Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-ag
June 12, 1998 - August 10, 1998
>
> 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: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Direct drive soob. |
________________________________________________________________________________
Send reply to: Pietenpol Discussion
> 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
Some of us take years to finally finish our dreams. The road to get there is part
of the fun! I agree with one of the other comments that direct drive auto
conversions with modern engine aren't a good idea. The cranks won't take the
prop gyroscopic load. The Model A or B has a very long rear main bearing that
used to carry the heavy flywheel. The B engines bearing size is almost the
same dimensions as a Continental's. Besides that the large prop disk works
better. Henry Ford made hundreds of thousands of these engines and with
patience and determination I'm sure you can find one.
" Argue for your limitations and sure enough they are yours!"
If you stick with it some day you will suceed. If you can't find a Ford engine
close to home contact me and I'll help you find one.
John McNarry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Cardinal <CARDIGJ(at)mail.startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Frustration! -Reply |
Bore a 1" hole in your jig at each glue joint. Or you can line the joint
area with Saran wrap instead of wax paper.
Greg Cardinal
>>> Paris Wilcox 06/11/98 08:23pm >>>
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: | kyle ray <rray(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | wood,tools,and such |
YES JUST SIGNED CONFIRMATION ON WOOD, 75 BF' SITKA LENGTH
8' $6.00 A BF AND 75 BF OF WESTERN HEMLOCK LENGTH16' @ 4.00
A BOARD FOOT, THE HEMLOCK I REQUESTED WAS OF OF LADDER
GRADE STOCK. AND WAS TOLD IT IS ABSOLUTLY CLEAR.
INTERESTED? CALL CRAIG @ 253-272-4107
I'M TRYING TO FIGURE BEST POWER TOOL STRADEGY? WOULD A
CHEAP BAND SAW (WOOD) THAT CAN BE SLOWED TO INFINITY
ALSO BE FITTED WITH A METAL CUTTING SAW SAVING ON BUYING
A METAL CUTTING SAW? THIS PARTICULAR SAW IS RATED AT
3/4 HP MOTOR 64" SAW LENGTH, IT COST ABOUT $100.00 OR AM I
TRYING TO DO TO MUCH? ALSO HOW ABOUT BENDING METAL WITH SMALL
BRAKE? ANYONE CONSTRUCTED OR WOLD SELL A SMALL METAL BENDING BRAKE.
NOW THE GLUE QUESTION YOU ALL HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR,
WHICH IS BEST WEST SYSTEMS OR T-88 CAN'T WEST SYSTEMS
BE USED TO PRE SATURATE WOOD WITH EPOXY WOULDN'T THIS
BE STRONGER BECAUSE OF LOWER VICOUSITY AND WOOD PENETRATION?
ALSO I'M PLANNINIG ON USING 6056 RATED 3MM
OKOUME ON THE SIDES OF FUSLELAGE, LEFT UNCOVERD, EPOXY
COATED THEN VARNISHED LIKE A BOAT. I HAD A COUPLE OF MARINE
SUPPLY HOUSES SEND ME SAMPLE'S AND THAT STUFF IS
GREAT. ALSO BENDABLE (KEEP IT HUSH OR THE PRICE A GO UP)
YES JUST SIGNED CONFIRMATION
ON
WOOD, 75 BF' SITKA LENGTH
8' $6.00 A BF AND 75 BF OF WESTERN
HEMLOCK
LENGTH16' @ 4.00
A BOARD FOOT, THE HEMLOCK I
REQUESTED WAS OF OF LADDER
GRADE STOCK. AND WAS
TOLD
IT IS ABSOLUTLY CLEAR.
INTERESTED? CALL CRAIG @
253-272-4107
I'M TRYING TO
FIGURE BEST
POWER TOOL STRADEGY? WOULD A
CHEAP BAND SAW (WOOD) THAT
CAN BE
SLOWED TO INFINITY
ALSO BE FITTED WITH A
METAL CUTTING SAW SAVING ON BUYING
A METAL CUTTING SAW? THIS
PARTICULAR SAW IS RATED AT
3/4 HP MOTOR 64 SAW LENGTH,
IT
COST ABOUT $100.00 OR AM I
TRYING TO DO TO MUCH? ALSO
HOW
ABOUT BENDING METAL WITH SMALL BRAKE? ANYONE
CONSTRUCTED OR
WOLD SELL A SMALL METAL BENDING
BRAKE.
NOW THE GLUE QUESTION YOU
ALL
HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR,
WHICH IS BEST WEST SYSTEMS
OR
T-88 CAN'T WEST SYSTEMS
BE USED TO PRE
SATURATE
WOOD WITH EPOXY WOULDN'T THIS
BE STRONGER BECAUSE OF LOWER
VICOUSITY AND WOOD PENETRATION? ALSO
I'M
PLANNINIG ON USING 6056 RATED 3MM
OKOUME ON THE SIDES OF
FUSLELAGE, LEFT UNCOVERD, EPOXY
COATED THEN VARNISHED LIKE A
BOAT. I HAD A COUPLE OF
MARINE
SUPPLY HOUSES SEND ME SAMPLE'S AND
THAT
STUFF IS
GREAT. ALSO BENDABLE (KEEP IT
HUSH
OR THE PRICE A GO UP)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LanhamOS(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: For John McNarry |
Thanks for the web site. I logged on. Am glad you have a Lysander. How many
are left?
Thanks for encouraging the guy with the Ford Engine. Some put them down,
but Bernie new someting! Do you have the vendor in Colfax, Iowa who has lots
of parts?
Peace. Orville
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: catpm\Lysander |
Hi Orville
I am always amazed at how far a little encouagement can go. Years ago whe I
first decided to build a Piet I thought a Cirrus engine would be perfect for one.
I
never ever thought I'd own one. It seems that if you do your good deeds it
always comes back! Perhaps not in the way you thought it would but it always
happens.
The Lysander we have at the museum is static display only and is
actually in pretty sad shape. There is one in Assiniboia Saskatchewan that is
almost flight ready. The same gentleman also has a Hurricane. He has been
very helpful with the museum and helped us find the Cessna Crane.
I don't know many of the U.S. Model A dealers but there are lots of
places to buy parts the hard part is to find some one to do babbiting.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dswagler(at)cobkf.ang.af.mil |
| Subject: | Definition of babbeting |
Three quick questions.
1. What, exactly, is babbeting? Why is it so hard to find someone to do
it?
2. Are there any Piet builders/fliers who will build up an "A" for another
builder? I realize that may not be purist enough for some, but I'd like to
know.
dms
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | How much does it cost. |
Ok then how much does it cost to build an "A" engine for the piet.
Still wanna build one.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Janine Sunlin <Janine.Sunlin(at)Eng.Sun.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: Definition of babbeting |
Contact a Model A supplier and they can do it for you. That is what we did. I
don't remember what it costs.
Try this Web site:
http://members.aol.com/bhurlin/bhurlin/Main/links.htm#Model A Links
Jay
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 15:39:13 -0600
> From: dswagler(at)cobkf.ang.af.mil
> Subject: Definition of babbeting
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> MIME-version: 1.0
> X-Listname:
>
> Three quick questions.
>
> 1. What, exactly, is babbeting? Why is it so hard to find someone to do
> it?
>
> 2. Are there any Piet builders/fliers who will build up an "A" for another
> builder? I realize that may not be purist enough for some, but I'd like to
> know.
>
> dms
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LanhamOS(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Definition of babbeting |
Babbeting is the process of putting bearing surfaces in connecting
rods. Most modern engines have connecting rods with replacable bearing
surfaces. The process is a delicate one of pouring the bearing material on the
rod, and rod cap. If you know of a Ford Model A specialist, I am sure they can
steer you to a shop where this is done. Incidentally, Chevrolet used poured
rods in its famous 6 cylinder engine into the mid 1950's.
Orville Lanham
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
| Subject: | Re: How much does it cost. |
I had planned on using a Corvair, but i, too would like to know how
much an 'A' can be bought/built for. The choice of a Corvair is not
yet set in stone for me.
> Ok then how much does it cost to build an "A" engine for the piet.
>
> Still wanna build one.
> Steve
-------------------------------------------------
Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
Pietenpols: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Definition of babbeting |
________________________________________________________________________________
Send reply to: Pietenpol Discussion
> Three quick questions.
>
> 1. What, exactly, is babbeting? Why is it so hard to find someone to do
> it?
>
> 2. Are there any Piet builders/fliers who will build up an "A" for another
> builder? I realize that may not be purist enough for some, but I'd like to
> know.
>
> dms
>
Babbeting is replacing the soft bearing alloy that carrys the crankshaft and
lines the coonecting rod bores. It is not that it is terribly hard to do but that
it is
fairly labour intensive and you need to have the tools for the job. I'm sure that
any Model A Ford Club of America menber would know who does it in your
area. There is a link to the MAFCA on the BPA website.
John McNarry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: How much does it cost. |
________________________________________________________________________________
Send reply to: Pietenpol Discussion
> Ok then how much does it cost to build an "A" engine for the piet.
>
> Still wanna build one.
> Steve
How good of a scrounger are you? };-) I did an engine completely with new
pistons and valves for about $1000 Cdn. but that was 12 yrs. ago
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cirrus engine in a Pietenpol. |
To John McNarry and the historically-minded among us:
It's been done before. My boss, who owned Associated Airways and
Associated Helicopters in Edmonton from 1945 until, I believe, the
late 1960's, hailed from Vancouver where he and a partner built a Piet
during the 1930's. It was powered by a Cirrus engine and flew very
well.
His name is Tom Fox and he is a member of the Canadian Aviation
Hall Of Fame. He died about 2 1/2 years ago, of old age (somewhat
remarkable, considering the hazardous nature of some of his activities
over the years).
When I started building mine around 1959, I was in his employ as
a helicopter pilot/engineer. He was quite interested in the fact that
I had chosen a Pietenpol and told me some stories of their adven-
tures (and misadventures) with their a/c.
I remember him saying that it seemed to be a bit on the "hot" side,
having a higher than expected landing speed. Someone suggested
that this was likely due to the absence of false ribs at the wing leading
edge, allowing the fabric to sag between the ribs resulting in a thinner
airfoil section overall (I don't know what sort of leading edge skin they
had). Anyway, he said they reworked the wing leading edge to correct
this condition, and found no noticeable improvement. All that work for
nothing!
He also said a pilot (not him) ran it through a ditch, shearing off the
landing gear without damaging much else. A testimonial to the tough-
ness of the Pietenpol wooden fuselage, to be sure. After a couple of
years, they sold the airplane and Tommy (we always called him that)
had started on a long and successful aviation career. To learn more
about him, one can peruse the CAHF account of his career. And the
Canadian Aviation Historical Society's publication THE CANADIAN
CIVIL AIRCRAFT REGISTER, 1929 - 1945 provides some information
about their Pietenpol. If my memory serves me correctly (not always
the case these days), it's registration marks were CF-ATU.
So, John and the rest of you Pietenpol enthusiasts out there, there is
a precedent of a Cirrus- powered Pietenpol.
Cheers,
Graham Hansen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Winkel <rwinkel(at)i2k.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How much does it cost. |
Steve W wrote:
> Ok then how much does it cost to build an "A" engine for the piet.
>
> Still wanna build one.
> Steve
When I first got interested in the Piet two years ago, I talked about
"A" engines with a friend who is restoring a Model A and belongs to all
the right clubs (and there are a lot of Model A fans out there).I got
the impression the Model A engines are plentiful, and that there is a
rather large group of folks supporting these engines. ie, there is much
current help and information to be had.
I came away with the conclusion that I could probably get an "A" in good
rebuilt condition for around $1500. Then I'd have to do the aircraft
conversion.
I never went beyond that point with the "A" since I decided to go the
"non-A" route with my aircraft. However I did begin to suspect that
even in 1998, and Model A engine might be one of the best bargains
around in aircraft engines!
Dick Winkel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | joe czaplicki <fishin(at)pop.wwa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How much does it cost. |
>Ok then how much does it cost to build an "A" engine for the piet.
>
>Still wanna build one.
>Steve
>
If it's any help to you. there's an outfit in Skokie Ill called Antique
Engine Rebuilding, tel # 847-674-6716, that will rebuild a Model A or T
short block for $1195.00. They've done several Pietenpol modifications
(cut-off & drill crank for mag adaption & face off timing gears) for an
additional $123.00.
A good outfit to deal with.
Happy Building
Joe C
Zion, Ill>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Cirrus engine in a Pietenpol. |
________________________________________________________________________________
Send reply to: Pietenpol Discussion
Graham:
Thank you very much for the information! I appreciate it very much. I don't know
why the engine should make the aircraft land hot. Any of you experienced Piet
drivers out there have ideas as to why? The testimony to the strength of the
fuselage is one of the reasons I choose the design in the first place.
Thanks again Graham
John McNarry
> To John McNarry and the historically-minded among us:
>
> It's been done before. My boss, who owned Associated Airways and
> Associated Helicopters in Edmonton from 1945 until, I believe, the
> late 1960's, hailed from Vancouver where he and a partner built a Piet
> during the 1930's. It was powered by a Cirrus engine and flew very
> well.
>
> His name is Tom Fox and he is a member of the Canadian Aviation
> Hall Of Fame. He died about 2 1/2 years ago, of old age (somewhat
> remarkable, considering the hazardous nature of some of his activities
> over the years).
>
> When I started building mine around 1959, I was in his employ as
> a helicopter pilot/engineer. He was quite interested in the fact that
> I had chosen a Pietenpol and told me some stories of their adven-
> tures (and misadventures) with their a/c.
>
> I remember him saying that it seemed to be a bit on the "hot" side,
> having a higher than expected landing speed. Someone suggested
> that this was likely due to the absence of false ribs at the wing leading
> edge, allowing the fabric to sag between the ribs resulting in a thinner
> airfoil section overall (I don't know what sort of leading edge skin they
> had). Anyway, he said they reworked the wing leading edge to correct
> this condition, and found no noticeable improvement. All that work for
> nothing!
>
> He also said a pilot (not him) ran it through a ditch, shearing off the
> landing gear without damaging much else. A testimonial to the tough-
> ness of the Pietenpol wooden fuselage, to be sure. After a couple of
> years, they sold the airplane and Tommy (we always called him that)
> had started on a long and successful aviation career. To learn more
> about him, one can peruse the CAHF account of his career. And the
> Canadian Aviation Historical Society's publication THE CANADIAN
> CIVIL AIRCRAFT REGISTER, 1929 - 1945 provides some information
> about their Pietenpol. If my memory serves me correctly (not always
> the case these days), it's registration marks were CF-ATU.
>
> So, John and the rest of you Pietenpol enthusiasts out there, there is
> a precedent of a Cirrus- powered Pietenpol.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Graham Hansen
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)mailexcite.com> |
After looking into conversions of the models a, or b Ford for the engine for my
ace,I spoke to my my brother in law,and he suggested that i consider the WWII
jeep engine known as the 134L flat head. He said that It is very close in appearance
to the model a,has 4 cyl, and it has a much more modern bottom end.
He also said that the 134L was designed as a long throw slow turning high torque
engine.And that unlike the Ford models a, or b, these jeep engines are widly
available, also that carbs are better, pistons stronger, and no poured babbet
bearings...etc...etc...
Does anybody have any thoughts on this? The 134L flat head seems at first to be
a good idea....
I'lll be looking more deeply into the engine, and will write in what I find.
bob
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | baileys(at)ktis.net (Robert M. Bailey) |
If this is anything like the tractor engine I bet it is a lot heavier.
Bob B.
> From: oil can <oilcanbob(at)mailexcite.com>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: 134L head
> Date: Monday, June 15, 1998 2:58 PM
>
> After looking into conversions of the models a, or b Ford for the engine
for my ace,I spoke to my my brother in law,and he suggested that i consider
the WWII je
> ep engine known as the 134L flat head. He said that It is very close in
appearance to the model a,has 4 cyl, and it has a much more modern bottom
end.
>
> He also said that the 134L was designed as a long throw slow turning high
torque engine.And that unlike the Ford models a, or b, these jeep engines
are widly available, also that carbs are better, pistons stronger, and no
poured babbet bearings...etc...etc...
>
> Does anybody have any thoughts on this? The 134L flat head seems at first
to be a good idea....
>
> I'lll be looking more deeply into the engine, and will write in what I
find.
>
> bob
>
>
> http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Corvair Engine: Redrive |
Hi guys:
Just came across some information that is new to me, and I thought I would
share it.
at http://www.west.net~vertsys/ you will find a description of a
very interesting and CHEAP redrive system specifically for the Corvair enging,
using a VW bus / transporter stepdown gear drive gear assembly. Have spoken to
both the origional designer and the present plans seller....this seems to be a
very simple, readily available and hell-for-stout assembly.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Corvair Redrive: correct address |
Sorry guys:
The correct address is http://www.west.net/~vertsys/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
________________________________________________________________________________
Send reply to: Pietenpol Discussion
Bob/Oilcan: It would probably work carefully weigh it and have a look at the
rear main bearing for diameter and length. There was a Sky Scout at Brodhead
using a Star car engine of similar size to the Jeep. Consider also that the Fords
are 200 cu in " there ain't no replacement for displacement!"
J Mc
> After looking into conversions of the models a, or b Ford for the engine for
my ace,I spoke to my my brother in law,and he suggested that i consider the WWII
je
> ep engine known as the 134L flat head. He said that It is very close in appearance
to the model a,has 4 cyl, and it has a much more modern bottom end.
>
> He also said that the 134L was designed as a long throw slow turning high torque
engine.And that unlike the Ford models a, or b, these jeep engines are widly
available, also that carbs are better, pistons stronger, and no poured babbet
bearings...etc...etc...
>
> Does anybody have any thoughts on this? The 134L flat head seems at first to
be a good idea....
>
> I'lll be looking more deeply into the engine, and will write in what I find.
>
> bob
>
>
> http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
| Subject: | crankshafts/prop hubs |
Does anyone out there know the dimensions for tapered crankshafts? I believe
they are sized to different propellor hubs as SAE standards but haven't been
able to find the sizes locally.
Thanks, John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: crankshafts/prop hubs |
The engine Type Certificate Data Sheet has that info. Continental A65 and C85
have SAE 0 taper. I'm not sure where to get the specs for the SAE 0 taper. It's
not in the Machinery Handbook. Try going to the SAE web sight and e-mailing
someone there.
McNarry, John wrote:
> Does anyone out there know the dimensions for tapered crankshafts? I believe
> they are sized to different propellor hubs as SAE standards but haven't been
> able to find the sizes locally.
>
> Thanks, 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: | RE: Change of email address |
Done!
Steve
-----Original Message-----
Malcolm Morrison
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 9:19 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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: | jcmjones <jcmjones(at)mci2000.com> |
Piet chat group,
I am very interested in constructing a Piet AirCamper as it is obviously
a proven design with an excellent support group (i.e. BPA and this
list). However, I am concerned about possible performance problems here
in Colorado. The density altitude can get really ugly here! Is anyone
out ther currently building and or flying a piet in Colorado? I would
really apreciate any information that you can provide.
Thanks,
Jim Jones
jcmjones(at)mci2000.com
Piet chat group,
I am very interested in constructing
a Piet
AirCamper as it is obviously a proven design with an excellent support
group
(i.e. BPA and this list). However, I am concerned about possible
performance problems here in Colorado. The density altitude can
get really
ugly here! Is anyone out ther currently building and or flying a
piet in
Colorado? I would really apreciate any information that you can
provide.
Thanks,
Jim Jones
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Everyone <wtalbert(at)flash.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PIETS OUT WEST |
Did I miss something? this note is bare.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry L. Neal" <llneal(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PIETS OUT WEST |
Take a look at the bottom edge.
You must have torn it when opening the window and all the data ran out.
Please try to be more careful!
Larry
Everyone wrote:
> Did I miss something? this note is bare.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PIETS OUT WEST |
> Well, folks, mine was completely empty too!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jcmjones <jcmjones(at)mci2000.com> |
| Subject: | PIETS OUT WEST (TAKE 2) |
Piet chat group,
I am very interested in constructing a Piet AirCamper as it is obviously
a proven design with an excellent support group (i.e. BPA and this
list). However, I am concerned about possible performance problems here
in Colorado. The density altitude can get really ugly here! Is anyone
out ther currently building and or flying a piet in Colorado? I would
really apreciate any information that you can provide.
Thanks,
Jim Jones
jcmjones(at)mci2000.com
Piet chat group,
I am very interested in constructing
a Piet
AirCamper as it is obviously a proven design with an excellent support
group
(i.e. BPA and this list). However, I am concerned about possible
performance problems here in Colorado. The density altitude can
get really
ugly here! Is anyone out ther currently building and or flying a
piet in
Colorado? I would really apreciate any information that you can
provide.
Thanks,
Jim Jones
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jcmjones <jcmjones(at)mci2000.com> |
| Subject: | PIETS IN COLORADO |
Piet chat group,
I am very interested in constructing a Piet AirCamper as it is obviously
a proven design with an excellent support group (i.e. BPA and this
list). However, I am concerned about possible performance problems here
in Colorado. The density altitude can get really ugly here! Is anyone
out ther currently building and or flying a piet in Colorado? I would
really apreciate any information that you can provide.
Thanks,
Jim Jones
jcmjones(at)mci2000.com
Piet chat group,
I am very interested in constructing
a Piet
AirCamper as it is obviously a proven design with an excellent support
group
(i.e. BPA and this list). However, I am concerned about possible
performance problems here in Colorado. The density altitude can
get really
ugly here! Is anyone out ther currently building and or flying a
piet in
Colorado? I would really apreciate any information that you can
provide.
Thanks,
Jim Jones
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: PIETS IN COLORADO |
All this blank space.....must be running out before you send it ;)
---jcmjones wrote:
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PIETS OUT WEST (TAKE 2) |
Well Mr. Jones, you must have some of that Bill Gates invisible ink,
'cause there just ain't anything there, and there just ain't any
attachments noted to go searching for, at least not on the Netscape
files.
Appreciate the effort.
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Everyone <wtalbert(at)flash.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PIETS OUT WEST (TAKE 2) |
jcmjones wrote:
Hey, this one is twice as empty. Now I know how old Mother Hubbard felt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Everyone <wtalbert(at)flash.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PIETS IN COLORADO |
jcmjones wrote:
Cool, I white piet flying in a snowstorm.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jcmjones <jcmjones(at)mci2000.com> |
| Subject: | PROSPECTIVE BUILDER |
I'M LOOKING FOR BUILDERS AND PILOTS OF PIETS IN COLORADO. HOW IS THE
PERFORMANCE OUT HERE?
THANKS
I'M LOOKING FOR BUILDERS AND PILOTS OF PIETS IN
COLORADO. HOW IS THE PERFORMANCE OUT HERE?
THANKS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PROSPECTIVE BUILDER |
"Hope you a current with your instrument rating if you insist on flying
in this white-out" he said with a mischievous grin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Hannan <hannan(at)iinet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: PIETS OUT WEST |
Jim resend mail in plain text format.
Piet chat group,
I am very interested in constructing a Piet AirCamper as it is obviously
a proven design with an excellent support group (i.e. BPA and this
list). However, I am concerned about possible performance problems here
in Colorado. The density altitude can get really ugly here! Is anyone
out ther currently building and or flying a piet in Colorado? I would
really apreciate any information that you can provide.
Thanks,
Jim Jones
jcmjones(at)mci2000.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | White piet in the soup. |
Steve here. I caught Jim's message and cut and pasted it here. He is
sending it in mime format for some reason. I think because his mailer is
groupwise. Some of your responses had me rolling on the floor. Hee hee
haah!
Piet chat group,
I am very interested in constructing a Piet AirCamper as it is obviously
a proven design with an excellent support group (i.e. BPA and this
list). However, I am concerned about possible performance problems here
in Colorado. The density altitude can get really ugly here! Is anyone
out ther currently building and or flying a piet in Colorado? I would
really apreciate any information that you can provide.
Thanks,
Jim Jones
Just for the record, I grew up in CO and my home in Metro Denver was at
about 5400' I now live in Utah at 4500' and still feel the performance is
sufficient with the a-65 at this altitude. With two 200 pounders on board
and 70 degrees, climb suffers noticably, but you still are safe. Monday I
had mine up to 10,000' MSL solo, it was nearly 80 on the ground. Not bad.
Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
I would be willing to continue ith our plans to build a Piet if maybe
yall know where an "A-65" is not too pricey and in good condition. We
live in Mississippi and it would be great to fly one here.
Someone has built a ww1 copy of something and theres other oldies under
construction so our "Piet" would fit right in.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jcmjones <jcmjones(at)mci2000.com> |
| Subject: | Re: PIETS OUT WEST (PLAIN TEXT) |
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Hannan <hannan(at)iinet.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 17, 1998 8:26 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: PIETS OUT WEST
>Jim resend mail in plain text format.
>
> Piet chat group,
>
>I am very interested in constructing a Piet AirCamper as it is obviously a
proven design with an excellent support group (i.e. BPA and this list).
However, I am concerned about possible performance problems here in
Colorado. The density altitude can get really ugly here! Is anyone out
ther currently building and or flying a piet in Colorado? I would really
apreciate any information that you can provide.
Thanks,
Jim Jones
jcmjones(at)mci2000.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PIETS OUT WEST (PLAIN TEXT) |
Hi Jim:
I am building a long-fuselage Piet, and I fully expect to use it as a real
Air Camper out here in the West, including to some high and hot places.
With that thought in mind, I bought a 4 cylinder Geo-Metro engine with
14,000 miles for $650.00, and am adding a water-cooled turbo from the Subaru,
thru the fuel injection system plans from Swag Aero. Guys, Grant will
probably cancel my subscription to the Piet Newsletter when he hears about
this, and many of you may be cringing out there about now, and I have to tell
you, the layout here is about as simple as baking one of those cut and slice
frozen cookie deals. Like every other part of this experience, just break it
down to the next simple step, and DO IT, and gee-whiz, look where you've
arrived. This set-up will give me great and reliable horsepower and just sips
gas....hard to believe Bernie would have a hissy-fit over those ideas!
Best Regards,
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Peck <crusader(at)thegrid.net> |
I just got back from Seattle Wash. to see some old friends and while
taking the bus down town saw the Museum of Flight out of the window. Of
course the next day I made every one stop to check it out. I was the
only one interested in airplanes so they all whipped though it quickly
but i drug my heels as much as I could ! If that doesn't help to get one
inspired about building a piet I don't know what would. Some pretty
neat stuff. If any of you get a chance to go don't miss it. Just leave
every one else home !
--
Check out Crusader Toys @
http://www.thegrid.net/crusader/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William C. Beerman" <wcb(at)bbt.com> |
| Subject: | Landing gear questions |
The time has come to begin construction of the landing gear for
our Aircamper (extended fuselage for the Corvair / Continental)
engine, and a discussion has begun within our three man building
team regarding the best landing gear arrangement to use. We had
always planned on using the original gear shown on the plans, but
someone suggested using a modified Cub-type gear.
I spoke with Don Pietenpol to ask about the Cub-style landing gear
on the "Last Original". He said this was an experiment performed by
his father to allow improved braking performance (i.e. one could apply
the brakes at 40 mph during a wheel landing).
He claims that the ground handling is easier with the original design
because the wheels are further back, and "bad landings" result in a flat
bounce, rather than resulting in steep nose-up bounces. He says that
everything's fine with the original gear, provided that you always stick
the tail down before applying the brakes. He claims no problems with
full-power runups.
There are no plans available from Don for the Cub-style landing gear.
On the other hand, we located an article that claims acceptable width for
a conventional type landing gear is between 15-20% of the wing span, which for
the Piet works out to be 55 1/2" - 74". The original landing gear is 56" wide.
Is anyone currently flying with the original gear who can provide some performance
info.? Has anyone built the Cub-style gear or know of plans for such? I don't know
what the purported advantages of this gear design might be except that it may
be a little wider. Any help is appreciated!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear questions |
William
You will want to look at a set of Grega GN-1 plans....which are the adaptation
of
the Cub gear to the Pietenpol....also speak with anyone currently flying a Grega
for
real life performance experiences.
Best Regards,
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear questions |
Speaking of landing gear, does anyone know where to find wheels and brakes at
an affordable price? The cost of these items seems to have gone up in just
the last year.
Thanks
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Cardinal <CARDIGJ(at)mail.startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear questions -Reply |
I can't help with the brake issue but the cost for wire spoked wheels is
as follows:
18" alloy rims - $ 20.00 ea. from salvage
9 gage stainless spokes - $ 160.00 from Buchanan's for complete set
Hubs - $30.00 ea from Henderson's plans and farmed out welds
Tires - $ 30.00 ea from JC Whitney
Greg Cardinal
>>> 06/18/98 08:18am >>>
Speaking of landing gear, does anyone know where to find wheels and
brakes at
an affordable price? The cost of these items seems to have gone up in
just
the last year.
Thanks
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Landing gear questions |
Is anyone currently flying with the original gear who can provide some
performance
info.? Has anyone built the Cub-style gear or know of plans for such? I
don't know
what the purported advantages of this gear design might be except that it
may
be a little wider. Any help is appreciated!
I am flying with the split gear with 600x6 mains. They are quite sturdy,
but making sure that the bungies are tight is important. I did my first
flights with them fairly loose. Made for great soft landings, but when I
started adding weight to the front seat, the plane began to waddle during
taxi. The cords didn't have enought wraps to keep the gear stout and the
plane would swim between the stops. Not at all comforting. Tightening the
bungies made all the difference in the world. I also have hydraulic brakes
so I move the axles 4.5 inches forward. With the short fuse, and a light
engine A-65 this puts about 50 lbs of pressure on the tailwheel without a
pilot. YOu may ask so what if your CG is correct. Well I am here to tell
you that on your first hard tailwheel plant landing, you will likely bend up
the a-frame. I did. Twice. The fix was to strengthen the tailwheel frame
by using 3/4" .049 4130 instead of the 5/8" .035 and add a cross brace to
make an "A" rather than a "V". I have the correct set up now and it works,
but doing it over again I would build the long fuse, and position the gear
only about 2.5 inches forward of the plans if I used brakes. Just goes to
show you how making one change causes a ripple effect. Check
http://www.matcomfg.com for brakes and wheels.
Steve E
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear questions -Reply |
Greg
I did basically the same thing....but I got the older internal brake hubs too,
including the rims, for $40.00 each at salvage...the Honda Trail 90 or the Kawasaki
250
both are good....and Buchanan did a really great job....the stats on the 9 guage
stainless steel spokes are that EACH spoke can pull 1000 pounds! These spokes
are the
upgrade for the pro off-road bikes that take enormous poundings...should be able
to take
anything except a vertical crash!
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Jim- I have been in contact with a super guy named John Dilatush
(probably spelled wrong) who's doing an immaculate job on a short
fuse Subaru powered Pietenpol. I don't have his address at work here
but I'll try to post it in the next few days. John isn't on e-mail so you'll
have to write him. He lives about 140 mi. SW of Denver in Salida.
Retired guy who's been flying for 50 years. Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Stevee wrote: With the short fuse, and a light
>engine A-65 this puts about 50 lbs of pressure on the tailwheel without a
>pilot. YOu may ask so what if your CG is correct. Well I am here to tell
>you that on your first hard tailwheel plant landing, you will likely bend up
>the a-frame. I did. Twice. The fix was to strengthen the tailwheel frame
>by using 3/4" .049 4130 instead of the 5/8" .035 and add a cross brace to
>make an "A" rather than a "V". I have the correct set up now and it works,
Yes ! I've talked to more guys who have had failures of this design on
their first taxi tests or flights. Good advice to beef this up- and it
would not hurt to add some plywood along the longerons on one or
both sides (of each longeron) where this affair bolts to the airframe.
Frank P. and another guy in Toledo had theirs rip right thru the wood
a few years back when 1) Frank hit a drainage cover 2) the other guy
did it going from grass onto a sharp edge of pavement.
I must add that Frank uses a titanium shoe (skid with no keel) MC
( I avoided the whole issue by installing a two part leaf spring which
provides a nice ride on those plywood seats. I 'blocked in' that whole
area between the bottom longerons w/ a triangle of poplar too beef it
up before I bolted the spring on. I'm using a 6" diam. solid rubber
tailwheel and during the weight and balance the level flight empty
weight at the tail was 12.8 lbs. I'm sure Stevee's data is pretty close
to that if not less.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Cardinal <CARDIGJ(at)mail.startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear questions -Reply -Reply |
Warren,
What are the hub dimensions?
Width between spoke flanges and flange thickness?
Greg C.
P.S. I forgot to include $ 4.00 each for brass grease cups from Little
Dearborn in Minneapolis.
>>> "Warren D. Shoun" 06/18/98 09:28am >>>
Greg
I did basically the same thing....but I got the older internal brake
hubs too,
including the rims, for $40.00 each at salvage...the Honda Trail 90 or the
Kawasaki 250
both are good....and Buchanan did a really great job....the stats on the 9
guage
stainless steel spokes are that EACH spoke can pull 1000 pounds! These
spokes are the
upgrade for the pro off-road bikes that take enormous poundings...should
be able to take
anything except a vertical crash!
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear questions -Reply -Reply |
Greg
I used the Honda Trail 90 Hubs. These are machined hard aluminum alloy castings.
The hub has
the following approximate dimensions.
6" diameter.
4" thick at the center bearings
5" thick with axle spacers
1 5/8" between the spoke flanges
5/16" to 1/8" tapered spoke flange 5/8" high.
I have taken the time to completely finish polish these hubs, removing any
possible pit or
fracture point.
Buchanans is about 6 miles from my home, so based on my reading of Piet Newsletters,
I asked
the guys at Buchanans about side loads on this wheel assembly. They treated me
with the kindness
one shows the helplessly ignorant and truly retarded, and explained that when they
finish truing up
and properly tensioning a spoked wheel with 9 gauge stainless steel spokes, the
hub will fracture
and disintegrate before the wheel will deform, as the wheel is rotating and that
this is a 36 spoke
wheel, and that each of at least the 10 spokes top and 10 spokes bottom are continuously
absorbing
up to 1000 pounds each of compression, extension and lateral loads. This is in
addition to the
shock absorption of the bungee cords. It was their opinion that the only way I
can over side-load
these spokes is if I insist on landing in a side slip with the brakes fully locked-up
on touch
down.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear questions |
________________________________________________________________________________
Send reply to: Pietenpol Discussion
> Speaking of landing gear, does anyone know where to find wheels and brakes at
> an affordable price? The cost of these items seems to have gone up in just
> the last year.
> Thanks
> Mike
Mike: I used alloy rimed magnesium hubed 21" dirt bike wheels. If you look
around at bikes you will find some use a steel flange for the spokes opposite
the brake drum. I decided how wide I wanted the hubs and swung an arc drawn
to scale on paper to represent the spoke length. The radius change from the
axle center line determined the diameter for the new spoke flange. I made a
spacer to position the flange. The spoke tension as well as the flanges screws
keep it in place. I bored out the hubs and pressed in brone bushings for a 1
1/2" axle. I wouldn't feel comfortable with out brakes on hard surface near other
expensive aircraft on the ramp!
John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: PIETS OUT WEST (PLAIN TEXT) |
________________________________________________________________________________
Send reply to: Pietenpol Discussion
> Hi Jim:
> I am building a long-fuselage Piet, and I fully expect to use it as a real
> Air Camper out here in the West, including to some high and hot places.
> With that thought in mind, I bought a 4 cylinder Geo-Metro engine with
> 14,000 miles for $650.00, and am adding a water-cooled turbo from the Subaru,
> thru the fuel injection system plans from Swag Aero. Guys, Grant will
> probably cancel my subscription to the Piet Newsletter when he hears about
> this, and many of you may be cringing out there about now, and I have to tell
> you, the layout here is about as simple as baking one of those cut and slice
> frozen cookie deals. Like every other part of this experience, just break it
> down to the next simple step, and DO IT, and gee-whiz, look where you've
> arrived. This set-up will give me great and reliable horsepower and just sips
> gas....hard to believe Bernie would have a hissy-fit over those ideas!
> Best Regards,
> Warren
>
I never met Bernie, but I think he would be happy that a bunch of us are still
experimenting with his
design. I appreciate Grants positon that if you deviate from the plans then it
isn't really a "Pietenpol". It sure is nice to see some exact replicas around.
There is a certain beauty in the simple elegance of a good design. But by gum
experimenting is fun!
John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PIETS OUT WEST (PLAIN TEXT) |
Hi John Mc:
Thanks for your comments. Had no intention of sounding critical. I very much
appreciate the patience
and detail that many guys have gone to in making exact replicas of the Ford powered
Piets...and they
really are beauties to behold...
Kind of like religious tolerance I guess...if you enjoy it...allow it for others.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: PIETS OUT WEST (PLAIN TEXT) |
________________________________________________________________________________
Send reply to: Pietenpol Discussion
> Hi John Mc:
> Thanks for your comments. Had no intention of sounding critical. I very
much appreciate the patience
> and detail that many guys have gone to in making exact replicas of the Ford powered
Piets...and they
> really are beauties to behold...
> Kind of like religious tolerance I guess...if you enjoy it...allow it for
others.
>
Me neither, I didn't take your comments as being critical. I really like the sound
of a Ford A wether in a
Piet or in a car or truck. I guess I was just poking a little fun at Grant. He
sure
does a great job of the Newsletter.
J Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
Hey Guys- I was just wondering if anyone has,or has used the Henrob
2000 torch(or Dillon torch). I am in the market for one and was
reasonably impressed with their display at Sun-N Fun...
Paris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Owen Davies <owen(at)davies.mv.com> |
>Hey Guys- I was just wondering if anyone has,or has used the Henrob
>2000 torch(or Dillon torch
Yup. It took a little getting used to after learning
with the Victor and Harris torches used in the workshops
at Lakeland. However, it's a great torch. That soft,
narrow flame puts the heat exactly where you want it,
and it's very controllable. The one inherent problem
is the pistol grip. In a tight cluster, it sometimes gets
in the way. It also puts your had awfully close to the
heat when you are using a big flame. You can live
with it.
Of course, the other disadvantage is the price. However,
it does not look so bad when you consider the cost of
tips for other torches. With the Henrob, you get them all
with the kit. The smallest tip is almost good for jewelry.
The largest could probably be used for rebuilding bulldozer
blades; one guy told me it was even too big for that.
One hint: If you do go with the Henrob, pick up an extra
#1 tip, and open it out with a #72 drill. The #1 tip is just
a bit too small for .035-wall tubing, while the #2 is too
large. The modified tip is perfect.
Also, you might consider the Harris aircraft-style torch.
They now offer a special mixer and tips that give a
Henrob-style flame on a traditional torch. I recently
bought one instead of the Henrob. Have not had time
to use it yet, but I have seen it in action, and it looked
very good indeed. I like the pencil-bodied torches a
little better than the pistol grip and saw no reason to
buy a cutting head I did not expect to use.
But if you do buy a Henrob, I doubt you'll be sorry.
Owen Davies
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
Gentlemen,
I am not familiar with the Henrob. However, I bought a Smith Airweight,
apparantly the classic aircraft torch that has been around forever. It is
very good. Light, easy to handle, and lifetime warranty. I got each tip
and find the full selection necessary. A cutting head is made for this
torch, but I do not have one. You might consider this one as well.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Owen Davies <owen(at)davies.mv.com>
Date: Thursday, June 18, 1998 10:28 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Welding
>>Hey Guys- I was just wondering if anyone has,or has used the Henrob
>>2000 torch(or Dillon torch
>
>Yup. It took a little getting used to after learning
>with the Victor and Harris torches used in the workshops
>at Lakeland. However, it's a great torch. That soft,
>narrow flame puts the heat exactly where you want it,
>and it's very controllable. The one inherent problem
>is the pistol grip. In a tight cluster, it sometimes gets
>in the way. It also puts your had awfully close to the
>heat when you are using a big flame. You can live
>with it.
>
>Of course, the other disadvantage is the price. However,
>it does not look so bad when you consider the cost of
>tips for other torches. With the Henrob, you get them all
>with the kit. The smallest tip is almost good for jewelry.
>The largest could probably be used for rebuilding bulldozer
>blades; one guy told me it was even too big for that.
>
>One hint: If you do go with the Henrob, pick up an extra
>#1 tip, and open it out with a #72 drill. The #1 tip is just
>a bit too small for .035-wall tubing, while the #2 is too
>large. The modified tip is perfect.
>
>Also, you might consider the Harris aircraft-style torch.
>They now offer a special mixer and tips that give a
>Henrob-style flame on a traditional torch. I recently
>bought one instead of the Henrob. Have not had time
>to use it yet, but I have seen it in action, and it looked
>very good indeed. I like the pencil-bodied torches a
>little better than the pistol grip and saw no reason to
>buy a cutting head I did not expect to use.
>
>But if you do buy a Henrob, I doubt you'll be sorry.
>
>Owen Davies
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Cardinal <CARDIGJ(at)mail.startribune.com> |
No personal experience but there was a recent discussion in rec.crafts.meta=
lworking regarding this torch. General concensus was positive but some
people felt it was hard to use in tight spots.
Greg C.
>>> Paris Wilcox 06/18/98 08:05pm >>>
Hey Guys- I was just wondering if anyone has,or has used the Henrob
2000 torch(or Dillon torch). I am in the market for one and was
reasonably impressed with their display at Sun-N Fun...
Paris
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Direct Drive Subaru |
Since it is so quiet on the list, I have to comment on the concept of direct
drive and a small engine on a pietenpol.
I ran the numbers on a Model A engine vs. an 1800 cc Subaru and, suprisingly,
they are fairly close.
I used the formula of RPM x torque / 5252 and some assumptions (I know what
assumptions are). I then took the data and applied it to Eric Clutton's book
"Propellor Making For the Amateur". He has some nomagraphs in his book that
appear to be fairly accurate. If any of you are thinking of carving your own
prop, get this book.
At last count, I have carved 6 different props and found that this book is
really worth its weight in spruce - er uh gold. (I currently have 630 hours on
one I carved for my RV6)
If one assumes the Subaru will be turning 2700 RPM with a 74 inch prop at 80
MPH the setup is 73% efficient (not real great but it works). The setup
delivers 41.2 useable horsepower as thrust.
If one assumes a Model A is turning 1800 RPM with an 80 inch prop at 80 MPH,
the setup is 80% efficient. It is delivering 36.0 useable horsepower as thrust.
The nomagraphs do not lend themselves to lower speeds encountered in climb on
a Piet. My experience says that the bigger the prop and slower, the better the
climb. I suspect it would be a close race between the two setups in climb. I'd
put my money on the A.
As far as the crankshaft holding up, I am aware of several direct drive
gyrocopters running Subarus successfully. It seems to be a bulletproof engine.
In a Piet, it will have 2 main drawbacks. Thrust at low speed will be suspect
and it will generate a lot more prop noise.
I really like the idea of being able to use a cheap engine to go flying. I do
not know what I will use yet, but it will probably be like a Subaru. Just
remember, when the FAA makes you put "EXPERIMENTAL" in these things, its for a
reason.
Bob Seibert
RV6 N691RV
Pietenpol Almost On the Gear
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Direct Drive Subaru |
How does the weight of the direct drive Subaru compare to the heavy A?
It might work out o.k. ( I'd be interested in knowing how you come out.) I
wonder if you would run into problems getting the ship up to flying speed.
The Corvair has a similar difficulty i.e. high RPM on the draggy slow old
airframe, but overcomes simply because it has a lot of power to spare. My
understanding is the A works because the power it does make is all in the
slower RPM ranges, in other words more usable on a draggy airframe. I think
the 80mph assumption is a little optimistic. How do the numbers work at
65mph?
I've read that the WWI fighters (draggier even than a Piet) had engines that
made their power at 1500rpm or maybe even less.
Interested in your project.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Seibert
Date: Sunday, June 21, 1998 9:38 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Direct Drive Subaru
>Since it is so quiet on the list, I have to comment on the concept of
direct
>drive and a small engine on a pietenpol.
>I ran the numbers on a Model A engine vs. an 1800 cc Subaru and,
suprisingly,
>they are fairly close.
>I used the formula of RPM x torque / 5252 and some assumptions (I know what
>assumptions are). I then took the data and applied it to Eric Clutton's
book
>"Propellor Making For the Amateur". He has some nomagraphs in his book that
>appear to be fairly accurate. If any of you are thinking of carving your
own
>prop, get this book.
>
>At last count, I have carved 6 different props and found that this book is
>really worth its weight in spruce - er uh gold. (I currently have 630 hours
on
>one I carved for my RV6)
>
>If one assumes the Subaru will be turning 2700 RPM with a 74 inch prop at
80
>MPH the setup is 73% efficient (not real great but it works). The setup
>delivers 41.2 useable horsepower as thrust.
>
>If one assumes a Model A is turning 1800 RPM with an 80 inch prop at 80
MPH,
>the setup is 80% efficient. It is delivering 36.0 useable horsepower as
thrust.
>
>The nomagraphs do not lend themselves to lower speeds encountered in climb
on
>a Piet. My experience says that the bigger the prop and slower, the better
the
>climb. I suspect it would be a close race between the two setups in climb.
I'd
>put my money on the A.
>
>As far as the crankshaft holding up, I am aware of several direct drive
>gyrocopters running Subarus successfully. It seems to be a bulletproof
engine.
>In a Piet, it will have 2 main drawbacks. Thrust at low speed will be
suspect
>and it will generate a lot more prop noise.
>
>I really like the idea of being able to use a cheap engine to go flying. I
do
>not know what I will use yet, but it will probably be like a Subaru. Just
>remember, when the FAA makes you put "EXPERIMENTAL" in these things, its
for a
>reason.
>
>Bob Seibert
>RV6 N691RV
>Pietenpol Almost On the Gear
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Finally got up the nerve to go fly NX48MC on Father's day !!
Wow, to any of you guys in the building process, you will find
that all your toils will be forgotten quickly once in the air.
What a hoot. Just stayed orbiting the airport checking out cruise speeds,
stall break, etc. I need a small alum. trim tab on the rudder since I
didn't offset my motor mount or vertical fin but other than that she
flies pretty nicely. Did 3 landings and spent about 40 min. in the air
total. Didn't want to go to work this morning ! Just wanted to go
out to the airport and play some more !
Mike C.
oh, cruise was about 74 mph and it got mushy around 35 mph !!!!
(if that is accurate)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
Congradulations! Any pictures of the event?
On 22 Jun 98, at 11:40, Michael D Cuy wrote:
> Finally got up the nerve to go fly NX48MC on Father's day !!
> Wow, to any of you guys in the building process, you will find
> that all your toils will be forgotten quickly once in the air.
> What a hoot. Just stayed orbiting the airport checking out cruise
> speeds, stall break, etc. I need a small alum. trim tab on the rudder
> since I didn't offset my motor mount or vertical fin but other than that
> she flies pretty nicely. Did 3 landings and spent about 40 min. in the
> air total. Didn't want to go to work this morning ! Just wanted to go
> out to the airport and play some more !
>
> Mike C.
>
> oh, cruise was about 74 mph and it got mushy around 35 mph !!!!
> (if that is accurate)
Web Developer, http://www.autoeurope.com
Homepage: http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McNarry, John" <Mcnarry(at)assiniboinec.mb.ca> |
________________________________________________________________________________
Send reply to: Pietenpol Discussion
> Finally got up the nerve to go fly NX48MC on Father's day !!
> Wow, to any of you guys in the building process, you will find
> that all your toils will be forgotten quickly once in the air.
> What a hoot. Just stayed orbiting the airport checking out cruise speeds,
> stall break, etc. I need a small alum. trim tab on the rudder since I
> didn't offset my motor mount or vertical fin but other than that she
> flies pretty nicely. Did 3 landings and spent about 40 min. in the air
> total. Didn't want to go to work this morning ! Just wanted to go
> out to the airport and play some more !
>
> Mike C.
>
> oh, cruise was about 74 mph and it got mushy around 35 mph !!!!
> (if that is accurate)
Congradulations Micheal! Thanks for the encouragement to keep on toiling
away at the building process. Had a good look at the photo on the BPA
website.
I really like the tall gear! What tail wheel and spring assembly did you use?
Hope you enjoy building your flight manual as much as you did building the
aircraft.
Happy Landings. John Mc.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>I really like the tall gear! What tail wheel and spring assembly did you use?
>Happy Landings. John Mc.
>
John- I bought a steerable/full swivel 6" diam. solid rubber tailwheel assy.
called 'homebuilders special' from the Aircraft Spruce & Specialty catalog.
The spring is a single leaf 1 1/4" wide you can get from most any catalog
like Wicks, ACSpruce, etc. but it wasn't enough- I had to add a second
smaller leaf on top of the longer one and clamp them together w/ a small
bracket I fabricated. Now mucho better. Was too springy before- and
also that second leaf gives you a chance if either leaf should break-
otherwise the tailwheel would bash up into the rudder and tangle the
cables into a big mess. (I'm told, and I believe)
One distracting sound from the straight axle gear is the axle hitting the
wood ash bottom piece of the landing gear assy. when the bungee's
stretch and relax over bumps.
I quieted that noise with a 3/8" thick rubber pad
glued right down to the ash just beneath where the axle hits.
Richard- got lots of video but the photos I'll have to rely on friends
who where there to loan me the negs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael King <mikek(at)nstar.net> |
Congratulations to you and NX48MC. Looking forward
to hearing more about your new adventures. By the way,
what kind of PIET is it? Is it a "true" PIET complete with
auto engine or is it a Grega with a/c engine and cub gear?
Congratulations again.
Mike King
N21SP
Dallas
>Finally got up the nerve to go fly NX48MC on Father's day !!
>Wow, to any of you guys in the building process, you will find
>that all your toils will be forgotten quickly once in the air.
>What a hoot. Just stayed orbiting the airport checking out cruise speeds,
>stall break, etc. I need a small alum. trim tab on the rudder since I
>didn't offset my motor mount or vertical fin but other than that she
>flies pretty nicely. Did 3 landings and spent about 40 min. in the air
>total. Didn't want to go to work this morning ! Just wanted to go
>out to the airport and play some more !
>
>Mike C.
>
>oh, cruise was about 74 mph and it got mushy around 35 mph !!!!
>(if that is accurate)
>
>
Michael King
The Comedy Wire
Dallas, Texas
http://www.comedy-wire.com
214-905-9299 Phone
214-905-1438 Fax
________________________________________________________________________________
Well done Michael!!!
Welcome the Flying Piet Fraternity (0r PHraternity if you Prephir :))
It sure is blast isn't it...
Take Care,
Stevee
-----Original Message-----
Michael D Cuy
Sent: Monday, June 22, 1998 9:41 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Finally
Finally got up the nerve to go fly NX48MC on Father's day !!
Wow, to any of you guys in the building process, you will find
that all your toils will be forgotten quickly once in the air.
What a hoot. Just stayed orbiting the airport checking out cruise speeds,
stall break, etc. I need a small alum. trim tab on the rudder since I
didn't offset my motor mount or vertical fin but other than that she
flies pretty nicely. Did 3 landings and spent about 40 min. in the air
total. Didn't want to go to work this morning ! Just wanted to go
out to the airport and play some more !
Mike C.
oh, cruise was about 74 mph and it got mushy around 35 mph !!!!
(if that is accurate)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | joe czaplicki <fishin(at)pop.wwa.com> |
KUDO'S TO THAT GUY NAMED CUY!!!!!
I'M GREEN WITH ENVY AND MORE ANXIOUS THAT EVER TO KEEP ON PLUGING AWAY.
THANK'S FOR YOUR PAST INSIGHTS AS MY CONFIGURATION IS THE SAME.
KEEP US UPDATED AS YOU FLY OFF YOUR TEST-FLIGHTS.
MANY HAPPY LANDINGS
JOE C
ZION, ILL
>Finally got up the nerve to go fly NX48MC on Father's day !!
>Wow, to any of you guys in the building process, you will find
>that all your toils will be forgotten quickly once in the air.
>What a hoot. Just stayed orbiting the airport checking out cruise speeds,
>stall break, etc. I need a small alum. trim tab on the rudder since I
>didn't offset my motor mount or vertical fin but other than that she
>flies pretty nicely. Did 3 landings and spent about 40 min. in the air
>total. Didn't want to go to work this morning ! Just wanted to go
>out to the airport and play some more !
>
>Mike C.
>
>oh, cruise was about 74 mph and it got mushy around 35 mph !!!!
>(if that is accurate)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard F. Rapp" <rrapp(at)polymail.cpunix.calpoly.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Direct Drive Subaru |
Hello to the group,
In my travels today I happened by the auto dealership and
discovered the hood open for display of the recent Subaru Legacy models..
Of course the salesman did not have explicit technical information, but I
gleaned a little from the short visit..
The newest model Subarus use an EJ22 which is SOHC 2.2 liter 130hp
and the EJ25 DOHC 2.5 liter which is 160hp.
I didn't bother to ask about turbos and neat stuff like that.
Base price model with smaller of the two engines was 20k and
"Outback" models with the larger 2500cc DOHC engine started at about 2k
more..
Low mileage units are most likely already available in the salvage
yards, but I haven't checked on an engine price yet.
Rich
On Sun, 21 Jun 1998, Seibert wrote:
> Since it is so quiet on the list, I have to comment on the concept of direct
> drive and a small engine on a pietenpol.
> I ran the numbers on a Model A engine vs. an 1800 cc Subaru and, suprisingly,
> they are fairly close.
> I used the formula of RPM x torque / 5252 and some assumptions (I know what
> assumptions are). I then took the data and applied it to Eric Clutton's book
> "Propellor Making For the Amateur". He has some nomagraphs in his book that
> appear to be fairly accurate. If any of you are thinking of carving your own
> prop, get this book.
>
> At last count, I have carved 6 different props and found that this book is
> really worth its weight in spruce - er uh gold. (I currently have 630 hours on
> one I carved for my RV6)
>
> If one assumes the Subaru will be turning 2700 RPM with a 74 inch prop at 80
> MPH the setup is 73% efficient (not real great but it works). The setup
> delivers 41.2 useable horsepower as thrust.
>
> If one assumes a Model A is turning 1800 RPM with an 80 inch prop at 80 MPH,
> the setup is 80% efficient. It is delivering 36.0 useable horsepower as thrust.
>
> The nomagraphs do not lend themselves to lower speeds encountered in climb on
> a Piet. My experience says that the bigger the prop and slower, the better the
> climb. I suspect it would be a close race between the two setups in climb. I'd
> put my money on the A.
>
> As far as the crankshaft holding up, I am aware of several direct drive
> gyrocopters running Subarus successfully. It seems to be a bulletproof engine.
> In a Piet, it will have 2 main drawbacks. Thrust at low speed will be suspect
> and it will generate a lot more prop noise.
>
> I really like the idea of being able to use a cheap engine to go flying. I do
> not know what I will use yet, but it will probably be like a Subaru. Just
> remember, when the FAA makes you put "EXPERIMENTAL" in these things, its for
a
> reason.
>
> Bob Seibert
> RV6 N691RV
> Pietenpol Almost On the Gear
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Peck <crusader(at)thegrid.net> |
Going through some old model magazine's I found Walt Clark's 1/2 scale
Pietenpol. Does anyone out there have an address and price for the
plans as I would like to add it to my collection !
I looked on Grants web site for the info but the pages I wanted to look
at seem only available to AOL customers !
--
Check out Crusader Toys @
http://www.thegrid.net/crusader/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Thanks for the congratulations guys ! To Mike King- my Pietenpol is
a short fuselage, Continental 65 hp powered, straight axle, nose fuel
tank of 17 gallons, tailwheeled with brakes, mostly-to-the-plans from
Don Pietenpol Air Camper. (my English teacher would flip in her grave)
The propeller is a 72-42 by Falcon in Zellwood Fl (whom I'm told have
ceased making props) The engine is basically about 5 hours
SMOH. I don't know what I did but the thing climbs like you cannot
believe. I have to get out my stopwatch and calculate the rate of climb
once I get more used to what speeds give what. I did wax the entire
wing (mostly to make bug wiping off easier) but maybe that cut down
on air friction ?? Who knows, but it's ok with me.
ps- The guy in COLORADO who is building a sharp EA82 fuel
injected, turbocharged, 111 hp @ 4,800 rpm at 7,100 ' elev. is:
John & Jean Dilatush
6780 County Road 104
Salida, CO 81201
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
Mike,
Congratulations! I hope it is as much fun as it sounds. I hope to follow
you maybe this year. Will apply the first fabric this week!
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
Date: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 6:36 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Misc.
>Thanks for the congratulations guys ! To Mike King- my Pietenpol is
>a short fuselage, Continental 65 hp powered, straight axle, nose fuel
>tank of 17 gallons, tailwheeled with brakes, mostly-to-the-plans from
>Don Pietenpol Air Camper. (my English teacher would flip in her grave)
>The propeller is a 72-42 by Falcon in Zellwood Fl (whom I'm told have
>ceased making props) The engine is basically about 5 hours
>SMOH. I don't know what I did but the thing climbs like you cannot
>believe. I have to get out my stopwatch and calculate the rate of climb
>once I get more used to what speeds give what. I did wax the entire
>wing (mostly to make bug wiping off easier) but maybe that cut down
>on air friction ?? Who knows, but it's ok with me.
>
>ps- The guy in COLORADO who is building a sharp EA82 fuel
>injected, turbocharged, 111 hp @ 4,800 rpm at 7,100 ' elev. is:
>
>John & Jean Dilatush
>6780 County Road 104
>Salida, CO 81201
>
>Mike C.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig Lawler <clawler(at)ptd.net> |
Mike,
Congratulations!! You should have just taken off work. Your numbers
sound about right. I put a trim tab on the bottom of my rudder. Should
have put a longer 6 or 8" near to top. Better air flow.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Observations.... |
>Mike,
>
>Congratulations!! You should have just taken off work. Your numbers
>sound about right. I put a trim tab on the bottom of my rudder. Should
>have put a longer 6 or 8" near to top. Better air flow.
>
>Craig
Craig- Thank you ! I also appreciate the note about where to place the
tab because I was going to put it near the bottom but now I won't.
WING CUT-OUT NEWS FLASH: I have a curved wing cut-out
above the cockpit in the center section and I couldn't tell any difference
from how a Piet flies without the cut-out. I felt no turbulence over
the tail (and even looked back at it once I settled down.) The cut-out
I have is not flat or rectangular but curved and faired to a contour.
MC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | scherer2(at)airmail.net (Glenn Scherer) |
| Subject: | Re: Direct Drive Subaru |
>Hello to the group,
>
> In my travels today I happened by the auto dealership and
>discovered the hood open for display of the recent Subaru Legacy
models..
>Of course the salesman did not have explicit technical information, but
I
>gleaned a little from the short visit..
> The newest model Subarus use an EJ22 which is SOHC 2.2 liter 130hp
>and the EJ25 DOHC 2.5 liter which is 160hp.
> I didn't bother to ask about turbos and neat stuff like that.
> Base price model with smaller of the two engines was 20k and
>"Outback" models with the larger 2500cc DOHC engine started at about 2k
>more..
> Low mileage units are most likely already available in the salvage
>yards, but I haven't checked on an engine price yet.
>Rich
>
Reiner Hoffman recommends against running the EJ series direct drive.
According to him, the crank is not as robust as the EA series crank.
Glenn
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Landing gear questions |
Hey Steve,
You said on a long fuselage you would move the gear about 2.5 inches forward.
Is this the axles? and is the measurement 17" per the 1934 plans or 16.5"
per the 1937 aircamper with the 1960 corvair engine?
Thanks,
-=Ron=-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
| Subject: | Mike's Air Camper |
Mike was nice enough to send me some superb pics of his Air Camper (on it's
1st flight). Anyone interested can get them at my website:
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder/piet/pics.html
They are listed under "Finished Piets" as MC-*.jpg
Richard
Web Developer, http://www.autoeurope.com
Homepage: http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mike's Air Camper |
Richard:
Thanks again for being a clearing house and resource for great pictures
and information about Piets and some very helpful construction details.!!!
Best Regards,
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: RE: Landing gear questions |
-----Original Message-----
PTNPOL(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 8:58 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: RE: Landing gear questions
Hey Steve,
You said on a long fuselage you would move the gear about 2.5 inches
forward.
Is this the axles? and is the measurement 17" per the 1934 plans or 16.5"
per the 1937 aircamper with the 1960 corvair engine?
Thanks,
-=Ron=-
Yes, move the axle forward 2.5 inches from the 1934 plans. This is just an
educated guess mind you. I haven't built my second piet, yet.
STevee
________________________________________________________________________________
Steve wrote:
I am looking for a set of plans or d/loaded plans to convert a VW to
homebuilt aircraft use. Its for a friend of mine. He is gonna build it
for his project.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dswagler(at)cobkf.ang.af.mil |
| Subject: | re: VW conversion |
Tell him to go to www.evansair.com. Couldn't be much simpler.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dswagler(at)cobkf.ang.af.mil |
| Subject: | re: VW conversion |
Also, http://www.greatplainsas.com/intro.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
Quite a while ago, someone asked me about the wheel in this
photograph: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet/acimg/EM-wheel.jpg
Here is what info I have found (thanks to Everett Millett):
Supplier: Leading Edge Airfoils.
Website: http://www.leadingedge-airfoils.com/
Specs: 24" wheels with brakes use with Jenny kit.
Requirements: a 7/8" x 188 chromoly steel tube for axle. (ordered
Cost: $275 per set.
Hope this helps someone!
Richard
Pietenpol Builder in Portland, ME
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
I'm getting close to putting the sides of the fuselage together, and I have
a question regarding the seat backs. The plans show braces glued to the
front of the front seat back. It would seem that this could be
uncomfortable for the front passenger to have the bracing sticking in their
back. Also, would it not be stronger to have the bracing on the back side.
I have seen it done both ways, but going by the plans seems to be the most
common. From those of you who have completed their plane, is there a
downside to putting the braces on the back of the front seat?
As a related question, should there be some kind of bracing for the rear
seat back? The 1/8 plywood seems thin to be used unsupported.
Thanks for any responses.
Al Swanson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Seat Question |
>I'm getting close to putting the sides of the fuselage together, and I have
>a question regarding the seat backs.
Al- My braces are on the back of the front seat. I've seen several
done like this without any obvious problems. MC
>
>Al Swanson
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Seat Question |
Put them on the front of the seat. They angle out and have no interferance
with the shoulder blades of the passenger. I've ridden in the front seats
of Piets and never realized they were there. The plans show them on the
front and I have never heard of them being a problem.
The back seat-back is supported at each side by the fuselage uprights. Here
again, no reported problems since 1929.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Swanson
Date: Sunday, June 28, 1998 5:52 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Seat Question
>I'm getting close to putting the sides of the fuselage together, and I have
>a question regarding the seat backs. The plans show braces glued to the
>front of the front seat back. It would seem that this could be
>uncomfortable for the front passenger to have the bracing sticking in their
>back. Also, would it not be stronger to have the bracing on the back side.
>I have seen it done both ways, but going by the plans seems to be the most
>common. From those of you who have completed their plane, is there a
>downside to putting the braces on the back of the front seat?
>
>As a related question, should there be some kind of bracing for the rear
>seat back? The 1/8 plywood seems thin to be used unsupported.
>
>Thanks for any responses.
>
>Al Swanson
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
Good a.m., gentlemen,
Lets have a quick poll and discussion on rib-stitching tail feathers. Pro
and Con? Done and not done?
Also, what size, style finishing tapes did everyone use on their tail
feathers?
I am in process of covering the first piece of my airplane -- the right
elevator. I decided pretty quick that this one will be a practice piece
with the fabric ripped off and re-done. No learning like getting your hands
on it and doing it!
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Swanson
Date: Sunday, June 28, 1998 5:52 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Seat Question
>I'm getting close to putting the sides of the fuselage together, and I have
>a question regarding the seat backs. The plans show braces glued to the
>front of the front seat back. It would seem that this could be
>uncomfortable for the front passenger to have the bracing sticking in their
>back. Also, would it not be stronger to have the bracing on the back side.
>I have seen it done both ways, but going by the plans seems to be the most
>common. From those of you who have completed their plane, is there a
>downside to putting the braces on the back of the front seat?
>
>As a related question, should there be some kind of bracing for the rear
>seat back? The 1/8 plywood seems thin to be used unsupported.
>
>Thanks for any responses.
>
>Al Swanson
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Tail Feathers |
Good a.m., gentlemen,
Lets have a quick poll and discussion on rib-stitching tail feathers. Pro
and Con? Done and not done?
Also, what size, style finishing tapes did everyone use on their tail
feathers?
I am in process of covering the first piece of my airplane -- the right
elevator. I decided pretty quick that this one will be a practice piece
with the fabric ripped off and re-done. No learning like getting your hands
on it and doing it!
John
Nothing like waking up to fresh pietenpol chat on a Monday morning!
I did my rudder the same way. I rib stiched all the tail surfaces with
3inch spacing. Learning the knot on smaller pieces saved much frustration
because you can move and position the part much easier than say a wing. I
used 1/2" poly-fiber reinforcing tapes over the ribs, stitched them then
taped with 2 inch tape, then did the perimeter with 3 inch working from the
rear of the surface forward, so that all the overlaps were slip-stream
ready. All tapes were pinked edge.
Steve E. (43 hours and counting!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tail Feathers |
I'm looking at 'figure 3.0- Fabric attachment spacing' in A.C. 43-13-1, which
covers the text of paragraph 78...the figure says, in essence, that for an
airplane with a Vne of 150 MPH or less, the maximum spacing OTHER THAN IN THE
SLIPSTREAM (I have read that to mean outer wing panels for the past 35+ years)
is 3 1/2 inches. For other applications, it says maximum of 2 inches. It
also says that the curve presented presumes leading edge support reinforcement
such as plywood, metal, ets. The tail feathers would certainly be considered
to be in the slipstream. If it isn't, we wouldn't worry about such things as
"tail blanking".
If you can't get a copy of this Advisory Circular off the net at
www.fedworld.gov/faa, try finding "Landings" and you can probably download it
there. Or, try EAA bookstore. They have some great books on fabric work.
Call Superflight Coverings In Chicago. They have a good pamphlet and video.
Call Poly Fiber. Their stuff is good, too.
Let us know how it turns out.
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Hannan <hannan(at)iinet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Seat Question |
Alan
In the 1932 Flying & glider manual it shows the bracing
behind the seat. On the plans from Don it shows them in the front and in the
back I believe that the draft person missed this one. It would make more
sense to put the braces on the back.
>I'm getting close to putting the sides of the fuselage together, and I have
>a question regarding the seat backs. The plans show braces glued to the
>front of the front seat back. It would seem that this could be
>uncomfortable for the front passenger to have the bracing sticking in their
>back. Also, would it not be stronger to have the bracing on the back side.
>I have seen it done both ways, but going by the plans seems to be the most
>common. From those of you who have completed their plane, is there a
>downside to putting the braces on the back of the front seat?
>
>As a related question, should there be some kind of bracing for the rear
>seat back? The 1/8 plywood seems thin to be used unsupported.
>
>Thanks for any responses.
>
>Al Swanson
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William C. Beerman" <wcb(at)bbt.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Landing gear questions |
Steve,
Are you using the original gear design, or a modified Cub gear?
Also, I recently located an article associated with the longer fuselage
that states that a current modification to the original design is that
"the fuselage landing gear fittings are made in one piece from side to side".
Can I assume that he's referring to using a single strip of steel to fabricate
both the right and left side landing gear / flying strut fittings (under the
ash cross-member)?
Finally, did you use weld-on or bolt-on axles, and how did you get the proper
wheel alignment?
Thanks for all your help- I'm still learning, and anxiously awaiting our first
flight. (It seems so long from now!)
-Bill
> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 08:37:54 -0600
> From: steve(at)byu.edu
> Subject: RE: Landing gear questions
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> MIME-version: 1.0
> X-Listname:
>
>
> Is anyone currently flying with the original gear who can provide some
> performance
> info.? Has anyone built the Cub-style gear or know of plans for such? I
> don't know
> what the purported advantages of this gear design might be except that it
> may
> be a little wider. Any help is appreciated!
>
>
> I am flying with the split gear with 600x6 mains. They are quite sturdy,
> but making sure that the bungies are tight is important. I did my first
> flights with them fairly loose. Made for great soft landings, but when I
> started adding weight to the front seat, the plane began to waddle during
> taxi. The cords didn't have enought wraps to keep the gear stout and the
> plane would swim between the stops. Not at all comforting. Tightening the
> bungies made all the difference in the world. I also have hydraulic brakes
> so I move the axles 4.5 inches forward. With the short fuse, and a light
> engine A-65 this puts about 50 lbs of pressure on the tailwheel without a
> pilot. YOu may ask so what if your CG is correct. Well I am here to tell
> you that on your first hard tailwheel plant landing, you will likely bend up
> the a-frame. I did. Twice. The fix was to strengthen the tailwheel frame
> by using 3/4" .049 4130 instead of the 5/8" .035 and add a cross brace to
> make an "A" rather than a "V". I have the correct set up now and it works,
> but doing it over again I would build the long fuse, and position the gear
> only about 2.5 inches forward of the plans if I used brakes. Just goes to
> show you how making one change causes a ripple effect. Check
> http://www.matcomfg.com for brakes and wheels.
>
> Steve E
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Landing gear questions |
-----Original Message-----
William C. Beerman
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 1998 7:32 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: Landing gear questions
Steve,
Are you using the original gear design,
Original split gear from the 33' plans
Also, I recently located an article associated with the longer fuselage
that states that a current modification to the original design is that
"the fuselage landing gear fittings are made in one piece from side to
side".
Can I assume that he's referring to using a single strip of steel to
fabricate
both the right and left side landing gear / flying strut fittings (under the
ash cross-member)?
I believe that is correct, and is how I would do it next time.
Finally, did you use weld-on or bolt-on axles, and how did you get the
proper
wheel alignment?
I welded a sleeve through which the axles slide, and then bolt through. It
would be best to check out the following photos. I used 3/4" axles with
Matco Wheels.
http://steve/pietpics.htm
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Landing gear questions |
Finally, did you use weld-on or bolt-on axles, and how did you get the
proper
wheel alignment?
Oops I forgot to mention how to allign the wheels. I built a jig that I
could assemble the gear vees on with the same geometry as the fuse attach
points, and relative axle position. I wish I had a picture to show you. To
make sure that the axles are perfectly alligned I used a section of tubing
long enought to span the distance between both wheels util final welding of
the axle tubes was accomplished. Removing the V's from the jig after the
axle tubes, and fuse attach points were welded on made for perfect ground
tracking later.
I found the notes on the jig in one of first newsletters of the BPA.
Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | joe czaplicki <fishin(at)pop.wwa.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Landing gear questions |
Hey Guy's
Check out Read Hamilton's Pietenpol directory. It contains a clear sketch of
the split gear welding jig. I just got my first copy and it is a gem of
infomation for Piet builders.
Joe C
Zion, Ill
>Steve,
>Are you using the original gear design, or a modified Cub gear?
>Also, I recently located an article associated with the longer fuselage
>that states that a current modification to the original design is that
>"the fuselage landing gear fittings are made in one piece from side to side".
>Can I assume that he's referring to using a single strip of steel to fabricate
>both the right and left side landing gear / flying strut fittings (under the
>ash cross-member)?
>
>Finally, did you use weld-on or bolt-on axles, and how did you get the proper
>wheel alignment?
>
>Thanks for all your help- I'm still learning, and anxiously awaiting our first
>flight. (It seems so long from now!)
>
>-Bill
>
>> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 08:37:54 -0600
>> From: steve(at)byu.edu
>> Subject: RE: Landing gear questions
>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> MIME-version: 1.0
>> X-Listname:
>>
>>
>> Is anyone currently flying with the original gear who can provide some
>> performance
>> info.? Has anyone built the Cub-style gear or know of plans for such? I
>> don't know
>> what the purported advantages of this gear design might be except that it
>> may
>> be a little wider. Any help is appreciated!
>>
>>
>> I am flying with the split gear with 600x6 mains. They are quite sturdy,
>> but making sure that the bungies are tight is important. I did my first
>> flights with them fairly loose. Made for great soft landings, but when I
>> started adding weight to the front seat, the plane began to waddle during
>> taxi. The cords didn't have enought wraps to keep the gear stout and the
>> plane would swim between the stops. Not at all comforting. Tightening the
>> bungies made all the difference in the world. I also have hydraulic brakes
>> so I move the axles 4.5 inches forward. With the short fuse, and a light
>> engine A-65 this puts about 50 lbs of pressure on the tailwheel without a
>> pilot. YOu may ask so what if your CG is correct. Well I am here to tell
>> you that on your first hard tailwheel plant landing, you will likely bend up
>> the a-frame. I did. Twice. The fix was to strengthen the tailwheel frame
>> by using 3/4" .049 4130 instead of the 5/8" .035 and add a cross brace to
>> make an "A" rather than a "V". I have the correct set up now and it works,
>> but doing it over again I would build the long fuse, and position the gear
>> only about 2.5 inches forward of the plans if I used brakes. Just goes to
>> show you how making one change causes a ripple effect. Check
>> http://www.matcomfg.com for brakes and wheels.
>>
>> Steve E
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear questions |
Thanks Joe,
Where can Read Hamiltons Piet Directory be found?
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com> |
Congratulations!!!
>Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 11:40:39 -0400
>From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
>Subject: Finally
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>
>Finally got up the nerve to go fly NX48MC on Father's day !!
>Wow, to any of you guys in the building process, you will find
>that all your toils will be forgotten quickly once in the air.
>What a hoot. Just stayed orbiting the airport checking out cruise
speeds,
>stall break, etc. I need a small alum. trim tab on the rudder since I
>didn't offset my motor mount or vertical fin but other than that she
>flies pretty nicely. Did 3 landings and spent about 40 min. in the air
>total. Didn't want to go to work this morning ! Just wanted to go
>out to the airport and play some more !
>
>Mike C.
>
>oh, cruise was about 74 mph and it got mushy around 35 mph !!!!
>(if that is accurate)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
| Subject: | bending capstrip |
OK, finally, after months & months of researching, collecting tools &
building a workshop, I have completed my rib jig! I am now ready to
build a Pietenpol Air Camper!
Now onto my question: What, in most people's opinion, is the best way
to bend capstrip? -keeping in mind I am building in a small spare
bedroom of a tiny apartment, and not in a fully-loaded wood shop.
I have heard of people using any of three methods:
1. boiling them
2. steaming them
and
3. placing them in a bathtub overnight
Any help would be appreciated.
Richard
-------------------------------------------------
Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
Pietenpols: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: bending capstrip |
I had very good luck following the bending jig method in one of the
early BPnews issues. I got a 2" pipe about 3 feet long and boiled the
strips for about 5 minutes. I then clamped them overnight in the forming
jig. This allowed easy bending with no compression marks. I was able to
process 4 capstips at one time, which was adequate as the gluing process
with aerolite requires a 24 hour set.
I have one wing done and the sanding required to get all smooth and
aligned with a long sanding board was minimal. By the way, it is amazing
how everything fits together, almost like its supposed to. Pressure fit
and perfect alignment. Bernie was one smart guy!
Good luck.
-=Ian=-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: bending capstrip |
Any of these solutions will work. The bathtub is probably the easiest.
If you don't want to wait overnight, use hot water. I used hot tap water
(140 degrees ?) for 30-60 minutes. Cold take several hours. Also,
remember that you only need to soak (or steam) the front 18 inches or so
of the cap strip, the other bends don't require it.
>Date: Sun, 05 Jul 1998 17:26:39 +0000
>From: rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta)
>Subject: bending capstrip
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>
>OK, finally, after months & months of researching, collecting tools &
>building a workshop, I have completed my rib jig! I am now ready to
>build a Pietenpol Air Camper!
>
>Now onto my question: What, in most people's opinion, is the best way
>to bend capstrip? -keeping in mind I am building in a small spare
>bedroom of a tiny apartment, and not in a fully-loaded wood shop.
>
>I have heard of people using any of three methods:
>
>1. boiling them
>2. steaming them
>and
>3. placing them in a bathtub overnight
>
>Any help would be appreciated.
>
>Richard
>-------------------------------------------------
>Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
>Pietenpols: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
| Subject: | Re: bending capstrip |
That woked just fine! I soaked 18 or so inches of 1 piece in the tub
for an hour and it bent nicely! As soon as it dries, I'm all set!
Many thanks!
Richard "I'm on my way now" DeCosta
> Any of these solutions will work. The bathtub is probably the
> easiest. If you don't want to wait overnight, use hot water. I used
> hot tap water (140 degrees ?) for 30-60 minutes. Cold take several
> hours. Also, remember that you only need to soak (or steam) the
> front 18 inches or so of the cap strip, the other bends don't
> require it.
>
> >Date: Sun, 05 Jul 1998 17:26:39 +0000
> >From: rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta)
> >Subject: bending capstrip
> >To: Pietenpol Discussion
> >Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
> >
> >OK, finally, after months & months of researching, collecting tools &
> >building a workshop, I have completed my rib jig! I am now ready to
> >build a Pietenpol Air Camper!
> >
> >Now onto my question: What, in most people's opinion, is the best way
> >to bend capstrip? -keeping in mind I am building in a small spare
> >bedroom of a tiny apartment, and not in a fully-loaded wood shop.
> >
> >I have heard of people using any of three methods:
> >
> >1. boiling them
> >2. steaming them
> >and
> >3. placing them in a bathtub overnight
> >
> >Any help would be appreciated.
> >
> >Richard
> >-------------------------------------------------
> >Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
> >Pietenpols: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet
> >
>
>
-------------------------------------------------
Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
Pietenpols: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)mailexcite.com> |
so far this is what i have found out about the 134 L flathead jeep engine, as
a possible substitute for the ford model A.
3 1/8 bore
4 3/8 stroke
60 hp at 4000 rpm
39 hp at 2000 rpm
105 ft-lbs torque at 2000 rpm
kind of sounds like a model a ford...And it does this on 33% less cubic inches!(same
torque, same hp,same rpm, 33% less cid to feed..) Probably becouse it achieves
its power by better breathing. IE, bigger valves, Bigger ports in the heads,
etc. And maybe a longer throw.
Looking over one of these engines, I have also found that the block is about 1/3
as large as the ford, so it should also be lighter.
The only real problem that I can see is the length of the rear maim bearing. So
far I have not seen a stripped block, and can find no body who will allow me
to tear their jeep apart to look.
A final note:
The volkswagon engine runs from the front on a very narrow bearing, that was never
designed to swing anything like a propeller.
I know that with the vw, "Great Planes" has modifyed the front bearing for greater
surface area, and does recommend this mod. Also they have recently come out
with a new bearing support that allows MUCH GREATER cid from their type 1 engines
than they used to. For I think.........up to 125 hp....but i won't swear
to that.
I read recently about a fellow whe built a curtis hawlk at 80% scale. For power
he installed a 350 HO chev engine in the plane that had a standard size (but
4 bolt)rear main.
His plan was to run the engine direct drive at 2500 revs, rather that go for 5000
that the engine was designed for...There was no statement, ( or apparent concern)
about sideways propeller loads.
Lastly, (then I'll shut up) they say that one should never use any but a wood prop
on the vw, becouce of the weakness of the front main bearing. Apparently the
wood prop does flex, and there-by does reduce the crosswise propeller loads
on the weak front bearing.
Some comments if any would be nice.
BOB
P.S. Can somebody recommend a good book for making homemade propellers ?
The book : Propeller making for the Amature is out of print
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
Maybe it's me, but the plans are a little vague (or at least confusing
for a beginner) in the area of the traling edge of the wing. Does
anyone have a picture or two of the trailing edge when built? I am
ready to start gluing my 1st rib, and dont want to do it wrong. -
Richard
Web Developer, http://www.autoeurope.com
Homepage: http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Please! No Photos!!! |
John, and others....
Sending huge files such as photo's and attachments kill this lists users!
Please DO NOT send them through the list. Let us know that you have them
and we can post them on either Richard DeCosta's or my web page. Posting
them here wrecks havoc on the list server and on individual's machines.
Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
| Subject: | Re: Please! No Photos!!! |
I have posted on my Web site the photos there sent to the group
(Doh!). You can see them here:
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder/piet/pics.html
under "Airframes"; images are called JohnGreenle1.jpg,
JohnGreenle2.jpg, JohnGreenle3.jpg, and JohnGreenle4.jpg.
Like Steve mentioned, anyone that has photos they want available
on the 'net, just email them to me DIRECTLY
(rdecosta(at)wrld.com). I dont care how big they are. I will always
wait for a long download if it's Piet pictures! (I'll just go work on my
ribs while I wait :)
The Pietenpol image page now contains 316 images! Keep 'em
coming folks! (still lacking good Corvair and aileron shots, tho,
wink, wink).
Richard
p.s. I am now regularly updating the "My Progress" page of my
Piet site, since I finally got started on it!
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder/Piet/MyProgress.html
On 9 Jul 98, at 8:25, steve(at)byu.edu wrote:
> John, and others....
>
> Sending huge files such as photo's and attachments kill this lists users!
> Please DO NOT send them through the list. Let us know that you have them
> and we can post them on either Richard DeCosta's or my web page. Posting
> them here wrecks havoc on the list server and on individual's machines.
>
> Stevee
>
Web Developer, http://www.autoeurope.com
Homepage: http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
John- Your plane is looking very good ! Are those 19" wheels ?
Alum or steel rims ? I'm off to Richard's Piet Gallery to view more
photos. MC
________________________________________________________________________________
John,
Despite the post, I am impressed with your airframe. Almost makes me want
to start on Piet Version 2! I got my rib jig back from another builder and
it is tempting me....
stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: John's airframe |
>
>John,
>
>Despite the post, I am impressed with your airframe. Almost makes me
want
>to start on Piet Version 2! I got my rib jig back from another builder
and
>it is tempting me....
>
>
knowing this is a normal symptom
after finishing a project. I hear Craig Aho is rolling along on his
second Air Camper too. He sold his first one before ever even
flying it, (or in it). Mike C.
>stevee
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: John's airframe |
=A0
-----Original Message-----
f Michael
D Cuy
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 1998 9:42 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: John's airframe
>
>John,
>
>Despite the post, I am impressed with your airframe. Almost makes me=
want
>to start on Piet Version 2! I got my rib jig back from another build=
er and
>it is tempting me....
>
>
Oh good, you too ! It's nice knowing t=
his is
a normal symptom
after finishing a project. I hear Craig Aho is rolling along on his
second Air Camper too. He sold his first one before ever even
flying it, (or in it). Mike C.
[Steve Eldredge] You have GOT to be kidding!=A0 Never flew it?=A0 And=
now it has
been destroyed in a fire?!!=A0 No way.=A0=A0
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Greenlee's Piet |
Guys,
Sorry about the post. I routinely send files with normal e-mail and did not
realize there would be any problem.
Thanks for the compliment. Those wheels are made up from 21" after market
Harley Davidson Sportster front rims. Steel and somewhat heavy but about
1/2 the price of the Sun Alloy aluminum rims. I plan to fabric cover them
and paint with a contrasting Poly-tone to the fuselage.
You might notice the crude dolly still attached to the wood gear. It was
used to wheel the ship (less axle and wheels) through a too narrow doorway.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
Date: Thursday, July 09, 1998 10:18 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Greenlee's Piet
>John- Your plane is looking very good ! Are those 19" wheels ?
>Alum or steel rims ? I'm off to Richard's Piet Gallery to view more
>photos. MC
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | UUNet <jgw(at)village.uunet.be> |
John,
I couldn't agree more with the rest...your bird is shaping up really great!
I especially like the cowling. Will you leave it as it is or paint it?
And congradulations to Richard on taking the plunge!!
Jim Wright
jgw(at)village.uunet.be
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | New guy with fir/spruce question. |
Hi Folks,
I'm new around here, so get ready for a lot of questions. First of all, a big
"two thumbs up" to Steve Eldredge and Richard DeCosta for maitaining and
archiving this list. Both look like tremendous, invaluable resources.
Next, a quick background check: I bought the "Improved Air Camper" plans from
Orrin Hoopman and joined the BPA nearly a decade ago, shortly after meeting
Dick Alkire and Howard Henderson at an airshow in Dayton, OH. I was finishing
college and starting grad school at the time (i.e., quite poor) so the wood and
tools I purchased for this project were diverted to a less ambitous wooden
boat. 5 boats later, I have more resources to draw from, and I have
enthusiastically returned to this project. I've been researching for a few
months now, I've acquired a 110 hp Corvair motor, and I've ripped and planed
cap strips. Building rib jig this weekend.
OK, let's start with materials. I have located a local source of breathtaking
Douglas Fir T&G deck planking that was recovered, unused, from an old
shipyard. Some planks are quarter sawn with hardly a single grain deviation
over 14' of 3/4" x 4" wood, all for about a buck/lineal foot. I've done some
stress tests which show that it is abot 20% stronger than Sitka Spruce from the
same source, but I'm concerned about the added weight. I spoke recently with
Howard Henderson who says that he used primarily fir throughout his ship
(spruce tail to maintain CG), but he reduced most cross-sectional dimensions by
25%. Seems to have worked out quite nicely.
Questions:
Are there others out there who have done this?
How has the W&B turned out?
What do you think about laminating spars from this material (since they're a
bit less than 4" across)?
If you approve of laminated Fir spars, would you reduce thickness from the
standard 3/4" spruce spar? (5/8" sounds thin to me).
Any references to documents with extensive comparisons of these materials in
airframes?
Thanks, more to come...
Peter Frantz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New guy with fir/spruce question. |
Peter,
Use the Fir and put the balance of your $$ in your pocket. Build carefully,
add nothing not shown on the plans, and reduce dimensions thoughtfully.
You'll not notice the weight. I know of one airplane built using 1 * 3/4"
fir longerons. Should be roughly same strength and weight as Spruce. In
other words study reducing the amount of fir by about 20-25 percent.
Get EAAs book on Wood. It has some good articles about fir vs. spruce.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter P Frantz
Date: Thursday, July 09, 1998 4:27 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: New guy with fir/spruce question.
>Hi Folks,
>
>I'm new around here, so get ready for a lot of questions. First of all, a
big
>"two thumbs up" to Steve Eldredge and Richard DeCosta for maitaining and
>archiving this list. Both look like tremendous, invaluable resources.
>
>Next, a quick background check: I bought the "Improved Air Camper" plans
from
>Orrin Hoopman and joined the BPA nearly a decade ago, shortly after meeting
>Dick Alkire and Howard Henderson at an airshow in Dayton, OH. I was
finishing
>college and starting grad school at the time (i.e., quite poor) so the wood
and
>tools I purchased for this project were diverted to a less ambitous wooden
>boat. 5 boats later, I have more resources to draw from, and I have
>enthusiastically returned to this project. I've been researching for a few
>months now, I've acquired a 110 hp Corvair motor, and I've ripped and
planed
>cap strips. Building rib jig this weekend.
>
>OK, let's start with materials. I have located a local source of
breathtaking
>Douglas Fir T&G deck planking that was recovered, unused, from an old
>shipyard. Some planks are quarter sawn with hardly a single grain
deviation
>over 14' of 3/4" x 4" wood, all for about a buck/lineal foot. I've done
some
>stress tests which show that it is abot 20% stronger than Sitka Spruce from
the
>same source, but I'm concerned about the added weight. I spoke recently
with
>Howard Henderson who says that he used primarily fir throughout his ship
>(spruce tail to maintain CG), but he reduced most cross-sectional
dimensions by
>25%. Seems to have worked out quite nicely.
>
>Questions:
>Are there others out there who have done this?
>How has the W&B turned out?
>What do you think about laminating spars from this material (since they're
a
>bit less than 4" across)?
>If you approve of laminated Fir spars, would you reduce thickness from the
>standard 3/4" spruce spar? (5/8" sounds thin to me).
>Any references to documents with extensive comparisons of these materials
in
>airframes?
>
>Thanks, more to come...
>
>Peter Frantz
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
Paint it. Everything gets painted but the finished wood cockpits and gear
legs.
By the way, notice the aluminum lift struts....
John
-----Original Message-----
From: UUNet <jgw(at)village.uunet.be>
Date: Thursday, July 09, 1998 2:12 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: John's Piet
>John,
>
>I couldn't agree more with the rest...your bird is shaping up really great!
>I especially like the cowling. Will you leave it as it is or paint it?
>
>And congradulations to Richard on taking the plunge!!
>
>Jim Wright
>jgw(at)village.uunet.be
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Owen Davies <owen(at)davies.mv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New guy with fir/spruce question. |
Peter Frantz asked:
> I have located a local source of breathtaking
> Douglas Fir T&G deck .... I've done some
> stress tests which show that it is about 20%
> stronger than Sitka Spruce from the aame source,
> but I'm concerned about the added weight....
> Are there others out there who have done this?
> How has the W&B turned out?
One builder here in southern New Hampshire used
fir from a local lumber yard, leaving the dimensions
as per plans. Don't recall how much heavier it came
out than a comparable plane. I think it was around
25 pounds, but it could have been a bit more. He did
have to move the wing back three or four inches to
improve the balance and reported that it was still a
bit tail heavy. Nonetheless, it climbed better and flew
faster than other C-85 Piets he had encountered. He
attributed this to having slightly rounded the nose of
the airfoil instead of using Bernie's exact plans. That
and building a really straight airframe.
Owen Davies
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Anybody use the GEO?? |
Steve wrote:
Has anyone used the Geo conversion? Tell me how you liked it. I still
havent made up my mind on a power plant yet. I found out it costs a
bunch to rebabbit rods and mains here. Also cant find a good rebuildable
engine either.
So I guess Ill just push on and see what else I can come up with.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
Oil Can,
Hey, send me your Snail Mail address and I will see about getting a copy of
"Propellor Making For The Amateur". I was walking by the copy machine at work
today and my copy "fell in". Now I have this extra copy that you may as well use.
Send your P.O. address to seibert(at)swbell.net . I'll get it to you.
Its too bad this book is out of print. It is really an excellent one. (Could
it be that Sensenich has bought up all the copies to keep it a secret?)
On another note; the wife has consented to landing at Brodhead on the 25th on
our way to a family get together. Has anyone got any tips on landing there? Is
there a way to find a motel room/transportation for the night?
Regards,
Bob Seibert
RV-6 N691RV
Pietenpol still waiting for some landing gear parts
(Its too hot in Texas to weld very much!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | baileys(at)ktis.net (Robert M. Bailey) |
| Subject: | Re: Anybody use the GEO?? |
There was some discussion about the GM iron duke engine after one appeared
in Sport Aviation(?) in a Piet. There ought to be ton of these engines
available cheaply and with the proper cam direct drive should deliver a
reasonable amount of power. I'm very interested in this engine and plan to
pursue it futher when I get some other projects out of the way.
Bob B.
> From: Steve W
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Anybody use the GEO??
> Date: Thursday, July 09, 1998 9:38 PM
>
> Steve wrote:
> Has anyone used the Geo conversion? Tell me how you liked it. I still
> havent made up my mind on a power plant yet. I found out it costs a
> bunch to rebabbit rods and mains here. Also cant find a good rebuildable
> engine either.
> So I guess Ill just push on and see what else I can come up with.
>
> Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Anybody use the GEO?? |
> Hi Steve,
Quite a ways from having a flying Geo....and have made the commitment to
use this engine. Purchased a 1996 with 14,000 miles on it for $650.00
complete.
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: John's airframe |
Steve;
Craig Aho's plane was burned in a fire? How did you learn this? I met him
at his house once and saw pictures of that prize winning project. He was
very helpful and offered to let me use his rib jig.
Mike C.;
How much do you know about his new project? I just might have to make a
trip back there to see it. You're not in that area too, are you?
I'm going to the regional EAA fly in at Arlington tomorrow (Saturday). Does
anyone know if there will be any Piet.s there?
Thanks,
Brent Reed
Kent WA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: John's airframe |
Mike,
That is a beautiful airplane. What is the ensignia on the side?
Brent Reed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | baileys(at)ktis.net (Robert M. Bailey) |
Hello List,
I did some quick searches on Iron Duke Engines and found a number of sites.
http://is.rice.edu/~arnold/cj-8.htm
http://apollo.pacificweb.net/~sketch/osg/Iron-Duke.html
Turns out it was even used in the CJ-8 and Pontiac had a "SUPER DUTY"
version for racing. I have not confirmed this, but I'm told by a racing
friend that it is essentially half of a GM V8.
As near as I can tell they were in production from 1977 to 1988.
I clipped this from one site:
They have been used starting in 1977 in Astras, Sunbirds, Monza, Skyhawk
and Skylarks. Since then they have been used in almost every GM FWD along
with Camaros, Firebirds, S-10 trucks and Blazers and even Jeep Cherokees.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | baileys(at)ktis.net (Robert M. Bailey) |
| Subject: | Re: Iron Duke Again(revised) |
I hit the send button before I finished type, sorry about that. My point
is that here is an engine that should be in abundent supply, with parts
available that looks like a very good prospect for the Piet. I hope that
others will either say, Bailey your wrong because, a,b,c... etc. or maybe
if enough interest is out there we might have an economical, safe supply of
engines for lots of Piets.
TTYL
Bob B.
> From: Robert M. Bailey
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Iron Duke Again
> Date: Saturday, July 11, 1998 8:32 AM
>
>
>
> Hello List,
> I did some quick searches on Iron Duke Engines and found a number of
sites.
>
> http://is.rice.edu/~arnold/cj-8.htm
> http://apollo.pacificweb.net/~sketch/osg/Iron-Duke.html
>
> Turns out it was even used in the CJ-8 and Pontiac had a "SUPER DUTY"
> version for racing. I have not confirmed this, but I'm told by a racing
> friend that it is essentially half of a GM V8.
>
> As near as I can tell they were in production from 1977 to 1988.
>
> I clipped this from one site:
> They have been used starting in 1977 in Astras, Sunbirds, Monza, Skyhawk
> and Skylarks. Since then they have been used in almost every GM FWD along
> with Camaros, Firebirds, S-10 trucks and Blazers and even Jeep Cherokees.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
Seibert,
Where abouts in TX are you?
I'm in Bowie.....
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Seibert
Date: Thursday, July 09, 1998 9:45 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: jeep eng
>Oil Can,
>Hey, send me your Snail Mail address and I will see about getting a copy of
>"Propellor Making For The Amateur". I was walking by the copy machine at
work
>today and my copy "fell in". Now I have this extra copy that you may as
well use.
>
>Send your P.O. address to seibert(at)swbell.net . I'll get it to you.
>
>Its too bad this book is out of print. It is really an excellent one.
(Could
>it be that Sensenich has bought up all the copies to keep it a secret?)
>
>On another note; the wife has consented to landing at Brodhead on the 25th
on
>our way to a family get together. Has anyone got any tips on landing there?
Is
>there a way to find a motel room/transportation for the night?
>Regards,
>Bob Seibert
>RV-6 N691RV
>Pietenpol still waiting for some landing gear parts
>(Its too hot in Texas to weld very much!)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | scherer2(at)airmail.net (Glenn Scherer) |
| Subject: | Re: Iron Duke Again |
>
>
>Hello List,
>I did some quick searches on Iron Duke Engines and found a number of
sites.
>
>http://is.rice.edu/~arnold/cj-8.htm
>http://apollo.pacificweb.net/~sketch/osg/Iron-Duke.html
>
>Turns out it was even used in the CJ-8 and Pontiac had a "SUPER DUTY"
>version for racing. I have not confirmed this, but I'm told by a racing
>friend that it is essentially half of a GM V8.
>
>As near as I can tell they were in production from 1977 to 1988.
>
>I clipped this from one site:
>They have been used starting in 1977 in Astras, Sunbirds, Monza, Skyhawk
>and Skylarks. Since then they have been used in almost every GM FWD
along
>with Camaros, Firebirds, S-10 trucks and Blazers and even Jeep
Cherokees.
>
IIRC, they go back much further than 1977. I believe they were the
base engines for the Nova series in the early 60's. Dramatically
upgraded in ignition and fuel systems over the years, but still the
same basic engine. 60's era Novas with a 6-cyl engine carried a badge
on the fender indicating the upgrade from the base four. Never heard
of a racing version, though. Gotta wonder what class it was raced in,
especially back then.
Glenn "Clash of the Midgets" Scherer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | UUNet <jgw(at)village.uunet.be> |
| Subject: | Re: Iron Duke Again |
All,
Glenn's comment about the Nova has me wondering. Has anyone ever used a
small six cyclinder in a Piet? Other than of course the Covair...Maybe
another case of "why look further than the Orginal"!
But what exactly is the range of weights that could be possible up front. I
realize that Bernie's design allows for wing movement to compensate, and I
still have to think that a slightly heavier engine would allow for increased
weight limits in the back seat without drastic wing movement.
Didn't someone install a small V8 before too?
Jim
jgw(at)village.uunet.be
-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn Scherer
Date: Sunday, July 12, 1998 7:39 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Iron Duke Again
>
>>
>>
>>Hello List,
>>I did some quick searches on Iron Duke Engines and found a number of
sites.
>>
>>http://is.rice.edu/~arnold/cj-8.htm
>>http://apollo.pacificweb.net/~sketch/osg/Iron-Duke.html
>>
>>Turns out it was even used in the CJ-8 and Pontiac had a "SUPER DUTY"
>>version for racing. I have not confirmed this, but I'm told by a racing
>>friend that it is essentially half of a GM V8.
>>
>>As near as I can tell they were in production from 1977 to 1988.
>>
>>I clipped this from one site:
>>They have been used starting in 1977 in Astras, Sunbirds, Monza, Skyhawk
>>and Skylarks. Since then they have been used in almost every GM FWD along
>>with Camaros, Firebirds, S-10 trucks and Blazers and even Jeep Cherokees.
>>
>
>IIRC, they go back much further than 1977. I believe they were the
>base engines for the Nova series in the early 60's. Dramatically
>upgraded in ignition and fuel systems over the years, but still the
>same basic engine. 60's era Novas with a 6-cyl engine carried a badge
>on the fender indicating the upgrade from the base four. Never heard
>of a racing version, though. Gotta wonder what class it was raced in,
>especially back then.
>
>Glenn "Clash of the Midgets" Scherer
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | baileys(at)ktis.net (Robert M. Bailey) |
| Subject: | Re: Iron Duke Again |
Yes, it was written up in the BPA newsletter and it is on the BPA web
site.
http://members.aol.com/bpabpa7315/cav.html
This engine was orginally produced by GM for the small Buick/Olds cars and
was used by Steve Whittman in a tailwind. He mounted it upside down and
used a modified bell housing to carry an short drive shaft and bearing
assembly.
Here again is a perfectly fine engine, but with the same problem, lack of
parts. GM has removed it from their parts catalogs so it is difficult to
even find a part number for a needed item.
Bob B.
> From: UUNet <jgw(at)village.uunet.be>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: Iron Duke Again
> Date: Sunday, July 12, 1998 4:38 AM
>
> All,
>
> Glenn's comment about the Nova has me wondering. Has anyone ever used a
> Didn't someone install a small V8 before too?
>
> Jim
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Iron Duke Again and V-8 |
Twwo Interesting things here-First-someone sent me info on the
gentleman in GA who Built the "poplar piet"-When I spoke to him on the
phone months ago he told me about the "iron Duke Engine" it seems he
used one from a GM truck ( s-15 ). He didn't have any solid #'s but
seat of the pants figures estimated to be very quick-was standard
length fuse too I think...Anyone really interested should call him-the
#'s on the pict. on Richard's site-like other"piet people" he enjoys
people expressing interest in his project...
Second-If you really want parts for the aluminum V-8(formerly made by
buick) get a Victoria British catalog ( i might have an old one as I
and my Old MAn used to dabble with British cars as "father/son"
bonding) The rights were sold to the Brits and to my knowledge were
still bieng used in landrovers-was also used in some of the v-8 cars
like the triumph tr-8-and has been a popular conversion for MGB's! Of
course those are a little harder to find here...and of course the
parts are a little more expensive-but may be worrthwhile to check
into...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Iron Duke Again |
I suspect Corvair parts are not that much a problem. It is enough of an
'enthusiast car' that it has its own mail order suppliers. The Model A is
like that. I also have a '35 Ford Tudoor awaiting restoration. I worry
none about getting parts for it.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert M. Bailey
Date: Sunday, July 12, 1998 6:30 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Iron Duke Again
>Yes, it was written up in the BPA newsletter and it is on the BPA web
>site.
>http://members.aol.com/bpabpa7315/cav.html
>This engine was orginally produced by GM for the small Buick/Olds cars and
>was used by Steve Whittman in a tailwind. He mounted it upside down and
>used a modified bell housing to carry an short drive shaft and bearing
>assembly.
>Here again is a perfectly fine engine, but with the same problem, lack of
>parts. GM has removed it from their parts catalogs so it is difficult to
>even find a part number for a needed item.
>Bob B.
>
>----------
>> From: UUNet <jgw(at)village.uunet.be>
>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> Subject: Re: Iron Duke Again
>> Date: Sunday, July 12, 1998 4:38 AM
>>
>> All,
>>
>> Glenn's comment about the Nova has me wondering. Has anyone ever used a
>> Didn't someone install a small V8 before too?
>>
>> Jim
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Does anyone out there have an opinion regarding the various 3-piece wing
drawings that are available? Specifically, those available from Vi Kalper and
from Garry Price. I've read that the gap is smaller on Price's plans, but is
there a difference in weight, ease of assembly, strength, etc..?
Thanks,
Peter Frantz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>Mike C.;
>
>How much do you know about his new project? I just might have to make a
>trip back there to see it. You're not in that area too, are you?
>
Brent- No, I'm over in Ohio. Craig's 1st. Piet was burned in a hangar
fire along with several other airplanes last year sometime. I believe
Grant also mentioned this in one of the past BPAN's.
Luckily Craig had sold it before the fire and that owner sold it again
before the fire two. Third owner took the loss.
Craig's second is supposed to be a Model A powered version.
Don't know much else. Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
What is the general opinion on using staples rather than nails? IF
Usedshould they be pulled out, or like the nails- does it really matter?
Paris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig Lawler <clawler(at)ptd.net> |
Mike,
What is your phone number? I'd like to give you a call some Sunday
afternoon and run over there.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>Mike,
>
>What is your phone number? I'd like to give you a call some Sunday
>afternoon and run over there.
>
Craig- Sure: W: 216-433-3159 H: 330-483-3690.
Both have ans. systems. This upcoming Sunday I should be home
between 1pm and 5pm (I play piano at our Sun. eve church service)
and the following Sunday I'll be packing or leaving for Wisconsin
in the Piet. Generally I work Mon-Fri 7am to 3:30 pm.
I've been out at the airport every night till sunset. I'm not keeping up
with my home chores too well lately trying to fly off these 40 hours,
but it's fun.
Have you tried landing on pavement yet ? What type of tailwheel
do you have ?
Mike C.
>Craig
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com> |
I used an ordinary office stapler when building ribs. This was
recommended by one of the EAA How-to movies.
I tried using a staple gun, but I kept splitting my capstrips.
I opted to remove the staples even though I have been told that it isn't
necessary.
>Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 08:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Paris Wilcox
>Subject: Staples
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>
>
>What is the general opinion on using staples rather than nails? IF
>Usedshould they be pulled out, or like the nails- does it really
matter?
>Paris
>
>
Dean Dayton - deandayton(at)hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | baileys(at)ktis.net (Robert M. Bailey) |
| Subject: | Re: Iron Duke Again and again |
Hi list,
My BPA newsletter just arrived and Larry Harrison's Iron Duke powered
"Poplar Piet" is on the front cover with a closeup picture of the engine.
I hope he decides to come to Brodhead. :)
Bob B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 3-piece plans |
I have both plans and I personnaly like Garry Price's design better. The
drawings are of a very high quality. Included in the drawings are pictures
of his center section. I would recommend that you get his drawings and
compare them. Both designs will work.
-=Ron=-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | UUNet <jgw(at)village.uunet.be> |
| Subject: | Alternate Wood Revisited |
Larry Harrison's "Poplar Piet" in the last BPA Newsletter has carried the
art of Piet building to a new height! It says he actually built it from a
poplar tree that he cut off his land..."Poplar Piet". Now this guy is "Da
Man"!
This has me thinking about the same idea as a way to keep the cost down. I
believe we have a couple trees that may actually be Spruce...or something
fairly close. With this said, does anyone have the address for the EAA to
purchase the book on alternate wood sources that I've heard mentioned?
And while I'm asking, what other books would be considered as "must have"
for someone just starting up?
Regards,
Jim W.
________________________________________________________________________________
John Greenlee wrote:
>
> Seibert,
>
> Where abouts in TX are you?
>
> I'm in Bowie.....
>
> John
John,
I'm south of Taylor about 2 miles (Northeast of Austin about 20).
We have a grass strip here called "Macho Grande". It is XS41 and it is at 30
deg 32.31 min North, 97 deg 25.17 min West. I do not know if it is on the
latest sectional. We got it done over a year ago and it takes a long time to
get the NOAA to get the updated info on a map. (Think about that next time you
are scud running and watching for towers!)
We currently have 2 experimentals flying here and 4 under construction. (One
is a Piet)
If you are in the area some time, give me a call at 512-865-8918 or drop in
out of the sky.
Regards,
Bob Seibert
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: 3-piece plans |
Ron- I used Pietenpol's 3 pce wing design drawn up and sold by Vi
Kapler but found some items which didn't add up mathmatically.
It turned out to be an excellent guide but your ultimate dimensions depend
on the size/type wing spars you have and want the center section to mate
with. You'll find this too in the Pietenpol plans on occasion where if you
make a part (especially the straight axle gear) exactly as called for on
the plans it might just not fit on the real thing. I tended towards making
my fittings from white posterboard from the drugstore first, then when
all the bolt holes lined up I outlined that posterboard right onto my
4130 steel, then cut and drilled the fittings. Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternate Wood Revisited |
The Gospel according to John....
You need the Wood book and the Welding books from EAA. Tony Bingelis's
three or now four books on aircraft building are full of neat stuff. Also,
Poly-Fibre's new manual on covering is excellent.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: UUNet <jgw(at)village.uunet.be>
Date: Tuesday, July 14, 1998 12:22 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Alternate Wood Revisited
>
>Larry Harrison's "Poplar Piet" in the last BPA Newsletter has carried the
>art of Piet building to a new height! It says he actually built it from a
>poplar tree that he cut off his land..."Poplar Piet". Now this guy is "Da
>Man"!
>
>This has me thinking about the same idea as a way to keep the cost down. I
>believe we have a couple trees that may actually be Spruce...or something
>fairly close. With this said, does anyone have the address for the EAA to
>purchase the book on alternate wood sources that I've heard mentioned?
>
>And while I'm asking, what other books would be considered as "must have"
>for someone just starting up?
>
>Regards,
>
>Jim W.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 3-piece plans |
That's how I did it too. Posterboard is the thing. No two Piets are
precisely alike.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
Date: Tuesday, July 14, 1998 7:27 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: 3-piece plans
>Ron- I used Pietenpol's 3 pce wing design drawn up and sold by Vi
>Kapler but found some items which didn't add up mathmatically.
>It turned out to be an excellent guide but your ultimate dimensions depend
>on the size/type wing spars you have and want the center section to mate
>with. You'll find this too in the Pietenpol plans on occasion where if
you
>make a part (especially the straight axle gear) exactly as called for on
>the plans it might just not fit on the real thing. I tended towards
making
>my fittings from white posterboard from the drugstore first, then when
>all the bolt holes lined up I outlined that posterboard right onto my
>4130 steel, then cut and drilled the fittings. Mike C.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternate Wood Revisited |
Jim,
Keep in mind that Mr Harrison's plane is not entirely poplar-he did
use spruce for the spars and fir for the longerons-mostly because he
didn't have any poplar long enough I think-he also let his lumber
season for almost two years before using it- If you are really serious
about cutting down your own tree i would call him first- there's a lot
more to it than meets the I- and can be as expensive-unless you have
your own sawmill....with that said I'm building my piet from locally
purchased rough cut lumber- very reasonable price and beautiful to
work with-
Paris
ps-get all the books you can- esp the Tony Bingelis set
---UUNet wrote:
>
>
> Larry Harrison's "Poplar Piet" in the last BPA Newsletter has
carried the
> art of Piet building to a new height! It says he actually built it
from a
> poplar tree that he cut off his land..."Poplar Piet". Now this guy
is "Da
> Man"!
>
> This has me thinking about the same idea as a way to keep the cost
down. I
> believe we have a couple trees that may actually be Spruce...or
something
> fairly close. With this said, does anyone have the address for the
EAA to
> purchase the book on alternate wood sources that I've heard mentioned?
>
> And while I'm asking, what other books would be considered as "must
have"
> for someone just starting up?
>
> Regards,
>
> Jim W.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | joe czaplicki <fishin(at)pop.wwa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternate Wood Revisited |
Hi Jim;
I'm in the early stages myself and while visiting Oshkosh a couple of weeks
ago I found a dandy publication at the EAA museum called "WOOD". One of the
EAA how to series. It contains articles on selection and evaluation of wood
as well as a great article on glue and glue selection. Well worth the
$11.00/$12.00??? it costs. You can give them a call and get it mailed to you
within a week.
Joe C
Zion, Ill
>
>Larry Harrison's "Poplar Piet" in the last BPA Newsletter has carried the
>art of Piet building to a new height! It says he actually built it from a
>poplar tree that he cut off his land..."Poplar Piet". Now this guy is "Da
>Man"!
>
>This has me thinking about the same idea as a way to keep the cost down. I
>believe we have a couple trees that may actually be Spruce...or something
>fairly close. With this said, does anyone have the address for the EAA to
>purchase the book on alternate wood sources that I've heard mentioned?
>
>And while I'm asking, what other books would be considered as "must have"
>for someone just starting up?
>
>Regards,
>
>Jim W.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Brodhead Question |
The wife has OKed spending Saturday 25 Jul 98 at Brodhead.
I have been unable to find out if there are any motels in town. (hopefully
with vacancys)
About the best possiblity so far that I have found is in Delavan. It is about
20 or 30 N.M. East and has a large lodge next to the Airport.
Does anyone know of close by accomodations at Brodhead?
Regards,
Bob Seibert
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead Question |
>Does anyone know of close by accomodations at Brodhead?
Bob- You might want to search the Internet for towns like Monroe
and Beloit- they are closer to Brodhead and have motels.
MC
>
>Regards,
>Bob Seibert
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | baileys(at)ktis.net (Robert M. Bailey) |
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead Question |
I believe there are motels in Broadhead along the main drag, although I
can't remember the names. I would suggest calling the chamber of commerce.
regards.
Bob B.
> From: Seibert
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Brodhead Question
> Date: Thursday, July 16, 1998 12:48 AM
>
> The wife has OKed spending Saturday 25 Jul 98 at Brodhead.
> I have been unable to find out if there are any motels in town.
(hopefully
> with vacancys)
> About the best possiblity so far that I have found is in Delavan. It is
about
> 20 or 30 N.M. East and has a large lodge next to the Airport.
> Does anyone know of close by accomodations at Brodhead?
>
> Regards,
> Bob Seibert
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Does anyone know what the FAR's say about legal flight in minutes
past sunset for vfr flight (day)? I couldn't find it. Memory tells me
it is
something wild like 45 min or 60 min past official sunset.
Just curious- Thank you, Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: VFR past sunset |
I think that it is 30 Min. But I need to check.
STevee
-----Original Message-----
Michael D Cuy
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 1998 8:43 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: VFR past sunset
Does anyone know what the FAR's say about legal flight in minutes
past sunset for vfr flight (day)? I couldn't find it. Memory tells me
it is
something wild like 45 min or 60 min past official sunset.
Just curious- Thank you, Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | joe czaplicki <fishin(at)pop.wwa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead Question |
Hi Guys;;;Last year was my first Brodhead visit and the motel problem hit us
right between the eyes. Got to Brodhead and found a grand total of "O"
motels.Went to Monroe and found everything booked solid because of some
local festivals. Had to double back to Janesville for a room. Seems the last
motel in Brodhead burned some years ago and was never rebuilt. Suggest
trying Monroe now for reservations as that is the closest.
Joe C\
Zion, Ill
>>Does anyone know of close by accomodations at Brodhead?
>
>Bob- You might want to search the Internet for towns like Monroe
>and Beloit- they are closer to Brodhead and have motels.
>
>MC
>
>>
>>Regards,
>>Bob Seibert
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead Question |
I believe the dates for Brodhead are Friday July 31-Sunday August 2. It
might be pretty quiet at the airport on July 25!
Al Swanson
>I believe there are motels in Broadhead along the main drag, although I
>can't remember the names. I would suggest calling the chamber of commerce.
>regards.
>Bob B.
>
>----------
>> From: Seibert
>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> Subject: Brodhead Question
>> Date: Thursday, July 16, 1998 12:48 AM
>>
>> The wife has OKed spending Saturday 25 Jul 98 at Brodhead.
>> I have been unable to find out if there are any motels in town.
>(hopefully
>> with vacancys)
>> About the best possiblity so far that I have found is in Delavan. It is
>about
>> 20 or 30 N.M. East and has a large lodge next to the Airport.
>> Does anyone know of close by accomodations at Brodhead?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bob Seibert
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: VFR past sunset |
There are 2 regs dealing with VFR night. The first is equipment requirements:
91.209 Aircraft lights. No person may: (a) During the period from sunset to
sunrise (or, in Alaska, during the period a prominent unlighted object cannot
be seen from a distance of 3 statute miles or the sun is more than 6 degrees
below the horizon)- (1) Operate an aircraft unless it has lighted position
lights; (2) Park or move an aircraft in, or in dangerous proximity to, a night
flight operations area of an airport unless the aircraft - (i) Is clearly
illuminated; (ii) Has lighted position lights; or (iii) is in an area that is
marked by obstruction lights; (3) Anchor an aircraft unless the aircraft- (i)
Has lighted anchor lights; or (ii) Is in an area where anchor lights are not
required on vessels; or (b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an
anticollision light system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights.
However, the anticollision lights need not be lighted when the
pilot-in-command determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be
in the interest of safety to turn the lights off.
The second is recent flight experiance:
61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command. (a) General experience. (1)
Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as a
pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers or of an aircraft
certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember unless that person has
made at least three takeoffs and three landings within the preceding 90 days,
and-- (i) The person acted as the sole manipulator of the flight controls; and
(ii) The required takeoffs and landings were performed in an aircraft of the
same category, class, and type (if a type rating is required), and, if the
aircraft to be flown is an airplane with a tailwheel, the takeoffs and
landings must have been made to a full stop in an airplane with a tailwheel.
(2) For the purpose of meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, a person may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft under day VFR
or day IFR, provided no persons or property are carried on board the aircraft,
other than those necessary for the conduct of the flight. (3) The takeoffs and
landings required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be accomplished in a
flight simulator or flight training device that is-- (i) Approved by the
Administrator for landings; and (ii) Used in accordance with an approved
course conducted by a training center certificated under part 142 of this
chapter. (b) Night takeoff and landing experience. (1) Except as provided in
paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of an
aircraft carrying passengers during the period beginning 1 hour after sunset
and ending 1 hour before sunrise, unless within the preceding 90 days that
person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop
during the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before
sunrise, and-- (i) That person acted as sole manipulator of the flight
controls; and (ii) The required takeoffs and landings were performed in an
aircraft of the same category, class, and type (if a type rating is required).
(2) The takeoffs and landings required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section may
be accomplished in a flight simulator that is-- (i) Approved by the
Administrator for takeoffs and landings, if the visual system is adjusted to
represent the period described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section; and (ii)
Used in accordance with an approved course conducted by a training center
certificated under part 142 of this chapter. (c) Instrument experience. Except
as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as pilot in
command under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed
for VFR, unless within the preceding 6 calendar months, that person has: (1)
For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an aircraft (other than
a glider), performed and logged under actual or simulated instrument
conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category of aircraft for the
instrument privileges sought or in a flight simulator or approved flight
training device that is representative of the aircraft category for the
instrument privileges sought-- (i) At least six instrument approaches; (ii)
Holding procedures; and (iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the
use of navigation systems. (2) For the purpose of obtaining instrument
experience in a glider, performed and logged under actual or simulated
instrument conditions-- (i) At least 3 hours of instrument time in flight, of
which 1= hours may be acquired in an airplane or a glider if no passengers are
to be carried; or (ii) 3 hours of instrument time in flight in a glider if a
passenger is to be carried. (d) Instrument proficiency check. Except as
provided in paragraph (e)of this section, a person who does not meet the
instrument experience requirements of paragraph (c) of this section within the
prescribed time, or within 6 calendar months after the prescribed time, may
not serve as pilot in command under IFR or in weather conditions less than the
minimums prescribed for VFR until that person passes an instrument proficiency
check consisting of a representative number of tasks required by the
instrument rating practical test. (1) The instrument proficiency check must
be-- (i) In an aircraft that is appropriate to the aircraft category; (ii) For
other than a glider, in a flight simulator or flight training device that is
representative of the aircraft category; or (iii) For a glider, in a
single-engine airplane or a glider. (2) The instrument proficiency check must
be given by-- (i) An examiner; (ii) A person authorized by the U.S. Armed
Forces to conduct instrument flight tests, provided the person being tested is
a member of the U.S. Armed Forces; (iii) A company check pilot who is
authorized to conduct instrument flight tests under part 121, 125, or 135 of
this chapter, and provided that both the check pilot and the pilot being
tested are employees of that operator; (iv) An authorized instructor; or (v) A
person approved by the Administrator to conduct instrument practical tests.
(e) Exceptions. (1) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply to a
pilot in command who is employed by a certificate holder under part 125 and
engaged in a flight operation for that certificate holder if the pilot is in
compliance with Secs. 125.281 and 125.285 of this chapter. (2) This section
does not apply to a pilot in command who is employed by an air carrier
certificated under part 121 or 135 and is engaged in a flight operation under
part 91, 121, or 135 for that air carrier if the pilot is in compliance with
Secs. 121.437 and 121.439, or Secs. 135.243 and 135.247 of this chapter, as
appropriate.
It boils down to the fact that you need position lights and anti collision
lights from sunset to sunrise but can only log night time from 1 hour after
sunset to 1 hour before sunrise.
Michael D Cuy wrote:
> Does anyone know what the FAR's say about legal flight in minutes
> past sunset for vfr flight (day)? I couldn't find it. Memory tells me
> it is
> something wild like 45 min or 60 min past official sunset.
> Just curious- 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: | Aron(at)hrn.bradley.edu |
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead Question: Lake Lawn Lodge |
Re: accomadations
Janesville is probably a better bet than Beloit. More and newer
motels--plus it is easier to drive through. I still get lost trying to
get thru Beloit, and I grew up in the area. Lake Lawn Lodge in Delavan
is a beautiful, deluxe resort, famous since the thirties, and well
updated. If you are flying, the airfield is part of the complex. There
was also a resort built in Lake Geneva about 1970 with its own
airfield. It was the Playboy club. Last time I knew it was still
operating under new management with a different theme. I think its new
name was the Americana Resort, but I'm not sure.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead Question |
I think the most recent BPA newsletter listed the wrong date. I almost
made the same mistake.
>Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 11:34:15 -0500
>From: Alan Swanson
>Subject: Re: Brodhead Question
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>
>I believe the dates for Brodhead are Friday July 31-Sunday August 2.
It
>might be pretty quiet at the airport on July 25!
>
>Al Swanson
>
>
>>I believe there are motels in Broadhead along the main drag, although
I
>>can't remember the names. I would suggest calling the chamber of
commerce.
>>regards.
>>Bob B.
>>
>>----------
>>> From: Seibert
>>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>>> Subject: Brodhead Question
>>> Date: Thursday, July 16, 1998 12:48 AM
>>>
>>> The wife has OKed spending Saturday 25 Jul 98 at Brodhead.
>>> I have been unable to find out if there are any motels in town.
>>(hopefully
>>> with vacancys)
>>> About the best possiblity so far that I have found is in Delavan. It
is
>>about
>>> 20 or 30 N.M. East and has a large lodge next to the Airport.
>>> Does anyone know of close by accomodations at Brodhead?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Bob Seibert
>>
>>
>
>
Dean Dayton - deandayton(at)hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Brodhead Question |
Wonder why I haven't seen my copy yet
Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Aron(at)hrn.bradley.edu |
| Subject: | Alternate Wood : an article from Sport Aviation |
Jim,
Besides the book on wood construction from the EAA, I have a copy of an
excellent five page article from the Sept., '84 issue which is very
useful. Send me a SASE and I'll send you a copy. My adress is : John
Fay
The rest of you out there can pray for me; my copy of the BPAN has not
yet arrived, and I
am beginning to experience withdrawal symptoms.
John in Peoria
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Brodhead 98- Which day? |
I have a choice of either Friday or Saturday to attend Brodhead. Do any of
you out there have an opinion on which day is best? Is Friday well attended
or is Saturday the best day to show up? I would like to hear Vi Kapler's
seminar if he is going to give it again, and also be able to see flying
examples to answer my many questions.
Thanks for any information.
Al Swanson
Builder of the future "Swoose"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | baileys(at)ktis.net (Robert M. Bailey) |
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead 98- Which day? |
My vote would go for Saturday.
Bob B.
> From: Alan Swanson
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Brodhead 98- Which day?
> Date: Friday, July 17, 1998 7:53 PM
>
> I have a choice of either Friday or Saturday to attend Brodhead. Do any
of
> you out there have an opinion on which day is best? Is Friday well
attended
> or is Saturday the best day to show up? I would like to hear Vi Kapler's
> seminar if he is going to give it again, and also be able to see flying
> examples to answer my many questions.
>
> Thanks for any information.
>
> Al Swanson
> Builder of the future "Swoose"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead 98- Which day? |
Saturday is the busiest day....
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Swanson
Date: Friday, July 17, 1998 8:02 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead 98- Which day?
>I have a choice of either Friday or Saturday to attend Brodhead. Do any of
>you out there have an opinion on which day is best? Is Friday well
attended
>or is Saturday the best day to show up? I would like to hear Vi Kapler's
>seminar if he is going to give it again, and also be able to see flying
>examples to answer my many questions.
>
>Thanks for any information.
>
>Al Swanson
>Builder of the future "Swoose"
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
I checked the BPA website and the date is July 31 thru Aug 2.
I had the date wrong when I set up for the 25th.
(Must be the CRS syndrom kicking in again)
Now I gotta convince the Wife that we have to change our itinerary again!
Bob Seibert
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | baileys(at)ktis.net (Robert M. Bailey) |
| Subject: | Richard's WEB site |
Hello list,
All of a sudden I can't get too....
> http://www.wrld.com/w3builder/piet/pics.htm
Would someone check and see if they have the same problem.
Thanks,
Bob B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
| Subject: | Re: Richard's WEB site |
Sorry, but my site is down for the weekend. :( I have a fairly
unreliable server at work that I use, so it does this occasionally.
Starting some time next week I will be moving the site to my server
at home via a cable modem connection, so that should make it a lot
more stable.
Sorry for the inconvenience!
Richard
> Hello list,
> All of a sudden I can't get too....
>
> > http://www.wrld.com/w3builder/piet/pics.htm
>
> Would someone check and see if they have the same problem.
> Thanks,
> Bob B.
-------------------------------------------------
Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
Pietenpols: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
| Subject: | questions about ribs & gussetts |
After completing my 1st rib, I compared it to the rib drawing that
came with the supplimental plans from Don Pietenpol, and I have
pretty much decided to either redraw my rib (& rebuild the jig) or go
by the drawing sent to me from Don. Mainly because they didnt match
up. I know that the direction of on of the braces is reverse in the
plans (the rear one) but other things didnt match up either, and I
was very careful when drawing mine out. (mine was about 1/2" shorter
at the tallest point, and the angle of the braces was off by about 10
degrees in places).
Are the ribs, when laid on top of Mr. pietenpol's full-size drawing,
supposed to match exactly, with the excaption of the rear brace? I
have heard that there is an error or two on the drawing, but couldnt
see what it was. I want to make sure everything is perfect before
moving on to another rib. That 1st one is going to live on my shop
wall as a decoration.
Also, I got two sheets of 1/16" plywood from a company in Vermont.
I'd say about 15% of it contains "discoloration streaks" of a light
to dark brown color, ranging from 1/4 to 4 inches long, and about the
width of a pencil to that of a thick marker. For the gussets for my
1st rib I worked around them, using only the pure, clean wood, but
should they even be there at all? Should I be looking for wood that
is completely free of marks like that before starting? I know of one
other Piet builder that uses this same wood from the same company,
and he has not mentioned it, so maybe it's normal.
Thanks for any advice!
Richard
p.s. The Pietenpol I am making for MS Flight Simulator is about 65%
complete!
-------------------------------------------------
Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
Pietenpols: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet
________________________________________________________________________________
Anyone have any thoughts on rib storage- can I lay them flat and just
stack them- or is there a " correct" way to do this- Also should I be
putting a coat of varnish or something on these right away if they are
going to be sitting while I build the rest of my plane...
Paris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
Build up your rib jig around the full size drawing & don't worry about the
measurements. I know there are some dimensional errors in the tables. I
don't remember what they are. Brian3647(at)aol.com will know.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Paris Wilcox
Date: Sunday, July 19, 1998 10:42 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Ribs
>Anyone have any thoughts on rib storage- can I lay them flat and just
>stack them- or is there a " correct" way to do this- Also should I be
>putting a coat of varnish or something on these right away if they are
>going to be sitting while I build the rest of my plane...
>Paris
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TLC62770(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re:PROTECT THE RIBS |
IF YOU WANT TO BE SURE YOUR RIBS WILL IN GOOD SHAPE STACK THEM TOGETHER AND
TAPE THEM , BEFORE YOU DO THIS MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A GOOD COAT OF POLYURETHAN
ON THEM I USE MIN WAX BRAND ALL THE TIME . MY STUDENTS USE IT ON ALL THIER
PROJECTS . IT WORKS GREAT .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kyle ray <rray(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead Question |
stop e-mailing me so much!!! I have 70 something e-mail messages to read. I
normally get 10 a day. I like e-mail but i dont have time to read this
much........
I am a bizy person....
if you have something specific to ask e-mail me but not stuff about this
bull shit i been getting.
JUST IN CASE: THIS DOES NOT ACCURE TO PEOPLE E-MAILING ME STUFF ABOUT
COMPUTERS OR DOOM2. ONLY AIRPLANES!!!!!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Swanson
Date: Thursday, July 16, 1998 1:05 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead Question
>I believe the dates for Brodhead are Friday July 31-Sunday August 2. It
>might be pretty quiet at the airport on July 25!
>
>Al Swanson
>
>
>>I believe there are motels in Broadhead along the main drag, although I
>>can't remember the names. I would suggest calling the chamber of
commerce.
>>regards.
>>Bob B.
>>
>>----------
>>> From: Seibert
>>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>>> Subject: Brodhead Question
>>> Date: Thursday, July 16, 1998 12:48 AM
>>>
>>> The wife has OKed spending Saturday 25 Jul 98 at Brodhead.
>>> I have been unable to find out if there are any motels in town.
>>(hopefully
>>> with vacancys)
>>> About the best possiblity so far that I have found is in Delavan. It is
>>about
>>> 20 or 30 N.M. East and has a large lodge next to the Airport.
>>> Does anyone know of close by accomodations at Brodhead?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Bob Seibert
>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead Question |
Hint-Try UNSUBSRIBE- that's more than a little offensive.
---kyle ray wrote:
>
> stop e-mailing me so much!!! I have 70 something e-mail messages to
read. I
> normally get 10 a day. I like e-mail but i dont have time to read this
> much........
> I am a bizy person....
>
> if you have something specific to ask e-mail me but not stuff about
this
> bull shit i been getting.
>
> JUST IN CASE: THIS DOES NOT ACCURE TO PEOPLE E-MAILING ME STUFF ABOUT
> COMPUTERS OR DOOM2. ONLY AIRPLANES!!!!!!!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Swanson
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Date: Thursday, July 16, 1998 1:05 PM
> Subject: Re: Brodhead Question
>
>
> >I believe the dates for Brodhead are Friday July 31-Sunday August
2. It
> >might be pretty quiet at the airport on July 25!
> >
> >Al Swanson
> >
> >
> >
> >>I believe there are motels in Broadhead along the main drag,
although I
> >>can't remember the names. I would suggest calling the chamber of
> commerce.
> >>regards.
> >>Bob B.
> >>
> >>----------
> >>> From: Seibert
> >>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> >>> Subject: Brodhead Question
> >>> Date: Thursday, July 16, 1998 12:48 AM
> >>>
> >>> The wife has OKed spending Saturday 25 Jul 98 at Brodhead.
> >>> I have been unable to find out if there are any motels in town.
> >>(hopefully
> >>> with vacancys)
> >>> About the best possiblity so far that I have found is in
Delavan. It is
> >>about
> >>> 20 or 30 N.M. East and has a large lodge next to the Airport.
> >>> Does anyone know of close by accomodations at Brodhead?
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Bob Seibert
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead Question |
Ease up, big fella! No need getting hot around the collar. Broadhead *is*
the Mecca if you want to learn about this airplane.
Brent Reed
-----Original Message-----
From: kyle ray <rray(at)centuryinter.net>
Date: Sunday, July 19, 1998 8:16 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead Question
>stop e-mailing me so much!!! I have 70 something e-mail messages to read. I
>normally get 10 a day. I like e-mail but i dont have time to read this
>much........
>I am a bizy person....
>
>if you have something specific to ask e-mail me but not stuff about this
>bull shit i been getting.
>
>JUST IN CASE: THIS DOES NOT ACCURE TO PEOPLE E-MAILING ME STUFF ABOUT
>COMPUTERS OR DOOM2. ONLY AIRPLANES!!!!!!!
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alan Swanson
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Date: Thursday, July 16, 1998 1:05 PM
>Subject: Re: Brodhead Question
>
>
>>I believe the dates for Brodhead are Friday July 31-Sunday August 2. It
>>might be pretty quiet at the airport on July 25!
>>
>>Al Swanson
>>
>>
>>
>>>I believe there are motels in Broadhead along the main drag, although I
>>>can't remember the names. I would suggest calling the chamber of
>commerce.
>>>regards.
>>>Bob B.
>>>
>>>----------
>>>> From: Seibert
>>>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>>>> Subject: Brodhead Question
>>>> Date: Thursday, July 16, 1998 12:48 AM
>>>>
>>>> The wife has OKed spending Saturday 25 Jul 98 at Brodhead.
>>>> I have been unable to find out if there are any motels in town.
>>>(hopefully
>>>> with vacancys)
>>>> About the best possiblity so far that I have found is in Delavan. It is
>>>about
>>>> 20 or 30 N.M. East and has a large lodge next to the Airport.
>>>> Does anyone know of close by accomodations at Brodhead?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Bob Seibert
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Paris- Stack your ribs on some false spars of junk pine and SKIP the
varnish for now. The reason for this is that when you epoxy (or
whatever glue you've chosen) the ribs you don't want varnish glued to
varnish, rather wood to wood joints. The varnish can be sprayed, brushed
easily later when you are done with all your glue joints. I'm sure you
could varnish everything but where you'll need to glue but it's alot easier
to do it later. Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Brodhead Question |
OK, Goodbye Alan. BTW If you ever decide to come back you will have to
clean up your gutter language.
Stevee
-----Original Message-----
kyle ray
Sent: Sunday, July 19, 1998 9:16 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead Question
stop e-mailing me so much!!! I have 70 something e-mail messages to read. I
normally get 10 a day. I like e-mail but i dont have time to read this
much........
I am a bizy person....
if you have something specific to ask e-mail me but not stuff about this
bull shit i been getting.
JUST IN CASE: THIS DOES NOT ACCURE TO PEOPLE E-MAILING ME STUFF ABOUT
COMPUTERS OR DOOM2. ONLY AIRPLANES!!!!!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Swanson
Date: Thursday, July 16, 1998 1:05 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead Question
>I believe the dates for Brodhead are Friday July 31-Sunday August 2. It
>might be pretty quiet at the airport on July 25!
>
>Al Swanson
>
>
>>I believe there are motels in Broadhead along the main drag, although I
>>can't remember the names. I would suggest calling the chamber of
commerce.
>>regards.
>>Bob B.
>>
>>----------
>>> From: Seibert
>>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>>> Subject: Brodhead Question
>>> Date: Thursday, July 16, 1998 12:48 AM
>>>
>>> The wife has OKed spending Saturday 25 Jul 98 at Brodhead.
>>> I have been unable to find out if there are any motels in town.
>>(hopefully
>>> with vacancys)
>>> About the best possiblity so far that I have found is in Delavan. It is
>>about
>>> 20 or 30 N.M. East and has a large lodge next to the Airport.
>>> Does anyone know of close by accomodations at Brodhead?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Bob Seibert
>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Newsletter and Steve |
Congrat's SteveE on your TWO PAGE !!! BPAN article with photos !
Very nice. Most of us have read the text on your website but it was still
nice to see on paper.
ps- Leaving for EAA/Brodhead a week from today and have 35 of the
40 hours flown off. Those motorcycle wheels and tight bungees are
a bit tricky on pavement. I hit about 6 paved strips yesterday to get it
out of my system so I can land comfortably on the trip where I need to.
Grass sure spoiled me. JIM VANDERVORT's little tid-bit on tailwheel
cable relocation in the BPAN is really a good idea. I tied my rudder
cables to the same place out on the end of the rudder bar and that
baby is quite sensitive to ground steering-especially on landing roll-out.
I repeat to myself upon touchdown: "small corrections dummy,
remember, small corrections." Another alternative to Jim's idea is
to lengthen the tailwheel steering arms an inch or so to dampen tailwheel
movement. MC.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Newsletter and Steve |
Really?!
2pages? I hope mine comes soon! I sure wish I could make it to brodhead...
Thanks Mike,
Stevee
Congrat's SteveE on your TWO PAGE !!! BPAN article with photos !
Very nice. Most of us have read the text on your website but it was still
nice to see on paper.
ps- Leaving for EAA/Brodhead a week from today and have 35 of the
40 hours flown off. Those motorcycle wheels and tight bungees are
a bit tricky on pavement. I hit about 6 paved strips yesterday to get it
out of my system so I can land comfortably on the trip where I need to.
Grass sure spoiled me. JIM VANDERVORT's little tid-bit on tailwheel
cable relocation in the BPAN is really a good idea. I tied my rudder
cables to the same place out on the end of the rudder bar and that
baby is quite sensitive to ground steering-especially on landing roll-out.
I repeat to myself upon touchdown: "small corrections dummy,
remember, small corrections." Another alternative to Jim's idea is
to lengthen the tailwheel steering arms an inch or so to dampen tailwheel
movement. MC.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Newsletter and Steve |
Does anyone know if the newsletter will come to an end after next year? I
read that Grant is hanging it up then.
Brent Reed
-----Original Message-----
From: steve(at)byu.edu
Date: Monday, July 20, 1998 8:45 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: Newsletter and Steve
>Really?!
>2pages? I hope mine comes soon! I sure wish I could make it to
brodhead...
>
>Thanks Mike,
>
>Stevee
>
>
>Congrat's SteveE on your TWO PAGE !!! BPAN article with photos !
>Very nice. Most of us have read the text on your website but it was still
>nice to see on paper.
>
>
>ps- Leaving for EAA/Brodhead a week from today and have 35 of the
>40 hours flown off. Those motorcycle wheels and tight bungees are
>a bit tricky on pavement. I hit about 6 paved strips yesterday to get it
>out of my system so I can land comfortably on the trip where I need to.
>Grass sure spoiled me. JIM VANDERVORT's little tid-bit on tailwheel
>cable relocation in the BPAN is really a good idea. I tied my rudder
>cables to the same place out on the end of the rudder bar and that
>baby is quite sensitive to ground steering-especially on landing roll-out.
>I repeat to myself upon touchdown: "small corrections dummy,
>remember, small corrections." Another alternative to Jim's idea is
>to lengthen the tailwheel steering arms an inch or so to dampen tailwheel
>movement. MC.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | joe czaplicki <fishin(at)pop.wwa.com> |
SteveE. finally got my newsletter yesterday and read your article. What a
nice tribute to your family and the work you do. Now I understand some of
your earlier comments.
Joe C
Zion, Ill
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: stevee 2 pager |
Thanks Joe.
-----Original Message-----
czaplicki
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 1998 8:20 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: stevee 2 pager
SteveE. finally got my newsletter yesterday and read your article. What a
nice tribute to your family and the work you do. Now I understand some of
your earlier comments.
Joe C
Zion, Ill
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Landing gear change |
Just thought I would give you all an update...
I am replacing my main landing gear. This morning I went to the airport at
6am. Even at the early hour is was still nearly 80 degrees. I put the Air
Camper up on saw horses and pulled the main gear off. Why you ask? Well it
all began when I built the first gear frames. Not until about 120 landings
later did I realise that I had made a mistake during construction. For some
reason I ordered the wrong wall thickness tubing for the down tubes on my
gear. I discovered this after I planted it on landing with a passenger.
Not to proud of that landing. On the next flight I was taking off in
formation and I had a difficult time rolling straight. I thought that if
might be because I was in the propwash of the other aircraft and dismissed
it. We flew to a grass strip and landed uneventfully. I was second to land
and after I hopped out Duane said "Hey your gear is tweeked" It took a
minute to figure out what was bent. The right (starboard) gear was bent in
about 7 degrees and toed in about 4 degrees. I hadn't felt the problem on
the grass, but soon realized why my take-off was so whacked. At the joint
of the two 1-3/8" tubes at the axle the tubing had crumpled. The brake
caliper was touching the tube preventing the wheel from folding completely.
What a bummer. I had never heard of Piet gear being a weak spot an stood
there scratching my head for a while. I had to decide to fly the 20 miles
back home and land on a hard surface runway or truck and trailer it back 40
miles. I choose to fly it out. The take off was fun. The grass made it
easy. I just held full opposite aileron and lifted the right wheel, taking
off in a slip. I flew around for nearly two hours to burn off as much fuel
as I could, then headed for home. I made a low pass down the runway and
found Duane waiting in his truck. I decided to commit it to the runway the
second time. It was a very slow and high angle of attack landing. Again I
held the right wing high and slipped down to a one point tailwheel first
touch-down. The left gear contacted next just as I cut the last of the
power. I held the right main off until I ran out of aileron travel and
airspeed. When the right gear touched I was tossed left briefly, and after
a joggle or two I was quickly down to taxi speed. Whew. With the toe in
I kind of skipped/limped to my parking spot using more rubber than the
previous 100 landings combined I'm sure. I went home and scoured my notes.
Sure enough I had ordered the tubing wrong. I ordered .035 wall instead of
.079! Lesson learned I ordered the correct tubing (after double checking
twice) and rebuilt the gear from the ground up. On this version I added 2
inches to the height and moved the axle back 1.5 inches. I'll report how
this turns out. For now I have to finish some welding and get it painted.
After this mornings successful trial fit, I am again stoked to get in the
air again.
Steve (checking my orders carefully) E.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William C. Beerman" <wcb(at)bbt.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear change |
Steve,
Just getting ready to begin our gear. Do you have any pics from your
rebuilding?
-Bill
> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:31:24 -0600
> From: steve(at)byu.edu
> Subject: Landing gear change
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> MIME-version: 1.0
> X-Listname:
>
> Just thought I would give you all an update...
>
> I am replacing my main landing gear. This morning I went to the airport at
> 6am. Even at the early hour is was still nearly 80 degrees. I put the Air
> Camper up on saw horses and pulled the main gear off. Why you ask? Well it
> all began when I built the first gear frames. Not until about 120 landings
> later did I realise that I had made a mistake during construction. For some
> reason I ordered the wrong wall thickness tubing for the down tubes on my
> gear. I discovered this after I planted it on landing with a passenger.
> Not to proud of that landing. On the next flight I was taking off in
> formation and I had a difficult time rolling straight. I thought that if
> might be because I was in the propwash of the other aircraft and dismissed
> it. We flew to a grass strip and landed uneventfully. I was second to land
> and after I hopped out Duane said "Hey your gear is tweeked" It took a
> minute to figure out what was bent. The right (starboard) gear was bent in
> about 7 degrees and toed in about 4 degrees. I hadn't felt the problem on
> the grass, but soon realized why my take-off was so whacked. At the joint
> of the two 1-3/8" tubes at the axle the tubing had crumpled. The brake
> caliper was touching the tube preventing the wheel from folding completely.
> What a bummer. I had never heard of Piet gear being a weak spot an stood
> there scratching my head for a while. I had to decide to fly the 20 miles
> back home and land on a hard surface runway or truck and trailer it back 40
> miles. I choose to fly it out. The take off was fun. The grass made it
> easy. I just held full opposite aileron and lifted the right wheel, taking
> off in a slip. I flew around for nearly two hours to burn off as much fuel
> as I could, then headed for home. I made a low pass down the runway and
> found Duane waiting in his truck. I decided to commit it to the runway the
> second time. It was a very slow and high angle of attack landing. Again I
> held the right wing high and slipped down to a one point tailwheel first
> touch-down. The left gear contacted next just as I cut the last of the
> power. I held the right main off until I ran out of aileron travel and
> airspeed. When the right gear touched I was tossed left briefly, and after
> a joggle or two I was quickly down to taxi speed. Whew. With the toe in
> I kind of skipped/limped to my parking spot using more rubber than the
> previous 100 landings combined I'm sure. I went home and scoured my notes.
> Sure enough I had ordered the tubing wrong. I ordered .035 wall instead of
> .079! Lesson learned I ordered the correct tubing (after double checking
> twice) and rebuilt the gear from the ground up. On this version I added 2
> inches to the height and moved the axle back 1.5 inches. I'll report how
> this turns out. For now I have to finish some welding and get it painted.
> After this mornings successful trial fit, I am again stoked to get in the
> air again.
>
> Steve (checking my orders carefully) E.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Landing gear change |
No, but I do have a handy dandy digital camera... I'll snap some and post
them on my web site. Stay tuned....
Any particualar shots/angles you want?
Stevee
-----Original Message-----
William C. Beerman
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 1998 12:03 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Landing gear change
Steve,
Just getting ready to begin our gear. Do you have any pics from your
rebuilding?
-Bill
> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:31:24 -0600
> From: steve(at)byu.edu
> Subject: Landing gear change
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> MIME-version: 1.0
> X-Listname:
>
> Just thought I would give you all an update...
>
> I am replacing my main landing gear. This morning I went to the airport
at
> 6am. Even at the early hour is was still nearly 80 degrees. I put the
Air
> Camper up on saw horses and pulled the main gear off. Why you ask? Well
it
> all began when I built the first gear frames. Not until about 120
landings
> later did I realise that I had made a mistake during construction. For
some
> reason I ordered the wrong wall thickness tubing for the down tubes on my
> gear. I discovered this after I planted it on landing with a passenger.
> Not to proud of that landing. On the next flight I was taking off in
> formation and I had a difficult time rolling straight. I thought that if
> might be because I was in the propwash of the other aircraft and dismissed
> it. We flew to a grass strip and landed uneventfully. I was second to
land
> and after I hopped out Duane said "Hey your gear is tweeked" It took a
> minute to figure out what was bent. The right (starboard) gear was bent
in
> about 7 degrees and toed in about 4 degrees. I hadn't felt the problem on
> the grass, but soon realized why my take-off was so whacked. At the joint
> of the two 1-3/8" tubes at the axle the tubing had crumpled. The brake
> caliper was touching the tube preventing the wheel from folding
completely.
> What a bummer. I had never heard of Piet gear being a weak spot an stood
> there scratching my head for a while. I had to decide to fly the 20 miles
> back home and land on a hard surface runway or truck and trailer it back
40
> miles. I choose to fly it out. The take off was fun. The grass made it
> easy. I just held full opposite aileron and lifted the right wheel,
taking
> off in a slip. I flew around for nearly two hours to burn off as much
fuel
> as I could, then headed for home. I made a low pass down the runway and
> found Duane waiting in his truck. I decided to commit it to the runway
the
> second time. It was a very slow and high angle of attack landing. Again
I
> held the right wing high and slipped down to a one point tailwheel first
> touch-down. The left gear contacted next just as I cut the last of the
> power. I held the right main off until I ran out of aileron travel and
> airspeed. When the right gear touched I was tossed left briefly, and
after
> a joggle or two I was quickly down to taxi speed. Whew. With the toe
in
> I kind of skipped/limped to my parking spot using more rubber than the
> previous 100 landings combined I'm sure. I went home and scoured my
notes.
> Sure enough I had ordered the tubing wrong. I ordered .035 wall instead
of
> .079! Lesson learned I ordered the correct tubing (after double checking
> twice) and rebuilt the gear from the ground up. On this version I added
2
> inches to the height and moved the axle back 1.5 inches. I'll report how
> this turns out. For now I have to finish some welding and get it painted.
> After this mornings successful trial fit, I am again stoked to get in the
> air again.
>
> Steve (checking my orders carefully) E.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William C. Beerman" <wcb(at)bbt.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Landing gear change |
I'm particularly interested in the axle and cross-tube attachment at the lower
end, and the hinge lugs at the upper end.
Thanks SO MUCH!!!
-Bill
> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 12:22:09 -0600
> From: steve(at)byu.edu
> Subject: RE: Landing gear change
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> MIME-version: 1.0
> X-Listname:
>
> No, but I do have a handy dandy digital camera... I'll snap some and post
> them on my web site. Stay tuned....
>
> Any particualar shots/angles you want?
>
> Stevee
>
> -----Original Message-----
> William C. Beerman
> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 1998 12:03 PM
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: Landing gear change
>
>
> Steve,
> Just getting ready to begin our gear. Do you have any pics from your
> rebuilding?
>
> -Bill
>
> > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:31:24 -0600
> > From: steve(at)byu.edu
> > Subject: Landing gear change
> > To: Pietenpol Discussion
> > MIME-version: 1.0
> > X-Listname:
> >
> > Just thought I would give you all an update...
> >
> > I am replacing my main landing gear. This morning I went to the airport
> at
> > 6am. Even at the early hour is was still nearly 80 degrees. I put the
> Air
> > Camper up on saw horses and pulled the main gear off. Why you ask? Well
> it
> > all began when I built the first gear frames. Not until about 120
> landings
> > later did I realise that I had made a mistake during construction. For
> some
> > reason I ordered the wrong wall thickness tubing for the down tubes on my
> > gear. I discovered this after I planted it on landing with a passenger.
> > Not to proud of that landing. On the next flight I was taking off in
> > formation and I had a difficult time rolling straight. I thought that if
> > might be because I was in the propwash of the other aircraft and dismissed
> > it. We flew to a grass strip and landed uneventfully. I was second to
> land
> > and after I hopped out Duane said "Hey your gear is tweeked" It took a
> > minute to figure out what was bent. The right (starboard) gear was bent
> in
> > about 7 degrees and toed in about 4 degrees. I hadn't felt the problem on
> > the grass, but soon realized why my take-off was so whacked. At the joint
> > of the two 1-3/8" tubes at the axle the tubing had crumpled. The brake
> > caliper was touching the tube preventing the wheel from folding
> completely.
> > What a bummer. I had never heard of Piet gear being a weak spot an stood
> > there scratching my head for a while. I had to decide to fly the 20 miles
> > back home and land on a hard surface runway or truck and trailer it back
> 40
> > miles. I choose to fly it out. The take off was fun. The grass made it
> > easy. I just held full opposite aileron and lifted the right wheel,
> taking
> > off in a slip. I flew around for nearly two hours to burn off as much
> fuel
> > as I could, then headed for home. I made a low pass down the runway and
> > found Duane waiting in his truck. I decided to commit it to the runway
> the
> > second time. It was a very slow and high angle of attack landing. Again
> I
> > held the right wing high and slipped down to a one point tailwheel first
> > touch-down. The left gear contacted next just as I cut the last of the
> > power. I held the right main off until I ran out of aileron travel and
> > airspeed. When the right gear touched I was tossed left briefly, and
> after
> > a joggle or two I was quickly down to taxi speed. Whew. With the toe
> in
> > I kind of skipped/limped to my parking spot using more rubber than the
> > previous 100 landings combined I'm sure. I went home and scoured my
> notes.
> > Sure enough I had ordered the tubing wrong. I ordered .035 wall instead
> of
> > .079! Lesson learned I ordered the correct tubing (after double checking
> > twice) and rebuilt the gear from the ground up. On this version I added
> 2
> > inches to the height and moved the axle back 1.5 inches. I'll report how
> > this turns out. For now I have to finish some welding and get it painted.
> > After this mornings successful trial fit, I am again stoked to get in the
> > air again.
> >
> > Steve (checking my orders carefully) E.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
| Subject: | some questions about copyright |
I have scanned an article about the construction of a Pietenpol
Hangar that appeared in KITPLANES mag, and would like to put it on my
Pietenpol site, as it is a very neat article. Do I need written or
other permission from them to do so? Or can I just contact the
author?
Also I am looking for Flying and Glider mags, specifically the 4 we
all want, the Pietenpol ones. I have looked around various places,
but cant locate any. Does anyone know where I can get them, or have
copies i could scan or pay you to scan? I have the text of the
articles in Don Pietenpol's manual, but the originals would be
amazing to have, as i am sure you'll all agree. I'm sure theres no
copyright worry there, as the mag must be defunct now.
Thanks for the help.
Richard
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
"Whether you think that you can, or that you can't, you are usually right. "
- Henry Ford (1863-1947)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: some questions about copyright |
Originals are scarce. EAA has reprints at a reasonable cost.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard DeCosta <rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 21, 1998 1:47 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: some questions about copyright
I have scanned an article about the construction of a Pietenpol
Hangar that appeared in KITPLANES mag, and would like to put it on my
Pietenpol site, as it is a very neat article. Do I need written or
other permission from them to do so? Or can I just contact the
author?
Also I am looking for Flying and Glider mags, specifically the 4 we
all want, the Pietenpol ones. I have looked around various places,
but cant locate any. Does anyone know where I can get them, or have
copies i could scan or pay you to scan? I have the text of the
articles in Don Pietenpol's manual, but the originals would be
amazing to have, as i am sure you'll all agree. I'm sure theres no
copyright worry there, as the mag must be defunct now.
Thanks for the help.
Richard
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
"Whether you think that you can, or that you can't, you are usually right. "
- Henry Ford (1863-1947)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
SteveE,
What kind of struts are those on your ship?
The flying struts I mean.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard DeCosta <rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 21, 1998 1:47 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: some questions about copyright
I have scanned an article about the construction of a Pietenpol
Hangar that appeared in KITPLANES mag, and would like to put it on my
Pietenpol site, as it is a very neat article. Do I need written or
other permission from them to do so? Or can I just contact the
author?
Also I am looking for Flying and Glider mags, specifically the 4 we
all want, the Pietenpol ones. I have looked around various places,
but cant locate any. Does anyone know where I can get them, or have
copies i could scan or pay you to scan? I have the text of the
articles in Don Pietenpol's manual, but the originals would be
amazing to have, as i am sure you'll all agree. I'm sure theres no
copyright worry there, as the mag must be defunct now.
Thanks for the help.
Richard
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
"Whether you think that you can, or that you can't, you are usually right. "
- Henry Ford (1863-1947)
________________________________________________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
John Greenlee
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 1998 1:25 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Struts
SteveE,
What kind of struts are those on your ship?
The flying struts I mean.
John
John, I got lucky and found some aluminium extrusions that look very close
to streamline tubing. They were supposed to be chair parts, but got
redirected to my workshop when I realized how well they would work for
struts.
Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
Steve,
I did something similar. I got some extruded aluminum (6061t6) struts from
the ultralite industry. Basic stress analysis showed they were not near as
strong as 4130 but plenty strong enough. Inside they are squared off and I
made fittings to slip inside from square 4130 tubing. It slips inside and
is bolted. These were dirt cheap compared to current manufacture 4130
streamline tubing.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: steve(at)byu.edu
Date: Tuesday, July 21, 1998 3:48 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: Struts
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>John Greenlee
>Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 1998 1:25 PM
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Subject: Struts
>
>
>SteveE,
>
>What kind of struts are those on your ship?
>
>The flying struts I mean.
>
>John
>
>John, I got lucky and found some aluminium extrusions that look very close
>to streamline tubing. They were supposed to be chair parts, but got
>redirected to my workshop when I realized how well they would work for
>struts.
>
>Stevee
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
John
Could you provide us with the source of your ultra-light streamlined
aluminum flying struts. Sounds like a good idea, maybe even with a whole length
of 4130 square and end fittings?
Thanks in advance.
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Owen Davies <owen(at)davies.mv.com> |
Chair parts?! (I resist the urge to use all-caps
with some difficulty.) What kind of aluminum are
they made from? Given the original use, it's tough
to believe this is anything you'd want your wings,
and life, depending on. If you don't know for sure,
please find out what this stuff is.
Owen Davies
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Maiser(at)adena.byu.edu On Behalf Of John Greenlee
>John, I got lucky and found some aluminium extrusions that look very close
>to streamline tubing. They were supposed to be chair parts, but got
>redirected to my workshop when I realized how well they would work for
>struts.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Aron(at)hrn.bradley.edu |
| Subject: | Brodhead question |
Does anyone know what is scheduled for Brodhead?
Is Vi Kaplar going to do his annual Piet forum ? What day?
I got my BPANews yesterday, but saw nothing in it about Brodhead, other
than the dates, and had seen nothing recent about it on the website.
John in Peoria
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Hannan <hannan(at)iinet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: some questions about copyright |
The Flying & Glider manuals are available from my mom's site
Hannan's Runway http://pages.prodigy.com/runway/bestsell.htm
I have scanned an article about the construction of a Pietenpol
Hangar that appeared in KITPLANES mag, and would like to put it on my
Pietenpol site, as it is a very neat article. Do I need written or
other permission from them to do so? Or can I just contact the
author?
Also I am looking for Flying and Glider mags, specifically the 4 we
all want, the Pietenpol ones. I have looked around various places,
but cant locate any. Does anyone know where I can get them, or have
copies i could scan or pay you to scan? I have the text of the
articles in Don Pietenpol's manual, but the originals would be
amazing to have, as i am sure you'll all agree. I'm sure theres no
copyright worry there, as the mag must be defunct now.
Thanks for the help.
Richard
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
"Whether you think that you can, or that you can't, you are usually right. "
- Henry Ford (1863-1947)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: some questions about copyright |
Would the reprints available from the eaa help? they're about $25 for
the set. I really enjoy mine- as well as being a great source of info.
Paris
---Richard DeCosta wrote:
>
> I have scanned an article about the construction of a Pietenpol
> Hangar that appeared in KITPLANES mag, and would like to put it on my
> Pietenpol site, as it is a very neat article. Do I need written or
> other permission from them to do so? Or can I just contact the
> author?
>
> Also I am looking for Flying and Glider mags, specifically the 4 we
> all want, the Pietenpol ones. I have looked around various places,
> but cant locate any. Does anyone know where I can get them, or have
> copies i could scan or pay you to scan? I have the text of the
> articles in Don Pietenpol's manual, but the originals would be
> amazing to have, as i am sure you'll all agree. I'm sure theres no
> copyright worry there, as the mag must be defunct now.
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> Richard
> http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
> "Whether you think that you can, or that you can't, you are usually
right. "
> - Henry Ford (1863-1947)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
| Subject: | Re: Piet floats, WAS: copyright |
I just went to that site to look at the mags. They are great! I
noticed that one of them has plans for Pietenpol floats! Has anyone
ever seen a Piet on floats in action? Sounds like a blast!
On 21 Jul 98 at 20:57, Paris Wilcox wrote:
>
> Would the reprints available from the eaa help? they're about $25
> for the set. I really enjoy mine- as well as being a great source of
> info. Paris
>
>
>
> ---Richard DeCosta wrote:
> >
> > I have scanned an article about the construction of a Pietenpol
> > Hangar that appeared in KITPLANES mag, and would like to put it on my
> > Pietenpol site, as it is a very neat article. Do I need written or
> > other permission from them to do so? Or can I just contact the
> > author?
> >
> > Also I am looking for Flying and Glider mags, specifically the 4 we
> > all want, the Pietenpol ones. I have looked around various places,
> > but cant locate any. Does anyone know where I can get them, or have
> > copies i could scan or pay you to scan? I have the text of the
> > articles in Don Pietenpol's manual, but the originals would be
> > amazing to have, as i am sure you'll all agree. I'm sure theres no
> > copyright worry there, as the mag must be defunct now.
> >
> > Thanks for the help.
> >
> > Richard
> > http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
> > "Whether you think that you can, or that you can't, you are usually
> right. "
> > - Henry Ford (1863-1947)
> >
>
>
>
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
"Whether you think that you can, or that you can't, you are usually right. "
- Henry Ford (1863-1947)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Piet floats, WAS: copyright |
It says Piet Floats on it- but I haven't seen that there was a piet w/
floats in there- I think they were actually for a heath parasol or
something similiar-seems like they were for a very light plane...
Still really neat though- the articles on building your own airplane
engine are great!
---Richard DeCosta wrote:
>
> I just went to that site to look at the mags. They are great! I
> noticed that one of them has plans for Pietenpol floats! Has anyone
> ever seen a Piet on floats in action? Sounds like a blast!
>
> On 21 Jul 98 at 20:57, Paris Wilcox wrote:
>
> >
> > Would the reprints available from the eaa help? they're about $25
> > for the set. I really enjoy mine- as well as being a great source of
> > info. Paris
> >
> >
> >
> > ---Richard DeCosta wrote:
> > >
> > > I have scanned an article about the construction of a Pietenpol
> > > Hangar that appeared in KITPLANES mag, and would like to put it
on my
> > > Pietenpol site, as it is a very neat article. Do I need written
or
> > > other permission from them to do so? Or can I just contact the
> > > author?
> > >
> > > Also I am looking for Flying and Glider mags, specifically the 4
we
> > > all want, the Pietenpol ones. I have looked around various
places,
> > > but cant locate any. Does anyone know where I can get them, or
have
> > > copies i could scan or pay you to scan? I have the text of the
> > > articles in Don Pietenpol's manual, but the originals would be
> > > amazing to have, as i am sure you'll all agree. I'm sure theres
no
> > > copyright worry there, as the mag must be defunct now.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the help.
> > >
> > > Richard
> > > http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
> > > "Whether you think that you can, or that you can't, you are
usually
> > right. "
> > > - Henry Ford (1863-1947)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
> "Whether you think that you can, or that you can't, you are usually
right. "
> - Henry Ford (1863-1947)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead question |
>>Does anyone know what is scheduled for Brodhead?
>Is Vi Kaplar going to do his annual Piet forum ? What day?
>I got my BPANews yesterday, but saw nothing in it about Brodhead,
other
>than the dates, and had seen nothing recent about it on the website.
>>John in Peoria
John- Go to Grant's internet site at:
http://users.aol.com/bpanews/index.html and look under
0000,8080,8080events.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: some questions about copyright |
I am interested in the Kitplanes hangar article. Can you e-mail it to me?
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Hannan <hannan(at)iinet.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 21, 1998 10:45 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: some questions about copyright
>The Flying & Glider manuals are available from my mom's site
>Hannan's Runway http://pages.prodigy.com/runway/bestsell.htm
>
>
>I have scanned an article about the construction of a Pietenpol
>Hangar that appeared in KITPLANES mag, and would like to put it on my
>Pietenpol site, as it is a very neat article. Do I need written or
>other permission from them to do so? Or can I just contact the
>author?
>
>Also I am looking for Flying and Glider mags, specifically the 4 we
>all want, the Pietenpol ones. I have looked around various places,
>but cant locate any. Does anyone know where I can get them, or have
>copies i could scan or pay you to scan? I have the text of the
>articles in Don Pietenpol's manual, but the originals would be
>amazing to have, as i am sure you'll all agree. I'm sure theres no
>copyright worry there, as the mag must be defunct now.
>
>Thanks for the help.
>
>Richard
>http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
>"Whether you think that you can, or that you can't, you are usually right.
"
> - Henry Ford (1863-1947)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
Warren,
I don't have the data here at the office. I had planned an article for the
BPAN but have not got around to writing it. There are at least two
different companies advertising in the classifieds of either/or Kitplanes
and Sport Aviation selling them.
You certainly could use a whole length of 4130 but I thing it would be a
bunch of needless weight. We calculated (somewhat rough round numbers but
close enough) that the aluminum struts are nearly twice (1.91 times) as
strong as required even with a safety factor of 1.5 already figured in.
They are larger in dimension and thicker in wall than the typically used
4130 strut which calculates to 3.34 times as strong as necessary. There is
no lack of adequate strength in the aluminum strut, only less overkill.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Warren D. Shoun <wbnb(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Tuesday, July 21, 1998 6:06 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Struts
>
>
>John
> Could you provide us with the source of your ultra-light streamlined
>aluminum flying struts. Sounds like a good idea, maybe even with a whole
length
>of 4130 square and end fittings?
>
>Thanks in advance.
>Warren
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dswagler(at)cobkf.ang.af.mil |
| Subject: | Re: some questions about copyright |
>I have scanned an article about the construction of a Pietenpol
>Hangar that appeared in KITPLANES mag, and would like to put it on my
>Pietenpol site, as it is a very neat article. Do I need written or
>other permission from them to do so? Or can I just contact the
>author?
Which issue of Kitplanes was that?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
| Subject: | Re: some questions about copyright |
Gosh, I dont know, the article is at home and Im at work now. I'll
email the group when I get home.
On 22 Jul 98 at 8:20, dswagler(at)cobkf.ang.af.mil wrote:
> >I have scanned an article about the construction of a Pietenpol
> >Hangar that appeared in KITPLANES mag, and would like to put it on my
> >Pietenpol site, as it is a very neat article. Do I need written or
> >other permission from them to do so? Or can I just contact the
> >author?
>
> Which issue of Kitplanes was that?
>
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
"Whether you think that you can, or that you can't, you are usually right. "
- Henry Ford (1863-1947)
________________________________________________________________________________
Owen, sorry to alarm you. They are 6061T6 extrusions with a .095 wall and
a .095 internal "T" section. The 4130 sleeves in each end are bolted on
with two bolts on each end. The bolts go through two thicknesses of the
4130, and three of the aluminium. In other words very strong.
Stevee
-----Original Message-----
Owen Davies
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 1998 7:13 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Struts
Chair parts?! (I resist the urge to use all-caps
with some difficulty.) What kind of aluminum are
they made from? Given the original use, it's tough
to believe this is anything you'd want your wings,
and life, depending on. If you don't know for sure,
please find out what this stuff is.
Owen Davies
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Maiser(at)adena.byu.edu On Behalf Of John Greenlee
>John, I got lucky and found some aluminium extrusions that look very close
>to streamline tubing. They were supposed to be chair parts, but got
>redirected to my workshop when I realized how well they would work for
>struts.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Owen Davies <owen(at)davies.mv.com> |
Gee, that does sound more interesting. If you
can suggest a source for this stuff, I probably
wouldn't be the only one who'd like to hear
about it. If not, at least it's a nice reminder to
be open of eye and mind. Thanks.
Owen Davies
-----Original Message-----
From: steve(at)byu.edu
>Owen, sorry to alarm you. They are 6061T6 extrusions with a .095 wall and
>a .095 internal "T" section. The 4130 sleeves in each end are bolted on
>with two bolts on each end. The bolts go through two thicknesses of the
>4130, and three of the aluminium. In other words very strong.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | UUNet <jgw(at)village.uunet.be> |
| Subject: | Kitplanes article |
Richard,
I'd would sure appreciate an e-mail copy too!
Jim
jgw(at)village.uunet.be
-----Original Message-----
From: John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net>
Date: Wednesday, July 22, 1998 3:54 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: some questions about copyright
>I am interested in the Kitplanes hangar article. Can you e-mail it to me?
>
>John
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ken Hannan <hannan(at)iinet.com>
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Date: Tuesday, July 21, 1998 10:45 PM
>Subject: Re: some questions about copyright
>
>
>>The Flying & Glider manuals are available from my mom's site
>>Hannan's Runway http://pages.prodigy.com/runway/bestsell.htm
>>
>>
>>I have scanned an article about the construction of a Pietenpol
>>Hangar that appeared in KITPLANES mag, and would like to put it on my
>>Pietenpol site, as it is a very neat article. Do I need written or
>>other permission from them to do so? Or can I just contact the
>>author?
>>
>>Also I am looking for Flying and Glider mags, specifically the 4 we
>>all want, the Pietenpol ones. I have looked around various places,
>>but cant locate any. Does anyone know where I can get them, or have
>>copies i could scan or pay you to scan? I have the text of the
>>articles in Don Pietenpol's manual, but the originals would be
>>amazing to have, as i am sure you'll all agree. I'm sure theres no
>>copyright worry there, as the mag must be defunct now.
>>
>>Thanks for the help.
>>
>>Richard
>>http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
>>"Whether you think that you can, or that you can't, you are usually right.
>"
>> - Henry Ford (1863-1947)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Here is the bent gear and the replacement gear under construction.
http:\\steve.byu.edu
follow the piet links.
Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William C. Beerman" <wcb(at)bbt.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New Gear pics |
Steve,
Great pics! These will be very helpful.....
-Bill
> Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 16:24:11 -0600
> From: steve(at)byu.edu
> Subject: New Gear pics
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> MIME-version: 1.0
> X-Listname:
>
> Here is the bent gear and the replacement gear under construction.
>
> http:\\steve.byu.edu
>
>
> follow the piet links.
>
> Stevee
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <dsiebert(at)gate.net> |
Did anyone else see the PBS special Plane Crazy?
I can say that I think it was the WORST show on homebuilts I have ever seen.
Website http://www.eclipsecat.com
The home of Advantage Software the makers of Eclipse
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | baileys(at)ktis.net (Robert M. Bailey) |
I saw only the beginning, but recorded it all for later viewing. I was
very turned off by the guys attitude and felt that some of his comments had
no relevance to the main subject.
Maybe I should just erase the tape.
Bob B.
> From: David <dsiebert(at)gate.net>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Plane Crazy
> Date: Thursday, July 23, 1998 9:25 AM
>
> Did anyone else see the PBS special Plane Crazy?
> I can say that I think it was the WORST show on homebuilts I have ever
seen.
>
> Website http://www.eclipsecat.com
> The home of Advantage Software the makers of Eclipse
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dswagler(at)cobkf.ang.af.mil |
>Did anyone else see the PBS special Plane Crazy?
>I can say that I think it was the WORST show on homebuilts I have ever
seen.
Nice free advertisement for Fisher Aero, though!
I had a hard time watching him chainsaw the fast glass, though. What's
wrong with setting it aside and coming back to it later?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Janine Sunlin <Janine.Sunlin(at)Eng.Sun.COM> |
I watched the first 20 minutes while taping it. I found him to be quite
irratating, but I can't pinpoint exactly what it was about him. After a while
you just want to smack that guy.
Jay
N71KF
> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 10:25:26 -0400
> From: David <dsiebert(at)gate.net>
> Subject: Plane Crazy
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> MIME-version: 1.0
> X-Listname:
>
> Did anyone else see the PBS special Plane Crazy?
> I can say that I think it was the WORST show on homebuilts I have ever seen.
>
> Website http://www.eclipsecat.com
> The home of Advantage Software the makers of Eclipse
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
I enjoyed the last hour quite a bit. The first two were very
frustrating, and not extremely interesting, as I dont really have an
interest in composite aircaft, just wood & metal ones (for now
anyway).
I found the last hour fun, since I am new to homebuilding, and have
not had a ton of exposure to it yet, other than in books and on the
net.
Also, unless I was mistaken, I did catch a glimps of a Piet fuselage
and rib in the 1st half hour...
Richard
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder/piet
On 23 Jul 98 at 8:08, Janine Sunlin wrote:
>
> I watched the first 20 minutes while taping it. I found him to be
> quite irratating, but I can't pinpoint exactly what it was about
> him. After a while you just want to smack that guy.
>
> Jay
> N71KF
>
> > Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 10:25:26 -0400
> > From: David <dsiebert(at)gate.net>
> > Subject: Plane Crazy
> > To: Pietenpol Discussion
> > MIME-version: 1.0
> > X-Listname:
> >
> > Did anyone else see the PBS special Plane Crazy?
> > I can say that I think it was the WORST show on homebuilts I have ever seen.
> >
> > Website http://www.eclipsecat.com
> > The home of Advantage Software the makers of Eclipse
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Hannan <hannan(at)iinet.com> |
Try This: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/home.html
>Did anyone else see the PBS special Plane Crazy?
>I can say that I think it was the WORST show on homebuilts I have ever
seen.
>
>Website http://www.eclipsecat.com
>The home of Advantage Software the makers of Eclipse
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>Did anyone else see the PBS special Plane Crazy?
>I can say that I think it was the WORST show on homebuilts I have ever seen.
I watched the whole program and yes he was a bit aloof about the whole
deal but....the guy had already built 5 airplanes and was just trying to push
the human envelope for fun. (obviously this guy makes good money
in silicon valley where he works) If you listened to his final conclusions
they where pretty much what builders told him at fly-in's at the beginning-
it took them 4, 5, 8, 12, 20 years to build their airplanes and that he
shouldn't expect much in 30 days.
Taking the chainsaw to the first glass project was an illustration that
if you build fast you build junk and that no amount of re-doing was
going to salvage that workmanship. I wouldn't sleep well even
giving that fuselage away. Anywho, Fisher Biplanes look FUN, don't
they ???
Keep building those Pietenpols !!! MDC
________________________________________________________________________________
I didn't get a chance to see it. Anyone willing to make a copy?
Stevee
-----Original Message-----
Robert M. Bailey
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 1998 9:03 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Plane Crazy
I saw only the beginning, but recorded it all for later viewing. I was
very turned off by the guys attitude and felt that some of his comments had
no relevance to the main subject.
Maybe I should just erase the tape.
Bob B.
> From: David <dsiebert(at)gate.net>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Plane Crazy
> Date: Thursday, July 23, 1998 9:25 AM
>
> Did anyone else see the PBS special Plane Crazy?
> I can say that I think it was the WORST show on homebuilts I have ever
seen.
>
> Website http://www.eclipsecat.com
> The home of Advantage Software the makers of Eclipse
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LanhamOS(at)aol.com |
Peace home builders.. I heard about the PBS special at my Optimist
meeting by a fellow aeronaut..He had warned me that the lst two hours were the
pits, so I tuned in about half way through the show and saw the final demise
of the lst attempt.
I thought the show had a lot of hype as that is the way TV feels people
want to be entertained. Part 2 showed the frustrations.. I have a dear friend
with a GP4 who has had a number of mishaps, the latest being a bent prop.
Things happen. I wondered why the expert engine person did not attempt to try
to start the engine.
My wife watched some of the Ohio segments, and I explained to her why
there was so much interaction on the net with builders using wood and glue. I
think she saw how difficult it was.
My recommendation would be that people watch the last hour..
I do know that at Southwest Mo. U, they built a Wag Aero project in a
week for one of their A & P programs.
I did enjoy the flying scenes. I still wonder if he flew the plane
back to Silicone Valley.
Dr. Orville E. Lanham, Bellevue, Ne.
________________________________________________________________________________
If you're curious about the Fisher Biplane check out:
http://www.axsnet.com/~albrown/biplane/
Looks like too many wings to me. I missed the program on PBS, but it sounds
like I didn't miss much.
--Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
nevermind. I just read his website.
Stevee
-----Original Message-----
steve(at)byu.edu
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 1998 9:49 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: Plane Crazy
I didn't get a chance to see it. Anyone willing to make a copy?
Stevee
-----Original Message-----
Robert M. Bailey
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 1998 9:03 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Plane Crazy
I saw only the beginning, but recorded it all for later viewing. I was
very turned off by the guys attitude and felt that some of his comments had
no relevance to the main subject.
Maybe I should just erase the tape.
Bob B.
> From: David <dsiebert(at)gate.net>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Plane Crazy
> Date: Thursday, July 23, 1998 9:25 AM
>
> Did anyone else see the PBS special Plane Crazy?
> I can say that I think it was the WORST show on homebuilts I have ever
seen.
>
> Website http://www.eclipsecat.com
> The home of Advantage Software the makers of Eclipse
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <dsiebert(at)gate.net> |
-----Original Message-----
From: Janine Sunlin <Janine.Sunlin(at)Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: Thursday, July 23, 1998 11:10 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Plane Crazy
>
>I watched the first 20 minutes while taping it. I found him to be quite
>irratating, but I can't pinpoint exactly what it was about him. After a
while
>you just want to smack that guy.
>
>Jay
>N71KF
I have a list of why I would like to smack the guy.
1. His design was really way to complicated. It origonaly had a mid engine
driveing a pusher tractor prop with a reduction drive. It could take Years
just to work out the bugs in that power train.
2. He ignored the advice of experts like Peter Garison.
3. He go abuseave to people because of his own mistakes.
4. He blamed other people for his mistakes
>
>> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 10:25:26 -0400
>> From: David <dsiebert(at)gate.net>
>> Subject: Plane Crazy
>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> MIME-version: 1.0
>> X-Listname:
>>
>> Did anyone else see the PBS special Plane Crazy?
>> I can say that I think it was the WORST show on homebuilts I have ever
seen.
>>
>> Website http://www.eclipsecat.com
>> The home of Advantage Software the makers of Eclipse
>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
It seemed to me that he didn't build an airplane in 30 days, at all...he
mostly watched while the folks at the factory built one for him. He didn't
tackle the problems which arose, he had someone else do it for him. Every
year at Oshkosh, a team builds a Zenith airplane in SEVEN days. Maybe that
would be a more appropriate and meaningful program for PBS...how a team works
together to accomplish a complex and demanding task.
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Guyer <cigognes(at)oz.sunflower.org> |
This was not a homebuilt vidio. it was phyche 101.
Who ever told this guy anyone cares what he thinks??????
________________________________________________________________________________
It seems that there is quite a bit of concensus on the quality of the program
and its' "star". I wasn't the least bit impressed with his credentials, if
this drivel is all that his vast experience has taught him...and not the least
bit of humility.
P.S. How many of you go flying (ESPECIALLY ON A TEST/FIRST FLIGHT) in your
stocking feet and no protective gear? Says a lot for his intelligence, I
think.
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <dsiebert(at)gate.net> |
Let's not forget the lack of a helmet.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed0248(at)aol.com <Ed0248(at)aol.com>
Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 12:31 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Plane Crazy
>It seems that there is quite a bit of concensus on the quality of the
program
>and its' "star". I wasn't the least bit impressed with his credentials, if
>this drivel is all that his vast experience has taught him...and not the
least
>bit of humility.
>
>P.S. How many of you go flying (ESPECIALLY ON A TEST/FIRST FLIGHT) in
your
>stocking feet and no protective gear? Says a lot for his intelligence, I
>think.
>
>Ed
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Owen Davies <owen(at)davies.mv.com> |
>I had a hard time watching him chainsaw the fast glass, though. What's
>wrong with setting it aside and coming back to it later?
How about the fact that he did a really lousy job on it?
Didn't fill in the gaps in his foam core with micro, so his
fuselage would have had lots of really weak points.
Used pure resin on the glass, and so much of it that the
plane would have needed a Merlin to get its weight off the
ground. Etc. Cutting it up was the best thing he did with it.
Too bad they didn't find someone like Garrison to do the
30-day project. As Cringely (spelling?) pointed out, Laird
did it. So did Mignet with the Flying Flea. The right person
could have made a really interesting program. No doubt
it was Cringely's idea, and they couldn't put a more
capable builder on it.
What I can't figure out is how a guy who claims to have
built five planes could understand so little about what it
takes to design and build one.
Owen Davies
________________________________________________________________________________
Just a thought, but is anyone giving feedback to PBS? It might be a
good thing if they are capable of recieving constructive critcism.
Paris
---Owen Davies wrote:
>
> >I had a hard time watching him chainsaw the fast glass, though.
What's
> >wrong with setting it aside and coming back to it later?
>
>
> How about the fact that he did a really lousy job on it?
> Didn't fill in the gaps in his foam core with micro, so his
> fuselage would have had lots of really weak points.
> Used pure resin on the glass, and so much of it that the
> plane would have needed a Merlin to get its weight off the
> ground. Etc. Cutting it up was the best thing he did with it.
>
> Too bad they didn't find someone like Garrison to do the
> 30-day project. As Cringely (spelling?) pointed out, Laird
> did it. So did Mignet with the Flying Flea. The right person
> could have made a really interesting program. No doubt
> it was Cringely's idea, and they couldn't put a more
> capable builder on it.
>
> What I can't figure out is how a guy who claims to have
> built five planes could understand so little about what it
> takes to design and build one.
>
> Owen Davies
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
also it is not good to combine aluminum with 4130. This creates a
problem with corrosion. I would not like this either on my struts.
-=Ron=-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig Lawler <clawler(at)ptd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Passenger Max Weight |
Do any of you know how much weight I can put in the front seat? I had a
190lb passenger the other day and climb left a little to be desired.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
>Nice free advertisement for Fisher Aero, though!
Yes, it was a nice advertisement for Fisher, I was impressed by their kit
and their work ethic.
>I had a hard time watching him chainsaw the fast glass, though. What's
>wrong with setting it aside and coming back to it later?
Sawing up that airplane was the first smart thing he did. The workmanship
was horrible, I believe Peter Garrison called it 'slapdash' or some other
polite term. It was low enough quality to be emberassing.
When he cut the bulkheads for the forms he should have sanded and faired
each station to make a smooth line between it and it's neighbors, that takes
time so he skipped it, you can see how rough some of the unfaird fore/aft
lines are in some of the camera shots.
When he cut the foam and laid it into the forms he should have spent several
minutes to an hour with each piece planing the adjoining edges so they had
contact with the adjacent piece along the entire length and width of the
butt joint. He skipped this, some of the resulting gaps were as wide as 1/2
inch!
When he laid up the glass he should have had almost no visible air. A
marginal job would have had pinhead sized air bubbles under about 20% of any
given palm sized area, instead he had bubbles several inches across covering
50% or more of areas the size of a dinner plate.
In order to 'fix' the problems he would have had to spend much more time
than he would have saved by starting over.
I find the entire idea of building an airplane with the underlying goal of
finishing and flying it within 30 days to be offensive. Watching him run
from expert to expert looking for someone to agree with him, then ignoring
them all when they didn't is some measure of his intellegence. Did you
notice that when he finally got Martin Hollman to design the airplane he
totally ignored Cringely's design ideas and gave him a relatively
conventional and simple design.
Randy Stockberger
________________________________________________________________________________
I noticed on the Plane Crazy final segment where they were building the
Fisher biplane that when they mixed the glue they just turned both bottles
upside down and squeezed. They appeared to be using T-88.
How do other people using T-88 measure their glue. I have been loading it
into syringes and using them to measure it by volume but I find that it is a
messy process. I am currently searching for an inexpensive scale so I can
measure it that way.
How accurate does this need to be? Can I just squeeze out 2 piles that
appear to be equal in volume and know that it is good enough? How do other
people do it?
Thanks for the answers.
Randy Stockberger
A Pietenpol Rib and Tail builder in Corvallis OR.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
Randy:
Go to www.aircraft-spruce.com
Then go to On Line Catalogue
Then go to Search and type in glue gun
What will come up is a twin cartridge glue gun with a spiral mixing tip that
you can cut to your desired fineness and delivers very precise full mixed 1:1
blended air-free epoxy.
This product is manufactured by Chem Tech of P. O. Box 70148, Seattle WA
98107-0148 and they can be reached at (206) 783-2243 or fax at (206) 782-4426.
The only waste is what is in the mixer tubes, which do cost $1.20 each and
are discarded upon finished set-up. This has been beneficial in that with my
Jewish Mother and Scottish Father, I make certain that I have a clearly set up
project....of course I goofed off with the first couple of mixer tubes and glued
a weird mix of things around my shop testing both the glue gun and the T-88.
Happy with both, as there is no open mess to get stuck in.
Hope this helps.
Best regards,
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
Warren:
I saw that thing in the catalog. I assume the epoxy sets up in the mixing
tube when it sets overnight or between glue ups. At $1.20 per glue mix and
hundreds of glue mixes over the building life of the airplane I would spend
a lot of dollars. Or am I missing something? You mention that they are
discarded 'upon finished set-up', a term that I don't understand, but am
assuming means the epoxy setting up.
Also, how much pressure does it take to force the epoxy through the mixing
matrix at cooler temperatures. We are finally enjoying some warm weather
here, but quite often, even in the summer, I have to glue with temperatures
in the mid 50s. It sometimes takes a bit of strength to get the T-88 out of
the container through the dispenser spout, let alone forcing it through a
long small hole.
-----Original Message-----
From: Warren D. Shoun <wbnb(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 10:16 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Mixing Glue
>Randy:
> Go to www.aircraft-spruce.com
> Then go to On Line Catalogue
> Then go to Search and type in glue gun
> What will come up is a twin cartridge glue gun with a spiral mixing tip
that
>you can cut to your desired fineness and delivers very precise full mixed
1:1
>blended air-free epoxy.
> This product is manufactured by Chem Tech of P. O. Box 70148, Seattle
WA
>98107-0148 and they can be reached at (206) 783-2243 or fax at (206)
782-4426.
> The only waste is what is in the mixer tubes, which do cost $1.20 each
and
>are discarded upon finished set-up. This has been beneficial in that with
my
>Jewish Mother and Scottish Father, I make certain that I have a clearly set
up
>project....of course I goofed off with the first couple of mixer tubes and
glued
>a weird mix of things around my shop testing both the glue gun and the
T-88.
>Happy with both, as there is no open mess to get stuck in.
> Hope this helps.
>Best regards,
>Warren
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
Randy:
Yes the T-88 does set up in the mixing tube once the 2 parts are
mixed...hence my comment about waiting until I have a REAL set up complete.
For me, this has frankly been a forced planning blessing in my construction
planning.
With the leverage on the handle like a caulking gun, I have not experienced
any major noticeable problems with the T-88. I imagine it could be a real
serious problem with some of the thicker epoxy mixes that I have seen and I
would not try this application method with them.
Best Regards,
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | baileys(at)ktis.net (Robert M. Bailey) |
> From: Randy Stockberger
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: Plane Crazy
> Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 10:30 PM
One thing that did interest me, but it went by so fast I didn't get much of
a look at it. What was the book on composite construction the was
referenced?
Bob B.
________________________________________________________________________________
Go to a medical supply house and buy some plastic pill cups. They
usually come in a tube of about 100 and are real cheap. They have all
kinds of markings on the side for oz's, cc's, etc. Just measure out
your T-88 50/50 and throw away the cup when you'r done. I've built
almost my whole plane this way and it works great.
Brad Schultz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com> |
If you have trouble finding those , my wife found small disposable clear
plastic containers at a party supply house (something you might get an
individual serving of mayo or butter in).
I simply stacked one inside another, poured a known amount of fluid into
the inner cup, marked the outer cup with a felt pen, then poured the
same amount of fluid again and marked again. I keep the outer cup as a
reference. When I want to mix glue I get a new inner cup, put it in my
refernce cup, squeeze in one part up to the first line, then squeeze in
the other part to the second line.
>Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 07:20:02 -0400
>From: Brad Schultz
>Subject: Glue mixing
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>
>Go to a medical supply house and buy some plastic pill cups. They
>usually come in a tube of about 100 and are real cheap. They have all
>kinds of markings on the side for oz's, cc's, etc. Just measure out
>your T-88 50/50 and throw away the cup when you'r done. I've built
>almost my whole plane this way and it works great.
>
>Brad Schultz
>
>
Dean Dayton - deandayton(at)hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
Ron,
You are correct. Airplane building and design is a series of compromises.
Ideal struts would be the 4130 streamline tubing. However, my goal was to
save a few dollars here, and it does have other effects. I plan to coat the
4130 pieces good with epoxy primer before slipping into the aluminum tube.
Probably some periodic inspection would be a good idea.
You've got to look up the going price for the 4130 streamline and then price
the aluminum streamline. The aluminum is probably about 1/3 the cost. I
don't mind inspecting from time to time.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: PTNPOL(at)aol.com
Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 7:36 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Re: Struts
>also it is not good to combine aluminum with 4130. This creates a
>problem with corrosion. I would not like this either on my struts.
>
> -=Ron=-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Passenger Max Weight |
I saw a 215 lb guy get a ride in 444MH one time. It is not one of the
higher powered model A ships. It carried him but did not climb fast.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Lawler <clawler(at)ptd.net>
Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 9:02 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Passenger Max Weight
>Do any of you know how much weight I can put in the front seat? I had a
>190lb passenger the other day and climb left a little to be desired.
>
>Craig
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
To mix glue in cool temperatures I used to get an old coffee can about half
full of water. I'd sit the glue bottles in the water and heat it up on an
old Coleman stove. After letting the glue bottles sit in the warm/hot water
a little they would pour easily.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Stockberger
Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 1:24 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Mixing Glue
>Warren:
>
>I saw that thing in the catalog. I assume the epoxy sets up in the mixing
>tube when it sets overnight or between glue ups. At $1.20 per glue mix and
>hundreds of glue mixes over the building life of the airplane I would spend
>a lot of dollars. Or am I missing something? You mention that they are
>discarded 'upon finished set-up', a term that I don't understand, but am
>assuming means the epoxy setting up.
>
>Also, how much pressure does it take to force the epoxy through the mixing
>matrix at cooler temperatures. We are finally enjoying some warm weather
>here, but quite often, even in the summer, I have to glue with temperatures
>in the mid 50s. It sometimes takes a bit of strength to get the T-88 out of
>the container through the dispenser spout, let alone forcing it through a
>long small hole.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Warren D. Shoun <wbnb(at)earthlink.net>
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 10:16 PM
>Subject: Re: Mixing Glue
>
>
>>Randy:
>> Go to www.aircraft-spruce.com
>> Then go to On Line Catalogue
>> Then go to Search and type in glue gun
>> What will come up is a twin cartridge glue gun with a spiral mixing
tip
>that
>>you can cut to your desired fineness and delivers very precise full mixed
>1:1
>>blended air-free epoxy.
>> This product is manufactured by Chem Tech of P. O. Box 70148, Seattle
>WA
>>98107-0148 and they can be reached at (206) 783-2243 or fax at (206)
>782-4426.
>> The only waste is what is in the mixer tubes, which do cost $1.20 each
>and
>>are discarded upon finished set-up. This has been beneficial in that with
>my
>>Jewish Mother and Scottish Father, I make certain that I have a clearly
set
>up
>>project....of course I goofed off with the first couple of mixer tubes and
>glued
>>a weird mix of things around my shop testing both the glue gun and the
>T-88.
>>Happy with both, as there is no open mess to get stuck in.
>> Hope this helps.
>>Best regards,
>>Warren
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Peck <crusader(at)thegrid.net> |
Just a thought, I remember when I used to install carpet that we used a
large shringe for glueing. If I was building my piet I would get two of
these and super glue them together and glue the plungers together for a
even flow. This way the two part glues are never together except on the
mixing board, so if you seal the tips from air you should be able to use
your new glue gun a long time. The one that I have I got from where
carpet installers buy their tools and supplies. I wouldn't want to buy
a bazzionion glue tube either !
--
Check out Crusader Toys @
http://www.thegrid.net/crusader/
________________________________________________________________________________
That book was called "How To Build Composite Aircraft" by Martin Hollman
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert M. Bailey
Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 3:54 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Plane Crazy
>
>
>----------
>> From: Randy Stockberger
>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> Subject: Re: Plane Crazy
>> Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 10:30 PM
>One thing that did interest me, but it went by so fast I didn't get much of
>a look at it. What was the book on composite construction the was
>referenced?
>Bob B.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Yall might be able to save yerself some stamps and shoe leather by
seeing if my online book store has anything on these subjects.The url
is:
engine dedecated to book finding.
Steve
Brent Reed wrote:
>
> That book was called "How To Build Composite Aircraft" by Martin Hollman
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert M. Bailey
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 3:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Plane Crazy
>
> >
> >
> >----------
> >> From: Randy Stockberger
> >> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> >> Subject: Re: Plane Crazy
> >> Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 10:30 PM
> >One thing that did interest me, but it went by so fast I didn't get much of
> >a look at it. What was the book on composite construction the was
> >referenced?
> >Bob B.
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | kinda off topic. |
We (my wife and I) want to start a pager rental business and wonderd if
anyone is doing this and has any information on this.
Thanks
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Al Koebel, Jr." <kojack(at)ziggycom.net> |
Steve
Could you remove me from the Piet list for now? I am going to be away
from the computer for a few weeks.
Thanks,
Al Koebel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | baileys(at)ktis.net (Robert M. Bailey) |
Hello list,
I sorry I won't be able to make it to Broadhead, I injured my back and
can't drive any distance. WIll someone please take pictures so Richard can
post them on his site. Also any reports to the list will be much
appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Bob B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | baileys(at)ktis.net (Robert M. Bailey) |
| Subject: | Re: Plane Crazy/Thanks Brent |
Thanks Brent,
TTYL Bob B.
> Brent Reed wrote:
> >
> > That book was called "How To Build Composite Aircraft" by Martin
Hollman
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert M. Bailey
> > To: Pietenpol Discussion
> > Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 3:54 AM
> > Subject: Re: Plane Crazy
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >----------
> > >> From: Randy Stockberger
> > >> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> > >> Subject: Re: Plane Crazy
> > >> Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 10:30 PM
> > >One thing that did interest me, but it went by so fast I didn't get
much of
> > >a look at it. What was the book on composite construction the was
> > >referenced?
> > >Bob B.
> > >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HPVSUPPLY(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: address change |
Hi!
Please change our address to "hpvs(at)southwind.net" (was "HPVSupply(at)aol.com")
TIA
Mike Conkling
Pretty Prairie, KS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
Yes, someone pleeeeeeease take lots of pictures of the event. I can't
make it because of the distance (although by next year I will have
arranged either a rental RV or plane to get there.
> Hello list,
> I sorry I won't be able to make it to Broadhead, I injured my back
> and can't drive any distance. WIll someone please take pictures so
> Richard can post them on his site. Also any reports to the list
> will be much appreciated. Thanks in advance, Bob B.
>
>
-------------------------------------------------
Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig Lawler <clawler(at)ptd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Passenger Max Weight |
John,
215lb, must have been in flat county? What kind of engine? I'll bet it
wasn't easy to get the guy in or out. I suppose with a C-85 or more the
weight is no problem. I sure don't thing the strength of the structure
is any factor, it was just the lack of climb here where we have some
hills around that bothered me.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Landing strip for sale |
Hi,
I have been a member here for several years. I now own a Pietenpol and a
Cessan 140A.
A couple of weeks ago I flew the Cessna from Naples, FL to Michigan to visit
my dad and land on his airstrip that he used to fly his Luscombe in and out
of. That is a story in itself.
He just called me this week to tell me that, although he has owned the strip
for close to 50 years, he has decided to sell it since my mom passed away in
May. I hope telling you this is not improper on this list. But, since I
feel like you are my friends I wanted you to know and have first crack at it
if you are interested.
It is about 8 miles south of Alpena (APN). It is comprised of just short of
80 acres and has an approx. 2600 foot grass strip. It has a mobile home and
garage on it and some 7000 planted pine trees. My dad gives permission to
friends to deer hunt on the property and they get their limit every year. I
think the whole thing will go for around $140,000.00. Drop me an email if
you or someone you know is interested.
Ted Brousseau
Naples, FL / APF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe & Marian Beck <flyretina(at)feist.com> |
Randy -
Doug Bryant and I have been mixing T-88 by the "two similar globs"
method for some time now (3 projects, 1 flying). Seems perfectly
adequate. Ambient temp. makes for differing viscosities A vs. B, of
course, so watch the volumes. The idea of medicine cups you can pitch
sounds great for smaller jobs, especially rib construction.
CJ Beck
Wichita, KS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe & Marian Beck <flyretina(at)feist.com> |
Steve -
Thanks for adding me to the list. Building a corvair-Piet and learning
a lot as we go. Fuselage is on the gear, tailfeathers are done, and all
ribs are on 1/2 of single pc. wing. Going to Oshkosh for first time
next week and hoping to pick up everything for the panel. Putting a 2"
venturi outboard to drive small diam. bat-and-ball just in case blunder
into some white stuff!
Will have close to a 1/2 mi. grass strip at our place next year. Hoping
to start up annual Spring fly-in to Wichita.
Best regards,
CJ Beck
15629 E. 45 N.
Wichita, KS 67228
316.733.4553
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Passenger Max Weight |
It was at Brodhead behind a (mild) Model A. I think I have some video
somewhere. The Model A Piets don't climb at any steep angle or fantastic
rate anyway, and this time it climbed just pretty slow. However it carried
him without any mishap. I think they burned off most of the fuel first.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Lawler <clawler(at)ptd.net>
Date: Sunday, July 26, 1998 8:52 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Passenger Max Weight
>John,
>
>215lb, must have been in flat county? What kind of engine? I'll bet it
>wasn't easy to get the guy in or out. I suppose with a C-85 or more the
>weight is no problem. I sure don't thing the strength of the structure
>is any factor, it was just the lack of climb here where we have some
>hills around that bothered me.
>
>Craig
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
See ya later.
stevee
-----Original Message-----
Koebel, Jr.
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 1998 9:24 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: unsubscribe
Steve
Could you remove me from the Piet list for now? I am going to be away
from the computer for a few weeks.
Thanks,
Al Koebel
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi Guys, (and Gals)!
Am considering the Sky Scout. Does anyone know of any Continental powered
examples? Seems to me an A75 powered Scout would have greatly enhanced climb
performance. Structure looks plenty strong to me. I'd sure be interested in
any info, first hand or anecdotal. In advance, thanx. Don Cooley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
It seems like the current BPAN had a Franklin powered Scout for sale up in
Canada. I bet an A75 Scout would climb like a rocket.
Don't be afraid of an A in the Scout for lack of power. A properly
constructed one seat Scout should have low gross weight and fly really well.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: ADonJr(at)aol.com
Date: Monday, July 27, 1998 11:28 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: SkyScout
>Hi Guys, (and Gals)!
>Am considering the Sky Scout. Does anyone know of any Continental powered
>examples? Seems to me an A75 powered Scout would have greatly enhanced
climb
>performance. Structure looks plenty strong to me. I'd sure be interested
in
>any info, first hand or anecdotal. In advance, thanx. Don Cooley
>
________________________________________________________________________________
how much does the Sky Scout weigh and what kind of engines have been
used.
Steve
SJohn Greenlee wrote:
>
> It seems like the current BPAN had a Franklin powered Scout for sale up in
> Canada. I bet an A75 Scout would climb like a rocket.
>
> Don't be afraid of an A in the Scout for lack of power. A properly
> constructed one seat Scout should have low gross weight and fly really well.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADonJr(at)aol.com
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Date: Monday, July 27, 1998 11:28 AM
> Subject: Re: SkyScout
>
> >Hi Guys, (and Gals)!
> >Am considering the Sky Scout. Does anyone know of any Continental powered
> >examples? Seems to me an A75 powered Scout would have greatly enhanced
> climb
> >performance. Structure looks plenty strong to me. I'd sure be interested
> in
> >any info, first hand or anecdotal. In advance, thanx. Don Cooley
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | carpentry question: |
I've been assembling wing ribs lately, and I have a question about the grain
direction for the remainder of my cap strip stock. See, all of my stock has
very little (if any) deviation along the length, but up to now the rings have
run at nearly a 45 degree angle across the end face (the 1/2" x 1/4" side). So
it didn't matter which direction I chose for the 1/2" and 1/4" sides. Now I've
got some boards that are perfectly quarter sawn, and I can cut cap strips so
that the grain is parallel to either side. A back issue of the BPAN says make
'em parallel to the 1/2" side which I figure would look like this:
1/4" ----------------------------
But this seems counterintuitive to the little I know about wood strength,
particularly if there's any grain deviation. What do you folks suggest? I'll
also cut some samples both ways and load them into my stress tester before
continuing.
Seems like a rather elementary question, but I could find no instruction in the
EAA wood book or any other documents that I have on hand. I suppose the answer
to this question applies to the fuse longerons as well, yes? (That is, the
direction of curvature with respect to the grain direction).
Thanks,
Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
Steve,
My best information is that a Sky Scout would weigh about 500 lbs, empty. As
to what engines have been used, I know personally about only Model T's and
Model A's. Much of my flying is in vineyard country, (Napa/Sonoma Area), and
the prospect of a forced landing is a little more daunting than in many areas.
Hence my reluctance to use a Ford conversion. Also, us Californians have a
pretty great need for climb capability, as going anywhere requires surmounting
relatively high terrain. The Continental looks very attractive for these
reasons.
Keep 'em flying!
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DXLViolins(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: carpentry question: |
Dear Peter,
As a violin maker, who uses spruce for violin fronts, I would use the timber
with end grain running at right angles to that you "drew"... like this.......
This will give maximum strength and resistance to splitting.
Good luck,
Dom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LanhamOS(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Passenger Max Weight |
Hey people.. about the weight factor.. I have flown Cubs from J2's to
J'5's. With this discussion of the 215 pounder in the front flight deck, I was
reminded of watching a J 2 Cub on a hot June day, taking off from a grass
strip, elevation 518 feet .
Both weighed at least 225 lbs. The 40 h.p Continental struggled along, and it
took them about 20 minutes to reach pattern altitude. This was flat Centrall
Ill. countryside with few hills of any elevation. Dr. O. Lanham Bellevue, Ne.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | pilot00(at)earthlink.net |
I considered the scout but was persuaded with good reason by Mr. Pietenpol
to go with the aircamper eventhough I probably would not fly a passenger. I
have started the ribs at this point. Am considering using an a-65 or
corvair. e-mail me any time. by the way Grant and Mr. P are great for
information and encouragement.
>Hi Guys, (and Gals)!
>Am considering the Sky Scout. Does anyone know of any Continental powered
>examples? Seems to me an A75 powered Scout would have greatly enhanced climb
>performance. Structure looks plenty strong to me. I'd sure be interested in
>any info, first hand or anecdotal. In advance, thanx. Don Cooley
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 29R flies again. |
Yesterday morning I took to the skies again after the gear rebuild. A
whopping six minute flight, but Iearned a great deal about my gear change.
I am very please with the modification to my gear second time around. I
build my first set to gear legs to the plans except for moving the axles
forward three inches (on account of the addition of brakes.) On this new
set I increased the length of the gear legs 2.5 inches, keeping the same
angle from the fuse (50 degrees) This raised the fuse, increasing the deck
angle slightly, and also widening the gear track. I also moved the axles
back 1.5 inches, changing the moment of the aircraft on the ground. The
noticable result was a lighter tail on take off and landing, and greatly
improved directional stability. I had a great time on landing. Touched
down and then since I had a long taxi, I lifted the tail and wheeled it for
3000' without a wiggle. Cool
Steve back in the saddle (bucket) E.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | joe czaplicki <fishin(at)pop.wwa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 29R flies again. |
steve-e thnx for the gear update, very usefull info as I too am building a
A65 powered short fuse Piet. don't remember if I asked you in the past but
whatdistance did you end up with between firewall and engine mounts???
happy landings &
keep the round side up
joe c
zion, ill
>
>Yesterday morning I took to the skies again after the gear rebuild. A
>whopping six minute flight, but Iearned a great deal about my gear change.
>I am very please with the modification to my gear second time around. I
>build my first set to gear legs to the plans except for moving the axles
>forward three inches (on account of the addition of brakes.) On this new
>set I increased the length of the gear legs 2.5 inches, keeping the same
>angle from the fuse (50 degrees) This raised the fuse, increasing the deck
>angle slightly, and also widening the gear track. I also moved the axles
>back 1.5 inches, changing the moment of the aircraft on the ground. The
>noticable result was a lighter tail on take off and landing, and greatly
>improved directional stability. I had a great time on landing. Touched
>down and then since I had a long taxi, I lifted the tail and wheeled it for
>3000' without a wiggle. Cool
>
>Steve back in the saddle (bucket) E.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: 29R flies again. |
12.5 INCHES, but I depending on your (pilot) weight I would add more
distance. A sample weight and balance is the only way to go if you want to
avoid the headache of depending *solely* on adjusting the CG by moving the
wing. (I did't include adjusting the weight of the pilot, because I am
finding that much more diffucult....)
Steve E.
-----Original Message-----
czaplicki
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 11:50 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: 29R flies again.
steve-e thnx for the gear update, very usefull info as I too am building a
A65 powered short fuse Piet. don't remember if I asked you in the past but
whatdistance did you end up with between firewall and engine mounts???
happy landings &
keep the round side up
joe c
zion, ill
>
>Yesterday morning I took to the skies again after the gear rebuild. A
>whopping six minute flight, but Iearned a great deal about my gear change.
>I am very please with the modification to my gear second time around. I
>build my first set to gear legs to the plans except for moving the axles
>forward three inches (on account of the addition of brakes.) On this new
>set I increased the length of the gear legs 2.5 inches, keeping the same
>angle from the fuse (50 degrees) This raised the fuse, increasing the deck
>angle slightly, and also widening the gear track. I also moved the axles
>back 1.5 inches, changing the moment of the aircraft on the ground. The
>noticable result was a lighter tail on take off and landing, and greatly
>improved directional stability. I had a great time on landing. Touched
>down and then since I had a long taxi, I lifted the tail and wheeled it for
>3000' without a wiggle. Cool
>
>Steve back in the saddle (bucket) E.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | michael list <mclist(at)ptw.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 29R flies again. |
Steve,
You must be a wild man with that torch to get a new gear made up so
quick! Thanks for your updates!
Mike List
steve(at)byu.edu wrote:
>
> Yesterday morning I took to the skies again after the gear rebuild. A
> whopping six minute flight, but Iearned a great deal about my gear change.
> I am very please with the modification to my gear second time around. I
> build my first set to gear legs to the plans except for moving the axles
> forward three inches (on account of the addition of brakes.) On this new
> set I increased the length of the gear legs 2.5 inches, keeping the same
> angle from the fuse (50 degrees) This raised the fuse, increasing the deck
> angle slightly, and also widening the gear track. I also moved the axles
> back 1.5 inches, changing the moment of the aircraft on the ground. The
> noticable result was a lighter tail on take off and landing, and greatly
> improved directional stability. I had a great time on landing. Touched
> down and then since I had a long taxi, I lifted the tail and wheeled it for
> 3000' without a wiggle. Cool
>
> Steve back in the saddle (bucket) E.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | pilot00(at)earthlink.net |
| Subject: | Re: 29R flies again. |
just started my piet. please send more details about the gear with brakes.
am planning to possibly use cessna type 600x6 with brakes.
and what engine did you use??
thanks
>
>Yesterday morning I took to the skies again after the gear rebuild. A
>whopping six minute flight, but Iearned a great deal about my gear change.
>I am very please with the modification to my gear second time around. I
>build my first set to gear legs to the plans except for moving the axles
>forward three inches (on account of the addition of brakes.) On this new
>set I increased the length of the gear legs 2.5 inches, keeping the same
>angle from the fuse (50 degrees) This raised the fuse, increasing the deck
>angle slightly, and also widening the gear track. I also moved the axles
>back 1.5 inches, changing the moment of the aircraft on the ground. The
>noticable result was a lighter tail on take off and landing, and greatly
>improved directional stability. I had a great time on landing. Touched
>down and then since I had a long taxi, I lifted the tail and wheeled it for
>3000' without a wiggle. Cool
>
>Steve back in the saddle (bucket) E.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 29R flies again. |
Steve,
I know you gave this data before, but I must not have been paying attention.
What is 29R's empty weight? How far back did you move your wing?
After a lot of delay, I'm back to the construction of my Aircamper, (the
Missus gave me the best argument against the Sky Scout - "It's only got one
seat!"). I'll be starting the vertical tail this week. Tanx for all your
info and inspiration!
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
This rib thing is baffling me. I dont want to appear stupid, but I
cant figure out how the trailing edge is supposed to be. Does anyone
have a good, closeup picture of the trailing edge? I am on rib #2,
and making templates for all the other ribs, and I'm kindof stuck
until I get this worked out. Having never actually seen a piece of
trailing edge stock, it is particularly hard to visualise the end of
the rib.
Thanks all.
Richard
-------------------------------------------------
Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | baileys(at)ktis.net (Robert M. Bailey) |
Richard,
Are you planning on using the aluminum trailing edge material or what?
Bob B.
> From: Richard DeCosta <rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: ribs
> Date: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 3:25 AM
>
> This rib thing is baffling me. I dont want to appear stupid, but I
> cant figure out how the trailing edge is supposed to be. Does anyone
> have a good, closeup picture of the trailing edge? I am on rib #2,
> and making templates for all the other ribs, and I'm kindof stuck
> until I get this worked out. Having never actually seen a piece of
> trailing edge stock, it is particularly hard to visualise the end of
> the rib.
>
> Thanks all.
>
> Richard
> -------------------------------------------------
> Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
I was planning on using the wooden trailing edge, like on drawing #5
of BH Pienenpol's plans. The upper of the two drawings was the one I
was going to use, with the 1 1/4" wooden trailing edge. On my rib
plans, however, the top and bottom pieces of captrip do not meet as
they do on the plans. If I bring them together at the 1 1/4" mark,
the distance from the top capstrip to the bottom is too short
according to the plans. That is what i am confused about.
Here is an illustration of what I am talking about:
http://24.92.153.209/PietRib.gif
Richard
> Richard,
> Are you planning on using the aluminum trailing edge material or
> what? Bob B.
>
> ----------
> > From: Richard DeCosta <rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com>
> > To: Pietenpol Discussion
> > Subject: ribs
> > Date: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 3:25 AM
> >
> > This rib thing is baffling me. I dont want to appear stupid, but I
> > cant figure out how the trailing edge is supposed to be. Does anyone
> > have a good, closeup picture of the trailing edge? I am on rib #2,
> > and making templates for all the other ribs, and I'm kindof stuck
> > until I get this worked out. Having never actually seen a piece of
> > trailing edge stock, it is particularly hard to visualise the end of
> > the rib.
> >
> > Thanks all.
> >
> > Richard
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
-------------------------------------------------
Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
Martin Holman's Modern Aircraft Design volumes 1 and 2. Interesting reading.
Not a total summary of design. You cannot do it all with just V1 & V2.
Also, most was done on Mac computers--Martin did not follow the ease of
spreadsheets or Bill Gates. Reprise your college engineering coursework on
strength of materials, statics, mechanics so that you can understand
Holman's books in depth. They are a good advertisement for Holman's
business--to design a plane for you at a price. See the Lancair. Holman
leaves the details to you, just like his drawings for Bob C. had no (at
least visible to us) layup schedule or dimensions!
Bob Cringley also forgot project planning until Fisher reminded him
of it. Break down the project into tasks, develop critical path, sequence
structure and work the plan. One thing more. Bob wanted to build his plane
in 30 days = 30 man-days. With the Fishers this equaled more like 180 (six
people!) man-days. With the mechanic who delivered an untested engine count
another 15 man-days! And, with a Fisher kit of materials ready, he shorted
the work! He bypassed the Volk'splane which he showed at Oshkosh as being
too simple for his tastes, another plane he might have been successful with.
Boxes are easier to build than fast glass.
>
>----------
>> From: Randy Stockberger
>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> Subject: Re: Plane Crazy
>> Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 10:30 PM
>One thing that did interest me, but it went by so fast I didn't get much of
>a look at it. What was the book on composite construction the was
>referenced?
>Bob B.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LanhamOS(at)aol.com |
We saw Bob destroy the fuselage, but what happened to the wings? Will he
use them on something else?
For our Piet Subie people, I found out the original Subie engine was an
aircraft engine that was modified for auto use. Hence te ease of installation,
and other stuff.
Orville Lanham, Bellevue, Ne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)mailexcite.com> |
Jeep engines, jeep engines, jeep engines.
Geez...can't I talk about anything else! I'm finding out more stuff all the time.
And things are looking pretty good.
First off, (according to my brother in law's brother) the front and rear main bearings
on the 134 cid jeep engine are both the same length, 2-3/4 inches. This
vs the rear main of the model "A" of around 3 inches.
Also the crank is (I dont have my book handy) about
2-5/8 in diameter at the mains, vs about 1-1/2 for the model"A". So the total surface
area of the jeep crank at the mains should be considerably greater.
Next, the bearings themselves are of modern design, not the babbot style of the
old ford.
Jeep has an oil pump, so pressure to the bearings.
The crank is statically, and dinamically ballanced for smoother running. A civilian
crank is also available which fits, and is even smoother running.
compression ratio is 6:1 with heads available for up to 9:1.
It seems that with the jeep engine, most of this has been done at the factory.
And if a fellow was in search of more power, he could up the rpm, install the
recommended Jeep "power Carb", maybe do a cam grind, and install headers.
Lastly,at 2000 rpm, with 105 ft*lbs of torque already, a small increase in rpm
to maybe 2500 (max rpm stated for this engine is 4000) along with the additions
already mentioned, one could probably raise the torque of this engine up to
match that of the continental c-65 which is .....125 ft*lbs, I think??
At any rate, I've still at least 1-1/2 years left to build my plane so there is
much time to think about it.
The jeep engine is looking better and better all the time.
OiL Can Bob
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)mailexcite.com> |
Jeep engines, jeep engines, jeep engines.
Geez...can't I talk about anything else! I'm finding out more stuff all the time.
And things are looking pretty good.
First off, (according to my brother in law's brother) the front and rear main bearings
on the 134 cid jeep engine are both the same length, 2-3/4 inches. This
vs the rear main of the model "A" of around 3 inches.
Also the crank is (I dont have my book handy) about
2-5/8 in diameter at the mains, vs about 1-1/2 for the model"A". So the total surface
area of the jeep crank at the mains should be considerably greater.
Next, the bearings themselves are of modern design, not the babbot style of the
old ford.
Jeep has an oil pump, so pressure to the bearings.
The crank is statically, and dinamically ballanced for smoother running. A civilian
crank is also available which fits, and is even smoother running.
compression ratio is 6:1 with heads available for up to 9:1.
It seems that with the jeep engine, most of this has been done at the factory.
And if a fellow was in search of more power, he could up the rpm, install the
recommended Jeep "power Carb", maybe do a cam grind, and install headers.
Lastly,at 2000 rpm, with 105 ft*lbs of torque already, a small increase in rpm
to maybe 2500 (max rpm stated for this engine is 4000) along with the additions
already mentioned, one could probably raise the torque of this engine up to
match that of the continental c-65 which is .....125 ft*lbs, I think??
At any rate, I've still at least 1-1/2 years left to build my plane so there is
much time to think about it.
The jeep engine is looking better and better all the time.
OiL Can Bob
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)mailexcite.com> |
Jeep engines, jeep engines, jeep engines.
Geez...can't I talk about anything else! I'm finding out more stuff all the time.
And things are looking pretty good.
First off, (according to my brother in law's brother) the front and rear main bearings
on the 134 cid jeep engine are both the same length, 2-3/4 inches. This
vs the rear main of the model "A" of around 3 inches.
Also the crank is (I dont have my book handy) about
2-5/8 in diameter at the mains, vs about 1-1/2 for the model"A". So the total surface
area of the jeep crank at the mains should be considerably greater.
Next, the bearings themselves are of modern design, not the babbot style of the
old ford.
Jeep has an oil pump, so pressure to the bearings.
The crank is statically, and dinamically ballanced for smoother running. A civilian
crank is also available which fits, and is even smoother running.
compression ratio is 6:1 with heads available for up to 9:1.
It seems that with the jeep engine, most of this has been done at the factory.
And if a fellow was in search of more power, he could up the rpm, install the
recommended Jeep "power Carb", maybe do a cam grind, and install headers.
Lastly,at 2000 rpm, with 105 ft*lbs of torque already, a small increase in rpm
to maybe 2500 (max rpm stated for this engine is 4000) along with the additions
already mentioned, one could probably raise the torque of this engine up to
match that of the continental c-65 which is .....125 ft*lbs, I think??
At any rate, I've still at least 1-1/2 years left to build my plane so there is
much time to think about it.
The jeep engine is looking better and better all the time.
OiL Can Bob
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)mailexcite.com> |
Jeep engines, jeep engines, jeep engines.
Geez...can't I talk about anything else! I'm finding out more stuff all the time.
And things are looking pretty good.
First off, (according to my brother in law's brother) the front and rear main bearings
on the 134 cid jeep engine are both the same length, 2-3/4 inches. This
vs the rear main of the model "A" of around 3 inches.
Also the crank is (I dont have my book handy) about
2-5/8 in diameter at the mains, vs about 1-1/2 for the model"A". So the total surface
area of the jeep crank at the mains should be considerably greater.
Next, the bearings themselves are of modern design, not the babbot style of the
old ford.
Jeep has an oil pump, so pressure to the bearings.
The crank is statically, and dinamically ballanced for smoother running. A civilian
crank is also available which fits, and is even smoother running.
compression ratio is 6:1 with heads available for up to 9:1.
It seems that with the jeep engine, most of this has been done at the factory.
And if a fellow was in search of more power, he could up the rpm, install the
recommended Jeep "power Carb", maybe do a cam grind, and install headers.
Lastly,at 2000 rpm, with 105 ft*lbs of torque already, a small increase in rpm
to maybe 2500 (max rpm stated for this engine is 4000) along with the additions
already mentioned, one could probably raise the torque of this engine up to
match that of the continental c-65 which is .....125 ft*lbs, I think??
At any rate, I've still at least 1-1/2 years left to build my plane so there is
much time to think about it.
The jeep engine is looking better and better all the time.
OiL Can Bob
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Steve wrote:
Parts? How much does it weigh compaires to the "A" and how easy is it to
find.
Steve
oil can wrote:
>
> Jeep engines, jeep engines, jeep engines.
>
> Geez...can't I talk about anything else! I'm finding out more stuff all the
time. And things are looking pretty good.
>
> First off, (according to my brother in law's brother) the front and rear main
bearings on the 134 cid jeep engine are both the same length, 2-3/4 inches. This
vs the rear main of the model "A" of around 3 inches.
>
> Also the crank is (I dont have my book handy) about
> 2-5/8 in diameter at the mains, vs about 1-1/2 for the model"A". So the total
surface area of the jeep crank at the mains should be considerably greater.
>
> Next, the bearings themselves are of modern design, not the babbot style of the
old ford.
>
> Jeep has an oil pump, so pressure to the bearings.
>
> The crank is statically, and dinamically ballanced for smoother running. A civilian
crank is also available which fits, and is even smoother running.
>
> compression ratio is 6:1 with heads available for up to 9:1.
>
> >From my reading (Piet web page)experiments have been done to boost the power
of the ford "A". new pistons, carbs, cam gring, modern bearings, etc.
> It seems that with the jeep engine, most of this has been done at the factory.
And if a fellow was in search of more power, he could up the rpm, install the
recommended Jeep "power Carb", maybe do a cam grind, and install headers.
>
>
> Lastly,at 2000 rpm, with 105 ft*lbs of torque already, a small increase in rpm
to maybe 2500 (max rpm stated for this engine is 4000) along with the additions
already mentioned, one could probably raise the torque of this engine up
to match that of the continental c-65 which is .....125 ft*lbs, I think??
>
> At any rate, I've still at least 1-1/2 years left to build my plane so there
is much time to think about it.
> The jeep engine is looking better and better all the time.
>
> OiL Can Bob
>
> http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
Richard
I don't think you will ever find that everything fits just perfect. Cut
the rib either longer or shorter, whichever it is you need or cut it just
like they say and sandpaper the trailing edge to fit. It doesn't make a
lot of difference if the rib is 1/8 inch longer or shorter. All that
matters is that all the ribs are the same. When you finish it will still
be a Pietenpol Air Camper. Now if you start making the ribs all 6 inches
shorter that would make a difference. To me that is what craftsmanship is
all about, making thing fit together and look good. I know you want
perfection but it ain't gonna happen. Start building and don't look back.
>I was planning on using the wooden trailing edge, like on drawing #5
>of BH Pienenpol's plans. The upper of the two drawings was the one I
>was going to use, with the 1 1/4" wooden trailing edge. On my rib
>plans, however, the top and bottom pieces of captrip do not meet as
>they do on the plans. If I bring them together at the 1 1/4" mark,
>the distance from the top capstrip to the bottom is too short
>according to the plans. That is what i am confused about.
>
>Here is an illustration of what I am talking about:
>http://24.92.153.209/PietRib.gif
>
>Richard
>
>> Richard,
>> Are you planning on using the aluminum trailing edge material or
>> what? Bob B.
>>
>> ----------
>> > From: Richard DeCosta <rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com>
>> > To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> > Subject: ribs
>> > Date: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 3:25 AM
>> >
>> > This rib thing is baffling me. I dont want to appear stupid, but I
>> > cant figure out how the trailing edge is supposed to be. Does anyone
>> > have a good, closeup picture of the trailing edge? I am on rib #2,
>> > and making templates for all the other ribs, and I'm kindof stuck
>> > until I get this worked out. Having never actually seen a piece of
>> > trailing edge stock, it is particularly hard to visualise the end of
>> > the rib.
>> >
>> > Thanks all.
>> >
>> > Richard
>> > -------------------------------------------------
>> > Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
>-------------------------------------------------
>Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
>
>
jimsury(at)fbtc.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | UUNet <jgw(at)village.uunet.be> |
Bob,
Check out the following WWII Jeep site...I think you will like it.
http://www.g503.com/
I think your idea sounds interesting, and might be a possiblity over here in
Belgium too as many people restore old jeeps.
Regards,
Jim
jgw(at)village.uunet.be
-----Original Message-----
From: oil can <oilcanbob(at)mailexcite.com>
Date: Thursday, July 30, 1998 10:02 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: more jeep
> Jeep engines, jeep engines, jeep engines.
>
> Geez...can't I talk about anything else! I'm finding out more stuff all
the time. And things are looking pretty good.
>
>First off, (according to my brother in law's brother) the front and rear
main bearings on the 134 cid jeep engine are both the same length, 2-3/4
inches. This vs the rear main of the model "A" of around 3 inches.
>
>Also the crank is (I dont have my book handy) about
>2-5/8 in diameter at the mains, vs about 1-1/2 for the model"A". So the
total surface area of the jeep crank at the mains should be considerably
greater.
>
>Next, the bearings themselves are of modern design, not the babbot style of
the old ford.
>
>Jeep has an oil pump, so pressure to the bearings.
>
>The crank is statically, and dinamically ballanced for smoother running. A
civilian crank is also available which fits, and is even smoother running.
>
>compression ratio is 6:1 with heads available for up to 9:1.
>
>>From my reading (Piet web page)experiments have been done to boost the
power of the ford "A". new pistons, carbs, cam gring, modern bearings, etc.
>It seems that with the jeep engine, most of this has been done at the
factory. And if a fellow was in search of more power, he could up the rpm,
install the recommended Jeep "power Carb", maybe do a cam grind, and install
headers.
>
>
>Lastly,at 2000 rpm, with 105 ft*lbs of torque already, a small increase in
rpm to maybe 2500 (max rpm stated for this engine is 4000) along with the
additions already mentioned, one could probably raise the torque of this
engine up to match that of the continental c-65 which is .....125 ft*lbs, I
think??
>
>At any rate, I've still at least 1-1/2 years left to build my plane so
there is much time to think about it.
>The jeep engine is looking better and better all the time.
>
>OiL Can Bob
>
>
>http://www.mailexcite.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
I am really relieved to hear that. I though I was doing something
wrong. Thanks!
>
> Richard
> I don't think you will ever find that everything fits just
> perfect. Cut
> the rib either longer or shorter, whichever it is you need or cut it
> just like they say and sandpaper the trailing edge to fit. It
> doesn't make a lot of difference if the rib is 1/8 inch longer or
> shorter. All that matters is that all the ribs are the same. When
> you finish it will still be a Pietenpol Air Camper. Now if you
> start making the ribs all 6 inches shorter that would make a
> difference. To me that is what craftsmanship is all about, making
> thing fit together and look good. I know you want perfection but it
> ain't gonna happen. Start building and don't look back.
>
>
> >I was planning on using the wooden trailing edge, like on drawing #5
> >of BH Pienenpol's plans. The upper of the two drawings was the one I
> >was going to use, with the 1 1/4" wooden trailing edge. On my rib
> >plans, however, the top and bottom pieces of captrip do not meet as
> >they do on the plans. If I bring them together at the 1 1/4" mark,
> >the distance from the top capstrip to the bottom is too short
> >according to the plans. That is what i am confused about.
> >
> >Here is an illustration of what I am talking about:
> >http://24.92.153.209/PietRib.gif
> >
> >Richard
> >
> >> Richard,
> >> Are you planning on using the aluminum trailing edge material or
> >> what? Bob B.
> >>
> >> ----------
> >> > From: Richard DeCosta <rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com>
> >> > To: Pietenpol Discussion
> >> > Subject: ribs
> >> > Date: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 3:25 AM
> >> >
> >> > This rib thing is baffling me. I dont want to appear stupid, but I
> >> > cant figure out how the trailing edge is supposed to be. Does anyone
> >> > have a good, closeup picture of the trailing edge? I am on rib #2,
> >> > and making templates for all the other ribs, and I'm kindof stuck
> >> > until I get this worked out. Having never actually seen a piece of
> >> > trailing edge stock, it is particularly hard to visualise the end of
> >> > the rib.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks all.
> >> >
> >> > Richard
> >> > -------------------------------------------------
> >> > Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
> >-------------------------------------------------
> >Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
> >
> >
> jimsury(at)fbtc.net
>
-------------------------------------------------
Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Re: Mixing Glue |
Hey guys,
Go to the grocery store and get two sets of measuring spoons. This
works great. All you have to do is wipe them out when your done and you
are ready for the next glue up job. In addition, get some nitrile disposible
gloves to protect your hands from the t-88. It is worth the eight to eleven
dollars. It works better than trying to scrub the glue off of your hands.
-=RON=-
________________________________________________________________________________
Bob,
Have you checked into the availability of these engines to see if they are
really out there? What have you found ? What about cost?
Brent Reed
-----Original Message-----
From: oil can <oilcanbob(at)mailexcite.com>
Date: Monday, June 15, 1998 12:59 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: 134L head
>After looking into conversions of the models a, or b Ford for the engine
for my ace,I spoke to my my brother in law,and he suggested that i consider
the WWII je
>ep engine known as the 134L flat head. He said that It is very close in
appearance to the model a,has 4 cyl, and it has a much more modern bottom
end.
>
>He also said that the 134L was designed as a long throw slow turning high
torque engine.And that unlike the Ford models a, or b, these jeep engines
are widly available, also that carbs are better, pistons stronger, and no
poured babbet bearings...etc...etc...
>
>Does anybody have any thoughts on this? The 134L flat head seems at first
to be a good idea....
>
>I'lll be looking more deeply into the engine, and will write in what I
find.
>
>bob
>
>
>http://www.mailexcite.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | pilot00(at)earthlink.net |
According to the plans that I have and the template, there are two choices.
One is a trangular type that has a radiused edge.
I think this can be made by using either an angled table saw or one of the
fancy angled band saws using a fence as the squaring reference point. I
think ( I am not to this stage but have consulted some wood working
companies who have made suggestions) that the radius can be made on a
router. If you need the part number I have them here somewhere and have
filed away for the future. The other is the same but has a tongue type of
male grove that inserts into a solid block that appears to be glued to the
trailing edge of the rib. These trailing and leading edges appear to span
the wing and are made in solid pieces. I have made a jig to do the ribs and
am finishing it up now. I am searching for a piet in my area of Los Angeles
so as to photograph. The photos will help tremendously. If I am lucky to
get this I will scan them and have them available for others via email.
martin montague
>This rib thing is baffling me. I dont want to appear stupid, but I
>cant figure out how the trailing edge is supposed to be. Does anyone
>have a good, closeup picture of the trailing edge? I am on rib #2,
>and making templates for all the other ribs, and I'm kindof stuck
>until I get this worked out. Having never actually seen a piece of
>trailing edge stock, it is particularly hard to visualise the end of
>the rib.
>
>Thanks all.
>
>Richard
>-------------------------------------------------
>Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | pilot00(at)earthlink.net |
more info on a SUBIE ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE SUBARU???????/At 12:39
> We saw Bob destroy the fuselage, but what happened to the wings? Will he
>use them on something else?
>
> For our Piet Subie people, I found out the original Subie engine was an
>aircraft engine that was modified for auto use. Hence te ease of installation,
>and other stuff.
>
>Orville Lanham, Bellevue, Ne
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | pilot00(at)earthlink.net |
I understand what y'all talking about. The ribs will not come out perfect
to the drawing. use the drawing as a guide for your jig and make the ribs
the same. It will work out fine. I have made many types of ribs for F.A.A.
repairs and if they are a 1/8 off not to worry.
>I am really relieved to hear that. I though I was doing something
>wrong. Thanks!
>
>>
>> Richard
>> I don't think you will ever find that everything fits just
>> perfect. Cut
>> the rib either longer or shorter, whichever it is you need or cut it
>> just like they say and sandpaper the trailing edge to fit. It
>> doesn't make a lot of difference if the rib is 1/8 inch longer or
>> shorter. All that matters is that all the ribs are the same. When
>> you finish it will still be a Pietenpol Air Camper. Now if you
>> start making the ribs all 6 inches shorter that would make a
>> difference. To me that is what craftsmanship is all about, making
>> thing fit together and look good. I know you want perfection but it
>> ain't gonna happen. Start building and don't look back.
>>
>>
>> >I was planning on using the wooden trailing edge, like on drawing #5
>> >of BH Pienenpol's plans. The upper of the two drawings was the one I
>> >was going to use, with the 1 1/4" wooden trailing edge. On my rib
>> >plans, however, the top and bottom pieces of captrip do not meet as
>> >they do on the plans. If I bring them together at the 1 1/4" mark,
>> >the distance from the top capstrip to the bottom is too short
>> >according to the plans. That is what i am confused about.
>> >
>> >Here is an illustration of what I am talking about:
>> >http://24.92.153.209/PietRib.gif
>> >
>> >Richard
>> >
>> >> Richard,
>> >> Are you planning on using the aluminum trailing edge material or
>> >> what? Bob B.
>> >>
>> >> ----------
>> >> > From: Richard DeCosta <rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com>
>> >> > To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> >> > Subject: ribs
>> >> > Date: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 3:25 AM
>> >> >
>> >> > This rib thing is baffling me. I dont want to appear stupid, but I
>> >> > cant figure out how the trailing edge is supposed to be. Does anyone
>> >> > have a good, closeup picture of the trailing edge? I am on rib #2,
>> >> > and making templates for all the other ribs, and I'm kindof stuck
>> >> > until I get this worked out. Having never actually seen a piece of
>> >> > trailing edge stock, it is particularly hard to visualise the end of
>> >> > the rib.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks all.
>> >> >
>> >> > Richard
>> >> > -------------------------------------------------
>> >> > Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
>> >-------------------------------------------------
>> >Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
>> >
>> >
>> jimsury(at)fbtc.net
>>
>-------------------------------------------------
>Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: 29R flies again. |
29R is 626lbs before the gear change. I imagin about a 5lb gain there.
wing moved back 5-3/4" from vertical.
Stevee
PS first long cross country planned for Monday. 200mile trip to Green River
Ut.
-----Original Message-----
ADonJr(at)aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 5:54 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: 29R flies again.
Steve,
I know you gave this data before, but I must not have been paying attention.
What is 29R's empty weight? How far back did you move your wing?
After a lot of delay, I'm back to the construction of my Aircamper, (the
Missus gave me the best argument against the Sky Scout - "It's only got one
seat!"). I'll be starting the vertical tail this week. Tanx for all your
info and inspiration!
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig Lawler <clawler(at)ptd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Passenger Max Weight |
Dr. O
We have too many hills around here for that kind of climb rate.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lee L. Schiek" <concrete(at)qtm.net> |
Just got back to MI from Fri/Sat at Brodhed. God must love Piets
& Wisconsin 'cause weather couldn't have been more CAVU w/ light
winds. Some of us are trying to build airplanes; others might
want to create works of art, but Mike Cuy accomplished both in one
project! If you have the opportunity to touch-it, don't pass it
up! I've been a Piet groupie for over a decade and I thought I'd
seem 'em all, but Mike has set a new standard that few will ever
equal, but we all can admire & enjoy. All together, 15 Piets,
3-4 Fords, one Corvair & the rest "modern new-fangeled" stuff.
Low & Slow,
Lee in MI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
Pictures, pictures, pictures!! Please send them to this
stimulus-starved Piet builder so I can drool over them and post them
on my web site! If you dont have a scanner, I'll reimburse you for a
set of photos or negatives. Theres got to be a bunch of pictures out
there! Next near I am going to drive the 1800 miles to brodhead no
matter what...
Richard
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder/piet
To submit pictures: Email them directly to rdecosta(at)wrld.com OR
AirCamper(at)Yahoo.com they are both me. If you send them, make sure you
dont send more then 2.5 MB at a time. THANKS!
---------------------------------------------------------
> Just got back to MI from Fri/Sat at Brodhed. God must love Piets &
> Wisconsin 'cause weather couldn't have been more CAVU w/ light
> winds. Some of us are trying to build airplanes; others might want
> to create works of art, but Mike Cuy accomplished both in one
> project! If you have the opportunity to touch-it, don't pass it up!
> I've been a Piet groupie for over a decade and I thought I'd seem
> 'em all, but Mike has set a new standard that few will ever equal,
> but we all can admire & enjoy. All together, 15 Piets, 3-4 Fords,
> one Corvair & the rest "modern new-fangeled" stuff.
>
> Low & Slow,
> Lee in MI
>
-------------------------------------------------
Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
| Subject: | Piet Hanger URL update |
I have put online a text/picture version of the Piet hangar article
for those of you who were unable to download the two huge images I
had up before:
http://24.92.153.209/hangar.html
This URL will change when I put it on my official site.
-------------------------------------------------
Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet Hanger URL update |
Richard:
Many thanks for this: It is a great help to me, as I did try to
download the other one and could only get an incomplete download. This
one came thru perfectly. Thanks again.
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lee L. Schiek" <concrete(at)qtm.net> |
| Subject: | Lookin' for Model A engine experts |
Is there anyone out there with Model A knowledge (esp. electrical)
who is willing to go off-group and answer some theoretical questions
for me? My knowledge is about 1 on a 10 point scale, so you'll
have to be patient with me........
Low & Slow
Lee in MI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | russell ray <rray(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lookin' for Model A engine experts |
This. is an apologey letter! I am sorry for the ignorant, and crude e-mail
that was sent earlier. The host (russell ray) was not responsible for those
actions, I was.
Please accept this apologey.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lee L. Schiek <concrete(at)qtm.net>
Date: Sunday, August 02, 1998 8:50 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Lookin' for Model A engine experts
>Is there anyone out there with Model A knowledge (esp. electrical)
>who is willing to go off-group and answer some theoretical questions
>for me? My knowledge is about 1 on a 10 point scale, so you'll
>have to be patient with me........
>
>Low & Slow
>Lee in MI
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | russell ray <rray(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet Hanger URL update |
anyone know how to calculate neutral axis
in spar that has top and bottom biveled?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | russell ray <rray(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet Hanger URL update |
anyone know how to figure neytral axis of spar
if the spar's are biveled top amd bottom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mary A. Kaser" <"randmk(at)wabasha.net"(at)wabasha.net> |
| Subject: | Re: address change |
Please change my address from randmk(at)wabasha.net to randmk1(at)juno.com
(that is randmkone) for the piet discussion group, effective
immediately. Thanks!
Ron Kaser
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stevee's 10A |
Hi Steve:
You may want to check out the August issue of EAA Antique/Classic
Division publication"Vintage Airplane"---Cover story and 5 pages on a
10A restoration.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard F. Rapp" <rrapp(at)polymail.cpunix.calpoly.edu> |
Hi Orville,
Was the original application for the Subie really as an aircraft
powerplant??? That might lead one to believe Fuji Heavy Industries
fabricates aircraft engines.. Is THAT correct?
Not that I'm an enthusiast over the fine points to any fanatical
sense, but it does sound interesting!
Thanx, Rich
On Thu, 30 Jul 1998 LanhamOS(at)aol.com wrote:
> We saw Bob destroy the fuselage, but what happened to the wings? Will he
> use them on something else?
>
> For our Piet Subie people, I found out the original Subie engine was an
> aircraft engine that was modified for auto use. Hence te ease of installation,
> and other stuff.
>
> Orville Lanham, Bellevue, Ne
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard F. Rapp" <rrapp(at)polymail.cpunix.calpoly.edu> |
Jeep "power carb"
The Jeep engines I've worked on usually upgradedthe Ball & Ball
carbonizer to a Holley single barrel from one of the Ford Falcon series of
powerplants.. They're OK carbonizers for the application, but there must
be something better for an aircraft application..
I would spen a considerable amount of time on research before
using a reground cam.. torque is already available at the bottom end of
the spin cycle with the stock configuration.
Headers? Of course, you'll want to fabricate some kind of
headers to avoid the cast iron exhaust manifold! Probably a totally new
intake, slso..
Best, Rich
________________________________________________________________________________
I decided to quit sitting on the side lines and get building. But since I
won't have the space to really start until I move in spring I decided to
build an exact scale model at 10%. That way it will be my second time
through when I switch from balsa to fir. I get to work out all the puzzles
now. So I'm wondering, if you use the same jig for both sides of the
fuselage do you skin the fore end of the frame in place of outside gussets
on one of them?
Also, it seems to me that the outer gussets would show through the fabric.
Is this true? I haven't noticed that in any pictures, but resolution is
pretty low. Did I miss something?
Thanks
Brent Reed
Kent, WA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | pilot00(at)earthlink.net |
| Subject: | Re: Fuse. gussets |
the plywood is on the outside and the gussets on the inside. see the glider
>I decided to quit sitting on the side lines and get building. But since I
>won't have the space to really start until I move in spring I decided to
>build an exact scale model at 10%. That way it will be my second time
>through when I switch from balsa to fir. I get to work out all the puzzles
>now. So I'm wondering, if you use the same jig for both sides of the
>fuselage do you skin the fore end of the frame in place of outside gussets
>on one of them?
>
>Also, it seems to me that the outer gussets would show through the fabric.
>Is this true? I haven't noticed that in any pictures, but resolution is
>pretty low. Did I miss something?
>
>Thanks
>Brent Reed
>Kent, WA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
Good a.m., gentlemen,
I don't have the measurements handy (they are on my old hard disk) but I cut
a piece of rectangular spruce for my trailing edge. I made it large enough
to rip at an angle in to two equally sized triangles that made the trailing
edge. Little waste.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: pilot00(at)earthlink.net
Date: Friday, July 31, 1998 1:19 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: ribs
>According to the plans that I have and the template, there are two choices.
>One is a trangular type that has a radiused edge.
>I think this can be made by using either an angled table saw or one of the
>fancy angled band saws using a fence as the squaring reference point. I
>think ( I am not to this stage but have consulted some wood working
>companies who have made suggestions) that the radius can be made on a
>router. If you need the part number I have them here somewhere and have
>filed away for the future. The other is the same but has a tongue type of
>male grove that inserts into a solid block that appears to be glued to the
>trailing edge of the rib. These trailing and leading edges appear to span
>the wing and are made in solid pieces. I have made a jig to do the ribs
and
>am finishing it up now. I am searching for a piet in my area of Los
Angeles
>so as to photograph. The photos will help tremendously. If I am lucky to
>get this I will scan them and have them available for others via email.
>
>martin montague
>
>>This rib thing is baffling me. I dont want to appear stupid, but I
>>cant figure out how the trailing edge is supposed to be. Does anyone
>>have a good, closeup picture of the trailing edge? I am on rib #2,
>>and making templates for all the other ribs, and I'm kindof stuck
>>until I get this worked out. Having never actually seen a piece of
>>trailing edge stock, it is particularly hard to visualise the end of
>>the rib.
>>
>>Thanks all.
>>
>>Richard
>>-------------------------------------------------
>>Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
I told Mike Cuy it made me want to go home and chain saw mine and start
over!
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Lee L. Schiek <concrete(at)qtm.net>
Date: Sunday, August 02, 1998 11:59 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhed
>Just got back to MI from Fri/Sat at Brodhed. God must love Piets
>& Wisconsin 'cause weather couldn't have been more CAVU w/ light
>winds. Some of us are trying to build airplanes; others might
>want to create works of art, but Mike Cuy accomplished both in one
>project! If you have the opportunity to touch-it, don't pass it
>up! I've been a Piet groupie for over a decade and I thought I'd
>seem 'em all, but Mike has set a new standard that few will ever
>equal, but we all can admire & enjoy. All together, 15 Piets,
>3-4 Fords, one Corvair & the rest "modern new-fangeled" stuff.
>
>Low & Slow,
>Lee in MI
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: rear seat back |
I am currently pulling my fuselage together:) But I am having a problem
understanding the 1933 plans regarding the meeting of the rear seat back
and the turtle back support. The plans show the rear seat back going all the
way flush with the top of the fuselage. It also shows the turtle deck support
going 3/4 of an inch below the longeron. Can anyone clarify how this should
be built? It is starting to look like an airplane:) I left the plywood sides
off and I am finding this very helpful. I will leave these off for a while so
I can locate my controls.
Thanks,
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
Does anyone on the list have any pietenpol sounds? (windows WAV or
other audio format). I am mainly looking for Model-A and
Corvair sounds, as they are most popular.
Richard
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
"Whether you think that you can, or that you can't, you are usually right. "
- Henry Ford (1863-1947)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>I told Mike Cuy it made me want to go home and chain saw mine and start
>over!
>>John
John- Let's not be so tough on yourself- the pictures you have on
Richard DeC's Piet Page show some fine workmanship ! It's all
cosmetic on my Piet....as long as everyone builds good structure and
fittings using good hardware and accepted practices they all fly safely
and are a total blast ! The finish is just taking extra time on sanding
and putting on polyurethane and fabric finishes- but that's the problem
because by that time in the project you are so tired of it we all just want
to get the thing in the air ! Keep plugging away and join us at Brodhead
and Oshkosh next year. Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
Mike -> Be sure to post your placement when you get your Oshkosh placement
notification. Definitely, your workmanship was outstanding and true to form.
Do you know when to expect it?
I am curious about your brake system. I took pictures and thought it very
clever. What kind of 'feel' do you get with the strangely bent arms at the
brake? Is it soft during the first 1/4" pedal travel, slightly stiffer for
the second 1/4" travel & then brick wall the last 1/4"? Is the braking effort
similar to pedal feel or does it take more force in the last 1/4"?
Your audience of gawkers made it a little difficult to get to you, but rightly
so. I think I even spent the most time Thursday and Friday at OshKosh looking
over your bird than anything else there. It was parked in a great spot to
watch the daily airshow - I actually looked up once or twice!
Another question I have is I think you had a slightly larger center section.
Did you effectively make the wing span slightly longer, or did you shorten -
or is it an optical figment of imagination? My memory is not always exact.
KEEP FLYING!
David Scott
Washington, IL
Michael D Cuy wrote:
> >I told Mike Cuy it made me want to go home and chain saw mine and start
> >over!
> >>John
>
> John- Let's not be so tough on yourself- the pictures you have on
> Richard DeC's Piet Page show some fine workmanship ! It's all
> cosmetic on my Piet....as long as everyone builds good structure and
> fittings using good hardware and accepted practices they all fly safely
> and are a total blast ! The finish is just taking extra time on sanding
> and putting on polyurethane and fabric finishes- but that's the problem
> because by that time in the project you are so tired of it we all just want
> to get the thing in the air ! Keep plugging away and join us at Brodhead
> and Oshkosh next year. Mike C.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
Mike,
Don't think I was all that serious! Your airplane is beautiful. Mine is
actually better than most I have seen, but not quite in the league with
yours and Sky Gypsy.
Nice job.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
Date: Thursday, August 06, 1998 7:05 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhed
>>I told Mike Cuy it made me want to go home and chain saw mine and start
>>over!
>>>John
>
>John- Let's not be so tough on yourself- the pictures you have on
>Richard DeC's Piet Page show some fine workmanship ! It's all
>cosmetic on my Piet....as long as everyone builds good structure and
>fittings using good hardware and accepted practices they all fly safely
>and are a total blast ! The finish is just taking extra time on sanding
>and putting on polyurethane and fabric finishes- but that's the problem
>because by that time in the project you are so tired of it we all just want
>to get the thing in the air ! Keep plugging away and join us at Brodhead
>and Oshkosh next year. Mike C.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: rear seat back |
Ron,
There is a crosspiece that supports the top of the rear seat back. It is
BEHIND the top of the rear seat back. The plywood turtledeck support is
glued BEHIND the crosspiece ---- glued to the back of it. This also gives
a little 'cut-out' for the shoulder blades.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: PTNPOL(at)aol.com
Date: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 6:58 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: rear seat back
>I am currently pulling my fuselage together:) But I am having a problem
>understanding the 1933 plans regarding the meeting of the rear seat back
>and the turtle back support. The plans show the rear seat back going all
the
>way flush with the top of the fuselage. It also shows the turtle deck
support
>going 3/4 of an inch below the longeron. Can anyone clarify how this
should
>be built? It is starting to look like an airplane:) I left the plywood
sides
>off and I am finding this very helpful. I will leave these off for a while
so
>I can locate my controls.
>
> Thanks,
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>Mike,
>
>Don't think I was all that serious!
GOOD !!!! Yikes, a chainsaw
reminds me of the Plane Crazy guy, not you. Whew.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>Mike -> Be sure to post your placement when you get your Oshkosh
placement notification. Definitely, your workmanship was outstanding and
true to form. Do you know when to expect it?
8080,8080,8080David- I had five judges initials on
the prop sleeve when I left EAA but
don't have any feel for how I placed or if I placed. Lots of tough
competition up there as you saw. I was just happy to get her up there
and back in one piece !
>
>I am curious about your brake system. I took pictures and thought it
very clever. What kind of 'feel' do you get with the strangely bent arms
at the brake? Is it soft during the first 1/4" pedal travel, slightly
stiffer for
>the second 1/4" travel & then brick wall the last 1/4"? Is the braking
effort similar to pedal feel or does it take more force in the last
1/4"?
8080,8080,8080I took the lazy way out to route my
cables to those oddly bent
actuation lever arms and I had slack in the cables that shouldn't have
been there....but the big trip was upon me so I skipped that work until
later. The brakes don't do much till the last part of the travel
because
of the slack cables, but when they get there they work fine.
On grass I only use them for run-up but on all the paved strips I
landed at on the trip I used them alot. They are racing go-kart
mechanical
disc brakes by I think Comet. Probably on the net somewhere.
Found mine at a lawn mower shop. About 38 $ a side. The heel
brakes are just like you'd find on an Aeronca Champ but not cast
alum. just 4130 steel welded up versions. No complaints- they work
fine as is but could be improved upon as you could see without too
much work. The angle I'm pulling on the lever is certainly not as
effective as it could be but I love to drive the mechanical engineers
into fits with this kind of setup ! :)
Your audience of gawkers made it a little difficult to get to you, but
rightly
>so. I think I even spent the most time Thursday and Friday at OshKosh
looking over your bird than anything else there. It was parked in a
great spot to watch the daily airshow - I actually looked up once or
twice!
8080,8080,8080That was my first ever flight into
Wittman Field and when I taxied up
the flagman told me a/c camping was full and that I would have to
park in row 110 towards the very South end of the field. I told
him my ride was going to be nearer the tower and he said, 'but you
don't want to be with the fiberglass planes do you ?' I said that
would
be just fine with my feet though ! Actually within two rows of me
were 3 other Piets- the really enjoyable Bill Rewey, Wil Graff's Model
A and a GN-1 in green and orange, so I felt pretty happy with that
spot.
>Another question I have is I think you had a slightly larger
center section.
>Did you effectively make the wing span slightly longer, or did you
shorten or is it an optical figment of imagination? My memory is not
always exact.
8080,8080,8080The wing and center section
dimensions I used are true to the plans
for each so the sight must be caused by the center section curved
cut-out or my wing root alum. fairings. I almost wished that I would
have made the fuselage one inch wider and likewise the wing center
section, but the fact is that if I lost about 30 pounds that wouldn't
be
a problem ! Mike C.
>
>KEEP FLYING!
>
>David Scott
>Washington, IL
>
>
>Michael D Cuy wrote:
>
>> >I told Mike Cuy it made me want to go home and chain saw mine and
start
>> >over!
>> >>John
>>
>> John- Let's not be so tough on yourself- the pictures you have on
>> Richard DeC's Piet Page show some fine workmanship ! It's all
>> cosmetic on my Piet....as long as everyone builds good structure and
>> fittings using good hardware and accepted practices they all fly
safely
>> and are a total blast ! The finish is just taking extra time on
sanding
>> and putting on polyurethane and fabric finishes- but that's the
problem
>> because by that time in the project you are so tired of it we all just
want
>> to get the thing in the air ! Keep plugging away and join us at
Brodhead
>> and Oshkosh next year. Mike C.
>
>
>
>--
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Re: rear seat back |
Hey John,
Thanks for the reply. I did not think the plans were right. I always
thought
that the turtle deck support extended above the rear seat back. How about the
front seat? How does the cowl support attach to the front seat back?The 1/2"
stifferners are below the plywood stiffener. The front seat back attaches to
the fwd 1/2" stiffener but what does the cowl support attach to?
In addition, I am leaving off the last 1" brace on both sides. I plan on
gluing in a solid piece of spruce ripped to fit after I pull the sides
together.
This should save alot of time and hand planing. I will let you know how this
works out.
Thanks,
-=Ron=-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jcmjones <jcmjones(at)mci2000.com> |
I've been away from the list for a while and was wondering if anymore has
occured with the Geo-metro conversion that was mentioned about a month ago?
Also, (slightly off subject) has anyone ever installed some type of trim
system in a Piet. I've never flown a homebuilt and was wondering what is
was like trying to maintain level flight.
Thanks,
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
I spent some time in the ultralight area at OshKosh and have watching the
reduction drive system from "RAVEN" drives. They have very low amounts of
hours on them. I asked how many hours they have run one and they replied with
'several hundred' and no experimentals flying with one. Last year they only
had one engine to show. This year they had five and an installation manual
binder.
I feel it is a promising drive, but they are being rather proud and desire a
$2000 price tag for the reduction drive. Being a design engineer and seeing
what they have done, it is a little pricey for a non-proven, low hours
experience system. They should be 'buying' some customers by giving some away
or give at a low price so that they gain some experience. They do not have
any knowledge on life expectancy as they have never run one, let alone
several, to failure to determine it.
Complete 3-cylinder engine in tractor configuration package, less coolant,
65hp weighs in at about 160 lbs, according to them.
They have expanded to other options, also unproven. Turbocharger, 4 cylinder
80hp, pusher configuration, and a sumpless oil for the 3-cylinder package
targeted for the ultralight business. All in all, they have two versions of
the drive with about 4 different configurations by differing the prop hub
attachement and distributor mounting relocation.
I almost bought their installation manual 3-ring binder, which they were
selling for $65 each (ouch) and did not. It shows they are taking some
serious efforts to market their product, but still somewhat price sensitive.
David Scott
scott(at)haulpak.com
Washington, IL
jcmjones wrote:
> I've been away from the list for a while and was wondering if anymore has
> occured with the Geo-metro conversion that was mentioned about a month ago?
> Also, (slightly off subject) has anyone ever installed some type of trim
> system in a Piet. I've never flown a homebuilt and was wondering what is
> was like trying to maintain level flight.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: rear seat back |
That front cowl support is more of a problem. I think I glued in some
blocks on top of the cross stiffener to glue to the back of the cowl
support. It seems like the plans were not so clear.
The last one inch brace you mentioned must be the tail post. I know mine
did not work out so well. I know another builder who did what you describe.
Let me know how it comes out.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: PTNPOL(at)aol.com
Date: Thursday, August 06, 1998 6:41 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Re: rear seat back
>Hey John,
> Thanks for the reply. I did not think the plans were right. I always
>thought
>that the turtle deck support extended above the rear seat back. How about
the
>front seat? How does the cowl support attach to the front seat back?The
1/2"
>stifferners are below the plywood stiffener. The front seat back attaches
to
>the fwd 1/2" stiffener but what does the cowl support attach to?
> In addition, I am leaving off the last 1" brace on both sides. I plan
on
>gluing in a solid piece of spruce ripped to fit after I pull the sides
>together.
>This should save alot of time and hand planing. I will let you know how
this
>works out.
>
> Thanks,
> -=Ron=-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LanhamOS(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re:Rich al Subie |
I will check my source again about the Subie aero engine. Thanks. Orville
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe & Marian Beck <flyretina(at)feist.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing hardware |
Guys:
Ready to install wing wires (drag/anti-drag) but need turnbuckles.
Anyone have a source other than standard mail-order outfits like A/C
Spruce and Wicks? I'd like to avoid taking out a mortgage to get a ship
set of these things. Thanks.
C.J. Beck
Wichita, KS
316.733.4553
________________________________________________________________________________
I am currently working on the tailpost of the fuselage. Leaving the last
tailpost off is working out well so far. The hand planning is easier. You
do not have to taper the tail post by hand. I will use my tablesaw to cut
the angles.
I was wondering if I should beef up the last section of the fuselage where
the tail wheel attaches ? I hear stories of tail wheels ripping off.
In addition, do you guys like the "A" frame type of tail wheel per the 1934
plans better or do you like an aircraft type leaf spring better? I am at
that point where I have to make a decision. Any input would be appreciated.
Thanks,
-=Ron=-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing hardware |
Try B&B Aircraft Supply, Gardner Kansas. Very good prices and great to work
with.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe & Marian Beck <flyretina(at)feist.com>
Date: Monday, August 10, 1998 3:08 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing hardware
>Guys:
>Ready to install wing wires (drag/anti-drag) but need turnbuckles.
>Anyone have a source other than standard mail-order outfits like A/C
>Spruce and Wicks? I'd like to avoid taking out a mortgage to get a ship
>set of these things. Thanks.
>C.J. Beck
>Wichita, KS
>316.733.4553
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing hardware |
Try B&B Aircraft Supply, Gardner Kansas. Very good prices and great to work
with.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe & Marian Beck <flyretina(at)feist.com>
Date: Monday, August 10, 1998 3:08 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing hardware
>Guys:
>Ready to install wing wires (drag/anti-drag) but need turnbuckles.
>Anyone have a source other than standard mail-order outfits like A/C
>Spruce and Wicks? I'd like to avoid taking out a mortgage to get a ship
>set of these things. Thanks.
>C.J. Beck
>Wichita, KS
>316.733.4553
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
Ron,
Think long and hard before you add any weight that far aft. Piets tend
toward tail heaviness anyway. My personal opinion is the tail wheel itself
is too heavy, but you decide. A flat bottomed skid will probably not rip
off........
John
-----Original Message-----
From: PTNPOL(at)aol.com
Date: Monday, August 10, 1998 12:21 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tail Wheel
>I am currently working on the tailpost of the fuselage. Leaving the last
>tailpost off is working out well so far. The hand planning is easier. You
>do not have to taper the tail post by hand. I will use my tablesaw to cut
>the angles.
>
>I was wondering if I should beef up the last section of the fuselage where
>the tail wheel attaches ? I hear stories of tail wheels ripping off.
>In addition, do you guys like the "A" frame type of tail wheel per the
1934
>plans better or do you like an aircraft type leaf spring better? I am at
>that point where I have to make a decision. Any input would be
appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> -=Ron=-
>
June 12, 1998 - August 10, 1998
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-ag