using a plywood web with 3/4" cap strips. I don't
> believe this should be a problem. Overall the quality workmanship is
> good.
> My questions regard the dimensions compared to the plans.
> Each wing panel is shorter than the plans. To get the end to end
> dimension correct the center section would have to be 43" vs. 29" on the
> plans.
> The attach fittings to the center section are opposite of the plans. As
> shown the fittings are at the bottom of the spar. On my wings these
> fittings are at the top of the spar.
> What I would like to know is:
> 1.Will the wider center section be a problem if I keep the end to end
> dimensions correct?
> 2. Should I build the center section to plans and have a 14" shorter
> wing span? This would also shorten the lift struts.
> 3. Will the attach fittings work and built or should I add an additional
> fitting at the bottom of the spar?
>
> Thanks for any input. I'm sure more questions will follow.
> Regards
> Ken Anderson
--
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: Yet Another ?? |
---"David B. Schober" wrote:
>
> Paris,
> AC43.13-1a says that yellow poplar's strength is slightly less than
> spruce except in compression and shear. Maximum permissable grain
> deviation is 1:15. It recomends not using as a direct substitute for
> spruce without accounting for strength properties. It's about 7%
heavier
> than spruce but not as heavy as douglas fir. If you don't already
have a
> copy of AC43.13-1a get it! It's an invaluable source of construction
and
> inspection and repair info.
>
> The ribs on the Pietenpol are overbuilt to start with. I know of many
> other airplanes with significantly highter wing loading that use 1/4 X
> 1/4 capstrips on the ribs. I don't think poplar would be a problem.
Not
> to long ago I recal reading an article on "The Poplar Piet". I would
> contact the owner to see if he has any suggestions.
>
> Good Luck!
>
> David, Forgive my ignorance, but how do I go about getting a copy of
AC43.13-1a? Any idea where you saw the article on the poplar piet? Or
who the owner might be? I appreciate the help- this could be the only
way I can afford to get started on this dream- thanks, Paris
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Yet Another ?? |
Paris,
AC 43.13-1a Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices - Aircraft
Inspection and Repair is available from the U.S Government Printing Office,
Aircraft Spruce, Jeppesen and any number of other sources. Cost is about
$14.00.
As to the "Popler Piet" I don't remember where I saw it. I'd suggest
checking the Buckeye Pietenpol Web Page. There may be a reference to it
there. Check Sport Aviation for about the past 6 Months. I just don't
remember.
Remember, when you build, keep it light! The difference in performance will
suprise you. I've flown light "A" powered Piets that outperformed heavy C-85
Piets.
Later.
Paris Wilcox wrote:
> ---"David B. Schober" wrote:
> >
> > Paris,
> > AC43.13-1a says that yellow poplar's strength is slightly less than
> > spruce except in compression and shear. Maximum permissable grain
> > deviation is 1:15. It recomends not using as a direct substitute for
> > spruce without accounting for strength properties. It's about 7%
> heavier
> > than spruce but not as heavy as douglas fir. If you don't already
> have a
> > copy of AC43.13-1a get it! It's an invaluable source of construction
> and
> > inspection and repair info.
> >
> > The ribs on the Pietenpol are overbuilt to start with. I know of many
> > other airplanes with significantly highter wing loading that use 1/4 X
> > 1/4 capstrips on the ribs. I don't think poplar would be a problem.
> Not
> > to long ago I recal reading an article on "The Poplar Piet". I would
> > contact the owner to see if he has any suggestions.
> >
> > Good Luck!
> >
> > David, Forgive my ignorance, but how do I go about getting a copy of
> AC43.13-1a? Any idea where you saw the article on the poplar piet? Or
> who the owner might be? I appreciate the help- this could be the only
> way I can afford to get started on this dream- thanks, Paris
>
>
--
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 D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Subject: | Re: 3 Piece wing |
>Hello to all,>
>I am the proud (and third) owner of a partially completed air camper.
>My concern is with the 3 piece wing that I have. This appears to have
>been built without the benefit of the 3 piece plans.
>The spars are built up using a plywood web with 3/4" cap strips. I
don't
>believe this should be a problem. Overall the quality workmanship is
>good.
Ken- That should be fine. This means you won't have to route
out any wood. My spars are formed with 1/2" thick web of spruce
to form an I beam with 3/4" U channels top and bottom.
This is mechanically stronger than a flat slab of 3/4" stock- which is
plenty strong enough in itself.
PS- how thick is the plywood web you have ?
>The attach fittings to the center section are opposite of the plans.
As
>shown the fittings are at the bottom of the spar. On my wings these
>fittings are at the top of the spar.
Could this be a Grega wing ? One sure way to tell is that
the
Piet cabane and wing bottom fittings run with the airframe
(to allow fore and aft adjustments of the wing position to accommodate
various powerplants, pilot weights, etc. ),however the GN-1's fittings
run with the wing- not allowing any adjustment of wing position.
(but they are still a riot to fly and ride !)
Ask Ted B. in FL ! Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Subject: | Re: 3 Piece wing |
In regard to the three piece wing. The Gregas wing has the spar
attach fittings as hinges on the spar center line. This leaves a gap
between the center section and the wing. The Piet wing butts the spar
with the "hinge" below the center line. Both are covered by fairings
but isn't the Piet design neater? Has anyone out there used Piet
style fittings on a Grega wing? The ability to make the wing change
for Cof G might be worth it.
I read somewere that if you wanted to put a part in your plane that
wasn't in the plans, you should throw it into the air. If it comes
back down leave it there!
I have also been wondering if the guys flying with higher horsepower
or large slow turning props find the rudder to have enough authority?
Does the longer fuse help in this regard?
J Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ken Anderson <kcande19(at)IDT.NET> |
Thanks for the response
A little more info.
Michael, after closer inspection the my spars are similar to yours. It
is 1/2' spruce web but instead of "u" channel top and bottom as yours it
is 1" deep strip front and back of the web both top and bottom to make
up the 3/4" dimension. If I didn't mention it the outer wing panels were
already assembled when I got them.
David, I understand your point about introducing a bending point 7"
outboard. As built the wing hinge point is at the top of the spar. Would
adding another attach point at the bottom of the spar be beneficial?
Regards
Ken Anderson
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Being too lazy to look up this information myself, does anyone know
what the FAA requires with respect to having an ELT on board for
the inspection process and afterward ? (for a homebuilt only)
Thank you, Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
I understand that you don't have to have an ELT during the flight
restriction time, or after so long as you don't leave your designated area.
Beyond that you need an ELT.
Stevee
On Friday, May 15, 1998 5:42 AM, Michael D Cuy
[SMTP:Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov] wrote:
> Being too lazy to look up this information myself, does anyone know
> what the FAA requires with respect to having an ELT on board for
> the inspection process and afterward ? (for a homebuilt only)
> Thank you, Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
For the benifit of all:
91.207 Emergency locator transmitters. (a) Except as provided in
paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, no person may operate a
U.S.-registered civil airplane unless - (1) There is attached to the
airplane an approved automatic type emergency locator transmitter that
is in operable condition for the following operations, except that after
June 21, 1995, an emergency locator transmitter that meets the
requirements of TSO-C91 may not be used for new installations: (i) Those
operations governed by the supplemental air carrier and commercial
operator rules of parts 121 and 125; (ii) Charter flights governed by
the domestic and flag air carrier rules of part 121 of this chapter; and
(iii) Operations governed by part 135 of this chapter; or (2) For
operations other than those specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, there must be attached to the airplane an approved personal
type or an approved automatic type emergency locator transmitter that is
in operable condition, except that after June 21, 1995, an emergency
locator transmitterthat meets the requirements of TSO-C91may not be used
for new installations. (b) Each emergency locator transmitter required
by paragraph (a) of this section must be attached to the airplane in
such a manner that the probability of damage to the transmitter in the
event of crash impact is minimized. Fixed and deployable automatic type
transmitters must be attached to the airplane as far aft as practicable.
(c) Batteries used in the emergency locator transmitters required by
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section must be replaced (or recharged,
if the batteries are rechargeable) - (1) When the transmitter has been
in use for more than 1 cumulative hour; or (2) When 50 percent of their
useful life (or, for rechargeable batteries, 50 percent of their useful
life of charge) has expired, as established by the transmitter
manufacturer under its approval. The new expiration date for replacing
(or recharging) the battery must be legibly marked on the outside of the
transmitter and entered in the aircraft maintenance record. Paragraph
(c)(2) of this section does not apply to batteries (such as
water-activated batteries) that are essentially unaffected during
probable storage intervals. (d) Each emergency locator transmitter
required by paragraph (a) of this section must be inspected within 12
calendar months after the last inspection for -- (1) Proper
installation; (2) Battery corrosion; (3) Operation of the controls and
crash sensor; and (4) The presence of a sufficient signal radiated from
its antenna. (e) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, a person
may -- (1) Ferry a newly acquired airplane from the place where
possession of it was taken to a place where the emergency locator
transmitter is to be installed; and (2) Ferry an airplane with an
inoperative emergency locator transmitter from a place where repairs or
replacements cannot be made to a place where they can be made. No person
other than required crewmembers may be carried aboard an airplane being
ferried under paragraph (e) of this section. (f) Paragraph (a) of this
section does not apply to - (1) Turbojet-powered aircraft; (2) Aircraft
while engaged in scheduled flights by scheduled air carriers; (3)
Aircraft while engaged in training operations conducted entirely within
a 50-nautical mile radius of the airport from which such local flight
operations began; (4) Aircraft while engaged in flight operations
incident to design and testing; (5) New aircraft while engaged in flight
operations incident to their manufacture, preparation, and delivery; (6)
Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to the aerial
application of chemicals and other substances for agricultural purposes;
(7) Aircraft certificated by the Administrator for research and
development purposes; (8) Aircraft while used for showing compliance
with regulations, crew training, exhibition, air racing, or market
surveys; (9) Aircraft equipped to carry not more than one person; and
(10) An aircraft during any period for which the transmitter has been
temporarily removed for inspection, repair, modification, or
replacement, subject to the following: (i) No person may operate the
aircraft unless the aircraft records contain an entry which includes the
date of initial removal, the make, model, serial number, and reason for
removing the transmitter, and a placard located in view of the pilot to
show "ELT not installed." (ii) No person may operate the aircraft more
than 90 days after the ELT is initially removed from the aircraft. [Doc.
No. 18334, 54 FR 34304, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-242, 59 FR
32057, June 21, 1994; 59 FR 34578, July 6, 1994]
Michael D Cuy wrote:
> Being too lazy to look up this information myself, does anyone know
> what the FAA requires with respect to having an ELT on board for
> the inspection process and afterward ? (for a homebuilt only)
> Thank you, Mike C.
--
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 D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Thank you Dave, SteveE. !
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Phil Peck <crusader(at)thegrid.net> |
Having quietly listened to the group talk about hangar space and
building space I have been feeling guilty with the situation that I
have. I have a building 11,000 sq ft. that I only use 3,000 for my
business. As I have plenty of space to build and store my piet, I have
been troubled by getting the non-foldable Piet to the airfield 6 miles
away. As I enjoy being part of this Piet group and would really like to
build a Piet ,I have about decided that another airplane with folding
wings would be the best for my situation. Though as a RC model builder
I am currently studying the plans to figure out how to fold those
wings. I know that its been said it can't be done and that- by the book
piet builders -are snubbing this thought , but--- I think it can be
done. It took Edison 10,000 tries to get the light bulb. If he gave up
after 9,999 we would all be in the dark !
--
Check out Crusader Toys @
http://www.thegrid.net/crusader/
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | test please ignore |
test
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Janine Sunlin <Janine.Sunlin(at)Eng.Sun.COM> |
Phil,
Check out the Kitfox, it has wings that fold back.
Jay
> Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 09:49:10 -0700
> From: Phil Peck <crusader(at)thegrid.net>
> Subject: spoiled
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> MIME-version: 1.0
> X-Listname:
>
> Having quietly listened to the group talk about hangar space and
> building space I have been feeling guilty with the situation that I
> have. I have a building 11,000 sq ft. that I only use 3,000 for my
> business. As I have plenty of space to build and store my piet, I have
> been troubled by getting the non-foldable Piet to the airfield 6 miles
> away. As I enjoy being part of this Piet group and would really like to
> build a Piet ,I have about decided that another airplane with folding
> wings would be the best for my situation. Though as a RC model builder
> I am currently studying the plans to figure out how to fold those
> wings. I know that its been said it can't be done and that- by the book
> piet builders -are snubbing this thought , but--- I think it can be
> done. It took Edison 10,000 tries to get the light bulb. If he gave up
> after 9,999 we would all be in the dark !
>
> --
> Check out Crusader Toys @
> http://www.thegrid.net/crusader/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
If Anyone knows where I can find "The Poplar Piet" I would love to
know. I've been told about the article,but have not been able to find
it. Already searched EAA's online article finder, but only have two
mo's of sport aviation here to look through. No luck so far! Thanks,
Paris W.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | DXLViolins <DXLViolins(at)aol.com> |
Dear Phil,
Regarding 3 piece wings, there are plans available in the UK for just such an
option from Jim Wills, 1 Humber Road, Blackheath, SE3 7LT, supposedly very
good indeed! I will be getting my plans from him in due course
Dominic
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
> From: Phil Peck <crusader(at)thegrid.net>
> Subject: spoiled
> Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
> Having quietly listened to the group talk about hangar space and
> building space I have been feeling guilty with the situation that I
> have. I have a building 11,000 sq ft. that I only use 3,000 for my
> business. As I have plenty of space to build and store my piet, I have
> been troubled by getting the non-foldable Piet to the airfield 6 miles
> away. As I enjoy being part of this Piet group and would really like to
> build a Piet ,I have about decided that another airplane with folding
> wings would be the best for my situation. Though as a RC model builder
> I am currently studying the plans to figure out how to fold those
> wings. I know that its been said it can't be done and that- by the book
> piet builders -are snubbing this thought , but--- I think it can be
> done. It took Edison 10,000 tries to get the light bulb. If he gave up
> after 9,999 we would all be in the dark !
>
> --
> Check out Crusader Toys @
> http://www.thegrid.net/crusader/
Or would we still be flying Wright Fliers?
I am not against changing the aircraft from the plans but in respect
of the "Purists" and Bernie Pietenpol it isn't really fair to call
our modified aircraft Pietenpols.
I' ve been thinking about the wing problem for some time now and
don't see any easy solutions. The folding wing aircraft like
the Kitfox usually have the lift struts meeting at a single point
at bottom under or inline with the rear spar. The three piece wing
breaks the wing down into managable sizes but as some one else
pointed out it is not easy to rig and does cause some safety
concerns. If it a twice annual (early spring and Late fall) operation
to move the aircraft to and from the airport maybe the one piece wing
is lighter and simpler?
John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Alan Koebel <kojack(at)ziggycom.net> |
Paris,
Try this: Jan.98 Sport Av.page 126 The owners
name is Larry D.Harrison phone#912/246-1315 or246-3702.
2.5 liter 60/30 wood prop he claims 800ft/min climb at 2700 rpm cruise
75@2400 take off and landings very short. 615lbs.
Hope this is the one you are looking for..
Later
Al Koebel
Paris Wilcox wrote:
> If Anyone knows where I can find "The Poplar Piet" I would love to
> know. I've been told about the article,but have not been able to find
> it. Already searched EAA's online article finder, but only have two
> mo's of sport aviation here to look through. No luck so far! Thanks,
> Paris W.
>
>
--
"You gotta live with what you put up with"
This message sent with 100% recycled electrons...
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | LanhamOS <LanhamOS(at)aol.com> |
Am not sure, but Kit Planes has copies of August '97 issue with feature on
our favorite plane. Dr. Orville Lanham
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Winkel <rwinkel(at)i2k.com> |
Subject: | Re: Pietenpol Builders List |
Richard Winkel wrote:
> I've started a list and data entry form at the following address:
> http://www.chestnutfarms.com/Pietenpol/builder_list.htm
>
> Let me know if this is a good idea (or otherwise). I'll be out of town
> on business till Friday. Will find out this weekend what I've gotten
> myself into.
>
> My best to all,
> Dick Winkel
Greetings,
All feedback to the builders list idea was positive!
All responses to date have been added to the list.
The amount of activity out there surprised me. I'm just a bit humbled!
Dick
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ken Hannan <hannan(at)iinet.com> |
You can still use aircraft grade spruce and save money. In the
construction of my Pietenpol I have been using bargain bags of spruce
from Aircraft Spruce, the cost being fifteen dollars each bag. I have
made all of the ribs, the elevator and the rudder along with the up
rights for the fuselage. The boards come in random sizes, and with a
good blade on the table saw I have cut what I have needed out of three
bags with wood to spare. The only expensive peices were the longerons,
1"x1"x14=92, at the cost of 100.00, and the Mahogany aircraft plywood.
So far I have spent about $400.00 on this project and have had a great
time working on it. I hope to fly it in about two years.
Get building,
Ken
You can still use
aircraft
grade spruce and save money. In the construction of my Pietenpol I have
been
using bargain bags of spruce from Aircraft Spruce, the cost being
fifteen
dollars each bag. I have made all of the ribs, the elevator and the
rudder along
with the up rights for the fuselage. The boards come in random sizes,
and with a
good blade on the table saw I have cut what I have needed out of
three
bags with wood to spare. The only expensive peices were the longerons,
1x1x14’, at the cost of 100.00, and the Mahogany
aircraft plywood. So far I have spent about $400.00 on this
project and
have had a great time working on it. I hope to fly it in about two
years.
Get building,
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
I have lately been considering ordering some of the things I am going
to need, but as I am still waitng for plans- I don't know exactly what
I will need. Some of this I have gleaned from Mr. Decosta's wonderful
site-but I have more ? What size plywood am I going to need for my rib
gussets? Nails- is 1/4 right? Seems like it should be sufficient...
How much glue will I need- T-88 is what has been recommended to me,
but of course I am open to suggestions... Anything else???
thanks Paris W.
p.s.-which is better the sportplane builder, or sportplane construction?
Wicks or A/C Spruce?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Phil Peck <crusader(at)thegrid.net> |
or just pull off wings. Wouldn't want to mess around taking wings off
and on considering the size &weight.
DXLViolins wrote:
> Dear Phil,
>
> Regarding 3 piece wings, there are plans available in the UK for just
> such an
> option from Jim Wills, 1 Humber Road, Blackheath, SE3 7LT, supposedly
> very
> good indeed! I will be getting my plans from him in due course
>
> Dominic
--
Check out Crusader Toys @
http://www.thegrid.net/crusader/
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Phil Peck <crusader(at)thegrid.net> |
Janine Sunlin wrote:
> Phil,
>
> Check out the Kitfox, it has wings that fold back.
>
> Jay, I have a friend who just finished a Kitfox, I think he has
> about $20,000 into it ! I think that is why piets are so popular ,
> the cost differance ! I do get to ride in it but don't really like
> sitting that close to another guy. You get two people over 200 pounds
> and things get really tight !
>
> > Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 09:49:10 -0700
> > From: Phil Peck <crusader(at)thegrid.net>
> > Subject: spoiled
> > To: Pietenpol Discussion
> > MIME-version: 1.0
> > X-Listname:
> >
> > Having quietly listened to the group talk about hangar space and
> > building space I have been feeling guilty with the situation that I
> > have. I have a building 11,000 sq ft. that I only use 3,000 for my
> > business. As I have plenty of space to build and store my piet, I
> have
> > been troubled by getting the non-foldable Piet to the airfield 6
> miles
> > away. As I enjoy being part of this Piet group and would really like
> to
> > build a Piet ,I have about decided that another airplane with
> folding
> > wings would be the best for my situation. Though as a RC model
> builder
> > I am currently studying the plans to figure out how to fold those
> > wings. I know that its been said it can't be done and that- by the
> book
> > piet builders -are snubbing this thought , but--- I think it can be
> > done. It took Edison 10,000 tries to get the light bulb. If he
> gave up
> > after 9,999 we would all be in the dark !
> >
> > --
> > Check out Crusader Toys @
> > http://www.thegrid.net/crusader/
> >
> >
--
Check out Crusader Toys @
http://www.thegrid.net/crusader/
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
How many people on the list are going to be at the Hampton, NH
fly-in? Thats the only Piet fly-in I'll be able to attend this year,
so i hope to finally meet a lot of you there.
Richard
-------------------------------------------------
Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
Pietenpols: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | DXLViolins <DXLViolins(at)aol.com> |
Phil,
The wings are removable.. with autoconnect aileron linkages for safety... an
easy 2 person job apparently
Dom
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | joe czaplicki <czaple(at)pop.wwa.com> |
>To: kenny(at)networx.on.ca
>From: joe czaplicki <czaple(at)pop.wwa.com>
>Subject: Piets & A65s
>
>>Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 20:39:11
>>To: Kenny(at)networx.on.ca
>>From: joe czaplicki <czaple(at)pop.wwa.com>
>>Subject: Piets & A65s
>Hi Steve, can't seem to accomplish connection thru set-up so am copying
this note I've been trying to send to Brian. Wanted to talk to you on same
subject.>
>> Hello Brian;
>>
>>My name is Joe Czaplicki, from Zion, Illinois.I'm a BPA member, builder
who is in the early stages of putting together a short fuselage Pietenpol
with an A65 Cont. engine.
>>I'm at the point of boxing in the fuselage. I was going the nostalgic
route with a Model A engine, which I have but had not yet had it rebuilt.
Lucky for me in that I got a great deal on an A65 with only 10hrs SMOH
complete with McCauley prop for less $ that it would have cost to rebuild
the Model A, add magneto, carb and prop.It didn't take two seconds to decide
to change engines.
>>Here now is the reason for contacting you.I've had conversation with Mike
Cuy who now is completing the same configureation and sugested that I talk
to you.I also am one of those 200 plus pound builders who is concerned with
the tail heavy problems to cope with.
>>Any insight you might be able to shed on this subject will be greatly
appreciated.
>>Now I am a first time builder and am by no means any kind of an engineer
but in looking over the Don Pietenpol plans for the A65 engine mount which
he shows on the long fuselage It seams to me that the way to adapt the A65
to the short fuselage would be to make up the difference in fuselage lenghts
would be to extend the engine mounts by the difference.That is to say the
distance from firewall would go from 10 1/2" to 17 5/8". Am I all wet in my
thinking?? How did you overcome this this problem?? And if the motor mount
is extended, should the tubing be a larger diameter?? And finally, what
about the landing gear? How far forward should it be moved ???
>>Hope you don't mind all these questions but I could sure use some guidance
in the right direction. My goal is to keep the cabane struts as vertical as
possible in their final configuration.
>>
>>Thanks in advance
>>Joe Czaplicki
>>Zion, Illinois
>>
>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Owen Davies <owen(at)davies.mv.com> |
Speaking of Hampton, somehow I've missed the dates for this year.
When is it?
Many thanks.
Owen Davies
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
Hampton New Hampshire
June 27 & 28, 1998.
On 18 May 98 at 9:39, Owen Davies wrote:
> Speaking of Hampton, somehow I've missed the dates for this year.
> When is it?
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Owen Davies
>
Web Developer, http://www.autoeurope.com
Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/W3builder
"If PBS doesn't do it, I will!"
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Subject: | Re: Piets & A65s |
Joe- You got it. The short fuse 65 Cont. jobs either have to have
the wings slanted back 4-6 " aft of vertical OR do like Brian K. in
Canada did- make the engine mount much longer. Brian's struts
are almost (if not) perfectly vertical. He would be the guy to talk
with. Maybe Grant M. knows his current e-mail address ? Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com> |
Please let me know if you come up with a solution.
Dean Dayton - deandayton(at)hotmail.com
>Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 09:49:10 -0700
>From: Phil Peck <crusader(at)thegrid.net>
>Subject: spoiled
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>
>Having quietly listened to the group talk about hangar space and
>building space I have been feeling guilty with the situation that I
>have. I have a building 11,000 sq ft. that I only use 3,000 for my
>business. As I have plenty of space to build and store my piet, I have
>been troubled by getting the non-foldable Piet to the airfield 6 miles
>away. As I enjoy being part of this Piet group and would really like to
>build a Piet ,I have about decided that another airplane with folding
>wings would be the best for my situation. Though as a RC model builder
>I am currently studying the plans to figure out how to fold those
>wings. I know that its been said it can't be done and that- by the
book
>piet builders -are snubbing this thought , but--- I think it can be
>done. It took Edison 10,000 tries to get the light bulb. If he gave
up
>after 9,999 we would all be in the dark !
>
>--
>Check out Crusader Toys @
>http://www.thegrid.net/crusader/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com> |
I saw just a picture and a few lines in Kitplanes or Sport Aviation a
couple of months ago. It was in the section where they devote a few
pages to showing peoples airplanes.
I'll try to find it tonight.
>Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 11:06:14 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Paris Wilcox
>Subject: Poplar Piet
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>
>If Anyone knows where I can find "The Poplar Piet" I would love to
>know. I've been told about the article,but have not been able to find
>it. Already searched EAA's online article finder, but only have two
>mo's of sport aviation here to look through. No luck so far! Thanks,
>Paris W.
>
>
Dean Dayton - deandayton(at)hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
I have a scan of it on my website:
http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet/acimg/PoplarPiet.jpg
Richard D.
http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet/
On 18 May 98 at 9:01, Dean Dayton wrote:
> I saw just a picture and a few lines in Kitplanes or Sport Aviation
> a couple of months ago. It was in the section where they devote a
> few pages to showing peoples airplanes.
>
> I'll try to find it tonight.
>
>
>
> >Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 11:06:14 -0700 (PDT)
> >From: Paris Wilcox
> >Subject: Poplar Piet
> >To: Pietenpol Discussion
> >Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
> >
> >If Anyone knows where I can find "The Poplar Piet" I would love to
> >know. I've been told about the article,but have not been able to find
> >it. Already searched EAA's online article finder, but only have two
> >mo's of sport aviation here to look through. No luck so far! Thanks,
> >Paris W.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Dean Dayton - deandayton(at)hotmail.com
>
>
Web Developer, http://www.autoeurope.com
Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/W3builder
"If PBS doesn't do it, I will!"
________________________________________________________________________________
Many thanks for all the info on the "poplar Piet" I intend to give the
builder a call tonight...will be happy to share info with any
interested persons....now if somebody could just answer my suppy
question-how much glue(T-88) Nails(is 1/4" a/c brass,concrete coated)
and what kind(specifically)of plywood do I need to get atarted an my
rib gusssetts? I'd really love to know- I'd like to be able to get
started the day the plans get here as time is the limiting factor for
me.(i wish i had started a year ago- too bad we can't all find our
true dreams of a lifetime earlier!)
Many thanks again for all the help- the support here on the net- this
list,BPA page, R Decosta's page, G mclaren's-is INVALUABLE!
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Greg Cardinal <CARDIGJ(at)mail.startribune.com> |
Hey Paris,
I replied earlier but the message never got posted.....
Plywood- 1/16" Don't forget to sand lightly prior to gluing to eliminate
the glazing. I used birch ply. Some people use mahogany.
I used Aerolite glue for the rib construction. I found it much easier to
use than T-88 for small pieces.
3/8" nails were used. A pair of tweezers works very well to hold the
nails. Half pound of nails will be plenty for the ribs.
Boil the capstrips 20-30 minutes, NO LONGER, to soften them up.
>>> Paris Wilcox 05/18/98 10:21am >>>
Many thanks for all the info on the "poplar Piet" I intend to give the
builder a call tonight...will be happy to share info with any
interested persons....now if somebody could just answer my suppy
question-how much glue(T-88) Nails(is 1/4" a/c brass,concrete coated)
and what kind(specifically)of plywood do I need to get atarted an my
rib gusssetts? I'd really love to know- I'd like to be able to get
started the day the plans get here as time is the limiting factor for
me.(i wish i had started a year ago- too bad we can't all find our
true dreams of a lifetime earlier!)
Many thanks again for all the help- the support here on the net- this
list,BPA page, R Decosta's page, G mclaren's-is INVALUABLE!
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
I haven't used T-88 but I know it isn't approved for certified aircraft.
All the modern epoxies that I know of won't hold up at high temps. If your
plane will be inside and light colored to reflect the heat you may be OK.
A lot of people have used it and I haven't heard of complaints.
I know the inside of the wings on my Howard will reach over 200' F if left
out in the summer. Casein, Plastic Resin and Resorcinol are the only FAA
Approved glues on certified aircraft. My wings are 55 years old and the
glue is still holding good. My structural repair manual calls out Casein
glue but I'm not sure if that is what was used in the manufacture of my
wings. If I were building a wood airplane, I'd use Resorcinol.
With any glue or any chemical for that matter, Don't buy more than you are
going to use in a couple months. I don't care what the manufacturers say,
they will go bad over time. I remember covering a wing some time back and
used old nitrate dope. After a few landings, the finish shattered like
glass. Back to the drawing board! The moral is use fresh materials if you
want a job that will stand the test of time.
Paris Wilcox wrote:
> Many thanks for all the info on the "poplar Piet" I intend to give the
> builder a call tonight...will be happy to share info with any
> interested persons....now if somebody could just answer my suppy
> question-how much glue(T-88) Nails(is 1/4" a/c brass,concrete coated)
> and what kind(specifically)of plywood do I need to get atarted an my
> rib gusssetts? I'd really love to know- I'd like to be able to get
> started the day the plans get here as time is the limiting factor for
> me.(i wish i had started a year ago- too bad we can't all find our
> true dreams of a lifetime earlier!)
> Many thanks again for all the help- the support here on the net- this
> list,BPA page, R Decosta's page, G mclaren's-is INVALUABLE!
>
>
--
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
________________________________________________________________________________
>Boil the capstrips 20-30 minutes, NO LONGER, to soften them up.
Don't boil them, steam them. I traced the outline of the nose of the upper
cap strip on a piece of 2x4 about 14" long and used a band saw to cut the
curve. I boil water in a 12" fry pan, set 3 cap strips across the top and
put a large pan lid over the whole mess. I gently steam them for at least
half an hour. I clamp them in the jig and let them dry overnight. This
gives me 3 dry, pre-bent upper cap strips ready to put in the rib jig.
I tried boiling them, but the wood got too punky and I wasn't sure what the
wet wood would do to the glue.
The other trick I use: I was having the devil's own time gluing ribs. Each
rib would get glued in (and to) the jig. When I took the rib out I would do
some damage both to the rib and the jig, so I was spending time repairing
the jig and wasn't very happy with the quality of the ribs. Now, I line the
jig with saran wrap. I drape it in with a lot of slack so I can put all the
little pieces where they belong without stretching it. I have done 4 ribs
with the first piece and it is getting a bit rough.
I spent a day pre-fabbing all the wood pieces. Now I can build a rib in
about 45 minutes and they are all exactly the same. If I were in a hurry, I
could get up early, do a rib before work, then do another in the evening.
Given enough clamps, you could even be building other wood stuff during the
rest of the evening.
Randy Stockberger
stockberger(at)proaxis.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Another trick I used to keep ribs from sticking is coat the whole jig in
wax. It worked great. I just used a lit candle over the glue points to
drip wax on then used a hot air gun to thin and spread it out. I recoated
once or twice during my 30 copies.
Stevee
-----Original Message-----
Randy Stockberger
Sent: Monday, May 18, 1998 1:34 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re:
>Boil the capstrips 20-30 minutes, NO LONGER, to soften them up.
Don't boil them, steam them. I traced the outline of the nose of the upper
cap strip on a piece of 2x4 about 14" long and used a band saw to cut the
curve. I boil water in a 12" fry pan, set 3 cap strips across the top and
put a large pan lid over the whole mess. I gently steam them for at least
half an hour. I clamp them in the jig and let them dry overnight. This
gives me 3 dry, pre-bent upper cap strips ready to put in the rib jig.
I tried boiling them, but the wood got too punky and I wasn't sure what the
wet wood would do to the glue.
The other trick I use: I was having the devil's own time gluing ribs. Each
rib would get glued in (and to) the jig. When I took the rib out I would do
some damage both to the rib and the jig, so I was spending time repairing
the jig and wasn't very happy with the quality of the ribs. Now, I line the
jig with saran wrap. I drape it in with a lot of slack so I can put all the
little pieces where they belong without stretching it. I have done 4 ribs
with the first piece and it is getting a bit rough.
I spent a day pre-fabbing all the wood pieces. Now I can build a rib in
about 45 minutes and they are all exactly the same. If I were in a hurry, I
could get up early, do a rib before work, then do another in the evening.
Given enough clamps, you could even be building other wood stuff during the
rest of the evening.
Randy Stockberger
stockberger(at)proaxis.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | RE: Getting Started |
-----Original Message-----
Paris Wilcox
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 1998 2:31 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Getting Started
I have lately been considering ordering some of the things I am going
to need, but as I am still waitng for plans- I don't know exactly what
I will need. Some of this I have gleaned from Mr. Decosta's wonderful
site-but I have more ? What size plywood am I going to need for my rib
gussets? Nails- is 1/4 right? Seems like it should be sufficient...
How much glue will I need- T-88 is what has been recommended to me,
but of course I am open to suggestions... Anything else???
thanks Paris W.
p.s.-which is better the sportplane builder, or sportplane construction?
Don't have an opinion on the book question. Get all the info you can. I
used:
1/16" birch ply
3/8" cement coated copper plated steel nails (A/C nails)
Aerolite
Stevee
Wicks or A/C Spruce?
________________________________________________________________________________
Hello Again!
It seems as of every question I ask simply generates more
questions- I really do need to get a book! In the meantime here's
another one- I need 1/16 birch plywood to do my rib gussets-1. Will I
also need this for all other gussets? i.e. how much should I
order-Total so that I can get this all in one shot??
2. How many plys? And am I right in my understanding that I need the
center ply to run 45 degrees from the outside plys?
Thanks Again! paris
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Subject: | RE: Getting Started |
Paris- I had excellent service and reliability from Wicks for 80% of my
needs. Aircraft Spruce took too long in shipping and had trouble
tracking anything overdue.
All of my AN hardware, 4130 steel tubing, sheet, alum., cables,
etc. came from Dillsburg Aeroplane Works, in PA. A grumpy guy
named Charles Vogelsong runs the place and knows his stock like
a walking encylopedia. His shipping time is very, very quick for UPS
ground. I've never had him mess up any of my orders. It is good
quality hardware at a fair price. 717-432-4589.
If you live near St. Louis you can pick up your long spruce right
at Wicks to save shipping charges. (UPS can only ship up to 8 foot
in length.) I ordered my wing spruce from Wicks in June a few years
ago and asked them if they would bring it to Oshkosh. They did it
and I strapped the box atop our vehicle and drove it home.
If you keep building at a steady pace you will be on a first-name basis
with your local UPS driver ! As Frank Pavliga told me- " for
every day you delay building, you delay flying by the same amount.
You won't be sorry ! Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Paris ! I forgot this one: I can't say enough for Tony Bingelis's
series of books sold thru EAA. They became my builder's manual
when the old wives tales didn't satisfy my questions. The books aren't
cheap, but over the course of your project they will pay for themselves
over and over. Ok, I'll let someone else talk now ! Sorry ! MC
________________________________________________________________________________
---Michael D Cuy wrote:
>
> Paris ! I forgot this one: I can't say enough for Tony Bingelis's
> series of books sold thru EAA. They became my builder's manual
> when the old wives tales didn't satisfy my questions. The books
aren't
> cheap, but over the course of your project they will pay for
themselves
> over and over. Ok, I'll let someone else talk now ! Sorry ! MC
> Michael,
After seeing picts of your ship...talk all you want-I am all
ears- would you recommend buying the whole set? I'd like to get them
somewhere other than EAA as it has taken them 3 mos with no sign of
the other books I have ordered....
thanks, Paris
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
After seeing picts of your ship...talk all you want-I am all
>ears- would you recommend buying the whole set?
Thank you, Paris. I'd get the whole set if you could swing it.
The guy literally holds your hand on zillions of issues and questions.
I don't know who else sells them besides EAA. If you do order
thru EAA pin them down on exactly how long they expect delivery
to take and are they in stock currently.
Also ask with whom you
are speaking to, jot the name down, and then maybe your delivery
time will be faster.
I'd like to get them
>somewhere other than EAA as it has taken them 3 mos with no sign of
>the other books I have ordered....
> thanks, Paris
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Steve wrote:
I dont know if my book store has any reference to the books you are
talking about but try them anyway. I have a book search engine there
too.
http://www2.misnet.com/~asawa
Steve
Michael D Cuy wrote:
>
> After seeing picts of your ship...talk all you want-I am all
> >ears- would you recommend buying the whole set?
>
> Thank you, Paris. I'd get the whole set if you could swing it.
> The guy literally holds your hand on zillions of issues and questions.
>
> I don't know who else sells them besides EAA. If you do order
> thru EAA pin them down on exactly how long they expect delivery
> to take and are they in stock currently. Also ask with whom you
> are speaking to, jot the name down, and then maybe your delivery
> time will be faster.
>
> I'd like to get them
> >somewhere other than EAA as it has taken them 3 mos with no sign of
> >the other books I have ordered....
> > thanks, Paris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael King <mikek(at)nstar.net> |
Hey gang,
What size prop would give the the take and climb for my
Grega Air Camper with a Continental A-80 engine?
Presently flying with a metal 69-39 that gives a cruise of
about 85 mph but poor take off and climb performance
that is more important to me than cruise speed.
Thanks for the input from the pros.
Mike
GN-1 121SP
Dallas
Michael King
The Comedy Wire
Dallas, Texas
http://www.comedy-wire.com
214-905-9299 Phone
214-905-1438 Fax
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | RE: WOOD PROP SIZE |
-----Original Message-----
Michael King
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 1998 1:53 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: WOOD PROP SIZE
Hey gang,
What size prop would give the the take and climb for my
Grega Air Camper with a Continental A-80 engine?
Presently flying with a metal 69-39 that gives a cruise of
about 85 mph but poor take off and climb performance
that is more important to me than cruise speed.
Thanks for the input from the pros.
Mike
GN-1 121SP
Mike,
Not a pro on A-80's or wood props but, you may try and get the book "Carving
your own Propeller" from EAA. In it there is a chart that might help you
answer your question. It charts torque, desired airspeed, length, planform
etc. Seems that having your current prop repitched to a climb prop would be
easiest. A wood prop is going to weight less as well, and will figure into
your W/B too.
Good Luck,
stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael King <mikek(at)nstar.net> |
Subject: | RE: WOOD PROP SIZE |
Thanks for the tip Stevee. I just joined the local
Dallas EEA Chapter and will check with some
of the guys.
Have a good and safe Memorial Day weekend.
Mike
Dallas
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>Michael King
>Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 1998 1:53 PM
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Subject: WOOD PROP SIZE
>
>
>Hey gang,
>
>What size prop would give the the take and climb for my
>Grega Air Camper with a Continental A-80 engine?
>Presently flying with a metal 69-39 that gives a cruise of
>about 85 mph but poor take off and climb performance
>that is more important to me than cruise speed.
>
>Thanks for the input from the pros.
>
>Mike
>GN-1 121SP
>
>Mike,
>
>Not a pro on A-80's or wood props but, you may try and get the book "Carving
>your own Propeller" from EAA. In it there is a chart that might help you
>answer your question. It charts torque, desired airspeed, length, planform
>etc. Seems that having your current prop repitched to a climb prop would be
>easiest. A wood prop is going to weight less as well, and will figure into
>your W/B too.
>
>Good Luck,
>
>stevee
>
>
Michael King
The Comedy Wire
Dallas, Texas
http://www.comedy-wire.com
214-905-9299 Phone
214-905-1438 Fax
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)mailexcite.com> |
hellow Piet builders. I'm new to this list, and to be honest...I'm building a modifyed
Corbin Super ace.
I call it a" B "model, as it will have full visibility foreward, and maybe a geo/suziki
(pardon my spelling) engine of 80 hp.
So far, all the fittings are finished, and most of the wing ribs. My order to wick's
is about to be posted for the wing spars, and hopefully they will be finished
by August.
The jig for the tail group is up and ready in the garage, and my order for tube
steel came from wick's by ups just the other day.
They guy who does the piet web page sent to me the plans to build wire wheels,
so my airplane will blend the old and the new.
Lastly, this is my first day on the list, and I notice that the words are so small
that I can hardly read them. Is that normal ?
I look foreward to learning about the building of traditional airplanes from you
guys.
bob
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
I spoke with a gentleman in GA mon who built a poplar piet- powered by
a GM engine...Got to thinking...has anyone ever really rated the
horsepower,or perhaps more importantly the torque, of different auto
engines-AT The RPM they would operate aat in an aircraft- assuming
direct drive is used- I know corvairs generally are direct drive-
aforemention poplar piet was direct.. I have been planning to use a
corvair as I have several engines handy at the right price_Free! And
also a lycoming 65HP off of an airboat(which I would rather save for
another project... I would really love to know how the two
compare..either by numbers or better yet- by seat of the
pants-testing(which is know to be far more accurate:). Anybody ever
flown both?
Paris
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | jkahn(at)picasso.dehavilland.ca (John Kahn) |
Just about any engine can be expected to produce
about 1/2 hp per cubic inch in the mid 2000 rpms with
the right cam. That is what most a/c engines produce.
So a 2 litre (122 cu/in) car engine will make around 60
hp at 2700 rpm, although very mild cam grind would probably be necessary to get
the torque peak down to the desired
range.
Any number of the newest all-aluminum inline fours
in the 2-2.5 litre range would probably do the job.
I would be inclined to check out the newer Honda Accord
2.2 litre fours. You should be able to get 70hp out
of one direct drive. Hopefully it might be a little
lighter than a model A, but I bet the weight saving
isn't all that great.
The problem is that the cranks are not designed to take
the thrust and gyro loads from a prop. The gyro
precession forces when the airplane yaws and pitches
quickly are tremendous, and these forces will bend the
crank. (Get the tail up quickly on a big taildragger like
a C-180 and the nose swings quite a lot as the precession
of the propeller pulls the nose left). On an aircraft
engine or a Model A the bearing at the prop is long
enough to absorb all the bending force instead of
transmitting it to the next main bearing. Car engines
have a normal narrow main bearing at the flywheel.
VWs and corvairs deal with it by using fairly
small wooden propellers (very small in the VW's case)
to keep the forces down.
I think an extension shaft and bearing carrier like used
in the Wittman V-8 conversion is necessary personally
if you want to run a 72 inch prop...
The Model A is just about the only car engine that can
really deal with a big propeller just as it is.
johnk
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: tailwheel spring |
Does anyone have a ready source for the tailwheel spring for a Piet? No
one in Portland will admit to being able to furnish one without it being
custom wound.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Subaru conversions |
I've been reading about Duane W's Subaru powered Piet, and wondered about the
conversion used. Is it direct drive? Does it use carburation or fuel
injection? Mag or distributor ignition? How about weight? Could we get
Duane to fill us in on this? I'm sure his information will be of interest to
many of us. Thanx! Don Cooley
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | TLC62770 <TLC62770(at)aol.com> |
HELLO PARIS
THEM 30 YRS AGO . THE HORSE POWER RATING OF 110 HP WAS AT ABOUT 3400 RPM'S AT
2600 RPM'S THE HP DROPES DOWN TO 85 -95 HP.
BY GOING TO A LITTLE LARGER CAM , CC THE HEADS ,TUNED EXHAUST ,
HIGH OUTPUT COIL , HIGH ENERGY PLUGS . BALANCE THE PISTONS & RODS
A LITTLE LARGER JET IN THE CARB . ( SINGLE CARB. ) YOU ARE UP TO 120 TO 130
HP . AND YOU HAVEN'T ADDED ANY WEIGHT TO IT . I LEARNED MOST OF WHAT I KNOW
ABOUT CORVAIRS ENGINES FROM THE MASTER OF CORVAIR DICK GRIFFEN FROM LANSING .
HE USED TO DRAG RACE CORVAIRS .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | TLC62770 <TLC62770(at)aol.com> |
Subject: | Re: tailwheel spring |
TRY A LEAF SPRING FROM A LIGHT WEIGHT BOAT TRAILER . CUT IT IN 1/2
AND USE ONE END . MOUNT WHEEL ON IT AND OFF YOU GO
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | joe czaplicki <fishin(at)pop.wwa.com> |
Subject: | e-mail address change & piet discusion |
Hello Fellow Piet builders;;(would you call those already built PIETER BUILTS??)
first of all please note the e-mail address change,(used to be
czaple(at)wwa.com) but my son claimed squaters rights.
I've just about completed boxing in my short fuse Piet and am getting ready
for motor mounts & landing gear.I'm powering it by an A65 Cont. and plan on
following Don Pietenpol's engine and landing gear plans. As I am 200# plus,
I'm concerned with the potential tail heavy problem.
I'm planning on a fuselage fuel tank which will help with wieght forward and
will have a McCauley metal prop, 7148, which weighs in at 25# w/hub which
will also help.
My question is with motor mount lenght extensions. I've heard of anything
from 2" to 9" lenghtening.
Also how far to move the axle forward. Will be using Cleveland 600x6 wheels
w/brakes.
As you have guessed by now this is my first time building project so all of
your combined expertise is eagerly anticipated.
thnx to all
Joe C
Zion, Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | EA-81 conversion plans. |
Anyone willing to share there EA-81 conversion plans with me I sure
would appreciate it. And did anyone build there own reduction unit?? Do
you have plans for it too.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "D.J.H." <ve6zh(at)cnnet.com> |
Subject: | Re: tailwheel spring |
got mine from the local john deere dealer,i will dig up the part number for
you when i go out to the shop Doug..
> From: Phil Phillips
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: tailwheel spring
> Date: Friday, May 22, 1998 9:44 AM
>
>
>
> Does anyone have a ready source for the tailwheel spring for a Piet? No
> one in Portland will admit to being able to furnish one without it being
> custom wound.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "D.J.H." <ve6zh(at)cnnet.com> |
Subject: | Re: tailwheel spring |
TAILWHEEL SPRING part#. John Deere T143444 $13.80 Canadian as of
Sept.97
> From: Phil Phillips
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: tailwheel spring
> Date: Friday, May 22, 1998 9:44 AM
>
>
>
> Does anyone have a ready source for the tailwheel spring for a Piet? No
> one in Portland will admit to being able to furnish one without it being
> custom wound.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Terry: Do you know what a corvair in aircraft form weighs?
J Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Wkoucky <Wkoucky(at)aol.com> |
<<
Terry: Do you know what a corvair in aircraft form weighs?
>>
Weight, according to the PAS Conversion Manual, is about 205lbs for hand prop
or 225lbs for electric start.
William
________________________________________________________________________________
Forwarded by stevee from JOE C.
FIRST OF ALL LET ME SAY THAT I AM A FIRST TIME BUILDER, (PIET OF COURSE) AND
GOT MY FIRST TASTE OF PIETS AFTER SEEING LAST YEARS ARTICLE IN KIT PLANES
AND THAN VISITING BRODHEAD FIRST THE BPA GATHERING.
AFTER BEING OUT OF FLYING FOR 20 YEARS THE BUG BIT ME AGAIN, BIG TIME.
I'VE RECEIVED DON PIETENPOLS PLANS,AND STARTED CONSTRUCTION. I STARTED TO GO
THE NOSTALGIC ROUTE AND EVEN GOT A PRETTY GOOD MODEL A SHORT BLOCK READY FOR
REBUILD. HAVE SINCE LOCATED A GREAT CONT. A-65 WITH ONLY 10 HRS SMOH
COMPLETE WITH McCAULEY METAL PROP.I HAVE THE MAJORITY OF THE INSTRUMENTS, A
PAIR OF 600X6 CLEVELAND WHEELS W/BRAKES AND ABOUT HALF OF THE METAL
COMPONANTS.S I STARTED WITH THE MODEL A, I WILL HAVE THE SHORT FUSELAGE AND
WILL BE PULLED BY THE A65 CONT.
I'VE COMPLETED THE FUSELAGE SIDES AND NOW AM IN THE PROCESS OF BOXING THEM
IN
I FIND THE BUILDING PROCESS TO BE VERY ENJOYABLE ALMOST TO THE POINT OF
BEING ADDICTIVE.
STILL HAVE TO BUILD THE LANDING GEAR TO MAKE MY GOAL OF HAVING THE FUSELAGE
COMPLETE AND ON WHEELS BY SUMMER. (MAYBE???)
LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS YEARS BRODHEAD GATHERING FOR LOTS OF PICTURES AND
QUESTIONS.
I'M HOPING THAT IN JOINING THIS GROUP OF FELLOW BUILDERS, TO GET MORE
INSIGHT AND BUILDING KNOWLEDGE FROM ALL YOUR FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE.
BEST WISHES TO ALL
JOE C
ZION, ILLINOIS
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Larry L. Neal" <llneal(at)earthlink.net> |
All,
Just tore down my Corvair engine and found it must have spent a few
years out in the rain. Everything above the camshaft is badly rusted.
Oh well, guess I'll have some spare (aluminum) parts!
After I find and overhaul the next one, I'll be building a simple test
stand. This will allow me to break in and modify engines without
risking the hull.
I'll keep you posted...
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Subject: | Re: Engine test stand |
________________________________________________________________________________
Send reply to: Pietenpol Discussion
All,
Just tore down my Corvair engine and found it must have spent a few
years out in the rain. Everything above the camshaft is badly rusted.
Oh well, guess I'll have some spare (aluminum) parts!
After I find and overhaul the next one, I'll be building a simple test
stand. This will allow me to break in and modify engines without
risking the hull.
I'll keep you posted...
Larry
Hi Larry:
Our local RAA chapter built a test stand to run engines and get a
reasonably accurate reading of the torque and thrust developed. We used a
shortened hydraulic cylinder to mount a plate type firewal on. The axis of this
cylinder is horizontal and the rod end of the cylinder is carried in a slip fit
bearing. Oil trapped in the cylinder is pressurized by the thrust generated by
the prop. A pressure gauge was recalibrated by painting the face white and
putting marks on the face that indicate thrust in pounds.
A second cylinder is mounted on an arm ninety degrees to the axis of
rotation. this cylinder is set up to measure the reaction torque in foot pounds.
By measuring prop speed with a photo tach and putting the info into the HP
formula we can have a pretty good idea of the static HP and thrust any
particular engine prop combination will produce.
The whole unit is mounted on a trailer so the run ups can be done
away from kids dogs neighbours etc.. We spent less than $300 on the whole
outfit.( a lot of scrounging!) So far we have run a continental A-80 from a
Stinson and an 0-320 Lycoming for an RV. The results we got from our tests
came out very close to the advertised specs.
I started the test stand project so that I could run my much modified
Ford B engine before I mounted it in the airframe.
If there is enough interest I could scan in a photo and post it as an
attachment.
John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: Engine test stand |
I'd love to see your pictures. Maybe we could talk Steve into putting
them on his web site so that you don't cause problems with large mail
attachments.
Dean Dayton - deandayton(at)hotmail.com
>Hi Larry:
> Our local RAA chapter built a test stand to run engines and get a
>reasonably accurate reading of the torque and thrust developed. We used
a
>shortened hydraulic cylinder to mount a plate type firewal on. The axis
of this
>cylinder is horizontal and the rod end of the cylinder is carried in a
slip fit
>bearing. Oil trapped in the cylinder is pressurized by the thrust
generated by
>the prop. A pressure gauge was recalibrated by painting the face white
and
>putting marks on the face that indicate thrust in pounds.
> A second cylinder is mounted on an arm ninety degrees to the axis of
>rotation. this cylinder is set up to measure the reaction torque in
foot pounds.
>By measuring prop speed with a photo tach and putting the info into the
HP
>formula we can have a pretty good idea of the static HP and thrust any
>particular engine prop combination will produce.
> The whole unit is mounted on a trailer so the run ups can be done
>away from kids dogs neighbours etc.. We spent less than $300 on the
whole
>outfit.( a lot of scrounging!) So far we have run a continental A-80
from a
>Stinson and an 0-320 Lycoming for an RV. The results we got from our
tests
>came out very close to the advertised specs.
> I started the test stand project so that I could run my much modified
>Ford B engine before I mounted it in the airframe.
> If there is enough interest I could scan in a photo and post it as an
>attachment.
>
>John Mc
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: tailwheel spring |
The BPA newsletter has had 2 references to tailsprings:
John Deere part T143444 (Someone said it was from a rake)
21" Kawasaki front strut- cut spring to length. The tubing from the housing
provides material for the upper and lower retaining sockets.
Al Swanson
>got mine from the local john deere dealer,i will dig up the part number for
>you when i go out to the shop Doug..
>
>----------
>> From: Phil Phillips
>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> Subject: Re: tailwheel spring
>> Date: Friday, May 22, 1998 9:44 AM
>>
>>
>>
>> Does anyone have a ready source for the tailwheel spring for a Piet? No
>> one in Portland will admit to being able to furnish one without it being
>> custom wound.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
I just purchased a running Corvair engine. I'll get into it next week or=
so. Keep us up-to-date on what you used materials and cost. Also, any
parts list or possible overhaul manuals?
Thanks,
Mark Morgan
Bel Air Aviation
800.Ohio Fly
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | RE: Engine test stand |
No problem, Send them directly to me @
Steve(at)byu.edu
Steve
-----Original Message-----
Dean Dayton
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 11:31 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Engine test stand
I'd love to see your pictures. Maybe we could talk Steve into putting
them on his web site so that you don't cause problems with large mail
attachments.
Dean Dayton - deandayton(at)hotmail.com
>Hi Larry:
> Our local RAA chapter built a test stand to run engines and get a
>reasonably accurate reading of the torque and thrust developed. We used
a
>shortened hydraulic cylinder to mount a plate type firewal on. The axis
of this
>cylinder is horizontal and the rod end of the cylinder is carried in a
slip fit
>bearing. Oil trapped in the cylinder is pressurized by the thrust
generated by
>the prop. A pressure gauge was recalibrated by painting the face white
and
>putting marks on the face that indicate thrust in pounds.
> A second cylinder is mounted on an arm ninety degrees to the axis of
>rotation. this cylinder is set up to measure the reaction torque in
foot pounds.
>By measuring prop speed with a photo tach and putting the info into the
HP
>formula we can have a pretty good idea of the static HP and thrust any
>particular engine prop combination will produce.
> The whole unit is mounted on a trailer so the run ups can be done
>away from kids dogs neighbours etc.. We spent less than $300 on the
whole
>outfit.( a lot of scrounging!) So far we have run a continental A-80
from a
>Stinson and an 0-320 Lycoming for an RV. The results we got from our
tests
>came out very close to the advertised specs.
> I started the test stand project so that I could run my much modified
>Ford B engine before I mounted it in the airframe.
> If there is enough interest I could scan in a photo and post it as an
>attachment.
>
>John Mc
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Check out
http://steve.byu.edu
for our newest addition!
Steve E.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Subject: | Re: New addition! |
>>Check out
>>http://steve.byu.edu
>>for our newest addition!
>>Steve E.
SteveE ! Congratulations to you and your family. Crandall has
three sisters to fight with over who gets the next Pietenpol ride.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | RE: Subaru conversions |
-----Original Message-----
ADonJr
Sent: Friday, May 22, 1998 11:48 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Subaru conversions
I've been reading about Duane W's Subaru powered Piet, and wondered about
the
conversion used. Is it direct drive? Does it use carburation or fuel
injection? Mag or distributor ignition? How about weight? Could we get
Duane to fill us in on this? I'm sure his information will be of interest
to
many of us. Thanx! Don Cooley
I'll do my best to reply here. Duane is busy building an addition to his
house and doesn't have web or computer access. Still trying to get him to
write this up. Anyway here goes.
Duane used an ea-81 built his own intake and cooling systems. He ordered
plans for the redrive 2.1 or 2.0 to 1 and had a local machine shop build the
redrive. He uses the stock distributor modified slightly with an electronic
ignition. He used dual mikuni carbs. Getting the mixture right has
absorbed a lot of time. He is on his second prop and likely will carve a
third to get things just right. 250lbs seems to stick in my mind
Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | DXLViolins <DXLViolins(at)aol.com> |
Subject: | Re: New addition! |
Congratulations from the UK Steve and Mrs Steve !!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Subaru conversions |
Steve wrote:
Steve how much did his redrive cost in the longrun. I am planning on
using the soob too. By the way! Do you know anyone with a set of plans
to the piet they arent going to use?
Thanx
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Greg Cardinal <CARDIGJ(at)mail.startribune.com> |
Subject: | Getting Started -Reply |
Rib gussets use 1/16" ply. The plywood has a slight glazing that needs to
be lightly sanded.
I used Aerolite glue on my ribs. I found it easier to use on the gussets
than T-88.
I used 3/8" nails. Common tweezers worked very well for holding the
nails.
I boiled the capstrip 20-3- minutes to soften it up. Others have had good
luck by soaking instead of boiling.
I recommend Wicks over A/C Spruce.
Buy your steel from Dillsburg Aero at (717) 432-4589. Best prices on
steel. A little pricey on cable and hardware.
Greg Cardinal
>>> Paris Wilcox 05/16/98 02:31pm >>>
I have lately been considering ordering some of the things I am going
to need, but as I am still waitng for plans- I don't know exactly what
I will need. Some of this I have gleaned from Mr. Decosta's wonderful
site-but I have more ? What size plywood am I going to need for my rib
gussets? Nails- is 1/4 right? Seems like it should be sufficient...
How much glue will I need- T-88 is what has been recommended to me,
but of course I am open to suggestions... Anything else???
thanks Paris W.
p.s.-which is better the sportplane builder, or sportplane construction?
Wicks or A/C Spruce?
________________________________________________________________________________
At Sun 'N Fun there was a seminar on wood and glue. The lecturer was an
Australian (don't remember his name). He said not to use Urea Formaldehyde
glues (Aerolite) under any circumstances unless you live in Alaska. He said
that in high humidity or heat (like a wing in the sun) that it tends to
break down. He was part of the group that de-certified the use of Aerolite
in Australia, and claimed a friend of his died in Georgia as a result of
glue failure (UF glue). The reason the Mosquito bomber held up was that it
was based in cool and cloudy England. He also said that there is a new
revision of AC 43-13 in final review at the FAA which will recommend that UF
glues not be used.
He likes resorcinol, and said T-88 was fine.
This talk caused me some concern, especially after talking to others in the
group who said they had heard that the Mosquito had problems when used in
the Pacific.
My question is: is anyone else concerned about this, and should I be? I am
half through with my ribs, and had planned on using T-88 for the rest of the
ship. At this point I am inclined to start over and give the finished ribs
to kids for ride souvenirs, because I would think about it on every flight.
Is this paranoia?
Al Swanson
________________________________________________________________________________
Please unsubscribe
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Larry L. Neal" <llneal(at)earthlink.net> |
Mark,
The best source I've found so far is Clark's Corvair Parts.
clarks(at)corvair.com
Get thier catalog for $5 and the parts list is covered. I have not yet found
a good shop manual but am looking for a Chiltons.
Larry
Mark Morgan wrote:
> I just purchased a running Corvair engine. I'll get into it next week or
> so. Keep us up-to-date on what you used materials and cost. Also, any
> parts list or possible overhaul manuals?
>
> Thanks,
> Mark Morgan
>
> Bel Air Aviation
> 800.Ohio Fly
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | RE: Subaru conversions |
-----Original Message-----
Steve W
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 5:09 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Subaru conversions
Steve wrote:
Steve how much did his redrive cost in the longrun. I am planning on
using the soob too. By the way! Do you know anyone with a set of plans
to the piet they arent going to use?
I think he had about $1700 in the redrive. Negative on the plans. Not bad
from hoopmans or pietenpol's at about $75 if I recall.
Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Greg Cardinal <CARDIGJ(at)mail.startribune.com> |
Subject: | Aerolite Glue -Reply |
I used Aerolite on my ribs. It is great to use on small pieces. T-88 is
slippery and the wood pieces tend to slip around.
I live in Minnesota and feel very comfortable with Aerolite. My
Pietenpol will be hangared most of the time.
Greg Cardinal
>>> Alan Swanson 05/26/98 09:27pm >>>
At Sun 'N Fun there was a seminar on wood and glue. The lecturer was an
Australian (don't remember his name). He said not to use Urea Formaldehyde=
glues (Aerolite) under any circumstances unless you live in Alaska. He
said
that in high humidity or heat (like a wing in the sun) that it tends to
break down. He was part of the group that de-certified the use of
Aerolite
in Australia, and claimed a friend of his died in Georgia as a result of
glue failure (UF glue). The reason the Mosquito bomber held up was that it
was based in cool and cloudy England. He also said that there is a new
revision of AC 43-13 in final review at the FAA which will recommend that
UF
glues not be used.
He likes resorcinol, and said T-88 was fine.
This talk caused me some concern, especially after talking to others in
the
group who said they had heard that the Mosquito had problems when used in
the Pacific.
My question is: is anyone else concerned about this, and should I be? I
am
half through with my ribs, and had planned on using T-88 for the rest of
the
ship. At this point I am inclined to start over and give the finished
ribs
to kids for ride souvenirs, because I would think about it on every
flight.
Is this paranoia?
Al Swanson
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Wkoucky <Wkoucky(at)aol.com> |
<< Mark,
The best source I've found so far is Clark's Corvair Parts.
clarks(at)corvair.com
Get thier catalog for $5 and the parts list is covered. I have not yet found
a good shop manual but am looking for a Chiltons.
Larry >>
Another source;
The Corvair Underground, PO Box 339, Dundee, OR 97115 1-800-825-vair.
The 1965 Corvair Chassis Shop Manual is a must. Its about $15 from either of
the above vendors. Details a rebuild. Also get on the Virtual Vairs mailing
list. They can answer any question. Any.
William
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
I have been using T 88 for the fuselage. For a different project have also tried
"West System Epoxy" made for the wood boat building industries by the
Gougeon Bros. Their website (www.westsystem.com) has a list of projects that
used their epoxies. It includes numerous aircraft. I left the stir sticks (pine
scraps) in the plastic mixing cups and kept the batch cups and sticks as proof
of cure. the stuff is amazing and in no case was I able to break the bond
between the wood and epoxy. I'm considering switching to the West system
when my T 88 runs out.
John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
I would like to talk to my friend Big "Jim" Vandervort. As you may alrea=
dy
know, he flies a corvair powered 'Piet'. Didn't want to bother him at
home.
Jim, if you're still on-line, let us in on the wonders of the corvair
engine, rebuilds, power, props, conversion, etc...
Jim is a great guy and I thoroughly believe he knows alot about everythin=
g
or has a colorful opion.
Piets forever....
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Aerolite Glue -Reply |
---Greg Cardinal wrote:
>
> I used Aerolite on my ribs. It is great to use on small pieces. T-88
is slippery and the wood pieces tend to slip around.
> I live in Minnesota and feel very comfortable with Aerolite. My
Pietenpol will be hangared most of the time.
>
> Greg Cardinal
>
> >>> Alan Swanson 05/26/98 09:27pm >>>
> At Sun 'N Fun there was a seminar on wood and glue. The lecturer
was an
> Australian (don't remember his name). He said not to use Urea
Formaldehyde
> glues (Aerolite) under any circumstances unless you live in Alaska.
He said
> that in high humidity or heat (like a wing in the sun) that it tends
to
> break down. He was part of the group that de-certified the use of
Aerolite
> in Australia, and claimed a friend of his died in Georgia as a
result of
> glue failure (UF glue). The reason the Mosquito bomber held up was
that it
> was based in cool and cloudy England. He also said that there is a
new
> revision of AC 43-13 in final review at the FAA which will recommend
that UF
> glues not be used.
>
> He likes resorcinol, and said T-88 was fine.
>
> This talk caused me some concern, especially after talking to others
in the
> group who said they had heard that the Mosquito had problems when
used in
> the Pacific.
>
> My question is: is anyone else concerned about this, and should I
be? I am
> half through with my ribs, and had planned on using T-88 for the
rest of the
> ship. At this point I am inclined to start over and give the
finished ribs
> to kids for ride souvenirs, because I would think about it on every
flight.
> Is this paranoia?
>
> Al Swanson
>
Go with what makes you comfortable- after all - it is your piet! I
have already been warned not to use Aerolite as I live in NC. I
ordered resorcinol to use throughout as it was what I have been
recommended most often.. Paris
________________________________________________________________________________
---Mark Morgan wrote:
>
> I would like to talk to my friend Big "Jim" Vandervort. As you may
already
> know, he flies a corvair powered 'Piet'. Didn't want to bother him at
> home.
>
> Jim, if you're still on-line, let us in on the wonders of the corvair
> engine, rebuilds, power, props, conversion, etc...
>
> Jim is a great guy and I thoroughly believe he knows alot about
everything
> or has a colorful opion.
>
> Piets forever....
>
I'll have to second that motion! I am planning on using a corvair
also and would love any info about it!
Paris
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: glues, epoxies. |
I went to the web page and it would seem the "WEST SYSTEM" is little more
expensive.
One Quart = $34 to $44 depending on hardener
T88 from A/C spruce is about $25 if I remember correctly.
Help me out if anyone knows if cost-wise T88 can be beaten.
David Scott 5/27/98
McNarry, John wrote:
> I have been using T 88 for the fuselage. For a different project have also tried
> "West System Epoxy" made for the wood boat building industries by the
> Gougeon Bros. Their website (www.westsystem.com) has a list of projects that
> used their epoxies. It includes numerous aircraft. I left the stir sticks (pine
> scraps) in the plastic mixing cups and kept the batch cups and sticks as proof
> of cure. the stuff is amazing and in no case was I able to break the bond
> between the wood and epoxy. I'm considering switching to the West system
> when my T 88 runs out.
> John Mc
--
I went to the web page and it would seem the "WEST SYSTEM" is little
more expensive.
One Quart = $34 to $44 depending on hardener
T88 from A/C spruce is about $25 if I remember correctly.
Help me out if anyone knows if cost-wise T88 can be beaten.
David Scott 5/27/98
McNarry, John wrote:
I have been using T 88 for the fuselage. For
a different project have also tried
"West System Epoxy" made for the wood boat building industries by the
Gougeon Bros. Their website (www.westsystem.com) has a list of projects
that
used their epoxies. It includes numerous aircraft. I left the stir
sticks (pine
scraps) in the plastic mixing cups and kept the batch cups and sticks
as proof
of cure. the stuff is amazing and in no case was I able to break the
bond
between the wood and epoxy. I'm considering switching to the West system
when my T 88 runs out.
John Mc
--
/------------------------------\ |~~\_____/~~\__ |
|DAVID SCOTT |______________ \______====== )-+
|scott(at)haulpak.com | o' ~~\|~~~ |
\------------------------------/ (O)
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: glues, epoxies. |
I built a canoe using the West Systems epoxy. The viscosity of the mixed
epoxy is significantly less than T-88 and I was afraid it would drain out of
a less than perfect joint and leave it dry. The Gougeon Bros sell fillers
that can be added to thicken the mixture but I was concerned about how this
would affect the strength. I decided to use the T-88 because it is a known
quantity. Also, the West System stuff is mixed at a 3:1 ratio by volume
using a pair of calibrated pumps that deliver a total of around 4 oz. Most
of my glue ups so far have used an ounce or less. With the West System
stuff I would need to buy a different measuring system or weigh each
component and develop a 'by weight' ratio. In any case, the T-88 cost for
the entire airframe is probably less than the equipment I would need to
dispense the West Epoxy.
The fuselage sides are supposed to be covered in 3/32" plywood. I am
considering using either 3/32" or 1/16" ply, then wrapping the area with 1
layer of 6 oz glass cloth and West System epoxy. I am certain that this
would be strong enough, but I will probably just stick with the plans, that
way I will have a Pietenpol when I'm done.
The West System stuff is high quality, the Corvette of the epoxy systems.
The Gougeon Bros have an excellent business reputation.
Randy Stockberger
Corvallis, OR
-----Original Message-----
From: McNarry, John <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca>
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 9:00 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: glues, epoxies.
I have been using T 88 for the fuselage. For a different project have also
tried
"West System Epoxy" made for the wood boat building industries by the
Gougeon Bros. Their website (www.westsystem.com) has a list of projects that
used their epoxies. It includes numerous aircraft. I left the stir sticks
(pine
scraps) in the plastic mixing cups and kept the batch cups and sticks as
proof
of cure. the stuff is amazing and in no case was I able to break the bond
between the wood and epoxy. I'm considering switching to the West system
when my T 88 runs out.
John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Subject: | Re: glues, epoxies. |
Thanks for your input Randy.
I have been using the milled glass filler with the west epoxy on a rebuild of a
Stitts Flutterbug ( I hope it doesn't flutter). Any of the batches I mixed worked
very well. I got around the batch size problem by using 60cc and 12 cc
syringes for dispensing epoxies.
I also agree that by sticking to the plans you will have a Pietenpol. They are
great but I've already deviated too far to fairly call my aircraft a Piet.
John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Gary Gower <ggower(at)informador.com.mx> |
Subject: | Re: misc costs of ownership |
About this theme (money to own a plane) there is a great book from Richard Bach
in spanish the name is "El Don de Volar" I dont know the name in english but
is the book that is made of one story in every chapter.... (Maybe is "Gift
of Wings" but I am not shure).
In one chapter he writes that any pilot can explain how the money for flying
come from but normally we go to flying instead of bowling etc...
A great book to read...
My advice: Buy your airplane and keep it all you can, if you cant rise the
money to keep it (or fly it) sell it, because you dont love aviation that
much :-)
Saludos
Gary Gower
>If you need to justify it to your wife your already in trouble! A wood
>airplane needs to be in a hangar. No question about that. When I bought my
>Howard, I made a pact with myself, if I can't provide a hangar, the airplane
>gets sold.
>
>Insurance isn't required but if you have any assets I would suggest having
>liability. Self insure for the hull.
>
>Maintenance is always the question. If you build an airplane and get a
>repairmans certificat, you can do all the work but there is still the parts
>issue. Here is where the hangar comes in. If left outside, you will be lucky
>to get 10 - 12 years on the fabric. If it's in the hangar, expect 20 or
>more. The wood is always a problem when left outside. Moisture will get in
>the fuselage and be trapped. If you fly often, you will dry most of it out
>but it could still be a problem.
>
>Then there is the time issue. If you want to justify the expense of your
>airplane, hangars here in WV are $115 per month. Thats $1380 a year for the
>hangar, add about $600 for liability insurance. In the north you may get 6
>months you can fly open cockpit. Thats about 24 weekends. Assume that it
>will rain or there will be something else to do at least half of them, your
>left with about 12 weekends to fly. If you fly 2 hours each of those you
>will get about 24 hours a year. Fixed costs will be $82 an hour. I don't
>think that would be3 a good cost justification!
>
>If you want an airplane don't try to justify it. You can't! It's just one of
>those things. I can't justify my cost of operation on the Howard (about
>$250.00 per hour), I just want it and that's all there is to it. Fortunatly
>my wife is understanding enough and realizes that my life revolves around
>aviation and if put to the test she might loose. (Ever hear of AIDS,
>Aviation Induced Divorce Syndrom)
>
>Build yoiur airplane and fly it. Don't try to cost justify it. Do it because
>it's what you want to do.
>
>Dean Dayton wrote:
>
>> I've got a few questions about ownership and maintenance of a homebuilt
>> (a Piet of course ;-).
>>
>> I'm doing a cost analysis to convince the wife that I can really afford
>> a plane. I have found lots of opinions on the cost of building a plane.
>> Now what I need is info on details like insuring a homebuilt and giving
>> it a place to live.
>>
>> What kind of insurance is needed on a homebuilt? If you own it ouright,
>> I assume that you still need liability insurance. What does this cost
>> for a low time pilot (especially during the first 40 hours).
>>
>> What about the pros and cons of a hangar vs a tie-down. Obviously a
>> hangar is better for the plane, but not for the wallet. I have seen
>> many Cubs, Champs, etc tied down outside. Is there any particular
>> problem with storing a Piet outside?
>>
>> Thanks for the help.
>>
>> Dean Dayton - deandayton(at)hotmail.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 Schober <classair(at)ny.frontiercomm.net> |
Subject: | Re: misc costs of ownership |
Gary Gower wrote:
>
> About this theme (money to own a plane) there is a great book from Richard Bach
> in spanish the name is "El Don de Volar" I dont know the name in english but
> is the book that is made of one story in every chapter.... (Maybe is "Gift
> of Wings" but I am not shure).
>
> In one chapter he writes that any pilot can explain how the money for flying
> come from but normally we go to flying instead of bowling etc...
>
> A great book to read...
>
> My advice: Buy your airplane and keep it all you can, if you cant rise the
> money to keep it (or fly it) sell it, because you dont love aviation that
> much :-)
>
> Saludos
>
> Gary Gower
>
> >If you need to justify it to your wife your already in trouble! A wood
> >airplane needs to be in a hangar. No question about that. When I bought my
> >Howard, I made a pact with myself, if I can't provide a hangar, the airplane
> >gets sold.
> >
> >Insurance isn't required but if you have any assets I would suggest having
> >liability. Self insure for the hull.
> >
> >Maintenance is always the question. If you build an airplane and get a
> >repairmans certificat, you can do all the work but there is still the parts
> >issue. Here is where the hangar comes in. If left outside, you will be lucky
> >to get 10 - 12 years on the fabric. If it's in the hangar, expect 20 or
> >more. The wood is always a problem when left outside. Moisture will get in
> >the fuselage and be trapped. If you fly often, you will dry most of it out
> >but it could still be a problem.
> >
> >Then there is the time issue. If you want to justify the expense of your
> >airplane, hangars here in WV are $115 per month. Thats $1380 a year for the
> >hangar, add about $600 for liability insurance. In the north you may get 6
> >months you can fly open cockpit. Thats about 24 weekends. Assume that it
> >will rain or there will be something else to do at least half of them, your
> >left with about 12 weekends to fly. If you fly 2 hours each of those you
> >will get about 24 hours a year. Fixed costs will be $82 an hour. I don't
> >think that would be3 a good cost justification!
> >
> >If you want an airplane don't try to justify it. You can't! It's just one of
> >those things. I can't justify my cost of operation on the Howard (about
> >$250.00 per hour), I just want it and that's all there is to it. Fortunatly
> >my wife is understanding enough and realizes that my life revolves around
> >aviation and if put to the test she might loose. (Ever hear of AIDS,
> >Aviation Induced Divorce Syndrom)
> >
> >Build yoiur airplane and fly it. Don't try to cost justify it. Do it because
> >it's what you want to do.
> >
> >Dean Dayton wrote:
> >
> >> I've got a few questions about ownership and maintenance of a homebuilt
> >> (a Piet of course ;-).
> >>
> >> I'm doing a cost analysis to convince the wife that I can really afford
> >> a plane. I have found lots of opinions on the cost of building a plane.
> >> Now what I need is info on details like insuring a homebuilt and giving
> >> it a place to live.
> >>
> >> What kind of insurance is needed on a homebuilt? If you own it ouright,
> >> I assume that you still need liability insurance. What does this cost
> >> for a low time pilot (especially during the first 40 hours).
> >>
> >> What about the pros and cons of a hangar vs a tie-down. Obviously a
> >> hangar is better for the plane, but not for the wallet. I have seen
> >> many Cubs, Champs, etc tied down outside. Is there any particular
> >> problem with storing a Piet outside?
> >>
> >> Thanks for the help.
> >>
> >> Dean Dayton - deandayton(at)hotmail.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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
The book is indeed "A Gift of Wings" and it's a compilation of magazine
articles Dick wrote during the '60's and '70's. That book is near and
dear to me as those were the articles I read while in high school and
inspired me to continue in aviation. I've met Dick on several occasions
and have a copy of "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" autographed by him,
Russel Munson, the photographer and Art Scholl, the pilot that did the
flying sequences for the film by the same name.
Dicks books and articles centered around NC499H, the Parks P2A are what
inspired me to go to Parks College of Aeronautical Technology and I was
also fortunate enough to fly this airplane while it belonged to Wayne
Amolang of Tullahoma TN.
I've given each of my kids a copy of "A Gift of Wings" when they were
about 14 in hopes of inspiring them. It would be nice to see others do
the same.
David
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Richard F. Rapp" <rrapp(at)polymail.cpunix.calpoly.edu> |
Subject: | Re: glues, epoxies. |
Apparently you are building in Bernard's spirit..
You are building a Piet...
Rich
On Fri, 29 May 1998, McNarry, John wrote:
> Thanks for your input Randy.
> I have been using the milled glass filler with the west epoxy on a rebuild of
a
> Stitts Flutterbug ( I hope it doesn't flutter). Any of the batches I mixed worked
> very well. I got around the batch size problem by using 60cc and 12 cc
> syringes for dispensing epoxies.
> I also agree that by sticking to the plans you will have a Pietenpol. They are
> great but I've already deviated too far to fairly call my aircraft a Piet.
>
> John Mc
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: glues, epoxies. |
Regarding Richard F. Rapp
Here, here!! Bernie was a creative innovator who made the best use of the
materials at hand and improved on his own designs as he learned more. If you read
about his article about the development of the Sky Scout, he makes remarks about
how he
feels that this got the best part of his design skills, and yet it is most certainly
still a Piet.
He created a truly timeless design with the origional Ford powered Piet, and
yet
in the 60's he himself re-created a long fuselage version with a "modern" engine.
That
in no way destroyed the genetic purity of the Piet. May his creative and innovative
spirit live on and fly with each version of his much beloved Piet.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Richard F. Rapp" <rrapp(at)polymail.cpunix.calpoly.edu> |
Subject: | Re: glues, epoxies. |
Hello Warren S.
Where can I find that article of B. Pietenpol's on the development
of the Sky Scout???
I would enjoy reading it.
Can you post it here to the discussion group?
Thanks,
Rich
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
> Hi Richard:
You can find the three part article in the "1933 Flying Manual" , pages
26-47. Great article, which gives many humorous insights to Bernie and his
attitudes. The manual is available from the EAA library.Best Regards,
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
If any of you are presently building a Piet (or any homebuilt for that
matter) don't quit. I cannot tell you what a feeling it is like when things
start coming together and you see it on the gear, maybe the wings on,
or running up the engine for the first time. Just like you, I come home
from work some days tired, with many things to do, responsibilities
that have to come before the Piet, and somedays she sits for days without
being worked on......but it's never forgotten. Making metal fittings from
sheet steel, burning your hands, waking up with a dab of T-88 stuck in
your hair you didn't even know was there, sawdust everywhere, finding
out that you have to make a part again just because you won't sleep good
taking family and friends for a ride with that in there....it's all worth it.
(and I haven't even flown yet !) Sat. morning I took my tools, coffee
pot, and lunch out to the hangar very early. Opening up the hangar
doors I scared a few birds who were otherwise comfortable. What a
strange sight to see this project sitting in a hangar when for the past
5 years she has sat in my living room, garage, basement, upside down,
on her side, stuffed in the corner with a blue tarp over her. What a
fitting ending to see the Piet where it belongs. But this ending is just
a beginning to flight. Every day you put in a hour, two, or a whole
weekend is just that much closer you'll be to ending one adventure and
beginning another. Don't quit ! Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Don't Quit ! |
> Thanks Michael!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
Subject: | Re: Don't Quit ! |
In the hanger at the airport looking like an airplane is great but when
will she fly? When will we see some great aerial photos as proof. Just
messing with you Mike. I am just as proud as you are. Got to get busy on
mine now. jas
>If any of you are presently building a Piet (or any homebuilt for that
>matter) don't quit. I cannot tell you what a feeling it is like when
things
>start coming together and you see it on the gear, maybe the wings on,
>or running up the engine for the first time. Just like you, I come home
>from work some days tired, with many things to do, responsibilities
>that have to come before the Piet, and somedays she sits for days without
>being worked on......but it's never forgotten. Making metal fittings from
>sheet steel, burning your hands, waking up with a dab of T-88 stuck in
>your hair you didn't even know was there, sawdust everywhere, finding
>out that you have to make a part again just because you won't sleep good
>taking family and friends for a ride with that in there....it's all worth it.
>(and I haven't even flown yet !) Sat. morning I took my tools, coffee
>pot, and lunch out to the hangar very early. Opening up the hangar
>doors I scared a few birds who were otherwise comfortable. What a
>strange sight to see this project sitting in a hangar when for the past
>5 years she has sat in my living room, garage, basement, upside down,
>on her side, stuffed in the corner with a blue tarp over her. What a
>fitting ending to see the Piet where it belongs. But this ending is just
>a beginning to flight. Every day you put in a hour, two, or a whole
>weekend is just that much closer you'll be to ending one adventure and
>beginning another. Don't quit ! Mike C.
>
>
jimsury(at)fbtc.net
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Subject: | Re: (Fwd) Re: glues, epoxies.Plans built Piets |
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
________________________________________________________________________________
John:
I would be the last person to say 'Never deviate from the plans'. I suspect
that even Bernie Peitenpol never built his airplanes directly to the plans.
Things have changed since Bernie's day, I think it is in the true spirit of
Mr. Pietenpol to experiment with new, inexpensive materials and techniques.
I suspect that if He were to build an airplane today he would pick whichever
engine he thought would do the job and be inexpensive. He would probably
also substitute fiberglass and aluminum for wood where it solves problems
and doesn't cost much.
In the overall picture of building the airplane the glue being used is a
small issue money wise and a larger issue from a quality perspective. Since
I don't know a lot about glues, I decided to just use one of the standards.
My woodworking skills are not perfect and T-88 does a better job of gap
filling than resourcinol. I think the issues with epoxies losing strength
in hot weather is not significant to those of us who don't live in hot
climates and who don't put a lot of G's on the airframe.
Enjoyed your e-mail
Randy Stockberger
-----Original Message-----
From: | McNarry, John <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Subject: | Re: glues, epoxies. |
Thanks for your input Randy.
I have been using the milled glass filler with the west epoxy on a rebuild
of a
Stitts Flutterbug ( I hope it doesn't flutter). Any of the batches I mixed
worked
very well. I got around the batch size problem by using 60cc and 12 cc
syringes for dispensing epoxies.
I also agree that by sticking to the plans you will have a Pietenpol. They
are
great but I've already deviated too far to fairly call my aircraft a Piet.
John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: (Fwd) Re: glues, epoxies.Plans built Piets |
I am really concrened about the glue issue...I, like everyone else,
want a plane I can trust other peoples lives in...T-88 may be okay in
in colder climates, but what should I be using in NC-where summer
temps(read mid-april-late sept) are routinely 95+ degrees...I had
pretty much decided on resourcinol, but would like something with
better gap filling properties-still easy enough for a novice to use(
is there such a thing?) Any Suggestions??
Thanks again All! Paris
>
>
>
> In the overall picture of building the airplane the glue being used
is a
> small issue money wise and a larger issue from a quality
perspective. Since
> I don't know a lot about glues, I decided to just use one of the
standards.
> My woodworking skills are not perfect and T-88 does a better job of
gap
> filling than resourcinol. I think the issues with epoxies losing
strength
> in hot weather is not significant to those of us who don't live in hot
> climates and who don't put a lot of G's on the airframe.
>
> Enjoyed your e-mail
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Subject: | Re: (Fwd) Re: glues, epoxies.Plans built Piets |
Hi Paris
That is part of the reason I asked the question about others experiences with
West System epoxies. The Boat builders( Some very high class stuff) use it
alot. T-88 was originally developed for boat use. I found that the milled
fiberglass filler could be added to the mix to make almost any consistency from
just epoxy to almost like thick peanut butter. I couldn't break the bond between
the epoxy and wood (sitka spruce scraps) on any of the samples I tried. In
every case the wood pulled apart first. I think the best thing we can do is to
ensure that the gaps in our joinery don't require much filler.
On a slightly different note: Has anyone in the group tried lightening
the
fuselage by milling the braces? Routing off corners or milling the pieces to X
shapes?
J Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: (Fwd) Re: glues, epoxies.Plans built Piets |
John,
Any particular one of the west system epoxies- I am looking at a
wicks catalog now- there's quit a few....Which would be best- and what
are the real differences-Paris
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: (Fwd) Re: glues, epoxies.Plans built Piets |
---Paris Wilcox wrote:
>
>
> John,
> Any particular one of the west system epoxies- I am looking at a
> wicks catalog now- there's quit a few....Which would be best- and what
> are the real differences-Paris
>
Also- what kindof filler- the cab-o-sil looks interesting-claims not
to change the properties of the epoxy.....paris
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca> |
Subject: | Re: (Fwd) Re: glues, epoxies.Plans built Piets |
On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Paris Wilcox wrote:
>
> John,
> Any particular one of the west system epoxies- I am looking at a
> wicks catalog now- there's quit a few....Which would be best- and what
> are the real differences-Paris
>
I was using the Safety-Poxy product on the fuel tanks of my Christavia and
had good results. However, this spring I started building a 16' Cedar
strip canoe that's covered inside and out with West System Epoxy. This
stuff is a treat to work with. Before, I spent over half of my time
measuring out quantities. Now I just use the pumps; one of each. Great
system.
Basically, from what I've seen, the resign is all the same: 105. There are
5 different hardeners that Ive seen. Here's the basic differences:
205 1:5 ratio quick cure (9-12 min working life)
206 1:5 ratio slower cure (20-25 min working life)
207 1:3 ratio slower cure (22-27 min working life). Special coating
epoxy with some UV protection.
209 1:3 ratio slowest cure (40-50 min working life)
I've been using the 207 product on the canoe and I've used the fast cure
product on the plane for the instrument panel and other smaller parts. The
one thing I did learn was to leave 3-5 days cure time before attempting to
sand. As for strength, UV resistance, etc, I'm not sure which one is
better. If you have anymore questions, let me know. West Systems does have
a web page at: http://www.concentric.net/~Westsys/
I've actually heard the West System products described as the Cadillac of
epoxies and I tend to agree.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
> Paris
Go to www.westsystem.com:This will answer most of your questions, and you
can do an online order form for their User Manual & Product Guide which
should answer the rest. Good luck
Warren
Paris
Go to www.westsystem.com:This will answer most of your questions, and you
can do an online order form for their User Manual Product Guide which
should answer the rest. Good luck
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
Paul:
2nd attempt:
On the web, go to www.westsystem.com
This site will give you answers to most of your questions. From
here, you can also order a "User Manual & Product Guide", which, I
believe, will answer your other questions. It is quite complete. Good
Luck.
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Subject: | Re: (Fwd) Re: glues, epoxies.Plans built Piets |
Paris:
I used a milled fibre glass product that I purchased from the local West System
supplier. I haven't experimented with other fillers but I tend to agree with Ken
Beanlands that this stuff is GOOD. I know it is more expensive but it is very
strong. I get around the wastage problem by metering the small mix batches
with syringes a 60cc and a 12cc that I got from the Vet. I mix in the same
proportions as the pumps deliver but in much smaller quantities and that way I
know the mix is right.
John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)mailexcite.com> |
Subject: | torque vs horsepower |
I
Lately I have been looking over the piet web page , and there is a fellow there
who has been getting 67 hp from the ford model B engine, with some 150 ft pounds
of torque....(low compression to save rods&bearings, and improved carborator
for breathing, along with big valves)at an rpm of 2200...
A long time ago I read that the new high rev engines were obtaining their power
from rpm, when the real measure of an aircraft's power was in torque.
Question, does anybody understand torque vs horsepower?
I would sure be interested in the simple ford engine, over the modern types, if
I knew that it would provide the necessary output.
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
Subject: | Re: torque vs horsepower |
Horse power can be obtained by the equation
hp=(torque*RPM)/5252
Since horse power is a function of both torque and rpm, if you increase either
the hp will increase. You don't get something for nothing however. Prop efficiency
drops off as the rpm increases. The traditional way of thinking is go with
a long stroke, low rpm, high torque engine if you want your
airplane to perform. How do you think a Curtiss JN-4 flew on only 90 hp. The other
thing to consider is cubic inches. If you ever compared the performance of
a J3C65, J3L65 and J3F65 you would understand the advantage of cubes. All three
engines have the same 65 horse power rating but using
different combinations of torque and rpm. The Franklin has the smallest displacement,
followed by the Lycoming, then the Continental. The Franklin runs the smoothest
then the Lyc then the Cont. but the Continental outperformes the others
hands down.
I've flown Piets with Fords, Corvairs and Continental A-65s. Of all, the Ford is
the most fun and has performance that is more than adequate for your average
Sunday afternoon flying and prices are still reasonable. I didn't care for the
Corvair overly but it was OK. The A65 performance was only
slightly better than the Ford.
If you are building a Piet, make your engine choice based on what you have available.
The only performance peramiter that changes is takeoff and climb. Cruise
will be about the same no matter what engine you use. The cost to convert modern
auto engines far exceedes the cost of the Model A and won't
give you any better performance with only marginal reliability improvements. When
you look at the type of flying that you will do in a Piet, the overhaul interval
is insignificant. If you figure a Ford should be overhauled at 400-500 hours,
and you fly 25 -50 hours a year (that's a lot of flying
for a Piet), you should expect 10 years or more of flying before needing to tear
down the engine.
oil can wrote:
> I
>
> Lately I have been looking over the piet web page , and there is a fellow there
who has been getting 67 hp from the ford model B engine, with some 150 ft pounds
of torque....(low compression to save rods&bearings, and improved carborator
for breathing, along with big valves)at an rpm of 2200...
>
> A long time ago I read that the new high rev engines were obtaining their power
from rpm, when the real measure of an aircraft's power was in torque.
>
> Question, does anybody understand torque vs horsepower?
>
> I would sure be interested in the simple ford engine, over the modern types,
if I knew that it would provide the necessary output.
>
> http://www.mailexcite.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: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Subject: | Re: torque vs horsepower |
Hi David
I agree whole heartedly with your statements. I like the quietness of the large
props at a relatively slow speed. I really enjoyed the ride I had in a Ford
powered piet. It seemed to fly every bit as well as the Continental power
however I think the take off run was longer.
I started building a B for my aircraft untill I lucked into a 1927 de Havilland
Cirrus engine. The Ford sort of lost its charm and I think I fell in love with
the
Cirrus! |:-)
John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | RE: torque vs horsepower |
John,
Quit you braggin. I want a ride. :)
Steve E.
--
Hi David
I agree whole heartedly with your statements. I like the quietness of the
large
props at a relatively slow speed. I really enjoyed the ride I had in a Ford
powered piet. It seemed to fly every bit as well as the Continental power
however I think the take off run was longer.
I started building a B for my aircraft untill I lucked into a 1927 de
Havilland
Cirrus engine. The Ford sort of lost its charm and I think I fell in love
with the
Cirrus! |:-)
John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: (Fwd) Re: glues, epoxies.Plans built Piets |
A comment about T-88 quality. I built a mock cockpit from the firewall to
behind the rear seat. Sides were built of pine, but according to plans.
Bracing on top and bottom was minimal. T-88 epoxy used throughout. When I
was done with it, I tied it up in the roof of the garage. Well, it fell
from about 10 feet. None of the side bracing broke, and the top and bottom
pieces that did let loose broke the wood, never on a glue line. Says a lot
about the strength of the design of the side bracing, and about the strength
of T-88.
Al S.
> I am really concrened about the glue issue...I, like everyone else,
>want a plane I can trust other peoples lives in...T-88 may be okay in
>in colder climates, but what should I be using in NC-where summer
>temps(read mid-april-late sept) are routinely 95+ degrees...I had
>pretty much decided on resourcinol, but would like something with
>better gap filling properties-still easy enough for a novice to use(
>is there such a thing?) Any Suggestions??
>Thanks again All! Paris
>>
>>
>>
>> In the overall picture of building the airplane the glue being used
>is a
>> small issue money wise and a larger issue from a quality
>perspective. Since
>> I don't know a lot about glues, I decided to just use one of the
>standards.
>> My woodworking skills are not perfect and T-88 does a better job of
>gap
>> filling than resourcinol. I think the issues with epoxies losing
>strength
>> in hot weather is not significant to those of us who don't live in hot
>> climates and who don't put a lot of G's on the airframe.
>>
>> Enjoyed your e-mail
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Subject: | RE: torque vs horsepower |
________________________________________________________________________________
Send reply to: Pietenpol Discussion
John,
Quit you braggin. I want a ride. :)
Steve E.
If I ever get this thing done! You Bet! I dream of flying it to Brodhead..... Lets
see now,
if I quit work today and work 12 hour days could I get there next summer?
John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)mailexcite.com> |
First off, thanks for the information on the ford engines, I will give them serious
consideration.
My airplane is not however a Piet. I'm building a corbin super ace, which, I believe
was probably "Ace Corbin's" version of the Piet. My interest in the ford
engine, is becouse the Piet, and the Ace both were powered by Ford.
If possible I'd like to ask another question of someone.
My plans call for 2024 alum leading edge of .020thickness. From Wick's, this costs
120.00 for 12 feet.
I can buy 3003-14 1/2 hard in 020 for 50.00 bucks. Will 3003 substitute for 2024?
Final note: The designer of the Flybaby recommends 015 roofing flashing as leading
edge for his bird....I measured some at the local hardware, the thickest I
could find was .009.
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
Bernie Pietenpol was known to use the cardboard from oatmeal boxes for his leading
edges. The structure of the wing provides the strength. The leading edge material
only provides shape for the airfoil and the material only has to
support the fabric, some air loads, and whatever abuse the leading edge may get
in ground handeling
oil can wrote:
> First off, thanks for the information on the ford engines, I will give them serious
consideration.
>
> My airplane is not however a Piet. I'm building a corbin super ace, which, I
believe was probably "Ace Corbin's" version of the Piet. My interest in the ford
engine, is becouse the Piet, and the Ace both were powered by Ford.
>
> If possible I'd like to ask another question of someone.
>
> My plans call for 2024 alum leading edge of .020thickness. From Wick's, this
costs 120.00 for 12 feet.
> I can buy 3003-14 1/2 hard in 020 for 50.00 bucks. Will 3003 substitute for
2024?
>
> Final note: The designer of the Flybaby recommends 015 roofing flashing as leading
edge for his bird....I measured some at the local hardware, the thickest
I could find was .009.
>
> http://www.mailexcite.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: | baileys(at)ktis.net (Robert M. Bailey) |
I don't know know much about aluminum, but the 3000 series stuff should be
more corrosion resistant. I don't think the leading edge skin carries much
stress it is more told hold the shape of the airfoil than anything else.
Bob B.
> From: oil can <oilcanbob(at)mailexcite.com>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: airplanea
> Date: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 3:07 PM
> If possible I'd like to ask another question of someone.
>
> My plans call for 2024 alum leading edge of .020thickness. From Wick's,
this costs 120.00 for 12 feet.
> I can buy 3003-14 1/2 hard in 020 for 50.00 bucks. Will 3003 substitute
for 2024?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: (Fwd) Re: glues, epoxies.Plans built Piets |
very good commentary. Just a couple of questions, though. Were you
making a fibreglass tank using the west system epoxy? If so, what were
your experiences with making the gas tank? Any limitations? Any benefits
over using the metal? Have you found any that will stand a limited
amount of alcohol in the gas?
thanks,
-=Ian=-
Ken Beanlands wrote:
>
> On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Paris Wilcox wrote:
>
> >
> > John,
> > Any particular one of the west system epoxies- I am looking at a
> > wicks catalog now- there's quit a few....Which would be best- and what
> > are the real differences-Paris
> >
>
> I was using the Safety-Poxy product on the fuel tanks of my Christavia and
> had good results. However, this spring I started building a 16' Cedar
> strip canoe that's covered inside and out with West System Epoxy. This
> stuff is a treat to work with. Before, I spent over half of my time
> measuring out quantities. Now I just use the pumps; one of each. Great
> system.
>
> Basically, from what I've seen, the resign is all the same: 105. There are
> 5 different hardeners that Ive seen. Here's the basic differences:
>
> 205 1:5 ratio quick cure (9-12 min working life)
> 206 1:5 ratio slower cure (20-25 min working life)
> 207 1:3 ratio slower cure (22-27 min working life). Special coating
> epoxy with some UV protection.
> 209 1:3 ratio slowest cure (40-50 min working life)
>
> I've been using the 207 product on the canoe and I've used the fast cure
> product on the plane for the instrument panel and other smaller parts. The
> one thing I did learn was to leave 3-5 days cure time before attempting to
> sand. As for strength, UV resistance, etc, I'm not sure which one is
> better. If you have anymore questions, let me know. West Systems does have
> a web page at: http://www.concentric.net/~Westsys/
>
> I've actually heard the West System products described as the Cadillac of
> epoxies and I tend to agree.
>
> Ken
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | User list web site? |
Can someone post the user list web site that was started a week or two ago.
I have misplaced the URL.
Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Gerard \"Larry\" Huber" <glhuber(at)mail.wiscnet.net> |
Subject: | Re: User list web site? |
steve(at)byu.edu wrote:
>
> Can someone post the user list web site that was started a week or two ago.
> I have misplaced the URL.
>
> Stevee
Try this
http://www.chestnutfarms.com/Pietenpol/builder_list.htm
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | RE: User list web site? |
Hey thanks!
STEvee
-----Original Message-----
Gerard "Larry" Huber
Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 2:09 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: User list web site?
steve(at)byu.edu wrote:
>
> Can someone post the user list web site that was started a week or two
ago.
> I have misplaced the URL.
>
> Stevee
Try this
http://www.chestnutfarms.com/Pietenpol/builder_list.htm
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
Stevee,
I saw a comment( in R Decosta's archive) you had made about making
your three piece wings with shorter length spars. i am very interested
in this as i have suitable spar stock in 12 ft that I was planning on
cutting into smaller pieces for longerons etc. All of my wood is
coming out of 8/4X4X12...I was looking at the plans for the three
piece wings and trying to decide if the center section could be made a
little wider and the spars scarfed towards the end...it sounds like
you may have done some thing similar..I'd love to know the
details...And of course advice from anyone is appreciated!
paris
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | RE: 3-piece wing |
I did do this very thing. I have a center section that is 48" wide. Used
the one piece wing fittings for the attachment to the cabanes and the three
piece wing strap attachments to the wing panels. My spars also came from
12' stock and everything works just fine. I have about 38 hours without a
problem. There are no joints in my spars. The Center section is not
routed, but the outboard spars are routed as per plans. Loads at the joint
force it closed just as in the short center section version, and It makes
for a much easier (roomier) place to work when attaching/detaching the
wings. One thing I would change however, is extending the flop across the
full width of the center section, or just making a cut out.
Stevee
Stevee,
I saw a comment( in R Decosta's archive) you had made about making
your three piece wings with shorter length spars. i am very interested
in this as i have suitable spar stock in 12 ft that I was planning on
cutting into smaller pieces for longerons etc. All of my wood is
coming out of 8/4X4X12...I was looking at the plans for the three
piece wings and trying to decide if the center section could be made a
little wider and the spars scarfed towards the end...it sounds like
you may have done some thing similar..I'd love to know the
details...And of course advice from anyone is appreciated!
paris
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Subject: | RE: 3-piece wing |
Stevee:
Did you make any changes to the fuel tank at the same time? I have been
thinking about tank size and fuel burn. There is not much point in carrying more
fuel than my derry-air can endure but a bit more wouldn't hurt. I don't
have an assembled weight on my Cirrus engine yet, but I imagine that unlike
the Continental engines I have to move the wing forward. Does there seem to
be any downwash from the trailing edge? If the wing is moved forward to get the
C of G right, then does the gear move too? I imagine having the gear forward
would help with prop clearance.
Jump in guys any advice considered!
Thanks John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
Has any body gone with a 5 1/2 foot aeleron rather than the 6 1/2 foot
version. The reason for asking is I did my measurements from edge of
capstrip to edge of capstrip rather than from centre to centre with the
result of being 3 1/2 inches short on my purchased aeleron spars.
Option 1. is to buy new spars for both aelerons (about$180.00)
Option 2. splice the spars
Option 3. Start the aeleron root one bay out.
Any comments on going with the shorter version? Would there be adequate
response?
For all you guys ...lay out EVERY THING beore gluing ANYTHING.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | RE: Short aelerons |
-----Original Message-----
Holland
Sent: Monday, June 08, 1998 2:28 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Short aelerons
Has any body gone with a 5 1/2 foot aeleron rather than the 6 1/2 foot
version. The reason for asking is I did my measurements from edge of
capstrip to edge of capstrip rather than from centre to centre with the
result of being 3 1/2 inches short on my purchased aeleron spars.
Option 1. is to buy new spars for both aelerons (about$180.00)
Option 2. splice the spars
Option 3. Start the aeleron root one bay out.
Any comments on going with the shorter version? Would there be adequate
response?
I'd say go with the sure thing. You might not have a problem, but I have
landed with full aileron deflection and I'd want all the force to be there
when I needed it. Sure glad I went with Doug fir I'd guess that that much
wood would be about $10 in Fir.
Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | RE: 3-piece wing |
Yep I increased the tank size from 10 to 14+ gallons. Adding an inch to
it's width while keeping the profile the same adds about a gallon. My tank
is just over 4 inches wider than normal.
Stevee
-----Original Message-----
McNarry, John
Sent: Monday, June 08, 1998 12:08 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: 3-piece wing
Stevee:
Did you make any changes to the fuel tank at the same time? I have been
thinking about tank size and fuel burn. There is not much point in carrying
more
fuel than my derry-air can endure but a bit more wouldn't hurt. I don't
have an assembled weight on my Cirrus engine yet, but I imagine that unlike
the Continental engines I have to move the wing forward. Does there seem to
be any downwash from the trailing edge? If the wing is moved forward to get
the
C of G right, then does the gear move too? I imagine having the gear forward
would help with prop clearance.
Jump in guys any advice considered!
Thanks John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
I know this sounds like a bad idea, but has anyone ever scarfed
longerons together- my next big problem is getting the length stock I
need to make my longerons with-all my material is in th 10-12 ft range.
Paris
________________________________________________________________________________
Paris,
Don't know why this would be a bad idea... I did it with all four longerons
on my ship. I did choose to locate the joints behind the plywood up front
and near a cross brace. Worked just fine. In fact I'm rather proud of
those joints because although they are in plain site you can't tell your
looking at them unless it is pointed out.
Stevee
sounds like you had the same source of wood I did. 12' lengths.
-----Original Message-----
Paris Wilcox
Sent: Monday, June 08, 1998 2:35 PM
Subject:
I know this sounds like a bad idea, but has anyone ever scarfed
longerons together- my next big problem is getting the length stock I
need to make my longerons with-all my material is in th 10-12 ft range.
Paris
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca> |
Subject: | Re: (Fwd) Re: glues, epoxies.Plans built Piets |
On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, Ian Holland wrote:
> very good commentary. Just a couple of questions, though. Were you
> making a fibreglass tank using the west system epoxy? If so, what were
> your experiences with making the gas tank? Any limitations? Any benefits
> over using the metal? Have you found any that will stand a limited
> amount of alcohol in the gas?
>
> thanks,
> -=Ian=-
Actually, I've been using the West System epoxy to cover my cedar strip
canoe. However, I did build my tanks from fiberglass. I used the
Safety-Poxy products from Hexel. The end results were no different that if
I had used the West System stuff. I just hadn't heard of West System when
I started the tanks.
The tanks were built using instructions from Alexander Aeroplane (now AS&S
East). I built 2 tanks, one nose tank of 25 gals and one 10 gals tank that
sits on the roof of the cabin between the root wing mounts (simular to the
center section in the Piet's wing). The way that the nose tank is designed
is such that a baffle is not required, but one was added to the reserve
tank.
Basically, the tank is a sandwich of foam between two layers of
fiberglass. There are two glass laminates on each side of the foam. The
construction starts by glassing enouth 1/4" foam sheet to do all the flat
sides of the tank. I did this by completely laminating 2.5 sheets. The
process is simple. the board is "primed with an epoxy/microbaloon paste.
once the paste is tacky, the 2 layers of cloth are added and the resign is
applied. Squegees work well to remove the excess. Then, laminate in a
layer of peel ply. This allows for a rough surface once the resign drys.
Once all the boards are done, cut out the various parts of the tank
(sides, front, rear, baffles) on a bandsaw. Glue all the parts together
except the top sheet to form the tank using 5 min epoxy. round the
exterior edges with sandpaper and the interior edges with a cotton
flox/resign paste. Laminate a 2" tape and a 4" tape along each seam both
inside and out. Coat any exposed foam edges on the baffles with resign.
Next, make your "hardpoints" for the filler and cap, vents, drains etc.
The best way to do this is to remove one layer of fiberglass and the foam
such that only one layer of glass exsists in the area for the hardpoint.
Fill the hole in with 10 layers of glass/resign making the cloth patches
progressively larger with the last 2 patches being 2 and 4 inches larger
than the area.
Finally, add the top. Obviously, you can only glass the outside edge
unless you have gery small hands or a very larve filler neck ;-). However,
the top edges are subject to the least amount of fuel pressure.
The advantages of this type of tank are:
1. double wall construction minimizing the possibility of leaking
2. insulating quality of the foam helps prevent condensation
3. can be built with common tools (no aluminum welding or riviting
required)
4. easy to make compound curves.
5. easy to make (arguable obviously)
6. easy to fix; drain the tank and slap on some resign and possibly a
glass patch.
7. using the same method as making the hardpoint, a simple site guage can
be made in the side of the tank.
8. no worries about weaping rivits or fatigue cracking in welded joints.
Disadvantage:
1. foam/fiberglass combo is NOT a conductor so the tank needs to be
properly bonded (filler neck) to prevent static discharge.
Hope this helps. If you have any more questions, let me know.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
Sorry Stevee-didn't mean to sound critical-I guess I let a little
pessimism slip in there...such an easy solution to this problem did
not seem possible- Many thanks! Paris
---steve(at)byu.edu wrote:
>
> Paris,
>
> Don't know why this would be a bad idea... I did it with all four
longerons
> on my ship. I did choose to locate the joints behind the plywood up
front
> and near a cross brace. Worked just fine. In fact I'm rather proud
of
> those joints because although they are in plain site you can't tell
your
> looking at them unless it is pointed out.
>
> Stevee
>
> sounds like you had the same source of wood I did. 12' lengths.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Paris Wilcox
> Sent: Monday, June 08, 1998 2:35 PM
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject:
>
>
>
> I know this sounds like a bad idea, but has anyone ever scarfed
> longerons together- my next big problem is getting the length stock I
> need to make my longerons with-all my material is in th 10-12 ft
range.
> Paris
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: FW: email virus |
---2131475428-824023566-897359264=:10797
note: forwarded msg attached.
---2131475428-824023566-897359264=:10797
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 17:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Traci Pridgen <heelsrgr8(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Fwd: Fwd: FW: email virus |
Bryan.Smith(at)gsle.gensig.com, hdoyle(at)runet.edu, pezz720(at)yahoo.com,
dlam(at)runet.edu, njames(at)boronlepore.com, mpeacock(at)email.grafenwoehr.army.mil,
lcedward(at)runet.edu, luvdumbo(at)yahoo.com, thepoes(at)naxs.com, tapisa(at)aol.com,
tjfowlerjr(at)aol.com, lgarey(at)gov.calgary.ab.ca, wpridgen(at)hotmail.com,
sullivak(at)vt.edu, amiller(at)runet.edu, ARound4684(at)aol.com, adunndeal(at)juno.com,
francesleigh(at)hotmail.com, mlb2(at)ra.msstate.edu
---TraciSA(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> ATTACHMENT part 2 message/rfc822
>
>
> ATTACHMENT part 2.2 message/rfc822
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Administrator
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 3:01 PM
> To: ALL Users
> Subject: email virus
>
> Please take note of the following message...and if you have any
> questions please contact Scott @ X804.
>
>
> "If you receive an E-mail titled "Win a Holiday" DO NOT OPEN
> IT!!! It will erase everything on your hard drive. Forward this letter
> out to as many people as you can.
> This is a new, very malicious virus and not many people know
> about it.
> This information was announced yesterday morning from Microsoft,
> please share it with
> every one that might access the internet. Once again, pass this
> along to everyone in
> your address book so that it may be stopped. Also, do not open
> or even look at any
> mail that says "RETURNED" or "UNABLE to DELIVER." This virus
> will attach itself to
> your computer components and render them usless. Immediately
> delete any mail items that say this. This is a very dangerous virus
> and there is no remedy at this time.
> Please practice precautionary measures and forward this to all
> your online friends.
>
> Kimberly J. Griggs
> Accounting Manager
> Gateway Systems Corporation
> 4460 S. Hgadorn, Suite 110
> East Lansing, Michigan 48823-5353
>
>
>
==
---2131475428-824023566-897359264=:10797--
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
Get some Douglas Fir or Poplar in the right lengths. It will be a lot
nicer.
Paris Wilcox wrote:
> I know this sounds like a bad idea, but has anyone ever scarfed
> longerons together- my next big problem is getting the length stock I
> need to make my longerons with-all my material is in th 10-12 ft range.
> Paris
>
>
--
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 D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Does anyone know the published (if there is one) gross wt. for
a Pietenpol Air Camper ? Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Greg Cardinal <CARDIGJ(at)mail.startribune.com> |
Nothing wrong with spliced longerons. My uppers are spliced in the
cockpit (flightdeck????) area. Lowers are spliced aft. 12:1 splice, T-88
glue and I have complete confidence.
Greg Cardinal
>>> Paris Wilcox 06/08/98 02:34pm >>>
I know this sounds like a bad idea, but has anyone ever scarfed
longerons together- my next big problem is getting the length stock I
need to make my longerons with-all my material is in th 10-12 ft range.
Paris
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Gross Weight |
246 meters
> From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Gross Weight
> Date: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 7:38 AM
>
> Does anyone know the published (if there is one) gross wt. for
> a Pietenpol Air Camper ? Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Gross Weight |
Michael:
Go to the BPANews web page; to the Newsletter items, and scan down
almost to the last items:
There is a fairly detailed description of "Weight & Balance" which will
give you a range of actual building weights with different engines and
long vs. short fuselage. Good Luck
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Owen Davies <owen(at)davies.mv.com> |
Subject: | Re: (Fwd) Re: glues, epoxies.Plans built Piets |
After an excellent discussion of making a fiberglass fuel tank,
Ken Beanlands noted:
> Disadvantage:
> 1. foam/fiberglass combo is NOT a conductor so the tank needs to be
> properly bonded (filler neck) to prevent static discharge.
Note also that a fiberglass fuel tank is likely to come out a good deal
heavier than the equivalent tank in aluminum. That resin is dense.
Owen Davies
________________________________________________________________________________
steve(at)byu.edu wrote:
>
> Paris,
>
> Don't know why this would be a bad idea... I did it with all four longerons
> on my ship. I did choose to locate the joints behind the plywood up front
> and near a cross brace. Worked just fine. In fact I'm rather proud of
> those joints because although they are in plain site you can't tell your
> looking at them unless it is pointed out.
>
> Stevee
>
> sounds like you had the same source of wood I did. 12' lengths.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Paris Wilcox
> Sent: Monday, June 08, 1998 2:35 PM
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject:
>
I did the same thing, but put the scarfs staggered near the tail.
> I know this sounds like a bad idea, but has anyone ever scarfed
> longerons together- my next big problem is getting the length stock I
> need to make my longerons with-all my material is in th 10-12 ft range.
> Paris
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dick Nelsen <richard.nelsen(at)sdl.USU.edu> |
I'm new to the Piet Discussion Group and need some help locating a
O/H manual and a parts source for a Lyc 0-145 (65hp) engine. I have
acquired two of theses engines and mounts, one from a Taylorcraft and
the other from a Mooney Mite. Any help or direction would be
appreciated.
Thanks
Dick Nelsen
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca> |
Subject: | Re: (Fwd) Re: glues, epoxies.Plans built Piets |
My 24 gallon fiberglass tank is the same weight as the riveted aliminum
18 gallon tank built by a fellow Christavia builder. If you properly
squeegee off all the excess and use peel ply (excess resign soaks up
through the peel ply), the tank can be built quite light. Excessive resign
only adds weight without structural integrity.
My tank weigh 8 lbs including filler and cap, vent, drain, strainer and
fuel probe.
Ken
On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Owen Davies wrote:
> After an excellent discussion of making a fiberglass fuel tank,
> Ken Beanlands noted:
>
> > Disadvantage:
>
> > 1. foam/fiberglass combo is NOT a conductor so the tank needs to be
> > properly bonded (filler neck) to prevent static discharge.
>
> Note also that a fiberglass fuel tank is likely to come out a good deal
> heavier than the equivalent tank in aluminum. That resin is dense.
>
> Owen Davies
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: (Fwd) Re: glues, epoxies.Plans built Piets |
Ken, thank you very much for your commentary on fiberglass tanks. Any
idea how much heavier it would be over aluminum. Owen, I appreciated
your comment on grounding!
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: (Fwd) Re: glues, epoxies.Plans built Piets |
Wow! That is the fastest response I have ever gotten to any question. 30
seconds! thanks again.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca> |
Subject: | Re: (Fwd) Re: glues, epoxies.Plans built Piets |
Ve are Vatching you...!
Actually, I sent the response after reading Owen's comments, before you
sent your question ;-)
Ken
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Ian Holland wrote:
> Wow! That is the fastest response I have ever gotten to any question. 30
> seconds! thanks again.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | baileys(at)ktis.net (Robert M. Bailey) |
Subject: | Re: Lycoming 0-145 |
My guess would be Trade-A-Plane
Bob B.
BTW I recently flew behind a 4 stroke rotax with a three blade ground
adjustable prop. This is one smooth runnung quiet engine.
> From: Dick Nelsen <richard.nelsen(at)sdl.USU.edu>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Lycoming 0-145
> Date: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 12:57 PM
>
> I'm new to the Piet Discussion Group and need some help locating a
> O/H manual and a parts source for a Lyc 0-145 (65hp) engine. I have
> acquired two of theses engines and mounts, one from a Taylorcraft and
> the other from a Mooney Mite. Any help or direction would be
> appreciated.
>
> Thanks
> Dick Nelsen
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | TLC62770(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Gross Weight |
my plans say 635 lbs. with a model A FORD engine
KIT PLANE says 675 lbs. with the CORVAIR engine because you add on 6 1/2 inch
talking to other builders they say between 635 to 700 lbs. depending what you
do to the craft . larger fuel tanks , tires . its still a darn nice plane .
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | RE: Gross Weight |
Guess I better quit flying mine till I loose 125 lbs then. Seriously
though, I think you are quoting empty rather than gross weight. My Air
Camper weighs in at 620 lbs. empty.
Stevee (with a smile)
-----Original Message-----
TLC62770(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 3:40 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Gross Weight
my plans say 635 lbs. with a model A FORD engine
KIT PLANE says 675 lbs. with the CORVAIR engine because you add on 6 1/2
inch
talking to other builders they say between 635 to 700 lbs. depending what
you
do to the craft . larger fuel tanks , tires . its still a darn nice plane .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Subject: | Re: Gross Weight |
________________________________________________________________________________
Send reply to: Pietenpol Discussion
my plans say 635 lbs. with a model A FORD engine
KIT PLANE says 675 lbs. with the CORVAIR engine because you add on 6 1/2 inch
talking to other builders they say between 635 to 700 lbs. depending what you
do to the craft . larger fuel tanks , tires . its still a darn nice plane .
My copy of the 1934 Improved Air Camper plans list the Gross at 1080 lbs. I
think you are refering to the empty weight. I agree it is a nice plane!
John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Lee L. Schiek" <concrete(at)qtm.net> |
Ribs & tail feathers done - need to move on to fuselage, so from
The Stupid Question Dept: Do I layout & build sides flat and then
"clamp & crank" them to fit top & bottom dimensions, or is their a
better way? Also, tailpost scarf has me a little confused......
Low & Slow,
Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Greg Cardinal <CARDIGJ(at)mail.startribune.com> |
Subject: | fuselage time -Reply |
Your intuition on the sides is correct. The FGM gives a good explanation
of how to do the sides.
The tailpost scarf can be done with a hand saw. Clamp the sides together
and start sawing. When almost done, unclamp the sides and finish up with a
hand plane.
Hand sawing with the sides clamped together guarantees the correct scarf
angle.
Greg Cardinal
>>> "Lee L. Schiek" 06/10/98 10:45am >>>
Ribs & tail feathers done - need to move on to fuselage, so from
The Stupid Question Dept: Do I layout & build sides flat and then
"clamp & crank" them to fit top & bottom dimensions, or is their a
better way? Also, tailpost scarf has me a little confused......
Low & Slow,
Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Subject: | Re: fuselage time |
________________________________________________________________________________
Send reply to: Pietenpol Discussion
Ribs & tail feathers done - need to move on to fuselage, so from
The Stupid Question Dept: Do I layout & build sides flat and then
"clamp & crank" them to fit top & bottom dimensions, or is their a
better way? Also, tailpost scarf has me a little confused......
Low & Slow,
Lee
Good question Lee! I'm at the same stage I've been calling it the 1 inch thick
stage.
John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
The Website by Grandson of Bernard Pietenpol is coming along.
A ton of info especially for newcomers or people w/ plan questions,
prices, how they can be ordered, broke down, etc. Andrew has
done a fine job. You'll also find a phone, fax, and e-mail address for
Son of Bernard, retired Don Pietenpol.
http://www.pietenpol.com/
Or you can get there by going to Grant's BPA homepage and clicking
on 'official plans'
Completed the weight and balance on my Piet this week and it came
in at 632 lbs. empty, 11" empty CG, 19.68" aft CG. My little
calculator got a workout. Hope the FAA likes pencil and notebook
paper. Keep building ! Mike C.
ps- slanted wing back 4" aft of vertical on a short-fuse 65 Cont. Piet.
w/ 17 gal. nose tank. Aft. CG was calculated assuming 2 gals. fuel
and a 200 lb. pilot.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)mailexcite.com> |
A fellow the other day was talking about aleron spars being cut too short...I
think it was steve who responded saying that he had made his aleron spars from
fir rather than a/c grade spruce.
This leads me to the question, has anybody considered using anything for wing spars
besides a/c grade spruce? Maybe fir spars, or hemlock?
If so, how did you choose the lumber?
What was the lumber grade?
ETC ETC...
For myself, I choose to use hemlock for the aleron spars in my ace, and did so
by going through every stick of hardware lumber in spokane wa. I made the choice
of hemlock after reading the eaa book on building airplanes in wood.
After breaking several samples of both a/c spruce, and hemlock, I believe that
hemlock was a good choice.
Now I'm casually thinking of using it for spars, but probably won't
Does anyboby have any comments?
bob
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)mailexcite.com> |
A fellow the other day was talking about aleron spars being cut too short...I
think it was steve who responded saying that he had made his aleron spars from
fir rather than a/c grade spruce.
This leads me to the question, has anybody considered using anything for wing spars
besides a/c grade spruce? Maybe fir spars, or hemlock?
If so, how did you choose the lumber?
What was the lumber grade?
ETC ETC...
For myself, I choose to use hemlock for the aleron spars in my ace, and did so
by going through every stick of hardware lumber in spokane wa. I made the choice
of hemlock after reading the eaa book on building airplanes in wood.
After breaking several samples of both a/c spruce, and hemlock, I believe that
hemlock was a good choice.
Now I'm casually thinking of using it for spars, but probably won't
Does anyboby have any comments?
bob
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Sure! I built my whole airframe out of fir. Not one branch of Spruce in the
whole plane. AC 43 acceptable methods and procedures has a table of other
common woods used in construction. The guy that build his plane out of a
poplar tree cut from his own back yard has got the corner on bragging rights
on this topic!
Stevee
-----Original Message-----
can
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 2:40 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: wood
A fellow the other day was talking about aleron spars being cut too
short...I think it was steve who responded saying that he had made his
aleron spars from fir rather than a/c grade spruce.
This leads me to the question, has anybody considered using anything for
wing spars besides a/c grade spruce? Maybe fir spars, or hemlock?
If so, how did you choose the lumber?
What was the lumber grade?
ETC ETC...
For myself, I choose to use hemlock for the aleron spars in my ace, and did
so by going through every stick of hardware lumber in spokane wa. I made the
choice of hemlock after reading the eaa book on building airplanes in wood.
After breaking several samples of both a/c spruce, and hemlock, I believe
that hemlock was a good choice.
Now I'm casually thinking of using it for spars, but probably won't
Does anyboby have any comments?
bob
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: fuselage time |
That's it build sides flat and then square firewall and work back to
tail. don't remember on the scarf. Been using your nylon. thanks
again
Lee L. Schiek wrote:
> Ribs & tail feathers done - need to move on to fuselage, so from
> The Stupid Question Dept: Do I layout & build sides flat and then
> "clamp & crank" them to fit top & bottom dimensions, or is their a
> better way? Also, tailpost scarf has me a little confused......
>
> Low & Slow,
> Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Winkel <rwinkel(at)i2k.com> |
Subject: | Re: fuselage time |
Lee L. Schiek wrote:
> Do I layout & build sides flat and then
> "clamp & crank" them to fit top & bottom dimensions, or is their a
> better way? Also, tailpost scarf has me a little confused......
>
> Low & Slow,
> Lee
Here is what worked for me:
1. build fuselage sides flat
2. build the two sides into a unit in the front section where the sides
are parallel
this is up to about the back of the front seat.
I left the floor board tacked on, but not glued on, at this stage
since the floor
also attaches under the pilots seat where the sides pull together.
3. set the fuselage assembly upside down on those beautiful flat top
longerons.
4. pull the sides together to the width dimensions shown in the plans,
trim tailpost,
5. put the floor permanantly on, add all the rear sticks in the
fuselage.
6. let dry
7. sit in seat and make engine noises.
Dick Winkel
________________________________________________________________________________
Regarding the query about the possible use of woods other
than spruce for the aileron spars, I used clear white pine on
my Pietenpol with no problems in nearly 28 years of flying. I
recovered the aircraft about 13 years ago and found these
items to be in perfect condition at that time. However, there
were a few of the diagonal bracing strips (spruce) that had
become unglued (Aerolite glue) and I reattached them to the
aileron spars with epoxy. To date, there is no evidence that
these joints are unsound.
Don't be afraid to use other wood species that are recognized
as acceptable substitutes for spruce. I used fir wing spars and
yellow cedar trailing edges (high resistance to rot in a location
where moisture tends to collect). Wing ribs, and just about every-
thing else, are made of Sitka Spruce.
Back when I built mine, one could get longer lengths of spruce
and I didn't have to splice my longerons. However, a friend bought
a Piet that had badly damaged rear lower longerons caused by
a leaf-type tailwheel spring. We spliced in some new material
about two feet long and installed the yoke/compression spring type
tailwheel assembly. Epoxy glue was used, but I cannot remember
what kind. The repair has been fine ever since, and that was about
twenty years ago. (It should be noted that the fuselage side gussets
were made longer so as to provide a reinforcement of the spliced
area.)
So it is OK to splice the longerons, but follow acceptable methods
for aircraft repairs (as in 43-13-1A). And fir or white pine would be
OK for aileron spars, as long as they meet the criteria for aircraft
quality wood,
Cheers,
Graham Hansen
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | LanhamOS(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: For John McNarry |
Drop me a line. Interested in your Cirrus find. What progress with the
museum. Sounds as if your thrust measurer is a real applied engineering
solution, following in the foootsteps of Bernie himself. Peace. Orville Lanham
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Malcolm Morrison <morrison(at)vicon.net> |
Subject: | Change of email address |
Could you please change my subscription address from morrison(at)vicon.net to
Morrison79(at)aol.com.
Thanks, Malcolm Morrison
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Aron(at)hrn.bradley.edu |
To those looking for wood,
Besides alternative woods, you might try some alternative sources. My
partner and I got
some excellent spruce, enough for two Piets, from R.A.W. Resources on
the west coast
for $3.50 a board foot. We plan to laminate the spars the way Mr.
Pietenpol did on the last 2 or 3 planes he built -- 3/4 inches thick
made of 5 or 6 layers of laminated wood.
I believe A.C. 43 gives the guidelines for the proper way to do this.
You add 1/8" plywood on each side where ribs and other attachments are
made to fill it out to the full
one inch thickness. Vi Kapler has described this at several forums I
have attended.
By the Way. We are now looking for a good (read inexpensive) source
of the Finnish
Birch plywoood in the ultra-thin thicknesses. We contacted A.I.T. in
Los Angeles after
someone recommended it here, and found their prices much better than
Wicks or
A.S.&Sp., but one of their officers called us back and said that the
shipping price would
be awful from LA to Peoria, and recommended we find a source in the
midwest. Does anyone know of one, or how we could find one?
John in Peoria
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
Do you have an address/phone/website address for RAW? I am going to be
buying more wood soon, and would like to shop around.
Richard D.
http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet
On 10 Jun 98, at 23:00, Aron(at)hrn.bradley.edu wrote:
> To those looking for wood,
>
> Besides alternative woods, you might try some alternative sources. My
> partner and I got some excellent spruce, enough for two Piets, from
> R.A.W. Resources on the west coast for $3.50 a board foot. We plan to
> laminate the spars the way Mr. Pietenpol did on the last 2 or 3 planes he
> built -- 3/4 inches thick made of 5 or 6 layers of laminated wood. I
> believe A.C. 43 gives the guidelines for the proper way to do this. You
> add 1/8" plywood on each side where ribs and other attachments are made to
> fill it out to the full one inch thickness. Vi Kapler has described this
> at several forums I have attended.
>
>
> By the Way. We are now looking for a good (read inexpensive) source of
> the Finnish Birch plywoood in the ultra-thin thicknesses. We contacted
> A.I.T. in Los Angeles after someone recommended it here, and found their
> prices much better than Wicks or A.S.&Sp., but one of their officers
> called us back and said that the shipping price would be awful from LA to
> Peoria, and recommended we find a source in the midwest. Does anyone know
> of one, or how we could find one?
>
> John in Peoria
>
Web Developer, http://www.autoeurope.com
Homepage: http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: fuselage time |
This description is basically what worked for me too. I used thick rope
and tourneques to pull the sections together. When the tail post was
meeting, I sawed sraight down with a back saw to get the tail post
angle. Worked good!
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Lee L. Schiek" <concrete(at)qtm.net> |
Thanks to all for your input - I *think* I'm being advised to
build-up sides flat, assemble & square-up front section (from
firewall to top stiffener for instrument cowl, and then bend
as necessary to make tailpost. Questions: 1) install plywood
sides & floor AFTER bending or BEFORE? 2) Won't scarf cut for
tailpost require multiple passes of hand saw, as in clamping,
cutting, re-clamping, cutting again, etc. until correct angle
is achieved? When replying, pretend you're talking to a five
year old....that way, I might be able to keep up! Thanks again.
Low & Slow
Lee in MI
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Greg Cardinal <CARDIGJ(at)mail.startribune.com> |
Subject: | fuselage time -Reply |
Attach plywood prior to bending sides.
Multiple cuts will be required on the tailpost. Initial cuts can be
"hogged out" with a Sawzall.
Greg Cardinal
>>> "Lee L. Schiek" 06/11/98 10:29am >>>
Thanks to all for your input - I *think* I'm being advised to
build-up sides flat, assemble & square-up front section (from
firewall to top stiffener for instrument cowl, and then bend
as necessary to make tailpost. Questions: 1) install plywood
sides & floor AFTER bending or BEFORE? 2) Won't scarf cut for
tailpost require multiple passes of hand saw, as in clamping,
cutting, re-clamping, cutting again, etc. until correct angle
is achieved? When replying, pretend you're talking to a five
year old....that way, I might be able to keep up! Thanks again.
Low & Slow
Lee in MI
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>Thanks to all for your input - I *think* I'm being advised to
Lee, If I can add my two cents worth......I built my wood firewall and
fitted it in place but did not glue it until just before
the fabric covering
went on. I put in the ash cross member to hold the sides together
properly but left off the firewall to facililtate the installation of all
that
hardware up front like control sticks, rudder bar/pedal, floor scuff
plates, engine controls, lines, etc. What a lifesaver that is on your
back and neck. I've even heard of some guys gluing in the floor and
one side but leave one side open until all the seats, hardware, etc was
installed. Just a thought. MC
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
Subject: | Re: For John McNarry |
________________________________________________________________________________
Send reply to: Pietenpol Discussion
Drop me a line. Interested in your Cirrus find. What progress with the
museum. Sounds as if your thrust measurer is a real applied engineering
solution, following in the foootsteps of Bernie himself. Peace. Orville Lanham
Hi Orville: The Cirrus was buried under a pile of engines in the back of our
museum. I asked about it and since it didn't fit the mandate of the museum
collection they gave it to me for "sevices rendered" I couldn't tell what it was
for
some time till I finally got it out into the open and cleaned of the data plate.
Right Hand Tractor rated at 95 hp at 2100 rpm and 85 hp at 1900. I haven't
weighed it yet, but it is easy for two of us to carry. I suspect it is just over
two
hundred pounds. It is realy well built! Ball bearings carry the prop, front and
rear
mains, roller cam followers, ball bearings to carry the cam and pressure oiling
to the mains. It has an interesting way to oil the rod bearings, collector rings,
fastened to the crank webs, catch the oil and guide it to the drilled rod
journals.Centrifugal force would do a fine job of forcing the oil into the bearings.
The overhead valve gear is all exposed and if I've identified it properly the
displcement is 302 cu in. I was watching "The magnificent Men and Their
Flying Machines" and was delighted to see the same engine used in the replica
Avro.
The Dyno our RAA group built is in use at a member's shop and I
promised to post a picture. I will when I get one suitable to scan into the
system.
The Museum is doing well and I hope to spend more time there as I
approach retirement. };-)
Have you checked out our web site? http://www.mts.net/~krallen/catpm.html
Thanks for your intrest Orville
John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Aron(at)hrn.bradley.edu |
Subject: | RE: wood: Oops! Left off the address |
Re: source for wood
I suggested contacting R.A.W. for availability and good price on spruce
and
Alaskan yellow cedar, but forgot to give their email address.
John in Peoria
________________________________________________________________________________
I know I've seen this one discussed before here....but how do I keep
from glue my ribs into my jig...I have heard several solutions
involving wax-i.e. wax paper or candle wax, but I called the folks at
Gougeon Bros( I am using Wesy Systems) I was told ABSOLUTELY DO NOT
USE WAX OR WAX PAPER on the jig- that it would contaminate the epoxy
and result in less than desirable strength....Anybody got any other
ideas?
Paris
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | JRoss10612(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Frustration! |
Paris:
Consider polyurethane coating the jig. Also, you might drill 7/16" holes
underneath each joint in the jig. I have heard of using different types of
plastic sheet underneath the cap strips and diagonal joints, perhaps the thin
stuff you find these days in supermarket bags. Mylar would be best, if you can
get some. Used model airplane monokote scraps would work well, you might even
get it to iron down on the jig. Epoxy glue will not stick to most synthetic
materials like mylar, however I suggest that you make tests first.
Technically, the advice you received is correct. Glue tests have shown reduced
strength after contact with waxed paper, the T-88 floks will tell you the same
thing. The same goes for sanding & gluing. Old aircarft woodworkers used a
piece of sharp glass to draw over each joint (thereby removing a few
thousanths of an ich of material) just prior to gluing.
Another trick you can use to make wood wing rib jis is to use a large hardwood
dowel approximately 1" to 1 1/2" in diameter, sliced in 1/4" thick wafers.
Drill a hole off center about 1/4" in each disc, and screw it into the jig
base with a flathead srew and washer with the edge of the disc barely touching
the capstrip or diagonal lines. The wafer will act as a cam, allowing
adjustments to the jig that are very precise. I suggest that if you make a jig
like this you draw the oulintes of the parts on the jig first, coat with clear
polyurethane twice, sanding after the first coat. Then attach the discs as
described above. 7/16" holes drilled at each joint will facilitate rib removal
from the jig.
Hope this helps,
Jon Ross - RV-8 builder
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Direct drive soob. |
Because of the expense of a firect drive we will have to possibly give
up our ddream of building a Piet. Now if someone can tell us if it can
be flown with a direct drive soob then we just cant fit its expense into
out budget.
Steve & Emelita W
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Aron(at)hrn.bradley.edu |
Subject: | Alieving frustration |
How to keep the rib from sticking in the jig?
I cover the jig with a layer of saran wrap before mounting the ribstock
in it. I use two pieces (front half and back half). You need to
leave it a little looser in some places,
but you will quickly be able to figure that out with a little
experience, You can also
slit it in the middle of the wing to give yourself some more slack where
you need it.
John in Peoria
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Subject: | Re: Frustration! |
Paris- I used Saran wrap to keep the rib jig clean. MC
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Direct drive soob. |
Don't give up because of engine cost. I wouldn't consider a direct drive
Subaru. RPM's are to high and not enough bearing area to absorb gyroscopic
effects of the prop.
Go to antique car flea markets and find a Model A. You should be able to
find one for less than $500. Learn to scrounge all you can. If you work at
it you will be able to build a Piet for suprisingly little money.
Steve W wrote:
> Because of the expense of a firect drive we will have to possibly give
> up our ddream of building a Piet. Now if someone can tell us if it can
> be flown with a direct drive soob then we just cant fit its expense into
> out budget.
>
> Steve & Emelita W
--
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: | baileys(at)ktis.net (Robert M. Bailey) |
Subject: | Rivets - (sort of off topic) |
Hello list,
Sorry about being slightly off topic, but this such a good sorce of
information. I find so many types of blind rivets available that it is all
very confusing. Would someone explain the differences regarding strength
and other properties?
Thanks in advance,
Bob B.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ken Hannan <hannan(at)iinet.com> |
Subject: | Re: Frustration! |
I used 10 mill clear Mylar and covered the entire fixture with it and then
nail the stop blocks down.
works great
--
April 10, 1998 - June 12, 1998
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-af